This week, I’ve heard half a dozen democrats say they were supporting Bush for election based on a single issue: security. They all have the same story, pretty much in disagreement with everything else Bush stands for, but they believe he’ll kick more ass in the middle east.
In the debates, Bush made it clear that his plan for keeping us secure at home was simple: always be on the offensive. He got a lot of play from it and a lot of support. But the idea of starting wars to be safe defies logic to me.
Let’s say you’re on a long road trip, looking for a bite to eat and a drink so you pull into an unknown bar. The place is pretty rowdy and you’re kind of concerned for your safety. So you go on the offensive.
If you walked around the bar starting fights with half a dozen of the largest guys, do you think you’d be safer?
Now, I’m not saying wimpering in the corner, crying softly before you leave is a better idea, but certainly a rational person might do something in the middle between those extremes? Because that’s what “always on the offensive so we can be safe” is — it’s an extreme.