Another response to Terrorism:  "Good" vs. "Evil":

Rob's reply
Some comments on these snippets of Andrew Sullivan's column:

>> It may be, in fact, that one of the silver linings of these awful times is that the far left's bluff has been finally called. <<

No one's called my bluff. I and many others continue to ask questions that the right can't answer.

>> War focuses issues in ways peace cannot. <<

Yes. It proves Americans are as blind, selfish, and uncaring toward the rest of the world as people have said. If bombing creates six million refugees who may starve during the winter, the US's "solution" is to drop food packets that can't feed more than 1% of them. Any real solution that might upset Americans is off-limits, as usual.

>> Leftists would like to pretend that any criticism of their views raises the specter of domestic repression. But in a country with a First Amendment, no suppression from government is likely <<

Reading our e-mail doesn't necessarily suppress free speech, but it chills it. Chilling free speech is infringing on free speech, hence prohibited under the First Amendment.

>> in the citadels of the media and the academy, the far left is actually vastly overrepresented. <<

The myth of the liberal media...ho-hum. Given that the media has mainly taken the US position for granted and not broadcast dissenting voices here or abroad, this statement is pathetically off-base.

>> The real issue, as pointed out this week by Britain's Labour prime minister, is that some on the left have expressed "a hatred of America that shames those that feel it." <<

Right...and those who impeached President Clinton felt shame at their hateful feelings also. Talk about your stupid pop psychology masquerading as intelligent analysis.

>> The left's howls of anguish are therefore essentially phony—and they stem from a growing realization that this crisis has largely destroyed the credibility of the far left. <<

Could've fooled me. We're still planning to shut this "war" down if and when it fails and turn Bush out of office in 2004.

The left can't decide?
>> Forced to choose between the West and the Taliban, the hard left simply cannot decide. <<

They can't? I've yet to hear anyone on the left or right choose the Taliban over anyone. Talk about your phony accusations.

I'd say the left's position has been clear and straightforward. Bring the criminals to justice. Avoid civilian casualties. Crack down on terrorism worldwide. Insist on real solutions for Iraq and Israel. Address the long-term cultural conflicts.

What part of that doesn't Sullivan understand?

>> Far from concealing this ideological bankruptcy, we need to expose it and condemn it as widely and as irrevocably as we can. <<

The "ideological bankruptcy" is on display in Terrorism:  "Good" vs. "Evil". Anyone who thinks they can take it on, give it a try. I've kicked a few dozen butts already and I'll be glad to kick a few dozen more.

For other leftists who have kicked right-wing butt, see:

Chomsky:  The New War Against Terror
"Pilger:  "Once you cluster bomb, 'mistakes' and 'blunders' are a pretence. Murder is murder..."
Wise:  "You can call your war just, and the rest of us naive, but that won't make it so."
"We veterans know...it is not about justice but about defending the interests of the U.S. empire at any cost."
Churchill:  The terrorists "have given Americans a tiny dose of their own medicine."

>> Many liberals are already listening and watching—and the tectonic plates of politics are shifting as they do. <<

Yes, we're listening and watching as Bush commits many of the mistakes we predicted he'd commit. Which explains why many people have said Bush either is losing or has lost the war's first round. And why they give him only 5-15 months to produce Bin Laden before public opinion turns against the bloodshed.

Join our Native/pop culture blog and comment   Sign up to receive our FREE newsletter via e-mail   See the latest Native American stereotypes in the media   Political and social developments ripped from the headlines

. . .