[kobi]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060714/...kxBHNlYwN0bQ--

Looks like it's going to be Christmas in November.

A 3 to 1 margin is hard to beat. The future of the US is looking better.

You can start the usual right-wing "polls don't matter", straw men/crybaby talk, name calling, and all the no real arguments now.

[Shaddim]

You're the only person in this thread who's bitching, as far as I can tell.

Get better bait.

[Dakar]

Yes, let's start counting eggs before they hatch.

[BRussell]

Only about 2% of seats in Congress are actually competitive, and Republicans haven't completed their gay marriage, flag-burning, save-the-ten-commandments, illegal Mexican agenda yet.

[Joshua]

Originally Posted by kobi

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060714/...kxBHNlYwN0bQ--

Looks like it's going to be Christmas in November.

A 3 to 1 margin is hard to beat. The future of the US is looking better.

You can start the usual right-wing "polls don't matter", straw men/crybaby talk, name calling, and all the no real arguments now.

Did you bother reading past the first paragraph? The 3 to 1 margin only referred to Congressional approval ratings. The poll on voting was much closer:

The AP-Ipsos survey asked 789 registered voters if the election for the House were held today, would they vote for the Democratic or Republican candidate in their district. Democrats were favored 51 percent to 40 percent.

...

Democrats also held the advantage among persuadable voters — those who are undecided or wouldn't say whom they prefer. A total of 51 percent said they were leaning Democrat, while 41 percent were leaning Republican.

And considering that many Democrats are trying to make '06 turn on the War on Terror/Iraq, this isn't exactly good news:

One bright spot for the GOP is that Republicans hold an advantage over Democrats on issues such as foreign policy and fighting terrorism — 43 percent to 33 percent — and a smaller edge on handling Iraq — 36 percent to 32 percent.

[kobi]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/republica...NlYwNtcm5ld3M-

Here's a link for the actual results from the above poll.

Josh the numbers don't lie. Republicans do have the advantage on the Iraq issue.

That's an issue that nobody wants to deal with. The Democrats nor the Rebublicans have an answer for Iraq, and I don't either.

[RAILhead]

[Nicko]

I'm more interested to see what average americans do when gas hits $4 a gallon...

[kobi]

$4 or 5 Bucks a gallon, is not that far away I'm afraid.

[Chuckit]

The last official poll had Bush winning…

[smacintush]

#1, we wont see 4$-$5 gas before the fall elections IMO.

#2, They said they had the elections wrapped up in 2000, and 2004 also.

[Rumor]

I don't want to see a Democrat in office. Nor do I want to see a Republican in office. I'd like to see an Indepenant minority. Perhaps see things from a different viewpoint.

[belfast-biker]

Seen the advert on the news page?

Do news organisations need to be so insensitive?



Do the families really need to be reminded in such sensationalist claptrap movie trailer fashion that their loved ones are dead?

[typoon]

Originally Posted by kobi

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060714/...kxBHNlYwN0bQ--

Looks like it's going to be Christmas in November.

A 3 to 1 margin is hard to beat. The future of the US is looking better.

You can start the usual right-wing "polls don't matter", straw men/crybaby talk, name calling, and all the no real arguments now.

Polls don't usuall mean anything. It depends on who they are polling and how many people they polled. did they get a good cross section or did they poll from a primarily democratic location?

[Millennium]

Unless I'm mistaken, this poll is about approval ratings, not likely votes? You're making an awfully large leap here.

[BRussell]

For you folks that are complaining about the poll, every poll right now shows leads for Democrats in people's choices for Congress by about 10%. For reference, when Republicans took over the Congress in 1994 in that huge turnover, they had a margin of about 6%. Whether the current polls translate into change is a different story though.

[Rumor]

[hey!_Zeus]

Originally Posted by typoon

Polls don't usuall mean anything. It depends on who they are polling and how many people they polled. did they get a good cross section or did they poll from a primarily democratic location?

