Which Party Is Soft on Terror? Update - Again.

Most of this information has shown up on many different political blogs but this is the first time I've seen it all put together chronologically.

Update: That link didn't work from my computer and I know it's correct. Try the link in the post title which goes to his blog. As of now, it's the top post.

The link above now works. Somehow I hit "paste" twice and didn't notice. Thanks, Jerry.

The Clinton administration has been accused of being soft on terrorism. It's a lie, repeated over and over by cynical, greedy neo-cons who care only about their own pockets and nothing about the security of this country.

Thanks to Sheanc for pulling it all together in his latest post (which includes two of his earlier posts - probably where I read much of it before).

He lists in detail the steps Clinton took to combat terrorism. Each time he was defeated by a Republican congress. He warned of Osama and was ridiculed. Congress was so intent on destroying him from the moment he took office (and I'll admit he provided the ammunition in his second term) that they paid no attention to what the Democrats were saying. It didn't fit in with their long range plans which were to take over all three branches of government in any way possible no matter how many lies they had to tell and how many people were hurt.

Between Whitewater and Monica, they wasted 8 years and now they're blaming everyone but themselves.

And 9/11 happened.

It's a long post but well worth reading. Almost no ranting, just a documented list of attempts by the Clinton administration and the "success" of the Republicans in shooting down almost every one.

Ann