Who's Tougher On Security

I'd like to talk about how the Republicans who claim they are tougher on security. I'd like to give some facts about who really is tougher.

First let's take a look at President Bill Clinton. He had 4 major attacks on America during his presidency. Well two in America one ship and the African Embassies.The two attacks that occured in Oklahoma City and the first World Trade Center attacks the people were caught, tried, convicted and either executed, or got life sentences. Now with the case with the U.S.S. Cole and the African Embassies that were attacked, I feel he gave into the right wing media on that. How do you ask? He was bombing the bases in Sudan where Osama Bin Laden was allegedly at and after hearing from the right wing media about "no war for Monica" and "wag the dog" because the right wing at that time didn't feel Osama was a threat I guess and they were out to embarass President Clinton (who did a good job embarassing himself). Now if President Clinton was allowed to continue to attack instead of caving into the right wing maybe Osama would have been caught and MAYBE 9/11 would not have happened.

Now we have George Bush. 9/11 happened under his watch. He started off right in attacking Afghanastan (where Bin Laden had reportedly been) BUT instead of continuing the fight, in fact cornering Bin Laden at Tora Bora but instead of continuing the fight there and perhaps at least capturing at most killing Bin Laden, he decided to remove the troops in the area and invade Iraq. Meanwhile he's selling our ports to a country that supports terror and has told the terrorists "bring it on" daring them to attack again, which they will.

By the way number of people convicted under Bush for terrorism: 0 so far.

So who is tougher?