Why no AQ attacks? Maybe ... because of Bush?

You'll please note the words "at home" in my original post.

And if we're going to include attacks overseas, then we mention London and Madrid at minimum - at which moment the columnist's argument falls apart again, which was my first point. It's not much of a piece, because it presents no cause-and-effect evidence.

 

So if we were attacked again, it would be OK to blame Bush. Right?

Look, it would dishonest to say he deserves no credit. Yes, he's done some things that have helped. No doubt. The roundup of high-level terror suspects shortly after 9/11 was a highlight.

But here's another question: Is the reason there haven't been any more attacks by Al-Queda proof that. . .AQ wasn't really as powerful and as much of a threat as others have proposed? They were one group of terrorists, ONE.

 

Actually, Lisa said the rock kept tigers away. But your point still stands.

 

Can it be suggested that Al-Qaeda needed the eight and a half years between WTC attacks to generate funds and new personnel?

 

Been down this road, before.

Not interested in indulging this regime's protection rackets.

"Those who would sell their freedoms for a little security, deserve neither".

-- Benjamin Franklin

 

I've read these type of quotes here, from time to time. And I wonder, are they really still applicable? I mean, Franklin didn't witness Pearl Harbor or 9/11.

I certainly understand what the quotes mean, but would the founding fathers think differently now?

 

It's a nice little racket for the Republicans.

For the next 3 months or so, we'll hear a lot about how America hasn't been attacked since 9/11.

Then, around mid-September or early October when it appears McCain is falling behind in the polls, we'll suspiciously hear news leaked of a vague but major terrorist plot against the U.S. and the alert level will go up to purple or whatever color means something really, really bad is going to happen unless you vote Republican.

 

They stood up against a tyrannical king under threat of hanging. I think they understood danger.

 

Doesn't matter if they'd feel differently. A certain amount of truth rests within those words. And the power and threat of the British in the 1700s can be equated to the threats we face today.

Note: I'm not comparing the British of then to terrorists of today. Rather, trying to make the comparison of the threat.

 

I'll give you that. Not to debate the minor stuff, but that's a much different type of danger, isn't it? I mean, the king was 10,000 miles away -- not really in their backyard. And he eventually just gave up after Yorktown a few years later. I don't think this enemy's going away so easily or quickly.

 

The thing that bothers me is when the Repubs boast that there hasn't been a terrorist attack since 9/11, and that they are being successful at keeping us safe.

Suppose there's an attack the next day/ What's their argument then?

 

The king's soldiers were, though.