The Bush Record
Thinking back to George W. Bush’s farewell address it’s striking that the best thing the man can say about his record in office is that only once during his term in office were 3,000 people killed by foreign terrorists. And it’s really striking that other people in the conservative movement seem to take this “accomplishment” very seriously. Here’s Christian Brose and here’s Dov Zakheim being very referent about the whole thing.
I thought I might draw their attention to the following CAPAF analysis of mass-casualty terrorist attacks on U.S. soil throughout the twentieth century:
Notice anything? I mean, it’s true that Bush’s record in keeping the United States safe from terrorism is good if you ignore the failure. On the economy, they make the same claim. Sure, Bush has overseen the worst performance ever but if you ignore the recessions, times were pretty good!
Of course my chart is arguably unfairly kind to Bill Clinton so maybe we should expand it to include major attacks abroad as well. Then Clinton goes from zero to one (Kenya), while Bush goes from one to three in the West (9/11, Madrid, and London) plus Bali plus dozens and dozens of attacks in Iraq and Afghanistan. There’s just no way to get around the basic facts here. The effort to argue otherwise is basically just trading on the fact that most people, myself included, were very very frightened in September and October of 2001 and our worst fears haven’t come to pass.
87 Responses to “The Bush Record”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
January 16th, 2009 at 6:16 pm
There was a mass-casualty act of international terrorism perpetrated during Wilson’s term – eerily, only about a quarter mile away from where the WTC later rose and fell.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wall_Street_bombing
What about Oklahoma City? Doesn’t that count against Clinton?
January 16th, 2009 at 6:19 pm
I thought I might draw their attention to the following CAPAF analysis of mass-casualty terrorist attacks on U.S. soil throughout the twentieth century:
How many deaths until it counts as a mass casualty event?
163?
38?
January 16th, 2009 at 6:19 pm
I think you forgot Pearl Harbor, or is that fact the unprovoked attack was state sponsored not make it “terrorist”?
What about the Oklahoma City bombing?
It is not necessary to distort the record to make Bush look bad, he can stand the comparisons and still come out the “winner”.
January 16th, 2009 at 6:19 pm
Um, Oklahoma City?
January 16th, 2009 at 6:21 pm
matt,
c’mon dude, this is embarrassing. do you even want me to start listing?
your friend,
dan
January 16th, 2009 at 6:21 pm
Er, remember that first terrorist attack on the WTC that killed six people?
Or, yeah, Oklahoma City?
I hate me some W., but come on now.
January 16th, 2009 at 6:24 pm
I, for one, liked the graph. One note, you used the word “referent” where you meant “reverent”. However, inserting the meaning of referent into the sentence does add an extra humorous element (meaning in essence that conservative pundits are deferring to Bush for their referrals).
January 16th, 2009 at 6:26 pm
don’t forget that when members of the weather underground accidentally blew themselves up they had their organization’s only american casualties. so you can add nixon to that list in 1970.
January 16th, 2009 at 6:27 pm
Virginia Tech
January 16th, 2009 at 6:30 pm
9/11 has been a Republican selling point. It was Bush and Cheney’s finest hour. Where would they be without evil international terrorists making them heroes for being “tough” and declaring War on Terror, and attacking Afghanistan and Iraq, and coming up with catchy slogans like “United We Stand” and “shouldn’t change horses midstream”?
You’re just not looking at this the right way.
January 16th, 2009 at 6:30 pm
a glance at the graph shows that “mass casualties” are measured in 9/11 units.
i’d say anything less than 0.01 9/11-units does not count as a mass casualty.
note, also, the reference to “foreign terrorists” in the post, just so as you know what we’re talking about.
January 16th, 2009 at 6:39 pm
Well, this is exactly the sort of history one would expect from an 11 year old.
January 16th, 2009 at 6:40 pm
C’mon people, the title is “Mass-casualty terrorist attacks”. That should not include any weather underground/VT/Columbine/1st WTC attack sized attacks. But it should include Oklahoma City, unless we throw in “of foreign origin”. I wouldn’t include Pearl Harbor, since 1) it was a military target, thus not a “terrorist attack” and 2) the attack was performed by a foreign army.
