There's no proof that Bush's actions prevented a terrorist attack

[amish]

Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot
Bush should have done more to prevent 9-11.

like tell clinton to take up the offer from Sudan for OBL on a silver platter while clinton was in office???

Text

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
-snip-
I'm not obsessed with his failure, I'm merely pointing out the logical fallacy of Bush and his greatest supporters claiming that he kept America safe. For all we know, doing absolutely nothing could have kept us safe, or who knows?

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)

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.

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.

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

 

[jonks]

Al Qaeda & Co. has killed over 4000 US troops in Iraq and injured over 30,000 more. Just because they didn't use a plane crashing into a building in NYC doesn't mean Bush kept us safe. Our military is not fodder to be used as target dummies in place of civilians. He started a war with a country that hadn't attacked us and had no plans to. Our men and women who died there were not kept safe, and they were Americans.

If 5000 people died on US soil and another 30,000 were seriously injured, I don't think we'd be hailing the president for how safe he kept us. Just because Americans died on foreign soil doesn't make their deaths irrelevent. It's pathetic if Bush views it that way, as his rhetoric seems to indicate.

(And let us not forget the tens of thousands of iraqi civilians whose deaths our coming brought.)

 

[imported_inspire]

"President Bush was the president at a time when our nation was attacked, he clearly saw the dangers, he pursued the enemy, he put tools in place so the professionals could better protect the people, and the homeland was not attacked."

Nowhere in that quote does Bush direct attribute the lack of attacks to be a result of his policies. If people want to draw that conclusion, then it is they who have committed a logical fallacy.

Nothing to see here.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
-snip-
I'm not obsessed with his failure, I'm merely pointing out the logical fallacy of Bush and his greatest supporters claiming that he kept America safe. For all we know, doing absolutely nothing could have kept us safe, or who knows?

I don't see the logical fallacy you refer to. (But I might see another one)

Okay, please explain. I believe the fallacy I've already pointed out (Post hoc, ergo propter hoc) suits this situation perfectly, but perhaps you've thought of something I have not.

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)

Asking me to prove anything at this point doesn't make much sense since I'm not the one making the claim. Remember, this is about Bush and his supporters making the case that he's "made America safe" during his presidency. I'm merely pointing out the logical fallacy inherent in that assertion.

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.

If you lived in the mangroves, you'd say otherwise. It's all a matter of perspective. Primitives living in grass huts fear the tiger, go try and tell them otherwise, especially after one of them gets mauled.

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.

Aha! The old "proof is on its way . . . in, ohhhhh, 30 years or so" argument. Yeah, well in lieu of that, you have nothing. Either you submit the proof now, or quit making the statement. In what parallel universe is it acceptable to make an assertion and then make everyone wait 30 years for your explanation? Ridiculous!

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

I've attributed the 2001 recession to Clinton numerous times around here, go check into it if you'd like. Again, remember, this isn't about me, and it's not about Clinton, it's about Bush's claim and his supporter's similar claims.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: inspire

"President Bush was the president at a time when our nation was attacked, he clearly saw the dangers, he pursued the enemy, he put tools in place so the professionals could better protect the people, and the homeland was not attacked."

Nowhere in that quote does Bush direct attribute the lack of attacks to be a result of his policies. If people want to draw that conclusion, then it is they who have committed a logical fallacy.

Nothing to see here.

Nice try, but you obviously didn't read my OP wherein I very clearly attribute the quote to Tara Wall, the one writing about Bush's legacy, not Bush himself.

Although, now that you mention it, I'm quite sure I could piece together several Bush "legacy cheer-leading" exit interviews and show you a pattern in which Bush himself either directly claims to have made America safe during his presidency or alludes to it.

In lieu of doing so, however, you'd have to be a complete tool not to understand what Bush is saying in the statement you quoted above. He was president when the nation was attacked -> he clearly saw the dangers -> he pursued the enemy -> he put tools in place -> to better protect the people -> AND (big conclusion here) ... the homeland was not attacked.

What else but for his actions and policies was the homeland not attacked? Maybe you should ponder his words a little longer?

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: Fern
-snip-

-snip-

I think in a way you're dancing all around it.

