Interesting. Alterman’s response after 9/11 was to oppose any military action in Afghanistan, yet missiles (in the form of airplanes) were shooting into Manhattan that day. No doubt his response to this would be ’that was al-Qaeda, not Hezbollah’ -- as if it matters. Instead of writing an honest piece about why he believes Israel should be dismantled as a sovereign state, which he’s mooted before, we get this unserious drivel.

Do we have to wait until they do?

Sadly to say that, yes, we will have to "wait" until attacked 9/11-style once again. The Bush Administration, , it appears from recent events, has abandoned the initial Bush Doctrine in favor of a slightly more aggressive Clintonian approach to the threat posed by Islamo-terrorism.

9/11 was a direct result of a steady denial of this threat, since the Shah’s overthrow in 1979. Both Republican and Democrat administrations have refused to deal head on with this issue, even when Hezbolluh killed hundreds of US marines in 1983. Americans just don’t have the stomach or the will to fight these guys directly. So they continue to grow, and will now probably procure nuclear weapons while the West turns a blind eye.

The price future generations are going to pay for this appeasement will dwarf that inherited by the former "Greatest Generation." In fact, save for the return of Christ, I’m not all that sure there will be any future generations to pay the bill we’re now charging against their future.

Meanwhile, global warming is more important anyway. I know this because Al Gore told me so. :roll eyes:

Alterman did not oppose military action in Afghanistan after 9/11. Get your facts straight.

Damon: Alterman has been all over the place on Afghanistan, so let’s hold the phone on getting our facts straight. He has said at various times that he supported that war, and then at other times that he would have preferred "a more thoughtful response" -- and his section on Afghanistan in his book with Mark Green was hardly supportive.