January 16th, 2009 at 6:43 pm
I, too, was very scared after 9/11. And my worst fears did come to pass- the Busies used the excuse to erect a quasi-police state, one in which the Border Patrol can (and does) stop and search you without a warrant anywhere within a hundred miles of the border. Not to mention a few other little things like having all your e-mail read by the government, having your bank accounts searched for ‘unusual’ transactions, and the no-fly list.
But it was actually my parents generation, WW II vets, who said it first- “I don’t like all the flags people are putting up.” Yup, some of those old-timers had been through a few flag-waving hysterias of the past, and knew what could come next.
It would be hard for the terrorists to be much worse than what we do to ourselves.
January 16th, 2009 at 6:50 pm
Actually, the whole ‘no more terrorist attacks in the United States’ is really the sort of argument to appeal only to syphilitic morons.
Just sayin.
Here’s the problem: Al Quaeda was an *international* Terrorist organization. Following 9/11, Bin Laden and Zaquari remained at large for the entire rest of Bush’s term. Not only were they at large, but they were releasing video and audio tapes at will. Not only that, but Al Quaeda pretty much struck at will anywhere they wanted – London Subways, Madrid Railways, Bali, Turkish Banks, you name it. They were pretty much running wild.
Now, how does that jibe with Bush protecting America? You figure that the US intelligence forces were basically kissing off the rest of the world. There they are, chasing Al Quaeda all over the planet. Do you really think that if the US was dealing effectively with Al Quaeda, and they were coming across evidence of Al Quaeda plots in Britain, or Spain, or Indonesia or Turkey… wouldn’t they have intervened? It’s not like we had anything against Britain. If we were really tucking into Al Quaeda, how’d they get away with it?
The clear inference is that Al Quaeda could have hit the US any time, but chose not to.
So how does that amount to Bush protecting us.
I can think of only one reason. Let’s face it, we won Anbar province with suitcases of cash. We won the Iraq war by paying Iraq generals to lay down their arms. We bought the Northern Alliance.
How much do you figure Bush paid Bin Laden to leave America alone?
Hmmm
January 16th, 2009 at 6:56 pm
I think Matt probably could have saved our pedantic commenter friends some time if he had just charted “American fatalities from terror attacks”, but that would have taken some work on his part.
As defined, though, Clinton has both the first World Trade Center attack and Oklahoma City…
January 16th, 2009 at 6:57 pm
That should not include any weather underground/VT/Columbine/1st WTC attack sized attacks. But it should include Oklahoma City, unless we throw in “of foreign origin”.
The first WTC attack was designed to bring down one of the towers. It only failed because Yousef parked too far away from the foundation. It was a massive attack and we were frankly very lucky only six people died.
January 16th, 2009 at 6:58 pm
My worst fears came to pass. I realized on the morning of 9/11 that another attack like that was wildly unlikely; the 9/11 attackers got lucky running up against a national security apparatus that didn’t care about them and a complacent populace. Those circumstances aren’t likely to recur in the near future.
No, my fear, or rather, my glum realization, was that the attack would provide the necessary pretext for a wide variety of bad acts by our government, from invading Iraq to establishing a police state. In the latter, they weren’t quite as successful as might’ve been expected, but I think we can blame incompetence more than intent.
January 16th, 2009 at 7:01 pm
The quote below is the truly annoying BS from Brose’s piece:
Here’s the thing: Bush, in fact, is NOT able to stand up and say we haven’t suffered another attack. Anthrax, Anthrax, ANTHRAX.
January 16th, 2009 at 7:02 pm
Oh no you didnt!
To Matthew’s Readers:
On behalf of CAPAF and that wonderful organization Third Way, who we’re so proud to partner with, I would like to retract this post and go on record as saying that CAPAF would never endorse such a horribly, nastily partisan conveyance of objective facts as the one that our soon-to-be-ex-employee has committed in this post.
January 16th, 2009 at 7:08 pm
I’m just saying that maybe there’s a connection between the fact that Bush went around saying he wasn’t interested in Bin Laden, and America’s failure to get Bin Laden…
And Bin Laden’s not striking America again.
Quid Pro Quo?
Did money change hands?
January 16th, 2009 at 7:09 pm
Dob: “the 9/11 attackers got lucky running up against a national security apparatus that didn’t care about them”
No, they were actively ALLOWED to carry out their attack. They had Mossad agents following them the whole time they were in the US, making sure they weren’t interfered with. And they weren’t.