GWB was responsible for keeping Americans here safe and preventing another terrorist attack.

There was no other terror attack.

If that's not good enough for you, and you demand detailed proof before you're satisfied; fine, that's your right. But I disagree with your claim that others holding a different opinion are irrational etc (subject to logical fallacies or whatever).

Because you aren't getting the proof you demand does not mean that proof doesn't exist. If you're holding to that opinion, well, that IS a logical fallicy

Fern

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Q: In what parallel universe is it acceptable to make an assertion and then make everyone who is not cleared for the supporting information wait 30 years for your explanation?

fixed.

A: The Intelligence Community's universe. All one must do to gain residence in said universe is give up most of their personal freedoms and swear to work in service to the nation, for mediocre pay, for the rest of their lives.

You still want in?

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: Fern
-snip-

-snip-

I think in a way you're dancing all around it.

GWB was responsible for keeping Americans here safe and preventing another terrorist attack.

There was no other terror attack.

If that's not good enough for you, and you demand detailed proof before you're satisfied; fine, that's your right. But I disagree with your claim that others holding a different opinion are irrational etc (subject to logical fallacies or whatever).

Because you aren't getting the proof you demand does not mean that proof doesn't exist. If you're holding to that opinion, well, that IS a logical fallicy

Fern

Frankly, I'm a bit surprised that you're employing the same logical fallacy and without apologies to boot. Nicely played, sir, but why bother? You're not getting anywhere with this approach and you may as well admit the fact that it is simply unknowable whether Bush's policies or actions had any affect whatsoever.

 

[DealMonkey]

Let me give you a similar example, and let's see if we can understand this clearly:

The Republicans pass a new tax reform law that benefits wealthly Americans. Shortly thereafter the economy takes a nose dive. The Democrats claim that the the tax reform caused the economic woes and they push to get rid of it.

Are the Democrats right? Or is the situation so complex, with so many actions and players involved, that it's outright impossible to know whether the tax bill caused the economic downturn, or whether it was one (or a combination) of a thousand other reasons?

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Q: In what parallel universe is it acceptable to make an assertion and then make everyone who is not cleared for the supporting information wait 30 years for your explanation?

fixed.

A: The Intelligence Community's universe. All one must do to gain residence in said universe is give up most of their personal freedoms and swear to work in service to the nation, for mediocre pay, for the rest of their lives.

You still want in?

Do you know something we don't?

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Do you know something we don't?

I probably know a million things you don't... and vice versa.

My "things" just happen to be more relevant to this topic...

 

[Lemon law]

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Q: In what parallel universe is it acceptable to make an assertion and then make everyone who is not cleared for the supporting information wait 30 years for your explanation?

fixed.

A: The Intelligence Community's universe. All one must do to gain residence in said universe is give up most of their personal freedoms and swear to work in silent service to the nation, for mediocre pay, for the rest of their lives.

You still want in?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

HAHAHAHA, that indeed is quite a contention palehorse, we are talking about the same dedicated professionals that supported a Batista, and we ended up with a Castro, the same smucks who supported a SHah of Iran and we ended up with an
Ayatollah, the very same people that supported a Pinochet, the very same visionaries that made Saddam Hussein into our man in the mid-east, and the same intelligence community universe who invited Ossama Bin Laden into Afghanistan
in the first place. Shall I keep listing more backfires?

In short, that intelligence community of yours, is more of a case of with friends like those, we do not need enemies. You have not exactly been very good at delivering results, but you sure claim we should support those failed and failing time and time again policies.

Its not that I want in, I want out and an end to failed stinking thinking of your lack of intelligence community.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
HAHAHAHA, that indeed is quite a contention palehorse, we are talking about the same dedicated professionals that supported a Batista, and we ended up with a Castro, the same smucks who supported a SHah of Iran and we ended up with an Ayatollah, the very same people that supported a Pinochet, the very same visionaries that made Saddam Hussein into our man in the mid-east, and the same intelligence community universe who invited Ossama Bin Laden into Afghanistan in the first place. Shall I keep listing more backfires?

