« Gaffney redoubles attack on dissent | Main | Hillary's two theories of power politics »

February 26, 2007


You say, "It was bound to happen," as if it hasn't been happening for years.

The Democrats have said time and time again that the Iraq war has diverted efforts from the hunt for bin Laden and has undermined the war on terror. That's fine. Maybe they're right in their criticism, maybe they're wrong, but it's their privilege to make the argument.

What is striking, however, is that when Republicans say a Democratic proposal will have the effect of undermining the war on terror, the Democrats falsely charge that their patriotism has been questioned.

Considering the effect of Administration policies or of Democratic counterproposals is perfectly legitimate and indeed should be encouraged as a subject of debate. What should be condemned is the attempt to stifle discussion by conflating criticism of one's position with a challenge to one's patriotism.

The problem with your analysis is that not only does it "inevitably" slide into "both sides are equally badism", it also inevitably slides into demagoguery.


Marshall is right that Cheney has advanced the al Quaeda agenda. His bluster and demagoguery may be over done, but consider that one of Bin Laden's steps in his remaking of the middle east was to have the U.S. involved in an unwinable ground war the region. Guess what, Bush/Cheney have done what Bin Laden hoped for! That would rally the radicals in the area to go fight the U.S. He might not have gotten as many followers to go to fight us as he may have thought would, but Bin Laden sees us tied down and in a no win a no win situation.

The comments to this entry are closed.