> You can't point to this as a success of the security measures. First, it implies that there are a significant number of bombers who are either captured or det

> You can't point to this as a success of the security measures. First, it implies that there are a significant number of bombers who are either captured or deterred. If the first was true, both the Bush admin and the Obama admin would be touting it as a success. If these "numerous" bombers are being deterred, you can't point to the security measures as the deterrent. Why not? I'm not saying you're wrong, just that you are making a claim without backing it up.