The statist Denver Post’s house neocon (hired to create the illusion of balance…as if having a neocon columnist makes a leftist newspaper more balanced), laments “paranoid” liberals who’ve refused to celebrate the Osamacution.
Here’s my rebuttal letter which the statist-progressive Post, predictably, did not run…
Mike’s critique of “liberal” concerns over the killing of Osama may play well to the ears of his militant following, but it can be shown that his position is incongruous with that of the conservative Founders of our Republic.
Mike laments that after bin Laden was killed that “…there can be no illusions that victory had been achieved…” Well, that’s exactly the point of those who are less than enthusiastic about the bin Laden operation. Tell us Mike, what defines “victory” in a war against “Islamist fanaticism”? Can you even achieve “victory” in a war against an ideology? Can you even achieve “victory” in a war that isn’t even declared? The “liberal” (actually libertarian) view is that this is a war with no definition of victory and no declared enemy. Thus it is a war without end- a ‘foreverwar’.
To paraphrase Mr. Rosen: Mike’s dystopian, neoconservative vision of a world dominated by U.S. intervention is incompatible with the concept of a Republic as defined by our Constitution, so his instinct is to minimize our Founding Principles as merely “abstract” or impractical. Additionally, he paints those who appeal to our Constitution as “paranoid” or in “denial”. Does that sound like a conservative to you?
If anyone is being paranoid or even hysterical it would seem to me that it is those who are so kneejerk about relinquishing our Rights in order to make us only marginally safer.
In the words of another ‘conservative’, “Those who would exchange liberty for security deserve neither and will soon lose both.”
