Tiring of "We have to be right 100% of the time...

[trof]

terrorists only have to get lucky once."
I've heard it from Bush*, Ashcroft, Rumsfeld, several repug senators and congressmen, and now McLaughlin, acting CIA director.
This repug talking point is getting shopworn.

It says to me "No matter HOW good we are, we'll never be good enough to guarantee your safety."

So what? I can't "guarantee" my safety on a trip to the grocery store. I can take prudent precautions, like NOT running stop signs, or driving on the wrong side of the road. A friend of mine was recently driving on the highway, doing all the right things, when an oncoming concrete mixer truck veered into her lane and killed her instantly. There's no way to "protect" against something like that, short of just staying home. Hell, even there you could get hit by lightning. Life is a gamble.

This doesn't mean our security/intelligence agencies should do nothing. There are a lot of things they can do (or should have already done years ago?) to make it a safer world for us. I understand that nothing is 100%. Why do they keep trotting out this repug talking point as both an excuse for their past failures and a pre-excuse for failures that may come?

I'd rather go back to "They hate us for our freedom".
:shrug:

[Bluzmann57]

1. The problem with "They hate us for our Freedoms" is

our freedoms are being taken away from us. But life isn't guaranteed. Just live it, enjoy it, and take precautions, but don't let fear rule your life. Screw the bushies method of trying to rule by fear and intimidation.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

2. I agree. I doubt it would happen before the election, but one thing I

wish Kerry would do assuming he is elected, is to make a major speech on this topic.

I.E. we are doing and going to continue to do what we can to ensure the safety of Americans, but within reason. We cannot guarantee such safety under any circumstances. Part of the freedom associated with America (traditionally) assumes a certain amount of risk. If we become a police state because of terrorism it would not be an acceptable outcome even if we prevented future 9/11's in this way.

A good example is the freedom to own guns in this society. We pay a significant price in terms of gun violence as a result of this. The values of the society, such as they are currently, dictate that we prefer to pay this price and have this freedom (not everyone agrees with this of course). This argument should have a little resonance with Republicans.

[unblock]

3. this is the mantra of many abusive men as well

one of the many reasons abused women have great difficulties leaving abusive relationships is that the abusive men often instill great fear in the women. not fear of the man himself, at least, not usually at first. rather, the abusive man often instills in his victim a great fear of the many evils outside the relationship, and that he will protect her from all that.

not until well after a breakup does the abused woman realize that the outside fears were greatly exaggerated, and that the fears vanished along with the abuser.

i think bush fits the profile of an abuser quite well, and is abusing many things (office, powers, religion, probably substances, exercise, etc.) but my point here is that he is playing the role of the abusive man and treating america as if we are the abused woman who has must fear everything and trust the he is the only one who can keep us safe.

and yet, once bush is gone, so will the fear.

[undergroundpanther]

4. Great post!

You got it.

Until America understands the role private personal traumas play in publics and political arenas in society ,they will be exploited by men setting themselves up into roles of power to abuse the publics trust, vulnerability,productivity and good will,like an abuser at home the pattern repeats until the thing enabling the pattern is undone.