This argument is really silly.
We are winning the "war on Alligators" here in California too.
Or put it another way... Clinton was hugely successful in his "war on terror" by limiting Al Quiada attacks on US soil to one attempt on the WTC in 1993.
BTW we are winning the "war on glaciers" in Hawaii.
I'm having trouble finding the logic in your position.
1) Alligators are not a threat to California. Your example is inapplicable.
2) Any terrorist attacks on US soil are unacceptable. The terrorist threat of today is the result of years of downsizing our intelligence community (partly under Clinton, as well as Bush Sr). So no, Clinton was NOT
successful in limiting terrorist attacks to "one" because that "one" is unacceptable. Neither Clinton's nor Bush Jr's administation took a hint from the bombing of the WTC in '93, the bombing of the USS Cole, nor the bombing the US Embassy. So no, your illustration shows a great example of failure, not success; the opposite of what I assume you were intending to produce.
3) Glaciers are not a threat to the Hawaii. This example is inapplicable.
During the war with Iraq, thousands of terrorists trained to kill Americans, Austrailians, French, British, Tiawanese and other citizens of free countries, poured out of training camps and into Iraq to get a shot at coalition GI's. Thousands were subsequently dispatched or captured. Every one of them who died in Iraq, means one less potential suicide bomber. Yes, I call that a victory.
