From your post- this needs to be pounded into the head of every ACLU lawyer and liberal:
John Reid [British Home Secretary] yesterday accused the government's anti-terror critics of putting national security at risk by their failure to recognise the serious nature of the threat facing Britain. "They just don't get it," he said.
The home secretary yesterday gave the thinktank Demos his strongest hint yet that a new round of anti-terror legislation is on the way this autumn by warning that traditional civil liberty arguments were not so much wrong as just made for another age.
"Sometimes we may have to modify some of our own freedoms in the short term in order to prevent their misuse and abuse by those who oppose our fundamental values and would destroy all of our freedoms in the modern world," he said.
Mr Reid said Britain was now facing "probably the most sustained period of severe threat since the end of the second world war" and that the country was facing a new breed of ruthless "unconstrained international terrorists".
Yes, that's the part that caught my attention.
By apparently constraining Israel in their fight against the Hezzie terrorists, and pushing for a settlement short of military victory, isn't the US acting somewhat as an anti-terror critic, and putting Israel's national security at great risk?
I know that there are differences, but fundamentally is the call for a cease-fire in Lebanon any different than Surrender Jack Murtha's call for immediate Iraq pullouts?
Why is it ok for the official position of the US to be similar in tone to that of the moonbat left?