As pro-war, can I yell you what we'll likely see?

"We'll actually FIND Osama".
"We'll support our troops with proper equipment".
"We'll get out of the distraction that is Iraq and quit creating more terrorists".
"We'll actually use diplomacy and not shoot first, ask questions later".
"We won't spy on Americans".

Ad nauseum.
Hope I haven't `stifled debate'.

Mitch, upon further reflection this was not what you were looking for here. Feel free to delete my comment.

1/2 a day and no comments? I think that is your answer.

"1/2 a day and no comments? I think that is your answer."

No. It's just not a legitimate question.

1/2 day without a comment by the Furious Mime seems to suggest he's been banned. Prove me wrong, O Clown!

Mitch:"I'll toss this open for discussion; what do you lefties propose to actually do about the war on terror?"

Doug: "It's just not a legitimate question."

A two word response from the right: "Win it".
Gee, that wasn't so tough. Didn't even hurt.

Lileks pined: "1/2 day without a comment by the Furious Mime seems to suggest he's been banned. Prove me wrong, O Clown!"

You like me, you really like me!

A two word response from the right: "Win it".

Uh huh... And so how's that been working for ya then?

"You like me, you really like me!"

Settle down, Norma Rae.

"Uh huh... And so how's that been working for ya then?"

Well, so far a lot better than under Clinton.

That is such an asinine statement, I don't even know where to begin

Don't bother, Doug. The thread is an appeal to the constructive instincts of anti-wingnuts like yourself. Resist them.

When's the last time the wingnuts sincerely asked your advice on anything? They are bipartisan only in failure. Take to the mountains with Angryclown and stick to asymmetric warfare. The wingnuts don't seem to have figured out how to cope with it yet.

"constructive instincts of anti-wingnuts" ???
Since when is constant, agressive negativity ever been constructive?
"That's such an asinine statement, blah, blah blah."
An amazing self-contained observation. Bravo!

I watched The Lost City last night. It was a perfect reminder of why I returned my Democrat Party Membership Card. Whenever you guys DO get an idea it's really, really bad.

"They are bipartisan only in failure." Yes, you enlightened ones gave us a Sterling Example of bipartisanship in Connecticut this week. Thank God the looney lefty fringe has finally taken over the Democrat party. It may be the GOP's last best hope.

Constructive. That's just too damn funny.

"When's the last time the wingnuts sincerely asked your advice on anything?"

Ummm. Never.

But here's the irony. I went back and dug out some of my exchanges with my Republican family and my rightwing brothers-in-law from before the Iraq debacle started and it turns out, everything I said about US casulaties, civil war, anti-American sentiment, Jihadist recruitment, financial costs, increased terrorist activity, war profiteering - everything - was 100% correct.

Now we have Kermit who comes along and gives us this, "Whenever you guys DO get an idea it's really, really bad."

Sure kermit...and you guys have done such a wonderful job so far haven't you?

For Mitch to seriously ask what we would do about terror is ridiculous.

I've read one too many Peanuts comics with Lucy and Charlie Brown playing football to take the bait.

Instead of handing out the usual stay the course crap, why don't you guys come up with a serious solution to the problems you created.

Of course, that would require that you acknowledge that people like me were right and you were wrong and since humility apparently isn't something Republicans are capable of, this will never happen.

Paul said,

"Liberals usually don't when it comes to truth refuting their arguments."

Ok Paul... Let's review...

Apparently, kermit feels that Republicans and Mr. Bush are doing a better job fighting the war on terror than Mr. Clinton...

If I remember my history, the "war on terror" began after 9-11 and Congress authorized the President to use force to disarm Iraq. Mr. Clinton was no longer our President.

One could argue that the war on terror actually started before Clinton left office... OK. I'll play along...

If we were in the middle of a war when Bush took office, explain how two airplanes took down two towers. Explain how another airplane crashed into the Pentagon and explain how a forth airplane had to be taken down by it's passenges because it was in route to Washington DC to blow up Congress or the Whitehouse.

