Who killed more terrorists, Obama or Bush? It depends

Some critics of President Barack Obama take issue with what they see as a cold-hearted attitude toward the threat of terrorism. Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace brought up this criticism in an interview with Obama on April 10.

“And some people wonder, I think the concern is, do you worry about terrorism and feel the threat of terrorism the way they do?” Wallace asked.

“And I would say this: There isn’t a president who’s taken more terrorists off the field than me, over the last seven and a half years,” Obama said. “I’m the guy who calls the families, or meets with them, or hugs them, or tries to comfort a mom, or a dad, or a husband, or a kid, after a terrorist attack. So, let’s be very clear about how much I prioritize this. This is my No. 1 job.”

…

While other recent presidents have dealt with bouts of terrorist activity, such as Bill Clinton’s campaign in Africa and Ronald Reagan’s response to attacks in Lebanon, none have engaged in an extended campaign against terrorists other than Obama and Bush, said Daveed Gartenstein-Ross, senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.

Gartenstein-Ross agreed that Bush likely killed more combatants, but Obama engaged in more targeted attacks, which would mean his operations likely killed more people who would be considered “terrorists” under a strict definition.

Obama’s use of targeted attacks, particularly drone strikes, is the main difference between the two presidents on this question, Gartenstein-Ross added.

Gartenstein-Ross said the fact that the global terrorist threat has grown under Obama renders his claim meaningless. That being said, Gartenstein-Ross said the claim is “reasonable but disputable.”

“It would be impossible without really delving into data, and that data isn’t publicly available,” he added.

…

Read the full article here.