You can't deny Bush this:

Quote from jonbig04:

There has not been a major terrorist attack on US soil since september 11th. The fact that you won't concede that simple point tells me you, like it seems everyone else these days, are looking for facts to back your opinion, rather than basing your opinion on the facts.
More...

When was the previous major terrorist attack on US soil before 9/11? The Oklahoma City bombing involving Timothy McVeigh maybe? Major terrorist attacks in the US aren't that common even during times of laxness and most incidents that might be described as such are carried out by Americans.

Consider this: You admit that Iran is developing nuclear weapons. Think about that: Nuclear weapons in the middle east. Not only will it make nukes far more likely to fall into the hands of terrorists, but it will start and arms race in the middle east. If iran has them then saudi arabia is going to want them. Nuclear weapons in the most unstable region of the world is bad for the world, but especially bad for the US. What happens if iran nukes or threatens to nuke saudi arabia? Not only are we going to war, but what happens to energy prices here? I've said it before and I will say it again: for whatever reason(s) I believe the day will come when our country is very glad of our military presence in the middle east. I believe the stakes will soon rise dramatically. A victory? No. But thats because the battle has yet to begin.
More...

For years Iran didn't pursue the development of nuclear weapons. So why the change? One would have to be sticking one's head in the sand to not get the feeling the example of Iraq next door contributed to the shift in stance. The Iraq invasion altered the global status quo and current world order of the time. Before that people could believe going by evidence that the US would not interfere too much into the affairs of countries it took a dim view of. Iraq changed that. The Bush administration is responsible. That Bush and the US seems to have been goaded into it because of 9/11 is the biggest victory of Al-Qaeda. That Americans still refuse to acknowledge this is a continuing success for Al-Qaeda. That even in the above post you are thinking in terms of escalating tensions instead of defusing them is evidence that in the psychological war at least Al-Qaeda is still successful.
 
This is a specious argument to begin with.

That's like saying "No major successful (300+ dead is the threshold?) terrorist attacks occurred at all on US soil during Bill Clinton's administration."

So everybody can concede that Clinton did a great job during his administration...
 
Quote from jonbig04:

I'm sure you will come in here with your factless conspiracy theories and your arguments based off of something you once heard a friends brother say, but thats ok.

Oh and before we get to it, I am voting Obama, so hopefully that will deflect SOME of the conservative bashing trash talk.

Since 9/11/01 (7 years ago for the slower ones) there has not been another attack on US soil by terrorists.

This is because:

A- The terrorists haven't tried. (I don't see how you could agree with this one, but I don't put it beyond some of you).

B- The Bush administration has done a great job in creating organizations, and whatever else they do, and in doing so have kept us attack free for the past 7 years.
More...


C- George Bush is so incompetent he is doing the terrorists work for them - so they are just hanging out at Starbucks downing 6$ Osama Bin Latte's
 
The terrorist attacks killed 2,973 victims in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania.

American Casualties of Iraq and Afghanistan not counting contractors and civilians (American, Iraqi or other nationality).

Dead: 4,710
Wounded: 32,799
Injured: 10,685
Ill: 29,881
Received Treatment from VA: 324,846
Filed A Disability Claim: 287,790
 
Also - the argument is constructed to exclude the single worst successful attack on US soil since Pearl Harbor.

"SINCE 9/11..."

Why exclude the timeframe of the major incident? It is setting up the assertion in a biased manner to begin with.

If the other side wants to reframe it, they can say"
"Only during President Bush's term has a successful attack occurred on US soil since Pearl Harbor."
 
Quote from Lucrum:

MAYBE?

Is it really that tough for you to make a concession?
More...


No, its not difficult, its a fact.

You see, no major islamo fascist terrorist attacks occurred on US soil BEFORE 9/11 either.

Sure, their was a history of terrorism, in the gulf, in pakistan, india, lebanon, israel, egypt, sudan, in the phillipines-which incidentally, has gone largely unabated since the US invasion at the turn of the century, re; the phillipines.

But im not so obtuse as to give bush credit for anything, other than reaping what was sowed, his dad in fact layed down the blueprint there.

Ex director of the cia, becomes president. After an actor. Warns against war in the middle east.
Son, goes to war, in the middle east.

Does it not bother any american citizen, the lineage of the people you are voting for ? Even the sheer hubris, that they could stand on a ticket?


Cant speak for the current crop, but kinda been and gone, you know.
Fake elections, fake society, fake everything. The only real thing left, is how many bombs you got.
 
Quote from wjk:

See my prior post. Perhaps this can't be considered major, but
only by sheer luck. These members were all radical Islamist with possible ties to AQ
More...

Interestingly, after some research, that happened right at the start of Clinton's presidency -- he had only been in office a few weeks when the attack occurred.

It's unlikely any policy he set in those weeks contributed or allowed it to happen. Ie. if the attack was policy related, it would be related to Bush I's policies.

Now, if the attack had happened nine months into his presidency then a very reasonable argument should be made about his responsibility.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top