Problem is, when the idea of liberty itself is not specially esteemed as sacred and superior to all other political ends (after all, an open forum of ideas makes no judgments as to right versus wrong, but doesn’t deny the existence of right and wrong) the very foundation of your ideas is pulled down. If theocratic/collectivist/totalitarian ideas are “tolerated”, there ironically won’t be much space for toleration before too long. Further proof that the call of moderation is critical, even in something as benevolent-sounding as tolerance.

“I have not above, nor anywhere else denied the existence of terrorism. It is definitely disruptive and something that is not desirable to me and a terrible tragedy. But, the difference between left/right in my eyes isn’t a misdiagnosis of the threat it’s a different diagnosis of how the threat can be defeated.”

Couldn’t agree more right here. While the “shock and awe” slamming is all well and good when the time calls for it, I’d like to see a more creative strategy for long-term victory. Nuking the Mid-East out of existence, or something on a bit lesser scale, while technically “victorious” is a pyhrric victory if there ever was one. Communism was defeated by patience, cautious diplomacy, and small-scale military operations to ensure that the status quo – the ever growing might of the capitalist world – would be maintained to the end. Fascism was defeated in Europe and Japan only because its support was undermined from the get-go, and easily ripped off its foundations by the war. Like Hezbollah, the Nazis could run a great machine to convince people that they didn’t need capitalist liberal democracy to be successful. But the Nazis held in their power a state that had felt the push of that system’s progress, particularily in the strengthening of parliamentary systems and economic progress to an industrial state. Most of the Islamic world is not in the same situation, lacking even the most basic foundations. Also, Islam lacks a core religious authority today to react against, as the Protestant reformers pushing for religion and education to be taken to the people (and away from the capitals and courts) had been able to do successfully in much of Europe. They simply do not have the same boosting pad as Europe did. I really don’t have much of a solution. But if one was that easy to find, or at least attempt, then we wouldn’t be in this mess after all.

So, anyhow, that was my only point (regarding the “enemy” label). I wasn’t trying to do ‘gotcha’ but was forced to. I will try to remove my snark when making a genuine point.

As for the War on Terror I have no doubt that there are various activities that are ongoing to prevent terrorists from having the resources/support they need to function as such. You can call those activities the “War on Terror” if you so desire, but it is nothing of the sort. It’s an active defense of our nation from rogue aggression. But, “War on Terror” is much scarier and easier to report. How does one fight a war against an idea? At least drugs are a physical entity. Regardless, that is my beef with the idea of “the war on terror”.

I have not above, nor anywhere else denied the existence of terrorism. It is definitely disruptive and something that is not desirable to me and a terrible tragedy. But, the difference between left/right in my eyes isn’t a misdiagnosis of the threat it’s a different diagnosis of how the threat can be defeated.

I guess I’m confused by your statement “misdiagnosing the threat of terrorism”. How has the “progressive” left misdiagnosed the threat?

As for the last aside in your comment, I would say to the Taliban “Hopefully the War in Afganistan taught you something”. To Saddam and the 2600+ soldiers, etc. that the “War in Iraq”…

I suppose then you could call the Vietnam War part of “The Cold War”? How about the rest of those “proxy” wars?

Is the Cold War actually over? Terrorism became prevalent during the Cold War (in many of the same nations involved in the discussion today). Perhaps this is just an extension of it?

I did call you wrong on this matter, and so did Barone. Further, I think your position harms America – does that make you an ‘enemy’? No, it just means you’re on the wrong side of this issue.

I know who the enemies are – they are the terrorists, not the progressives. The progressives do not know who the enemies are: they think it’s the ‘neocons’ in the Bush administration. Is this a broad brush? Somewhat – but in this case, it’s largely true…

Now, it is true that Barone’s use of ‘covert enemies’ here is going too far; I’ll concede the point, and I understand now why you would think I would endorse it, since I highlighted it. Thanks for pointing it out; now that I reread it, I do see that you could get that impression, and that’s not a conclusion I endorse.

So, yes, you’ve indeed caught me on that point. Progressives are not the ‘covert enemy’, as Barone labels them, in my view; however, they do real and serious harm to our country in seriously misdiagnosing the threat of terrorism, an error that you continue with your bizarre questioning that the War on Terror even exists (tell that to the Taliban, Saddam Hussein, the 2,600 + dead American soldiers, and the tens of thousands of Iraqi casaulties who have largely been murdered by the terrorists – the War is real enough, Mike, it’s not just a label)…

So, what you’re saying is you don’t feel you’re calling “progressives” covert enemies like Barone?

Then what is the meaning of this statement:

“Barone is right on target with his critique of moral relativism, however; I particularly want to repeat this line:”

“”Our covert enemies go quickly from the notion that all societies are morally equal to the notion that all societies are morally equal except ours, which is worse. “”

Is this not directly calling me a covert enemy (even though I, nor any progressive, actually made this argument Barone calls out, but in your own little world we all have)? If so, how is it you are not comparing me to a terrorist who is an overt enemy? If you are not comparing us, why even mention the overt enemies? Why use the same word to describe the two of us (enemy), but a different adjective (covert vs. overt)?

More fun, this statement:

Indeed, many ‘progressives’ deny there even is a NEED for a War on Terror, which is nothing more than surrender by way of a faulty premise…

is quite ironic in my eyes as I feel that very statement is claiming victory by way of a faulty premise.

By the way, what value did declaring a ‘war on drugs’ add to our national discussion regarding drugs? It added none. Am I completely mistaken there?

There are many ways in which to solve a problem (terrorism), declaring a phantom war on the problem is not a terrific solution in my eyes. To me that is nothing more than stating the obvious. We may as well declare a war on drugs. Oh, yeah, that’s right…that one went so well and all…

That’s your right to not take the War on Terrorism seriously – and it’s my right to disagree with you, and to say why, and to, further, say why I think it’s harming our country.

If you read that as a comparison between yourself and Osama, I think you’ve got the sensitivity meter turned a little too tight…

If you want to discuss strawmen, how about your last paragraph of your original post regarding lefty sites taking glee in the setbacks. There is no glee on those sites. There is only anger at the current administration. I cannot fault them for that, even if their logic is flawed because of it. Maybe through the lens through which you view those sites you think they are literally smiling as they write, but I guarantee there is a deep deep remorse for our current situation not only because they would rather us not have gone to Iraq in the first place, but because there are very few ways to get out of their with any semblance of dignity.

I could also point to faulty logic regarding your questioning of the left’s denial of a “Need for the War on Terror”. There are many ways in which to solve a problem (terrorism), declaring a phantom war on the problem is not a terrific solution in my eyes. To me that is nothing more than stating the obvious. We may as well declare a war on drugs. Oh, yeah, that’s right…that one went so well and all…

Your entire post was an attack on my whole moral code and I had to defend it, especially when I am implicitly compared to a terrorist.

Please keep him vomiting, Mark – it’s the only way he’ll learn to try to say something that actually makes sense before he attempts to open it.