McCain Aid: "Terror attack would help McCain"

[Dr. Jason Stockton]

Maybe I'm out of touch, but wouldn't most reasonable people agree that we are both more likely to be attacked and more vulnerable to attack due to the Bush administration policies?

I guess I need you to elaborate on this one. I am not the biggest fan of George W. Bush and some of his policies, but the fact that we have not been attacked since 9/11/01 certainly debunks your theory that we are more "likely and vulnerable" to be attacked since Bush took office.

Bush deserves criticism for a lot of things, but it's hard to argue that we are less safe today than we were when attacked in the first few months of his presidency.

You can argue that he's creating terrorists, etc. in the Middle East . .but to state that we are more likely to be attacked and more vulnerable to attack is pure rhetoric - the facts suggest otherwise.

Does the administration not get any credit for the absence of an attack on American soil since 9/11? Do you think the terrorists haven't been trying to attack us here for the past 6+ years?

I know it's very popular to hate Bush but I think the hatred has gotten in the way of reality on certain issues.

[Adam Gamradt]

Maybe I'm out of touch, but wouldn't most reasonable people agree that we are both more likely to be attacked and more vulnerable to attack due to the Bush administration policies?

I guess I need you to elaborate on this one. I am not the biggest fan of George W. Bush and some of his policies, but the fact that we have not been attacked since 9/11/01 certainly debunks your theory that we are more "likely and vulnerable" to be attacked since Bush took office.

Bush deserves criticism for a lot of things, but it's hard to argue that we are less safe today than we were when attacked in the first few months of his presidency.

You can argue that he's creating terrorists, etc. in the Middle East . .but to state that we are more likely to be attacked and more vulnerable to attack is pure rhetoric - the facts suggest otherwise.

Does the administration not get any credit for the absence of an attack on American soil since 9/11? Do you think the terrorists haven't been trying to attack us here for the past 6+ years?

I know it's very popular to hate Bush but I think the hatred has gotten in the way of reality on certain issues.

The counter argument is pretty simple. Corellation does not imply causation.

It's not a matter of hatred. It's not a matter of good vs. evil. It's a matter of logic.

[OAKS]

I guess I need you to elaborate on this one. I am not the biggest fan of George W. Bush and some of his policies, but the fact that we have not been attacked since 9/11/01 certainly debunks your theory that we are more "likely and vulnerable" to be attacked since Bush took office.

...

Does the administration not get any credit for the absence of an attack on American soil since 9/11? Do you think the terrorists haven't been trying to attack us here for the past 6+ years?

We actually have been attacked by terrorists since 9/11 - 5 people killed and 17 others infected in the Anthrax mailings over the course of 2 or 3 months in late 2001.

Nobody's been brought to justice for that either.

[StrykerFSU]

Correlation does not imply causation by the definition used in statistics but I don't think that applies here. That's like saying that there is a correlation between high amounts of rainfall and a river flooding or studying before a test and getting a good grade. The Bush Administration instituted specific strategies to fight terrorists and to protect American citizens. Subsequently, American citizens have not been attacked. While not as cut and dry as a laboratory experiment, that seems to be an example of cause and effect. Following your logic we should do away with all social services because the correlation between taxing one economic class to support the poor and improved living conditions for the poor does not imply that the poor are being helped by taxes.

I see the logic as: Attack by terrorists on American soil --> Dept. of Homeland Security, Patriot Act, Engagement of terrorists in Afghanistan and Iraq, increased awareness and vigilance etc. --> No attacks on American soil

I understand that not everyone sees it that way. I also understand that there is no end game to this fight; leaving Iraq or Afghanistan will not result in terrorists laying down their arms.

I think DanGenck hit the nail on the head as far as the answer to the original question goes.

This is a better example of correlation not implying causation:

[LaxRef]

bin Laden doesn't hate Bush or Clinton, he hates the United States of America.

I'm no expert on these things, but my impression is that Bin Laden hates what the U.S. does. He hates that we have bases in what he perceives to be "Holy Land" (which is a ridiculous concept, BTW: is it holy because of where it is and what happened there? Because "there" is millions of miles away by now with the way the earth, sun, and galaxy move? Is it the dirt? If so, could we scrape off the top layer and ship it to them?).

Anyway, none of this justifies cowardly attacks on civilians, but it's foolish to just say, "Well, they're just evil, and we're good, and that's why they do what they do and there's nothing we can do to stop it!" That's a gross oversimplification. Our country does things that a lot of other countries don't like, and, right or wrong, there are consequences for those actions. What I'd like to see is for us to do a better good of trying to actually be the good guys rather than just acting like whatever we do is right because we're the ones doing it.

We had so much goodwill from around the world after 9/11, and we just wasted it. It's sad.

[LaxRef]

Maybe I'm out of touch, but wouldn't most reasonable people agree that we are both more likely to be attacked and more vulnerable to attack due to the Bush administration policies?