When polls are against you this is somewhat of a standard answer.

Or the other great one..."The only poll that counts is on voting day".

I guess that's why parties and candidates have their own pollsters. To waste money.

[Y3a]

>It started out innocently enough. I began to think at parties now and
>then -- just to loosen up. Inevitably, though, one thought led to
>another, and soon I was more than just a social thinker.
>
>I began to think alone -- "to relax," I told myself -- but I knew it
>wasn't true. Thinking became more and more important to me, and finally
>I was thinking all the time.
>
>That was when things began to sour at home. One evening I turned off the
>TV and asked my wife about the meaning of life. She spent that night at
>her mother's. I began to think on the job. I knew that thinking and
>employment don't mix, but I couldn't help myself.
>
>I began to avoid friends at lunchtime so I could read Thoreau, Muir,
>Confucius and Kafka. I would return to the office dizzied and confused,
>asking, "What is it exactly we are doing here?"
>
>One day the boss called me in. He said, "Listen, I like you, and it
>hurts me to say this, but your thinking has become a real problem. If
>you don't stop thinking on the job, you'll have to find another job."
>
>This gave me a lot to think about. I came home early after my
>conversation with the boss. "Honey," I confessed, "I've been
>thinking..."
>
>"I know you've been thinking," she said, "and I want a divorce!"
>
>"But Honey, surely it's not that serious."
>
>"It is serious," she said, lower lip aquiver. "You think as much as
>college professors and college professors don't make any money, so if
>you keep on thinking, we won't have any money!"
>
>"That's a faulty syllogism," I said impatiently.
>
>She exploded in tears of rage and frustration, but I was in no mood to
>deal with the emotional drama.
>
>"I'm going to the library," I snarled as I stomped out the door.
>
>I headed for the library, in the mood for some Nietzsche. I roared into
>the parking lot with NPR on the radio and ran up to the big glass doors.
>
>They didn't open. The library was closed.
>
>To this day, I believe that a Higher Power was looking out for me that
>night. Leaning on the unfeeling glass, whimpering for Zarathustra, a
>poster caught my eye, "Friend, is heavy thinking ruining your life?" it
>asked.
>
>You probably recognize that line. It comes from the standard Thinkers
>Anonymous poster.
>
>This is why I am what I am today: a recovering thinker. I never miss a
>TA meeting. At each meeting we watch a non-educational video; last week
>it was "Porky's" Then we share experiences about how we avoided thinking
>since the last meeting.
>
>I still have my job, and things are a lot better at home. Life just
>seemed...easier, somehow, as soon as I stopped thinking. I think the
>road to recovery is nearly complete for me.
>
>Today I took the final step! I joined the Democratic Party.

[Cody Dawg]

Yeah, right.

Wait until Hillary runs for president and watch the Dems run for cover and not vote at all.



Because, the breadbasket and Bible-belt male democrats are NOT going to vote for Hillary, not even if she runs as vice-president. (You read it here first - I think she will run for vice-president and not president.)

That much said, I doubt that they'll vote with her on the ticket at all.

The reason those "polls" are skewed is because they're usually conducted on the internet. Who is on the internet? The elite democrats who have a white collar job that allows them to surf the internet and those who are not working at all because they're wealthy (think the Hollywood types especially). The blue collar dems, the majority of the dems who are out earning a living to survive (to pay the taxes that their rich dem counterparts make them pay ) are not partaking in "polls" because they don't have the wherewithal or the time.

Things are going to change a bit. With Israel going into a war there is a huge contingent of Jews (and supporters) who are going to be behind Israel's war and then those democrats beating their drums and yelling, "Stop the war!" are less likely to be heard. The Jews in this country are going to be 100% behind their Israeli counterparts...and if they don't vote Republican they will not vote at all because they're not going to put democrats in power that are against the Israeli offensives.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by hey!_Zeus

When polls are against you this is somewhat of a standard answer.

