• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

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

D

DealMonkey

Lifer
This thread is inspired by commentary by Tara Wall, a Bush-appointee and deputy editor for The Washington Times, but something I find repeated ad nauseum around here.

Commentary: Bush will be vindicated

[...]

During my Oval Office interview with the president, I asked him to complete the sentence "President Bush was... [fill in the blank]."

He responded (uncharacteristically in third person): "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."

That is the legacy he wants. Popular or not, he kept America safe. And if nothing else, for that, he will be vindicated.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITI...9/wall.bush/index.html
Click to expand...

While it's certainly possible that Bush's policies and actions post-9/11 prevented another attack, we have no way of knowing for sure if that's certain. The first WTC attack occurred in 1993, the second in 2001, a spread of 8 years during which Al Qaeda and affiliated groups attacks US interests overseas but not here in the homeland. We have no way of knowing whether these large-scale 9/11 style attacks are simply far and few between, require considerable advanced planning, or whether perhaps attempts were foiled.

This strikes me as nothing more than a combination of the logical fallacy of Post hoc, ergo propter hoc ("after this, therefore because (on account) of this") and wishful thinking on Bush's part and by extension, the part of his supporters.

And don't even get me started about how 9/11 occurred on Bush's watch. Interesting to note how people conveniently excuse him from any responsibility and then go on to argue that he has kept our nation safe.
 
It's not just the lack of attacks that people give Bush credit for; there have been attempted attacks that were stopped at various stages of progress. Does Bush deserve credit for that? I don't know.
 
There will be a rigorous examination of security policies and procedures based on the record of the outgoing administration. Since most of the data is classified, the facts will take many years to be revealed. One can only hope some of the overzealous enforcement of agencies like the TSA can be analyzed, and revisions made.
 
There hasn't been a Nuclear Holocaust since I was born. Bow to me, because not doing so may have unsavory consequences!!
 
As much as I dislike Bush, if we judged government effectiveness based on proof of negatives the whole damn thing would be dismantled. Which would probably be a good thing.
 
You can never prove a negative. But, there have been terror attacks on several other countries after 9/11. I also find it unlikely the terrorists gave up trying to attack the US after 9/11.
 
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
How do you prove a negative?
Click to expand...

I assume you're referring to Bush's claims - that he kept America safe?
Click to expand...

Yes - there was no terrorist attack since 9/11 on the US territories.
We know that one was planned under Clinton's watch and executed under Bush.

Was there another one planned - who knows?
The government can say that some were planned and aborted - plausible
Why was it aborted- again who knows.

If there is another one, then maybe someone can ask questions on the details.

How you choose to measure success may depend on which yardstick you use and/or what your intent is.


 
While there is no proof for the notion, there's no proof against it either. It's impossible to prove either way. Regardless, let the smoke blowing commence on both sides.
 
Some of you seem to think that I'm asking you to prove a negative. I am asking no such thing, I am simply referring to this assertion that "Bush kept America safe." Obviously, what I'm arguing here, is that there is no way to know that this is true and yet here we have Bush himself and many of his supporters claiming this. And of course, the assertion itself being a logical fallacy...
 
Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
How do you prove a negative?
Click to expand...

I assume you're referring to Bush's claims - that he kept America safe?
Click to expand...

Yes - there was no terrorist attack since 9/11 on the US territories.
We know that one was planned under Clinton's watch and executed under Bush.

Was there another one planned - who knows?
The government can say that some were planned and aborted - plausible
Why was it aborted- again who knows.

If there is another one, then maybe someone can ask questions on the details.

How you choose to measure success may depend on which yardstick you use and/or what your intent is.
Click to expand...
My only request here is that if you're going to make a statement like the ones we're seeing concerning Bush's legacy, you better have something to back it up, and there's simply nothing to back up this claim.

IMHO, Bush and company would have been on more solid ground to suggest something along the lines of, "Our record will stand on its own." Or something equally vague, but that's not what they're doing.
 
It's also a fallacy to say that because we don't have proof that they prevented a terrorist attack, therefor the they did not.
Stalemate. So your point?
 
As much as I dislike Bush having our infidel troops in Dar Islam absolutely sends Jihadis into a mad fury so they attacked us there instead of here. So he had something to do with it.
 
In some ways, even 911 is a fallacy, the target was not the USA, it was the world trade center and its policies that was a primary motivator, and with the world trade center headquarters just happening to be located in the USA, we might ask, if it were located somewhere else, would that location have been targeted instead? But we had those warnings, the world trade center had been attacked before by another group by bombs in its basement. They didn't do much damage or kill many people, but it still identified the target.
 
I believe rather strongly that Bush's actions while in office have left our country in greater danger. From enemies abroad and at home.
 
There are large scale terrorist (or terrorist like) attacks once a decade or so on the US soil. George Bush Jr. experienced one of them. He is right on average.
 
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
While there is no proof for the notion, there's no proof against it either. It's impossible to prove either way. Regardless, let the smoke blowing commence on both sides.
Click to expand...

So basically... You're admitting that we're supposed to take this administration's claims purely on good faith?

I think I'll stay here, in the real world, and let them provide the proof positive, if that'll ever even happen.

How fucking ludicrous.
 
Originally posted by: soccerballtux
It's also a fallacy to say that because we don't have proof that they prevented a terrorist attack, therefor the they did not.
Stalemate. So your point?
Click to expand...

I never argued that. You should re-read my OP. I specifically stated, "While it's certainly possible that Bush's policies and actions post-9/11 prevented another attack..."

No stalemate, try again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top