I guess I need you to elaborate on this one. I am not the biggest fan of George W. Bush and some of his policies, but the fact that we have not been attacked since 9/11/01 certainly debunks your theory that we are more "likely and vulnerable" to be attacked since Bush took office.

Bush deserves criticism for a lot of things, but it's hard to argue that we are less safe today than we were when attacked in the first few months of his presidency.

You can argue that he's creating terrorists, etc. in the Middle East . .but to state that we are more likely to be attacked and more vulnerable to attack is pure rhetoric - the facts suggest otherwise.

Does the administration not get any credit for the absence of an attack on American soil since 9/11? Do you think the terrorists haven't been trying to attack us here for the past 6+ years?

I know it's very popular to hate Bush but I think the hatred has gotten in the way of reality on certain issues.

More likely to be attacked because of the Iraq war inspiring new generations of terrorists. Maybe "more vulnerable" wasn't the right term, but we're using up our military in Iraq and we're not in position to respond if they're needed elsewhere.

Does the administration get credit for no attacks on American soil since 9/11? I don't know. I find it hard to believe that the response to domestic security would have been much different if there had been a different administration in office, except maybe the president would respond to "We're under attack" with putting down the children's book and excusing himself from the room.

[Jac Coyne]

We actually have been attacked by terrorists since 9/11 - 5 people killed and 17 others infected in the Anthrax mailings over the course of 2 or 3 months in late 2001.

Nobody's been brought to justice for that either.

Will, that a pretty broad interpretation of terrorism. Wouldn't Jeffrey Dahmer, Ted Bundy and John Wayne Gacy all fall under the rubric of "terrorist" by your standard?

[Jac Coyne]

This is a better example of correlation not implying causation:

Beautiful.

[Adam Gamradt]

"Correlation does not imply causation by the definition used in statistics but I don't think that applies here. That's like saying that there is a correlation between high amounts of rainfall and a river flooding or studying before a test and getting a good grade. The Bush Administration instituted specific strategies to fight terrorists and to protect American citizens. Subsequently, American citizens have not been attacked."

It is especially important to find actual connections between what our government says they do, and what they actually do.

The flood and test analogy do not apply. There is a correlation, but there is also verifiable empirical evidence to show those things are connected causally.

We're supposedly fighting a global war on terrorism, yet world wide incidents of terrorism are up. They've already lied about this back in 2004 when they claimed world wide rates were down, when in fact the rate was much higher.

While it is true that no person or group has successfully utilized the tactic of terrorism within the continental US (unless you count anthrax or the VT Massacre), it's hardly a result of the current administration.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and jingoist slogans certainly aren't enough to convince me we are any safer.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article ... 72,00.html

God bless all of us, no exceptions.

[Tim Whitehead]

We actually have been attacked by terrorists since 9/11 - 5 people killed and 17 others infected in the Anthrax mailings over the course of 2 or 3 months in late 2001.

Nobody's been brought to justice for that either.

Will, that a pretty broad interpretation of terrorism. Wouldn't Jeffrey Dahmer, Ted Bundy and John Wayne Gacy all fall under the rubric of "terrorist" by your standard?

What about the DC Sniper?

[Steno]

We actually have been attacked by terrorists since 9/11 - 5 people killed and 17 others infected in the Anthrax mailings over the course of 2 or 3 months in late 2001.

Nobody's been brought to justice for that either.

Will, that a pretty broad interpretation of terrorism. Wouldn't Jeffrey Dahmer, Ted Bundy and John Wayne Gacy all fall under the rubric of "terrorist" by your standard?

Well, to settle this:

Definition of Terrorism
[Source: Patterns of Global Terrorism. Washington: Dept. of State, 2001: vi]

No one definition of terrorism has gained universal acceptance. For the purposes of this report, however, we have chosen the definition of terrorism contained in Title 22 of the United States Code, Section 2656f(d). That statute contains the following definitions:

The term "terrorism" means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant (1) targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.

The term "international terrorism" means terrorism involving citizens or the territory of more than one country.

The term "terrorist group" means any group practicing, or that has significant subgroups that practice, international terrorism.

The U.S. Government has employed this definition of terrorism for statistical and analytical purposes since 1983.

Domestic terrorism is probably a more widespread phenomenon than international terrorism. Because international terrorism has a direct impact on U.S. interests, it is the primary focus of this report. However, the report also describes, but does not provide statistics on, significant developments in domestic terrorism.

