Hello:
The right wing among you, in order to proclaim the success of the Bush doctrine, point out the fact that we haven't been attacked since 9/11.
If we ARE attacked, wouldn't that mean he failed?
excon
|
Hello:
The right wing among you, in order to proclaim the success of the Bush doctrine, point out the fact that we haven't been attacked since 9/11.
If we ARE attacked, wouldn't that mean he failed?
excon
He failed even if we never get attacked again. Liked the old man better than the son.
He failed because the attack could have been prevented in the first place, but was not, of course not everybody sees it that way.
He made america have a huge red target, and the people innocent people was his sacrifice for what, it all comes down to him trying to make himself look like a saviour and the almighty dollar.
Clinton had a shot and didn't get his bad guy. This ain't all one countries leader. Bush I, nor Clinton, nor Bush II, nor whoever's next isn't in the trenches, so to speak! They were isolated behind advisors and aren't out there to see the raw data that may have been used to avert the 9/11 attacks. Finger pointing and subversion isn't the answer. We, as a country, cannot appear weak. I read recently a quote from North Viet Nam's leadership, and what he said, basically, is we had lost our will to allow a victory. That turned my stomach. I am not a war monger. I don't know anyone who is. But if you don't think we'll never suffer from their hand again, what ever the faction, give them some room to move around.
Your original premise is wrong.
That's not a validation of the "Bush Doctrine", and the intelligent right wing among us don't argue that Bush has succeeded because we haven't been attacked. That's an old sophist tactic called a straw man fallacy: create an argument that is weak, attribute it to your foes, debunk it, and proudly proclaim your foes have lost.
Sorry, but the intelligent among us would argue that thwarting attacks by extremist groups requires constant action and attention. Occasionally, bad guys will succeed in attacking. The idea is to limit the number of possible attacks, keep them occupied on their turf as best as possible, keep intelligence programs actively involved in thwarting attacks, ignore the media's ill-informed crap about "domestic" wire-tapping, and fight the good fight.
We've been lucky to have not been hit since 9/11, and the intelligence agencies have been successful in stopping several planned attacks including a planned attack of Toronto, Fort Dix, Brooklyn Bridge, etc.
Remember, the south almost won the Civil War. And the Civil War was extremely unpopular. Should Lincoln have given up because victory was not guaranteed and nobody supported him?
GoldieMae... Very good, you have seen past the smoke screen that has been pushed at us, No one wants war but its better to keep it in their back yard then ours, Much cheaper also.
Dennis777
Yes, for those whom the premise applies, the conclusion follows.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
;)
Hello again,Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark_crow
Yeah, I thought so. It's kind of hard to spin it otherwise, but that doesn't stop 'em.
excon
They didn’t to answer your question, it would lead to a conclusion they objected to.:eek:Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Actually, the fact that Bush has prevented another attack for 2,141 days is its own success, regardless of what may occur after this. Especially when we take into account that before 9/11, terrorists attacks against the USA used to take place at a rate of roughly 1-2 per year since the 1960s. Regardless of whether we are attacked tomorrow or not, Bush's actions have been a success.
Sorry, excon. No spin necessary, just the facts.
Elliot
excon,
"You want what both ways?"
Rich
Hello again, Rich:Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainRich
Are you coming on to me? ;)
excon
Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
So the whole point in asking the question was to hit on CaptainRich? :eek: :p
Hey, EASY!
This question was posed, by me, to clear up a partial quote from excon : "You want it both ways, but it ain't happening."
No one gets to have this issue work both ways. That's not what's being asked.
Elliot said, "Actually, the fact that Bush has prevented another attack for 2,141 days is its own sucess, regardless of what may occur after this. Especially when we take into account that before 9/11, terrorists attacks against the USA used to take place at a rate of roughly 1-2 per year since the 1960s. Regardless of whether we are attacked tomorrow or not, Bush's actions have been a success.
Sorry, Excon. No spin necessary, just the facts."
End quote.
How is that asking for or expecting it both ways?
No attacks because Bush & Co. are on watch?
Wondergirl,Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Uh... yeah. Pretty much.
Or, not so much because they are on watch, but rather because they have been proactive in taking the fight to the enemy rather than waiting for them to attack us here again. And at the same time, they have increased our internal security as well.
Excon,
Who is it that wants it both ways? You are the one who wants us to fight terrorism... just not in Iraq. You are the one who claims that the GWOT is a complete failure, but when someone points out the fact that there has been a significant success in the defense of the USA against terorism, you dismiss it. Seems to me that YOU are the one who wants it both ways.
Elliot
Hello again:
Dudes! I don't want it both ways. I just want to know what YOU think? After all, I'M not the one who is proclaiming how great Bush is because we haven't been attacked.
I just want to know when the evidence changes, are you still going to declare him to be successful in protecting our country. I'm betting you will.
excon
PS> I will NEVER, NEVER call the USA our Homeland - that is the stupidest name ever!!
Mein Fuerher!
I will submit to orders from the Homeland!
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:26 PM. |