Are You Worried About A Terrorist Attack When A New President Is In Office?

@elmiko (6635)
United States
March 3, 2008 1:09pm CST
It seems like theres a terrorist attack when a new president is running the country. You had the first world trade center attacks in 1993 when clinton was in office. Later the 911 attacks when bush was in office. Do you think there focused on a terrorist strike later rather then now.
3 responses
@uath13 (8204)
• United States
3 Mar 08
Actually I don't worry about them at all. It's not like they'd target my area. If they did what would they hit , a barn?
1 person likes this
@Taskr36 (13923)
• United States
4 Mar 08
I'm honestly not that worried about it. The World Trade Center attack in '93 was more of a test run. Clinton was weak and did nothing about it. Even when Syria offered to hand Osama bin Laden over to us Clinton flaked out. As a result we looked weak and that just opened the door for the 9-11 attacks. Bush responded to 9-11 with a full blown war in Afghanistan followed by a war in Iraq. I honestly think that after that terrorists will think twice before trying an attack similar to 9-11. Since then every attempt has failed and the perpetrators taken into custody. Our airport security is better than it's ever been and the government has stopped using the kiddy gloves when dealing with terrorists.
@dtroas (481)
• United States
4 Mar 08
Well if you think that Bush took care of our Country the right way. I am gald that you are not running for president. And the Government don't get me started on that. They are still to this date not taken care of the people in New York.. This last 8 years as been a weak link for our Country.
@Taskr36 (13923)
• United States
4 Mar 08
I'm not a fan of the war in Iraq, but Bush did what needed to be done in Afghanistan. He took the fight to them instead of sitting on his hands like Clinton did. Osama saw that Bill Clinton did nothing after the first World Trade Center attack and figured a new president would be just as indifferent about it. George W. Bush responded by destroying the Taliban and taking as many terrorists as he could find as prisoners. He bolstered homeland security, improved airport security, and put air marshals on planes. These acts have already prevented at least 3 terrorists that I know of from killing innocent people on planes. Should he have done nothing? Should he have let Osama sit comfortably in Afghanistan with no fear of retaliation? Should he have let airports continue to employ lazy, third party security who can't even operate a metal detector? I'm not saying he's a great president, far from it, but you can't ignore all his accomplishments just because you don't approve of the war in Iraq. The government has worked hard to compensate survivors and families of 9-11 victims. There were thousands of people killed in that attack and it's not easy to reach every family. If you look at the numbers you'll see that families of the victims have received significantly more money than families of men and women who die fighting for this country. I know the government can do better, but it isn't perfect. That's not just Bush, that's the government under Clinton, Reagan, Carter, and every other president. We don't live in a perfect world.
@Pickless (66)
• Canada
23 Mar 08
I dunno but I always try to live in peaceful cities, not too empty or it gets creepy. I live in Canada but I've always been scared to go to the US because of all the shows on TV like CSI and Prison Break. No offense, I just don't want a bullet hole in my head.