Derb, your first two questions really have nothing to do with my response to your earlier post. I am unaware of anyone who argues that foreign policy should not be a subject for debate, including our policy. I debate it here on occasion myself. So, I am not sure where you are headed with that. I will say, however, that your post reminds me of the decades of editorials The Nation used to spit out, in which the leftists there asserted that United States policy, starting with the Truman administration and ending with the Reagan administration, was responsible for the Cold War and that which flowed from it. So, you may want to rethink things. As for the comparisons between the Soviets and the Islamo-fascists, I think it’s like comparing Babe Ruth and Hank Aaron. These arguments go on and on and are of no consequence. Both were extraordinary baseball players in their own right. You can debate the differences in the size of the stadiums, the material used in producing baseballs, the size of the athletes, and so forth, but so what? The Soviets were a lethal enemy. Nobody here needs lectures about that. But so, too, are the Islamo-fascists. To count the number of divisions or ICBMS the Soviets had (and Russians still have), knowing full well that the terrorists don’t need divisions or ICBMs to devastate societies (in the Sudan, Somalia, Lebanon, Iraq, etc.) or to strike at the continental United States, truly misses the point. Our enemies come as they may, in whatever form, but they must be taken seriously and dealt with accordingly. And it is all subject to debate, including in places like the Pentagon. That’s understood. And I took Cliff’s point to be that we are fighting an enemy that is, in many ways, more difficult to defeat, given that it lacks the very form and nature of previous enemies like the Soviet Union. (For the Ron Paul supporters out there, such as they are, the Soviets would still have all those divisions occupying all those countries if Paul had been running U.S. foreign policy during the Cold War.) While I am here, on another subject, is it too much to ask the free and open media in this country report accurately about Hillary Clinton’s supposed foreign-policy experience? Specifically, I would encourage folks here to read this analysis from our friends at Sweetness & Light. Hillary had minimal contact with Benazir Bhutto despite contending (unchallenged) otherwise, and her fibs about her “experience” are now piling up. And, frankly, watching these candidates use this assassination as evidence of their national-security credentials is beginning to look a lot political ambulance chasing to me. Our soldiers are fighting and dying in Iraq and Afghanistan against these barbarians, these barbarians are still torturing and murdering people who refuse to succumb to their ideology, the Iranian regime is still pursuing nuclear weapons and fomenting terrorism around the globe, politicians in Lebanon — who dare to stand up to the enemy — have been assassinated, and the list goes on. So, the terrible assassination of Bhutto reminds us that we are at war and should elect a serious person as president? Well, some of us don’t need reminding, and those who do won’t be swayed in any significant way by Bhutto’s murder for they weren’t persuaded by 9/11 and any of the rest of it. In a week or two, maybe less, the appeasers will be back to their usual ways, blaming America (and Bush more particularly) for the enemy’s treachery and demanding more diplomacy (with whom?) and ultimately our surrender (to whom?) — never contemplating that the enemy will accept neither diplomacy nor our surrender, but only our defeat.