Inspired by snoopy . . . terrorism and the elections

That said, how can those of you supporting Bush say that an attack would not affect your vote ? I've seen any number of people saying that the fact that he's doing such a good job in the war on terror is the main reason they're voting for him. So, if he completely fails in that and a major attack is carried out, how could you then ignore that and continue to vote for him ?

Haven't read all of the intervening posts, but this kind of negates the complaining by the left about the right saying that the Dems are setting them selves up so that they benefit only when really bad things happen. You assume that I expect any president to guarantee that an attack will never happen. That's not rational. It would more defensible to say that, even when we are attacked again, that we likely prevented several attacks and/or reduced their ability to attack us by virtue of the administration's policies.
 
Originally posted by AirForceRocks
If you are implying that the Republicans (or any American, for that matter) would hope for a terrorist attack in order to influence the election, I think that is beyond ridiculous.

As to your terrorism/chad comment, :rolleyes:

I would hardly consider people unable to follow simple directions to be a terrorist attack. A stupidity attack perhaps, but not a terrorist attack.

I'm so sorry that some people are irony impared on this forum.
 
So, if there isn't another attack, then he gets credit for it, but if there is he doesn't get the blame ?

Wow...Nice position to be in, I guess :rolleyes:

It's also perfectly reasonable to ask if this administration's policies have lead to an increase in the efforts to attack us...or is that no longer permissible ?
 
So, if there isn't another attack, then he gets credit for it, but if there is he doesn't get the blame ?

You seem to be under the impression that all terrorist attacks can be prevented, and that just isn't the case. A President, any President, can take all possible steps to prevent attacks, and while most attacks may be stopped, it's inevitable that one will "get through". I give President Bush credit in that his policies have thus far helped prevent another attack, but if the policies aren't 100% foolproof, no, I won't blame him. Nor would I blame any other President in the exact same position. I would *gasp* actually blame the people that carry out the attack.

Do you blame the police chief in your town every time a crime is committed? After all, the fact that his policies have prevented some crimes should mean that he can prevent all crimes, correct?
 

It's also perfectly reasonable to ask if this administration's policies have lead to an increase in the efforts to attack us...or is that no longer permissible ?

Certainly permissible, but a straw man, IMO. As AFR said, you wouldn't blame the police chief evert time a crime is committed. You also wouldn't blame the police chief if cracking down on crime just made the criminals mad and made them want to retaliate. You blame the criminals for their crimes.
 

PixFuture Display Ad Tag




New Posts









Receive up to $1,000 in Onboard Credit and a Gift Basket!
That’s right — when you book your Disney Cruise with Dreams Unlimited Travel, you’ll receive incredible shipboard credits to spend during your vacation!
CLICK HERE














DIS Facebook DIS youtube DIS Instagram DIS Pinterest DIS Tiktok DIS Twitter

Back
Top