McCain scores higher on national security

[themadscientist]

Rasmussenhttp://www.rasmussenreports.co...to_41A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that voters trust Republican presidential candidate John McCain over Obama on national security issues 52% to 41%.

Over half of voters (51%) also continue to believe that it is at least somewhat likely that the United States will win the war in Iraq if McCain is elected, while only 30% believe that to be the case should Obama win the White House. Sixty-one percent (61%) think the United States is not likely to win if Obama is elected, compared to 41% who feel that way about McCain.

Even 21% of Democrats trust McCain more on national security, compared to seven percent (7%) of Republicans who prefer Obama. Unaffiliated voters favor McCain 54% to 35%.

[skylndrftr]

8 years of breeding fear and trashing the reputation of anyone who stands up for civil rights will d othat to public opinion. People still trust Bush on National Security despite increasing the size of Al Qaeda (they were almost dead under Clinton) getting us involved in two wars. Restarting the cold war. Allowing another country to join the nuclear weapons ranks. And all the while quashign civil liberties at every turn.

And before you start saying Bush is irrelevant...hes not. The republican party uses him as an example of national security, if they want to use him for the positives you also need to address the negatives.

[audtatious]

(they were almost dead under Clinton)

Really? They were able to bomb multiple US embassy's, the Cole and the WTC under Clinton's watch. You can't believe that in the 9 months prior to 9/11, after Bush took office, the plan for the 2nd WTC attack was not already in place, can you? Al-Quida extended their efforts under the Clinton years (not a slap at Clinton, just fact) and orchestrated numerous attacks against us during his Presidency which eventually lead to 9/11. In fact, during Clinton:

1993 WTC bombing1995 Saudi bombing which killed 5 US military personnel1996 Khobar Towers bombing 1998 bombing of U.S. embassies in Africa2000 bombing of the USS Cole

During Bush:

9/11

Sorry, I do not see any reason, based upon events, that show they were "almost dead" under Clinton.

[szh]

People still trust Bush on National Security despite increasing the size of Al Qaeda (they were almost dead under Clinton) getting us involved in two wars.

On the contrary, Al Quesda expanded dramatically under President Clinton. He publicly, in a Fox interview, said so, and also said that he tried to take care of the problem after the African embassy incidents. Including cruise missile attacks in Afghanistan, etc.

Z

[HashiriyaS14]

(they were almost dead under Clinton)

This is not true and you either know it or you should know it.

That said, this is not a partisan issue.

We were ALL caught off guard by the September 11th Attacks. Democrats, Republicans, Independents, whomever, period.

Clinton did what he thought was right at the time, he existed in a world before terrorists had blown up the most visible building in the United States. Bush wasn't an anti-terrorlst crusader before 9/11 either.

NO ONE saw it coming. It's unfair to say that it happened because of EITHER party or EITHER President.

[audtatious]

NO ONE saw it coming. It's unfair to say that it happened because of EITHER party or EITHER President.

Realize I'm not trying to throw Clinton under the blame-train. He did stress on numerous occasions that he was focusing on the terrorists and hindsight being 20/20 realized after the fact that he did not do enough.

[HashiriyaS14]

Realize I'm not trying to throw Clinton under the blame-train. He did stress on numerous occasions that he was focusing on the terrorists and hindsight being 20/20 realized after the fact that he did not do enough.

Yeah, and ultimately I know you aren't asserting that 9/11 happened because of some negligence on Clinton's part. You're no dummy and you aren't an a ideological drone either (Neither is Z, or Greg, or others).

It's not a matter of whether Clinton failed or Bush failed. American Society failed. All of us failed. It was one of our greatest failings as a nation. We all need to fix it together, and it's the last place where partisanship should stand in the way of fixing the real problem at hand, and I know you guys know that.

In fact, I was really only responding to a Democrat's assertion that Clinton had "fixed the problem" and then Bush had subsequently bungled it, which is patently untrue.

Let us not, in our desire to argue and flesh out opinions, ignore opportunities where we can honestly agree that we stand together on something. Those opportunities are rare and precious in today's American politics and anyone who willingly walks away from one just to make a snarky comment needs to move the f**k out of our great nation.

