Rock wrote:I am the walrus.
Sitting in an English garden waiting for the sun,
If the sun don't come you get a tan from standing in the English rain.
Coo Coo Ca Choo.
Precisely. I was enjoying reading it.Stewsburntmonkey wrote:Chishi wrote:I was asking them to stop with their endless almost-and-sometimes-actual bickering about the Bush administration (which I personally believe is held to much more blame than it should be).
Why? It's an important topic. If you have some intelligent point to add fine, but you posts add absolutely nothing to the topic.
MrBunsy wrote:As to Bush stopping terrorist attacks, does anyone actually have any evidence, however slight?
MrBunsy wrote:I doubt the president would actually have very much to do with things like stopping terrorism anyway, isn't that what the secret service is for?
NeoThermic wrote:SODsniper wrote:Xocrates wrote:SODsniper wrote:Stewsburntmonkey wrote:How many real plots have been foiled? I'll give you a hint, none.
You would be wrong.
Dozens if not HUNDREDS of attacks had been stopped. The relatively recent Airlines attack comes to mind right off the bat.
Were you there? Were any of you there?
There might have been plans foiled, but then again, they might not. Curiosly the airlines attacks as far as I remember seemed to be mostly directed to britain (but I could be wrong).
Actually, they originated in Britain.. However all the airlines targeted were American Carriers with American destinations.
If you're reffering to the bombers who wanted to take bottles abord the flight, let me set you straight on this one. America had nearly no hand in this result, at all. Blair, who knew of the pending attack for *six months*, told Bush *three days* before the raids. The US was clueless about it.
NeoThermic
SODsniper wrote:Uh... How about the fact that there hasn't been any terrorist attacks on US proper?? Surely that would more than qualify for "slight" evidence. Unless you can come up with any other logical and rational reason why we have not been hit in the US since 9/11...
SODsniper wrote:Uh... How about the fact that there hasn't been any terrorist attacks on US proper?? Surely that would more than qualify for "slight" evidence. Unless you can come up with any other logical and rational reason why we have not been hit in the US since 9/11...
SODsniper wrote:Fair enough.. I don't believe it, but let's run with that.
Bush isn't, personally, responsible for the prevention of terrorism on US soil.
Extrapolating that out, that would mean that Bush is not PERSONALLY responsible for all the bad things that the Bush-Bashers accuse him of..
Wouldn't that be accurate?
xander wrote:SODsniper wrote:Uh... How about the fact that there hasn't been any terrorist attacks on US proper?? Surely that would more than qualify for "slight" evidence. Unless you can come up with any other logical and rational reason why we have not been hit in the US since 9/11...
Lack of evidence does not prove the opposite. There are a million confounding variables that could also account for the lack of terrorist attacks. It could be that bin Laden got what he wanted, in that the US invaded the Middle East, sparking a radical shift of the general population from moderation to fanaticism.
xander wrote:It could be that there were no further plans to attack on US soil, at least for the time being.
xander wrote: It could be that the Brits have stopped the attacks that you are giving Bush credit for preventing.
xander wrote: You could even be right -- Bush might personally be responsible.
xander wrote:However, when evaluated by history, Bush will be given credits and demerits for those things that he obviously had influence over, such as the economy (he has well published economic policies and philosophies), social policy (again, well published), and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan -- especially the wars. There is little to no evidence that Bush has anything to do with the lack of attacks, which makes it next to impossible to give him credit for it.
xander wrote:Again, why not give Clinton credit for the same? There was one attack on US soil during his presidency, and it caused a hell of a lot less damage and fewer deaths than the one on Bush's watch. And, after that attack, there weren't any more.
xander wrote:Honestly, however, what bothers me most about Bush is not any of his wrong-headed policies, it is his, quite frankly, anti-intellectual stance on most issues. Bush does not simply lack intellectual curiosity, which would be bad enough -- he is actively anti-intellectual. He makes decisions on issues, and sticks by those decisions, no matter how much evidence might appear to contradict him. He discourages the pursuit of knowledge, in preference to faith. I think that his policies and philosophies with regards to the changing climate of the world, stem cells, and Intelligent Design exemplify Bush's attitude perfectly.
xander wrote:You compared Bush to Lincoln.
xander wrote:While I agree with SBM that Lincoln is one of the more overrated presidents in US history, he showed great intellectual curiosity. He wanted to know about the world around him. He was a great believer in the arts and sciences. The same was true of FDR and Kennedy. Even Bush Sr. showed more curiosity than his son.
xander
Stewsburntmonkey wrote:
Although given that Bush is in charge of all military and national law enforcement in the country is responsible for their actions.
