December 18, 2003

I have no doubt that the Left's wishful-thinking centers will be refueled and roaring again within weeks, if not days. Remember, these are people who can believe anything, as long as it's adequately flattering to their vision of themselves as the moral luminaries of the world.

Once they get over their vertigo, they may recover. Howard Dean is not the only once to have said Hussein's capture leaves us no safer; John Glenn said the same thing. Glenn is not easily charged with a lack of patriotism, either overtly or by insinuation.

So the Commissars and their minions on West End Avenue are upset? Cry me a river!

So John Glenn is running for President? There's a scoop for Horsefeathers via Frank, if he's not then it's probably not relevant.

Why are John Glenn's opinions irrelevant? As a former senator who sat on important security-related committees, I'd think they're more relevant than those of everyone here.

Re: Tina Brown's 'analysis'

The feminization of America may not yet be complete but it appears that the Left has been overtaken, complete with wild swings of emotion and thought given the slightest provocation.

Not to say the capture of Saddam is a minor thing, just that the election is nearly a year away and the primaries haven't even begun.

Yet these folks are behaving like a bee in a mayonaise jar: buzzing all about, while banging into the sides, bottom, and top, and going nowhere - in their thinking, at least.

Steve, I agree with you there — some of them have programs which they should be boosting, instead of criticizing each other. It's a circular firing squad.

Frank
Your opinions are more relevant than those of John Glenn, only because you will at least stand and defend them. The drive by musings of Glenn, Penn, Farrell and others are of no consequence to me personally because they have no relevance in my daily life. However when a candidate for the presidency (Howard Dean) doesn't see how the capture of the largest muderer of Muslims in modern times might make us all a little safer, that is relevant.

Logiccop,
Thank you for the compliment, but I'm still inclined to believe John Glenn's opinion adds credence to the argument that we're no safer w/ Saddam Hussein captured, and that his opinion is therefore relevant. I also suspect Wolf Blitzer thought his opinion on the matter was relevant, since he bothered to ask. (I wonder, though, whether or not he got the answer he expected... )

Uh oh, here's a new poll from CBS:

Dean has said that while he applauds the U.S.' capture of Saddam, it will not make the U.S. any safer, and most voters agree. 85 percent of Democratic primary voters think the threat to the U.S. will either rise or stay just as it is following Saddam's capture -- a feeling shared by 78 percent of all voters nationwide.

Hmmm... Seems to me Saddam wouldn't have been captured if we hadn't gone into Iraq to get him. Because we did, not only is he no longer a threat, but Iran is suddenly cooperating on nuclear inspections, and Libya has pledged to give up its WMD programs, which in turn will have implications for N. Korea and may compell Kim Jong-il to scale back some of his (nuclear and missile) programs. One follows the other (for those who can connect the dots) and, yes, I for one feel safer as a result.

Doubtless there are others who agree with you, Bernard: they show up in the poll.

In fairness, the poll may be too discriminating by focusing on the singular event of the capture: it's quite possible that more Americans would agree that the string of events in their totality have made the country safer, without it coming from the capture itself.