Bush likes to claim he has kept Amercans safe from terrorism because there have been no major attacks since 9-11. The same logic can be used to make the case that we were obviously safer under Bill Clinton because there were fewer succesul attacks when he was president even though Bin Laden had already declared war on us.
1. I've been waiting for years for ANY Dem on the talking head shows to
bring this up. :eyes: Somehow,they never do...and it's an excellent point...don't know why they run from it since every Repug can't wait to make that statement at least once when "terrorism" is brought up.
3. No, they'll bring up the USS Cole and the embassy bombings
Yes, I know that's not here in the homeland, but that's their fall back. I know because that was the response to my LTTE thatpointed out that the last successfully prosecuted persons who committed terrorism in the US (the perpetrators of the first WTC bombing)happened under Clinton. So that's what you'll hear.
I am working up a post on that. It really is an unquestioned caveat that garners a reverence that I think is wearing off at this point but they are so out of touch they don't know it.
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators
Important Notices: By participating on this discussion
board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules
page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the
opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent
the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