You look at the “coincidences” around 9/11 and you have to conclude that attack was ALLOWED to happen. It may not have been planned and executed by someone in the US government (I exclude the Mossad from that specifically), but definitely at least several people in the US government KNEW SOMETHING was going to go down – and they actively prevented the FBI and others from stopping it.
I think whoever said the first WTC attack should be counted is correct – that was an attack that actually occurred and could have been more successful than it was. But that STILL shows that really the only major terrorist (and specifically FOREIGN terrorist – Oklahoma was domestic) attack on the US in the last hundred years was on Bush’s watch.
Clinton did fail to get Obama, so that’s on Clinton as well, but it was Bush who ignored IMMEDIATE WARNINGS.
And by the way, the Oklahoma City attack AGAIN reflected foreknowledge of the attack by certain persons in the US government, who allegedly took an undercover agent out of the group suspected of being behind it shortly before the attack. You might want to recall that a right wing group leader who had promised to attack the Oklahoma Federal Building was executed for other crimes the SAME DAY as the attack. And yet you never heard about any of that, right?
January 16th, 2009 at 7:12 pm
Wounded Knee.
January 16th, 2009 at 7:15 pm
Clinton did fail to get Obama
Indeed. Lately he even pals around with him.
January 16th, 2009 at 7:15 pm
right, by numbers, you can’t call the 1st WTC attack “mass-casualty”. Obviously the intent was to do more damage, but 6 does not constitute mass-casualties.
January 16th, 2009 at 7:18 pm
Because Democrats are soft on terror.
Wrote the anonymous pussy chickenhawk paid Republican shill.
Reality:
“Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States.”
George Bush Junior’s response: “All right. You’ve covered your ass now.” He then went bass fishing. Heckofa job!
And we all know what happened a bit more than a month later. Even the pussy chickenhawk knows. He’s also disingenuous, the coward.
January 16th, 2009 at 7:19 pm
The real problem with this arguement is that we have a small data set. I think that Massive terrorist attacks are made more likely by globalization. But I have now way of really knowing how likely they are now versus last year. We have done a bunch of stuff. Some of it like attacking Iraq has measurable results like lots of people dead. We really can’t measure its effect on the risk of a major terror attack. I doubt it had much effect, it might have made things worse, but the measurable results are lots of people dead.
January 16th, 2009 at 7:24 pm
To be fair, Clinton missed Osama by only a few hours. And Clinton was dedicated to getting Osama.
Bush, seems to have deliberately botched his best chance at Tora Bora, and seemed to have no interest at all.
I’m thinking Bush was writing a check.
January 16th, 2009 at 7:28 pm
lazy blogging make commenters angry!
January 16th, 2009 at 7:35 pm
Seriously now, look at Bush’s career as President. Does he have any accomplishment that hasn’t involved writing a check?
January 16th, 2009 at 7:40 pm
Bush kept us safe from robots during his two terms. Let that be his legacy.
January 16th, 2009 at 8:17 pm
1927, in my old hometown of Bath Michigan–anti-tax activist bombs the school–45 dead, mostly children.
January 16th, 2009 at 8:26 pm
Clinton also had the U.S.S Cole attack. (abroad, obviously)
I think Bush’s greatest accomplishment is to continually remind us of 9/11 while failing to capture or kill Osama bin Laden.
January 16th, 2009 at 8:34 pm
Of course even accepting Bush’s premise what he leaves out is that major reason there were no terrorist attcks on US soil was he conventiently put over 100,000 US troops in the middle of Iraq. Made it a lot easier for Al Queada to kill Americans, they barely had to leave home, just cross a couple virtually unguarded borders and it was a target rich environment.
January 16th, 2009 at 9:13 pm
Clinton was responsible for Waco AND 9/11.
It’s only fair that Democrats take responsibility for everything around the edges of their administration.
January 16th, 2009 at 9:16 pm
Maybe I’m not understanding the qualifications you’re using, but during Clinton’s term MANY more people died in “mass casualty attacks” than you let on in your “expanded” discussion of foreign soil attacks. Check here.
