Pooka,

Here's where I get that idea. She starts off reasonably enough, saying that conservatives can be just as intelligent and thoughtful as liberals. Um, yeah. Isn't that obvious? It begs the question, why write an editorial about it?

Ahhhh, she isn't! It's just an introduction to get your attention. Rather quickly, she veers off and uses the rest of the column to rail against the expression of, well, *thinking*, specifically thinking she doesn't agree with. None of the following paragraphs support her premise or even particularly address it.

She states,

"But who, after all, is really being thoughtless here? It's the left elite's arguments that were ill-timed and insensitive. They were made just days after the catastrophic event, while the wound was still fresh and families and friends were reeling. Like a slap in the face on cue, they were made again on the eve of the wrenching anniversary.

From the comfortable remove of their armchairs, the sages begrudged us and worse, the victims and survivors, our justified feelings of national solidarity."

First, she blatantly lies or shows her ignorance by stating that liberals weren't expressing those views prior to 9/11, and then seems to have only heard about the articles in question but hasn't actually read them. Next, she calls expressing those views both "insensitive" and a "slap in the face" and "begrudg[ing] us... national solidarity."

Sounds a lot like "shut up" to me, because the THOUGHTS of people she disagreed with made her uncomfortable. Her "us" refers to those with national solidarity, and those who disagreed aren't included. Those who dissented weren't among her "victims and survivors."

It's the same old nonsense about if you disagree with the actions of the government, you're less patriotic. And whether you reach a majority opinion by thinking or by blindly following, you're one of the real Americans.

Same tired argument, different dressing.