SODsniper wrote:xander wrote:SODsniper wrote:Uh... How about the fact that there hasn't been any terrorist attacks on US proper?? Surely that would more than qualify for "slight" evidence. Unless you can come up with any other logical and rational reason why we have not been hit in the US since 9/11...
Lack of evidence does not prove the opposite. There are a million confounding variables that could also account for the lack of terrorist attacks. It could be that bin Laden got what he wanted, in that the US invaded the Middle East, sparking a radical shift of the general population from moderation to fanaticism.
But yet there are plenty of other terrorist attacks elsewhere. This possibility doesn't make much sense, especially when one consider's the mindset of a terrorist.xander wrote:It could be that there were no further plans to attack on US soil, at least for the time being.
Again, this is not logical. There is no strategic, tactical or political advantage to Al Qaeda to simply stop terrorist attacks on US soil.xander wrote: It could be that the Brits have stopped the attacks that you are giving Bush credit for preventing.
Please point to where I gave credit to Bush for that. If I recall correctly, I meerly pointed that incident out as evidence that terrorists are still active against American interests.xander wrote: You could even be right -- Bush might personally be responsible.
I never claimed such a thing. I have stated that the Bush ADMINISTRATION is responsible.
SODsniper wrote:xander wrote:However, when evaluated by history, Bush will be given credits and demerits for those things that he obviously had influence over, such as the economy (he has well published economic policies and philosophies), social policy (again, well published), and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan -- especially the wars. There is little to no evidence that Bush has anything to do with the lack of attacks, which makes it next to impossible to give him credit for it.
Personally, I would agree with you. But I never claimed that Bush was "personally" responsible, so this is a straw-man argument.
SODsniper wrote:xander wrote:You compared Bush to Lincoln.
Actually, I didn't.. I posted that blurb (that was written by Neil Cavuto, incidently) to show how the emotions of the moment may cloud judgement and how a "loser" in the here and now can easily become a great leader when one looks back 100+ years.
SODsniper wrote:But yet there are plenty of other terrorist attacks elsewhere. This possibility doesn't make much sense, especially when one consider's the mindset of a terrorist.
SODsniper wrote:Again, this is not logical. There is no strategic, tactical or political advantage to Al Qaeda to simply stop terrorist attacks on US soil.
SODsniper wrote:Please point to where I gave credit to Bush for that. If I recall correctly, I meerly pointed that incident out as evidence that terrorists are still active against American interests.
SODsniper wrote:I never claimed such a thing. I have stated that the Bush ADMINISTRATION is responsible.
SODsniper wrote:Stewsburntmonkey wrote:
Although given that Bush is in charge of all military and national law enforcement in the country is responsible for their actions.
Exactly...
Actions both bad ***AND*** good..
I am glad we finally found some common ground..
I can die happy now.
SODsniper wrote:Personally, I would agree with you. But I never claimed that Bush was "personally" responsible, so this is a straw-man argument.
SODsniper wrote:xander wrote:You compared Bush to Lincoln.
Actually, I didn't.. I posted that blurb (that was written by Neil Cavuto, incidently) to show how the emotions of the moment may cloud judgement and how a "loser" in the here and now can easily become a great leader when one looks back 100+ years.
SODsniper wrote:And here again, I am simply pointing out to the Bush Bashers how leaders that are considered great did much more horrible things than Bush is ACCUSED of, let alone things he actually might have had a hand in..
SODsniper wrote:Actually, that is not entirely accurate.. It was the Pakistanis who initially broke open the plot when they... ahem.. "obtained" information from a captured Al Qaeda Elltee.. The Pakistanis contacted the British MI5 and the US FBI and relayed to them the details of the plot. MI5 operatives infiltrated the terrorist group and took them down mere days before a final test run was planned.
