Originally posted by: Fern
I don't see the logical fallacy you refer to. (But I might see another one)
All your posts on this subject boil down to two options:
1. AQ et al weren't going to attack us during these last 8 yrs, or
2. The GWB's efforts kept us safe.
Because you've not seen any proof of #2, you seem to consider it just as likely, if not more so, that #1 is the reason we haven't been attacked. (Might just as well ask you and others to prove that; it would be fair in the context of your argument)
You're really offering a new logical fallacy, a false dichotomy. There are other options. For example. Option 3: "Other factors, including preexisting intelligence and defense capabilities kept us safe," Option 4: "Other countries' efforts kept us safe," and, most of all, Option 5: "Some combination of all of the above."
In any case, I think the discussion is a bit misdirected. The real question isn't whether the Bush administration did
anything to deter future attacks, but whether the changes and actions of the Bush administration, especially those most controversial for infringing civil liberties, human rights, and international law, were materially more effective than the laws and capabilities already in place -- and -- were their actions and changes a net positive for U.S. security, or did they make us less safe overall, e.g., by inflaming anti-U.S. sentiments? Unfortunately, that is a far more complex question, even more difficult to answer with any degree of certainty.
The "rock and tiger" thingy is cute (which is basically your argument), but unlike the tiger we know that there are many America-hating terrorists around.
It is just an analogy to help make the logical fallacy more apparent. That is the purpose of analogy.
IMO, you won't get the proof you demand for quite some time. To detail the plots and how they were thwarted does nothing but help terrorists plan. Info on what went wrong is of great use for the next plot.
Agreed, it would be reckless to reveal too many details of how our covert capabilities may have thwarted potential attacks.
Clinton is widely given credit for the ecomony under his admin (and the dot.com bubble usually ignored), I suspect by you as well. Clinton also never misses an opportunity to claim that credit either. Yet there is no proof that it was due to his efforts. It simply was a pretty good economy that occurred under his watch. Therefor, why is so hard to accept that GWB gets credit for the lack of terror attacks that likewise occurred under his watch? Is it something partisan on your behalf?
Fern
Two wrongs don't make a right. It is fair to point out the economy thrived while Clinton was in office. It is fair to point out there were no
additional terrorist attacks within the United States
after 9/11. It is not correct to assert as fact that Clinton caused the booming economy -- something many of the righties in this very thread regularly point out -- nor is it correct to assert as fact that Bush prevented any future attacks on the U.S. Strangely enough, that is what the OP said ... so what's the problem?