"Why do you support Bush?"

[newsguyatl]

"Because he's keeping us safe from terror. We haven't been attacked since 9/11."

Besides the 35% of Americans who vote for Bush (and Republicans) because they care about their wallets ONLY, the above is the answer you're gonna get from the rest -- middle America.

What do YOU say in response?

[LiberalManiacfromOC]

1. If he protects us so well, then why did 9/11 happen in the first place?

After all, Condi herself said that he got a report the day before that was very specific about a terrorist attack by hyjacking planes.

[Hippo_Tron]

8. Are you kidding me? It was OBVIOUSLY Clinton's fault

As was the recession, as is global warming, as is the sky falling.

[LiberalManiacfromOC]

10. oh, good point!

I mean, his penis killed over 1000 American soldiers and 10's of thousands of Iraqis!

[acmavm]

2. Well, they were warned about what to expect before 911, and the jackass

and all his over paid henchment didn't give a damn or want to hear about it. They already had a plan of action in mind, it was attacking Iraq. All they needed was the excuse. 9/11 provide that.

And the only reason we haven't been attacked to date is not because of bush*. They are just waiting, biding their time. It is coming. And the crackpot in the White House has increased the odds of it being a real doozy with his little escapade into Iraq. And if they don't get us the first time, they'll get us the next. Why? Because he created tens of thousands like the 19 that took down the WTC.

[PretzelWarrior]

3. how about: you're a f*cking lunatic. he killed those 3000+ by negligence

he could have responded to real threats--but he didn't. He ignored warnings and as the leader of this country is at the top of the pyramid in the accountability game.

I'd say...that is a pretty low bar--keep this guy because the laws of probability have set in and the likelihood of an attack on US soil has gone down dramatically after 9/11?

Then I'd ask what they're smoking and if they know John Ashcroft is gonna sign there life to hellfire for doing it.

[proud patriot]

4. my response

<How is diverting funds from fighting terror
to fund the occupation of Iraq helpful ? Did you know
with the money we spent invading a country that
never attacked us we could of had an agent armed
with a sniper riffle every 200 yards of our thousands
of miles of border ? Do you know what percentage
of cargo coming in from who knows where gets checked ?
( 3% )In 2002 prior to invading Iraq an FBI document
stated that only 200 hardcore suicidal al queda existed.
However since our invasion of Iraq recruitment for
al queda has sky rocketed . We are losing allies
and creating more enemies . How exactly does that
make you feel safer ? Did you know we only have 11,000
soldiers in Afganistan while well over 130,000 linger
policing Iraq ...Safer ? HOW ? >

[KelleyKramer]

5. Most terrorist attacks in 2003 since keeping records

According to US gov't report (Bush and Repub congress) there were more terrorist attacks in 2003 than since they started keeping stats on it.

Are we safer, a resounding NO!

Then when they go into denial and immediately start obsessing on Clintons penis, I ask them how many people died in the new years 2000 millennium attacks (ZERO!).


PS Four American troops died TODAY in attacks.

[newsguyatl]

6. really good stuff so far guys and gals!!

[Zynx]

7. If he's doing such a good job, why are they saying the terrorists are on

the brink of attacking us again?

[Pobeka]

9. terrorists attacks have DOUBLED since 9/11 worldwide.

So says Richard Clarke, at a ACLU conference in July. He said the state department was forced to change a statement because of that simple fact.

How are we safer, if terrorists are now doubling their activities?

[Bat Boy]

11. "Because if I don't, he'll fall right over."

"...the guy's wasted."

[ComerPerro]

13. Lol

[Bat Boy]

15. Thank you...

Thank you very much.

[gratuitous]

12. No, we haven't sustained another attack . . . yet

But look at the position the U.S. is in: Hundreds of thousands of soldiers and reserves scattered all over the globe, and no way for them to respond if we're attacked again. Look at Florida, for heaven's sake. They'd love to call out the Guard to police against looters, but they're baking their butts in Baghdad because of Bush.

If an enemy hit us now, we'd be in a world of hurt. And don't forget who was in charge on September 11: Mr. Month-Long Vacation himself. Do you REALLY think this guy, who ran like a scared rabbit on September 11 to get out of harm's way, can protect us?

