The Repubs say, "But we have not had an attack since 9/11..."

[kentuck]

They plan to use this as proof that they are doing an excellent job at protecting us from the "terrorists". Of course, they are assuming that the terrorists had other plans to attack us after 9/11. So far, I have not seen any proof that they were planning a prolonged war against us after 9/11.

This does not mean we shouldn't hunt down those responsible for 9/11. However, it does not mean we should attack every place in the world because we are now at war with "terrorism".

But how do you respond to such an illogical statement? Clinton did not permit a foreign attack on America after the WTC in 1993? Was he successful? How long between terrorist attacks is considered a "success"?

No doubt the Repubs will use this line of reasoning in the upcoming campaign. How would you respond?

[ramblin_dave]

1. We wouldn't have had 9/11 if Gore had

taken his rightful place as president.

[forgethell]

14. Not to get in a debate about

whether Gore should be President, I happen to agree with you. but HOW would 9/11 be preventedif he had. I cannot see the two as causally related in any way. Planning for 9/11 had been going on as least since the first WTC bombing, which, if you will recall, took place on Clinton's watch.

Would the fundie Islamiscist terrorists have said, "Oh, yeah, Gore's our guy. Let's just wait until a Republican is in office?" I doubt it, seriously.

So, OK, I'm just dumb. Please educate me as to why the statement that 9/11 wouldn't have happened on Gore's watch. And, so what if Bush* was warned about Osama? What proof, proof now, not opinion, that Al would have done things differently. WJC didn't, and Al was his vice-president.

We are not going to win the American people over by claiming that * is not doing enough on the war on terror by saying how much better we would have done it if Gore had been in. There is no way to prove it, and they don't believe it. They aren't interested in talking to the terrorists and finding out how we offended them. They just want them dead. I live in a conservative area of the country, and I know.

We need to keep on economic issues, like the tax cut, and immigration (how can we go left of Bush* on this).

[ComerPerro]

15. Hang on to something......

He is implying that 9/11 could and should have been prevented, but was not. He is therefore saying that Bush and his administration AT THE VERY LEAST knowingly let 9/11 happen so they could use it for political gain and to push their agenda more effectively.

I agree with this sentiment. When you think about all the warnings, and then compare it with Bush's low approval ratings and his desire to manipulate events in the middle east, it really becomes unbelievable how convienient that 9/11 was for them. Way too convienient.

[forgethell]

16. OK,

but a conspiracy theory is not the same as proof. I think we run the risk of the boy who cried, "Wolf", once too often. I'm not saying that you are wrong about this; I am saying the evidence does not convince me, and I want to believe. So I don't think it will convince most people. I know it won't convince many people around my section of the country (see edit on previous post)

[ComerPerro]

17. Unfortunately, you will never see any evidence

Call it a gut feeling.

Essentially, every instinct I have tells me that Bush is not just lucky.

[proud patriot]

2. My response

that doesn't change the fact that the worst
intelligence and security failure in the
history of this nation happened on 9/11/01.

That doesn't change the fact that bush was warned on August
6th 2001 and told the person briefing him about an al
queda attack, not to come to him with warnings again.

That doesn't change the fact That Anthrax is a terrrorist
attack , and it happened after 9/11/01 , just cause it
was a RW white guy doesn't mean it wasn't terrorism.

That Doesn't change that fact that Standard Operating
Proceedure wasn't followed on 9/11/01 . No one has been
fired or reprimanded for the failure that day .

That doesn't change the fact that bush has obstructed
and been vs. the widows of 911 since 9/11/01.

etc.

[onehandle]

3. Happened during your so called watch...

There's the door, Mr. "President".

[cthrumatrix]

4. ask the repugs to "prove who did 911"....documents...proof....you can't

find it...

In fact...how they could have determined the 911 hijeckers is a mystery since they were surprised and incinerated ...but yet we have photos of them the next day.

I'll await their answer.

[kentuck]

5. They all floated down with that passport at the scene of 9/11...

since it seemed to be one of the first items they found?

[Rex]

6. That's because the guys that allowed it to happen don't need another one

LIHOP, MIHOP.

[moof]

7. Second what cthrumatrix said

Till they prove that 9/11 was not an inside job there has not been a terrorist attack even on 9/11.

[zbdent]

8. So, by their logic, WTC 1 was Bush 41's fault

in March 1993.

9/11 is all Clinton's fault even though it took place almost 9 months after Clinton left office.

WTC 1 took place less than two months after Bush 41 left office.

[zbdent]

9. So, by their logic, Waco was Bush 41's fault

in April 1993.

9/11 is all Clinton's fault even though it took place almost 9 months after Clinton left office.

Waco took place less than 4 months after Bush 41 left office.

[Military Brat]

10. Al Franken responds to this line of illogic very clearly

Check out his book, Lies, and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them. He spells out very specifically how the Republican Congress derailed Clinton's carefully laid plans for anti-terrorism, including the much ballyhooed Homeland Security. Franken is very specific about the Clinton administration attempts to convince the incoming bush** administration of the very real and pervasive threat from al Qaeda.

Did bush** listen? Of course he did. But he did nothing about it, because it so conveniently fit his ultimate agenda. LIHOP.

Edit: Let me clarify. The "war on terrorism" has been ongoing long before bush** got into the Oval Office. The fact that 9/11 happened on his watch is evidence that he dropped the ball in a major way. 9/11 would not have happened if Clinton had a third term. We may have had a lesser attack, but nothing so monstrous. And the real shame of it is, by allowing 9/11 to happen, bush** only encouraged al Qaeda to try again. Hell, they got away with it once. Maybe next time al Qaeda attacks, the U.S. will attack Syria in retaliation. Or France, just to please Richard Perle.

[CJCRANE]

12. "The First War of the 21st century"

was what bush said on 9-11. Makes you wonder how many wars he was planning on having.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

11. Do you REALLY want to find those responsible for 911?...

Try looking in the White House first.

[pasadenaboy]

13. Compare the number of

civilians and military people killed by terrorism under Clinton to Bush.

Clinton= <20 civilians?
Bush= 3000+ civilians

Clinton= <20 US service people
Bush= 500+ US service people


Remind me again how Bush has made us safer? He is the worst of all time.

[slor]

18. Also remember...

the Gore people would not have threatened the Taliban "with a carpet of bombs" if they refused the "carpet of gold".