We Were Just As Safe Under Clinton

One of the great rallying cries for Bush Administration supporters has been the absence of a single terrorist attack on American soil in the seven years since 9/11.  I'm 100% confident that every American is happy that we've not suffered through another attack..  But Stephen Bainbridge finds a problem with the argument:

Between the 1993 car bombing of the WTC and 9/11, there was no significant Islamofascist terrorist attack on US soil. If Bush deserves credit for the absence of attacks during the last 7 years, doesn’t Clinton deserve credit for the absence of attacks up to 9/11? Conversely, if we think Clinton deserves no credit because other factors can be cited to explain the hiatus under his administration, would we not likewise deny Bush credit?

Bainbridge also notes the price we've paid for that safety during the Bush years (and, conversely, didn't have to pay in the Clinton years):

...we managed to win an 8 year hiatus between 1993 and 2001 without waging a preemptive war on Iraq, restricting civil liberties, torture, creating an American Gulag (Guantanamo, Baghram, renditions, etc....) and so on.

(h/t Daily Dish)