[in_cog_ni_to]

14. Safer?

Did you know that with the implementation of the Patriot Act that YOU can be declared an enemy of the state and an enemy combatant AT ANY TIME, for no reason other than THEY think you are? The FBI can enter your home, unknown to you, at any time they wish and go through your home, go through your drawers, look under your bed, go through your closets, look on your hard drive and BUG your house and phone? All thanks to the Patriot Act.

Did you know that every time you fly on a commercial flight that they can take your SS#, look at ALL of your financial records?

Did you know that they have ordered the Libraries to report on what books you take from the Libraries?

Did you know we now have more terrorists than we ever had prior to 911? Bush has rallied the Al Qaeda troops by attacking Iraq. Did you know that Iraq never had ANY Al Qaeda prior to the invasion? Now there's thousands of them, thanks to your guy Bush. He has NOT made us safer!

[merh]

16. I point out that 9/11 happened on the weed's watch and he and his

merry men were warned in advance that Usama Bin Laden planned a strike in NYC.

When they say that it was Clinton's fault, I remind them that Bill Clinton was in office 37 days on Feb 26, 1993, the day that the World Trade Center was first attacked? He never once blamed the attack on George H. Bush (#41) and Clinton's admin tracked down those responsible and put them in jail where they belong.

Then I remind them that their holy, revered Raygun actually is the prez most responsible for empowering terrorists, he pulled out of Beruit after the barricks were bombed. He showed them that the USA pulls out when the going gets tough. After involved discussions on these issues, they sit silent. (Which for repukes is pretty amazing.)

=================

The World Trade Center Bombing
---------------------------------------------------------
On Friday, February 26, 1993, a massive explosion occurred in the public parking garage of the World Trade Center in New York City. As a result of the explosion, 6 persons were killed, and more than 1,000 injured. The site of the blast became one of the largest crime scenes in NYPD history. Estimates showed property damage in excess of one half billion dollars. The sense of fear and panic in the city was palpable. Indeed, many in law enforcement thought of this investigation as the "case of the century.

The Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF) stepped into the maelstrom and helped restore calm to the city. Within a month of the blast, the JTTF apprehended four individuals responsible for the attack. The suspects went on trial on September 13, 1993. The trial lasted 6 months with the presentation of 204 witnesses and more than 1,000 pieces of evidence. A jury convicted the four defendants on March 4, 1994, in federal court on all 38 counts against them. On May 25, 1994, a judge sentenced each of the four defendants to 240 years in prison and a $250,000 fine. On February 7, 1995, authorities in Pakistan arrested the prime fugitive wanted in connection with the bombing and subsequently rendered him to U.S. authorities. This suspect, the mastermind behind the bombing, was sentenced to 240 years in prison on January 8, 1998.

The quick action taken by the JTTF did much to allay fears and return a sense of normalcy to New York City. The World Trade Center bombing will be remembered as the gravest attack of international terrorism to occur directly on American soil. As part of the plot to strike at the United States, these international terrorists intended to disrupt the dynamics of daily life, commerce, and finance in one of the most heavily populated cities in the United States. The suspect and his associates had hoped to kill upwards of 35,000 innocent people. The excellent work accomplished by the JTTF in investigating and successfully resolving the case dispelled the sense of vulnerability the terrorists had hoped to instill.

http://www.adl.org/learn/jttf/wtcb_jttf.asp

[uhhuh]

17. I guess that means the Clinton Protected us

For over eight years!!! That chimp has only "protected" us for less than three and keeps saying that more attacks are coming!

What a safety record. :eyes:

[kiahzero]

18. That's specious reasoning

My response would go a little something like this:

I could hold up a rock, and say "I haven't been mugged since I started carrying this rock. Clearly, it must prevent muggings. I'll sell it to you for five dollars." Would you buy it? Of course you wouldn't - you're smarter than that.

The Bush Administration is trying to sell you what is, in effect, an anti-terrorist rock. The fact that we haven't been attacked since 9/11 does not prove that the Bush Administration is "keeping us safe from terror." If you look at the record from before 9/11, you will see that the Bush Administration was not nearly as concerned about terrorism as other things, such as the missile defense shield. The people who should have been listened to, people like Richard Clarke and George Tenet, were put, as Dick Cheney put it, "out of the loop."

