Another attack happened on Bush's watch and you ignored it. So no matter what you'd still claim Bush made us safe and because another attack is bound to happen eventually you'll conventiently blame it on the democrat. Again you fail to look at this logically.
Which plots were stopped because of torture. You've still failed to answer this since the first time I openly asked this.
Last edited by PogueMoran; 09-02-09 at 02:51 PM.
No, I am not. See below.You're making an unsound logical fallacy.
The point you miss is that the given ASSUMES that it DOES happen -- that the attack WOULD have been stopped had the Buch policies been in place. I'm not arguing that it WILL happen, I am asking what if it DOES happen. Thus, your post hoc complaint argument holds to water.Just because one thing happens doesn't mean its related. Correlation does not equal causation.
Not sure hoe many more times I need to say this:Another attack happened on Bush's watch and you ignored it.
You're trying to change the subject in an attemt to avoid the issue -- red herring.
So, answer the question.
So again you're committing a logical fallacy. That's why I asked you the other question.
How about the inverse if a 9/11 attack doesn't happen on Obama's watch would it because he stopped the torture?
One of the givens is that the hypothetical attack WOULD have been stoipped by the policies in question, and was allowed to happen BECAUSE the policies did not stop them. Since there's no way for you to argue that such a thing is impossible, there's no falacy in that given.
So, stop dodging the question.