Still No Terror Attack In The US

[red states rule]

What a surprise. You refused to address what I said. And yet you have the nerve to accuse me of dodging facts and issues?

peh...you are pathetic.

so are the peace niks as they show who the really support in the war on terror

 

[DeadCanDance]

Still No Terror Attack In The US since 9-11

The left is still blaming Pres Bush for Katrina, which was an act of God - yet will not give him credit for doing his job and protecting the US from terrorist attacks

Still No Terror Attack In The US since 9-11

Yes there were. There were a series of Anthrax attacks using weapons-grade anthrax. Case still not solved. We haven't caught Bin Laden or the Anthrax person(s) yet.

Also, terrorism is dramatically up worldwide since your war in Iraq. Your war is the biggest recruiting boon Al Qaeda could have dreamed of. It's further radicalizing the muslim world - including people who weren't radicalized before your war.

Its good that we haven't had an attack on the scale of 9/11. But, there were no attacks on US soil for 8 years after the first WTC bombing. So, these people are patient, and they can wait.

 

[mattskramer]

so are the peace niks as they show who the really support in the war on terror

Another dodge from the artful dodger in reply to a post that criticizes him for dodging. This is too much. By the way, have you come up with any proof that someone blamed Bush for the Katrina hurricane?

 

[mattskramer]

and if the terrorists do pul off another attack on US soil - you and the other Bush haters will be screaming how he did not do his job

No attacks - no credit given

There is an attack - you blame him

You are trying to put words into my mouth again. When will you learn? I do not hate Bush. The president is supposed to defend the US from enemies. I am not aware of any attempted terrorist attack on US soil. If there were one that his policies have stopped, I would congratulate him. Since I am not aware of any thwarted attack, I concluded that the absence of an attack might be coincidental. If we were attacked, I would criticize Bush for failing to prevent an attack. Again, my point is that you can’t logically conclude that because Bush is president, there has been no attack. To use the same logic, we can conclude that 9-11 happened because Bush was president. Also, even if Bush’s policies thwarted an attack, it does not follow that we would have been successfully been attacked if a Democrat were president.

 

[red states rule]

Another dodge from the artful dodger in reply to a post that criticizes him for dodging. This is too much. By the way, have you come up with any proof that someone blamed Bush for the Katrina hurricane?

I guess being a moderate means you ignore facts. I posted 2 links - here is another


Hurricane Katrina Bush's Fault?
Thursday, September 01, 2005

By Brit Hume

Now some fresh pickings from the Political Grapevine:

Katrina Bush's Fault?

Anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan (search), who was camped outside President Bush's Texas ranch for the past few weeks, says Hurricane Katrina (search) is all President Bush's fault, insisting that the president is "[now] heading to Louisiana to see the devastation that his environmental policies and his killing policies have caused."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,168105,00.html

 

[red states rule]

You are trying to put words into my mouth again. When will you learn? I do not hate Bush. The president is supposed to defend the US from enemies. I am not aware of any attempted terrorist attack on US soil. If there were one that his policies have stopped, I would congratulate him. Since I am not aware of any thwarted attack, I concluded that the absence of an attack might be coincidental. If we were attacked, I would criticize Bush for failing to prevent an attack. Again, my point is that you can’t logically conclude that because Bush is president, there has been no attack. To use the same logic, we can conclude that 9-11 happened because Bush was president. Also, even if Bush’s policies thwarted an attack, it does not follow that we would have been successfully been attacked if a Democrat were president.

As I said

No attacks - no credit given

There is an attack - you blame him

 

[mattskramer]

As I said

No attacks - no credit given

There is an attack - you blame him

You see things on this bulletin board that do not exist – my hatred for Bush. Will you have class enough to retreat your accusation that I hate Bush? No. You don’t see things that are there. I said that if I see an occasion where a Bush policy thwarts a terrorist attack, I would thank him for it and give him the credit. You did manage to get the last sentence right. If we are attacked I will criticize him.

 

[red states rule]

You see things on this bulletin board that do not exist – my hatred for Bush. Will you have class enough to retreat your accusation that I hate Bush? No. You don’t see things that are there. I said that if I see an occasion where a Bush policy thwarts a terrorist attack, I would thank him for it and give him the credit. You did manage to get the last sentence right. If we are attacked I will criticize him.

So, if we are attacked you will blame him

But you will not credit him for no attacks since 9-11

 

[mattskramer]

I guess being a moderate means you ignore facts. I posted 2 links - here is another


Hurricane Katrina Bush's Fault?
Thursday, September 01, 2005

By Brit Hume

Now some fresh pickings from the Political Grapevine:

Katrina Bush's Fault?

Anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan (search), who was camped outside President Bush's Texas ranch for the past few weeks, says Hurricane Katrina (search) is all President Bush's fault, insisting that the president is "[now] heading to Louisiana to see the devastation that his environmental policies and his killing policies have caused."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,168105,00.html

I do not ignore facts. I did not see the article. I do not consider Cindy Sheehan to be your typical Democrat. She is more of a far left fringe radical. Anyway, I detect a bit of your double standard here. The article looks similar in structure to mine about DeLay. Could it be that the the "Quote" you site, is the LEAD WRITTEN BY THE REPORTER? Still, you did find an article that said that she blamed Bush for the hurricane itself – just like I found an article that said that DeLay thinks that the Democrat leaders are acting like traitors. I’d be happy to give you credit for your article if you’d be willing to give me credit for my article.

