missed the big points which were: (a) the language conflation into the binary nonsense and (b) trying to use 9-11 to trash opponents for lack of patriotism
I guess I disagree that those are the big points. I mean, I agree with you (and, I suppose, even her) that jingoistic feelings have led to a regrettable intolerance of wide-ranging debate on various matters, and that legitimate dissenting opinions have been unfairly and in some cases scandalously pilloried as treasonous. But this was her big, comprehensive take on post-9/11 politics--it's not like she has another piece on what we should do about homeland security, radical Islam, Iraq, and so forth appearing next issue--and so to see those issues as the ones to dwell on strikes me as misguided.
It's like those people who raged so passionately against the detentions of some of the suspects, or the prisoners at Gitmo. Sure, there were excesses there, and sure, the government's policies can and should be criticized. But at the end of the day, I think those issues are secondary to the main ones about how to arrange for homeland security and how to prosecute the campaign against al Qaeda--so to spend a disproportionate amount of time on them is to display a sort of astigmatism that is itself worrisome.
tb@sothere.com |
