We haven't been attacked in 7.5 years because... we haven't been attacked in 7.5

[garthranzz]

I am so sick and tired of hearing the Republican nyah-nyah: we haven't been attacked in 7 years so Bush et. al. deserve credit for protecting us,

NO THEY DON'T!!!

and we need to go naked through airport screeners and give up civil liberties and not ask questions and do as your told and pay no attention to the man behind the curtain and...

NO WE DON'T!!

Here's their argument:

The U.S. has not been attacked on its own soil in 7 years.
Bushco has implemented the Patriot Act, the FISA act, invaded Iraq, etc., etc.
Therefore, these policies have protected the U.S. from a terrorist attack and Bush should get credit.

What's wrong with this argument? Several things:

1) Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc (argument by coincidence): Just because two things occur one after the other doesn't mean the first caused the latter.

2) Multiple Causes: There may be other reasons why there has been no attack on the U.S. soil. If I recall correctly, according to Imperial Hubris, our invasion of Iraq was one of the goals of 9/11, as is our current emphasis on fear.

3) The Threat is Greater Than the Execution: This is a chess term. It means, essentially, that the longer you can maintain the tension, keep your opponent worrying about a threat, the more powerful your position becomes. (It's the boogeyman.) So Al Qaeda doesn't need to attack us; it's more effective not to.

There are probably other causal fallacies. In Thank You For Arguing (a great book), Jay Heinrichs calls the "If we pull out now, our soldiers will have died in vain" line "Nixon's Trick."

So what's the proper response?

Fox/Fake News interviewer: How many times have we been attacked in the last 7.5 years?
Answer: How is that relevant (to a discussion of, say, impeachable offenses or erroneous policy)?
Fox/Fake News interviewer: Well, don't you think Bush deserves some credit for the fact we haven't been attacked?
Answer: No.
Fox/Fake News interviewer: Why not?
Answer: Because there's no proof that any thing he's done - illegal wiretaps, outing a CIA agent, lying us into war - has in fact prevented an attack.
Fox/Fake News interviewer: What about all the attacks we don't know about?
Answer: That's a fallacy, an argument from ignorance. Rather appropriate, coming from you.

[FrenchieCat]

1. We've been attacked in many ways, actually.......

just not via another physical terrorist attack on our shores.

But clearly understand that we have been under constant attack. And it continues.

[garthranzz]

4. OK, add faulty conclusion, misuse of terms and insufficient evidence

and a few inductive fallacies to the list.

And the answer can be "Well, we haven't been attacked on our soil, but we've been attacked in other ways." But that let's the Fake News guy/gal say, "yes, that's why we're fighting them over there, so we don't have to fight them over here."

False Dilemma - and a red herring.

But my point was to point out the fallacies of the argument, not illuminate its factual inaccuracy or squishiness.

[LakeSamish706]

2. How about "The Attack on 911 was an inside job?" n/t

[whistle]

3. Correct, because 9/11 was an inside job from start to finish which is the only

...explanation for rePUKE talking points

[mrreowwr_kittty]

5. Yes we have. Anthrax attacks and the DC sniper.

Besides, we DID get attacked, in a very big way, on his watch on 09/11/2001. He failed to keep us safe and nothing he has done since mitigates that. If Al Gore had sat in a classroom reading My goddamned Pet Goat for 7 minutes while planes were hitting buildings we'd never have heard the end of it.

I'm not slamming you, I'm just grousing about the unfairness of it all... :(

[HughMoran]

6. Attacks on US soil are extremely rare in our entire history

Why do they keep telling us that we haven't been attacked since their worst security failure in history.

[NYC_SKP]

7. I haven't gotten lung cancer. I smoke a pack a day. Therefore,

it's a good thing I smoke one pack a day.



False arguments, and thanks for listing them, are the primary tools of all the worst TV and radio media outlets.

It's more effective on TV and Radio than in print; in print it's more transparent and easier for the reader to take in critically.

On the air, and especially live during an interview, it all happens so fast that the interviewee doesn't have time to respond effectively.

Some are pretty good at responding, Wes Clark comes to mind.

[shayes51]

8. GWB did the terrorists' work for them.

He has attacked us every day for the last 7.5 years. Why should OBL waste his energy?

[ileus]

9. bushco planned and carried out 9/11...there will never be another attack.

[Arthurtheking]

10. The nation has rarely been attacked anyway

I don't know why Republicans pretend that we were supposed to be attacked in that period of time.

[blondeatlast]

11. Damn, couldn't even finish your thought before being interrupted.

:evilgrin:

[KittyWampus]

12. Katrina