I love a great many things about Michael's style and substance, but I can't agree with him on this particularly "ghastly" subject. However, his arguments are far from flippant, and the resulting discussion is captivating.
The debate has spilled on to a number of centrist blogs, and while Michael's arguments are compelling and well-articulated, he's the black sheep amongst his peers. Check it out:
Alan at the Yellow Line starts it off with his reaction to Rep. Tancredo's recent comments and then responds to Michael.
Amba at
Ambivablog highlights.
Independent Sources gives a nod.
Joe Gandlemann points the way from The Moderate Voice.
as does Jonathan at The American Centrist.
The bulk of the argument appears to be happening at The Mighty Middle and at Yellow Line's original Tancredo post for those interested in the bloodletting.
Update:
Amba's at Ambivablog points out following comments by Richard Lawrence Cohen:
Despite my distaste for the closing characterization of the "left wing" and their supposed response to terrorism, I'm with Amba. This is probably one of the more astute comments made throughout the evening.
"Speak softly and carry a big stick." I don't recall that during the Cold War the US and the USSR, at times of crisis such as October, 1962, made a practice of publicly threatening to annihilate each other. In fact government officials tried to downplay the possibility in public. Yet everyone knew it could be done and might be done. That was the deterrent -- not noisy threats. In contrast, the Bush administration and its suporters have made a practice of speaking loudly and using a small stick (e.g. boasting of "shock and awe" but not providing enough troops, enough armor), or the wrong stick (e.g. attacking a country that wasn't a credible threat, based on concocted evidence). The threat to nuke Mecca belongs to this pattern. It sounds desperate and shrill, an emotional acting-out rather than a reasoned policy. Therefore it is actually not a powerful threat, and is likely to arouse an equally desperate and shrill response.
Besides, everyone already knows we can nuke the entire Arab world if it comes to that.
Having said this, I also want to say that I understand and share the frustrations of the people who are supporting the threat. I especially share their frustration at their liberal opponents. Throughout this crisis, beginning 9/11, the left-wing position has seemed to amount to doing nothing, to replying to terror with gentle compassion and tolerance. This allows the left to take the moral high ground in debates. It's a very attractive stance, undoubtedly gratifying to those who take it. But it is completely, absolutely useless. It would be suicidal for an entire society to take that position. Until the left states a pragmatic, effective way of defeating terrorism, the center will be drawn to the right."