"Dangerous lunacy," indeed. But in fact familiar: I'm sure you could find its analogue in many German publications at the end of the thirties. --CGE
On Mon, 29 Oct 2001, Carl Remick wrote:
> ... from David Brooks in the current Weekly Standard:
>
> "Obviously nobody knows what the future years will feel like, but we
> do know that the next decade will have a central feature that was
> lacking in the last one: The next few years will be defined by
> conflict. And it's possible to speculate about what that means. The
> institutions that fight for us and defend us against disorder--the
> military, the FBI, the CIA--will seem more important and more
> admirable. The fundamental arguments won't be over economic or social
> issues, they will be over how to wield power--whether to use American
> power aggressively or circumspectly. We will care a lot more about
> ends--winning the war--than we will about means. We will debate
> whether it is necessary to torture prisoners who have information
> about future biological attacks. We will destroy innocent villages by
> accident, shrug our shoulders, and continue fighting. In an age of
> conflict, bourgeois virtues like compassion, tolerance, and
> industriousness are valued less than the classical virtues of courage,
> steadfastness, and a ruthless desire for victory."
> (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/000/424hwkwa.asp)
>
> Confronted with dangerous lunacy like that, the left has no choice but
> to forget its own differences and unite in opposition.