Credit or Blame?

It is worth noting that there have been very few elephant attacks on US soil during the current administration, also.

I take credit for that, though.

yet he got re-elected, hmmm......

26 replies and not a single coherent answer.

Would any adults like to submit an opinion?

27 and counting...

26 replies and not a single coherent answer.

Would any adults like to submit an opinion?

Let me think....it may be something to do with the question?

TAC: Does al-Qaeda have the capacity to launch attacks on the United States, or are they too tied down in Iraq? Or have they made a strategic decision not to attack the United States, and if so, why?

RP: Al-Qaeda appears to have made a deliberate decision not to attack the United States in the short term. We know this not only from the pattern of their attacks but because we have an actual al-Qaeda planning document found by Norwegian intelligence. The document says that al-Qaeda should not try to attack the continent of the United States in the short term but instead should focus its energies on hitting America’s allies in order to try to split the coalition.

What the document then goes on to do is analyze whether they should hit Britain, Poland, or Spain. It concludes that they should hit Spain just before the March 2004 elections because, and I am quoting almost verbatim: Spain could not withstand two, maximum three, blows before withdrawing from the coalition, and then others would fall like dominoes.

That is exactly what happened. Six months after the document was produced, al-Qaeda attacked Spain in Madrid. That caused Spain to withdraw from the coalition. Others have followed. So al-Qaeda certainly has demonstrated the capacity to attack and in fact they have done over 15 suicide-terrorist attacks since 2002, more than all the years before 9/11 combined. Al-Qaeda is not weaker now. Al-Qaeda is stronger.

Wow, you really don't get it, do you? Sad.

Apparently I don't get it. Why won't you answer my questions? Most specifically:

Are we going to judge people solely on results or the wisdom of their decisions? And shouldn't we be consistent?

That's like asking if employers should judge employees on their job performance. Gee, that's a hard one. Let me think about that for a nanosecond. Bush and his administration have done a terrible job and have made incredibly unwise decisions, the results of which we'll be dealing with for decades to come. Holding up the lack of terrorist attacks in the US since 9/11 as if it's somehow supposed to vindicate Bush is, as explained earlier, a logical fallacy. You're not asking an honest question. You're making an illogical assertion disguised as a question.

That's like asking if employers should judge employees on their job performance. Gee, that's a hard one. Let me think about that for a nanosecond. Bush and his administration have done a terrible job and have made incredibly unwise decisions, the results of which we'll be dealing with for decades to come. Holding up the lack of terrorist attacks in the US since 9/11 as if it's somehow supposed to vindicate Bush is, as explained earlier, a logical fallacy. You're not asking an honest question. You're making an illogical assertion disguised as a question.

Out of curiosity please state explicitly what my supposed assertion is. I really don't think you have a clue.

Up to over 30 irrelevant responses now. (I don't count Ewan, because he actually had a cogent point, even though he didn't answer the questions.)

You make every possible assumption about the devious nature of my question. You have already concluded my positions, based on lord only knows what, and are doing everything you can to avoid answering the direct questions put to you. What are you afraid of? That I might twist your answer into a contradiction?

It reminds me of the clueless cashier who thinks I'm pulling a fast one when I give her $21 for an $11 purchase.

You would make a fine politician. (but a lousy manager, based on how you judge job performance)

Out of curiosity please state explicitly what my supposed assertion is. I really don't think you have a clue.

Why don't you make a point so that it can be addressed? Any one at all will do.

Are you wondering why many of us are not falling all over ourselves to say what a wonderful job Bush is doing? Many of us don't believe he is doing a good job, or even a fair job. As I linked earlier - it doesn't really appear to be any policies of this administration causing "no attacks on US soil since 9/11." It appears to come from the terrorists themselves.... go figure.

34...

So you don't think that people should disagree with Bush or any of his policies? Thanks for clearing that up.

So you don't think that people should disagree with Bush or any of his policies? Thanks for clearing that up.

I already have. If you look at my first post without your anti-Bush, anti-war goggles on you might find it.

.

I see.

Your post is a pro-Bush, anti-liberal rant.

Has Bush found the WMDs? Are you greeted as liberators yet? Are these the last throe's of the insurgency?

Mission accomplished.

Why does the Bush administration get all the blame when things go badly in Iraq, but get no credit for preventing any major terrorist activity in America over the last 5 years?

Are we going to judge people solely on results or the wisdom of their decisions?

And shouldn't we be consistent?