And the rest:
Terrorist attacks and related incidents in the United States

Some of the bigger ones:
Anthrax-laced letters mailed to West Palm Beach, Florida, USA, and New York City, New York, USA
Anthrax-laced letters mailed to Washington, DC
Egyptian gunman kills two Israelis, injures four at the El Al ticket counter at the Los Angeles International Airport
Beltway sniper murders

(05-15-2014 04:36 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(05-15-2014 04:31 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  For starters...the ones in other countries:
13 Benghazis That Occurred on Bush's Watch Without a Peep from Fox News

Yes...I know...they weren't all Americans killed and weren't all on "american soil"

That's a solid list. I don't remember many of those events.

But it does argue that attacks on American soil continued.

I don't think any MSM gave them extensive coverage.

So while you can criticize Bush legitimately for these, I'd also say that the MSM were playing games with this too. If these were more well known, would that have made Bush's War on Terror seem more legitimate? Important?

Bush was famous for manipulating that terror warning level for political gain too. I know you despise Olbermann, but he had a great expose on this. It was way to coincidental to not be a deliberate ploy.

But no, I don't really criticize Bush for these...most were really beyond his control...much like Benghazi was for Obama/Clinton. Again, the only surefire way to even come close to stopping these is to either pour in tons more treasure and troops or to bring everyone home.

Tom, I think we were discussing Hillary's fitness to be president.

I know you enjoy your W rants, but that really was what this thread was about.

(05-15-2014 04:46 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(05-15-2014 04:36 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(05-15-2014 04:31 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  For starters...the ones in other countries:
13 Benghazis That Occurred on Bush's Watch Without a Peep from Fox News

Yes...I know...they weren't all Americans killed and weren't all on "american soil"

That's a solid list. I don't remember many of those events.

But it does argue that attacks on American soil continued.

I don't think any MSM gave them extensive coverage.

So while you can criticize Bush legitimately for these, I'd also say that the MSM were playing games with this too. If these were more well known, would that have made Bush's War on Terror seem more legitimate? Important?

Bush was famous for manipulating that terror warning level for political gain too. I know you despise Olbermann, but he had a great expose on this. It was way to coincidental to not be a deliberate ploy.

But no, I don't really criticize Bush for these.

I'd criticize him for saying there were no attacks on American soil, not for them happening.

(05-15-2014 04:48 PM)Smaug Wrote:  Tom, I think we were discussing Hillary's fitness to be president.

I know you enjoy your W rants, but that really was what this thread was about.

Sorry...I just thought it was relevant to Bush and his supporters claiming that he kept us safe as some sort of accomplishment when asked like Hillary was. And of course, it was totally false.

But yes, Hillary needs to get a better answer...and I'm sure she will...should she run. This will be forgotten yesterday.

Is that an acknowledgement that Hillary hasn't kept us safe?

(05-15-2014 04:54 PM)Smaug Wrote:  Is that an acknowledgement that Hillary hasn't kept us safe?

Dude...it was a joke. Sorry.

(05-15-2014 04:24 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(05-15-2014 04:22 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(05-15-2014 04:04 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(05-15-2014 03:57 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(05-15-2014 03:54 PM)gdunn Wrote:  Technically, any embassy or consulate we have is American soil.

Reagan and Beirut?

30+ years ago, and Reagan's dead. Try to keep up.

Sorry Smaug, but when the right continually ignores things that happened to past presidents and fails to show even an ounce of outrage or critique, that makes them hypocrites when they lambaste the current administration for the same thing, usually acting like it was an unprecedented event.

Al Haig isn't considering a White House run currently.

He'd be better than Hillary.

And yes, I know he's been dead for several years now.

(05-15-2014 04:52 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(05-15-2014 04:48 PM)Smaug Wrote:  Tom, I think we were discussing Hillary's fitness to be president.

I know you enjoy your W rants, but that really was what this thread was about.

Sorry...I just thought it was relevant to Bush and his supporters claiming that he kept us safe as some sort of accomplishment when asked like Hillary was. And of course, it was totally false.

But yes, Hillary needs to get a better answer...and I'm sure she will...should she run. This will be forgotten yesterday.

No...She is a failure. No way I can forget that...regardless of any answer she gives. I am not alone either.

(05-15-2014 04:36 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(05-15-2014 04:31 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  For starters...the ones in other countries:
13 Benghazis That Occurred on Bush's Watch Without a Peep from Fox News

Yes...I know...they weren't all Americans killed and weren't all on "american soil"

That's a solid list. I don't remember many of those events.

