|
|
"A comprehensive, collaborative elections resource."
|
We are safer
|
|---|
| Parent(s) |
Issue
|
| Contributor | Tony82 |
| Last Edited | Tony82 Jan 10, 2004 02:17pm |
| Logged |
0
|
| Category | Commentary |
| News Date | Friday, January 9, 2004 06:00:00 AM UTC0:0 |
| Description | The first is the equivalent of saying that we were not safer after D-Day because we were still losing troops in Europe. In war, a strategic turning point makes you safer because it hastens victory, hastens the ultimate elimination of the hostile power, hastens the return home of the troops. It does not mean there is an immediate cessation, or even a diminution, of casualties (see: Battle of the Bulge).
The other part of the statement -- we cannot be safer because we are still threatened by terrorism -- is even more telling. It rests on the wider notion, shared not just by Dean but by many Democrats, that so long as al Qaeda is active, we are never any safer. This rests on the remarkable assumption that we have a single enemy in the world, al Qaeda, and that it and it alone defines ``safety.'' |
| Share |
|
|
2¢
|
|
| Article | Read Full Article |
|
| Date |
Category |
Headline |
Article |
Contributor |
|
|