Some notable attacks on foreign soil — I’m listing one per year of Clinton’s term — include: 257 dead in a Mumbai car bombing in 1993, 85 dead in Argentina in 1994 in an anti-Jewish attack, 105 dead in a hospital attack in Russia in 1995, 90 dead in a 1996 Sri Lanka bombing, attack on tourists in Egypt in 1997 that killed 62, Between 120 and 400 dead in Algeria in 1998, 1998 brought 300 dead in Russian apartment bombings, and 27 dead in a Chechen car bombing in 2000.
Obviously all of that is just the tip of the iceberg of what you appear to have forgotten (?).
Also, as others have noted, you appear to be forgetting Oklahoma City, which was of course not an attack by “foreigners” but, then, why on Earth is that a qualification you’re using?
Also the attack on the USS Cole and the Khobar Towers against the US military.
Basically this appears to be one of the worst researched posts ever on this blog.
January 16th, 2009 at 9:26 pm
Shouldn’t that be mass casualty attacks by foreigners?
Oklahoma City was an MCA but domestic by FOL’s (friends of Limbaugh). Also, Anthrax, etc.
January 16th, 2009 at 11:04 pm
Oh. My. God.
The Fifth is E.T.
January 17th, 2009 at 12:34 am
Guys, just define mass-casualty as 1000+ and the graph works.
January 17th, 2009 at 1:00 am
Even putting aside whether or not the 9-11 attacks should be counted as a failure on Bush’s part (I’ll give them the benefit of the “no one could have predicted it!” canard), is “No terrorist attacks on US soil since then!” really an accomplishment, or more of a coincidence? I mean, isn’t this exactly a bit from The Simpsons?
“I could just as easily say that this rock keeps tigers away.”
“…how does it work?”
“It doesn’t work. It’s just a rock. But I don’t see any tigers around here, do you?”
“…Lisa, I would like to buy your rock.”
Sure, I’m not the most original guy, comparing Bush to Homer Simpson, but that bit does pretty accurately capture the logical fallacies of people making the stated argument…
January 17th, 2009 at 1:13 am
What a fatuous, childish, unserious and stupid posting.
Typical.
January 17th, 2009 at 1:28 am
e: One would have to be a moron to ignore the fact that every single one of the 19 hijackers entered into the country on Democratic watch.
They entered the country quite legally, albeit some overstayed their visas. However every single one of them would be allowed in the country today as well (assuming the State Depratment is not gifted with oracular powers). Nothing to do with Democrats or Republicans– there’s just no way to foresee the future (duh!). Besides which, who let Tom McVeigh in the country? It doesn’t take foreigners to commit mass atrocities.
Re: I think you forgot Pearl Harbor, or is that fact the unprovoked attack was state sponsored not make it “terrorist”?
Attacks by state powers on legitimate military targets are not, by definition, terrorist.
Re: The first WTC attack was designed to bring down one of the towers. It only failed because Yousef parked too far away from the foundation.
It failed because the attackers were idiots who had no chance of achieving that goal. Good grief, the doofuses even tried to get their money back on the van they blew up. “America’s dumbest terrorists” you know.
January 17th, 2009 at 1:39 am
Yglesias graciously acknowledges that “most people, myself included, were very very frightened in September and October of 2001 and our worst fears haven’t come to pass”.
But he can’t even acknowledge the possibility that Bush might have something to do with that positive outcome. Look, we obviously don’t have the historical perspective to evaluate this properly. But given that all the smart policy people have looked on this as a grave threat since 2001, 7 years of safety IS an accomplishment.
Luck and historical circumstance will always account for a large portion of Presidential success or failure, but that doesn’t mean we can’t call a success a success and call a failure a failure. This is a success.
January 17th, 2009 at 2:09 am
Here’s the funny thing: when folks on the right blamed 9/11 in part on policies enacted (or not enacted) during the Clinton administration less than a year before, they were told by lefties to own the mess themselves. Yet I guarantee you that on September 11th, 2009, no lefties will be willing to take ownership of the 9% unemployment and other shitty stats of the Obama economy at that point.
At least be consistent: it’s fair for Presidents to take ownership for what happens on their watch, good or bad. Bush has, and now it’s Obama’s turn. Enjoy the heat, assholes. You hold all the cards now. You have nothing to blame from this point forward but each other.
January 17th, 2009 at 2:17 am
Shorter Fred: see how I can make the stupidest fucking comparison imaginable, and — surprise! — it’s without my usual racist filth!