You can bet that the FBI and MI5 were burning the phone lines back and forth on this one.
While I am not trying to take away ANYTHING from the Brits and their superb work, the facts of the matter are that the US was involved at the outset.
Don't believe everything you read in the media. Blair had some very real political reasons for leading people to believe that it was solely a Brit Op..
SODsniper
Stewsburntmonkey wrote:SODsniper wrote:But yet there are plenty of other terrorist attacks elsewhere. This possibility doesn't make much sense, especially when one consider's the mindset of a terrorist.
And? Terrorist are looking for certain social and political changes when they launch an attack. There isn't much else a second attack on US soil would do. The administration has been keeping the terror up all on it's own. This was not true in other countries. Also terror networks operate in cells. The cells in other countries were operating on their own (with some coordination from the top). A cell in London or Madrid can't easily attack the US or some other country.SODsniper wrote:Again, this is not logical. There is no strategic, tactical or political advantage to Al Qaeda to simply stop terrorist attacks on US soil.
No, there is no strategic, tactical or political advantage to attack again when the level of fear from the 9/11 attacks is still going riding high. Better to put resources into attacks in other places where the level of fear isn't so high.
In any event xander was just listing possible reasons for their not being another terrorist attack on US soil. He made no claims that these were the reasons.SODsniper wrote:Please point to where I gave credit to Bush for that. If I recall correctly, I meerly pointed that incident out as evidence that terrorists are still active against American interests.
I had made a statement that there were no terrorist attacks Bush has stopped and you brought up the American Airlines plot.SODsniper wrote:I never claimed such a thing. I have stated that the Bush ADMINISTRATION is responsible.SODsniper wrote:Stewsburntmonkey wrote:
Although given that Bush is in charge of all military and national law enforcement in the country is responsible for their actions.
Exactly...
Actions both bad ***AND*** good..
I am glad we finally found some common ground..
I can die happy now.
But here you clearly say that Bush is responsible for the agencies he controls, aka his administration. You are trying to have it both ways.SODsniper wrote:Personally, I would agree with you. But I never claimed that Bush was "personally" responsible, so this is a straw-man argument.
Oh, but you did, see above.
(it is always a bad sign when people use the term "straw-man". . .)SODsniper wrote:xander wrote:You compared Bush to Lincoln.
Actually, I didn't.. I posted that blurb (that was written by Neil Cavuto, incidently) to show how the emotions of the moment may cloud judgement and how a "loser" in the here and now can easily become a great leader when one looks back 100+ years.
By posting such a quote you are making the comparison. You also later compare Bush to Lincoln, FDR and JFK. There is nothing wrong with making such a comparison, however I see no reason to deny what you clearly wrote.xander wrote:And here again, I am simply pointing out to the Bush Bashers how leaders that are considered great did much more horrible things than Bush is ACCUSED of, let alone things he actually might have had a hand in..
That is quite clearly not what you have been doing. You may have made one or two posts on that subject, but mostly you have been trying to defend Bush's terrorism policies.
I would also argue that nothing those other Presidents did was as horrible as some of the things Bush has done. Each of those Presidents did things that were horrible in the moment, but had no serious lasting impact on the nation. The consequences of the things Bush has done will be felt for generations to come not only in America but in the rest of the world as well. In addition Bush has worked to undermine the very core tenets of the US government which is something I cannot forgive.
xander wrote:Stewsburntmonkey wrote:xander wrote:And here again, I am simply pointing out to the Bush Bashers how leaders that are considered great did much more horrible things than Bush is ACCUSED of, let alone things he actually might have had a hand in..
Hey! I never said that
xander
SODsniper wrote:This has now gone into the realm of trolling...
I was convinced by the "it is always a bad sign when people use the term "straw-man" part above, since I had been accused in many other threads of using straw man arguments.
So, I guess that it's a BAD sign when I use the term, but perfectly respectable when someone else uses the term...
SODsniper wrote:Regardless, my participation in the Bush portion of this thread is now at an end. Ya'all have gone from an intellectual discussion to simple posting baited accusations designed to push buttons.
SODsniper wrote:I'll peek in on the thread now and again, to see if it has gotten back on the topic of aliens...
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 58 guests