North Korean leader Kim Jong endorses John Kerry

Actually yes I did. I for one have paid enough attention to terrorism over the years,to know it would happen again. Why Clinton did not go after the terrorists groups after the first WTC bombing is beyond me.
Why he did nothing after the US Cole,again I can't fathom why he did nothing. Except that he did not want to dirty his hands,with real problems.
It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that things were going to get worse.
But I also don't put all the blame on president. All presidents since the Nixon era,could have done a lot more,about terrorism. I guess political popularity is more important,than doing what is right,or what needs to be done.

When the first WTC attack happened, i was stationed in Europe. And most people in my unit were saying, # yeah, we need to find the little bastards and kick the # out of them, we cant let this # happen. Of course, we were put on defcon 3 for a little bit, hoping we would find out who pulled this # and teach them a lesson, but, nothing was done.

When 9/11 happened, I lived about 2 miles from the airport. Yes, i felt it, because the skies were sickeningly quiet and dead, where I was used to the roar of incoming planes every 20 minutes or so. I watched the replays on TV, all I could think of, at first glance, was, I told them so, if we dont nuke whoever did this we suck ass and an assortment and jumble of thoughts in my head.

And we did know how bad it was going to get. the American public may not have known, but you better believe the whole #ing defense and intel cooperation knew. The prez knew. hell, I told my mother when I returned home that we needed to stop screwing around and start paying attention to the home front, that we were gonna get hit with crazies and thier attacks. I wasnt the only person suggesting this. A #load of military leaders and CIA guys were screaming the same thing. They knew.

No, it dont matter what politicaL PARTY, really, but in terms of national defense, there is a big difference. democrats of today, as Thomas has pointed out, are not the same as then, today, they are absolute chicken #s who woudl wait till we get nuked before they did anything.

Just wondering. The first WTC attack did you fly a flag, march in a parade and demand retaliation? Did you watch on live TV while 3,000 people died? Did you see the airlines shut down for days and our people scared of muslims? No, I wish Clinton had done something but I don't think ANYONE knew how bad it could get. Comparing those attacks and 9/11 does not make sense to me. I feel 9/11 was a history changing event and drove our president to react (appropriately).

I just cannot say that Dems are weak when we have no proof bush is tough outside of 9/11.

Clinton was strong on so-called domestic terrorists and did not hesitate to use force at Ruby Ridge or Waco Texas, killing hundreds in the process.

But even when an obvious attempt was made to bring down the WTC in the 93' bombing (just review the photos) he did not accomplish a thing. Osama by the time of the Sudanese offer was connected to that bombing, Clinton let him go therby giving Osama a chance to complete what he failed to do the first time.

The democrats are quick to use force domestically where they control the media making it easy to cover their footsteps, but are afraid to apply overwhelming force overseas where they cannot control results to their political ends. Yes democrats are percieved as weak by other countries, check info from released KGB files - you'll get confirmation of what I say.