Quick comparison of Bush and Kerry's war record

[TexasTiger 13,119]

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/8/7/52440/52162

[Tigermike 3,076]

Since Kerry is running as a war hero and you and the dem minions like to promote that and also point out that President Bush did not go to Vietnam. Why has Mr. Kerry not release all of his military records? I don't think he has ever released the applications for his medals that he and you all want to tout, has he? Why not? What is he hiding?

[BamaGrad03 0]

I dont know...why cant we include Bush's war on terror record? Why cant we mention that there hasnt been an attack no american soil since 9/11?

[Ranger12 46]

I dont know...why cant we include Bush's war on terror record? Why cant we mention that there hasnt been an attack no american soil since 9/11?

Because that would expose Kerry for what he is, soft on security. This post just further solidifies the point that the democrats think that Kerry's four month military career makes him qualified, because the want to keep bringing it up. They know his political career is crap. If they did not think that, when how come all they want to talk about is his Vietnam service. You never hear about any good things he did while a Senator. TT, you just keep on following Kerry's lead and keep up bringing up Kerry's Vietnam service. That is all Kerry has to hang his hat on and now that is coming under scrutiny more and more. Several polls have showed for months that most Americans don't care about either candidates military service. They want to know what they are going to do for us right now! The democrats said that military service did not matter when Clinton and Gore ran for office, but now all of a sudden it is an issue. How do you explain that one and try to spin it? I have heard some dems accuse republicans of bringing up the military service issue. Umm...did these dems just arrive on planet Earth. Kerry is the one that keeps bringing it up all the time and bragging about it. I would assume to drop it also, but if Kerry is going to make it the cornerstone of his campaign, then it is open season as far as I am concerned. When Kerry decides he needs to start running on his political record, then I will be glad to start talking about that instead.

[TexasTiger 13,119]

I dont know...why cant we include Bush's war on terror record? Why cant we mention that there hasnt been an attack no american soil since 9/11?

There was an attack on the WTC about one month into Clinton's term. There was not another attack on American soil for the next 7 years and 11 months. You give him alot of credit, don't you?

I credit the administration for doing something right, I assume, in preventing, what I assume have been efforts to do some type of attack on our soil since 9/11, again assuming that the anthrax attacks came from within. If that is what you hang your hat on, however, what does Bush do if there is an attack between now and the election?

[DKW 86 7,479]

Kerry view: I have four months of bloated and fanciful war records in Vietnam.

Oh, and BTW, Please totally forget the next 34 years 8 months of my life because if you look at it, I dont stand a snowballs chance in Hell.

[AUloggerhead 2,267]

There was an attack on the WTC about one month into Clinton's term. There was not another attack on American soil for the next 7 years and 11 months. You give him alot of credit, don't you?

I credit the administration for doing something right, I assume, in preventing, what I assume have been efforts to do some type of attack on our soil since 9/11, again assuming that the anthrax attacks came from within. If that is what you hang your hat on, however, what does Bush do if there is an attack between now and the election?

Not true at all. There were quite a few terrorist attacks on US soil after the first WTC bombing:

Apr 95 -- Oklahoma City Federal Bldg

Aug 98 -- US Embassies in Tanzania & Kenya (over 220 people killed.)

Oct 00 -- USS Cole (17 killed)

In case you don't know, US Embassies are considered "US soil." Navy ships are as well, I think.

Then there was the attack on Khobar Towers in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia in Jun 96 (19 killed, 372 wounded.) Maybe not technically US soil but I think there is a provision in the SOFA when US forces are housed overseas the leased property is treated as such (e.g. one of the indictments against the Khobar Towers suspects is "destruction of US property.")

So, 6 attacks in 8 years. I'd like to be able to grant clinton some credit in this department but, judging him by his track record of terrorist attacks during his time in office ... well, ... the truth hurts sometimes, you know?

[TexasTiger 13,119]

There was an attack on the WTC about one month into Clinton's term.  There was not another attack on American soil for the next 7 years and 11 months.  You give him alot of credit, don't you?

I credit the administration for doing something right, I assume, in preventing, what I assume have been efforts to do some type of attack on our soil since 9/11, again assuming that the anthrax attacks came from within.  If that is what you hang your hat on, however, what does Bush do if there is an attack between now and the election?

Not true at all. There were quite a few terrorist attacks on US soil after the first WTC bombing:

Apr 95 -- Oklahoma City Federal Bldg

Aug 98 -- US Embassies in Tanzania & Kenya (over 220 people killed.)

