e-Claire

SON OF: NYT --Non-biassed and brilliant

Spooked by Bush's surging popularity and the nation's suddenly ascendant mood of patriotism, Democrats stifled their instinctive concerns over civil liberties; ... voted to give Bush the authority to invade Iraq. [p2]

back-pedal, back-pedal, back-pedal... Aside from the clear admission that their "principles" mean nothing more to them than re-election points, they openly describe DhimmpCraps as voting for something in which they did not believe, just cuz they were "spooked." "Spooked" more by "Bush's surging popularity" than by terrorism and 9/11. *picks up jaw and carries on*

In the liberal view, the enemy this time -- an entirely new kind of ''non-state actor'' known as Al [sic] Qaeda -- more closely resembles an especially murderous drug cartel than it does the vaunted Red Army. Instead of military might, liberal thinkers believe, the moment calls for a combination of expansive diplomacy abroad and interdiction at home, an effort more akin to the war on drugs than to any conventional war of the last century. [p3]

And, as drugs are readily available in places like Pelican Bay and Jefferson Elementary, we all know how well that works. Could there be a more "fantasy-land" perspective? ...a more irresponsible position?

''We're not in a war on terror, in the literal sense,'' says Richard Holbrooke, the Clinton-era diplomat who could well become Kerry's secretary of state. ''The war on terror is like saying 'the war on poverty.' It's just a metaphor. What we're really talking about is winning the ideological struggle so that people stop turning themselves into suicide bombers.'' [p3]

Not like it's a shootin' war or nuthin' . . . When was the last time Poverty smashed planes into buildings or kidnapped and beheaded someone?!? . NB I'm gonna break this up into several pieces so as not to go on and on and on to make it less egregious. The original piece is Kerry's Undeclared War from the NYT Magazine. [login: biasedashell PW: dncshill]

<< Back to main