"The danger of this war on terror, it turns out, is that it not only collapses when it hits the ground in Muslim countries - as the sheer impossibility of using force to control Islamism in Iraq and Afghanistan reveals itself - but that its religious nature can divide the West as well, rendering a minority suspect and further undermining the chances of a multi-faith democracy successfully fighting a religious war without succumbing to more primal identities. Every which way, Osama wins." - Sean McBride from Bookmarklet

Sullivan's problem is that he fails to contextualize, always beginning his perspective from within the core of the press release. This is why he attracts a readership fond of phrases like "multi-culti" and "cocktail party progressives". They have already accepted the marginalization memes too. - Cole Jolley

Sullivan's main point strikes me as solid: the "Global War on Terror," as conceived by the neoconservatives, is greatly exacerbating the problem of terrorism in the United States and all around the world. Perhaps that has been its intention all along -- to ignite a Global Holy War (World War IV) between "the West" and Islam, thus providing an opportunity for the neocons to deport or exterminate all their enemies. - Sean McBride

Except that Sullivan doesn't encase the term in quotes. He truly believes "those people" are out to "kill us" too. Sure, he pays lip service to the notion that - possibly - the anger is stoked by endless killing, but he accepts the premise at face value. (That assessment is not out of keeping with his statements on Maher when he is on). As do his readers, who often veil their own racism in charges of progressive elitism, etc. - Cole Jolley