Now Paul, be fair. Clinton did kill a janitor in an aspirin factory in Mogadishu, and a couple of camels in an empty camp in Afghanistan.

But Doug the Clerk just keeps getting sillier:
"Sure kermit...and you guys have done such a wonderful job so far haven't you?"

9/11 2001 BOOM! BOOM! BOOM! BOOM!
How many attacks on US soil (here or abroad) since then?
I am heartened by Doug's affection for Peanuts comics, though. Sadly, his recollection of history is badly skewed. BDS.

" . . . everything I said about US casulaties, civil war, anti-American sentiment, Jihadist recruitment, financial costs, increased terrorist activity, war profiteering - everything - was 100% correct."

Interesting, Doug, that you left out WMD's (or there lack). I assume this means you were against the Iraq War back when you thought Sadam vats & viles of CBW hidden in his palaces? This puts you to the left of how many democrats who voted for HJR 114? And to left of what part of the American people?
Consider the your use of the words 'financial cost' and 'war profiteering' in the context of war. How much did WW2 cost? Was their any 'war profiteering' going on? What did it matter when we'd won?
Better yet, Substitute the word 'enemy' for 'jihadist' and 'terrorist' in your statement. Looks silly, doesn't it? Looks like you really have no idea how to fight this war, mush less win it.

Where to begin...

"Well, gee Doug, maybe because there was a delay getting the GWB administration in place because of Al Gore's drawn out Florida recounts?"

Ahhhh I see. So while Bush was busy clearing brush at the ranch - the day he got the PDB's telling him that bin Laden was determined to strike inside the US, the rest of the administration was still busy getting in place... Right...

Here's a thought... If you're administration isn't fully in place the day you take office, maybe you're not really the best person for the job...

Oh and kermit, Clinton ordered the bombing of a pharmaceutical plant based in Sudan - not Mogadishu SOMALIA. Nimrod.

And for the record, the bombing was based on intelligence provided to the administration.

By your very own standards, Bush is solely responsible for the mess in Iraq, not the intelligence agencies that you guys seem so intent on blaming.

Thanks for proving our point.

And Paul, since you desperately need an answer to Mitch's question, here it is.

"We'll win it".

Feel better?

Next, There's this...

"Apparently you either don't remember history very well or choose to remember it selectively:

1993 World Trade Center Bombing
1996 Khobar Towers Bombing
1998 Embassy Bombings
2000 USS Cole Bombing

The Clinton response? All talk, no action."

Really?

1993 World Trade Center Bombing

Four followers of the Egyptian cleric Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman were captured, convicted of the World Trade Center bombing in March 1994, and sentenced to 240 years in prison each. The purported mastermind of the plot, Ramzi Ahmed Yousef, was captured in 1995, convicted of the bombing in November 1997, and also sentenced to 240 years in prison.

1996 Khobar Towers Bombing

U.S. investigation was hampered by the refusal of Saudi officials to allow the FBI to question suspects. After a five investigation, a federal grand jury in Alexandria, Virginia, indicted thirteen Saudis and an unidentified Lebanese chemist for the Khobar Towers bombing. The suspects remain in Saudi custody and the United States is unable to extradite the suspects to the United States because Saudi Arabia refuses to turn them over.

1998 Embassy Bombings

Four participants with ties to Osama bin Laden were captured, convicted in U.S. federal court, and sentenced to life in prison without parole.

2000 USS Cole Bombing

Happened one month before the Presidential elections. President Bush took office two months after the bombing and to this day, nobody has been caught, arrested, indicted, tried or convicted for that crime.

Let's see... In four situations that you cite, two have arrests and convictions, one we can't touch because it involves President Bush's extended family and the fourth - the one that truely has had nothing acomplished - is under Bush's authority to handle.

And I will remind you, 9-11 happened under Bush's watch - a full 8+ months into his administration.

Kermit asks,

"How many attacks on US soil (here or abroad) since then?"

