Hube is married to a Latina. Chavez is also a Latina. It may seem hard to believe, but based on evidence to the contrary, it could be possible that Hube supports the policies of Chavez. Even up to a whopping !% chance that he does. IT COULD BE POSSIBLE.

Mike M is familiar with geo positioning technology. In the wrong hands, that could be dangerous. He has recently returned from Canada, which has less stringent border requirements than does the US. There could be a chance that he spoke with someone about sensitive technology. Perhaps even a gigantic 1% chance that it possibly could have happened. BUT STILL, IT COULD BE POSSIBLE.

Randy, has left WGMD. Sometimes a personal event can change a person’s perspective. He is knowledgeable of radio technology. That knowledge in the wrong hands, could be dangerous. Perhaps there is even a 1% chance that he will instigate some type of disruptive event. You say it is far fetched. I say THERE IS A POSSIBILITY!

Congressman Mike Castle has supported the war in Iraq. despite the fact that it removes resources devoted to finding Bin Laden in Northwestern Waziristan. Why would someone WANT TO LET UP pressure on America’s number one terrorist, if that person wasn’t being a sympathizer to Al Qaeda’s cause? What other reason would representative Mike Castle have for aiding and abetting Bin Laden? The chances are possible that he is a mole, operating not to defend the Constitution, but under code from a lanky Arab who climbs over rocks and shoots a gun……(at least that is all we ever see him do…) You laugh, but look at the results. There is at least, if one rounds up, a 1% chance that congressman Mike Castle is helping Al Qaeda. IT COULD BE POSSIBLE.

Dave at FSP supported McCain in 2000, and now supports Mitt. Anyone who supports Mitt Romney is aware of his views on Iraq. His sons have not joined any branch of the Armed Services…. Does that mean that secretly, Mitt does not want them fighting and killing terrorists? By default, anyone who does not want to fight or kill Al Qaeda, must want them to live. Therefore anyone who WANTS a terrorist to live, is being supportive of their cause. Dave, who supports Mitt, who supports his sons’ decisions. which indirectly support sparing the lives of terrorists, could be considered a co-conspirator. At least there could be, again rounded up, a 1% CHANCE THAT IT IS SO.

The Cheney doctrine is as follows: “Even if there’s just a 1 percent chance of the unimaginable coming due, act as if it is a certainty. It’s not about ‘our analysis,‘ as Cheney said. It’s about ‘our response.’ … Justified or not, fact-based or not, ‘our response’ is what matters. As to ‘evidence,’ the bar was set so low that the word itself almost didn’t apply.”

You laugh, but look at those arrested so far on terroristic charges. Granted it is hard to arrest, and prove intent before a crime has been committed. Sometimes the flimsiest of evidence is necessary to proffer a conviction. And sometimes the evidence is stretched a little too thin. We are fortunate that ultimately our actions will be judged, not by government officials, but by twelve citizens culled from a pool of those who could not escape their jury notices. We are fortunate that members from such a group would be skeptical of the government’s infallibility.

But acting on the possibility of 1% chance of a terrorist attack, as we demonstrated in the above examples, crosses the line that differentiates the reasonable from the unreasonable.

The underlying tenet that makes unthinking Americans susceptible and willing to believe this nonsense,.. is that on an emotional basis, it makes sense. After all, I still vaccinate my children for diseases they have less than a 1% chance of exposure.

However that being granted, the simplistic doctrine of “if at least 1 percent, then act“ becomes especially frightening in the context of international conflicts, not just because of the number of threats misconstrued to meet the 1 percent threshold is overwhelmingly large, but because the consequences of misconstrued military action are so terrible, expensive, and irrevocable.

Therefore the emotional argument turns against the 1% doctrine. What do we have to give up to maintain such an unrealistic level of security? Here are some examples……….

At the last Drinking Liberally, I ordered a Heineken. Across the bar was a Miller Lite drinker, dressed conservatively, who glared at me. I deduced there was more than a 1% chance he would give me trouble…….I shot him.

My wife visited the Doctor. “Anything wrong” he asked and she said “I woke up with this scratchy throat. It could be allergies.” He said it could be cancer and if it is, we don’t have time for conclusive tests. Begin chemotherapy now, just in case.

The leader of the free world, conferred with his second in command. The consensus was that they could attack a third world nation intent on building a nuclear weapon before the leader’s term was up. Just as in the last engagement, no one worked through the possible consequences of their drastic action. Perhaps Russia will retaliate with a nuclear attack of their own. There is at least a 1% chance of Armageddon.

As Cheney said. “It’s about ‘our response.’ … Justified or not, fact-based or not, ‘our response’ is what matters.”

So impeach now.