Or the other great one..."The only poll that counts is on voting day".

Those are great answers — they're entirely accurate.

Oh, and if Hillary runs, the Republicans are having a merry Christmas indeed.

[Cody Dawg]

Oh, and if Hillary runs, the Republicans are having a merry Christmas indeed.

Might even send her a Christmas card, myself...

On second thought, make that a Thank You card.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

Yeah, right.

Wait until Hillary runs for president and watch the Dems run for cover and not vote at all.



Because, the breadbasket and Bible-belt male democrats are NOT going to vote for Hillary, not even if she runs as vice-president. (You read it here first - I think she will run for vice-president and not president.)

That much said, I doubt that they'll vote with her on the ticket at all.

The reason those "polls" are skewed is because they're usually conducted on the internet. Who is on the internet? The elite democrats who have a white collar job that allows them to surf the internet and those who are not working at all because they're wealthy (think the Hollywood types especially). The blue collar dems, the majority of the dems who are out earning a living to survive (to pay the taxes that their rich dem counterparts make them pay ) are not partaking in "polls" because they don't have the wherewithal or the time.

Things are going to change a bit. With Israel going into a war there is a huge contingent of Jews (and supporters) who are going to be behind Israel's war and then those democrats beating their drums and yelling, "Stop the war!" are less likely to be heard. The Jews in this country are going to be 100% behind their Israeli counterparts...and if they don't vote Republican they will not vote at all because they're not going to put democrats in power that are against the Israeli offensives.

1. You may be right about Hillary, but this is about the 2006 election. She is currently running for re-election in New York (and will trounce her opponent).

2. These polls are accurate to about 1-2%. They've got the sampling down cold. (And none of these are conducted on the internet.)

3. Jews voted for Kerry 75-25, and that number didn't budge from 2000 to 2004. And they're probably 2% of voters in the US, living primarily in heavily Democratic areas anyway. The idea that this flare-up in the Middle East is going to make them not vote for Democrats and thus turn the election is truly ridiculous.

[Cody Dawg]

No, it's not ridiculous.

We were at our local Jewish deli and they're all talking about supporting the war. Everyone in the deli was talking about it and saying it was long overdue.

So, unless the democrats want to be hypocritical (not a stretch for them of course) and do an about-face on their anti-war stance and embrace the conflict(s) in the Middle East they won't vote for anyone who is anti-war because to be anti-war will mean to be anti-Israel.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

No, it's not ridiculous.

We were at our local Jewish deli and they're all talking about supporting the war. Everyone in the deli was talking about it and saying it was long overdue.

So, unless the democrats want to be hypocritical (not a stretch for them of course) and do an about-face on their anti-war stance and embrace the conflict(s) in the Middle East they won't vote for anyone who is anti-war because to be anti-war will mean to be anti-Israel.

Which war are you talking about? Democrats (generally) oppose the war in Iraq, which American Jews, as very strong Democrats, have opposed in higher proportions than the country at large. They've also disapproved, like other Democrats, of Bush's handling of the war on terrorism more than the country at large.

And I don't see how this current mess is a partisan issue: Bush has been talking about how Israel needs to be restrained in its actions, and I haven't seen any Democrats say anything different. If anything, this will simply solidify the beliefs of those of us (including Jews) who are of the opinion that Bush's policies are bad for the region.

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by hey!_Zeus

I guess that's why parties and candidates have their own pollsters. To waste money.

It's not a waste of money at all; it's bandwagon marketing. They take these polls so that they can convince people that it's "normal" to vote for them, rather than their opponents. Liberals do it, and so do conservatives, because a depressing number of people are just that weak-minded. They want to vote for whoever they think it's "normal" to vote for, and politicians capitalize on that.

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by RAILhead

That's so much like the Right: when the debate turns serious, they throw young virgins to the Left for lack of any solid argument.

[Chuckit]

If the right starts throwing out young virgins for lack of any solid argument, I might have to become a leftist.

