By now everyone knows Mickey
This is, however, well nuts:
1) It covers a lot: The essential premise is that Bush has stretched the military, the Constitution and the civility of our politics to the limit in reaction to the threat of future 9/11s. All this fevered straining and leveraging may have been appropriate at the time, but there's no real need to keep running in hyperdrive. We can routinize the anti-terror struggle the way we routinized the Cold War, when just as much was at stake. We don't have to make an end run around the Constitution or a duly-passed statute (wiretapping). We don't have to torture prisoners or hold them forever without hearings.
Terrorists have rights, too, so just deal with it. As a matter of fact, they have the right to plot to kill you free from Government interference, and when they do kill you, they should be treated humanely if they survive. Yes, this is the beginning of a winning strategy.
We don't have to slight disaster relief (Katrina) because the Department of Homeland Security worries only about terrorists.
Mayor Nagin was only worried about Terrorists? Oh, that's right, State and Local Governments are supposed to be so incompetent that the Federal Government should just declare Martial Law at the outset during an emergency.
Expecting local officials to know their ass from a hole in the ground is apparently a bit much.
And note how he downplays terrorism again. Don't worry about al Qaeda. We didn't worry about them back when god Clinton was President, and that didn't cause any problems. Did it?
We don't have to alienate our allies.
I think he means Saddam Hussein's allies. Google Oil for food scandal. What we did is discover who our real allies are.
We don't have to run giant deficits to finance our armed forces, as if the "Global War on Terror" were a temporary crisis that will be over in three years. It's not. It's a semi-permanent part of the landscape. Democrats can contain the terrorist threat the way, for four decades, they helped contain the Russians--while (as during the Cold War) we allow ourselves to turn our attention to domestic problems such as health care and Social Security.
Riight, contain them the way we did the Soviets. Kaus needs to come up with a list of 100 Islamic cities we nuke on the next 9-11. It was called Mutually Assured Destruction, Kaus.
Without the destruction, there is no containment. We contained the Soviets with a thermonuclear chain around their throat. And then we strangled them with an economic garrot.
How do you do that to people who believe murder-suicide is a sacrament? Even with a credible nuclear threat, containment is not an option.
Read the whole thing. I've just fisked his first point. He's nuts. I love this:
The abnormal--an experiment in Iraqi democracy--is now the normal. Or, rather, it needs to be the normal. Isn't it easier to simply convince the public that a Dem approach will be just as effective at making the best of that situation, at a tolerable casualty level?
First we kill all the L³iberals.
Think Kaus would consider that a "tolerable casualty level"?
I'm beginning to think that it will be necessary to win this war.