Are You Safer Now Than You Were Five Years Ago?
Tweet
Only 14% say yes. Yet somehow Dems aren’t asking that question any day.
21 Responses to “Are You Safer Now Than You Were Five Years Ago?”
GOP Rep. Spencer Bachus Facing House Ethics Probe For Insider Trading
Jennifer Aniston Reportedly Pregnant With Twins
PHOTOS: Tamara Ecclestone At The Langham Hotel
Red Front? “Center For American Freedom” Logo Echoes Communist Style
Romney Calls For Defunding Planned Parenthood, Wife Was A Donor
GOP Fundraising Email Asks Supporters To “Knock Out” Obama
Romney Comes Up Limp In Nevada
Obama Opens Lead On Romney In New Poll
Latest Entries
Why Do Liberals Support Drone Strikes?
Weekly Standard Rolls Out The Iraq Argument For Iran
Equal Polarization, My Ass
Some Crazy Stuff That Happened In World War II
Maryland Republican Campaign Funds Used To Defend Voter Suppression
The Obama Jobs Record In One Graph
Martin O’Malley All In For Marriage Equality
Newt Gingrich, Filled With More Excrement Than Your Average Politician
New Year, Powerline Still Stupid
Thanks Again
Meta
Blogroll
Disclaimer
The views on this site are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect the views of my employer, Media Matters for America
© 2000-2011 Oliver Willis
The “somehow” having to do with the public’s perception that even this unpopular president and his relatively unpopular party can be trusted much better than the Democrats to fight the war on terror.
An easy way to overcome this is to articulate a coherent, fighting alternative to the Republicans. The ridiculous posturing here about invading Pakistan because OBL might be there is silly. Everyone understands thats just Bush hate interfering with common sense – yet again.
In fact, I will believe in no Democratic ‘alternative’ that has a cenral feature – getting or blaming Bush. Forget about Bush. How will you fight the WOT?
And BTW, WE are safer since 9/11.
And
No, we really aren’t. Your only evidence to support that conclusion is a vaudeville gag played straight.
An easy way to overcome this is to articulate a coherent, fighting alternative to the Republicans.
Would the Constitution do?
Democratic theme: “Remember the Bill of Rights!”
So let’s get this straight:
Invading Pakistan (which I’ll agree wouldn’t be a great move) because Osama Bin Laden is living there: “ridiculous”
Invading Iran, which is not attacking us or its neighbors, absolutely necessary right now!
And these are the people who are “serious” about the War on Terror why again?
Rheinhard, I don’t advocate attacking Pakistan either.
But when Bush talked about “smoking him out of his hole” and attacking any nation that harbors terrorists, by not attacking Pakistan he is telling our enemies that his words are not to be taken seriously. He is telling rogue regimes that the US doesn’t follow through.
And whether OBL ever attacks us again, that makes us less safe.
Of course, the administrations “we could care less” attitude about catching the person who perpetrated the biggest crime in American history is more than a little disturbing. That emboldens terrorists the world over- attack America and you won’t get punished.
“can be trusted much better than the Democrats to fight the war on terror”
Dugger hasn’t been following the polls lately, has he?
Polls have a Liberal bias.
The American Public has a Liberal bias.
Reality has a Liberal bias.
The 14% stat has little use to Democrats. Before 9/11, 9/11 hadn’t happened. When it did, people realized that terrorism was a real significant threat, and their level of “safeness” dropped significantly. The number democrats should be throwing around is:
This is directly related to Bush and the Republicans and is not good. Yet, it isn’t a majority, so it isn’t a slam dunk for Democrats which is why they aren’t using itconstantly.
What right wing parrots like Dugger forget is that the administration that took terrorism seriously before 9-11 was the Clinton. When Bush took office anti-terrorism came off the list of priorities and was replaced with missile defense and other cold war agendas, and fighting prostitution for the DOJ and FBI.
What does this silly question have to do with anything?
Were Americans “safer” after Islamic terrorists tried to blow up the WTC the first time in 1993?
Were Americans “safer” during the 1950′s with the threat of Russian nukes, than they were in the 1940′s?
Were Americans “safer” after we discovered missiles in Cuba that were pointed at us?
Factcheck wrote, “attack America and you won’t get punished.”
Then perhaps you can explain how the Progressive ideal, “attack America and you will be captured, get clean clothes, a Koran, three healthy meals a day, exercise, celebrityhood, an unquestioning ear from major newspapers and television, and the ACLU petitioning the Supreme Court for your imminent release” will help forfend terrorism.
I doubt a strawman will help protect anyone, Michael.
The U.S. has serious vulnerabilities. Our ports remain insecure; cargo flights are not checked; loose nukes continue to proliferate; power plants, chemical plants and other key industrial installations continue to go unguarded. Those are issues that have been part of the Democratic plan to fight terrorism. They have been talked about for years and yet somehow I know that the first terrorist to utilize one of those means to kill scores of Americans will be the Democrats’ fault. Why do I know this?
I see arguments on here brazenly saying that 9/11 was somehow Clinton’s fault. I see arguments on here saying that the Democrats don’t have a “plan” for the war on terror, which is disputed by plans for all of the aforementioned. I see people arguing that we are safer since 9/11 because there have been no attacks “on U.S. soil” yet we’ve lost 2,700 service men since 2003. Weren’t they Americans?
The problem for me isn’t the policy differences. Those will be part of the world forever. The problem is the dishonesty of the current Republican leadership and their enablers.
Frankly, the fact that only 14% of respondents feel more secure is a win for Republicans. It means that they’ve succeeded in making the country quiver in their collective boots about threats that are probably as likely to happen to them as a shark attack — unless they are soldiers.
We aren’t much safer than on 9/10. While things may have been interdicted in the background that the public may not know about, there are still serious deficiencies in our ports, subways, and borders.
I do wait for Republican candidates to start showcasing our aforementioned ‘background successes’ as the election grows nearer.
“Then perhaps you can explain how the Progressive ideal, “attack America and you will be captured, get clean clothes, a Koran, three healthy meals a day, exercise”
You were doing so well up to there. Then you went off the rails:
“celebrityhood…”
Celebrityhood? Besides not being a word, you can’t be a celebrity if nobody knows your name, the fact that you’re being held, and you never get to speak to an outsider.
“an unquestioning ear from major newspapers and television,…
Riiigt. Gitmo is just crawling with reporters.
“and the ACLU petitioning the Supreme Court for your imminent release”
Baloney. Link!
“The problem for me isn’t the policy differences. Those will be part of the world forever. The problem is the dishonesty of the current Republican leadership and their enablers.”
And that ladies and gentlemen encapsulates the current progressive mindset rather well.
Yes.
Wait. What?
Is there a point in there?
Sorry Dugger, I am not sure what point you are trying to make by avoiding the substance of my arguments and delving into my “mindset.” As you are wont to remind us, you cannot “know” my mindset simply through my public statements.
What you could do is tell me whose fault it will be when a nuclear cargo comes through the port of LA with a dirty bomb. Will that be Clinton’s fault or everybody’s fault for not taking the threat seriously enough?
It’s kind of funny that Dugger is talking mindset when he is a clear sycophant of a political group whose idea of debate is: “Shut up Traitor!”
I still want to know what his point was, if any. Yes, we don’t like the fact that the Government of the sole world superpower is a bunch of lying arseholes…and?
NG, I wish he’d explain himself as well, but something tells me we are arguing with a lower life form.