Given that 9/11 happened on 9/11/2001, there weren’t any further terrorist attacks on US soil during the remainder of Bush’s terms, either. I’m sure that the math escapes you, but that means Bush actually accrued more time than Obama without incident.
[/quote]
I’ve been staying out of the politics of this. But have to jump in here.
2 pretty serious “terroristic attacks” come to mind immediately.
The Anthrax attack. Remember, we still don’t know who did this. People died. People were TERRIFIED. Terrified over a sustained period of time.
The other one that immediately comes to mind is the DC Snipers. Again – people were TERRIFIED. Again, over a sustained period of time. Afraid to go to Home Depot etc… People were hiding in their houses. Malvo got the death sentance BECAUSE it was considered an act of Terror, legally.
Granted – neither were committed by muslim extremists from other countries (as far as I know)… but both fully qualify as terrorist attacks.
There are a lot more incidents, some thwarted… but those two are biggies that count.
I’m not defending Bush or Obama. Not giving credit to one “side” or the other. Unlike Brian, I don’t see this as a team thing where you pick a team to root for and ignore any faults of that team.
And yes, Allan, I’m a liberal. Feel free to attack me on that basis. Usually you offer fact filled posts… not this time.[/quote]
UCGal: Attack you because you’re a liberal? Perish the throught. I have absolutely nothing against liberals and I think its one of the most beautiful words in the English language. Nope, nothing against liberals; its Leftists that I cannot stand.
I also should have been more clear when discussuing “terrorist” attacks and you make a good point with your use of the Anthrax attacks and the DC snipers. I meant terrorist attacks like 9/11 and executed by Islamic jihadists like al-Qaeda.
My major beef with that sententious nitwit’s posting was that it was utterly bereft of any history, context and fact.
