Can you explain the logic here? There were more people killed by terrorists in America during Bush’s administration than there were during Clinton’s. In fact, there were more people killed by terrorists in America during Bush’s administration then there were during every other President’s administration - combined. So of the forty-three Presidents we’ve had, Bush seems to be a clear lock on 43rd place as far as protecting us from terrorists.
By “protecting us from terrorists” did you mean “being in charge while terrorists flew airplanes into the WTC and Pentagon, killing over 3,000 people”?
Correct, and don’t forget about shutting down the Pentagon team tasked with hunting bin Laden. I know I was grateful for that additional protection.
I would like to see ANY cite that suggests this.
The above article has links to the original court documents in PDF form, which clearly show that Jackie contested the divorce, although she evidently accepted the reality that he no longer loved her. So it seems that Newt asked the wrong woman for an open marriage.
It also reports something I hadn’t heard before — that Newt was also a deadbeat dad, to the point where the local church had a food drive to help out Jackie and the kids. And multi-millionaire Newt, who drops a half million on Callista’s jewelry without batting an eye, is apparently enjoying a 1994 agreement that he suckered Jackie into, which prevents her from requesting an increase in the $1650/month alimony he pays her.
As every idiot knows, Bush’s term began on Sept 12, 2001.
I’m sorry but blaming Bush for 911 is asinine.
The hijackers were already in the US and the plan was already well on the way to completion.
If there was a time when it could have been stopped it would have been before they got onto US soil. Forget all the security crap at airports. That’s just PR that only stops the complete amateurs.
That said, I’m not blaming Clinton either for 911, nor for that matter would I blame him for the first WTC bombing, the USS Cole, the Khobar Towers bombing, or the bombing of the US embassies in Africa.
I’m sure we’d like to live in a world free of terrorist attacks on American targets but that’s a fantasy world.
No, I mean by making sure that no other attacks planned, financed and trained for while Bill Clinton was in office gutting our intelligence services and making deliberate decisions not to go after bin Laden when he had the chance for reasons of political expediency, succeeded, and that none planned or attempted afterward were successful either. And of course Bush made sure that no Iraqi WMD found its way into al Qaeda hands as well. In short: Good Job, GWB!/dereliction of duty, Bill Clinton!
But you guys know all this. It’s been talked about here dozens if not hundreds of times before. Thus your seeming confusion over the meaning behind GWB’s protecting the country from terrorist attack seems rather…disingenuous.
It’s a lot less asinine than claiming he protected us from terrorists and made us safer. And before you ask, my cite is the same as yours.
I think what you mean to say is that we’ve heard it before. It’s just as funny now as it was the first time.
And yet, somehow, you aren’t laughing. 
Not nearly so asinine as asserting that W, “unlike his predecessor, did a superb job of protecting us from terrorists.”
Correct. It’s funny in a very sad way.
I never said he did and there’s nothing in my post that would give any reasonable person reason to think that he did.
Did I say he was to blame? Can you quote me saying that? Or is this just another thing you made up in order to “win” an argument? If you can’t quote me saying he was to blame, apologize or shut the fuck up.
OK.
Back to Newt.
Do any of you think he has a reasonable shot for the candidacy?
He won’t survive Super Tuesday.
So terrorist attacks that occurred during the Clinton administration were Clinton’s responsibility and terrorist attacks that occurred during the Bush administration were not Bush’s responsibility.
And Bush deserves credit for all the terrorist attacks that didn’t occur during his Presidency. Even though there were fewer terrorist attacks during everyone else’s Presidency.
And Bush deserves credit for the fact that Iraq didn’t have WMDs. Even though he claimed they did have WMDs.
All this truthiness shouldn’t obscure the real issues. Don’t forget that during Clinton’s Presidency the Earth was not conquered by aliens that blew up all our cities, stole all our women, and ate all of our household pets. I think we’d all agree that would have been the worst disaster in human history if it had occurred. So the non-events of the Clinton administration dwarf the non-events of the Bush administration.
That’s a fairly gross misrepresentation of the facts. Amongst other things there were no WMDs in Iraq and while Clinton and the Clinton team did make many glaring errors in the 90s to accuse them of dereliction of duty is outrageous.
Lots of US military leaders have made errors in every war but we don’t accuse them of “dereliction of duty”.
I’d recommend reading The Looming Tower: Al Quaeda and the Road to 911.
Yes, there were many errors made during that time and frankly too many of the US intelligence agencies had empty suits in positions they shouldn’t have been in, but that’s not the same as accusing Bill Clinton of dereliction of duty, which is a crime.
[Steve Martin] What are you talking about? Don’t you remember when after that happened, we had to abandon the planet? And the smart people figured a way to move us all to a new planet without telling the dumb people so they wouldn’t panic… Oh.
[/Steve Martin]