January 17th, 2009 at 2:17 am
Fred,
When will just fuck off already.
January 17th, 2009 at 2:24 am
How out of touch with reality!
January 17th, 2009 at 2:53 am
JonF, when you say “19 hijackers” are you referring to the ones who survived?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1559151.stm
That list and all the B grade titty bar, suitcase with incriminating evidence, passport that survived the crash bullsh*t is ever so bogus. People had to be in shock to fall for it.
January 17th, 2009 at 3:01 am
It’s going to be fun watching Yglesias and his acolytes contort themselves to absolve Obama of all the shit that hits the fan during his administration. You want Bush to take responsibility from everything that happened from Jan 20th, 2001 to next Tuesday? Fair enough. It’s Obama’s tar baby beginning at 12:01pm, Jan 20th, 2009.
January 17th, 2009 at 3:36 am
I remember being scared in September 2001, but that’s just because I’d been around long enough to know what happens when Americans start waving those stinking flags around.
January 17th, 2009 at 3:41 am
Wow, Fred makes me look inoffensive.
January 17th, 2009 at 5:21 am
A simplistic argument for a simplistic person.
January 17th, 2009 at 7:15 am
How is this different from what you right wing freaks would do anyway?
Are all of you just stone-cold pretending that your little nit wit right wing asses didn’t run around the country blaming traitorous cowardly surrendercrat Clinton and liberals in general for the 9/11 attacks the first time?
If you awful shits hadn’t have followed 9/11 with so much right wing chest-beating about how somehow this proved that liberals couldn’t keep America safe, a lot fewer people would be motivated to make Bush Jr. take responsibility for not giving a shit about America’s security his first 8 months in office.
You’re all, to a one, a bunch of worthless dregs.
January 17th, 2009 at 7:24 am
That said, it’s a crappy, unconvincing chart.
January 17th, 2009 at 7:27 am
President Bush kept us safe from the Cylons whether whiny liberals want to admit it or not. Clinton would have been too busy banging 6 & 8 to save humanity.
January 17th, 2009 at 8:30 am
Al Qaeda has a long time horizon, with 8 years elapsing between WTC attacks I and II. Bush claims credit for preventing another homeland attack when the most likely explanation is that Al Qaeda simply had time to organize the next attack.
January 17th, 2009 at 9:33 am
Fred, dumbo, if unemployment were 3.2% on 7/31/2009 and 9% on 9/11/2009, you’d have a point. Particularly if Obama were given an August briefing on the imminence of employment collapse. That he ignored. That he’d hoped for so that he could implement the rest of his domestic agenda.
January 17th, 2009 at 10:57 am
“Al Qaeda has a long time horizon, with 8 years elapsing between WTC attacks I and II. Bush claims credit for preventing another homeland attack when the most likely explanation is that Al Qaeda simply had time to organize the next attack.”
I think this is right on the target. It seems like we get some sort of catastrophic terrorist attack just about every decade, so for Bush to take credit for only having one in his term-which is the norm- is pretty silly.
Again, it goes back to that Simpsons episode (Which also dealt with illegal immigration. How prescient!)
“if unemployment were 3.2% on 7/31/2009 and 9% on 9/11/2009, you’d have a point. Particularly if Obama were given an August briefing on the imminence of employment collapse. That he ignored.”
Yeah, this is also true (With the “hoped for” clause omitted, I have no idea what Bush has ever hoped for). Bush’s handling of Al Queda and Obama’s upcoming handling of the economy aren’t really comparable when you look at the specific facts of each.
Because if you want to talk about Presidents owning up to what happens on their watch, then you better remember that the economy collapsed on BUSH’S. You should also note that no, Bush has not taken responsibility for 9-11- he’s blamed the Clinton administration every chance he got (When, in my opinion, neither President is responsible for the acts of madmen).
January 17th, 2009 at 11:06 am
These two facts can both be true: (1) Clinton was insufficiently concerned about terrorism in the US and (2) Bush ingnored specific warnings about 9/11 and massively dropped the ball. The first fact does not constitute a defense for the second. And then there’s a third fact: Clinton, though insufficiently concerned about terrorism in the US, was much more concerned about it than Bush pre-9/11. It’s unknowable whether Clinton (or Gore) would or could have prevented 9/11, but they were more likely to have done so than Bush.
