I wasn't trying to argue that he could have stopped it. I want to know why people think that they're more protected with him as president since it's been clearly demonstrated that he wasn't any more effective at stopping 9/11 than anyone else would have been.
Neither was I. I just have a pet peeve for initially unsupported arguments. Meanwhile, Mia feels up the competition.
[Devil's Advocate mode on only] Because the perception is he's taking the fight to them *since* 9/11, and that Bushies will point to the fact not one domestic act of terrorism has happened since the Patriot Act came into being, and maybe a lot of plots were cut off at the knees as a result of that legislation. [devil's advocate mode off]
Well you sure as hell don't go around spouting left and right about religion and faith for one thing! Something about impartiality and all, ya know. He/him who? Bush? Hussein? Everyone? That's what was vague. Stepping on toes/feet is one, thing, blatantly supporting discriminating against a group or groups is another. And lives being lost and people being maimed based on a bunch of lies is just flat out wrong. There is nothing moral about either one of those things.
Never said that. Just that there's those who...disagree with what he proclaimed, to say the least. War crimes? Oh yeah, those happen. Did what Kerry say happened really happen? Was he exaggerating? Was he spot on? I don't want to get into this. I'd rather think about Heather Mitts.
rbatc: I think we've officially beaten the horse dead, or at I least I feel that way. How 'bout kittens? I like kittens. Do you like kittens?
Out of everything that I've said in the past two hours, this is what provokes your true ire. Kittens.