I think that the Sullivan editorial was a bit unfair--well, actually, I think that it was stupid, distorted, and biased, but, for the sake of our discussion, I'll stand on unfair. He basically says that anyone is an extreme leftist(and, by extension, a "liberal") if they say that American foreign policy may have had something to do with the terrorist attack--basically, a stupid contention--We all know that we were attacked because of our dominant political/economic and military position in the world(if you don't believe it, ask Bin Laden)--

His whole lambast of the "liberal"/leftist position is based on an attack on ideas that are no longer the exclusive property of the liberal cause(if they ever were)-- he says:

>One of the most telling things I have seen since the Sept. 11 massacre was an early "peace movement" e-mail. It listed >>>three major demands: stop the war; stop racism; stop ethnic scapegoating.

If you look at the record, you'll see that our President, hardly a liberal, let alone a leftwing extremist, has been one of the strongest voices against ethnic scapegoating--on the issues of racism and sexism, take a look at his cabinet, you may disagree with their politics, but one cannot help but notice the diversity, and even though he has been emphatic in his use of the concept of "War on Terrorism", he has also been very, very, conscious of the folly of the "show of military force" approach, and has been clear from the beginning that this war won't be big on headlines--

If Sullivan is right, it must be very painful for the conservatives out their to see how wholeheartedly their President has embraced these "liberal" causes--