Oct 00 -- USS Cole (17 killed)

In case you don't know, US Embassies are considered "US soil." Navy ships are as well, I think.

Then there was the attack on Khobar Towers in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia in Jun 96 (19 killed, 372 wounded.) Maybe not technically US soil but I think there is a provision in the SOFA when US forces are housed overseas the leased property is treated as such (e.g. one of the indictments against the Khobar Towers suspects is "destruction of US property.")

So, 6 attacks in 8 years. I'd like to be able to grant clinton some credit in this department but, judging him by his track record of terrorist attacks during his time in office ... well, ... the truth hurts sometimes, you know?

Well, if that's the way you want to view it, then the Anthrax attacks would count and we thus sustained a chemical attack fresh on the heels of 9/11 that has not been solved or "avenged."

And how about Iraq, once we overthrew it and were in "control."? (over 900 Americans killed.) And let's throw in Afghanistan. Bush refers to the enemy in both places as "terrorists" so we have to view those as Americans killed by terrorists under his watch, right?

Also, if you are so inclined to give Clinton so little, if any, credit, why does Bush get a pass on 9/11? It is not like the threat wasn't known. The WTC had been hit before. My post was trying to be evenhanded to both administrations, but I can make the case against this one if that's what you prefter.

Want to compare casualties? Really?

Richard Clarke:

They had a preconceived set of national security priorities: Star Wars, Iraq, Russia. And they were not going to change those preconceived notions based on people from the Clinton administration telling them that was the wrong set of priorities. They also looked at the statistics and saw that during eight years of the Clinton administration, al-Qaida killed fewer than 50 Americans. And that's relatively few, compared to the 300 dead during the Reagan administration at the hands of terrorists in Beirut -- and by the way, there was no military retaliation for that from Reagan. It was relatively few compared to the 259 dead on Pan Am 103 in the first Bush administration, and there was no military retaliation for that. So looking at the low number of American fatalities at the hands of al-Qaida, they might have thought that it wasn't a big threat.

[AUloggerhead 2,267]

Well, if that's the way you want to view it, then the Anthrax attacks would count and we thus sustained a chemical attack fresh on the heels of 9/11 that has not been solved or "avenged."

And how about Iraq, once we overthrew it and were in "control."? (over 900 Americans killed.) And let's throw in Afghanistan. Bush refers to the enemy in both places as "terrorists" so we have to view those as Americans killed by terrorists under his watch, right?

Also, if you are so inclined to give Clinton so little, if any, credit, why does Bush get a pass on 9/11? It is not like the threat wasn't known. The WTC had been hit before. My post was trying to be evenhanded to both administrations, but I can make the case against this one if that's what you prefter.

Want to compare casualties? Really?

Richard Clarke:

They had a preconceived set of national security priorities: Star Wars, Iraq, Russia. And they were not going to change those preconceived notions based on people from the Clinton administration telling them that was the wrong set of priorities. They also looked at the statistics and saw that during eight years of the Clinton administration, al-Qaida killed fewer than 50 Americans. And that's relatively few, compared to the 300 dead during the Reagan administration at the hands of terrorists in Beirut -- and by the way, there was no military retaliation for that from Reagan. It was relatively few compared to the 259 dead on Pan Am 103 in the first Bush administration, and there was no military retaliation for that. So looking at the low number of American fatalities at the hands of al-Qaida, they might have thought that it wasn't a big threat.

My own post was a FYI type to counter the obviously incorrect statement you made: "There was not another attack on American soil (during the clinton years) for the next 7 years and 11 months." I only included the number of casualties in those attacks because I figured since you didn't mention these events at all then maybe you weren't keeping up on current events then. (You'll note that I didn't include casualties for the OK City Fed Bldg.)

The point is not a "body count" despite what Richard Clark says. His contention that since less than 50 Americans died at the hands of Al Queda during the clinton years that they didn't consider it a "big threat" is so crass and self-serving that it defies explanation as to how he was selected to be an intelligence analyst.

The point is and always will be what an administration does regarding attacks on "US soil." In this regard, clinton's legacy cannot objectively be seen as anything but an abject failure. Repeated attacks against the US brought ... what? that is, besides talking & no action?