In short, that intelligence community of yours, is more of a case of with friends like those, we do not need enemies. You have not exactly been very good at delivering results, but you sure claim we should support those failed and failing time and time again policies.

Its not that I want in, I want out and an end to failed stinking thinking of your lack of intelligence community.

For every large-scale intelligence failure that makes headlines, there are thousands of successes that will never see the light of day.

So, say what you will from the blissfully ignorant sidelines... your opinion is as worthless as your contribution -- or lack thereof.

 

[JS80]

So Obama said that we must not give up our ideals for security (or whatever the wording was) he was implying that he's going to weaken intelligence......it just sounds like you're setting up for if there is a terrorist attack after he makes those moves to give the excuse "it was only a matter of time you can't prove it was Obama's fault."

I hope Obama's not dumb enough to do something so stupid, but it looks like he's going to get a pass from the lefties anyway.

 

[heyheybooboo]

You will respect my authority

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Do you know something we don't?

I probably know a million things you don't... and vice versa.

My "things" just happen to be more relevant to this topic...

Also, I want to briefly address this notion that somehow Bush stopped another 9/11-style attack and simply cannot talk about it without risking our national security.

While this may be true to some extent, clearly there are a million ways to communicate such a thwarted attack without compromising nat'l security.

For starters, he could have at any time called a press conference, stared into the camera and said, "Our national security team in conjunction with our intelligence agencies just thwarted an attack on the scale of 9/11." End of story. He communicates the good news without a single detail that could compromise national security. Did he do this at any point? Nope.

A second scenario, would be for Bush and/or the intel agency heads to brief Congress in a secret session, or at minimum, brief the House and Senate Intelligence Committee. Surely, these people are well-vetted and have super secret double blind handshake clearance, right?

But did any of this happen? Of course not.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Do you know something we don't?

I probably know a million things you don't... and vice versa.

My "things" just happen to be more relevant to this topic...

Also, I want to briefly address this notion that somehow Bush stopped another 9/11-style attack and simply cannot talk about it without risking our national security.

While this may be true to some extent, clearly there are a million ways to communicate such a thwarted attack without compromising nat'l security.

For starters, he could have at any time called a press conference, stared into the camera and said, "Our national security team in conjunction with our intelligence agencies just thwarted an attack on the scale of 9/11." End of story. He communicates the good news without a single detail that could compromise national security. Did he do this at any point? Nope.

A second scenario, would be for Bush and/or the intel agency heads to brief Congress in a secret session, or at minimum, brief the House and Senate Intelligence Committee. Surely, these people are well-vetted and have super secret double blind handshake clearance, right?

But did any of this happen? Of course not.

Congress as a whole is a proven intelligence disaster. Just ask Lyndon Johnson.

 

[conehead433]

This administration claimed on several occasions to have stopped some serious terrorist threats that almost always proved to be outright lies. One such example was a supposed plot to blow up the gas storage at Dulles. They stopped it but it turned out to be some kids 30 miles away who couldn't have lit their own farts. There have been several others the Bush admin tried to claim they stopped but the only credible threat we've had in recent years was an attempt to blow up planes flying over the Atlantic, and that plot was thwarted by the British.

 

[Lemon law]

No seriously, we have to examine the palehorse contention of "For every large-scale intelligence failure that makes headlines, there are thousands of successes that will never see the light of day.

So, say what you will from the blissfully ignorant sidelines... your opinion is as worthless as your contribution -- or lack thereof."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Missing in action is any of those thousands of successes palehorse alludes to, or if those successes merely blunt the repercussion of our failed prior policies.

All we know now is that our lack of intelligence or long range vision intelligence community seem to be total failures in delivering positive long term results.

And when it does not make me safer yet, as an American taxpayer, I must question and oppose those very policies that bring STINKING RESULTS.

I can't honestly debate you when you refuse to present your side. And then it simply defaults to the undeniable conclusion that the policies you advocate are failing and failing badly. Or defaults to your assertion that father knows best when
daddy has MADE THE WORLD A MORE DANGEROUS PLACE.

Its not that I root for the Taliban, its a matter that when they are winning, there is something honestly wrong with that picture you can't cure with your fantasies. In a war of ideas we are losing due to failed policies.

