That X happens is not evidence that Y caused X.
True. But in the absence of any other explanation, it'll have to do --
for now.

That is dangerously flawed reasoning. Instead of filing an IFR flight
plan, I eat Wheaties before any IFR flight. This gives me the ability
to avoid granite and aluminum while cavorting in the clouds.

I'm still here. QED.

I'm not advocating any particular point of view here. It may be that
the conclusion statement ("Bush stopped the attacks") is true. It may
instead be true that there wouldn't have been any attacks in either
case. To choose between these using faulty reasoning amounts to
throwing darts. And to choose based on what you already believe to be
true, and then apply false reasoning to support that act of faith, is
even worse than throwing darts.

And, given that the Left has been ceaselessly saying that "invading
Iraq (Y) has done nothing but create a breeding ground for more
terrorists (Z)", we can at least conclude that "X" proves that "Z" is
false.

No. It is merely evidence that Muslim terrorists may have a longer time
frame than the next quarter, or that successful acts of terrorism are
harder than we imagine.

Again, I'm not supporting any POV w/r/t terrorism and such. I'm merely
rejecting faulty reasoning and faith based logic.

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.