Jeremy wrote:
] George Soros wonders why Americans got quite so
] upset about September 11.
]
] He seems positively obsessed with the Project for a New
] American Century.
]
] In his book, he veers close to what has become the
] left's equivalent of black-helicopter paranoia.
]
] "I am distressed," he writes, "that the public is not as
] alarmed as I am."

Wow. The writer of this article seems to think the War on Terror is a hell of a good thing. Apparently he has an odd notion of paranoia, as everything predicted seems to be going along schedule. How is spending money to alarm people that their civil liberties already have been taken away dangerous or paranoid? This writer is an idiot. If he is unable to explain what is wrong with an opinion and only complain that it is crazy and dangerous, he is probably too stupid to write.

terratogen wrote:
] Wow. The writer of this article seems to think the War on
] Terror is a hell of a good thing. Apparently he has an odd
] notion of paranoia, as everything predicted seems to be going
] along schedule.

Agreed. The influence of the NeoConservative political view isn't a paranoid conspiracy of the left, and while there is plenty one might write about the legitimacy of such a large political donation, this author contributes nothing to the debate.

I will say that Soro's philosophy is anything but clear to me, and I do not have time to read his book. My position is that we were too lenient with Afghanistan. Too forgiving. We had grounds to invade in 1999 and we should have done it then. Hindsight is always 20/20; I don't think we'll make that mistake again.

As for Iraq, I think we could have gotten international support for an invasion, and it would have been in our interest to do things that way, long term. Was there no other way to get Iran/Libya to back down then to appear to be blood thirsty tyrants? Could the international community not appear just as scary in a united front? Je ne sais pas...