Originally Posted by cmetzg03
So did you actually read the article or is hindsight 20/20 a typical liberal duck and cover method?
If you read this, any normal person would see that bomb attacks and or attempts have been on the uprise
I read the article. I read how from sometime when Bush was in office, to sometime when Obama was in office, spending for bomb prevention dropped 45%. During that time, until Monday, the number of people in the USA killed in bombing attacks was something around 0, while the number of people killed in gun attacks was something around a whole bunch. So which should we focus our resources on preventing, what has been successful in killing lots of people, or what has not been successful in killing anyone?
And did you notice what the author of that article did so bolster his argument? He talked about the times square bombing twice, separated by a paragraph about terrorist magazine article, and then talked about 2 separate incidents at Fort Hood, even though only one involved a bomb.