Impossible to Deny that We Are Safer
Posted by: Michael Medved at 12:55 AM
Tuesday, September 12, 2006
During the spirited debates over the deeper meaning of the 9/11 anniversary, the American Left repeatedly (and insipidly) insisted that our freedom from homeland attack during the last five years gave no indication that we are indeed "safer" from terrorist assault. If we had been hit with terrorist assauls say, three times since 2001, wouldn't that constitute strong proof we were less safe? How, then, does the absence of attack fail to indicate some improvement in our security situation.
In order to argue that we are, in fact, no safer and that the absence of al-Qaeda strikes merely represents a decision by terrorist leaders to leave America alone, critics of the Bush administration must dismiss overwhelming evidence that we have broken terrorist cells and disrupted major assaults, as well as ignoring all the successful abd bloody plots that have struck other nations in the world, from Europe to Indonesia, from North Africa to India. If al-Qaeda has deliberately refrained from hitting America, and concentrated instead on nations they hate less than they hate the United States, isn't that because they recognize that hitting American soil would be more difficult, and would surely provoke a more deadly, overwhelming response? In other words, if the lack of killing on US soil reflects a conscious decision by terrorist leadership that in itself represents an indication that our strategy agains the Islam-Nazis is working, and that this strategy ineed makes us safer than we were five years ago.
michaelmedved.townhall.com |
