ping
VDH's point is along the lines of: does a provocatively dressed woman walking in a back street alley of the city "signal she wants to be raped" versus Dinesh's "a provocatively dressed woman walking in a back street alley of the city makes herself vulnerable as a target for rapists".
Each side has merit for discussion.
Every time the Democrats open their mouths in their usual anti-WOT style, the terrorists in Iraq figure it a sign for them to surge their murdering.
So, do words and laws have conseqences?
They shouldn't (as words do not equal rape) but they do.
Our enemy is clearly Islamofascists, and in a time of war, the Dems are making themselves out to be facilitators of and for our enemies, effectively acting as pimps for our enemy; but yetwhile asserting "it's not their fault".
What might help is if our Democrats were smart and intelligent and understood and give two sheets. But they don't. They sit in soiled diapers whining that their words are being taken "out of context" by the enemy.
Oh, that'll work.
Without commenting on its desirability, I would contend that returning America to a 1950s morality is a much harder task than defeating Islam.
Which is really the point. If we say the only way to do anything is to do something that is impossible, it removes the obligation to do something that is possible.
I think we should have blamed and held to account any and all countries that gave aid and comfort to the terrorists and this goes back to Lebanon and every President including Reagan who did not do what was necessary. Failing to deal with the truth has its reasons of course, including our addiction to oil, but I think we have so far pretty much lost the war because we won't face up to the things that need to be done. Maybe I'm to pessimistic.
Why can't we do both? Blame those responsible for failing to adequately respond to Muslim attacks against us as well as carry the fight forward, now that we are in it.
It seems to me that VDH has set up a false choice.