Hey Kermit. Your buddy Paul keeps insisting that the war on terror was going on while Clinton was in office...

How do you sleep at night knowing that Bush failed to catch the guys that blew up the USS Cole and allowed the events of 9-11 to happen while we were at war?

"Interesting, Doug, that you left out WMD's (or there lack). I assume this means you were against the Iraq War back when you thought Sadam vats & viles of CBW hidden in his palaces?"

I left out WMD's because I forgot to mention it. I was listening to the 1800 UN inspectors on the ground who were saying there were no weapons. Based on that, yes, I was against the war in Iraq.

"This puts you to the left of how many democrats who voted for HJR 114? And to left of what part of the American people?"

HJT 114 was passed October 2nd, 2002. The war against Iraq was launched March 20th, 2003. Hans Blix gave his report to the UN Security Council on February 14, 2003.

If Congress had voted for HJR 114 AFTER Blix gave his report, I don't believe most Democrats would have authorized the use of force based on non-compliance with 1441. As for the American people, the administration was telling us that Iraq was an imminent threat, FOX News is the widest viewed cable news program and the alleged liberal press was pounding the drums for war via Judy Miller and company.

I'm not the least bit surprised the American public was duped.

"Consider the your (sic) use of the words 'financial cost' and 'war profiteering' in the context of war. How much did WW2 cost? Was their any 'war profiteering' going on? What did it matter when we'd won?"

I'm not going to justify your idiotic question with a response other than to say, read a little history about Senator, then President Harry S Truman.

"Better yet, Substitute the word 'enemy' for 'jihadist' and 'terrorist' in your statement. Looks silly, doesn't it?"

Ummm No. Not really. But if I substitute the word 'titmouse', I might just giggle uncontrollably.

"Looks like you really have no idea how to fight this war, mush less win it."

Cool! I guess that qualifies me to be the Republican Candidate for President in 2008.

Somalia, Sudan, what the F ever. Do you think Islamist monsters think there's a difference?
And yes, dumbass, the war was going on while Clinton was in office. While Bush 41 was in office. While Reagan was in office. It started when Jimmy Carter was in office.
People like you are just too stupid to believe it.

"Somalia, Sudan, what the F ever. Do you think Islamist monsters think there's a difference?"

Do I think Islamist monsters think there's a difference between Somalia and Sudan?

Ummm, Well... Yeah. Probably. They're obviously smart enough to hijack planes with box cutters and pilot them into buildings. My guess is that makes them smart enough to know the difference between Somalia and Sudan.

The silverlining here is that I can rest assured that you stand absolutely zero chance of ever becomming a hijacker.

"And yes, dumbass, the war was going on while Clinton was in office. While Bush 41 was in office. While Reagan was in office. It started when Jimmy Carter was in office."

Excellent. So can we dig up Ronny's rotting corpse and try him for treason?

And Ollie North? Can we shoot that piece of filth or should we hang him in the Capital Rotunda?

Doug wrote:
"If Congress had voted for HJR 114 AFTER Blix gave his report, I don't believe most Democrats would have authorized the use of force based on non-compliance with 1441"

Here's the last paragraph of Blix' report:

"If Iraq had provided the necessary cooperation in 1991, the phase of disarmament – under resolution 687 (1991) – could have been short and a decade of sanctions could have been avoided. Today, three months after the adoption of resolution 1441 (2002), the period of disarmament through inspection could still be short, if “immediate, active and unconditional cooperation” with UNMOVIC and the IAEA were to be forthcoming."

Note Blix specifically says that the "immediate, active, and unconditional cooperation" demanded in with UNMOVIC in 1441 was not forthcoming. That's called non-compliance.
Bush made the right decision. Scandinavian bureaucrats do not determine whether the United States is justified in going to war. Unless you're a democrat.

Note Blix specifically says that disarmament through INSPECTION could be short if “immediate, active and unconditional cooperation” with UNMOVIC and the IAEA were to be forthcoming."

