Dear Republicans. Obama has kept us safe from terrorism longer than Bush did.

[sabrina 1]

Just eight months after Bush took office, while Bush was on one of the longest vacations ever taken by a U.S. president and after over 50 warnings of a possible attack on the U.S. 9/11 happened.




We know you all hate to be reminded of that but, facts are facts.

It is now sixteen months since Obama became president.

By YOUR logic, Democrats keep America safer.


Just wanted to say that as you all seem to develop amnesia every time there's news of another terror attack and before the parade of the usual suspects, Cheney who was asleep on the job, Giuliani who failed to protect his city and whoever else from the party that failed to keep America safe that the media has on speed-dial for occasions like this, start taking up space on the air-waves.



Democrats, keeping America safer!

[Bluebear]

1. President Obama also happens to work for a living!

I would love to see a comparison of vacation days Bush v Obama up to this date!

[sabrina 1]

6. Don't know about Bush V Obama yet, but

it does look like Bush may not hold the record for presidential vacations:

What President Took the Longest Vacation?

According to this site, it was James Madison, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson ~ but Bush is definitely up there.

JAMES MADISON
The Longest Vacation

The War of 1812 was over. His administration was nearly at an end. So Madison, tired and eager to get away, slipped out of Washington in June 1816 and didn't return until October. His four-month vacation was the longest of any president. In other years his vacations lasted three months.

As for Bush:

As of August 3, 2005, the president had spent all or part of 319 days at the ranch.

That's nearly a year out of five years.

Jimmy Carter took the least vacation so far, spending only 79 days on vacation in four years.

[MadMaddie]

2. It was averted terror attack. The New York policeman

identified the situation correctly and he and other officers started moving people away from the scene.

And the suspect is a white male in his 40's, the Republicans won't identify him as a terrorist as he should be.

The government and the police moved quickly and responsibly.

[sabrina 1]

3. There were lots of averted terror attacks during the

Clinton administration. That didn't stop Republicans from blaming Clinton for 9/11.

You are being logicial. Wingnuts are not logical. They have selective hearing. 'Taliban takes responsibility for NYC car bomb'. That's what they hear.

Cheney's daugher's 'Keep America Safe' project eg, is not based on facts or logic.

I just like to remind them that 9/11 happened on THEIR watch. They hate that.

[MadMaddie]

7. Yes, they do hate being reminded of the facts.

The one thing that marks a stark difference is the lack of over-reaction which is exactly what needs to be done. Over-reacting and letting the suspected terrorist know how fearful the government is is playing into the terrorist hands. That's exactly why I believe the trials should occur in New York and we should house the convicted criminals in the U.S.

Th

[Proud Liberal Dem]

8. "I just like to remind them that 9/11 happened on THEIR watch. They hate that."

Yeah, that's kind of the irrefutable argument that the Republicans SUCK at keeping our country safe and we need to keep reminding those people who STILL somehow believe that Republicans do a better *job* on terrorism than of this. The Republicans seem to believe that they should get a "free pass" for what happened on 9/11 (and everything leading up to it) and that only everything AFTER then counts- although they didn't make us safer by invading/occupying Iraq. Quite the contrary. :banghead:

[sabrina 1]

9. Yes, and now that the NYC bomber is a 'terrorist', the

right who were strangely silent when they thought it was a white guy, maybe one of their own, will once again forget on whose watch the U.S. was attacked on 9/11.

Cheney et al will probably be bakc on the airwaves, now that they heard the magic words 'ME Terrorism' blaming Democrats for being 'soft on terror'.

I just thought I'd try to pre-empt them, but they do it on purpose, they do know they are lying, they just don't care.

[jillan]

4. You need to put a warning in your subject line. I almost jumped out of my chair when I saw that!

Sends shivers down my spine - bleech.

[sabrina 1]

5. Lol, sorry! n/t