"There has not been a single attack on this country since 9/11...."

[quiet.american]

"There has not been a single attack on this country since 9/11...."

This is the so-called "ace" answer of Republican strategists and blowhards when talking about Bush being "strong on security." We have some brilliant DU'ers here -- what's your short & sweet comeback to that statement which means absolutely nothing, but sounds authoritative?

My immediate thoughts are:

There has not been a single attack on this country since 9/11.
9/11 was enough. It happened on Bush's watch.

Of course, there's MUCH more to be said, but thinking in terms of short & sweet.

What's your take?

[teach1st]

1. Anthrax n/t

[BattyDem]

2. Anthrax

'nuff said.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

3. Anthrax! nt

[dbackjon]

9. Don't forget

What about the Oklahoma Suicide Bomber?

The incident last week at U of North Carolina?

The Gay-club murders in Mass?


All terroristic activities.

[rfranklin]

11. We're dying over there to keep from dying over here....

I think the deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan will soon surpass the toll on 9/11. (They probably already have but we can go with the official lie on this one.)

[Julius Civitatus]

20. For Dubya's gang, one "brown people" qualify as terrorists. n/t

[VWolf]

4. Anthrax???

I think THAT happened on *'s watch.

[4dsc]

5. So are they proud of 9/11??

That's my response to these assholes.

Then tell them that 9/11 was a MASSIVE REPUBLICAN SECURITY FAILURE.. Needless to say, you won't make then your friend..

[quiet.american]

22. "...MASSIVE REPUBLICAN SECURITY FAILURE" -- excellent! n/t

[Nickster]

6. There were no attacks on the WTC for the 8 years in between the first

attempt and the second attempt either.

[TechBear_Seattle]

7. "I have a magic amulet that keeps wild boars away..."

"I haven't been attacked by a wild boar since I bought it, so it must be working!"

Never mind the fact that the only wild boars within a thousand miles are locked up tight in a zoo.

[Rocknrule]

8. Anthrax, sniper shootings

and wasn't there a guy who planted pipe bombs around the nation in a smiley face pattern (or was that before 9/11)?

Plus, another 9/11 hasn't happened because it take years to plan things like that. So it just hasn't happened YET, not because Bush's enormous balls are protecting us

[deadparrot]

10. Katrina showed that in a time of crisis, we aren't prepared.

Everyone saw that storm coming for days on end, and look at the chaos that ensued. What will happen with a terrorist attack that is completely unexpected?

[lyonn]

33. Expect the same thing, Nothing n/t

[deadparrot]

38. Don't worry, I'm not holding my breath.

If/When something happens, I'm completely convinced that it's every person for themself.

[Richard D]

12. One word > > >

Yet.

Given either it's all OBL, MIHOP, or LIHOP. another attack is almost inevitable.

[quiet.american]

23. ..."Yet." Simple & effective. n/t

[Taxloss]

13. There have been many attacks against Americans and American

interests abroad.

Oh, and there's the growing heap of dead soldiers on the White House lawn.

[FormerDittoHead]

14. Kinda reminds me of those X number of accident free day calendars.

Of course, the very good response is, Why have there been no more attacks?

The answer predictably be, "Because Bush is President".

And a retort could be, "And he was on 9/11..."

[Democrats_win]

15. No hijackings for several years before 9-11, then 4 on one day.

Attaching any meaning to the "not attacked since 9-11" is a great fallacy.

[quiet.american]

25. Like that thinking, use of the word "fallacy."

It leads me to another thought that might turn the phrase right back on them --

This administration's overconfidence is dangerous for the country.

[July]

40. Not to mention the anthrax attack.

And let's not forget that CLINTON, pre-Patriot Act and without suspensions of due process, caught, tried, convicted, jailed, and in one case executed the perpetrators of both the WTC I attack and the Oklahoma City attack. Then his administration warned the incoming Bush administration about bin Laden.

So, if they want to spin it, let's see . . .

Clinton 2 and 0 against attackers, Bush 0 and 2 (bin Laden and anthrax attacker STILL FREE).

[f-bush]

16. Bullshit....there have been 290,000,000 terrorist atacks a day in the US

and they're coming from the White House and being perpetrated on the American people. In the form of cuts to services, erosion of civil rights, lies, illegal wars, loss of credibility among the world's nations, spying and a host of other evils.

It's called domestic terrorism and the biggest terrorist of all is sitting in the White House raping the American people and the US constitution day after day!!!

[jilln]

24. absolutely right!

And they're conveniently forgetting how they keep torture off American soil by committing it in Guantanamo and across the ocean or by flying people to other countries from here to be tortured.

[quiet.american]

28. No argument there! Arrest Bush.

Someone had posted the Secret Service would not let a law enforcement officer actually arrest Bush, and I'm wondering if the Secret Service could then be charged with obstruction of justice?

[Rageneau]

17. Ridge and Cheney have both said another attack is "inevitable."

So if it's inevitable, how can they take any credit for preventing it? At most, they're saying, "There have been no terrorist attacks since 9/11, but there certainly will be."

Which is a lot different from what they imply, which is that Bush has done something -- anything -- to keep us safe.

