The premise for the second argument is that in response to the growing national fear the government created new unnecessary government positions and wasted billions of taxpayers’ dollars. The conclusion is the ineffective way the money was spent had no effect on the war on terror.
1.Although the author offers a lot of opinions he does not provide supporting evidence to support his conclusion. Just saying how annoying the new antiterrorism procedures are and how much he says we have wasted on them without stating any statistics does not make the claim true. 2.The argument is weak and invalid. The author offers no statistics to backup his claim that the money spent has not stopped any further attacks. 3.This claim is almost impossible to prove. In fact with the recent capture of Bin Laden and other high-level terrorist the money spent on chasing terrorist is proving to be successful.