>You're nitpicking. The central point to the article is that liberals are ignoring the threat posed by radical Islam. It doesn't matter what that springs from, the threat is there, yet the liberals choose to play politics and shoot messengers.

Where does he defend his 'soft on terrorism' charge? Do admin critics believe that there are NOT radical Islamists intent on killing civilians and that only the administration is wise enough to recognize that there are? How are "liberals" ignoring the threat?

>
>>This is a beauty...
>>
>>This may seem like frank acquiescence to the charge that "liberals are soft on terrorism." It is, and they are.
>>
>>Oh, to be the self-annointed spokeman for "liberals" (which i guess now means "Bush critic"). What a joke. The whole article sounds like the "vote Republican or speak Farsi" Cheney drivel.
>>
>
>If that's how you have to rationalize your dismissal of what he has to say, you're demonstrating the exact mindset he's writing about.