Terrorist attack most likely under Bush or Kerry ??

[kentuck]

I think our odds of being attacked are greater with George Bush sitting in Washington. He is the symbol of American hatred around the world. They hate him more than they hate our country. People will be looking for revenge on his stupid and arrogant policies. So, in my opinion, we will be at a greater threat under George W Bush.

That is not to say there will not be a threat if John Kerry is the president. It will just not be as prominent. Bush evokes hatred.

[Wolfetone]

1. I actually don't think it will make...

...a difference. They intend to attack us whether there is a Republican or Democrat in the White House. They hated us before Bush was president and they will hate us after Bush is president. The planning for 9/11 was done under Clinton's presidency and would have been carried out whether Bush or Gore were in the White House.

I think we are extremely lucky that a terrorist attack has not taken place.

[kentuck]

2. Didn't they stop a few terrorist attacks before they happened ??

Seems I recall a "millenium plot" of some sort that was foiled??

[michigandem2]

3. I think you are right SOME were thwarted..

like an attempted attack on LAX...seems there was no "warning to the public" witht hose either...

[arbusto_baboso]

5. Actually it was FIVE simultaneous attacks on millenium eve...

that the Clinton Admin and its law enforcement and special ops team foiled. Four of them were to be on targets in the continental US, and one on an overseas military target (a ship, I believe).

Sorry, don't have a link on that, I'm just going by memory here.

[Wolfetone]

8. Yes, the millenium plot was foiled

when a border guard caught the terrorists trying to enter the country. Also a planned attack on the tunnels in NYC was foiled during Clinton's terms. But that does not address the issue. The question is under whom are we more likely to be attacked? They tried many times under Clinton, many times under Bush and they will try many times under Kerry. Who is president doesn't matter to these animals.

[DenverDem]

6. Horseshit!!

busholini let 9/11 happen.

busholini and his necrocon megalomaniacs have inspired the whole world to hate America.

There is a difference.

[Wolfetone]

10. First off Bush did not let 9/11 happen.

He wasn't doing what he should have done to prevent a terrorist attack, but to 'let' something happens implies for knowledge and only a tin foil beanie wearing kook would believe that.

I definitely believe that the actions of Bush et al have caused tens of millions of people to hate us.

I never defended Bush and I didn't say there wasn't a difference between the two, but if you think that Al Queda gives a royal shit whose president than you have that tin foil hat on a little too tight.

[blondeatlast]

11. Yes--he's to be excused because

he didn't have the flight and seat numbers in THAT memo, so how the hell could he have been pro-active?

I'm no tin-foil hatter, not in the least, but that memo speaks volumes.

:eyes:

[Wolfetone]

12. Who the hell said he is to be excused?

September 11th happened on Bush's watch and here bears the ultimate responsibility. Both the CIA and FBI were disfunctinal and Bush did nothing to remeidate the situation. When credible threats were made Bush decided that the status quo was acceptable. He was wrong, but he did not intend for the attacks to happen and I doubt very much that he expected the attacks to happen.

[DenverDem]

13. Horseshit!!

LIHOP, at the very least.

Who stood down NORAD?

[kentuck]

14. And his judgement has now improved ??

He was wrong then but so much smarter now? I doubt it.

[Wolfetone]

15. Where are you getting this shit from?

You must have failed reading comprehension 101. When did I ever say his judgment improved? Hum...let me see...NEVER!
I never said he was smarter now, although it wouldn't take much to make an improvement.

The question was whether or not Al Queada is more likely to attack if Bush were president or if Kerry were president. The question wasn't under whom is it more likely to succeed. But you go on inferring shit that I never said, nor insinuated.

[kentuck]

17. You said :

"When credible threats were made Bush decided that the status quo was acceptable. He was wrong,..."

If he was "wrong" then, what the hell makes you think he would be any smarter now? He's the most hated man in the world. He can't even show his face in public in this country unless the crowds are hand-picked and screened. If his judgement hasn't improved, and there is no indication that it has, he is the threat to our nation. He is the person the terrorists want to attack, as much as they want to attack our country. You might think there would be no difference. I don't agree with you.

[Wolfetone]

20. Arggghhhhh!

When did I say he is smarter now? When did I imply that he is smarter now?

The terrorists wanted to and did attack us before Bush became president; They bombed one of the twin towers, the put a hole in the US Cole, they bombed are embassies in Tanzania and Zimbabwe, they planned to blow up the Lincoln and Holland tunnels, they planned to attack targets during the millenium celebration and their plans for attacking the Twin Towers started long before Bush became president. Now I don't think that the terrorists plans for an attack diminished while Bush has been President, but their has been no noticable uptick in their attempts. So while Bush maybe the most hated man in the world, it doesn't seem to have caused an increase in terrorism against the US.

