Terrorists Attacks Under Clinton, Bush & Obama (A handy graph!) YOU MUST RETWEET #p2 #politics
After listening to the GOP attempt to make it appear that somehow they are better at terrorism, I started researching the stats and behold I found this blog with just the stats I was looking for already well researched. Take a look at it and pass it along. Do not allow the GOP to change the narrative to falsely claim Americans are safer with Republican governance.
TERRORIST ATTACKS AND PRESIDENTS
I compiled a pair of graphs to illustrate incidents of terrorism during each of the last three presidents, including President Obama, as a means of locking down what happened and when.
In terms of methodology, I covered the following types of terrorist attacks against American personnel, civilians and interests:
1) Domestic (Abortion-related attacks, Oklahoma City, Unabomber, Anthrax)
2) Domestic Islamic (9/11, WTC 1993, Beltway Snipers, Chapel Hill)
3) Overseas Islamic (Iraq, Afghanistan, USS Cole, Embassy Bombings)
4) Known Failed Attempts (Shoe Bomber, Underpants Bomber)
5) Overseas Attacks Against U.S. Allies (London, Madrid).
These categories should cover the basic forms of terrorist attacks against Americans whether abroad or on our soil.
http://www.bobcesca.com/blog-archives/2010/01/terrorist...And I think it's important to note that a few of the domestic terrorist attacks under the Clinton watch were perpetrated by some regular old white boys. (So we dont have to count it, right? Because they were just enjoying in their second amendment right? heh)
Terrorists Attacks Under Clinton, Bush & Obama (A handy graph!) - Democratic Underground
i absolutely love your willingness to communicate. i really appreciate that you want dialogue. i do, however, have to address some issues i have with the graphs at hand.
a)obama has been in office just a year and bush was in office 8yrs.
b)bush had the NYC tragedy that claimed thousands domestically.
c)clinton had the mastermind of 9/11 in his sights and failed to act decisively thus, leaving the mess for later.
d) the 2nd amendment comment is inappropriate in this instance due to the fact that explosives were used and not guns and they were acting as criminals who would have access to anything anyway.
these are just a few things to chew on.
Reply to this
Your points are well taken. I try to make it clear that I believe both parties want what is good for the country security wise and both make mistakes. That the GOP try to take the mantra of being better for the country than Democrats is why the stats. Ultimately more Americans have died under Republicans by terrorism. That is fact. That said it is simply bad luck that that is the case and not some inherent deficiencies in any party.
That number alone should give Republicans pause from attacking Obama on that point. And Obama or Democrats should never assume that they could fight terrorism best as it only takes one nuclear incident to even the playing field.
Now I do believe Obama's conciliatory policy to the world will ultimately pay dividends long term if continued. Look, it is hard to hurt someone you consider a friend or not inform someone of possibly being hurt if they are your friend.
Thanks for commenting.
Reply to this