It's working...

[Nym90]

If your position is unchanged based on whether or not the programs have been successful, then I believe the point was that you can't really take credit for their success as justification for them. You are basically saying you support them on philosophical grounds, not because of any evidence for their success. I think that was Alcon's point, that you can't have it both ways; if you are going to take credit for success in stopping terrorist attacks, you also have to be willing to take the blame if the policy were to fail to stop one.

In any event, I am very glad that the attack was thwarted, and kudos should go to those who helped make this possible, although I'm certainly not convinced that it was US policy specifically that was responsible. If hard evidence shows up that proves that it was, I'm certainly open to changing my position. I personally think that what we've lost in Iraq has far outweighed any gains, though I'm sure others would disagree.

[Nym90]

If your position is unchanged based on whether or not the programs have been successful, then I believe the point was that you can't really take credit for their success as justification for them. You are basically saying you support them on philosophical grounds, not because of any evidence for their success. I think that was Alcon's point, that you can't have it both ways; if you are going to take credit for success in stopping terrorist attacks, you also have to be willing to take the blame if the policy were to fail to stop one.

In any event, I am very glad that the attack was thwarted, and kudos should go to those who helped make this possible, although I'm certainly not convinced that it was US policy specifically that was responsible. If hard evidence shows up that proves that it was, I'm certainly open to changing my position. I personally think that what we've lost in Iraq has far outweighed any gains, though I'm sure others would disagree.

You have badly misunderstood my post.

All right, what was your point then?

[Nym90]

The invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq which have decapitated the leadership of Al Qaeda and ground down the manpower of the Jihadist movement, the Patriot Act, the signals monitoring and wiretap programs, and the other domestic security measures, all of it.  It's working.  The enemy just played its best card, and that card wasn't good enough.

Does all that spinning make you dizzy?

You can't "spin" the facts.

There is a differene between facts and subjective extrapolations from those facts.

Exactly.

And my point was that if Bush's policies are to be given credit for preventing attacks, and if a lack of attacks is seen as positive evidence that he policies are working then if they fail to prevent attacks one would then have to be willing to admit they have failed and that this would have to be taken as evidence that they aren't working.

It seems to be taken as a given by most Republicans that Bush's policies will reduce terrorism, and thus if there are attacks that aren't stopped by them the assumption would be that we simply need to expand the current policies. It's the same thing Democrats are criticized for with regards to issues like education or poverty ("throwing more money at the problem").