"There haven't been any attacks on US soil since 9/11."

[elperromagico]

How many times do you hear this chestnut in defense of Bush?

By the same token, one could have argued on 9/10/01 that, as there had been no terrorist attacks on US soil since the '93 WTC bombing, Clinton had kept us safe from terrorism. But no right-winger would ever make that argument. No, he/she would bring up the USS Cole, the embassy bombings, and any other terrorist attack he/she could think of. Never mind that these attacks were not in the US.

Yet, if you try and counter the "no attacks since 9/11" argument by pointing out attacks on US troops in Iraq, these are quickly dismissed by right-wingers. "Those weren't in the US," they'll carp, as though a dead American in Iraq is less important than a dead American in Manhattan. Point this hypocrisy out and they'll say, "Those people volunteered." Cops volunteer too, knowing that they might die in the line of duty. It makes them no less murder victims if someone shoots them.

This whole argument makes no more sense than an obese man saying, "I haven't had a heart attack in five years. Therefore, I'm in great health" The first sentence may be true, but the conclusion reached in the second is foolhardy. The risk of heart attack is still present; the absence of heart attack is not proof of safety.

[C_U_L8R]

1. Our constitution is under constant attack

by some real crooks

[Newsjock]

2. Anthrax

The prosecution rests.

[elperromagico]

7. Your average right-winger will just laugh that off.

"They just sent some letters to a bunch of liberals."

Some, like Coulter, might even approve of it.

[William769]

3. What about November 2nd 2004?

[elperromagico]

4. That attack occurred with the aid of about 62 million accomplices. nt

[William769]

9. So says electronic voting.

[elperromagico]

10. Even based on the exit polls, he got 48% of the vote.

If the American people had gotten their heads straight the way they seem to finally be doing now, he would have been run out of DC on a rail.

[neuvocat]

5. 911 happened BECAUSE of Bush.

That's all you have to say.

[elperromagico]

8. I wish I argued with the right-wingers you argue with.

9-11 is Clinton's fault, in their minds. Bush was still settling into office, you see. Takes a long time to reattach all those W's to the keyboards. :eyes:

[Kagemusha]

6. Osama doesn't need to attack again. We're following his script.

He - and other Moslems - can kill us "over there", so there's no need to come "over here" to do it. In that Bush may have something of a point.

[DianaForRussFeingold]

11. Alex Jones Predicts Another Terrorist Attack, Faux News reported

On July 25, 2001-- Alex Jones predicted (based on his ... all » sources within government intelligence agencies) that there would be a terror attack on U.S. soil to be blamed on someone "like Bin Laden." Now Alex Jones Predicts Another Terrorist Attack, Let's hope it doesn't happen! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GCWPbhUB9s

[Beelzebud]

12. Except the Army Medical Lab Anthrax.

But we don't like to talk about that in America.

[elperromagico]

13. And as I've said, the average right-winger will laugh that off.

After all, most of the anthrax letters were sent to "liberals."

There's a pecking order within right-wing circles when it comes to the importance of death:

1. Themselves
2. Their family members
3. Other Americans
4. American soldiers
5. Foreigners
6. Liberals

[FormerDittoHead]

16. You forgot to separate white & black under "Other Americans" n/t

[fooj]

14. Bullshit...any word on the Anthrax terrorists?

Sent to media and DEMOCRATS! Hmmmmmmm...

[LunaSea]

15. There should not have been attacks on US soil.

Dilligent and competent people would have done their job right.