I agree with BartCop. The reason there have been no Al Quaeda attacks in the U.S. is because Bin Laden and Bush have a deal. Bush lets Osama stay free in exchange for Osama pulling his punches over here.

It's symbiosis. That way, Bush continues to get to use the boogeyman of Osama to usurp more power, while Osama uses the arrogance of Bush to expand his own power and influence.

It's a win-win for everybody -- except everybody else.

[quiet.american]

27. That's a great reminder. n/t

[NanceGreggs]

18. Another attack on the US?

Why bother?

To disrupt our economy? It's already being 'disrupted' on a daily basis by the outsourcing of our jobs, tax cuts to the wealthy, subsidies and tax relief to the corporations, etc. Individual citizens can't make ends meet and, as a nation, we are hopelessly in debt.

To disrupt our freedoms? Well, how many of them are left, anyway? No gain to be made there. We have the Patriot Act, people in prison without trial or charge, wiretapping, pressure on journalists not to write the truth - the average 'terrorist' would have a long way to go to find a single 'freedom' to hate us for.

To lessen our stature in the world? We've got the WH doing that every day. Torture, bribe-taking, vote fraud, ethics scandals everywhere within our government - and now we're trading nuclear know-how for mangoes. Thanks to this Admin, we're already a cross between world-wide laughing stock and the most hated people on earth.

To kill Americans? Just wait for the next hurricane; FEMA will do the job for you.

There's no reason for anyone to 'attack' us in order to destroy us -- and it's probably the ONLY position left that we don't need to outsource. We've got a president and an administration who are doing THAT job with incredible speed and efficiency.

[quiet.american]

29. Very eloquent. And all too tragically true. n/t

[lyonn]

35. That is depressing NanceGreggs, but, so absolutely true n/t

[Julius Civitatus]

19. That's bullshit: there was an ANTHRAX ATTACK at the end of 2001

and the culprit was never caught.

[Jacobin]

21. "The Titanic hasn't hit an iceberg since 1913"

Ergo, the captain of the Titanic is a wonderful captain.

[quiet.american]

26. Great phrase, lol! n/t

[FreedomAngel82]

30. But what about anthrax?

[lakeguy]

31. i'd say "wait until they sell our ports to the UAE." nt

[Village Idiot]

32. BFEE only needed to orchestrate ONE acttack.

[Contrary1]

34. Do we count the continuous attack on our country

by this administration as single...or multiple?


Not one of the worst...Bush is the worst disaster to hit the US.

[lyonn]

36. bush is going to play more Congressional games

Like today, "line item veto." Now that might get the medias attention. But he usually has a goodie bag full of crap to put before the House and Senate. That is what I expect. Then there is always Iran in the background (foreground?). Iran would be a radical way to get attention and of course counter to his Need for popularity via Fear. This group has no bounds.

[Stevepol]

37. There's actually some merit to this argument so it's hard to refute.

The point is, and there are statements from Al Qaeda operatives that suggest this is true, as long as the US has 150,000 troops with targets on their back right down the hall, why should Al Qaeda risk some big attack in the US? If you were Al Qaeda wouldn't you focus on the easy targets next door and not worry for the time being about some country half-way across the planet?

Once we get out of Iraq, Al Qaeda will come calling.

I wouldn't try to refute the argument. Just point out the absurdity of it. If Bush wants to eliminate the danger to the US entirely, he can just send the whole US population to places around the globe where they will be in constant danger of terroristic threats of murder, maiming, kidnapping, and so on.

[quiet.american]

41. Hmn.

That argument would have to assume all of Al-Queda is in Iraq, and none are already here in the country. Which, in that case, would completely invalidate Bush's insistence he is only secretly tapping the phones of Al-Queda suspects here in the U.S.

Hmn, could be useful.

[CJCRANE]

49. Ahem, what about Madrid & London...?

Plus there have been many other terrorist attack outside Iraq, so that argument doesn't really stack up.

[mdmc]

39. that sniper was in d.c.

there were thousands of innocent deaths as a result of the drug war... I think that we have been terra'ized ... and continue to be so.

There hasn't been a mihop or an al-quida attack since 9-11-01 though!:applause:

Your response to the ace answer is okay.:kick:

[Mz Pip]

42. There wasn't a major attack before 9/11

either.

Bin Laden is still out there, by the way.


Mz Pip
:dem:

[quiet.american]

43. Works for me! n/t

[DinahMoeHum]

44. "Why should al Qaeda bother? You're doing the dirty work for them"

why should they break a sweat?

:evilgrin:

[HughBeaumont]

45. The DC Sniper doesn't qualify as a "terror" attack?

Ask my sister and her toddler how they liked being moving targets for 2-3 months. Two of the killings happened three streets away from where she lives. She stayed up here until those two were caught.

[springhill]

46. And there won't be.........

until they need one.

[windy252]

47. The government

could not handle a natural disaster that they knew was coming for several days. How on earth are we supposed to believe that they would be prepared for an actual attack?

[laylah]

48. There has not been an attack

on this country since 9/11 because dumbass* and his minions have deemed it not necessary...yet :mad:

jenn