(1) For purposes of this definition, the term "noncombatant" is interpreted to include, in addition to civilians, military personnel who at the time of the incident are unarmed and/or not on duty. For example, in past reports we have listed as terrorist incidents the murders of the following U.S. military personnel: Col. James Rowe, killed in Manila in April 1989; Capt. William Nordeen, U.S. defense attache killed in Athens in June 1988; the two servicemen killed in the La Belle disco bombing in West Berlin in April 1986; and the four off-duty U.S. Embassy Marine guards killed in a cafe in El Salvador in June 1985. We also consider as acts of terrorism attacks on military installations or on armed military personnel when a state of military hostilities does not exist at the site, such as bombings against U.S. bases in Europe, the Philippines, or elsewhere.

So, if you want to sway public opinion by your action, then yes, you are a terrorist.

[Jac Coyne]

[Jana]

Dr Stockton - the absence of terrorism on US Soil has a lot to do with our troops success in Afghanistan in late 2001 - 2002 - Taliban on the run and our ability to freeze bank accounts internationally.

I'm not convinced that invading Iraq stopped the Taliban from attacking us at home. They were in Afghanistan and Pakistan in 2003, not Iraq. At the time Al Qaeda hated Saddam. They are Wahhabists and their beliefs contradict Saddam's Baathist politics. AQ also hated Iran for similar religious reasons.

However, invading Iraq did allow AQ to organize cells via cell phone / internet inside Iraq and they have been very successful blowing up, beheading and otherwise mutilating our troops there, along with hundreds of thousands of Iraqi citizens. Recent documents indicate AQ was mostly Jordanians and Egyptians, later succeeded by Iraqis. The old saying about "low hanging fruit" applies. Why go to the expense and effort of attacking us at home when it's so much easier and scores more political points to do it closer to home?

Consider the terrorist attacks on the London, French and Madrid subways, botched attempts in Germany and other locations, along with massacres of civilians in Saudi Arabia, bombings in Morocco, Egypt, etc. All failed attempts to get the populations to "rise up" against their governments, who were cooperating with the US State Dept. Consider the repeated massacres of diplomats in Iraq - from Tunesia, Russia, Italy, etc. All beheaded.

If Al Gore had been elected in 2000 I think we would still have an absence of terror after 9/11, because the US would still have gone into Afghanistan, and perhaps would have fully defeated the Taliban by concentrating more troops and resources there. We still would have heightened security and Homeland Security making it more difficult to enter the US.

AQ is a bunch of serial killers, but just like the other serial killers we've had domestically over the years, if they are found alive, they deserve to get speedy trials, legal representation and a total absence of torture.

[OAKS]

Will, that a pretty broad interpretation of terrorism. Wouldn't Jeffrey Dahmer, Ted Bundy and John Wayne Gacy all fall under the rubric of "terrorist" by your standard?

Those guys could quite possibly be considered domestic terrorists, but they were individuals and I might be mistaken but I don't think they were out to wipe the US off the map or terrorize the public. Whether the anthrax attacks were domestic or foreign is unknown, but I would say it was definitely an attempt to terrorize the public. There were also notes with some of the letters. From Wikipedia:

The New York Post and NBC News letters contained the following note:
09-11-01
THIS IS NEXT
TAKE PENACILIN NOW
DEATH TO AMERICA
DEATH TO ISRAEL
ALLAH IS GREAT

The second anthrax note

The second note that was addressed to Senators Daschle and Leahy read:
09-11-01
YOU CAN NOT STOP US.
WE HAVE THIS ANTHRAX.
YOU DIE NOW.
ARE YOU AFRAID?
DEATH TO AMERICA.
DEATH TO ISRAEL.
ALLAH IS GREAT.


Unless it's a cover-up, that kind of points to foreign Islam-related terrorist groups such as al-Qaeda.

[Zamboni_Driver]

Will, that a pretty broad interpretation of terrorism. Wouldn't Jeffrey Dahmer, Ted Bundy and John Wayne Gacy all fall under the rubric of "terrorist" by your standard?

Those guys could quite possibly be considered domestic terrorists, but they were individuals and I might be mistaken but I don't think they were out to wipe the US off the map or terrorize the public. Whether the anthrax attacks were domestic or foreign is unknown, but I would say it was definitely an attempt to terrorize the public. There were also notes with some of the letters. From Wikipedia:

The New York Post and NBC News letters contained the following note:
09-11-01
THIS IS NEXT
TAKE PENACILIN NOW
DEATH TO AMERICA
DEATH TO ISRAEL
ALLAH IS GREAT

The second anthrax note

The second note that was addressed to Senators Daschle and Leahy read:
09-11-01
YOU CAN NOT STOP US.
WE HAVE THIS ANTHRAX.
YOU DIE NOW.
ARE YOU AFRAID?
DEATH TO AMERICA.
DEATH TO ISRAEL.
ALLAH IS GREAT.


Unless it's a cover-up, that kind of points to foreign Islam-related terrorist groups such as al-Qaeda.

Remind me, I thought the use of Allah in these letters was not correct by muslim and/or arabic standards and led investigators to think this may be a copy-cat or an attempt to confuse law enforcement? Is that right or just urban legend?