I always enjoy your postings, Dinocrat. You have brilliant insights to offer seemingly every day. But, yes, I think you are evading the real issues here: What should be done? Is there political support at home (forget abroad) to do it? And who is the man who will lead us?

It also is unclear what you mean by “the mother of all disproportionate responses” — it sounds like you are hinting at two possibilities: (1) an American nuclear strike against some Middle Eastern nation in retaliation for “another 9/11″ and (2) a violent popular backlash against Muslims in this country in response to the same event.

Why do you believe that either option is likely to occur? Your own previous postings have explained, in a depressingly compelling manner, how we are *unlikely* to use WMDs in retaliation for acts of terrorism on even the largest scale (perhaps, even, a nuclear attack). We may embark on “regime change” in Iran as we did in Iraq, but that hardly would be disproportionate, right?

As for some kind of “right-wing” backlash against Muslims in the US, that would be opposed by the collective might of our federal, state, and local law enforcement authorities. So it ain’t going to happen. A few incidents of violence certainly, but they will be quickly punished and castigated by the government and the media. No large scale “anti-Muslim” terror campaign is conceivable at this stage in our society’s history. Extensive social and governmental decay would have to occur before that happens. This is more the stuff of futuristic dystopia novels than contemporary political reality.

The truth is that more non-Mulims will be killed in this country by Muslims, than vice-versa, for many years to come. (See Beltway snipers, El Al terminal shooting, Seattle shooting rampage, San Francisco SUV rampage, North Carolina SUV rampage, etc.)

“If he’s the new Hitler, don’t wait: get rid of him and his capabilities. Waiting is simply a formula for a million dead Americans before we take him out.”

I don’t think that I exaggerate to say that this is perfectly ok with a sizeable portion of the anti-American chattering classes (not Liberals, by the way, but the harder leftists like Cindy Sheehan, Michael Moore, Noam Chomsky et. al.). I’ve heard the argument that, if waiting earns us some measure of redemption for past crimes – paid for in blood – then it would be worth it. From this twisted perspective, every act of self-defense by a country as strong as America is a crime, every act of pre-emptive defense an atrocity. Ignored in all this, of course, is any proportional understanding of the threats looming during the Cold War (or a belief that the wrong side has won) or any recognition that, despite our failings, we’ve tried harder than anyone to build an example worth emulating.

But I would tell Hans to put away his guns. We should have no illusions; such people, while of disproportionate influence, are quite small in number.

I picked up a poll call before the 2004 elections and responded to “way Iraq war was going” as not
happy with – we weren’t using enough force.

Think the DEMS are going to be surprised again this
November. Of course they and their minions are the ones who formulate most poll questions and select those
polled who will give responses that can be used in
DEM talking points to keep them all encouraged by their virtual Potemkin Villages.

Then they are shocked when the shallow facade falls, pushed over by the actual vote count.

We need a Patton or Mac, one wanted to continue WWII
by taking on the Soviets, the other wanted to cross the 17th parallel in Korea. Had they listened to Patton in first place there would have been little need for Korean War, even if China was under Mao, he would have been surrounded by non-communist Russia.

We are really slow learners – the NEA & Academentia make sure of that. (compelled to stick that in at every opportunity).

As for a candidate who might advance these views, not one among the current crop would risk being eviscerated by MSM for expressing such unabashedly patriotic views. However, if Rudy Giuliani were to step up and say essentially the same thing, the voters would reward him with the presidency in an overwhelming landslide.

And, if Giuliani, or any other US President, were to attack our enemies, immediately, directly, and violently, with all the force at our disposal, a grateful people would rise up in joyful celebration and put his face on Mount Rushmore.