Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Normal
Often the argument is made that no terror attack, following 9/11, was made on US soil and the policies of George Bush are the reason for this event. This argument does not sit well with many on the left, as they claim there is no evidence that the policies of Bush had anything to do with this event. It is argued that the absence of a terror attack does not prove that the policy was successful. So, here is the question.Why do you believe in outdated policies such as Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD)? The only evidence that this theory was legitimate was the absence of a nuclear attack. If you argue that an absence of a terror attack on US soil does not signal a success in Bush's policies, how can you argue in favor of a policy such as MAD, when the only evidence to support it is the absence of a nuclear attack?
Often the argument is made that no terror attack, following 9/11, was made on US soil and the policies of George Bush are the reason for this event. This argument does not sit well with many on the left, as they claim there is no evidence that the policies of Bush had anything to do with this event. It is argued that the absence of a terror attack does not prove that the policy was successful.
So, here is the question.
Why do you believe in outdated policies such as Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD)? The only evidence that this theory was legitimate was the absence of a nuclear attack. If you argue that an absence of a terror attack on US soil does not signal a success in Bush's policies, how can you argue in favor of a policy such as MAD, when the only evidence to support it is the absence of a nuclear attack?
