By Mark Steyn
Daniel, re Lindsey Graham's suggestion that everyone should just "shut up" about the Libyan Non-War, you'll recall that the last time the Senator attracted any attention in these parts he was also telling everyone to shut up - this time about Islam. Maybe it would be easier if
he just issued the rest of us with an approved list of conversational topics.
Alternatively, here's a suggestion for Senator Graham: Why don't you shut up? Not permanently, but just long enough to:
a) reflect whether this apparently reflexive response of yours is really
appropriate for a citizen-legislator in a self-governing republic;
b) articulate a rationale for the Libyan mission that would be so persuasive it would save you the trouble of making a fool of yourself by insisting that those who have the temerity to disagree with you are beyond the bounds of public discourse;
and c) spend ten minutes in a darkened room with a nice cup of herbal tea and ponder, re your assertion that those who won't "shut up" are "empowering Qaddafi", whether that line has any credibility coming from a member of the Congressional jet set who only two years ago was "empowering Qaddafi" by taking tea in the pock-marked transvestite's tent as part of some greasy little Senatorial outreach mission.
It was striking that, at Monday's debate, even the more hawkish candidates were unable to articulate a rationale for the present Afghan mission. It's hard to win a war when you don't have war aims, and, as I wrote in National Review a couple of weeks back, America has gotten into the habit of unwon wars - in part because a buffoon like Graham and his dictatorial air miles are what passes for geostrategic "expertise" in