January 17th, 2009 at 11:21 am
These two facts can both be true: (1) Clinton was insufficiently concerned about terrorism in the US
Your rhetoric is cheesy. You use “facts” when “statements” would be more accurate. And “insufficiently concerned” is nebulous and political. “Insufficient” for what? Negligently insufficient or simply insufficient because everything humans do is insufficient?
January 17th, 2009 at 11:38 am
What a terrible post.
January 17th, 2009 at 11:40 am
clinton or Bush ?? here’s another view.
http://tuesdaynightbuzz.blogspot.com/2009/01/did-bush-keep-us-safe.html
January 17th, 2009 at 11:49 am
Dubois: Your rhetoric is pedantic. What is your substantive point? Do you agree or disagree that whatever failings Clinton may have had vis terrorism do not exculpate Bush for ignoring the August warning? Do you agree or disagree that Bush pre-9/11 was less concerned about terrorism than Clinton?
January 17th, 2009 at 12:35 pm
Are right wingers going to now try and pretend that after 9/11/2001 they didn’t spend fucking years hollering about how the liberals failed us and now only Republicans were manly enough to keep us safe?
And now you disgusting shitwads are demanding bipartisan humility to understand things from Bush Jr’s point of view on 9/11?
Really? You same shitwads that barked about how John Kerry was not a real Vietnam vet and faked his purple hearts and had a whole redneck revenge convention in 2004?
Right, so, 9/11/2001 happens on Bush Jr’s watch, and this means that liberals and Democrats need to shut up and appreciate Bush Jr’s difficult position over those first 8 months in office, but it’s immediately time for our nation’s shitbag right wingers to start screaming for the next 5 years about how Democrats are really a bunch of surrender-to-terrorist traitors and your military veterans are all fakers and only Republicans care about keeping America safe.
Fuck all of you right wing low life scumbags. You all disgust me.
January 17th, 2009 at 12:49 pm
Re: #5
Pearl Harbor was an act of war by another country, not terrorists. Oklahoma City was a domestic terrorist attack. The comparison was based on foreign terrorist attacks.
January 17th, 2009 at 1:04 pm
#39:
duBois… please.
It’s only fair that Republicans take responsibility for everything around the center of their administration.
January 17th, 2009 at 1:50 pm
And now you disgusting shitwads are demanding bipartisan humility to understand things from Bush Jr’s point of view on 9/11?
Hey, stop calling Obama a shitwad!
January 17th, 2009 at 3:08 pm
The Oklahoma City bombing resulted in 168 dead and 800+ injured. Does that not count as “mass”?
Without a definition of “mass,” this chart is meaningless.
January 17th, 2009 at 9:34 pm
January 17th, 2009 at 9:34 pm
i love how repugs try to spin this. these are the facts. bush ignored information about an attack on the wtc, then it happened on his watch.
also the wars have bred a new generation of radicals with just cause the hate the u.s.
bush has made us much, much less safe and allowed a major attack. yet conservatives try to spin this into a plus. hilarious.
January 17th, 2009 at 10:20 pm
Don’t forget 256 Marines blown up by terrorists in Beirut Lebanon during Ronald Reagan’s term. Contrast that with no harm done to the hostages in Tehran during Carter’s term. But hey, those republicans sure are strong on defense!
January 18th, 2009 at 1:03 am
El Cid, I think I love you.
January 18th, 2009 at 5:38 am
Very keen point.
Bush should have known the towers would be attacked.
Domestic terrorism has never happened on American soil (if you define terror as foreigners attacking with airplanes (not with bombs you idiots)).
And if it ever happens again it is only because he’s made it so much more dangerous for us.
I can only guess he must have thought Clinton’s people were lying to him about the immanent threat on the WTC towers we all knew about and that Clinton had been able to prevent for 8 years.
The graph is really good too. I will use it in the junior high class I teach. How long did it take to research all those presidents? It sure does make the past look boring.
Oh well, screw em all. They’re dead anyways.
