Judah wrote:

Matt Whiting wrote in
:


Judah wrote:


Matt Whiting wrote in
:



Mike V. wrote:


Snip

... The unknown downside is that this passive
approach likely would have encouraged more 9/11 like attacks and the
cost of them would have been horrendous.


Matt


Your presumption is that there will not be anymore 9/11 like attacks.

Your presumption is wrong. My presumption is that there would be more
attacks under an administration with Clinton-like policies than under
one with Bush-like policies. Since the Twin Towers and Pentagon attacks
were conceived, planned and partially executed (the flight training)
under Clinton, I count a good portion of that against him as well. I
never suggested that we'd be free of attacks. I don't think that is
likely anytime soon.

Matt


Even if you count the Twin Tower and Pentagon attacks against Clinton, your
missing the point. We have had as many attacks on US soil during the first
4 years of Bush Presidency as we had in the entire 8 years that Clinton was
in office. Why would that lead you to believe that Clinton-like policies
would produce MORE attacks than Bush's?

Because there is a lag time for these large attacks due to the planning
involved. It is well documented that the worst attack on Americal soil
was conceived, planned, and partially executed under Clinton. I haven't
tried to count, but what is your data to claim more attacks on US soil
under Bush than under Clinton? I can't think off-hand of any that have
been conceived, planned and executed since Bush was in office.

Matt