New poll: Obama's approval rating high among Latinos

[BedHead]

<p>

I’ll assume that the fear-mongering tactics must have a negative impact on your life for you to decry the existence of counter-measures. Despite the negatives of heightened control, I doubt that the alternative of the abject laissez-faire policies of the Clinton administration is one we’d like to return to. Under that administration, the United States was repeatedly victimized by attacks abroad that all culminated into the 9/11 attack on US soil.

</p>

<p>Ha ha. Haven’t you forgotten that Bush was president when 9/11 occurred, had been warned ahead of time about OBL’s determination to attack within the US and ignored it?</p>

<p>Such revisionism.</p>

<p>I would say that as a society we were unguarded. But to lay it the feet of Clinton is really disingenous.</p>

[RatedPG]

<p>BedHead, if Clinton was effective on his watch, 9/11 wouldn’t be one of most tragic parts of our history. It is due to Clinton’s lack of action that OSB was still even a threat when GWB came to office. That is historical fact.</p>

[BedHead]

<p>

BedHead, if Clinton was effective on his watch, 9/11 wouldn’t be one of most tragic parts of our history. It is due to Clinton’s lack of action that OSB was still even a threat when GWB came to office. That is historical fact.

</p>

<p>If the Bush Administration had paid attention to the outgoing C. Administration’s grave warnings about OBL, we might have avoided 9/11. That is historical fact.</p>

<p>And then later in his Administration he was warned:</p>

<p>[Bin</a> Laden Determined to Strike in U.S - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bin_Laden_Determined_to_Strike_in_U.S]Bin”>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bin_Laden_Determined_to_Strike_in_U.S).</p>

[unregistered]

<p>xiggi, I don’t know why you are on about this. Are you just so eager to insult Clinton that you attribute completely irrelevant thoughts to me? I stated that neither the Republicans nor the Democrats have a monopoly on fighting terrorism. No, I also never advocated a laissez-faire approach. But I never saw the benefits of shifting our focus away from fighting terrorism in Afghanistan (does Bush even care about bin Laden?) and pouring our resources into the Iraq war.</p>

[RatedPG]

<p>Bedhead… please Wikepedia?</p>

[Newjack88]

<p>

Never said that - I was citing a “typical” scare tactic used by dems agaist Republicans. That’s all - no reference to anyone other than recipients of SS.

</p>

<p>The way your post was written suggested you were.</p>

[tiff90]

<p>The biggest reason groups of jihadist hate the US, and participates in 9/11, it due to US intervention in middle east affairs.
9/11 occurred for a variety of reasons, notably our needless intervention(US once supported al quadi). Bush’s early adminstration may not have considered osama as big a threat as he is considered now, but perhaps if the US wasn’t constantly meddling in middle eastern affairs, there would not be so much anti us sentiment.
The us made many mistakes, including originally supporting osama and saddamm, and as we now consider both men dangerous, we in essence created the problem.
Now do legal, latino citizens support strict immigration? I don’t see why any politician would make policies to only satisfy the illegal latinos/</p>