Some of these I remember, however, I believe the majority of the 2003-06 those were (IMO) Iraq/Afghanistan war related issues.

The Saudi Arabia ones I remember blurbs about, but not much. The Syria and Yemen ones I don't remember hearing about at all from any media outlets (might have, but I don't remember it).

Can someone fill me in on major accomplishments made by OTHER SoS? I wasnt aware this position was known for its heavy handedness in policy or legislative action.

Genuine question.

(05-15-2014 07:37 PM)JDTulane Wrote:  Can someone fill me in on major accomplishments made by OTHER SoS? I wasnt aware this position was known for its heavy handedness in policy or legislative action.

Genuine question.

William Seward bought Alaska in 1867.

(05-15-2014 07:37 PM)JDTulane Wrote:  Can someone fill me in on major accomplishments made by OTHER SoS? I wasnt aware this position was known for its heavy handedness in policy or legislative action.

Genuine question.

How many sect of state implied their qualified to run for the Presidency of the United States in modern history? None since Buchanan (1849) that I can think of...

(05-15-2014 08:18 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

(05-15-2014 07:37 PM)JDTulane Wrote:  Can someone fill me in on major accomplishments made by OTHER SoS? I wasnt aware this position was known for its heavy handedness in policy or legislative action.

Genuine question.

How many sect of state implied their qualified to run for the Presidency of the United States in modern history? None since Buchanan (1849) that I can think of...

Didnt answer my question. And lets not pretend this is her only political appointment. Let me know when you have an answer to my first question. By the way, 16 other presidents have been senators... just like HRC

(05-15-2014 08:28 PM)JDTulane Wrote:  

(05-15-2014 08:18 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

(05-15-2014 07:37 PM)JDTulane Wrote:  Can someone fill me in on major accomplishments made by OTHER SoS? I wasnt aware this position was known for its heavy handedness in policy or legislative action.

Genuine question.

How many sect of state implied their qualified to run for the Presidency of the United States in modern history? None since Buchanan (1849) that I can think of...

Didnt answer my question. And lets not pretend this is her only political appointment. Let me know when you have an answer to my first question. By the way, 16 other presidents have been senators... just like HRC

Haig: Dealt diffuse the Falkland War situation.

James Baker: Arranged the coalition during the first Iraqi War. One of the few who stood up and said there was no "country" of Palestine. (Threatened to cut off UN funding)

Warren Christopher: Helped expand NATO to include, tried to force China to answer for Human Rights violations. Arranged a temporary peace between Israel and Jordan

Albright: Set up the policy for US activity during the Serb-Croation war. (she came under fire from the Serbians).

Powell: Was responsible for the Iraqi War coalition (note he's said time and time again, he disagreed with some of the policies around the Iraqi war)


Those are just some that are quick finds on the internet..

The SOS's job is pretty much to deal with international treaties/issues. None of our SOS's are perfect, but Id' say most of the others have _something_ worthwhile under their CV....

Thanks... referencing your post to op... Native also had to go to the internet (as would I) to reference SoS sctions. I wouldnt shame people on the spot for having to name an obscure thing. Shrug.


Appreciate the response Native. I was young for most of that.

(05-15-2014 07:37 PM)JDTulane Wrote:  Can someone fill me in on major accomplishments made by OTHER SoS? I wasnt aware this position was known for its heavy handedness in policy or legislative action.

Which would imply that experience as SoS is not a primo qualification to be president. And would probably go a long way toward explaining why no former SoS in recent memory has attempted any claim that it was.

Kissinger did some pretty impressive things but was of course not eligible for the presidency. Cases could be made for John Foster Dulles and Cordell Hull, I suppose.

SoS PLUS senator isnt too shabby though.

I'd say next to Kissinger, I'd say Warren Christopher was probably one of the more impressive SOS's in modern history. And I'd probably disagree with him politically in a lot of his statements.

But I'd guess that as Owl said... If 'being Secretary of State' is not so glamorous, does it really need to be brought up when Democrats say it's a good thing for her if she is going to run for the Presidency

It's one of those positions, where your failures are going to be more notable than their successes. (again, see Albright. Her tenure was pretty weak. No major flubs.. but nothing outstanding.)

(05-15-2014 08:59 PM)JDTulane Wrote:  SoS PLUS senator isnt too shabby though.

We've already gone over that.. find some major legislation that Hillary initiated? Again, don't count any legislation that was co-signed by 30 or 40 senators.

She was a vote, and didn't do much else in that regard, IMO.