sorry guys, but hey look at the bright spot:

we haven't fallen into the groupthink syndrome around here ;-) we're all fresh and wet behind the ears

__________________
[ PHILLYTIM.NET ]
ROCK AND ROLL HAS ARRIVED & THE STREET SHACKLES ON THIS CITY ARE GONE!

Quote: But doesn't the lack of attacks point toward successful defense against terror?

If you follow that logic, I must assume that you hold the belief that Clinton sustained a successful defense in preventing terrorist attacks within the U.S. since none occurred after the Feb 26, 1993 attack on the WTC. That attack occurred one month and a few days after he was sworn in as President - on his watch, but not his fault. After that attack, no Al-Queida related attacks occurred within the U.S. until almost 8 months after George Bush took office.

Now I am not one to claim that Clinton did anything extraordinary in terms of national security, nor am I one to presume that Bush must be doing something right since we haven't been attacked since 9/11/01. I merely cite that if you are under the belief that Bush has implemented a successful defense strategy because of the lack of Al-Queida attacks within the U.S., then one can only assume that you would credit the Clinton administration for the same accomplishments over 8 years. I personally find it disingenuous when Bush supporters use this claim to bolster anti-American legislation such as the Patriot Act, and other neo-con agendas.

__________________
Capitalism is like an island of wealth, surrounded by a sea of poverty.

Ajax, the very simple diffeence is that since Presidnet Bush has actually taken action against terrorism, you can see how his actions have diverted some attacks and the intelligence garnered by his actions have made us more secure.

A great deal of the credit for causing the intelligence gaps that allowed for the attacks that have occured should go to Clinton. He was our worst President.

__________________
Sponge
----------
Soaking up intelligent commentary.

Bush did not take action against terrorism. His Iraq invasion has increased terrorism.

http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/news/world/7765415.htm

okay sponge, you are losing your credibility. for all the man's faults, clinton was certainly not the worst president ever...no matter if you are a Rep or Dem. or a thinking man/woman.

bush's actions may prevent attacks or just cause more attacks like that last gulf war .

It has? That's news to me. Where is this increase in terrorism? Iraq? I would saw Iraq is safer today than 2 years ago. Many less bodies. Let the terrorist attack our troops and not our citizens. It seems more fair to me. Back in April or May, when Bush warned Iran and Syria not to allow their citizen into Iraq, I wanted to scream. Let them all go to Iraq. Let our military kill every one of them. All you people that think sitting on our a$$ and doing nothing will end terrorism are fooling yourselves. Today, there are two more countries not harboring terrorist than 3 years ago. I think that's a blow in the war on radical islam.

__________________
Jason
Lynn Swann 06'

"Individualism is absent when other peoples' standards, not reality and reason, are ones primary guide."