One way to dispel the "great protector" fallacy about *

[DancingBear]

When this comes up in discussion, I usually relate the following:

"X, remember - 9/11 happened on Bush's watch. He was supposed to be ever vigilant, not just vigilant after 3000 people lost their lives. He was supposed to be vigilant in reading his daily briefings, in listening to his counter-terrorism advisers. He failed in every way to protect us.

And now, after all this, he wants you to believe he can protect you. This reminds of the old story about someone who the man who murders your parents, then offers to protect you because you're an orphan. George Bush is that man."

[troubleinwinter]

1. He's afraid of horsies, for gawds sakes.

[unblock]

2. i've never understood those who feel "safer" with bush in office

at BEST, all he's good for is murdering the hell out of people AFTER they've attacked.

bush's brand of security is 100% based on AFTER-the-fact REVENGE and THREATS of REVENGE and ZERO percent based on prevention.

the only was you can twist this into "prevention" or "safety" is if you have FAITH that the threat of revenge is enough to prevent terrorism. which, of course, is utterly idiotic, given that you're dealing with people eager to DIE for their cause anyway....