Please put up or shut up on those thousands of successes so it can honestly be debated.

 

[Nemesis 1]

Ya maybe there were no more attacks. But the one that got threw was a good one . I was watching the news when the first report came . As they were talking I seen another jet off to my right. I little while later that same jet entered my left and struck second tower . That jet did not lok right , I didn't see it very well but it didn't look right . I often wondered how in the hell did the jet get threw . Whats the total death count now on 9/11. To many strange strange things happened on 9/11.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Missing in action is any of those thousands of successes palehorse alludes to, or if those successes merely blunt the repercussion of our failed prior policies.

Palehorse sees videos of rockets being launched near buildings which may or may not have people inside them as proof of using human shields, so you have to understand that he has a vivid imagination.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Missing in action is any of those thousands of successes palehorse alludes to, or if those successes merely blunt the repercussion of our failed prior policies.

Palehorse sees videos of rockets being launched near buildings which may or may not have people inside them as proof of using human shields, so you have to understand that he has a vivid imagination.

If Hamas rockets are being launched from within 100m of several civilian houses, it's logical to conclude that Hamas is endangering said civilians. (in other words, using them as "Human Shields").

Or...

Is it your contention that Hamas clears out all of the civilians prior to the storage or launch of their rockets? seriously!? Do you honestly believe that Hamas sends envoys through the Palestinian neighborhoods, to knock on doors and ask the civilians inside to relocate to some place safer, so that Hamas can use their backyards as a base of operations? You believe that all such launches are done near empty houses? REALLY?!??

"vivid imagination" indeed... more like denial

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Please put up or shut up on those thousands of successes so it can honestly be debated.

maybe you missed -- or didnt understand? -- the part about "never seeing the light of day"... :roll:

 

[Elias824]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
The Elias24 point of "Indeed one of the big qualifiers to be a terrorist is having a decent education, you cant send a guy to strike in the US if he cant speak English very well, or make a bomb by himself.
Al-Quida is a very large organization with many separate cells, some are more interested in the US then others. If I am not mistake the Philippines has their own war on terror to fight Al-Quida in that region. Either way, they can strike at the US much easier in Afghanistan/Iraq so the don't really need to be on our soil at this point.",

somewhat dodges the question of is GWB keeping us safe." From what I can read, Al-Quida has operatives from many national groups that are native english speakers and some of them are "white."
At least in the case of 911, Al-Quida choose only Saudis, to send a message and to hopefully drive a wedge between the US and Saudi Arabia, but could have picked a more diverse set of Nationalities
instead but would have lost the hoped for blame it on the Saudis hope.

I can mostly only conclude that AL-Quida has deliberately chosen not to attack us again as their option, but if or when they change their minds, such attacks are very doable because GWB has failed to harden our defenses. And now its official, the GWB watch has ended with one and only one horrific 911 sized event on domestic US soil occurred on his watch, will we see Obama take further steps to harden US defenses?
Because at any time, Al-Quida could change their mind, and again launch such an attack on US domestic soil. For all we know, it could be all ready to go, and just waiting for an order to trigger it. If such an Al-Quida attack is still in the early planning stages, it could take a long time to put together.

Ok I suppose ill make a hard answer, well yes I think were safer. how much safer I have no idea, maybe 10%, maybe 30%, but obviously we cant, and will never be "safe" from all terrorist attacks.
My point is that, yes AQ is a large international organization but the cells in places like the Philippines probably are not going to strike the US, and will be more concerned about their particular region to begin with.
Also if we are attempting to bomb their headquarters, and lock up their funds I would imagine it would make it more difficult for them to get well educated people to board international flights with passports to come to the US, although im not saying its anything close to impossible. But if they have a closer target, that just requires them to say unload an AK where they are living, I think they would be more prone to do that.
The question we should be asking is, will we be safer because of him in 10, 20 or 50 years from now. Well all I can say is I hope so, but I really have no idea.

 

[Fear No Evil]

The fact is there has not been another attack on the U.S. on our soil since 9/11. The question NOW is if Obama will continue that streak. Thats the ONLY important issue here.

/Thread