I apologize in advance for two posts in a row that combine politics and religion, but it seems that for some reason they make such fine bedfellows.
Rudy Giuliani (yes, he of Republican ilk) recently made some comments that can only be seen as a piss poor attempt to rehabilitate the reputation of the man who arguably is the worst President in the history of the United States of America. In a truly open mouth, insert foot moment, Giuliani claimed that there were “no domestic attacks” here during the Bush administration, 
somehow forgetting the little one on September 11, 2001. Of course, he was on the Stephanopoulos program to continue the slimy Republican hypocrisy I noted in my last post. Apparently, Republican’s can’t help themselves, and, like sharks in a feeding frenzy, when one of them smells blood in the water, they all go crazy.
Of course, when asked about his comment later, he did concede that he misspoke.
“I usually say we had no domestic attacks, no major domestic attack under President Bush since Sept. 11,” he said. He said after all the warnings of more attacks that came immediately after Sept. 11, many were surprised that this country avoided another major terrorist attack.
I’ll concede that to him. It’s human nature. It’s perfectly natural to find yourself, when you continually say the same thing over and over again, speaking as if on autopilot, assuming all the right words are coming out, not really listening to yourself. Republicans have been saying this about Bush since Sept 12, 2001, ad nauseum, so when Giuliani fails to use the phrase “since 9/11”, I understand that’s what he means.
So, my problem with what he says is not so much a “gotcha’ when he misspoke, (like people of all political persuasions seem to think is the way to effectuate proper political discourse, including Democrats). No. My problem is the underlying assumption that we should somehow thank Bush for protecting us so well. This is where religion comes in.
It’s a fallacy of logical, reasonable thinking to claim that an absence of terrorism is proof of the effectiveness of the Bush policy on terrorism. It could be, but it very well could not be. The fact that we have had no more 9/11s in this country does not mean that Bush put a stranglehold on terrorism. At best it means no terrorist attacks have happened in the United States since 9/11. That’s all.
Of course, it ignores the ones that occurred in London, Spain, Indonesia and elsewhere throughout the world since then. Those attacks actually support the conclusion that terrorists believe that terrorism is a global activity, with the US being only one of many targets.
So, there may be some correlation, but there is no proof of causation. “Because Bush was our President we have had no terrorism in the US” is not a logical statement. Just because Bush was in office during the 7 years following 9/11 with no terrorist attacks on the US doesn’t mean that we had no terrorism in the US because Bush was in office.
Religious thinking is often marked by these causation/correlation fallacies. For instance, there has been a loosening of restrictions on various religious hot buttons such as abortion, school prayer, acceptance of gays, etc. over the last fifty years or so. At the same time, Christians believe that morality has diminished across the board.
Ignoring the obvious subjective nature of morality, Christians correlate the acceptance of abortion and gays in society, along with the lack of school prayer, with the decline in morality. Even assuming a correlation, there is nothing to prove causation. Abortion doesn’t cause lower personal morals. Neither does homosexuality, with or without societal acceptance. Children can pray in schools, with our without official school prompting. So all of these things could easily be caused by lower morals (as the Christians subjectively conclude) or by enlightened thinking (as “enlightened” people subjectively conclude), all of which puts the cart before the horse. It could be a change in societal perception of personal morality that causes our attitudes towards these hot buttons to change.
Similarly, we may not have had any more terrorist attacks in the US since 9/11 because terrorists simply chose to attack someplace else. They did, didn’t they?
One thing we can say with pretty good certainty, however:
Bush would not have been elected in 2004 but for 9/11.
(That was a self-deprecating example of fallacious thinking, folks.)
del.icio.us 
reddit 
SPANISH INQUISITOR 
Now see, I don’t have much to say on Rudy, but I will say this is a good post, one where I actually agree 100% with both the way you’ve stated things, and the underlying logic you used to support your statements. For example,
and,
Those comments show respect for scope, and exactly the type of rational thinking that counters “false-dilemma” type-questions, along with “false-correlations.” If nothing else we’ve got some common ground there.
No one has recently stolen anything from inside my refrigerator because I finally got around to replacing the light bulb.
Larry – I didn’t know you had anything worth stealing in your refrigerator. I’ll be right over.
SI – very good post. Sometimes there’s causation, sometimes there’s correlation, and sometimes there’s just plain, dumb coincidence in which events that happen in proximate time frames have absolutely no connection with each other.
So I guess that’s why some hope for another attack in the near future, so that a Dem can’t later work the tv circuit spouting how no domestic attacks occurred with Obama in office?
Have you figured out how to get anyone to steal the cans of stringbeans in your pantry yet, Colonel?
