Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Well there hasn?t been a terrorist attack against an American interest outside of Iraq or Afghanistan since 9-11. Compare that to one every 1 ½ to 2 years prior to 9-11.
That's a strange definition of "safer". There were no internal US terrorist attacks from foreign jihadists between the first and second world trade center bombings. So, that was about eight years between internal attacks before, only one of which took place during Clinton's time in office. So in a sense the American population was pretty much "safe" anyway.
If you are talking about American interests outside the US, then you are talking about embassies and military targets, these are exactly the same types of targets that the insurgents in Iraq are going after, and which have always been targets. I fail to see how having an attack on a US embassy or military installation outside of Iraq every 1-2 years is somehow 'less safe' to America then having dozens, hundreds, thousands of attacks on similar American personnel and interests inside Iraq.
So, in conclusion:
Numbers of attacks on US soil by foreign jihadists during
Clinton's term: 1
Bush's term: 1
Numbers of attacks on US interests abroad (no, I really dont think that Yemen is functionally different then Iraq) during
Clinton's term: 4 or so? (USS Cole, embassy bombings, etc.)
Bush's term : 10,000,000#@$KJNOHJESUSWAYTOOMANY@:#L$J@):
Doesn't seem a load safer to me.
Oh, and you want to have a list of things I can't do now that I could do before? How about "not be wiretapped without a warrant". How about be guaranteed rights to that "Habeas Corpus" thing? (who knew that you could declare American citizens 'enemy combatants' too and strip them of that right!?! Wheeeee!) If you don't think those things either directly affect you through your rights as a citizen, or indirectly affect you in terms of the health of our constitution and the rule of law, then you are doing both yourself and your fellow citizens a grave disservice.