Usually it’s about economics. But in this case, it may actually be true.
Generally, I consider real natsec issues to be things they can’t tell the public. So when I see privacy minded reps joining in with reps from both side of the aisle, I’m willing to lend a bit of credence to a security angle.
Assuming it’s not just the US being upset that some other autocratic government is controlling the medium du jour.
Usually it’s about economics. But in this case, it may actually be true.
Generally, I consider real natsec issues to be things they can’t tell the public. So when I see privacy minded reps joining in with reps from both side of the aisle, I’m willing to lend a bit of credence to a security angle.
Assuming it’s not just the US being upset that some other autocratic government is controlling the medium du jour.
… and so by whining about natsec they can get you to support anything, as long as they don’t tell you about it?
No, I ignore the whining and consider it may be an issue based on actual behavior, as I originally stated.
Hence the “in this case, they might be actually telling the truth” from the original statement.
Just because they over-use an excuse doesn’t mean that it isn’t true on the odd occasion.
The problem is that so much crying wolf makes it more difficult to tell when it’s real.