Over-the-top

Here is what she COULD have used:

mission euphoria
mission preoccupation
mission obsession
mission delusion
mission fantasy

I wrote those without a Thesaurus, and I am not a professional writer.

Sorry, I think she used it deliberately and as a subtle stab. If I were writing a column, I would re-read it and realize that word shouldn't be used. (It's awkward, anyway."Euphoria" is more what she was talking about, is a more common useage in the context, and works better both in usage and sound.)

She does not get a pass from me on this. I also don't understand why her editor allowed it to pass...unless she really doesn't have an editor.

"..If we are engaged in a process of destroying those who threaten us, say so. Bush has muddied his message with all the talk of spreading freedom and democracy in places that do not clearly indicate that they want it..."

Trek, I don't want to extend this past what you have time for, but I would ask your thoughts on this...
It is seldom that those who indicate that they want freedom, have any need of outside help to obtain that freedom. For us to interfere in such cases, as you indicate, would be counterproductive and innately wrong. But we need also to perhaps realize, that in countries where tyrants rule, the only pictures usually allowed to be broadcast are those of supporters pumping up and down their rifles, in the tired, trite, approved method of CNN broadcasts. The ones under the boot have no say. I don't argue in any case that the US military intervene in affairs unconnected to our war on terror. But the military was not, I believe, what the President was referring to. The option of withholding trade, and, much more importantly I think, of simply using the power of the press is unreservedly ours as a sovereign country. It is the one weapon that we have consistently used against ourselves and that needs to be seized from the dark side. If we have to sit through endless denunciations in the French and German press of our "perfidy", why would we not exercise our power to condemn publically those countries which rape their own citizenry? What I've heard from the Iranian resistance, and from the Ukrainians, during their trial of fire, was..."-we don't need military help- we need your support in the world-wide press..." If we can untwist the tendrils of the Left from around our media, we can stop the propaganda of the Left, and begin to finally show the truth to the world. This perhaps is a call to all Americans to demand from the press that they halt the truth embargo.

I have no problem with wishing that the anti-american left wing press were not the anti-american left wing press. What a gift to the world it would be if the American press were not seditious. But we live in a nation where the government does not control the press. I doubt you wish to change this and neither do I.

The legacy press is the legacy press. They will praise thugs like Castro and Chavez and ignore any thug that Bush confronts (e.g. Saddam). But I don't think this really speaks to my point. The problem I am concerned about is the possibility that Bush himself is out not just to protect the nation but to save the world. If this is true (and I agree with the previous poster that it is premature to conclude this) then I am very worried about our future.

The American people rallied behind Bush post 9/11 because they perceived him to be out to kill those who are out to kill us. The American people will support vigorously almost any policy that furthers this goal. The American people will also punish anyone perceived to be opposed to this goal (witness the thrashing the Dims took in 2002 and 2004). But most Americans are ambivalent at best to a quest to democratize the world.

Most Americans believe rightly that America cannot solve the world's problems. Our help is often not even welcomed by those who, in our view, need it most. Given this reality most Americans are content to let the peoples of the world deal with their own problems as long as they don't threaten us in any material way. The American people will support helping those who ask us for help if the price is not too high. But the citizens of our nation are not likely to rally behind a quixotic quest to rebuild the world in our image. In this regard, the attitude of the media, legacy or otherwise, is not relevant.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.