Via Andrew Sullivan, Stephen Bainbridge debunks the fallacious argument that George W. Bush's GWOT has been a success because there hasn't been a terrorist attack in the seven years since 9/11.
That reminds me of a similar inconsistency in the case Joe Lieberman is making for a McCain presidency. On Sunday, Lieberman credited McCain with helping to keep America safe from terrorist attack since 9/11:
We're in a war against Islamist extremists who attacked us on 9/11. They've been trying to attack us many, many ways since then. We've been very fortunate as a result of 9/11 reform legislation, which Senator McCain championed; a lot of good work by people who work for our country that that hasn't happened.
Lieberman's argument is powerful, at least superficially, but in the very next breath he undercuts it dramatically, warning of an early 2009 terror attack (the White House echoed his warning the next day):
But we need a president who's ready to be commander in chief on day one. Senator McCain is. Incidentally, Senator Clinton said that over and over again, and she was right. She's ready--she was ready to be president on day one.
Why? Because our enemies will test the new president early. Remember that the truck bombing of the World Trade Center happened in the first year of the Clinton administration. Nine-eleven happened in the first year of the Bush administration. John McCain is ready to take the reins on January 20th, 2009. He doesn't need any training.
Here's what Lieberman is saying. (1) John McCain deserves credit that there hasn't been a terrorist attack on U.S. soil since 9/11 and (2) We need McCain as president because there will be a terrorist attack on U.S. soil in early 2009.
Obviously, these two arguments are incompatible. You can't have it both ways on terror. (Though I suppose you can try.)
© Jed Lewison