By March 7th, Iraq had destroyed nearly all of their missiles. El Baradei had concluded that the documents the US offered as "proof" that Iraq had attempted to import uranium from Niger were frauds and Blix had all but concluded that there were no WMD's and no viable weapons program and there were 1800 weapons inspectors on the ground.

"Bush made the right decision."

and became the greatest recruiting tool for radical Islam.

There was no threat Terry. None. And we knew there was no threat at least 8 days before Bush launched his personal war.

You seem to be reading Blix report differently than I am. He notes, for example, that at one point the Iraqi assigned 5 "handlers" for each inspector & they were NOT free to inspect sites arbitrarily as 1441 demanded. He also mentions specific items found found whose use had been proscribed, including an apparently active program to develop missiles with a greater range than the 1991 cease fire agreement allowed.
1441 demanded immediate & full cooperation. It warned of "serious consequences" if Iraq did not comply with all the terms of 1441, including, by the way, an account of Kuwaiti's kidnapped & taken to Iraq in the 1991 war.
Hans Blix did not report that Iraq that was in compliance with 1441. If you think he did, you're living on another planet than I am, brother. He merely reported they weren't as far out of compliance as they had been in December 2001. Meanwhile, to get to that point, we had to pass a "this is absolutely your last chance" SC resolution and plop a quarter of a million soldiers on his border in full invasion mode.
And this isn't W's "personal war". We don't live in a dictatorship. HJR 114 authorized the war and it was voted on & passed by the house and senate. The house can revoke funding the operation anytime it likes. Win or lose, this is as much your war as it is mine.

How did I know that any left of center ideas (Doug) would be witlessly savaged by Mitch's amen corner, his empty promises to the contrary notwitstanding?

Terry, HJR 114 gave the President the authority to use force if necessary.

No where does HJT 114 say the President is mandatorily obligated to use force.

HJR 114 gave the President the authorization to use force to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq" and to "enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."

By February of 2003, we knew there was no threat and we also knew that the presence of UN inspectors on the ground throughout Iraq and US military presence was forcing compliance with 1441. No Terry, it wasn't perfect and it wasn't 100% but it was working.

And yes Terry. This is a personal war.

It was only a matter of time before inspectors concluded emphatically that there were no wmd's and no weapons programs and if that were to happen, the opportunity to invade Iraq would have been lost.

This was a war that was conceived by a group of men sitting around a conference table in a comfy office in Washington - most of whom by the way have ties to the defense industry. That and the maps Cheney had drawn up dividing Iraq's oil fields.

Now that I think of it, it was you who was condoning and justifying war profiteering.

You know what Terry? I've been at a loss to understand how you "conservatives" can support this war but this little exchange is making it all much clearer.

It's right here...

"Was their any 'war profiteering' going on? What did it matter when we'd won? "

I'd be really interested in seeing your investment portfolio...

Thank you Terry. I get it now.

Hey AC, I even offered my answer to Mitch's challenge...

Mitch said, "what do you lefties propose to actually do about the war on terror?"

I answered, "We'll win it" and no one has been able to challenge my plan.

Any thoughts Terry? How was my answer?

I would also add one thing I wouldn't do...

I wouldn't attempt to divert $6 million that was supposed to be spent this year developing new explosives detection technology.

But Bush would.

Feeling safer yet?

"Somalia, Sudan, what the F ever. Do you think Islamist monsters think there's a difference?"

OK, let's rephrase that. Do you think the Islamist monsters CARE about the difference? Here's a hint, doug: they don't.

"The silverlining here is that I can rest assured that you stand absolutely zero chance of ever becomming a hijacker."

Thge first and perhaps only intelligent comment you have ever made on this blog.

So there may be hope for you.

This thread kinda shows what I was getting at. The left's "solution" to terror (assuming the assembled multitude speak for "the left", and in a way I think they do) is "But we're not going to do it the way you did". Brava.

And the Clown hasn't been banned; he merely apparently has to put in SOME time at the day job.