Compare & contrast Bush's reaction to his first terrorist attack compared to all of those during the clinton years. You couldn't find a more dramtic contrast. Within a month of 9/11 there were air strikes & troops on the ground in Afghanistan despite all the lib protests against: war at all, against starting a war in the

mountains with winter approaching, against a foe that had previously defeated such mighty world powers as the USSR & Great Britain, blah blah etc. etc.

There will be more attacks against the US as long as terrorists such as Al Queda exist -- that is a certainty. The recent alerts against attacks on our financial centers just corroborate this even more. In light of that fact, where would you have the US fight these terrorists? On "US soil" or taking the fight to them overseas in places like Iraq & Afghanistan?

[Ranger12 46]

It is much better to fight the enemy on their soil then to fight them on your on street.

[TexasTiger 13,119]

The point is not a "body count" despite what Richard Clark says. His contention that since less than 50 Americans died at the hands of Al Queda during the clinton years that they didn't consider it a "big threat" is so crass and self-serving that it defies explanation as to how he was selected to be an intelligence analyst.

That's right. Shoot the messenger, praise the President who ignored the threat. Bush has a similar misguided aim at the real threat, which I guess is why you like him so much.

Compare & contrast Bush's reaction to his first terrorist attack compared to all of those during the clinton years. You couldn't find a more dramtic contrast. Within a month of 9/11 there were air strikes & troops on the ground in Afghanistan despite all the lib protests against: war at all, against starting a war in the mountains with winter approaching, against a foe that had previously defeated such mighty world powers as the USSR & Great Britain, blah blah etc. etc.

The Afghanistan war was widely supported. I supported it, even Bush critics such as Al Franken supported it. All the "lib protests against it" is just your mind reshaping history to fit your gripes.

Compare and contrast. Stay tuned on Afghanistan. If you quit cheerleanding long enough to pay attention you would see that it is far from under control. We went in with about 11,000 troops, about as many cops as NYC. We have not secured Afghanistan and probably won't at this point. Very poorly thought out and executed because our administration was obsessed with Iraq. Compare and contrast, we put about 150,000 troops in Iraq who never attacked us, possessed no WMDs and had no meaningful collaborative relationship with with Al Qadea-- not my conclusions, but rather the unanimous agreement of the 9/11 commission. Our greatest effort to day on the war on terror has been a distraction to it.

There will be more attacks against the US as long as terrorists such as Al Queda exist -- that is a certainty. The recent alerts against attacks on our financial centers just corroborate this even more. In light of that fact, where would you have the US fight these terrorists? On "US soil" or taking the fight to them overseas in places like Iraq & Afghanistan?

False choice. We could have spent the 200 billion and counting beefing up our security here and focusing on thwarting Al Qaeda where they are instead of destroying and rebuilding a country that once pissed off daddy.

[subterranean_jack 112]

Great reply, Texas.

With something like only 1 in 200 containers at port entry being inspected, with police, firemen, and inspection personnel funding having been seriously cut, and no real commitment to implementing the 9/11 commission report plan of action, there is plenty of work to be done at home to improve security and intelligence instead of spending hundreds of billions abroad.

[DKW 86 7,479]

WTC attack was planned in 1996 to atack Clinton lead US. Not one word was known about attack til it happened 9-1-01. Lets see, 4 years under Clintion and no knowledge of attack. Attack planned on Clinton watch. Evidently whatever paltry littel Clinton was doing was not enough by a long shot because Al Qaeda felt it could easily get away with much larger attacks...And did.

[AUloggerhead 2,267]

With something like only 1 in 200 containers at port entry being inspected, with police, firemen, and inspection personnel funding having been seriously cut, and no real commitment to implementing the 9/11 commission report plan of action, there is plenty of work to be done at home to improve security and intelligence instead of spending hundreds of billions abroad.

Couldn't disagree more. Terrorists have attacked & killed our fellow citizens (more than once) and announced to their followers that they should kill/slaughter Americans wherever & whenever they see fit (ref Osama's proclamation circa Feb '98.) They have proven they will stop at nothing and use unorthodox means & methods to achieve this aim, including suicide attacks. We know they would love to detonate a nuclear device in one of our fair cities. We will never solve this problem by inspecting each & every person, parcel & shipping container headed to the US. That's a sure-fire way to invite them to defeat our inspection program.

The only way to "solve" the problem is to eradicate the threat of someone plotting to kill your people 24/7. That means taking the fight to them instead of waiting around to get hit (again.)