Wednesday, January 24, 2007


Ever since 9/11 President Bush has protected this country and taken it to the terrorists. As a result we haven't had one single terrorist attack on U.S. soil in the 5 years since then. Not only does he not get credit for this but he gets attacked by the naysayers.

Here are two of my favorite excerpts from his State of the Union Address:

"Our success in this war is often measured by the things that did not happen. We cannot know the full extent of the attacks that we and our allies have prevented, but here is some of what we do know: We stopped an al Qaeda plot to fly a hijacked airplane into the tallest building on the West Coast. We broke up a Southeast Asian terror cell grooming operatives for attacks inside the United States. We uncovered an al Qaeda cell developing anthrax to be used in attacks against America. And just last August, British authorities uncovered a plot to blow up passenger planes bound for America over the Atlantic Ocean. For each life saved, we owe a debt of gratitude to the brave public servants who devote their lives to finding the terrorists and stopping them."

"In such courage and compassion, ladies and gentlemen, we see the spirit and character of America -- and these qualities are not in short supply. This is a decent and honorable country -- and resilient, too. We've been through a lot together. We've met challenges and faced dangers, and we know that more lie ahead. Yet we can go forward with confidence -- because the State of our Union is strong, our cause in the world is right, and tonight that cause goes on. God bless."

For all my excerpts and thoughts about the speech go here.
RELIAPUNDIT ADDS: Please check out the comments section: they reveal the Left for what it is.


Always On Watch Two said...

These portions of the speech were strong and well stated, though I wish he'd concluded with "God bless America" instead of Red Skelton's signature closing.

I wasn't too happy about the portion regarding immigration.

Keith said...

If President Bush gets credit for stopping the mentioned terrorist attacks, shouldn't he also get the blame for attacks that happened on his watch?

Free Thinker said...

"As a result we haven't had one single terrorist attack on U.S. soil in the 5 years since then."

Completely unsubstantiated. There isn't a shred of evidence that Bush's policies have prevented further terrorist attacks on US soil. Furthermore, his policies demonstrably did not stop London or Madrid from being attacked. And if we were attacked again, you wouldn't take it as evidence of Bush's failure, but evidence of the enemy's resolve and our need to beat them at all costs...so stop pretending that since we haven't been attacked, GWB is doing his job.

The argument you are trying to make depends on the logical fallacy that the absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

The absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence.

zardoz said...

I understand your anger and frustration. I, too, never get the credit owed me for protecting Earth from invasion from the Krellan assault fleet. Without the tachyon field projected from my emitter in the backyard we would all be slaves under their despotic regime.

True, the danger isn't quite as imminent as that from the Islamofascists and traitors among us, but it would still be nice to get a "Thank You" once in a while.

Colin said...

"Ever since 9/11 President Bush has protected this country and taken it to the terrorists. As a result we haven't had one single terrorist attack on U.S. soil in the 5 years since then."

Ever since 9/11 Colin has purchased and consumed delicious Girl Scout Thin Mint cookies whenever he has had the opportunity. As a result we haven't had one single terrorist attack on U.S. soil in the 5 years since then.

ariadne said...

Soooo, the anthrax attacks? Do we get to thank Georgie for solving those? And the snipers in the DC area? Those weren't terrorist attacks?

benjoya said...

what about that guy who was gonna take down the brooklyn bridge with blowtorches? unfortunately for him, he met his match in president bush.

The Frito Pundito said...

Whaddya mean? Bush has stopped THOUSANDS of terrorist attacks. He just can't tell you about them. But if you knew, whoo-hoo!

Little Miss Chatterbox said...

Aaaaaah, I see I was successful with my post since it has brought all of the moonbats out from under their rocks!!

WinterBear TrueHeart said...

Congratuations on your success.

Your moronic rah rah post has brought out people that point out the falicies in your logic.

You should be so proud.

Punditarian said...

free thinker,

You are a bit confused here. When you say "the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence" you prove the President's point. After all, there is PLENTY of evidence that there has not been a successful mass-casualty terrorist attack on American soil in 5 years. That fact is actually undisputed and undisputable, unless you believe that there have been terror attacks on American soil that Anderson Vanderbilt Cooper has chosen to keep secret from you. During those 5 years there have been over SEVEN THOUSAND Islamist terrorist attacks around the world. 7,000 in the rest of the world and NONE in the USA. I think it is reasonable to say that the stark difference between those figures is evidence that the security measures our armed forces and police forces and counter-terrorist forces have undertaken is having some effect -- despite the obvious inadequacies and problems with them.


The anthrax attacks took place in the immediate aftermath of the September Eleventh Atrocities. There have been no successful anthrax attacks since then.

And although the DC Snipers were certainly jihadist Muslims of a sort, they do not appear to have been connected to or directed by Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah or any of the other international terrorist gangs who are known to have operatives in the United States.

I would say that the situation is still very dangerous and very fluid. But you do have to give the Administration some credit.

Scaramouche said...

Correlation does not imply causation and are not very logical when you say, You are a bit confused here. When you say "the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence" you prove the President's point.

It's like when I spout that ever since the rise of Conservative Talk Radio there has beeen an increase in the number of cases of Road Rage, can't you see the pattern?

While my statement might be true, it is not a fact - just a fantasy I take on faith.

Tom said...

