No - we are not "winning"

Here's my prediction / conjecture. But at least it is based on reading some fairly detailed analyses of the situation.

Al-Qaeda will attack inside the continental US again - at a time of its own choosing.

Note that "a time of its own choosing" usually means they have the initiative, not a good thing for the enemy to have when we are at war.

Therefore, I believe we are not winning the war on terror, but have deluded ourselves that Bush's strong-arm bashing has somehow helped. How could it be otherwise, when even the targets chosen have been generally the wrong ones, or we've let others do our dirty work, or let whole cadres of the enemy slip away into the mountains well ahead of the first bombs that dropped in Afghanistan, nearly a MONTH after the towers fell on 9/11?

My issue with Bush isn't so much about ideology (although I disagree with him there too) as it is about competence as a military commander. This guy doesn't even have competence as a two-bit oil company owner with his daddy's experts and dollars behind him, much less competence to lead a complex and intricate war on terror.

Sure, we've taken out a lot of the urban terrorists (a small fraction of Al-Qaeda's total strength), but we've done NOTHING to neutralize the insurgency forces in Afghanistan (and now hiding in various mountain enclaves along the Pakistan border, etc.).

These are the guys we need to beat, not a handful of showcase urban terrorists that we parade as if we've somehow "won" this thing.

Jimmy, I'm sorry, but the fact that they haven't attacked us since says nothing about whether we're winning the war on terror. It does say a lot, however, about the patience of a clever enemy who has time on his side....

 

You're entitled to your opinions, Carl, and I respect that. Don't forget all the terrorist attacks against us (here and abroad) while Clinton was in office, however, and his incompetence as a Commander-in-Chief (bombing a pharmaceutical company, etc.).

 

Prediction of future events as the foundation for an argument, while clever, is not actually ‘supporting evidence’

 

Of course they are going to attack again. President Bush has NEVER said that the war on terror will be quick. In fact, he has made it VERY clear on many occasions that we will be fighting terrorism for a long time. Winning the war on terror doesn't mean that we will no longer be attacked. This is the kind of simplistic thought that it takes to vote for Kerry.

 

No mass graves found in Serbia - good... No WMD found Iraq - bad... Stock market crashes in 2000 under Clinton - good... Economy on upswing under Bush - bad... Clinton refuses to take custody of Bin Laden - good... World Trade Centers fall under Bush - bad... Clinton says Saddam has nukes - good... Bush says Saddam has nukes - bad... Clinton calls for regime change in Iraq - good... Bush imposes regime change in Iraq - bad... Terrorist training in Afghanistan under Clinton - good... Bush destroys training camps in Afghanistan - bad... Milosevic not yet convicted - good... Saddam turned over for trial - bad... Ahh, it's so confusing!

 

Excellent point, BubbaGump. There is definitely a huge double-standard right now.

 

Clinton awards Halliburton no-bid contract in Yugoslavia - good... Bush awards Halliburton no-bid contract in Iraq - bad... Clinton spends 77 billion on war in Serbia - good... Bush spends 87 billion in Iraq - bad... Clinton imposes regime change in Serbia - good... Bush imposes regime change in Iraq - bad... Clinton bombs Christian Serbs on behalf of Muslim Albanian terrorists-good... Bush liberates 25 million from a genocidal dictator - bad... Clinton bombs Chinese embassy - good... Bush bombs terrorist camps - bad... Clinton commits felonies while in office - good... Bush lands on aircraft carrier in jumpsuit - bad...

 

We don't know. We have to live with not knowing. Welcome to the war on terror. The French, Israelis, Germans, and British know all about this; thay've been dealing with terrorists for years. They are our natural allies and we need each other.

Iraq, however, has proven to be divisive and to have diverted asstes from the real enemy.

Yes, Bush-bad, Clinton-good because Clinton did not rush headlong into an unnecessary war against a country that, however brutal to its own populace, was no threat to the U.S.

Yes, Bush-bad, Clinton-good because Clinton accepted the evidence that sanctions were working to deprive Saddam of WMD "teeth".

Yes, Bush-bad, Clinton-good because Clinton developed and maintained the international ties that the real war, the al qaida war, the war that killed so many Americans on 9/11, cannot be fought without them.

Yes, Bush-bad, Clinton-good because Clinton based his decisions on best available evidence instgead of his personal religious convictions.

 

I've read your responses (all from conservatives - except Nosborne, he's the only one who made any sense), and I'm still left wondering which part of my original post you would disagree with? I'm somewhat dumbfounded, in fact, that you actually were able to do so while avoiding directly commenting on the pure and near infallible logic I used to deliver my points.

Instead, y'all went on about Bush - good, Kerry - bad or whatever....

We've got a long ways to go here folks.... We have a war to win.

 

Here is another one Bubba,

Kerry flip flops on issues - good. Bush is clear on what he wants accomplished - bad.

 

Pure and infallible logic? Are you kidding? Your argument is predicated on the fact that since we have not had another domestic incident we are not winning the war on terror.

That isn’t logic, it is a fallacy, specifically the fallacy of Affirming the Consequent.

Man, I love a good discussion but jeez, infallible?

 

I am going to go away way out on a limb here and say that as long as Bush is President and as long as the terrorists are scattered across two nations of vast acreage, we won't be attacked.

 

But your prediction is neither evidence nor argument. It more closely resembles a statement of faith.

 

Actually it's merely speculative.

 

And your argument is predicated on poor reading comprehension.

Carl actually said, "I'm sorry, but the fact that they haven't attacked us since says nothing about whether we're winning the war on terror."

He did say he thought we were losing the war, but not for the reason you are claiming.

And since we're naming names of logical fallacies, yours is called a Straw Man.

 

Hm. I thought it was "post hoc ergo propter hoc." Anyway, it's a classic (as in Aristotle) logical fallacy.

 

This idea that we are winning the war on terrorism because there hasn't been an attack on US soil since 9-11 is crazy.

It's like saying we're winning the war on earthquakes here in CA, because we haven't had a big one since...whenever...

 

Actually grgwll, your critique of my argument is based upon even poorer reading comprehension, and poor research. Carl opened the thread by saying:

“Al-Qaeda will attack inside the continental US again - at a time of its own choosing.

Note that "a time of its own choosing" usually means they have the initiative, not a good thing for the enemy to have when we are at war.”

Which is lame.

BTW, talk about poor reading comprehension, I have never suggested that we are winning, or loosing the war on terrorism. I personally believe that this war is so different that comparing it to a sporting event where there is a score is rather obtuse.

On the other hand, I think we are going about it as aggressively and as well as we reasonably can, surrounded by liberal hypocrisy and scatter brains.

(I'm not calling you a scatter brain!)

Bubba

 

The French and some others were illegally doing business with Saddam, so we know why they so came to his defense. Serbia was a threat to the US?

Seemed to do a lot of good since there were more attacks on US and allies under Clinton.

Yes, Clinton, Germany, Russia, and most all intelligence said that Saddam had WMD's. Clinton was also for regime change. Bush just did the job that others (including his Dad) would not do. In the long run I think this will be a good thing that Saddam is gone. I think most everyone could agree that the world is better without Saddam, but the job should have been done a long time ago when most of the world was more ready to get rid of him.

 

Right. Even his DAD wouldn't do it because his DAD, a former head of the CIA, listened to this intellegence and military experts and determined, as his DAD subsequently wrote for all the world to read, that there would be great difficulties and no clear exit strategy if DAD invaded Iraq.

GHWB-good. GWB-bad.