I am saying that I see no reason to think that we can't trust our President, Vice President, Centcom, CIA, FBI and others when they tell us of achievements attained since 9/11. For your reasoning and your baseless attacks on my beliefs, skills, and knowledge to be on solid ground, the lack of attacks since 9/11 would have to have been sheer luck. This COULD be true as it COULD be true what you stated about me... but Evidence and Events would preclude coming to that conclusion.
I have not attacked you or belittled you in any way. I simply have come to a different conclusion than you. You on the other hand...
LLS
What "evidence?" The testimony of the man who will take credit for the accomplishment? The absence of any demonstrable counter-argument? That's a lot like saying that I am responsible for freeing Nebraska from the terrible plague of tigers that had terrorized them. Then, when you respond that there are no tigers in Nebraska, I say "Thank you."
It is possible that there have been no attacks on the US because of George Bush's counter-terrorism strategy. But it is also possible that there would have been no attacks had George Bush done nothing, or had he done far less.
Besides, this wasn't about Bush's strategy in the WOT; it was about the usefulness of information gathered through coercion of prisoners. I was merely dealing with a logcial reality in developing my syllogism. You extrapolated that into an indictment of the Bush administration's handling of the WOT.
I have not attacked you or belittled you in any way. I simply have come to a different conclusion than you.
I don't see that. I don't know WHAT conclusion you have come to. You seem obsessed with my doubt of Bush's absolute credibility rather than the topic at hand.
You on the other hand...
... argue rationally and to a logical conclusion? Guilty.