By your argument, Evil One, the Bush Administration’s post-9/11 security moves have also protected us from UFO invasions, since we haven’t had one of those, either.
I’ll be more impressed with the security “improvements” when we actually thwart an attempted terrorist attack. And we both know that if such an event were to happen, GWB would be crowing about it on national TV faster than you can say “Paris Hilton.”
Okay – here’s a good summary of something I know that you, evidently, do not.
Not really. None of their moves really targeted UFO invasions. I’m not saying that what they did has prevented a terrorist attack, just that the UFO comparison doesn’t make sense. If I eat right and exercise, I might stave off obesity, but it doesn’t mean I’m staving off being hit by a truck.
No, sorry to disappoint you. He was impeached because he committed perjury while in office. That was a felony and his impeachment was exactly correct.
I’m afraid that issue has been more than disposed of.
If you mistook what I posted as some sort of defense of Bill Clinton, you seem to have missed the context of the discussion. I argued that Bill Clinton’s impeachment was a greater scandal than whatever minor Republican misdeed askeptic was whining about.
Although they have made it so that “terrorism” = “an act ‘dangerous to human life’ that is a violation of the criminal laws of a state or the United States, if the act appears to be intended to: (i) intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination or kidnapping. Additionally, the acts have to occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States and if they do not, may be regarded as international terrorism.”
Evil One appears to be stuck on (iii).
Nice link, Steve. Thank you for introducing me to the concept of coincidence.
I realize this is a losing battle, but I’m going to make the effort anyway. You and some others loathe GWB so desperately that you are terrified that he will get credit for something positive or for doing something that makes sense.
If a terrorist attack does happen in the United States over the next three years, you and your friends would be the first ones yelling “You see? We told you! If he hadn’t invaded Iraq this wouldn’t have happened!” And yet, you refuse to entertain the notion that all the security improvements made over the last three years were good ideas.
Just off the top of my head I can think of a terrorism cell broken up in Buffalo a couple of years ago, the arrest of some men who were scouting buildings in New Jersey and the arrest of a man with terrorism ties in Columbus, Ohio.
If someone with terror ties is caught, they are quietly interrogated in an attempt to find others further up the chain. Why do you think that high-profile captures in Iraq and elsewhere are announced at least a week after they happen?
Millions of dollars and hundreds of man hours have been spent in the name of security…each eliminating or limiting the almost endless vulnerabilities of an open society. Our guard is up. We don’t know which of these measures have worked or how well because it would increase our vulnerability to share that information with the general public…and thus the terrorists. I try to point these things out to you and all you can do is send me a cutsey link “educating” me on the fact that sometimes events don’t really follow one another.
To seriously claim that no attacks have been thwarted as rjung does is ideological comedy. Only the souce of amusement is not what he thinks it is.
How would we know? On whom can we rely for straightforward candor? The very people with a vested interest?
Maybe its just me, but after the third or fourth time someone pees down my neck and tells me its raining, I get a bit skeptical.
Pee on me once, shame on you. Pee on me upwards of five times, shame on me.
The leader of which was conveniently killed by the CIA before he could take the stand.
Geez, Evil One, so you’re saying we should assume all of these new security measures are working erfectly to keep us safe because… well, because… er… because of blind, unquestioning faith in the selfless efforts of the Bush Administration.
You are such a tool. :rolleyes:
I for one, welcome our nation’s half-billion dollars worth of kitty litter detectors.
No price is too high to pay to prevent the influx of inferior foreign kitty litter. My nose says its thanks to Uncle Sam daily. My kitty thanks him too.
Well, on the other hand we shouldn’t assume that all of these new security measures aren’t working efficiently to keep us safe because of…err…because of *blind, unquestioning skepticism * in the selfish efforts of the Bush Administration.
Except the new security measures that we know about are mainly just feel-good measures that don’t really do anything for security. Who’s to say that the ones we don’t know about aren’t just as bad?
Just remember that this nation was founded on skepticism. The whole point of having checks-and-balances between the Executive, Judiciary, and Legislative branches was because the Founding Fathers didn’t believe in any of them to do the right thing, thus empowering the others to keep the rogues in line.
Skepticism is patriotic; blind acceptance is not.
I considered a post similar to yours kidchameleon , but I thought that rjungs post spoke for itself in such a way to prove the point I made in the previous post. But thank you.
You guys can sit back and nitpick all day. “Ooh look! An isolated example that proves our tenuous point!” You can and do accuse us of doing the same.
If you truly believe that the post-9/11 security measures are completely pointless, then there is nothing I can do for you. Run along.
Carrilles isn’t a terrorist. He’s a Freedom Fighter.
You’ll have to come up with some better examples. The three you cited stemmed from pre-9/11 intelligence.
I think a better question is whether the security measures taken could have been more effective. Considering the mess that has been made of the detainment and prosecution of terrorists, the Al Qaeda recruitment campaign we started in Iraq and the challenges faced by the patriot act I think it safe to say things could have been done much better.