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

[child of wonder]

Originally posted by: 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

Exactly.

Let's see if he can not allow the largest terrorist attack on US soil in history to occur like Bush did.

Bush kept us safe (except 9/11).

Thank you.

 

[Fear No Evil]

Originally posted by: child of wonder

Originally posted by: 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

Exactly.

Let's see if he can not allow the largest terrorist attack on US soil in history to occur like Bush did.

Bush kept us safe (except 9/11).

Thank you.

:roll: Any blame on Clinton for not killing OBL?

 

[BoomerD]

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. Then, hope like hell one of the President's flunkies doesn't "out" you for political gain.
You still want in?

You forgot part of the job description...

 

[Lemon law]

And when we get to a request to see any of these many intelligence success, again palehorse come up with "maybe you missed -- or didnt understand? -- the part about "never seeing the light of day"...

Well we did have one example of our intelligence success when the Pentagon paper were released, as one insider leaked what was never supposed to see the light of day, and we found out our intelligence community was privately admitting to itself that they were screwing up while telling the general public exactly the opposite.

Nor does the intelligence community seem very good at connecting the dots, what looked like wondrous short term gains in Afghanistan and Iraq during the early and mid 1980's came back and bit us back hard on 911. And after better than one trillion dollars and perhaps a million lives lost on all sides, and another 2 million lives forced into exile, in our so called "War on terrorism", we have managed to create more terrorists than we had before we started. Not my assessment or just a personal opinion, that is the assessment of our own NIE.

And after all these horrible results, our intelligence community wants a blank check trust us to continue these same counter productive policies? Because there are evil men out there who have graduating from picking the wings of flies and now using terrorism seems to be their outlet, the simplistic explanation impli4d by out national intelligence community, and the justification of why we must travel a 1/2 a world away to kill them.

While it never seems to occurs to the national intelligence community that these people are angry at us for very good reasons. And if we we quit giving them good reasons to be mad at us, there would be less terrorism. While the past actions of our national intelligence community gives them those very reasons.

That is the reasoning seeming to drive this strategy and sadly, its getting us nowhere than worse off than we were before.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: 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

Yes, that is indeed a fact, however claiming credit for "keeping us safe" is intellectually dishonest, incredibly arrogant and a logical fallacy as I've illustrated in this thread.

The tricky part about this business, the business of preventing terror attacks, is that you often don't know it's working or not until you have a failure. As Rumsfeld infamously said, "...we lack metrics to know if we are winning or losing the global war on terror."

 

[Bowfinger]

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?

 

[Ldir]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: Firebot
My rock keeps tigers away, has never failed me yet.

I'm in for three.

Mine failed at the zoo. That was only once in eight years.