Quote:Here's my question to you: If there's a biological or chemical terrorist attack, killing and wounding tens of thousands of Americans, how much would you care about "our reputation and how we are viewed in the Muslim world"? What will you think of leftist politicians, intellectuals and news media people preoccupied with whether we're treating Taliban and al-Qaeda detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, according to the Geneva Convention?
Perhaps there is a skin patch that might help you get through this need to read nothing much but what supports simplistic ideology.
Here's Williams' question: If something very bad happens in the future, how much will we care about mistakes and misperceptions which inhibited prevention of it? And here's Williams' unspoken answer: we'll be mad at those people who missed it and got it wrong.
Well, ok. Let's apply Mr. Williams argument to, say, global warming. If there's a consequence of widespread death, disease, population displacement, civic turmoil, increased extremism against the 'have' countries which results in the deaths of millions and even tens of thousands or more in the US, who will then care about what Wall Street people and the petro-chemical rich cats and Townhall hacks think about economic and foreign policy?
Therefore....well, therefore what? Because a bad future is possible does it then follow that we set policy and values as if it has already happened?
We'll note Mr. Williams (and Mr Tico) won't likely buy their own argument when it shifts over into some other spheres. Why not? It doesn't produce the desired conclusion. Ideology trumps.
Simple is good, and complicated is bad.