Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (11911)	9/12/2006 10:20:11 PM
From: Peter Dierks	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

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

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (11911)	9/13/2006 5:31:14 PM
From: RMF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 71588

"we have exposed our fair weather allies" Peter, after 5 years of Bush do we have any "Foul Weather Allies" LEFT? Blair is being forced out mainly because he was our ally. How many allies do we have left, whether "fair" or "foul"? Maybe YOU and many others were "lulled into ignorance", but I always figured the 1993 bombing was more apart of a pattern rather than an individual act, which many in government also thought. The trouble is that bureaucratic "rear covering" made for inefficiencies that still exist today.