Risk Analysis

In risk analysis, you consider the consequences of being wrong. The consequences of being wrong that Islamic Terror is over-blown, or a Bush plot, will be catastrophic - World War III with 30,000,000 American soldiers required to stop it's spread. The risk of being defensive, or preemptive, will cost lives, and will be a tremendous economic burden. We have to take one of these approaches. Which are you willing to take?

The following are excerpts from Michael Barone

---------
What we are looking at here is cognitive dissonance. The mindset of the Left blogosphere is that there's no real terrorist threat out there.

The Iranian mullahs and the Holocaust-denying Mahmoud Ahmadinejad want to destroy Israel and inflict as much damage to the United States as they can. They say so over and over again. They hate our way of life, our freedoms and our tolerance. Unfortunately, there's no obvious and easy way to handle the Iranian regime, just as there was no obvious and easy way to handle Hitler in the late 1930s.

Neville Chamberlain was made of sterner stuff. His ("victory") was the Munich agreement in September 1938, when he and the French persuaded Czechoslovakia to give up its borderlands to Hitler. He was cheered by vast crowds eager to avoid the horrors of war. His ("lesson") came in March 1939, when Nazi troops marched into Prague.

Joseph Lieberman is being criticized for saying, "I'm worried that too many people, both in politics and out, don't appreciate the seriousness of the threat to American security and the evil of the enemy that faces us -- more evil, or as evil, as Nazism and probably more dangerous than the Soviet communists we fought during the long Cold War. We cannot deceive ourselves that we live in safety today and the war is over, and it's why we have to stay strong and vigilant."