But is he being completely honest? Under the Clinton administration there was one major act of foreign terrorism committed on US soil and it was the 1993 World Trade Center Bombing of 1993. The bombings were forseen by the Clinton Administration's FBI and, though they did not arrest the people to stop the bombings, apparently they made efforts to minimize the casualties. Compared with what happened during the next Trade Center attack the actions in advance could be viewed as successful although strange. 1,042 people were injured and 6 were killed.
After this attack we were never attacked again on US soil by foreign terrorists during the Clinton years. This was accomplished without the dramatic theater of exaggerated crackdown's on civil liberties. If we are to go by former Vice President Cheney's logic then without the enactment of harsh reductions of American rights we remained safer than under an administration which advocated for and enacted them. The idea the Patriot Act alone is responsible for the fact we were never attacked again is ridiculous.
The worst act of terrorism under the Clinton Administration's watch came not from foreign terrorists, but homegrown ones. The Oklahoma City bombings of April 19, 1995 are the second worst act of terrorism ever carried out on US soil.
The perpetrators believeds the US was being taken over by African Americans, Jews and other religious, racial and ethnic minorities and the federal government was responsible. They carried out an act of violent extremism meant not just to damage property, but to take lives as a political statement and act of war against our government.
No other acts of serious domestic terrorism were ever carried out again during the Clinton Administration. The administration did not need to target a specific group of Americans to succeed, or to clamp down heavily on our rights as Americans. They raised the alert level and law enforcement agencies simply did their jobs. No taking away of civil liberties or ensuing theatrical performances were needed as they were able to keep us safe without having to.
Under the Bush administration in addition to the 9/11 attacks other acts of terrorism were committed including anthrax being mailed across the country to various citizens and members of congress. These were not jihadists from Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Syria or other terrorist hotspots in the Middle East. The main suspect was a domestic scientist and citizen Bruce Ivins who committed suicide before being arrested. There was also the D.C. sniper. The claim no other acts following 9/11 of terrorism were committed on US soil is lie.
Former Vice President Dick Cheney also promotes the idea that actions including Guantanamo Bay, torture and Abu Ghraib made us more safe and not less. He says the idea these actions act as a recruiting tools for groups like Al Qaeda and other potential terrorist threats is not true. But for many years it has been acknowledged in the intelligence community our actions have a direct impact on our safety regarding terrorism. In 1998 Ivan Eland, Director of Defense Policy Studies at the Cato Institute, had this to say:
"According to the Pentagon's Defense Science Board, a strong correlation exists between U.S involvement in international situations and an increase in terrorist attacks against the United States. President Clinton has also acknowledged that link... The numerous incidents cataloged suggest that the United States could reduce the chances of such devastating--and potentially catastrophic--terrorist attacks by adopting a policy of military restraint overseas."
This was roughly three years before the 2001 attacks in New York by foreign extremists. President Obama is right in that our actions overseas are known to provide impetus for foreign nationals to want to attack us and we need to be wise with our choices. This is not the first time former Vice President Dick Cheney has used this line to attempt to scare the American public. During the 2004 elections he said this about his opponents:
"If we make the wrong choice, then the danger is that we'll get hit again -- that we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States... And then we'll fall back into the pre-9/11 mindset, if you will, that in fact these terrorist attacks are just criminal acts and that we're not really at war. I think that would be a terrible mistake for us."
His spokeswoman Anne Womack had this to say:
"The vice president stands by his quote in context... Whoever is elected in November faces the prospect of another terrorist attack. The question is whether or not we have the right policies in place to best protect our country. That's what the vice president said." Thus, from the words of the former vice president's own spokeswoman they believed it was well within the realm of possibilities that even after the implementation of the Patriot Act and under his own administration's watch it was likely we would be attacked again. If he was so concerned why did he ignore the August 6th 2001 report warning of attacks in the first place?
Of course, we knew of possibilities of such attacks long before this. The Strategic Studies Institute of the U.S. Army War College in May 1995 published a report which stated:
"One only has to consider what might have happened if the pilot of the lone single-engine light aircraft which crashed into the White House had filled his plane with something as simple as a fertilizer bomb. That incident, even if it was not a terrorist act, should serve as a warning for those who are concerned with more advanced technological threats. They should remember that smaller and more conventional instruments of destruction are still quite lethal and can have a profound affect on the targeted individual, corporation, government or what is often the ultimate target: public opinion."
Just as with murderers, bank robbers, drug dealers, corrupt politicians or any other criminal element if the opportunity is there, and it always will be, someone will perpetrate. The idea President Obama's tactics are less safe than the Bush administration's is ridiculous. Going back decades FBI statistics show 23 acts of terrorism were prevented in 1985, and no sweeping blockades to constitutional liberties were needed.
The current president stocked his administration full of people from the administration just prior to the Bush administration's which with regards to terrorism had a better record. If we are to go by Dick Cheney's logic we should be safer now than before.
The truth is we really don't know when or where the next attack will occur, and realistically, one will most likely occur again at some point. That is tragic but true. It doesn't help the nation to have former leaders trying to weave scary tales so when it does happen they can say, "now elect us and it won't ever happen again." It's so obvious it's pathetic. What we need now is realism not more b.s. Apparently former Vice President Dick Cheney has decided to ignore that memo.

To read about my inspiration for this article go to www.lawsuitagainstuconn.com.