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 : Liberalism: Do You Agree We've Had Enough of It? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Geoff Altman who wrote (32743)	7/3/2008 9:35:21 AM
From: Ann Corrigan	Respond to of 224749

Dems Want to Yank Successful Team from the Game michellemalkin.com • July 2, 2008 CNN says America feels safer from terrorist attacks than we have since 2001. According to a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. survey released Wednesday, 35 percent of Americans believe a terrorist attack somewhere in the United States is likely over the next several weeks. The figure is the lowest in a CNN poll since the September 11, 2001, al Qaeda attacks, which killed nearly 3,000 people. Now the catch there is that “next several weeks” figure, which sounds a bit vague to me. Do I think we’ll be hit in the next eight to ten weeks? Probably not. In the next 52-156 weeks? I wouldn’t bet a lot of money we won’t. Especially if Hopey McChangerson gets in office. But timelines aside, I think there’s something to this. Al Qaeda’s getting creamed. They’ve been reviled and repudiated in Iraq. And meanwhile, while we haven’t done nearly enough and there are a lot of holes all around the country (HINT HINT SOUTHERN BORDER NEEDS FENCE), we’ve wised up a little bit and made ourselves harder to hit. It’s an ongoing process of hardening and rethinking, but together with aggressive disruption of the bigger cells it’s kept most terrorism in America small and isolated. The magnitude of what these isolated cells and individuals could accomplish might change, of course, if we don’t get a handle on the international nuclear bazaar. And it could change if we do something Iran doesn’t like, and they decide to send us a message through their Hezbollah cheerleaders (which is a problem that we ought to be scared of–if this worldwide threat got the coverage it deserved). But are we safer than we were on 9/10? Yeah, I think we are. And to the extent we are, it’s because we’re keeping the bad guys abroad looking over their shoulders for the Predators instead of giving them the leisure to sit around the map and practice their bomb-building skills. Which, let’s face it, need practice. So I think what we’ve done–taking the fight to the enemy–is working in principle and helped to keep us safe.* And that’s why I’m surprised at the political spin being put on this. National security may be less of an issue in the upcoming election, says CNN, which hurts McCain. That’s a pretty jarring cognitive dissonance there. People feel safer than ever from terrorism because of the military pressure we’ve put on terrorists and their sponsors and the resolve we’ve demonstrated against them. Hey, that policy has worked so surprisingly well that we need to try something else right now! Is that how people really see this issue? CNN predicts Americans will see it that way. I don’t, but maybe most people will. If so, do they think Al-Qaeda just mellowed out on their own? I suppose given the weird, biased media coverage inflicted upon us, it’s possible to gather that impression. There are no heroes in the news; there is no victory. Our wartime successes are hidden and covered up, and our failures and misjudgments blare from every headline and newscast 24-7. But whatever the reason, people think we’re safer. I basically agree. The question I hope every patriot asks himself is, WHY? If a policy works, shouldn’t we support those candidates, and the party, that will continue to advance that policy?