Replies

I don't know about the rest of you, but I am really leery of Richard Perle and his buddies. There is nothing conservative about that lot and the "liberal" approach to military aggression they advocate. Those guys are dangerous. We'd all be better serve if they were pushed out of the sphere of influence in Republican politics.

So what is your preferred approach to terrorism--the Clintinoid, do-nothing to offend the UN and Europe and send in the FBI to come up with nothing to end terrorism? Or how about a few missiles targeting training camps and aspirin factories? Perle and Wolfowitz have taken the right road--shock and awe does the job every time. Anything else is appeasement and useless.

"dangerous. We'd all be better serve"

Dangerous yes. I'm all for dangerous. The rest of the world hasn't seen nearly enough "dangerous" from the US. But as for better served, um, if this is what their failure looks like, what would success look like? In two years we've freed 40 million people and toppled two foreign enemies while preventing any successful terrorist incidents inside the US (the worst was our home-grown sniper nutjob - they've hit things abroad but not here), for under 1000 lost. If you'd have predicted anything like that on 9-12, you would have been denounced as ridiculously optimistic.

It is obvious why the Dems don't like them - the success of the war benefits W and hurts them, while the politics of support for the war splits their base not the right's. It is obviously why some EU socialists don't like them - ditto. Others might find them abrasive I suppose. But ineffective? What are you smoking?