Terrorists Attacks Under Clinton, Bush & Obama (A handy graph!)

[Clio the Leo]

Be sure to share with all of your wingnut "friends"....

TERRORIST ATTACKS AND PRESIDENTS

I compiled a pair of graphs to illustrate incidents of terrorism during each of the last three presidents, including President Obama, as a means of locking down what happened and when.

In terms of methodology, I covered the following types of terrorist attacks against American personnel, civilians and interests:

1) Domestic (Abortion-related attacks, Oklahoma City, Unabomber, Anthrax)

2) Domestic Islamic (9/11, WTC 1993, Beltway Snipers, Chapel Hill)

3) Overseas Islamic (Iraq, Afghanistan, USS Cole, Embassy Bombings)

4) Known Failed Attempts (Shoe Bomber, Underpants Bomber)

5) Overseas Attacks Against U.S. Allies (London, Madrid).

These categories should cover the basic forms of terrorist attacks against Americans whether abroad or on our soil.







http://www.bobcesca.com/blog-archives/2010/01/terrorist_attac.html

And I think it's important to note that a few of the domestic terrorist attacks under the Clinton watch were perpetrated by some regular old white boys. (So we dont have to count it, right? Because they were just enjoying in their second amendment right? heh)

[NewLIfeArea]

1. you should

email to rudy giuliani's.

[tekisui]

2. Sad that we have to quantify it and keep score.

This should not be a partisan issue. The neo-cons have been politicizing terror for so long, that we have come to accept the frame.

If there is another mass-casualty terrorist attack, we are fucked. It will be politicized immediately. President Obama is saying the right things to advert this and I hope people are getting it.

[MadMaddie]

3. You are right it should be a non-partisan issue

but the Repugs refuse to acknowledge their history and their truth.

[Clio the Leo]

4. "Some non-white guy just tried to blow up a plane!"

"Send me some money!"

Fortunately, these opinions are out of the norm .... unfortunately, these opinions have microphones in front of their mouths.

[liquid diamond]

7. Sad but true. We can forget about achieving that unity

we had after 9/11. If a terrorist attack of that scale happens again, the republicans will ramp up their fear mongering in hopes of getting more seats or the presidency. I swear they want Americans to die for their political gain.

[LARED]

5. The trend does not look good for Obama - nt

[iamjoy]

6. Yep, After 8 Years...

I think if Obama is re-elected, the number of terrorist attacks under his two terms will exceed that of Dubya. I don't think it really has to do with their success in the "War on Terror" I just think terrorism is increasing and a lot of it comes down to luck, too.

[jgraz]

8. Since Bush insists we were fighting "terrorists" in Iraq, every US military death should be counted

Also, I the title "Terrorist attacks *by* president" made me think it was a different metric. I bet Bush wins that one as well.

[skipos]

9. kr

[inthebrain]

10. Well, we've been attacked by the capitalists under every administration

If that helps to even things up a bit.

[Bongo Prophet]

11. He should add the foiled New Year 2000 attack(s) under Clinton admin n/t

[Scurrilous]

12. K & R

:thumbsup:

[Phx_Dem]

13. Your graph must be wrong. There were no terrorist attacks under Bush

Mr. 9/11 said so.

:rofl:

Edited to add: Excellent job on your graphs!

[hileeopnyn8d]

14. He didn't count

the Katrina deaths as a domestic act of terrorism by the Bush admin.

[Bragi]

15. This is a high-risk political argument for dems

My personal view is that the "Terrorist Attacks Per President" measurement is meaningless and is a politically high-risk one for Democrats to make.

Why it is meaningless is that this comparative ratio assumes that Presidents should always be able to stop all terrorist attacks, and that if an attack occurs, it is therefore the fault of the sitting President.

This is nonsense. It's the terrorists who decide when and where to attack, not the President. What a President may contribute to this through his/her actions is to foster conditions that promote hostility to the US, and therefore make potential terrorist attacks more likely.

Bush was the greatest President ever at creating global animosity towards the U.S, and it seems most likely to me that the resulting Bush-nurtured attacks will take place during Obama's tenure.

I think it would be better for the Dems to portray these attacks as part of Bush's legacy.

- B

[samsingh]

16. k & R

[Soylent Brice]

17. K&R and bookmarked.

[krispos42]

18. Heh, I just used the middle one on Fark n/t