Rall wrong on bin Laden
I opposed the Iraq war before it even started, in the Charlottesville peace march on Martin Luther King Jr. Day, 2003, and was assaulted for my trouble. However, as a progressive and a proud American, I disagree with Ted Rall’s essay “Ultimate victory: Bin Laden got exactly what he wanted" in the May 12 issue of the Hook.
Rall’s brand of liberalism is a caricature that the Fox News commentators would love to convince conservative Americans represents anyone else who doesn’t agree with them. Rall puts the alleged sensitivities of Muslims and the sovereignty of Pakistan above the necessity of capturing or killing the most notorious terrorist in the world. He won’t give Americans the satisfaction of rejoicing at bin Laden’s demise because it offends his delicate sensibilities. He gives the extremist jihadi fundamentalism of the Wahabi sect the same standing as any more tolerant, widespread, and peaceful kind of Islam, demanding we respect its intolerance.
Well, Rall doesn’t represent me or many other devout and patriotic progressives and liberals, who still oppose the wars we’re in. Everyone on the planet is safer now that bin Laden is gone. Besides, he didn’t go out a hero; he was holed up in a hide-out, watching movies of himself and tried to run away at the end. What kind of noble death is that? His ignoble demise will serve as a warning to any aspiring jihadi that they will meet the same fate at our hands. Commentary from newspapers in Muslim lands all expressed relief at bin Laden’s death, not least because of how he mis-represented Islam. Meanwhile, Rall, speak for yourself and please don’t try to brand the rest of us liberals with your shame of anything America does that offends your delicate sensibilities.