> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Behalf Of Gautam Mukunda
... > The Joint Chiefs could probably do a pretty good job > of it. They could do no worse than the people running > them now, certainly. But, Nick, the war against > terrorism is more important than every other political > issue in America today. If - by definition - the Left > isn't even able to propose a strategy, then you are > supporting my argument, because the Left is > irrelevant. This reasoning would only be logical if you postulate that the war against terrorism is the *only* important political issue in America today. Is that what you're saying? Would you agree that it's not logical the way that you stated it? > No, it's because that's what we've got. Only in > paranoid fantasies do we have a war that suspends > normal checks and balances for civil rights. If it > did, you and The Fool would have been arrested > already. You've made the same error in logic again. For this to be true, *all* civil rights would have had to be suspended. That's certainly not what I believe, nor what I wrote. > The Left's preferred options > - doing nothing, or giving our enemies what they want > - are not policies, they are suicide pacts. Oh, please... Can you name one Democrat in Congress who has ever called for "doing nothing" in response to terrorism? Or on this list? Or are you saying that such a position is implied somehow? If so, how? I imagine that you're seeing political suicide -- which is what such a statement or implication would be -- because you want to, not because it's there. But make your case, I'm listening. > The "war > on terrorism" didn't happen because it made people > happy, any more than the Cold War happened because > conservatives needed an enemy (another one of those > fantasies of the Left, come to think of it) or the > Second World War happened because FDR needed someone > to distract from the failure of his New Deal policies > to end the Great Depression. The war happened because > it was forced on us by our enemies. What most of the > right wants to do is win it. Has anyone, right, center or left, even defined, in a practical sense, what it would mean to "win it?" I sure haven't heard such a definition, which leaves me rather cynical, I'm sorry to say. Without it, what I see are politicians using the phrase to further their own agendas, not our national or human interests. > What most of the Left > seems to want to do is pretend that there is no war - > like the mythical ostrich, I guess. As long as the > American public is faced with those two choices, then > I know how this will end. Polarizing it that way is naive, at best, Machiavellian and culturally suicidal, at worst, in my opinion. Nick _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
