[7thson]

First, he libels a number of "domestic insurgents" who "want bin Laden to win." His list is nonsensical. Whatever one may think of the wisdom of Jimmy Carter or the late Molly Ivins, or of intellectuals like Tony Judt, Martha Nussbaum and Garry Wills, none of them wanted al-Qaida to defeat the United States — a victory that would have ended liberal tolerance here.

I like VDH and think he writes extremely well. However, I disagree with him on this. I actucally believe Carter, Ivins, et al; wish the USA to lose. I believe in thier minds they cannot see al-Qaida setting up shop here like in Afghanistan - though they are already here in such places as Dearborn and in New Jersey - but they want the USA to become a second class power.

[paudio]

I agree with you. For the socialists, including many Dims leaders, the US represents the imperial power that needs to be made weak so that other powers can share the new world order. They do not want the US to disappear altogether, I believe, but they do want the US to be like European countries: cannot live independently.

[Mr. Jeeves]

I actucally believe Carter, Ivins, et al; wish the USA to lose. I believe in thier minds they cannot see al-Qaida setting up shop here like in Afghanistan - though they are already here in such places as Dearborn and in New Jersey - but they want the USA to become a second class power.

That's about right. These journalist/politicians think if we lose it will chasten us, we won't get involved in foreign conficts any more, the people of the world will love us again, we can spend more money on the domestic programs they love and buy off any potential French revolutionaries who might pose a threat to their positions in the world, and they can resume taking all-expense-paid junkets to the Third World on the pretext of doing serious reporting without having to worry about being shot at. ;)

There is a good, legitimate argument for the US refusing to get militarily involved in foreign conflicts - it's the George Washington argument. But that isn't the argument these people are making.

[Tolik]

I think that all that people believe that its fundamentally unhealthy when US is the sole superpower in the world and would wish to have this power balanced out by whatever means. I think they are generalizing too much. It does make a difference WHO is that sole superpower. If it was China or USSR, I'd be scared sh**less no less than they are now. But at this day and time I think its much better for the world when we are on the top and all possible rivals are not.

You have a point that at least some of those people might indeed want US to lose, its just I don't think they really want al-Qaida to win. How is it possible to do the first without the second - I have no idea, But being logically inconsistent is very typical for the Leftist ideology.

Regardless of all that, I think another Hanson's point is much more important: we have much more in common between all of us with all other disagreements than with "Muslim conservatives" from Saudi Arabia.

[CyberAnt]

I tend to agree with you .. because the liberals have one major flaw to their character .. THEY NEVER BELIEVE THERE ARE CONSEQUENCES TO THEIR ACTIONS.

They live for the moment.