You might say, "But that was before 9/11 - shouldn't we also look at their record after 9/11?" You'd be correct. If the Bush Administration "woke up" to the threat of terrorism after 9/11, then maybe you might support them. So let's look at what they did.

One of the first things that the Bush Administration did was invade Afghanistan. We had told the Taliban that if we believed bin Laden was responsible for one more attack against the United States, we would invade - this was after the Embassy bombings. Now, they got off the hook for the Cole, since the CIA couldn't demonstrate that bin Laden was responsible for it before Clinton left office. So we invaded Afghanistan - it was the right thing to do. But look at what has happened; because we left Afghanistan before reconstruction was complete, Hamid Karzai, the so-called ruler of Afghanistan, rules nothing more than the city of Kabul.

It's important to note one of the key necessities of a terrorist organization like al Qaeda. To thrive, they require what is known in political science as a "failed state," where the government does not have enough control over their territory to maintain law and order. Afghanistan under the Taliban was such a state, and had been since the Soviets left. This gave al Qaeda a great place to set up training camps and plan attacks against the West.

So what happened? We kicked out the Taliban, and instituted a new government. But we didn't fix the bigger problem - the failed state that gave al Qaeda a place where it could act with impunity. America is less safe because of that bungle.

After Afghanistan, Bush immediately moved his focus to Iraq. As you're probably aware by now, there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. We know that now, but we didn't know that then. You see, Richard Butler pulled the inspectors out after not following UN protocol in 1998 - a decision that was very controversial at the time, as he did so without the consent of the UN. So for 4 years, Iraq was left alone. It certainly wasn't the highest priority on the list (rebuilding Afghanistan should have come first), but you could make the case that we needed to get those inspections to continue.

Bush pushed hard to invade Iraq, but the Congress pushed back - inspect. If he had weapons and refused to destroy them, we would be forced to invade. But there was no reason to rush to war; we had no reason to believe that Saddam was cooperating with terrorists, and had no reason to believe that he was planning on attacking the United States any time soon.

The Senate passed the Iraq War Resolution after a month of debate over the exact terms under which war would be justified. The version that passed stated the terms under which President Bush could go to war:

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and
(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

The question becomes - Did Bush meet these requirements? The answer has to be a resounding "no." There was no demonstration that diplomacy was not working - the inspections were prematurely ended by the Bush Administration... therefore, the first portion of the terms is not satisfied.

Furthermore, the second portion is not satisfied either - it calls for whatever action that Bush takes not interfere with the necessary action of protecting the United States from future terrorism. The war in Iraq was not only not necessary to protect the US from terrorism, it has actually made the nation more vulnerable.

When the United States goes to war, civilian casualties are an unfortunate inevitability. The number of civilian casualties in Iraq numbers around 10,000. Ten thousand people are dead because of this war. That's a lot of grieving families that now bear a grudge against the United States. Not every one of these grieving family members will join the terrorists; I dare say that most of them will not. However, if even a small percentage of these people find enough of a common cause with terrorist groups like al Qaeda, it is significant amount of new enemies for the United States to fight. Additionally, even some of those who did not lose family members may feel compelled to fight against the United States.

And remember before, when I told you about failed states and the danger that they pose - giving terrorist groups an area where they can act with impunity? That's exactly what's happening in Iraq. While Saddam's government was a nasty dictatorship, and I was glad to see it go, the failed state created from its ashes is far more dangerous to the world. It gives terrorist groups like al Qaeda even more territory that they can use to train more people to battle against Western nations like the United States.

So, no, Bush is not keeping us safe from terrorism. He dropped the ball before September 11th, and he appears to be doing it again afterwards.
---------------------------------------------------
What do you think? There are some parts I'm not sure about, but I think I like the feel of the argument.

[newsguyatl]

19. wow, great responses!

thanks!

we should bookmark this thread for those of us who need good talking points.

[kiahzero]

20. Morning resurrection kick! (n/t)