Quote:
Originally Posted by Splum
Didnt see the link but 40% is a number that I believe is much more accurate, and to most "poor" people(who on average are Democratic and are not too concerned with worldly matters) yes Saddam and Iraq probably mean the same thing to them.
There is a big difference between 40% and 70%.
As far as Bush playing the 9/11 "card" so to speak, look you have to understand the magnitude of 9/11. It was a catastrophic event for the United States, Pearl Harbor was the only thing that was remotely similar... and we all saw the end result of that. 9/11 was and should be revered and we should work to make sure something like that doesnt happen again. It hasnt... yet.
Should we be afraid of terrorists, figuratively speaking yes, but not everyday literally being afraid. Should we have been afraid of terrorists in 1993 when they attacked the WTC the first time, yes of course, but we werent, we blissfully ignored them like some people in this thread are ignoring threats now.
|
I agree we should be afraid and our fear should have been starting to build many years back, maybe even before 1993, but like you said we are often blissfully ignorant and assume it won't happen to us.
It just seems like if Bush wants to do something that erodes freedoms or could be misused, he breaks out the 9/11 references. I understand how terrible it was and it should always be in the back of our minds, but it shouldn't be dragged out every time he finds opposition to something he wants to do.
It's hard for me to buy him has someone trying hard to protect the country while we have somewhere around 10,000 illegals a day sneaking in from Mexico.