[King Bob On The Cob]

Did some of the polls show that 70% of the country would vote against Bush right before the 2004 election?

Lots of good those polls did.

Polls are statistics, and as any one with common sense knows, statistics are always tampered with to make them say whatever you want them to say.

Because if you want to look at the polls right now, the dems don't have a fighting chance in the presidential race.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by King Bob On The Cob

Did some of the polls show that 70% of the country would vote against Bush right before the 2004 election?

Lots of good those polls did.

Polls are statistics, and as any one with common sense knows, statistics are always tampered with to make them say whatever you want them to say.

Because if you want to look at the polls right now, the dems don't have a fighting chance in the presidential race.

Where do people get this stuff? The polls were all within a few %, with the majority going to Bush, and a few giving Kerry a slight edge. Here they are. Bush ended up winning by just over 2%. The polls were all within a few %, and the average of the polls was exactly dead on.

The major polls these days - for the past several decades - are exceedingly accurate. That doesn't mean they can predict several months in advance, like we are now. But they're extremely accurate for present attitudes.

[davesimondotcom]

Thing to keep in mind is that a national poll stating anything about races that end up being local is fairly useless.

A national poll for the only national office (President) can be accurate. But a "general feeling" of the electorate poll in which one party is favored over the other is useless.

When it comes down to it, people vote for a candidate in their state and local races. Will Democrats pick up seats? Probably. Will it be a dramatic switch in power? Not really. Will it be a dramatic shift in policies? Definitely not.

[Chuckit]

And in general, people vote for candidates rather than parties. Most of the electorate is nonpartisan (of course, many are also non-voting).

[ghporter]

I for one am tired of what the so-called Republicans that are now in power have done and are doing. I don't think Ronald Regan would recognize George W. Bush as a Republican. Unfortunately, the Democrats like to push people with extreme positions for national office, instead of finding more moderate candidates who might actually REDUCE the partisaniship and divisiveness rampant in the halls of Congress. If they could pull their heads out and start paying attention to The People, BOTH parties might figure out that they've hosed their last several years in office and maybe they might come up with policies and platforms that address something other than either making their buddies wealthier or "taking care of the American People" (which means not letting us do anything that might be potentially dangerous to ourselves, others, or their poll numbers). Of course this will never happen...

[typoon]

It doesn't matter who you vote for you get the same thing.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by King Bob On The Cob

Did some of the polls show that 70% of the country would vote against Bush right before the 2004 election?

Lots of good those polls did.

Yup, I kept reading it here. It was a shoe in!


Someone dig up those old "Bush is going down" threads



Actually I want the Dems to get ahold of congress.
That way they will actually HAVE to make up their mind and STAND for something.

Well something other than "Against anything Bush is for cause Bush has cooties"

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by ghporter

I for one am tired of what the so-called Republicans that are now in power have done and are doing. I don't think Ronald Regan would recognize George W. Bush as a Republican.

Not sure about the Recognizing part.

But yeah, we need another Reagan.

I'd like to see Rudi run actually.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by typoon

It doesn't matter who you vote for you get the same thing.

That's probably basically true in Kerry vs. Bush, because things had been set in motion in the first Bush term, and not much is happening in terms of new policies this term.

But do you really think Gore would have handled Bush's two major priorities in the same way: The budget and the war in Iraq? No way. We wouldn't have gone to war in Iraq and we wouldn't have had these tax cuts if Gore had been president. Whether you think that would have been good or bad (I know what I think), it definitely wouldn't have followed the same path.

[typoon]

Originally Posted by BRussell

But do you really think Gore would have handled Bush's two major priorities in the same way: The budget and the war in Iraq? No way. We wouldn't have gone to war in Iraq and we wouldn't have had these tax cuts if Gore had been president. Whether you think that would have been good or bad (I know what I think), it definitely wouldn't have followed the same path.