Terrorist attacks on our allies and friends in London, Madrid and Bali have continued -- did you forget?

Terrorist attacks on the United States have always been very rare. The fact that they continue to be rare is hardly an achievement.

And who needs terrorists? The Iraq war has killed more Americans than all the terrorist attacks before 9/11 put together.

reliapundit said...

tom - you asshole - the brave troops who died in Iraq and Afghanistan are not victims - like those who died on 9/11; the troops are all HEROES. All volunteers, unlike those who were MURDERED on 9/11. like my cousin. you fuckwad.

asshole lefties like you believe in false equivalences (like the one you described above) all the time. it's ridiculous and false. arafat was a terrorist and a murderer not a freedom fighter; jihadoterrorists do not fight for freedom, unless you think the freedom to commit honor-killings and prevent women from seeing doctors or learning to read has anything to do with freedom. bush is not anything like hitler. the nsa/tsp was not domestic spying.

so er um... tom... fuck off.

Tom said...

First, reliapundit, I'll thank you to keep a civil tongue in your head. If you think a stream of profanities helps your argument\, you are sadly mistaken.

Second, I'm not condemning your cousin but his Commander-In-Chief, who sent him off to die for nothing.

If Bush had been interested in combating terrorism, he'd have used to troops to track down terrorists, Islamic extremists like Osama Bin Laden, rather than destroying the strongest non-Islamic Arab country, a country that had more over committed not a single terrorist act, even by the President's own claims.

I'm sorry your cousin and all the others died for nothing. Instead of swearing at me, why not ask your President why he lied to you to start the war?

Tom said...

...committed not a single act of terrorism *against the US*, to be more accurate.

(Iraq under Saddam committed many acts of terror against its neighbors, specifically Iran, a country the US has also been more or less at war with for almost 30 years.)

Punditarian said...


No, correlation is not causation. However the evidence that there has not been a major terrorist attack against the US is still pretty good. And it is plausible to think that increased anti-terrorist activity, particularly killing 40,000 to 50,000 terrorists in Iraq & Afghanistan, has contributed to the result. If Bill J Clinton were President, the press would be hailing his effectiveness in this regard, and you know it.


First of all, if you go back and actually read his speeches, you will be forced to conclude that the President did not lie about anything at all. The lies are in the way that his statements were distorted by the media and by his cynical political opponents.

Second of all, the fact that the number of Americans killed in Iraq and Afghanistan is about equal to the number of Americans murdered by the terrorists on September Eleventh is not germane. About 2388 Americans, including 48 civilians, were killed at Pearl Harbor. There were 407,000 subsequent military deaths during the war that it took to defeat Japan, Manchukuo, Germany, Bulgaria, Hungary, & Croatia. And what is your point?

Contrary to your puerile dudgeon, the President has unleashed military forces around the world, tracking down and killing terrorists. For only two examples, how have you so blithely managed to ignore the campaigns in the Philippines and in Somalia?

Finally, Iraq committed many terrorist acts and was committed to terrorist acts against the United States. Didn't you know that Ramzi Yousef had an Iraqi identity and traveled on Iraqi papers? Didn't you know that Czech intelligence surveiled Mohamed Atta meeting with Iraqi embassy officials in Prague?

Joe Bob Briggs said...

Ever since 9/11 President Bush has protected this country and taken it to the terrorists. As a result we haven't had one single terrorist attack on U.S. soil in the 5 years since then. Not only does he not get credit for this but he gets attacked by the naysayers.

So presumably, you give Clinton the same credit for any work he may have done in office to prevent foreign terrorist attacks on U.S. soil for the 8 years between 1993 and 2001? Or any terrorist attacks in the 6 years between 1995 and 2001?

Punditarian said...

Joe Bob,

Yes, I give Clinton the credit for ineffectual appeasement, and the blame for the US Embassy bombings and the USS Cole bombing. Clinton was a pathetic failure, and he also deserves much of the blame for the unpreparedness of his country and the attacks of September Eleventh. Or do you think Sandy Burglar was trying to hide the evidence that Clinton had done it right? Sorry to disappoint you, but that's just the way it is.


you cant tell the dems anything
they are dispicable. Bush was a very good presedent. the econimy was booming for the first 6 years of his presidentcy. dealt with an attack on our country and a hurrican. the dems sabitoged stalled held up votes and talked badly about our president the whole time. its simple most morral
people dont want gay marragie, or wealth distributation, socailist form of health car,they understand that if there ever going to get rich the man has to be rich first.
point being they cant win an election on policy so they have to resoult to childish tatics

Red Hatter said...

While Bush's intentions are good he's clearly blundered interms of strategy. He's opened a war on two fronts, when the overwhelming evidence pointed primarily at Afghanistan as the main hosts of Al Quaeda. He finds himself on the back foot against the insurgents in Iraq, despite overwhemling military power amd already having 'won' the war once.

He's alienated many of our traditinal allies and dissipated the huge ground swell of goodwill that existed world wide after 9/11.

He's provided propoganda to the Islamists, by unilaterally invading and occupying a sovereign Muslim (although mostly secular) nation and by demonstrating America's own disregard for human rights = with Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo.

And he's wasted trillions of dollars trying to patch together a sectarian killing field, that he helped to create.

The world and America is a more dangerous and divided place because of his strategic blunders - exactly what the extreme Islamists wanted.

abbie said...

I love you man.