05-23-2018 10:30:41 AM -0700
05-18-2018 12:27:15 PM -0700
05-17-2018 08:38:50 AM -0700
05-11-2018 07:34:04 AM -0700
05-09-2018 10:17:16 AM -0700
It looks like you've previously blocked notifications. If you'd like to receive them, please update your browser permissions.
Desktop Notifications are  | 
Get instant alerts on your desktop.
Turn on desktop notifications?
Remind me later.

Take One Down for Me

Reader Daryl McCullah writes:

That's what Gore was doing. Clinton *did* take action against Al Qaeda,

and Bush *didn't* prior to 9/11. It took 3000 deaths before Bush got

serious about Al Qaeda.

Al Qaeda was a high priority for Clinton at the end of 2000. Of course

it wasn't as high a priority as it became for Bush after 9/11. But it

was a higher priority for Clinton than it was for Bush, prior to 9/11.

It hardly makes sense to compare Clinton's responses to Bush's responses

after 9/11. A fairer comparison would be Clinton's response to terrorism

to Reagan's response to the 1986 Berlin disco bombings. In both cases,

we bombed the people we thought were responsible. In neither case did we

succeed in killing him.

Perhaps in light of 9/11, American Presidents will in the future always

respond to any act of terrorism by invading a country and overthrowing

the government.

Have at it, kids.