What was really bizarre was that I remember reading about some Republicans while Bush was still president claiming we needed another terrorist attack on our soil because too many of us were complacent about the terrorist threat and that an attack would remind us why we needed to support Bush’s policies.
So, let me see if I got this straight. Another terrorist attack on Bush’s watch would be a reminder why we needed to support him. An attack on Obama’s watch is a reminder why Democrats can’t be trusted with national security.
I think that sums it up nicely, Tommy.
Have you figured out how to get anyone to steal the cans of stringbeans in your pantry yet, Colonel?
Yeah, I disguise them as Twinkies.
Jesus! Another Twinkie disser.
SI – You underestimate the power of Ding Dongs.
Of course, Giuliani also claimed that the anthrax attacks weren’t terrorism because we never knew who was responsible. People were terrorized, but if it wasn’t the Islamo-Fascists, it ain’t terrorism.
I also seem to remember some attacks at women’s health clinics, but I guess that using terror to close down a place that performs abortions isn’t terrorism either.
I wonder what Giuliani defines as terrorism? I guess it has to have the right ’cause’ (and the cause has to be people with darker skin who follow a different religion than Christianity) and the right ‘effect’ (the effect of electing conservatives).
I also seem to remember some attacks at women’s health clinics, but I guess that using terror to close down a place that performs abortions isn’t terrorism either.
Billy, Sarah Palin did the same thing. Some interviewer, can’t remember which, tried to get her to admit that attacks on abortion clinics were a form of terrorism, and she danced around the issue and wouldn’t say it.
Of course, for anti-abortion extremists, what happens in an abortion clinic is terrorism, so of course they are not going to apply the label to an attack on an abortion clinic.
Good post.
I suppose, according to Rudy, those new terror camps in Yemen and the renewed Taliban presence in both Afghanistan and Pakistan all just magically popped into existence the day Obama took over the presidency as opposed to slowly evolving over years as Bush took his eye off of Bin Laden to focus on Iraq and continued running that propaganda billboard in Guantanamo.
Wise strategy… kept us very safe.
Reminds me of all of that “Even Bin Laden says the battleground of The War is in Iraq!!”
Hey, stupid.
If you were on the run from American special forces in the mountains of Afghanistan, where would YOU say the real battleground was– the exact place your hiding out? Or some other country entirely?
Funny how everybody forgets about the shoe bomber guy.
Re-reading your post, this stood out:
I guess I don’t agree 100% with the post anymore. While the statement itself certainly rings true, it’s also an over-generalization that obscures the truth about what you call “causation/correlation fallacies.” Hasty induction is a human error, not a religious error, and it occurs without discrimination in every human endeavor. Your statement – while certainly in accord with the “religion as stupidity” theme of your blog – omits that fact.
That being said, the post was still great and expresses exactly why I’m distrustful of politics, religion and even science: too many people with too much power understand exactly how the human mind tends to work. Too many people with sticks and carrots.
Imagine my surprise.
Don’t forget about waterboarding in Guantanamo though, I’m sure that information went a long way in helping the CIA foil terror plots on the US.
cl:
Why should anyone care about the quantification of your agreement?
Why should anyone care that he disagrees? Period.
I’m surprised he said he agreed with something the first time. His usual knee jerk reaction is to find something, anything to quibble about, then beat it to death.
Frankly, if he agrees with anything, I suspect it’s so he can point to it and show how reasonable he is. It’s gotten very tiresome.
Wallberg,
I didn’t say they should; if you don’t care about it, don’t worry about it.
SI,
Nonsense. Do I need to provide a list of links that prove otherwise? When I come here, all I want to do is add my two cents to make these more balanced conversations. You and your commenters don’t have to challenge me to the point of losing your temper.
Right. It can’t just be because we agree; you have to suggest some ulterior, nefarious motive. Pretty unimpressive.
Well if it looks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck and there’s duck shit all over the place….
SI – Does the duck have good balance?
I think Canada Geese are much worse in the shit department.
Do Canada Geese have good balance?
Quantum, that could be possible, though hard to quantify. There’s the possibility that a person waterboarded will intentionally give false information so that anti-terror efforts are wasted. You also have to remember that a lot of these terrorist groups are set up so not one person has all the information about all of the operations.
Take the Nigerian guy in custody for the botched incident on the flight to Detroit last Christmas. You have some of these wingnut conservatives calling for “putting the squeeze” on him. The guy is obviously just a foot soldier trained for one specific mission. It’s not like the Al Qaeda chiefs in Yemen told him “Here is a list of all the terror attacks we have planned for the next year in case you get caught!”
There’s also the possibility that a tortured person will tell the truth or much more likely is that somebody put on trial will lie and get away with it, or perhaps somebody put on trial will tell the truth years later after it’s already too late and a terror plot already happened.