Key economic statistics: Clinton Years VS. Bush Years

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
INDY500 said:

no terrorist attacks since 9/11.
This reminds me of a joke my beloved Grandpa used to tell. A man would sit at a desk all day in a big city, doing nothing. Finally his boss asked what he was doing. He replied, "Keeping the tigers away." His boss pointed out that there weren't any tigers for miles around. The man answered, "see. Then I'm doing my job." None of the people who want to give W credit for keeping the terrorists away offer any proof. Nor do they offer any reasons why the terrorists weren't all that active before Sept. 11.


INDY500 said:

Let me ask you a question. If you'd lived through a president being assassinated, the hell-in-a-basket year of 1968, widespread race riots, a war in which 65,000 Americans were killed, wage & price controls, an oil embargo, a president resigning in disgrace, 4 years in which inflation was over 10%, a deep recession, a savings & loan bailout, an actual presidential impeachment and disco.
I did. Nixon sucked, and W may not be the worst, but he's right up there. Did you know that there are people here who defend Nixon too?
 
martha said:
Nor do they offer any reasons why the terrorists weren't all that active before Sept. 11.

Yeah not like any of these happened during the Clinton Administration:

World Trade Center Bombing, February 26, 1993
Attack on U.S. Diplomats in Pakistan, March 8, 1995
Attack on U.S. Embassy in Moscow, September 13, 1995
Saudi Military Installation Attack, November 13, 1995
Khobar Towers Bombing, June 25, 1996:
Egyptian Letter Bombs, January 2-13, 1997
Empire State Building Sniper Attack, February 23, 1997
Attack on U.S.S. Cole, October 12, 2000
Manila Bombing of U.S. embassy, December 30, 2000


:eyebrow:
 
Who cares that terrorists think a bit more global and carry out attacks in other countries as well, anyways?
It will certainly be difficult to prove that no further attacks were carried out in the US because of Bush. After all, terrorist organisations such as Al Quaeda are known to be pretty patient and waiting years for the next action.
 
Vincent Vega said:
Who cares that terrorists think a bit more global and carry out attacks in other countries as well, anyways?
It will certainly be difficult to prove that no further attacks were carried out in the US because of Bush. After all, terrorist organisations such as Al Quaeda are known to be pretty patient and waiting years for the next action.

So because it HASN'T happened you refuse to give him any credit. So I guess if it did happen again it wouldn't be his fault, right? I mean that would be the consistant way of thinking....










:|
 
Abomb-baby said:


So because it HASN'T happened you refuse to give him any credit. So I guess if it did happen again it wouldn't be his fault, right? I mean that would be the consistant way of thinking....










:|

Oh, come on, it's just a flawed logic, many have pointed this out.

If Bush wants credit for stopping anything, one would have to prove there were plans that actually got foiled or stopped.
 
I neither do give him credit, nor do I say that a correlation is impossible.

And you are right, if it happened again I wouldn't blame him, although I strongly believe that his policies have destabilised rather than stabilised the US's security.

There was no attack on the US since 2001, and I don't know of one planned that was averted except that of terrorists trying to blow up planes crossing the Atlantic that were caught in London. But there have been numerous bombings in other countries in Europe, Asia-the middle East, and Africa for the very same reason. And dozens of others that were averted, or failed.

And you have to bear in mind, between 1993 and 2001 there was no attack on US soil carried out by Al Quaeda as well, except the shooting in 1997 which is not in any way comparable in scale.
Other countries are "under attack" as well. They have been before, and are since Bush's presidency.

Terrorists don't need one attack each year, they are perfectly willing to wait some years.

But let's get to the topic.

(And now back to the term paper)
 
Abomb-baby said:


So because it HASN'T happened you refuse to give him any credit. So I guess if it did happen again it wouldn't be his fault, right? I mean that would be the consistant way of thinking....




i wonder what people in Bali, Madrid, and London are thinking about this line of logic.

it seems to me that many Republicans want it both ways.

you want to say, "look! no terrorist attacks! on US soil! what brilliant presidenting!"

and, yet, you also want to say, "the threat is out there! they could strike at any moment! orange alert! we fight them there so we don't fight them here!"

it's wildly contradictory.

kind of like, "the surge is working! we have to stay longer!"
 
Back
Top Bottom