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.
We are not going to agree. As I said before and should have kept to it, I'm leaving it at that.
LLS