BUSH: Why I CAN'T see voting for him.

[MtSmalls]

For the average worker to be better off today than four years ago, you have to look at his total take home REAL income. If Federal taxes are lowered, and local taxes raised by an equal or larger amount, he/she is not better off. The deficit created by this administration (remember that they inherited a MASSIVE surplus) by reducing income and increasing spending, means that the transfer programs (federal taxes returned to the states in the form of highway funds, education funds etc) has been reduced and state and local governments have to make up the difference. The average middle class family is NOT better off now than they were four years ago in any economic sense.

Tort reform: Has very little to do with the cost of health insurance. Medical malpractice insurance makes up less than 2% of the cost of a hospital or private practice budget. This is a Republican talking point that has no basis in fact.

How can I feel safer NOW than four years ago. 3000 people died needlessly in a terrorist act that no one seems to have cared about. 9/11 is NOT Bush's greatest triumph, it is his greatest failure twice over. Once for letting it happen on his watch, and second for throwing away the chance to truly do something about global terrorism with his "my way or the highway" attitude about it. (plus completely dropping the ball by invading Iraq in the first place which had nothing whatsoever to do with it).

There are MORE terrorist and more terrorist attacks in this year than the last. More Americans are dying this year, in uniform and out, than the year before. Saddam may be out of power, but how does that make me any safer? He was never a threat to this country, not in the last decade. Al-Quaida is stronger today, less centralized and recruiting easier than before Iraq was invaded.

America's security does NOT lie in being a dominant military power. The U.S. Military has been the dominant world power for more than 50 years. But how many of the 'lesser' powers will it take before the country gets taken down? America's security depends on being part of a unified effort to stamp out terrorism. Imagine the weight brought to bear on country after country, if the U.S., Britain, France, Germany, Spain, China ALL worked in concert against rogue states like Iran, North Korea, or the ethnic cleansing in the Sudan? I feel less safe because I know that if any country right now decided to test us, we would fail. If North Korea decided to invade South Korea again, the U.S. could not do anything about it, short of a nuclear exchange. There are no more divisions in the cupboard, we could not defend S.K., or anyone else. If Iran decided to invade Iraq and throw out the godless Americans, we would be very hard pressed without help from our allies, of which we currently have none... (and no I'm not forgetting Poland!)

[LinusKS]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, since you asked...
1) The big one. Since September 11th, there has not been a terror attack on US soil.

[/ QUOTE ]

What about on or before September 11th?

Was Bush not president back then, or are you just giving him a freebie?

[JimBob2232]

[ QUOTE ]
What about on or before September 11th?

Was Bush not president back then, or are you just giving him a freebie?

[/ QUOTE ]

I wouldnt say im giving him a freebie. But clearly we took terrorism lightly pre-911. Not just bush, but clinton before him. If you fault bush for not doing something about the threat, clinton is also to blame, perhaps 8 times as much since he was in office for the 8 years preceding 911. I dont fault clinton. I dont think he had the intellegence he needed to see this threat. I dont think he could have done anything about it. Same goes for bush. Remember bush took office 9 months earlier. Alot of time granted, but again, he lacked the necessary information to classify the nature of the threat and derail it. It happened under his watch. He is responsible. Though I have to say it would have happened even under a gore administration or a mccain administration or a bette midler adminstration. This is why he gets "a pass" on 9-11. It is what is happening NOW that matters going forward. And on this, bush's terrorism record on us soil (which was the original question) is unblemished.

[LinusKS]

Clinton did take terrorism seriously, and he did warn Bush of the threat. But Bush chose to ignore the warnings.

[vulturesrow]

So what did Clinton do about terrorism if he was so aware?

[Trainwreck]

Like I said name 1 thing.... Those tax cuts were a joke to most of us.

>TW<

[Trainwreck]

Hey Dali, I too love it when they claim all these terrorists 'HAVE BEEN BROUGHT TO JUSTICE'

Which is BS... Recently 7 former detanees in G. Bay, Cuba, were discovered fighting again, even though as part of their release, they agreed to not fight. LOL!

How friggin stupid is that: I can be let go if I sign this statement, geee let me think.

Not guarding the borders here and abroad, how obvious is this as being a huge part of the problems?

>TW<

[Abednego]

It's not about you (individuals) .... it's about the country ...... the tax cuts spurred the economy.

[Peca277]

Maybe I'm wrong, but I can't seem to think of any foreign terrorist attacks on the US after the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, until 9/11. So Clinton kept us safe for 7 years after that attack, Bush has kept us safe for 3 years after 9/11. Why do the same people that give Bush a lot of credit for this try and tear down Clinton?

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe I'm wrong, but I can't seem to think of any foreign terrorist attacks on the US after the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, until 9/11. So Clinton kept us safe for 7 years after that attack, Bush has kept us safe for 3 years after 9/11. Why do the same people that give Bush a lot of credit for this try and tear down Clinton?

[/ QUOTE ]

Unbelievable post.

Here's a few for ya:

1996 Khobar Towers Bombing

1998 U.S. Embassy Bombings in Kenya and Tanzania

2000 USS Cole Bombing

All are thought to be connected to al Qaeda in some way.