[audtatious]

I agree

On the flip side, the spiteful Democrats continually assert that Bush lied about intelligence reports, he was aware of the 9/11 attacks and let them happen (or set them up) as a way to go into Iraq to fight for his fathers honor, did not have authority to go into Iraq, or that 9/11 itself is his fault because he did not act on the PDB. Seems that anything that can be thrown at the Bush Admin (and Republicans in general) is the norm with most Democrats and that's sad as there will never be a way to have non-partisan discussions with this happening.

[szh]

This is not true and you either know it or you should know it.

That said, this is not a partisan issue.

We were ALL caught off guard by the September 11th Attacks. Democrats, Republicans, Independents, whomever, period.

Clinton did what he thought was right at the time, he existed in a world before terrorists had blown up the most visible building in the United States. Bush wasn't an anti-terrorlst crusader before 9/11 either.

NO ONE saw it coming. It's unfair to say that it happened because of EITHER party or EITHER President.

Agreed. There were only hints and possibilities and prior events - would have a seriously capable prophet to predict 9/11.

So, the degree to which 9/11 shocked everybody is indeed true. I suspect that even the terrorlst organizations were somewhat dazed at their success. Unfortunate. It energized them further.

Z

[skylndrftr]

1) noticed that you guys pick out one small part of my post to go after...is that becasue the rest is dead nuts on target?

2)I still think I am right. They were methodically being picked apart and destroyed. 9/11 was a last gasp. If we had limited things to Afghanistan they would be GONE right now. Instead we perked up Haliburtons bottom line...so now they have reformed, moved to another country (that has nukes BTW) and are significnatly affecting the political process there.

[audtatious]

1) noticed that you guys pick out one small part of my post to go after...is that becasue the rest is dead nuts on target?.

Not at all. I feel arguing with you on the other points are, well, pointless. It's your opinion.

[S13_love]

I agree

On the flip side, the spiteful Democrats continually assert that Bush lied about intelligence reports, he was aware of the 9/11 attacks and let them happen (or set them up) as a way to go into Iraq to fight for his fathers honor, did not have authority to go into Iraq, or that 9/11 itself is his fault because he did not act on the PDB. Seems that anything that can be thrown at the Bush Admin (and Republicans in general) is the norm with most Democrats and that's sad as there will never be a way to have non-partisan discussions with this happening.

i don't think he lied about intelligence reports...just ignored them, kinda a coincidence how one george bush goes to war in iraq then the next one comes in and theres another iraq war.... also i was reading the first post and it said that if mccain is elected 60% or so will believe we will win the war ( ) um didn't we win already? ( i dont see how it would be even possible to lose) for over 4 years we have kicked the ever living s*** out of the terrorists, their suicide bombings are pathetic, usually what u hear on the news is "suicide b0mber...kills 40 civilians...wounds 2 us soldiers..." lol ok we've gotten the terrorists to the point to where they are destoying their own country

[AZhitman]

1) noticed that you guys pick out one small part of my post to go after...is that becasue the rest is dead nuts on target?

2)I still think I am right.

Looks like several posters disagree, as do most experts on terrorism and al-Qaeda.

That faction is smaller and more fractured than it's ever been.

[HashiriyaS14]

On the flip side, the spiteful Democrats continually assert that Bush lied about intelligence reports, he was aware of the 9/11 attacks and let them happen (or set them up) as a way to go into Iraq to fight for his fathers honor, did not have authority to go into Iraq, or that 9/11 itself is his fault because he did not act on the PDB. Seems that anything that can be thrown at the Bush Admin (and Republicans in general) is the norm with most Democrats and that's sad as there will never be a way to have non-partisan discussions with this happening.

Yeah, and for what it's worth, I think that the Democratic assertion that Bush either could have prevented 9/11 or that he was somehow complicit in it are despicable and obviously false.

But, of course, no one wants to listen to me. Everyone would rather listen to the people who advocate all that crap because it gives everyone something to argue about, LOL.

[audtatious]

The initial war was won, you are correct. Right now we are simply trying to stabilize the region while the Iraq gov takes over.

As far as ignoring intelligence reports or the PDB in general it is my understanding that there were numerous "warnings" of possible attacks going back to Clintons Presidency. We had no front-line intelligence within the al-quida ranks either to get more direct intelligence. Right or wrong I think both Bush's going into Iraq is simply a coincidence based on the situation.