Friday, March 02, 2007

What DOES it mean that we haven't been attacked again?

I have been cogitating on this question, that a sign of the prez' success is that we have not had another terrorist attack on our soil. It was referenced by some kiss-ass (ahem) in Texas Monthly's cover story, "The unfinished legacy of GWB".

Now, I have heard this asserted several times over the years, and it does bear some scrutiny-- what DOES it mean that it hasn't happened again? Numerous leaders of our country did not have a terrorist attack on their watch--does that mean they were successful at combating terrorism? There seems to be a little illogic here, but one does wonder-- does the lack of an even mean we're ready for it? Does it mean the original event wasn't a one time occurrance?

Reading the article, which you can look up here( Texas Monthly), made me painfully aware that there are far too many extreme right wing figures trying to play the Symphony for Lame Duck. I'm all right with holding judgment of a president till he is done, but let us not use weak arguments of "see, it's all fine because it hasn't happened again, neener neener!" It's weak, and befits not serious thinkers.

Of course, who am I kidding? What right wing nutcase (or some leftwing nutcases) is a serious thinker?

No comments: