We Are Safer
That's the point that John Negroponte makes here.
But watch for the distracting formulation that a lot of Democrat talking heads have been purveying -- arguing, in essence, that many Americans don't "feel" safer. That's probably true, but it isn't relevant to the issue of whether, in fact, we are safer.
People who have been alerted to a threat -- when, before, they were blissfully oblivious -- are, of course, going to "feel" less safe. It's just like a person who gets mugged on the subway. He may buy mace or even begin to carry a gun, but he'll still feel a sense of unease he hadn't experienced before the attack. While he's safer in fact, he certainly doesn't feel safer.
And that's why Democrats' obsession with how safe people "feel" may be a nice talking point, but there's very little substance behind it.
But watch for the distracting formulation that a lot of Democrat talking heads have been purveying -- arguing, in essence, that many Americans don't "feel" safer. That's probably true, but it isn't relevant to the issue of whether, in fact, we are safer.
People who have been alerted to a threat -- when, before, they were blissfully oblivious -- are, of course, going to "feel" less safe. It's just like a person who gets mugged on the subway. He may buy mace or even begin to carry a gun, but he'll still feel a sense of unease he hadn't experienced before the attack. While he's safer in fact, he certainly doesn't feel safer.
And that's why Democrats' obsession with how safe people "feel" may be a nice talking point, but there's very little substance behind it.
posted by LadybugUSA at 6:53 PM
4 Comments:
HEY! Eddy-boy's back. And what a surprise, he found more negative crap that's off topic. Anything pessimistic and cynical will find it's way through ed to us. This one speaks of the sectarian fighting as a "civil war" because that's a term that lights a fire under libs with BDS. Doesn't matter that a civil war requires the government to be involved as in the gov against rebels. You've got Sunnis and Shiites fighting each other, and both have reps in the government.
But it's confirmed by "sources" and "analysts" and CIA dudes. I'm sure all of these people are agenda-free lovers of Bush and country who are only doing their duty. Well, they'd have more credibility if they had names, but that still wouldn't mean they know what they're talking about.
SafER, but not really safe. Truly we've never been "safe" but since nothing had happened on the mainland in over a century, we certainly thought we were well and amply protected by two oceans.
May we stay ever vigilant.
There it is again: "feel" safer. You'd probably not "feel" safer if dropped off on the south side of Chicago. But then again, you wouldn't necessarily BE safer on the North side. Feeling safer is meaningless because now that we know we aren't impregnable or beyond the reach of scumbags, feeling less safe is a natural result.
I would also say that if the world is now more dangerous, that that is a loaded question as well. Iran, for example, has been working to be head scumbag since the Carter years, and No. Korea as well. No kidding it's more dangerous now. Getting nukes in the hands of the likes of these naturally makes it a more dangerous world. No freaking DUH!
Losing the war? That's where we know your survey is not credible. Tell that to those fighting the war. eddy-boy once again demonstrates his worthless nature.
Oh and BTW eddy. 9/11 proved we weren't "safer" on 9/10. So jam your surveys and polls.
Post a Comment
<< Home