Deliberate Idiocy
Wesley Clark speaks the facts to one of Fox's deliberate idiots, Neil Cavuto.
I don't understand how anyone can believe that the lack of terror attacks in the US is a meaningful sign of victory against terrorism. It's as if we're somehow meant to believe that attacks were occurring weekly prior to Bush launching his rhetorical War on Terra and that he magically brought them to an end through his bold foreign policy initiatives. Correlation does not imply causation here. The fact is that terror on US soil was pretty rare prior to 9/11 (and more commonly executed by our own homegrown, non-Islamic radicals anyway).
Put it this way: Bush claiming that his foreign policy has prevented additional terror attacks would be like me claiming that my policy of wearing rubber boots during thunderstorms has prevented me from being struck by lightning.
By any other metric Bush's foreign policy has either done nothing helpful or failed outright.
And please -- for the love of God, please! -- stop with the USS Cole crap as some kind of freakish Republican talking point. The attack happened on October 12, 2000. The US elected a new president on November 7, 2000. The Navy Jag released their report on the Cole on January 19th, 2001. The Clinton administration left Bush a 20 page response plan that Bush neglected to implement.
The US didn't respond to 9/11 until the October 7 attack on Afghanistan. Assume it takes a month to implement a retaliatory strike (even if the Jag report had been complete, which it wasn't). Try to imagine, if you would, just how absolutely berserk the Republicans would have gone if we'd committed an act of war on what was, at the time, a relatively obscure target directly prior to the November election, or directly after when a new president had just been elected. Clinton did about the only reasonable thing he could do. For anyone to look through their 20/20 hindsight goggles and say otherwise is plain bullshit.
I don't understand how anyone can believe that the lack of terror attacks in the US is a meaningful sign of victory against terrorism. It's as if we're somehow meant to believe that attacks were occurring weekly prior to Bush launching his rhetorical War on Terra and that he magically brought them to an end through his bold foreign policy initiatives. Correlation does not imply causation here. The fact is that terror on US soil was pretty rare prior to 9/11 (and more commonly executed by our own homegrown, non-Islamic radicals anyway).
Put it this way: Bush claiming that his foreign policy has prevented additional terror attacks would be like me claiming that my policy of wearing rubber boots during thunderstorms has prevented me from being struck by lightning.
By any other metric Bush's foreign policy has either done nothing helpful or failed outright.
And please -- for the love of God, please! -- stop with the USS Cole crap as some kind of freakish Republican talking point. The attack happened on October 12, 2000. The US elected a new president on November 7, 2000. The Navy Jag released their report on the Cole on January 19th, 2001. The Clinton administration left Bush a 20 page response plan that Bush neglected to implement.
The US didn't respond to 9/11 until the October 7 attack on Afghanistan. Assume it takes a month to implement a retaliatory strike (even if the Jag report had been complete, which it wasn't). Try to imagine, if you would, just how absolutely berserk the Republicans would have gone if we'd committed an act of war on what was, at the time, a relatively obscure target directly prior to the November election, or directly after when a new president had just been elected. Clinton did about the only reasonable thing he could do. For anyone to look through their 20/20 hindsight goggles and say otherwise is plain bullshit.
posted by Logic101 at 9/06/2006 08:17:00 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home