<p>When I read an article like the one referenced, I always want to know the names of some of the “liberals” the author makes reference to. And what does he think generic “liberals” should be doing differently? If I agree that Islamist fundamentalism is very dangerous, which I do, what does the author think that I should therefore be doing? Is the article intended to be a defense of torturing prisoners? detention without trial? warrantless wiretapping? classifying all government documents on the grounds of national security? I personally do not think that what the U.S. military is doing in Iraq or what the Israeli armed forces did recently in Lebanon is the moral equivalent of terrorists killing non-combatants, but that doesn’t mean that I think that everything the administration says must be done to combat terrorism needs to or should be done.</p>
<p>I guess I’m wondering, at this point, what exactly are liberals SUPPOSED to do about anything really? Basically completely powerless – it hardly matters what we think about terrorism (or anything else). The radical conservative lunatics are in charge of this country. It’s all their’s to screw up.</p>
<p>Granted, it is all Clinton’s fault, but really…</p>
<p>You’re right, that’s why I figured I would point out how this “blind pig” who is wrong on so many things is right when it comes to understanding that his fellow liberals are so myopic as a result of BDS that they overlook the real threat to America and the West.</p>
<p>“that they overlook the real threat to America and the West.”</p>
<p>Would that be our current political system? The polarization of America is the biggest threat to America. Because the only people “talking” are the nutbags in BOTH political parties and leaders of groups that should be ignored.</p>
<p>Islam is not the threat, changing the consitution, ignoring the GC, Borrowing to fight a war, encouraging the deeper mixing of church and state and destroying the other side of the arguement are the real threats.</p>
<p>“Islam is not the threat, changing the consitution, ignoring the GC, Borrowing to fight a war, encouraging the deeper mixing of church and state and destroying the other side of the arguement are the real threats.”</p>
<p>Oh phew. I’m so glad I imagined the plane flying into the building. Thanks for clarifying that Opie. I see death and destruction as actual threats, but to each his own, right.</p>
<p>Opie needs to see the business end of a scimitar up close and personal. Then he’ll see the distinction. The US was just as polarized under Clinton. But nobody here is running around with bombs and swords. Well, except for that Muslim who shot the women at the Seattle Jewish center.</p>
<p>weenie - Your term “radical conservative” is a contradiction. The Left may be radical (in its extreme) while the Right may be reactionary (extreme case also). The Left can no more be reactionary than the Right can be radical.</p>
<p>“Oh phew. I’m so glad I imagined the plane flying into the building. Thanks for clarifying that Opie. I see death and destruction as actual threats, but to each his own, right.”</p>
<p>The sad thing is you are attacking me rather than my point. Last time I checked, we’re both American’s. So while a middle eastern man with no education may hate me because he is told to, you hate me and try to destroy me because while we’re both educated, my opinion is different than yours, and for some reason you and a few others just can’t live with that without labeling me, challenging my loyalty, intelligence and sanity. Who is a bigger threat to me and my way of life?</p>