[kentuck]

23. You implied by saying there is no difference....

Unless, of course, you think his dumbness had nothing to do with him not heeding the warnings or reading the PDBs?? I don't think he's any smarter today. By saying there is no difference, you are implying he's somehow smarter today, or John Kerry is the same as Bush, which I reject, he's reading more, and he's really on guard. I think he's even dumber than before.

[Wolfetone]

26. Oh my God!

I implied that Bush is smarter now, than then, simply by stating that terrorists will attack no matter who is president? Even after I provided evidence that the terrorists not only attacked us on numerous occassions when Clinton was president, but were planning the most henious terrorist attack America has ever faced before Bush even took office? That is one tall leap. We are not talking about whether or not the attacks will be successful (As i have already stated - hammer/nail) I never stated there is no difference between Kerry and Bush, only that there is no evidence that attempts at terrorist attacks will diminish under a different president.

You of course may have evidence to suggest otherwise, but you certainly haven't presented it.

[kentuck]

28. That's ok...you don't have to call me God...

:) I am arguing the Democratic side. George Bush will not be stronger on terrorism. That is the argument they plan on winning the election with. I do not wish to confirm their statements just yet. Intentionally or not, you have taken the Republican position by saying they hate us as a country and it doesn't really matter who the president is? It's a fact that terrorist attacks did not diminish under George W Bush, they flourished. You cannot look at the facts and say that Bill Clinton did a worse job at fighting terrorists than George W Bush.

"I never stated there is no difference between Kerry and Bush, only that there is no evidence that attempts at terrorist attacks will diminish under a different president."

What are you trying to say?

[rogerashton]

4. Bush won't "follow the money,"

because it might lead back to his cronies. Hopefully, K would. That could help.

[billybob537]

7. WOW this just hit me

why don't we just use a giant "K" like they do at baseball games?

[LynnTheDem]

9. bush coz he WANTS it to happen

3 years later and we still really don't know jack about 911.

He STILL hasn't funded port & border security.

He STILL hasn't improved our intell system.

He's got so many of our NG and cops and firefighters Iraqmired, along with our troops, and copshops and firehouses are understaffed, underfunded.

3 years after 911 and we are in worse shape in all security areas than we were before.

And before 911 we had Clinton & Berger et al warn bushCartel over & over & over & over...

And that PDB in August was just old historical info...

bush DOES NOT CARE if another attack happens. He can't make that any plainer than he already has.

[Kimber Scott]

16. No difference.

OBL delcared war on the US when Clinton was in the WH. It's our foreign policy they hate, not our freedoms, or our presidents.

[kentuck]

18. Bush changed our foreign policy, at least in one respect...

He made the decision to ignore Arafat and the Palestinian issue for the first 8 months he was in office and he stood silently by as the Israelis were razing Palestinian villages. You may think that made no difference?

[Kimber Scott]

22. I don't feel Bush has done anything to improve our foreign policy and

has turned it into a disaster, but removing Bush is not going to make the terrorists like us anymore, or less. They are terrorists. While they may have a beef, their opinion means nothing. Killing innocents kills any chance anyone has of promoting their case. Which president the terrorist will like more, is a meaningless point to ponder.

Maybe, next we will wonder which kind of clothes the terrorist would like better our women to wear?

[kentuck]

25. George W Bush draws terrorists like flies....

to you know what...Yes, they still hate us for our policies, toward their Holy places, etc, but I think it has gotten worse under Bush. I think we are hated more. I think the risk is greater under Bush.

[Wolfetone]

27. What policies do we have

toward their holy places that they hate us?

[kentuck]

29. Putting troops into Saudi Arabia....

for one.

[TankLV]

19. Bush - considering IT'S ALREADY HAPPENED ON 911!

Therefore, based on past miserable performance, I'd say there's a 100% chance of it happening again ON BUNKERBOY'S WATCH!

And Clinton was able to resolve the issues - which happened in the first couple weeks of his administration - when he was President WITHOUT ANY NAZI LEGISLATION that just HAPPENED to be WAITING - ALL READY FOR APPROVAL - THOUSANDS OF PAGES - or erosion of our Constitution.

[IndianaGreen]

21. It doesn't matter... it is our bipartisan policies towards Israel

Everything is related to policies that Democratic and Republican Administrations have followed that ignored the plight of the Palestinians in favor of Israel's occupation.

At least when we had Clinton as President, and we had people like Rabin in Israel, there was a peace process in place that also marginalized the terrorists on both sides of the I/P conflict. The peace process came to an abrupt halt after Bush took office. Bush was not interested in working for peace, which required his personal commitment and effort. Bush's invasion of Iraq has made the situation far worse by creating a recruiting boom for terrorists across the world.

A Kerry Administration will restart the peace process in the Middle East. Unfortunately the damage that Bush caused during the last four years, plus the historical inability of both major parties to stop the enabling of Israel's settlement activities, will seriously handicap any efforts towards peace.

We will never end terrorism while we pursue policies that create terrorists!

[kentuck]

24. Shout it from the rooftops IG !

You are absolutely right. There is a difference!