mbs: I didn't say that, though misinterpretation is understandable since words fail me periodically, as I told CGE. Here's what I said:
"In a situation like this, it is inevitable that prudence is defined,
at least for a while, as giving those in authority the benefit of the
doubt. In this kind of breach, there appears to be no time for
> extended debate and analysis. Nor is there any real time for
> politics. That will change in a few weeks. Nothing the left does is
> going to stop what the U.S. Gov does this month. But what the left
> does now might have a bearing on how its message is received in coming
> months.
mbs: what I meant was in the popular mind, prudence is defined as an absence of political partisanship. Hence there is no point in trying to sail against that particular wind right now (hi Carrol!). Note I also said I expect this to change very shortly.
. . . bad, and who have never given us the slightest reason to think that they could be trusted with managing a rural fire department, much less a superpower, the benefit of any doubt? I do not think that, if we are respectful, a certain degree of skepticism will marginalize the lefta ny more than it is already marginalized. I am actually moderately encouraged; I think that people want to get the terrorists, but not kill a lot of innocents. --jks
mbs: I don't disagree with the rest of your post. The space for criticism will widen if people would just give it a freakin' chance.