No actually I don't. I think that is pretty much the only difference between the 2 parties anymore. Is that one is willing to take the war to the terrorists while the other just wants to talk about taking to the terrorist while doing nothing. Policy wise you get pretty much the same from both sides.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by typoon

No actually I don't. I think that is pretty much the only difference between the 2 parties anymore. Is that one is willing to take the war to the terrorists while the other just wants to talk about taking to the terrorist while doing nothing. Policy wise you get pretty much the same from both sides.

Fair enough, but I'm curious how you know that Democrats would "do nothing" about terrorism. Gore wouldn't have occupied Iraq, I'll grant you that. But is that really your criterion for an effective war on terrorism? I don't think you really believe that.

You also ignored the budget. Do you think Gore would have increased the deficit like Bush has done? There's no way he was going to enact those tax cuts which accounted for a large portion of the deficits. I also doubt he would have increased spending like Bush has.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by BRussell

Fair enough, but I'm curious how you know that Democrats would "do nothing" about terrorism.

Well look what Clinton did. Or didn't do.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Well look what Clinton did. Or didn't do.

Well he attacked bin Laden in Afghanistan and Republicans complained that it was distracting them from their important business with Monica Lewinsky. A bombing plot in LA in 2000 was stopped (unlike another plot a year later under the Bush administration). After a failed attempt to bomb the WTC in 1993, they got those involved and imprisoned them.

Clinton didn't do anything about the USS Cole, but that was just a few weeks before Bush's election. So what did Bush do about it? Bin Laden determined to strike the US, Bush determined to take a vacation.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by BRussell

Well he attacked bin Laden in Afghanistan and Republicans complained that it was distracting them from their important business with Monica Lewinsky.

You mean the bomb into the empty aspirin factory?

The reason they complained was because this was the first time he actually made an effort.

A bombing plot in LA in 2000 was stopped (unlike another plot a year later under the Bush administration).

You mean said plot that was being planned during the Clinton one?

After a failed attempt to bomb the WTC in 1993, they got those involved and imprisoned them.

Failed? The WTC was bombed. They imprisoned those that did the bombing. But did NOTHING about the groups they were involved with that would continue to do theses things.

Clinton didn't do anything about the USS Cole, but that was just a few weeks before Bush's election. So what did Bush do about it? Bin Laden determined to strike the US, Bush determined to take a vacation.

Hyperbole.

In the 8 Years Clinton was in office we had been attacked, and said attacks were also being planned. He did very little to stop this.

Bush on the other hand....

Not a terrorist attack on this country since 911. And many have been stopped.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Kevin

You mean the bomb into the empty aspirin factory?

Interesting that you only mention the Sudan bombing, when he also hit bin Laden's camp. Kind of different than Bush, who pulled the troops hunting bin Laden out of Afghanistan to send them to Iraq, not to mention how he has recently shut down the group looking for bin Laden.

The reason they complained was because this was the first time he actually made an effort.

Absolutely false. They complained because they said it was a distraction from the important Monica Lewinsky business. No one at the time complained that it "was the first time he actually made an effort." That's absolute nonsense. That line only came in after 9/11 happened, and Republicans saw that they had to take it seriously and look for a way to blame Clinton.

You mean said plot that was being planned during the Clinton one?

The one that Bush was warned about but took a vacation, and when his vacation was interrupted with warnings about al Qaeda activity he dismissed the briefer, saying "OK, you've covered your ass now."

Failed? The WTC was bombed. They imprisoned those that did the bombing. But did NOTHING about the groups they were involved with that would continue to do theses things.

Their intention was to make it collapse but they did almost no damage. That was a failure.

Hyperbole.

In the 8 Years Clinton was in office we had been attacked, and said attacks were also being planned. He did very little to stop this.

Bush on the other hand....

Not a terrorist attack on this country since 911. And many have been stopped.

