"Bush is protecting us from Terrorists"

[bryant69]

This is an argument I've been presented with a couple of times recently. Usually it runs something like this.

"Well we haven't had an attack since September 11th (spain doesn't count cause we don't care about foreigners). DO you think that Bin Ladin just gave up after September 11th? Nope. President Bush is protecting us, so you should give him a litle credit."

My response usually has something to do with Specious logic; we don't know what Bush is doing to protect us, and there are a lot of alternate reasons why they might not have attacked us yet.

Anybody got any other zingers to use against this particular argument?

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[rockymountaindem]

1. I would just ask them to

name one specific thing Bush* has done to keep us safer. That should shut them up.

[damnraddem]

14. The count against Dubya is about 3,000 killed, on U.S. soil alone.

That's far worse than any other prez for a long time.

[AndyP]

2. they haven't been watching the news

what do you call civilians in Iraq being killed and mutilated? Just because they weren't on US soil doesn't mean that they weren't targeted because they were Americans. Bush has made Americans targets all around the world.

[DenverDem]

9. what do you call civilians in Iraq being killed and mutilated?

I call them mercenaries.

[AndyP]

19. nevermind

[yardwork]

3. 9/11 happened on W's watch.

We didn't get attacked at all under Clinton. Which president did a better job of protecting us from terrorists?

Also, what about the anthrax letters? They happened after 9/11. How many chances does Chimpy get to start protecting us?

By this person's logic, a terrorist could drop a bomb on San Francisco, but as long as Chicago was still ok, Chimpy would be "protecting" us.

[rogerashton]

4. If he can protect us,

why didn't he start sooner, and stop the 9-11 terrorists?

And if he can't, why doesn't he stop lying about it?

[BOSSHOG]

5. I've ruffled a few feathers with this

If Clinton were President on September 11th, we would not have had a terrorist attack because Clinton did not need a terrorist attack. bush needed something to happen so he could activate the orders he got from cheney's energy task force. Clinton doesn't take orders from cheney.

[DenverDem]

10. MIHOP

You are right on target.

[peacetalksforall]

6. Invite him to read the Clarke book - all the way to the end.

[tabasco]

7. Ask them why they want to forget 9-11.

Why are they excluding the worst terrorist attack in history? It happened on Bush's watch. Tell to to REMEMBER 9-11 ! Bush didn't keep us safe that day, so why should we trust him now?

[Go Eagles]

8. credit for what?

I always point out that 2.5 years is not an accurate window to determine if we are safer. It took over eight years for foreign terrorists to launch a successful attack on US soil after the 1993 WTC bombing. Al Qaeda attacks have also exploded since 9/11, especially since the invasion of Iraq and they are far reaching. Before 9/11 there was Kobar Towers, Kenya/Tanzania and the Cole. Since 9/11 we have seen attacks in Bali and other spots in Indonesia, Rhiad, Pakistan, Morocco, Madrid, Istanbul, Kuwait, Pakistan and numerous attacks throughout Iraq. It hardly looks like an organization that has been damaged.

[lectrobyte]

11. fallacious argument

If I claimed that the moon maidens were protecting you from the invisible demons who come in and take a dump on your head while you are asleep at night, could you disprove it?

[ProfessorGAC]

12. First Of All, Ask Them How Many Attacks Have There Been.

Since we've only had two substantial terrorists attacks on U.S. soil in the last 63 years, and one military attack, i'd like them to explain why they expected another one so soon.

If we'd only been attacked on our own territory once every 21 years, what is the rationale for believing there should have been another one in <3 years? If we only have one an average of each 21 years, shouldn't we be expecting there will be no attack, and then need no protecting at all?

That should confuse 'em into a mental panic.
The Professor

[guitar man]

13. Throw this in their face

- Bush, in remarks in a Press Availablity with the Press Travel Pool,
The Prairie Chapel Ranch, Crawford TX, 12/28/01, as reported on
official White House site

"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02

"I am truly not that concerned about him."
- G.W. Bush, repsonding to a question about bin Laden's whereabouts,
3/13/02 (The New American, 4/8/02)

[JHB]

15. 2-3 years between major Al Queda actions

Al Queda's general track record is that there's a gap of a few years between major hits (although that's not always the case). And that was true even when they had an undisturbed base of operations.

[damnraddem]

16. The count against Dubya is about 3,000 killed, on U.S. soil alone.

That's far worse than any other prez for a long time.

'Since 9/11' just doesn't cut it -- unless they want to argue something like: 'Scott has been a fairly good boy since Laci.'

[NewJeffCT]

17. What about anthrax attacks? The DC sniper?

I remember America being pretty terrorized during the anthrax letter attacks...

And, didn't the DC sniper intend to terrorize us? They certainly scared a lot of folks in the DC/Virginia areas.

[zbdent]

18. How many terrorist attacks were on US soil under Clinton?

Khobar Towers? Nope. Not our soil.

WTC1? Yep, but W was in the WH about four times longer at the time of 9/11 and he blames Clinton for it, where as Clinton didn't blame Bush41 for WTC1, even though it happened less than two months into his presidency.

USS Cole? Two guys in a rubber raft in Yemen. Clinton really could have stopped that.

Oklahoma City? Whoops, that was an Anti-Clinton "REAL AMERICAN HERO". Deceased.

[Cat Atomic]

20. We haven't been attacked by aliens, either.

And Bush doesn't even have his spaceship yet. That man is incredible!

[Beetwasher]

21. Zinger? How About "If that's true, then what happened on 9/11?"

Simple enough...If he was protecting us, 9/11 should never have happened in the first place and he should want to get to the bottom of why and how it happened.

[redqueen]

22. Were the explosions in TX the work of terrorists?

All signs point to YES.

Multiple explosions at the BP plant, an explosion at the Exxon plant.

Lots of people were saying after the BP explosion that it happens all the time so no big deal.

But these happened scarcely two weeks after the FBI issued warnings about terrorist threats against TX plants.

So, given that single accidents happen all the time in Texas, how often does it happen that two different companies' plants have these 'accidents' within days of each other?

[Oddman]

23. bu$h didn't protect America - he was on vacation!

He ignored the terrorism intelligence and went on a vacation for a month just prior to 9/11. He ignored terrorism when he decided to extract revenge on Saddam because of Saddam's assassination attempt on daddy George. He ignored terrorism until it was the election year and now he is focusing on Afghanistan. Too late - al Quaeda has splintered and spread over the world like a virus.

"Say anything stupid and chimpy gets it!"