 

[red states rule]

I do not ignore facts. I did not see the article. I do not consider Cindy Sheehan to be your typical Democrat. She is more of a far left fringe radical. Anyway, I detect a bit of your double standard here. The article looks similar in structure to mine about DeLay. Could it be that the the "Quote" you site, is the LEAD WRITTEN BY THE REPORTER? Still, you did find an article that said that she blamed Bush for the hurricane itself – just like I found an article that said that DeLay thinks that the Democrat leaders are acting like traitors. I’d be happy to give you credit for your article if you’d be willing to give me credit for my article.

and I had links to where RFK Jr and Al Gore said Bush's enviromental polices gave us Katrina

You are attributing the reportes leasd to what Delay said

 

[mattskramer]

So, if we are attacked you will blame him

But you will not credit him for no attacks since 9-11

Do you give the fire department credit when there is no fire? Do you give the fire department credit when they swiftly put fires out? There is a distinct, logical, and significant difference.

 

[red states rule]

Do you give the fire department credit when there is no fire? Do you give the fire department credit when they swiftly put fires out? There is a distinct, logical, and significant difference.

The only distinct, logical, and significant difference is you will blame Bush when things go wrong - but will not credit him when things go right

 

[maineman]

Do you give the fire department credit when there is no fire? Do you give the fire department credit when they swiftly put fires out? There is a distinct, logical, and significant difference.

Funny...I never see any conservatives praise Clinton for the fact that there were no terrorists attacks on the homeland during his administration. LOL

 

[red states rule]

Funny...I never see any conservatives praise Clinton for the fact that there were no terrorists attacks on the homeland during his administration. LOL

The terrorists were to busy hitting us overseas

Four attacks and Bill did nothing - except warn them not to do it again

and the first WTC attack happened on his watch

 

[ReillyT]

Do you give the fire department credit when there is no fire? Do you give the fire department credit when they swiftly put fires out? There is a distinct, logical, and significant difference.

For once, I am nearly aghast to hearing myself say, I think RSR is right (although not in his characterizations of you).

We can never know what would have happened if Bush had not implemented his policies (vague, I know, but you have to take them as a whole). It may be possible that many potential terror attacks have been thwarted before they even had a chance to develop. It is possible that terror attacks have been perpetrated elsewhere that would have been perpetrated here, but for our national security efforts. At the end of the day, not knowing what would have happened in an alternate universe, I can only say that Bush deserves a measure of credit for the fact that no major terrorist attack has been perpetrated in the US. That doesn't mean I agree with what he has done (I don't). It just means that I have to acknowledge that it might be working.

To use your analogy, one could say that Bush has done the equivalent of making sure that each home has a fire alarm or has outlawed smoking in bed. We can't say that a fire would necessarily have started anyway, but...

That said, I will blame Bush if there is an attack in the future, possibly even if it is after he leaves office. There can be no doubt that the war in Iraq has inflamed Muslim feelings against the US, and we have yet to see what will happen as a result of this.

 

[red states rule]

For once, I am nearly aghast to hearing myself say, I think RSR is right (although not in his characterizations of you).

We can never know what would have happened if Bush had not implemented his policies (vague, I know, but you have to take them as a whole). It may be possible that many potential terror attacks have been thwarted before they even had a chance to develop. It is possible that terror attacks have been perpetrated elsewhere that would have been perpetrated here, but for our national security efforts. At the end of the day, not knowing what would have happened in an alternate universe, I can only say that Bush deserves a measure of credit for the fact that no major terrorist attack has been perpetrated in the US. That doesn't mean I agree with what he has done (I don't). It just means that I have to acknowledge that it might be working.

To use your analogy, one could say that Bush has done the equivalent of making sure that each home has a fire alarm or has outlawed smoking in bed. We can't say that a fire would necessarily have started anyway, but...

That said, I will blame Bush if there is an attack in the future, possibly even if it is after he leaves office. There can be no doubt that the war in Iraq has inflamed Muslim feelings against the US, and we have yet to see what will happen as a result of this.

and what inflamed the Muslims BEORE 9-11?

We have been attacked by them for over 20 years

 

[ReillyT]

and what inflamed the Muslims BEORE 9-11?

We have been attacked by them for over 20 years

Before 9/11, I would think it was predominantly our support for Israel and some repressive regimes in the Middle East (i.e., Egypt). Surely you don't deny that Muslim feelings against the US have intensified since we invaded Iraq.

 

[ReillyT]

RSR, for once, I am mostly in agreement with you. Just be happy for the support man.

 

[red states rule]

Before 9/11, I would think it was predominantly our support for Israel and some repressive regimes in the Middle East (i.e., Egypt). Surely you don't deny that Muslim feelings against the US have intensified since we invaded Iraq.

So the US has to change its foreign policy to appease the terrorists?

The Muslims were thinking the US would not fight back - given the inaction of Clinton

 

[ReillyT]

So the US has to change its foreign policy to appease the terrorists?

The Muslims were thinking the US would not fight back - given the inaction of Clinton

Look, regardless of whatever policy the US should choose to pursue, it is just foolhardy to ignore the effects of that policy. Even if you agree with the war in Iraq and believe we should stay there long-term, it is just sticking your head in the sand to pretend that this hasn't effected how we are perceived by much of the Muslim world (even if not in kind, certainly in degree).

We should at least be honest with ourselves about the implications of our actions, even if we believe we did the right thing.