"We can't be politically correct - right or left - in the war on terrorism. Period"
About this Quote
The hard stop of "Period" is doing as much work as the rest of the sentence: it tries to shut down debate by framing hesitation as weakness and nuance as indulgence. David Hunt isn’t merely arguing for tough counterterror policy; he’s policing the language around it, warning that any concern about tone, civil liberties, or unintended harm will be treated as a luxury the moment danger enters the room.
The phrase "politically correct - right or left" is a neat piece of rhetorical inoculation. By naming both sides, Hunt claims a kind of stern neutrality while also smuggling in a familiar insinuation: that objections to aggressive tactics are performative, elitist, or partisan gamesmanship. It collapses very different critiques - progressive worries about profiling and overreach, conservative worries about mission creep or executive power - into the same dismissible bucket. That move clears the runway for exceptional measures.
Context matters because "war on terrorism" is itself a choice of frame, born in the post-9/11 era when governments rebranded policing, intelligence, foreign intervention, and surveillance under a single wartime banner. War language brings moral clarity and urgency; it also normalizes collateral damage and secrecy. Hunt’s line leans into that bargain. If it’s war, you don’t litigate every tactic in public; you rally, you authorize, you act.
The subtext is less about terrorists than about domestic audiences: a preemptive rebuke to journalists, advocates, and opposition lawmakers. It’s a political message dressed as strategic necessity - a demand for permission, delivered as inevitability.
The phrase "politically correct - right or left" is a neat piece of rhetorical inoculation. By naming both sides, Hunt claims a kind of stern neutrality while also smuggling in a familiar insinuation: that objections to aggressive tactics are performative, elitist, or partisan gamesmanship. It collapses very different critiques - progressive worries about profiling and overreach, conservative worries about mission creep or executive power - into the same dismissible bucket. That move clears the runway for exceptional measures.
Context matters because "war on terrorism" is itself a choice of frame, born in the post-9/11 era when governments rebranded policing, intelligence, foreign intervention, and surveillance under a single wartime banner. War language brings moral clarity and urgency; it also normalizes collateral damage and secrecy. Hunt’s line leans into that bargain. If it’s war, you don’t litigate every tactic in public; you rally, you authorize, you act.
The subtext is less about terrorists than about domestic audiences: a preemptive rebuke to journalists, advocates, and opposition lawmakers. It’s a political message dressed as strategic necessity - a demand for permission, delivered as inevitability.
Quote Details
| Topic | War |
|---|
More Quotes by David
Add to List
