>I never said we provoked them.

You didn't have to.

>But the truth be known, the Bush clan has done NOTHING to prevent more
>attacks. Report after Report has come out in the last 3 years stating
>that security is no better now that it was then, and that another
>major attack is imminent.
>
>Add to that a completely unjustified invasion of an arab country. Why
>wouldn't they attack us?
>
>And you fell safer.

Sure do.

And I could find as many reports that say that security is much greater:

America is safer under the Bush administration because Clinton's Department of Justice had "a wall of separation" between the intelligence division and the criminal division. The divisions were not allowed to communicate with each other (the memo with these instructions to DOJ divisions was issued by the lovely Jamie Gorelick, who pretended to be a disinterested Commissioner on the 9/11 Commission). Remember everyone complaining we didn’t connect the dots? Well that's why. One of the first things Ashcroft did when the Bush administration got into office, was to go to court to bring down that wall. Subsequent to succeeding in this endeavor, the left complained that this violates civil rights (they claim to fear the FBI and the CIA will pursue common criminals if communication is allowed.)

Under Bush, we treat terrorism as an act of war. We have more options in terms of interrogation, detaining, aggression, pre-emption, etc. Under Clinton, we treated terrorist acts as crimes. When someone is a criminal, the government cannot prosecute them until after the crime is completed. We cannot take preventative measures. Kerry has stated that if elected President, he will return to treating terrorist acts as crimes.

The Patriot Act exists to protect our country from terrorism. The left complains about "potential civil rights violations" mostly because they cannot point to any actual civil rights violations. If you read the whole act, there are several safeguards, requiring court approval for wiretaps with a standard of requirements, etc. Every tactic in the Patriot Act is already allowable for racketeering activities: ought we not to be able to extend the same techniques to terrorist activities? There is no new authority in the Act. Rather, the old authority is just applied to a different breed of "criminal," that is, terrorists.

Under Bush, three of the eight countries on the terrorism list have had their governments overthrown or have voluntarily given up various weapons programs (Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya). All this was accomplished in less than four years.

Under Clinton, we underwent the WTC bombing of '93 with no consequences to the actors. We underwent the bombing of the USS Cole with no consequences to the actors. We underwent the bombing of the African Embassies with no consequences to the actors. After awhile, don't you wake up and realize, that allowing terrorist acts to go without consequences to the terrorists emboldens them? It sends a message that they can get away with it. It results in consequences to us. That's just what happened on 9/11.

Then, some of us woke up and realized that patience and tolerance are nice qualities, but not at the expense of innocent American lives. We must open our eyes and acknowledge that there is a threat to the freedom of America and to the west. There is a threat to our lifestyle. That threat is fundamentalist Islam, although many don't like to call it by name. Whether it represents the true Islamic theology or not, I can't say. I can only say that there is a pattern throughout the world of who is committing terrorist acts, against whom and in whose name are they doing it. They say they want to obliterate Israel. I believe them. They say they want to kill millions of innocent Americans including children. I believe them. They say they will not stop their ploys of mass murder until they stop the infidels. I believe them.

George Bush and John Ashcroft are working hard to make sure these terrorists do not succeed in their goals. Kerry on the other hand, was too busy the last few weeks to attend a briefing on terrorist chatter that surrounds the upcoming conventions. Some on the left do not believe the terrorist threat is real, even in the face of the numerous terrorist acts already carried out. Others believe it is real, but have an attitude that we will have to tolerate its continuance in the future, as Europe does. This is not acceptable to me. I hope it is not acceptable to you.

Ms. Theresa Heinz-Kerry spoke to the Arab-American Conference, and assured them that she and her husband do not believe in racial profiling for Arabs from terrorist states (I heard the clip; I couldn't make this up.) She thinks this is bigotry. Instead, she and her husband would like to put us all in danger for the sake of making a politically correct statement. Bush on the other hand, has already intercepted numerous attempts at terrorism. Thanks to Bush and Ashcroft, these attempts have been thwarted. In NYC alone, at least five major attempts to blow up bridges, tunnels, etc., were rendered unsuccessful. Dick Morris explains that the biggest reason Bush might be down in the polls is because he has done too good of a job. He has sought to prevent additional attacks after 9/11 and so far he has succeeded. As a result, Americans have become complacent. They think we are back to normal. They are living in a 9/10 world, but thank G-d, we have a President who is not. His name is George Bush, and we are all safer today because he and his administration are in office.

All from: www.blogsforbush.com/mt/archives/001503.html