As far as I know, the only terrorist attack on this country during the Clinton years was a few weeks after he took office, on the WTC. Others were stopped, and there were attacks outside of the US. But do you really want to compare the amount of terrorism during the Clinton years vs. the Bush years? How many Americans have been killed by terrorism during the Bush years? Thousands. Even after 9/11, thousands of Americans have been killed in acts of terrorism under Bush.

The only partisan difference I see is that Democrats wouldn't have subjected Americans to more terrorism by occupying a country in the Middle East. Even that's not really a partisan difference, because I doubt very many Republican presidents would have occupied Iraq. Most wouldn't have been so easily manipulated by the few whackos that wanted to do it.

[production_coordinator]

Originally Posted by BRussell

Well he attacked bin Laden in Afghanistan and Republicans complained that it was distracting them from their important business with Monica Lewinsky. A bombing plot in LA in 2000 was stopped (unlike another plot a year later under the Bush administration). After a failed attempt to bomb the WTC in 1993, they got those involved and imprisoned them.

Clinton didn't do anything about the USS Cole, but that was just a few weeks before Bush's election. So what did Bush do about it? Bin Laden determined to strike the US, Bush determined to take a vacation.

The 1993 bombing of the WTC didn't fail because president Clinton did something. The terrorists simply miscalculated... and people still died. If the bomb was simply larger... we would have had a 2/26 replacing 9/11. But I'm sure the liberals would be blaming Bush Sr. because he had been in office for 8 years prior to the attach.

also...

A few weeks before Bush's election?
October 12, 2000 - USS Cole bombed
January 20, 2001 - President Bush takes office

Looks more Clinton had months to do something...

[production_coordinator]

Originally Posted by BRussell

As far as I know, the only terrorist attack on this country during the Clinton years was a few weeks after he took office, on the WTC. Others were stopped, and there were attacks outside of the US. But do you really want to compare the amount of terrorism during the Clinton years vs. the Bush years? How many Americans have been killed by terrorism during the Bush years? Thousands. Even after 9/11, thousands of Americans have been killed in acts of terrorism under Bush.

Oklahoma City bombing - April 19, 1995

I'm assuming you meant international terrorism.

Anyway, you can't have it both ways. If you don't blame Clinton for the original WTC bombing, you can't blame Bush for 9/11. They were still both working under the budgets and SS/CIA/FBI architecture of the previous administrations.

[BRussell]

I realize that I'm coming off as trying to portray Clinton as perfect and Bush as without any merit, but that was not my intention. I'm happy to criticize Clinton, as well as complement Bush. What I am trying to contend is the idea, put forth by typoon above, that, in comparison to Republicans, Democrats "do nothing" about terrorism.

[vmarks]

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/p...-1m16dean.html

read 3/4 down where Dean, the voice of the Democrats says

"If you think what’s going on in the Middle East today would be going on if the Democrats were in control, it wouldn’t, because we would have worked day after day after day to make sure we didn’t get where we are today. We would have had the moral authority that Bill Clinton had when he brought together the Northern Irish and the IRA, when he brought together the Israelis and the Palestinians.”

And tell me if you agree with his assertion? I simply do not believe Dean is operating in the real world if he believes that by electing Democrats we would arrive at peace.

[Chuckit]

I totally forgot that Israel and Palestine got along well now…

Oh, wait, that's because they still hate each other.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by BRussell

Interesting that you only mention the Sudan bombing, when he also hit bin Laden's camp.

And what was accomplished? Nothing.

Kind of different than Bush, who pulled the troops hunting bin Laden out of Afghanistan to send them to Iraq,

They weren't just there "Hunting" for Bin Laden. They was there to mess with the Taliban and other said Terrorists groups. And they did as such.

not to mention how he has recently shut down the group looking for bin Laden.

Secretly? You mean he didn't ask you first?

Absolutely false. They complained because they said it was a distraction from the important Monica Lewinsky business.

