Hey Lib, 

How come you guys are so soft
on terror?    

Sincerely,

Tough on Terror in Vandergrift,
PA 

 

Dear Tough,

Nobody is soft on terror. The
phrase itself is absurd, like “ambivalent about cholera.” And like
infectious fatal diarrhea, terror is not a concept that lends itself
to shades of gray. You either want to see it wiped out, or you’re
one of the tiny minority who partake in it. In that sense it’s also
like the designated hitter rule.  

The phrase “soft on terror”
makes it seem like liberals want to see terror decriminalized for personal
use. Just blow yourself and a few bystanders up, and it’s like a traffic
ticket. Can you really believe we think that? You must think that liberals’
first reaction to 9/11 was “boy, we gotta put limits on this sort
of thing before it gets out of hand.”     

Liberals just have a different
approach to terror. It differs sharply from the right-wing approach
in that it has a chance of working. It involves taking simple steps
not to foment terror. Let me put it this way: just because I don’t
want to poke their hive with a stick doesn’t mean I’m soft on bees.
And if we can find a way to co-exist with those bees, Exxon-Mobile can
take all their honey.    

Your boy John McCain’s senior
advisor Charlie Black recently made headlines by saying that another
terrorist attack would be a “big advantage” for his candidate. I’m
not a political consultant, but my personal opinion is that even the
nastiest attack ads are a more ethical approach than wanting an actual
attack. No wonder you people are so dismissive of those you consider
to be “soft” on terror. You’re positively giddy about it. But
take it from me, if Obama gets into the White House, we’ll all be
a lot safer from attack. Try not to be disappointed. 

Yours,

Frederick Douglas Trotsky-Goldman