http://www.salon.com/news/col/horo/2001/09/17/ayers/index.html DP
Doing my Rodney King imitation, I wish we could all get along. But we probably can't. I think the above is unfair to Leo, but he kind of started it by saying I have nothing in common with XX, etc. I'm not over this myself, and I was nowhere near either plane crash. I tried to buy a gas mask yesterday at my local Army surplus store (Israeli model, $19.95), but they were sold out. We should be bashing the other guys, like this:
I send this to Salon in re: Horowitz
Horowitz, Jihadist
How unsurprising that the always loathesome David Horowitz joins Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson in seeking to tie Tuesday's crimes to U.S. liberals.
But others can play at this game. For instance, it is logical to presume that America's enemies seek to promote discord and division among our people, and the American jihadists Horowitz, Falwell, and Robertson are their agents.
Among several hundred salient points utterly neglected by DH, let me note three:
1. In choosing Bill Ayers and the detestable weatherman cult as poster-child for the New Left, DH fails to mention that he was of that ilk his own self. Not a Weatherman per se, but an advocate of state-smashing for whom the Weatherpeople were unconstructive, not immoral. Not for him to guide the left towards a non-violent socialist posture. No -- he was down with the putschists. He WAS Bill Ayers.
2. Besides self-aggrandizement, DH's mission in life is to apologize for the problematic performance of elites. There is no mention, for instance, of the role of airlines in lobbying for less regulation in matters of security (along with everything else), and less commitment of resources to more effective security systems. Nor does he touch on the lackadaisical posture of politicians in ALL parties in regards to periodic warnings of insufficient effort and funds devoted to security.
3. Finally, there is no mention of the historic role of the U.S. in supporting Islamic fundamentalists in their struggle against the Soviet-backed regime in Afghanistan. "Blowback" is a real thing. We had it with Noriega and with Saddam Hussein, and here it is again.
The peace camp is wrong on this issue, but I don't fault their intentions. The U.S. ought to seek retribution and accept the possibility of harm to innocents in that process. Vacuous rhetoric about "war" will not be a clear guide to what will actually be useful, as opposed to what will make people here feel better.
One thing is certain, however. DH didn't go to war in the 1960's, and hell no he ain't gonna go now either.
Max B. Sawicky Washington, D.C.