Why have we not been hit at home again! We were hit several time when BILL CLINTON was pres and he did nothing! Could taking the fight to the enemy be working?
2007-04-18 08:19:53 · 9 answers · asked by USA Proud 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
the first trade center bombing was at home
2007-04-18 08:31:10 · update #1
I think it is working. Clinton made the mistake of not retailing when terrorist hit the US before. Bush has moved the front of the war from the US where is was on 9/11 to Iraq. I feel much safer knowing our government is doing something to try and prevent terrorism.
2007-04-18 08:27:45 · answer #1 · answered by gerafalop 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
You have both a point and a fallacy.
True, no major terrorist attacks on US soil as of now. This is almost certainly because of the war in Iraq. After all, it is cheaper and easier to kill Americans over there than it is here. They don't have to travel as far, they blend in with the populace, they speak the language and are quite literally fighting in their own backyard.
The prospect of crossing the pond would be absurd. Why go through all that hassle and expense when you can simply walk down the street and squeeze off a few rounds and hope you get lucky.
Yet, I doubt you are anyone else would ever claim that we are fighting over there for this reason. That would mean the mission in Iraq is to expose America soldiers to fire for no other reason than to expose them to fire. Bad plan - and not a good way to meet recruitment goals.
The fallacy is drawing casualty between the two. One does not necessairly cause the other (I think it is likely but it is NOT logically sound).
2007-04-18 08:33:50 · answer #2 · answered by jw 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
We were hit several times when Bill Clinton was President?
I assume you mean "at home," since that's the point you were making about Bush... so could you list the foreign terror attacks that took place within the 50 states while Bill Clinton was President?
You know... aliens from outer space also have not taken over the world since Bush has been President... can we credit him for that too?
2007-04-18 08:26:12 · answer #3 · answered by Bush Invented the Google 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
One thing about liars is that they can forget their lies and tell the truth if you ask them the same question often enough. While he may have not directly said that Saddam was responsible for 9/11, everyone in the Administration had the uncanny ability to start a sentence with Osama Bin Laden or 9/11 and finish it with Saddam Hussein or Iraq, thus creating the perception of a connection in the public eye. George Bush clearly isn't the most articulate President or eloquent orator in history, but the one thing he was good at was creating sentences that made that connection.
2016-05-18 01:41:40 · answer #4 · answered by virgina 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
How much are we spending on domestic security now? And how much privacy have we sacraficed for security? And Bush says that there have been several terrorist plots that have only been foiled because of his great security measures. Which means that if we still had the level of national security that we had pre 9/11, we would have had several domestic attacks.
Either Bush's policies have caused a dramatic increase in the number of terrorist attacks agains the US or the security we have in place isn't doing any good. Which explanation do you prefer?
And in the end, I think I'll take the one domestic terrorist attack under Clinton vs the one under Bush.
2007-04-18 08:40:45 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I lost my keys the other day... then I went to the bathroom to poop.... then I found my keys...
by your logic... I COULD say that pooping made me find my keys...
but I really don't think that's true...
we were only hit once under Clinton on American soil, by anyone Bush would consider a terrorist... the first WTC attack...
and Clinton did get closer to killing Osama than Bush ever has.... in his missle attack... so, who is doing nothing again?
there have been several attacks on foriegn soil since 9-11... like the bombing at our greek embasy... and many attacks on our troops and vehicles in Iraq...
2007-04-18 08:30:21 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
When were we hit "at home" during Clinton's presidency?...if you want to call USS Cole home, than I say we call Baghdad home, or the Egyptian embassy....
** The fact of the matter, is that Bush ignored dire warnings by the CIA that an attack was imminent, assumedly thinking that it was the "same old same old" I presume.
2007-04-18 08:26:22 · answer #7 · answered by Katie 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Post-hoc fallacy.
2007-04-18 08:24:23 · answer #8 · answered by Steve 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
its almost like bushes policies are working
oh waint they are....
who new...
oh thats right conservitives and military did.
2007-04-18 08:24:40 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