Just as there’s more than one “Right” (neocons, paleocons, Christian fundamentalists), there’s more than one “Left.” In fact, the Left has more or less always been splintered. A problem I have is that there seems to be no generally accepted leftist typology, so leftists are all lumped together in one group. And the problem with that is that they all get painted with the same brush.

There’s a world of difference between Michael Walzer, Norman Geras, and Alan Johnson (the author of the Democratiya article that I cite in this post), on the one hand, and Michael Moore and George Galloway (do leftists consider him to be a leftist?), on the other.

If you would take the time to explore my blog, you’d discover that I’m a self-described 9/11 Republican who didn’t vote Republican in 1988, 1992, 1996, and 2000. To depict me as a “rightie” is simply wrong and makes you guilty of the same sin that you’re accusing me of.

So tell me what the Left actually believes. I’m willing to listen. Are you willing to listen to me?

One of the reasons Left and Right can’t communicate is that you righties have no clue what we on the Left actually believe. You make up straw men to disagree with; you cherry pick our fringe whackjobs and conflate these with the mainstream Left (Michelle Malkin seems to be making a career of this.)

The post above is full of wrong assumptions and fallacies about the Left. Once I might have been willing to open a dialogue to discuss what these are, but whenever I express an opinion to a rightie that doesn’t square with the leftie straw man in his head he assumes I’m lying. I gave up awhile back.

As far as lot’s o’ money lining the pockets of contractors and others, that’s a serious problem we would be facing with or without the WoT. We taxpayers are spending an awful lot of money throughout the go’vt and are getting “questionable benefits in return.” But that’s a topic for another time.

Phil: completely agree with you about cognitive bias and all that. Happens a lot on any side of a given issue. As for the second part, well, this is all post-9/11 and its based on straightforward risk analysis and cost-benieft calculations. Terrorism is a threat in the sense of it kills people, but he argues it isn’t dangerous enough to justify the degree to which it now dominates policy making and homeland security expenditures.

Quite frankly, the amount of money lining the pockets of Beltway (and elsewhere) contractors in the name of homeland security should give anyone pause. The closest analogy I can think of is the “Beltway Bandits” of SDI. A lot of people in Washington (where I live) are making a lot of money providing questionable benefits in return. Part of this is a matter of spending smart versus spending stupid, but Mueller’s argument goes further.

I hope you will provide links to your friend’s writings. If they aren’t available online, please send me an email with his writings as attachments.

Thanks.

“Now, whether one agrees or disagrees with him, there is no way to claim that his arguments aren’t reasoned, well-documented, and thoughtful.”

That’s completely irrelevant. You can be “reasoned, well-documented, and thoughtful” and be catastrophically wrong. You can craft a well-reasoned argument in favor of anything you want. It’s actually important to be right, and to be right in time to make a difference.

“if he’s right, it is the WoT types who are making an irrational, unfactual argument”

Here we are 4 1/2 years after 9/11, 12 years after al Qaeda’s first attack on the WTC and you’re presenting as evidence something that you preface “if he’s right”? Isn’t it a little late for that? “If he’s right” it would have been more useful to present his theory in, say, 1994. Al Qaeda has been operating for quite a while now and has been openly targeting the US for more than a decade. And you have a colleague who “might” be right about the WoT being a fraud? These are the thoughts of people who enjoy the security and the luxury and no deadline to muse on about issues without any kind of reality check. It’s not “True Believer Syndrome” that we are dealing with, but rather “Not Having To Face Reality Syndrome.”