TALKING ABOUT TERRORISM….Over at Slate, Jacob Weisberg concedes that Joe Lieberman’s anti-war critics had a good point about the Iraq war: it was, he says, indisputably a terrible mistake. But he’s still worried:
The problem for the Democrats is that the anti-Lieberman insurgents go far beyond simply opposing Bush’s faulty rationale for the war, his dishonest argumentation for it, and his incompetent execution of it. Many of them appear not to take the wider, global battle against Islamic fanaticism seriously. They see Iraq purely as a symptom of a cynical and politicized right-wing response to Sept. 11, as opposed to a tragic misstep in a bigger conflict. Substantively, this view indicates a fundamental misapprehension of the problem of terrorism. Politically, it points the way to perpetual Democratic defeat.
Now, Lieberman’s defeat was not, as Weisberg says, “about one issue and one issue only: the war in Iraq.” There are plenty of other Democratic incumbents who supported the war (and continue to support the war) but have nonetheless encountered no meaningful opposition to their reelection efforts. Lieberman’s sins were far deeper and more profound than merely supporting the war.
And yet, much as I’m reluctant to agree with him, Weisberg has a point: aside from kvetching about Bush’s policies, the liberal blogosphere has chosen to almost unanimously sit out any substantive discussion of the fight against radical jihadism and what to do about it. Emphasis counts, and this widespread silence makes it hard to avoid the conclusion that liberal bloggers just don’t find the subject very engaging.
Fair comment? Or foul? I want to be convinced I’m wrong, so let me have it with both barrels in comments.