Woah you just added that "Important Monica Lewinsky" crap yourself as if you were quoted. It was not. I was saying the claimed he was wagging said tail because BEFORE THAT he showed no interest in attacking these terrorists. Or Iraq. See, that is why they called it such. Had he been doing this all along no one could have said that.

No one at the time complained that it "was the first time he actually made an effort." That's absolute nonsense.

Funny, because I remember that at the time. I was actually heading to Washington DC at the time this was all going on. Why else would they be saying he only did such a thing to distract? BTW Below I posted were such a thing WAS happening. They were calling Clinton irrelevant.

That line only came in after 9/11 happened, and Republicans saw that they had to take it seriously and look for a way to blame Clinton.

Again, I've been hearing it wwaaaaaaaaaaaaaay before then.
Take for example Time's front page article. 'Is President Clinton Relevant?'"
Come on, atleast know your history before making such claims.

The one that Bush was warned about but took a vacation, and when his vacation was interrupted with warnings about al Qaeda activity he dismissed the briefer, saying "OK, you've covered your ass now."

The one the 9/11 commission said Bush couldn't have done anything about. The one the 9/11 commission said was too late. The one the 9/11 commission claimed Bush wasn't given enough information. And he wasn't.

Quit with the hyperbole.

Their intention was to make it collapse but they did almost no damage. That was a failure.

AHAHHAHAHA WRONG!

That wasn't even their intentions for the SECOND WTC Bombing. As a matter of fact, Osama even claims he was SURPRISED it DID go down.

BTW


On Feb. 26, 1993, a car bomb was detonated at the World Trade Center in New York City, killing six people and injuring thousands. The bomb caused extensive damage to the complex. Osama bin Laden is suspected to have been behind the attacks.

In reacting to the attack, Clinton urged calm.

"I would plead with the American people and the good people of New York to keep your courage up and go on about your lives. I would discourage the American people from overreacting to this," Clinton said.

Clinton assured Americans that he had put forth "the full, full resources of the federal law enforcement agencies - all kinds of agencies, all kinds of access to information - at the service of those who are trying to figure out who did this and why."

He also said he would implement a policy of "continued monitoring."

Clinton said the United States was "absolutely determined to oppose the cowardly cruelty of terrorists, wherever we can."

Despite his rhetoric, Clinton made no changes in policy to prevent additional attacks\

"From the time President Clinton took office until May of 1995, a Presidential Decision Directive, PDD 39, sat in the National Security Council, in the In Box of one of the officials with no action taken. The significance of PDD 39 is that it was the document defining what the missions and roles were of combating terrorism," Johnson said.

"Despite what happened at the World Trade Center in 1993, the Clinton administration did not finally act on [PDD 39] until after the attack in Oklahoma City," Johnson said, referring to the 1995 attack in which an American, Timothy McVeigh, detonated a bomb outside the federal building in Oklahoma City, killing 168 people.

"The only reason for that is because in the two weeks prior to Oklahoma City, the front page of both Newsweek and Time Magazine carried the question: 'Is President Clinton Relevant?'"

Chuck Pena, senior defense analyst for the Cato Institute, agreed that Clinton's actions after the 1993 attack failed to match his words.

As far as I know, the only terrorist attack on this country during the Clinton years was a few weeks after he took office, on the WTC. Others were stopped, and there were attacks outside of the US. But do you really want to compare the amount of terrorism during the Clinton years vs. the Bush years? How many Americans have been killed by terrorism during the Bush years? Thousands. Even after 9/11, thousands of Americans have been killed in acts of terrorism under Bush.

I said terrorists attacks against America. Lets not forget the 1996 attack on the US military complex, the 1998 Embassy Bombings killing 258 people, The USS cole etc. I could name more. NOTHING SERIOUS WAS DONE.

I suggest you go back and do some reading about the Clinton years.

[vmarks]

Or, the fact that Arafat was the guest who stayed the most days at the Clinton White House.

The same Arafat who ordered the murder of US Ambassador to Sudan, Cleo Noel.