January 18th, 2009 at 11:40 am
Responsibility is allocated by looking at the real mechanisms put in place or not. While it is true, for instance, that under Bush I, all the perpetrators of the first WTC attack were able to get to the U.S., some on CIA vetted passports, the success of the attack totally caught Clinton off guard. And he did not use the opportunity to investigate the criminal trail leading into the heart of the Reagan administration, when, of course, the illegal merger between anti-communist whackos like CIA chief Casey and jihadist whackos like OBL was forged. But over time, the Clinton administration learned its lesson. They prevented, for instance, an attack on the L.A. airport – the so called Millenium terrorist. And they were absolutely alarmed about bin Laden, which is why they had in place a special task force. All of which was undone when Bush came into office and, with his characteristic incompetence, relied on clueless hacks, like Condi Rice, who totally dropped the ball.
That the Bushies immediately saw the political advantage they could pull from their ignorance and incompetence – that they had a righwing constituency who will basically believe anything they are told, and built upon it – shows that they were at least competent in one respect. However, the blame for the WTC does go back to decades of rightwing policy, starting with the arming of the muhajidin in the 80s, and Nixon’s tilt to Pakistan in the 70s.
January 18th, 2009 at 1:05 pm
Clinton also had the U.S.S Cole attack. (abroad, obviously)
~
Don’t forget 256 Marines blown up by terrorists in Beirut Lebanon during Ronald Reagan’s term.
By what conceivable stretch of the imagination are these terrorist attacks? Unless, as I suspect, “terrorist” = “them vs us”…These were both clearly military targets, the very antithesis of a “terrorist” attack. Guerrilla attacks, or suicide attacks are not terrorist attacks.
January 18th, 2009 at 5:57 pm
Terror only means attacking people who make their living supplying the financial means for military, not the military itself (the people in charge and who send the military places are not legitimate targets, but those who are sent are).
Oh, and it can only be done by foreigners, but not illegal ones. And they also have to flout their ties to any foreign powers.
Terrorism attacks are genuinely military attacks because they strike at the enemy itself and the legitimate sovereign of that military – in America, the people. They are meant to change the will of the enemy, rather than merely do military damage, as if war were a game with rules.
Mass attacks must be over 1100 casualties, so that means we cannot count the first WTC attacked that was rightfully ignored and treated as vandalism, or OKC, both of which successfully made the US less willing to be aggressive in its engagements with the enemy, but can’t really be called terror because not enough died and the attackers were domestic enemies, or else not here legally.
IF you know anything about how the courts and specialists define and categorize terrorism today you’ll see that none of the past acts of violence over our history ever fit this official definition of terror.
January 19th, 2009 at 12:19 am
The chart is crap. I hate W, but putting out obviously flawed data doesn’t help the cause.
February 11th, 2009 at 4:26 pm
“The graph is really good too. I will use it in the junior high class I teach”
Yep. That is a problem. Fricking progressives brain-washing our children.
Shove your ideology straight up your A$$.
February 19th, 2009 at 2:11 pm
Of course, there were no more 911 type attacks. One was all Bush needed to at the time. But in every other respect, Bush’s phony ‘war on terrorism’ was an abysmal fraud that 1) failed to identify ANY real terrorists (clue: people who oppose your aggression against them in THEIR country are NOT terrorists; they are ‘freedom fighters’; 2) As was the case with Reagan’s failed war on terrorism, the final FBI stats will prove that terrorism against US interests INCREASED throughout Bush’s regime. In other words, the trend begun with Ronald Reagan and borne out by official stats compiled by the FBI and published by the Brookings Institution in the late 90s and that is: TERRORISM IS ALWAYS WORSE UNDER GOP REGIMES.
Bush did NOT change this trend. He RESUMED it. Acts of terrorism against US interests actually abated –briefly –in Bill Clinton’s second term.
March 1st, 2009 at 5:39 pm
cialis
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
March 11th, 2009 at 4:13 am
I want to say – thank you for this!
March 22nd, 2009 at 5:53 am
tramadol
Great site. Good info
March 23rd, 2009 at 4:20 am
viagra
I want to say – thank you for this!
April 2nd, 2009 at 4:54 am
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
buy cheap viagra
April 3rd, 2009 at 3:59 am
Great site. Good info
cheap brand pfizer viagra
April 9th, 2009 at 4:44 am
It is the coolest site,keep so! viagra
April 16th, 2009 at 10:10 pm
Sorry. Rest is the sweet sauce of labor.
I am from India and too poorly know English, tell me right I wrote the following sentence: “Time looking for those precious travel websites that offer cheap airline tickets.”
Thanks for the help
, Vinnie.