My point was that we can never have a clear and reasoned discussion of the issues if one side gets to set and constrain the terms of debate. When they get away with it, the result is very much knee-jerk: People can only think and respond in the terms set by the dominant party. When the terms of debate are limited to the rhetoric of fear, all you get is gut reaction--the intellect is suppressed and manipulation becomes easier.

The dominant party, as always, is whoever currently controls the "might and majesty" of the US government--"adhoc administration dependent method". They have an overwhelming propaganda advantage--my god, they even create PowerPoint presentations for the UN! Argggh! We're helpless!

But seriously, constant skepticism and questioning is the only way to somewhat redress the imbalance. Is that merely knee-jerk? No, I don't think so. It's the vital function of a loyal opposition in a free society.

I should point out that you fell into the trap when you automatically labelled such questioning "leftist" (produced by the "dedicated left"). It's a knee-jerk term that labels the other guy as knee-jerk, and makes it easy to discount alternative views. That diminishes the quality of discussion by depriving it of its full potential richness.

Specifically, in this case, tying the long-term ideological agenda of the neocons to terrorism is an attempt to take it off the table and prevent our rightful discussion of American policy. That's dishonest, and I resist it every chance I get. I won't be bullied into silence by an Osama bin Laden hand-puppet brandished by politicians.

--Robert