One big myth from 9/11.

[kentuck]

We hear it often. Why haven't we been attacked since 9/11? Doesn't George W Bush deserve the credit for protecting our nation? Fair questions, I suppose?

However, there is the assumption within the question that al Qaeda had more attacks planned against us? All they needed was the one on 9/11. Why would they plan more? There is no evidence that I have seen that there were any other large scale attacks planned to coordinate with 9/11? But we are led to believe that 9/11 was not an isolated attack but one of several that were planned to destroy our country? So, therefore, George W Bush has protected us from all those other attacks that would have happened if he had not invaded Iraq?

Unfortunately, most security experts say that we are less safe today. Also, that there are more terrorists in the world because of the invasion of Iraq. That the real terrorists were able to rebuild themselves and move back into Afghanistan since we have been diverted to Iraq? As proof, they show the evidence that there were more Americans killed in Afghanistan last month than anytime since 2001/

[RT Atlanta]

1. anthrax

I always ask folks who use that statement (no attacks since 9/11) whether they consider the anthrax attacks as an "attack." I do; and I also believe our country is much less "safe" due to *'s misbegotten wars.

[wryter2000]

5. Besides...

Don't London and Madrid count as attacks? Bad enough we don't count Ay-rabs as human beings. We also don't count two of our biggest allies in the "GWOT" as human beings.

[Mrs. Overall]

8. Yes, I was just thinking about the anthrax yesterday: only reporters and Democrats were targeted.

I absolutely can't wait for the full truth to come out regarding the anthrax attacks.

[hendo]

20. Its because

the republicans are good for terrorism. They wouldn't be able to recruit at anywhere near the levels that they are now if it wasn't for the war in Iraq.

[RobertSeattle]

2. Could happen tomorroow, next year, 20 years from now

(And to the right wingers, no matter what, it willbe a Democrat's fault)

The AQ types are in no hurry. They have very long memories.

The whole point of terrorism is to get Government's to OVERREACT... Which is excactly the W did, in spades.

[JHB]

14. It was only an overreaction if...

...you believe it was actually a response to the terrorism, and I'm sure you know better than that.

[wryter2000]

3. That one drives me nuts

The first attack on US soil was in 1993. The second was in 2001. According to that schedule, the next is scheduled for 2009. What has Bush prevented?

Plus, you could argue that we disrupted their operations when we invaded Afghanistan. We could have put them out of business if we'd kept our efforts there.

[undeterred]

4. Our crumbling infrastructure has caused more deaths

than the 9/11 attacks. The most visible changes are in aiport security- making checks that might not have screened out the terrorists. Are our agencies any better under Bush? He's spying on the American people- looking for political enemies.

[ben_meyers]

11. "Our crumbling infrastructure has caused more deaths"

Than American deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan, but that is hardly a valid comparison. More people die every month in this country than died on 9-11, does that make 9-11 insignificant?

[undeterred]

12. My point is that the money this administration

has spent to make us "safer" has ignored other kinds of safety- like levees and dams not holding, bridges collapsing, etc. You're just as dead if you drown after a hurricane as when you are killed by a terrorist.

[LeftishBrit]

6. It seriously infuriates me, especially as WE did get attacked...

not to mention Spain and Bali.

They should take into account attacks on allied countries as well as the USA itself.

[HughBeaumont]

7. CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP

"Why are you clapping?"

"Duh! To keep the TIGERS from attacking!"

"There aren't any tigers around for . . . continents."

"DAMN. This clapping trick is working better than I thought, then!"

Morans don't really get that whole "cause and effect" thing very well, do they?

Oh well, repeat a stupid thought over and over again and eventually you'll get enough suckers to believe you, I guess.

[truth2power]

19. Congratulations, Hugh. You get it...

Bush has been promoting that BS for years about "We haven't been attacked." He's the poster-boy for logical fallacies. There's no point in asking why the media stenographers haven't called him on it.

Take a look at this:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/15501

My Magic Pants
by Brian Morton | June 26, 2008 - 11:46am

"I have a pair of magic anti-terrorism pants.

I bought them from a traveling salesman right after Sept. 11. He told me that as long as I own them, the United States will not be hit by any terrorist attacks. So far, he's been right--we haven't. A lot of people say that it's because of the policies implemented by the Bush administration, but really, I know for sure it's because of my pants.

You can't prove otherwise--I still have the pants, and we've had no planes crash into any buildings in New York or Northern Virginia. My pants are doing a great job, if you ask me."

<more>

[Tangerine LaBamba]

9. Who needs al Qaeda

when we have Fuckface In The Oval Office, the biggest terrorist of them all?

Al Qaeda doesn't need to do anything ever again. Fuckface has brought our country to its knees in ways that Osama bin Laden
might only have dreamed about. The damage he's done to the United States - in every way - is far more lasting than flying some planes into skyscrapers.

He's been bin Laden's best friend. I'm sure the Saudi royal family is very proud of Fuckface.

[EarlG]

10. Don't forget that wingnuts

always cite the attacks against the USS Cole and the American embassies in Tanzania and Kenya when talking about how Clinton failed to fight terrorism. Yet when talking about Bush's record, for some reason they don't count the 2004 and 2005 bombings in Spain and Britain (both US allies). Not to mention the hundreds and hundreds of car bombs that have killed thousands of people in Iraq.

They don't cite this either:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/04/26/AR2005042601623.html">U.S. Figures Show Sharp Global Rise In Terrorism

[kentuck]

13. Also, I think the USS Cole attack happened in October, 2000?

Just a couple of months before Bill Clinton left office? Perhaps he had the time to find out who did it and attack those responsible but he didn't. But it could have given them incentive for another attack because George W Bush did not pursue the attackers once he took office, because it didn't happen on his "watch"..

[JHB]

17. The Cole bombers weren't identified until January or later...

The wingnuts were always quick with the "bomb'em" cry after a terrorist bombing, but they were never too particular who the target should be, except for "Ay-Rabs" in general and Saddam in particular.

By the time a target could be identified to retaliate for the Cole bombing, it was Dubya's watch, and he chose to do nothing.

[wildbilln864]

15. What about the anthrax attacks? nt

[Bob Dobbs]

16. MIHOP

busholini IS the terrorist.

[pansypoo53219]

18. why attack?

georgee is destroying america for them.