Well, let's see:
I take my wife on a drive to the other side of town. I take a short cut and run out of gas right in the middle of the most dangerous part of the city. We are quickly surrounded by youths who, despite looking like millionaire rappers, extract us from our vehicle, rough us up and steal all of our possessions. When the ordeal is over, my wife turns to me and refers to the mess into which I have got us. I correct her by pointing out, freeper-style, that it was in fact the local youths who got us into this mess. She looks at me as though I have completely lost my mind. End of story.Where is the justification here? Who is being proved blameless? The driver, or the youths? Are you suggesting the youths were justified in "roughing" him up because he decided to take a short cut and ran out of gas? That's where your analogy fails. Your defense of your analogy (in italics) relies upon your own definition of "justification."
That's the problem with Lew . . . he is so wrapped up in the idea of isolating the U.S., bringing the troops home, etc., that he fails to see when his own arguments become intellectual failures. He relies on the notion that the U.S. would be left alone if only it withdraws from the world; in other words, he relies on his own definition of "peace."
Take our current police-action. Lew would argue that if we had stopped supporting Israel (among other things), the Muslim radicals would leave us alone, and none of this would have happened. Apparently, he has more faith in radicals than I. He so desperately wishes that his version of peace occurs that he fails to acknowledge the weakest part of his argument. He's too busy pounding the square peg into the round hole.
Naturally, I'm too "obtuse" to pick it up. I'm too busy trying to "sell" the war. It's all about oil, anyway. [chortle]
Oh good grief! Okay, let's try and finally put this one to bed. I'll explain the analogy.
Here goes...
Since 9-11, a number of people have pointed out the link between US foreign policy and the 9-11 attacks. Invariably they have been accused of saying that the attacks were justified because of US foreign policy. In fact, they were saying no such thing (apart from a few weirdos - try google-searching for "birdman wtc zog").
In my analogy, there is no justification for the attack on my wife and me, but that does not mean there isn't one or more explanation.