So I've heard many say that Bush will be better equppied to handle terror because of what he did during 9/11, and that Clinton was an idiot for not doing anything to fight terror, etc., etc.

But my question is this: did Bush do much to prevent terrorism pre-9/11? That is, is it unfair to say that Bush was any better in preventing terror when comparing his pre-9/11 period with other presidents? Because it seems that the justification for the argument that Bush will be harder on terror is his post-9/11 actions, yet wouldn't actions taken against terror before an actual attack be important to consider?

If anyone has any answers to this question, please help me out, because I've been wondering about it for quite some time and think it's quite important.

IMO, neither Clinton nor Bush did enough to prevent terrorism, yet had they tried, it would likely have been given a political cold shoulder.

So was the WTC bombing in '93 not an attack? The American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania getting bombed by Al Queda weren't attacks? The USS Cole getting a hole blown in the side of it wasn't an attack? Cause I'm pretty sure they were all attacks....and I'm pretty sure that except for lobbing a bomb or two here and there, Clinton did nothing to suppress Al Queda.

Bush is a jackass too, but don't ask a loaded question.

i think 9/11 is above typical terror. While arguably something could have been done to prevent it I think we will forever live in a different standard of prevention. That said, I think there are many misunderstandings. People view the war in Iraq as The War on Terror as a whole. Protecting the mexican borders and candian and coastal borders as well as intelligence and a strong united world are also key factors. That said the borders have been ignored, the world hates us more, and inteligence is up in the air. It seems like just yesterday but 9/11 was 3 full years ago and to me little has been done except an invasion, so thats my opinion.

I understand this, and it's part of what I'm asking in my question. Having had these attacks already happen, did Bush (who is now considered hard on terrorism) do any more to supress terrorism (or Al Queda, since you mentioned that) than Clinton did?

Personally I think its pretty hard to blame Bush for the 9/11 attacks, you look at his vacation time and the supposed memos you can pretty easily blame him, but blame also must be put on the Clinton administration as well as Congress during the 90s. I think Bush has overracted to the threat of terrorism IMO.

I don't think he's overreacted so much as he has made poor action. When you sustain an event like what happened on Sept. 11th, smart action is in order.

I think everyone may be misunderstanding the question.

I'm not trying to blame Bush for 9/11. I'm simply wondering if there is any logic behind the assertion that Bush is better with terrorism other than what he did during 9/11. Because what you do after a terrorist attack has taken place and what you do to prevent it are miles apart, and I'm simply wondering if Bush did anything pre-9/11 against terror, because I've never heard anything in the news media saying that he did, only that most consider him more capable of countering terrorism. Basically, we know he has experience during and after an attack, but what did he do before as compared to previous presidents?

I may just have to wait for CommonWord, he usually knows these things.

Yes. They both endured attacks during their presidencies. Clinton did basically nothing to retaliate whereas Bush took Al Queda to task. Al Queda was behind ALL THREE attacks that occurred under Clinton, yet I don't recall hearing too much about Bin Laden during Clinton's tenure. Bush fucked up by taking this to Iraq, and that decision will smear his legacy. I don't think that based on Afghanistan and the current global intelligence effort against terrorist orgs (spearheaded by the US) you could possibly question this administration's effectiveness against terrorism.

I also realize that some leniency must be given to Clinton being the attacks under his watch were not in the US and were not near as severe. With that said, I don't believe that his reactions were near as strong as they should have been. You've got to ask yourself, if Clinton had attacked Afghanistan and the Al-Queda infrastructure back in '93 after the first WTC bomb, would 9/11 have happened? You gotta nip threats in the bud.

While attacks occurred overseas on US bases/embassies, an official fatwa was not declared against the US until 1998. Granted attacks began in '93, attacks against the citizens of the US were not declared by al-Qaeda until late in Clinton's term.

This does not exonerate him, but it does show that things may have been brewing, but were not near a 9/11 boiling point yet. However, if Clinton is to share part of the blame, surely Bush Sr., Reagan, Carter, Ford, and Nixon and even previous administrations shoulder parts of the burdon as well.

This is clear. It has taken decades of US foreign policy and Middle Eastern chaos (kingdoms, totalitarian governments, Isreali aggression) to get to this point in history. Pointing the finger at one administration is clearly over-simplifying the situation.

It will probably take longer to right the situation and there are no easy answers.

This Administration took the fight away from al-Qaeda by going into Iraq. We didn't finish the job there, and now the Taliban. We diverted troopos, air lift support, logistics, and all types of essentials from Afghanistan into Iraq. A war that had nothing to do with the enemy that attacked us on 9/11. Our ports are no safer, are boarders are no safer. We are not safer, period. The real enemy is still making tapes, and is still able to attack us. All the while billions have been spent in Iraq, hundreds of thousands of lives lost, and we are no safer then September 10th.

I think part of the reason Bush scores so highly on combatting terrorism is that Kerry seems to prefer going BACK to the Bill Clinton way of doing things.

That scares people.

"9/11 didn't change me at all." That sends a signal to people.

So to answer your question: No, Clinton didn't do enough to prevent terrorism. No, Bush didn't pre-9/11. But there is a vast difference between Bush now and Bush pre-9/11. There doesn't seem to be much difference, as far as I can tell, between Kerry now and Kerry pre-9/11.

That may not be true. But that's a big reason Bush outscores Kerry on terrorism. That's what people seem to believe, right or wrong.

And they are wrong. I would prefer to go back to pre 9/11 and get on with humanity. Yes, keep many security measures in place. Get rid of the Patriot Act, etc, etc. Things have gotten out of hand. Much blame on the media, for talking about terrorist alerts. Lets see, how many people died of terrorism in the last 10 years? And how many have died in poverty, because of low air and drinking water quality, because of shitty health coverage or none at all? The answer would be a lot more than terrorism. The U.S. government sure knows the way to scare the shit out of the American people.

so much for a strong "War President".

Think like that and the terrorists win.

that's one way of looking at things. I think most Americans disagree, which is why you see those splits on the terror issue between Bush and Kerry.

Can someone answer my question. Why does Bush rate so highly in combatting terrorism when
A) Bin Laden is alive and well and still has not been captured
B) Invades a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 and incites more hatred to the west and
C) says stupid statements like "I truly am not that concerned about him" 6 months after 9/11.

I know who I'd be betting on.

Indeed. It just angers me when people act like Bush has always been tough on terror. Any president is going to respond in some way after an attack the size of 9/11, to not do so would be career suicide.

Whoever was president after 9/11 would have gone into Afghanistan after the Taliban and Al Qaida. The world was behind us. After that, we should have reinforced the effort there and after Al Qaida. Why is Pakistan fighting our battle there? Remember when they had someone surrounded for 3 days and they got away? Why didnt we make sure we got in there and levelled the place. Rumors are that it was the chief brain behind terrorism holed up in there.
Instead we invaded a second country and played right into these terror organizations' hands. The whole world is seeing us now as the terrorists want them to see us. They are questioning our motives and policies. If there is another large scale attack here, we will get less sympathy from the rest of the world IMO.
We should have been more delicate in this matter.