From one of Andrew Sullivan's readers:
At least George Bush gets the big issue--that we have to fight this [radical Islam]. Fighting, even if you are not fighting well, is better than giving in. The Democrats still don't get it. For all of W's and the Administration's failings on the war on terror, they are hands down better than Al Gore and Kerry would have been.
I find this sort of thing baffling. What does this reader really think Al Gore or <b>John Kerry would have done differently? Given Zarqawi a key to the city? Made Osama bin-Laden Secretary of State? Offered Saddam Hussein 25 of our comeliest virgins? It's just bizarre.
But I'm going to be charitable and assume our correspondent's logic circuits didn't fully melt when the first plane hit the tower. I'll guess he assumes that both Gore and Kerry would prosecute the War on Terror, but they'd see it as more of a law enforcement and preventive activity, one priority among many. And that's what always weirds me out about these conversations, there's an implicit assumption among those recognizing Bush's incompetence but nevertheless emphasizing his necessity that what really matters in the GWOT is how fanatically absolutist you are about it. The litmus test is enthusiasm rather than ability, and lots of determination is easily favored over calm competence.
That's fine, I guess, but it sort of puts the lie to the whole thing. For some of these folks, the War on Terror isn't about protecting Americans or eradicating al-Qaeda, but about the vicarious thrill of participating, even in a passive, peripheral way, in a global, epochal conflict. And only those who sense the moment's historicity can be considered equal to the task. So Bush may be playing Mr. Magoo on the world stage, but at least he "gets it," and that's far preferable to some small-minded man who won't validate the neocon's clash-of-civilations-style fantasies.
