Alright so I was talking to a buddy about the campaign and he started bitching to me about how I don't support George Bush anymore. I asked him to tell me what he has done well in office that should earn my support for him.

My Friend: There hasn't been a terrorist attack in 7 years.
Me: Yeah: what's your point?
My Friend: Bush has made it safer for us.
Me: How?
My Friend: Because there hasn't been another attack.
Me: Yes I know that but that doesn't mean Bush has done anything. How long was before 9/11 since there was another terrorist attack?
My Friend: I don't know.
Me: Well say it was 10 years before 9/11 there was another attack, using your logic, wouldn't Bush be at fault for letting 9/11 happen.
My Friend: No. Support our country.
Me: Right


This conversation reminded me of the simpsons episode. There was an attack on Springfield, so the citizens put a rock in front of the town and there wasn't another attack and they all celebrated because the rock was stopping the attacks.

I mean honestly, I was dumbfounded after this conversation.

To answer the question, it does not make sense. It sounds like your friend either doesnt know what he is talking about or being a bitch; at this point most conservatives dont like bush.

9/11 made America safer because more precautions were definitely put in place. I'm also sure that terrorist threats have been taken more seriously since. Bush himself hasn't made us safer; the response by all Americans to the attack did.

I've had that conversation many times. And Obama supporters are supposed to be the cultists?

To answer your other point, we were attacked in January 1993. If you take the right-wing argument (which your friend undoubtedly shares) that Clinton did absolutely nothing after that attack to protect us, then it was over 8 years later that the al queda terrorists attacked us again - and that was with them actively developing a real and elaborate plan.

It's only been 7 years since 9-11, and there's nothing to suggest that they even want to amass another such attack. They did the damage they wanted to do.

... and the Clinton administration caught the guys responsible, too, and without suspending habeas corpus.

"Lisa I'd like to buy your rock"

Groucho, groucho, groucho. Catching the guys responsible is such a pre-9-11 mentality.

I really hate to be the devils advocate but your friend is sorta right. Now Bush has reached this level of success via gross violations of international law and curtailment of civil liberties but I bet if the British government had enacted such measures in the 70s during the height of the IRA bombing campaign on the British mainland then they to would have meet with alot of success....................this would have also called for the bombing of Dublin and the installation of Hamad Karzi as our leader so its definetly a phyrric victory of sorts for Bush.

Long view short Bush's measures have had effect but the price has been to great.

Well as a terrorist you dont have to attack US-Ground. You can get it cheaper an easier in Iraq.
So maybe we should also count some of the US people who died in Iraq as terrorist victims. That would be a correct way to look how save US folks is.

And 1996. And 1998.

Good point; they don't need to come over here to kill Americans -- we came to them.

Some of them are terrorist victims. Most aren't.

None of them are

When a terrorist blows up an outdoor market and some American troops happen to be there, they're victims of terrorism too.

how so? they would be attacking the soldiers wouldnt they? Very unconventional i suppose but its war right?

By your definition terrorist acts don't exist.

Not really, but how can you say american soldiers in Iraq getting attacked by Iraqis is "terrorism". It is infact, the other way round. oh yeah and the war is completely illegal aswell.
(whats my definition by the way?? )
Now 9/11 - that was terrorism krem.

American troops attacked by Iraqi insurgents - that's not terrorism.

Hundreds of people being blown up with a truck bomb - that's terrorism.

pretty much.

a jet dropping bombs over towns and cities - thats also terrorism

Launching rocket attacks from those towns and cities - also terrorism.

also kinda right, though basicly what im trying to say is there is no way you can describe the death of an American soldier in Iraq the result of a terrorist attack . . . remember they are there illegally

International law notwithstanding (who's the judge?), my point is that there times when an American soldier would die in a terrorist attack in Iraq.

It's all semantics.

like when he's on his toilet break?

Or she.