On that point, too, I would say to my good friend from Virginia, one thing that I think Americans understand is that we now live in an age where we have to preempt, we have to go abroad, we have to go after the bad guys. That is what this President has done aggressively. He has gone after the bad guys. Up to that point we had had attacks on the Cole, we had attacks on embassies, we had terrorist acts around the world and we threw a few cruise missiles. We got a pharmacy knocked out, a pharmaceutical plant, and a relatively empty training ground in Afghanistan and two Chihuahuas and I do not think we hit the Chihuahuas under a previous administration, and I am being facetious. Actually, they were not effective enough to get Chihuahuas. So we had a very limited response to terrorist acts against our people. It killed our people. This President has gone after the bad guys in a furious way, and we have taken out terrorists in places where they never thought we would show up.
On the recordApril 28, 2004
Source
govinfo.govEditor's note · Context
Discussing the U.S. military response to terrorism during a debate on national security.
Share
More from Andrew P. Hunter
Feb 11, 2015
What we found is that the magnitude of the reduction in contract obligations for R&D is much greater than what you see overall.
May 22, 2008
We have general officers, flag officers who go over to Iraq, Afghanistan just as they have gone to every war theater we've fought in. They talk to their colleagues. Their colleagues give them the facts as they see the facts. They come…
May 22, 2008
Once again, the gentlelady talked about a strategic framework agreement. That does manifest security commitments, and that does have to be ratified. But that is not the Status of Forces Agreement. The Status of Forces Agreement is simply…