John Kerry put it most succintly when he was the Democrat candiate for president. "We're going to fight this war smarter." Sure convinced me.

OK, let's rephrase that. Do you think the Islamist monsters CARE about the difference? Here's a hint, doug: they don't.

Ok Kermit. Let's recap...

K: Clinton bombed an aspirin factory in Somalia

D: It was Sudan, not Somalia and it was more than an aspirin factory according to US intelligence.

K: Do you think the Islamist monsters CARE about the difference?

D: What?

K: Geez Doug - A + B = cornflakes but you're too stupid to know that.

D: Kermit, I hope they make sure you're wearing your helmet when you go for a walk in the park.

"Thge first and perhaps only intelligent comment you have ever made on this blog."

It's also one of my best insults but apparently, you're not bright enough to get it.

Oh, and Mitch... I don't recall saying, "But we're not going to do it the way you did"

I said, We'll win it.

Thank to Sunday talk shows, we learned the new Republican marketing strat... er, I mean Iraq strategy. It's - "Adapting to win"

Aparently "Stay the Course" isn't working so well.

Just so we're all on the same page - let's all try it together... Ready...?

Republicans are - "Adapting to Win"

Democrats - "Cut and Run"

Again?

Republicans are - "Adapting to Win"

Democrats - "Cut and Run"

Excellent!

Now, drink your kool-aid and get out there and blog, blog, BLOG! 1 - 2 - 3 - "Adapting to Win"! YEAH!!!!

Doug-
The argument that the Iraq war was begun so that certain individuals might make $ is a non-starter, it's the stuff of paranoid delusions drawn from inference and insinuation. Look at yourself; you've accused me of being a war profiteer -- and you know nothing about me -- on the basis that I did not see fit to even acknowledge your own accusations of war profiteering on the part of the administration. And you didn't even try to prove anything about war profiteering. You just stuck it in a laundry list of reasons you feel the Iraq War is illegitimate. This shows why I still have hope for conservatism. So many of you guys on the left think that a half-dozen poorly reasoned arguments equal one good argument, and if that should fail, you go for the personal attack. This doesn't play well with people out your circle of group think.
Your point about HJR authorizing, but not requiring, the use of force against Iraq is well taken but doesn't really get us anywhere. Constitutionally the Congress cannot compel the president to use the military to attack anyone. The senators and congressmen who voted for it were well aware of their responsibilities when they signed on. And your point is . . .?
You say of the left regarding the war on terror, "We'll win it". That's a good start, but you'll have to come up with a better plan then hoisting the white flag and declaring victory.

"K: Geez Doug - A + B = cornflakes but you're too stupid to know that."

You know, I think you're starting to make real progress, Doug. You may even develop a sense of humor, given enough time.

Good God what a ridiculous question.

Here's the counter, what are the conservatives going to do about terrorism?

Or Global Warming?

Or global economic income gaps?

Or massive distrust of the US?

Liebermann was outed not only for the Iraq war stance, which was justification enough, but because he'd become a DINO.

Suggestions that the Dems are weak on terror are so old and trite as to be laughingstock bathroom stall material.

Your party is in power, your answers to date have been totally inadequate. Afghanistan, tending toward failure, Iraq, failure, closing down Al Qaeda, failure, reducing terrorism, failure, expanding moderate islam, failure.

The only people who owe anyone an apology or explanation or plan are sitting in the White House. If your statement is, "As if you could do better," the response is, "As if anyone, who actually intended to succeed, could do worse."

The stark raving lunatics that believe the only solution is war, that the US is unusurpable as a power, that guns solve all problems, should hardly be the ones asking anyone for a plan. You wouldn't listen, don't care what is said, and only ask the question to mock any response that isn't equally frothing at the mouth for the blood of people who are much the same (aka Lebenese and Israeli children) as you are.

Ooh, Ted wanders into the room with a bagful of cliches. I am deeply moved.

"what are the conservatives going to do about terrorism?"

More than liberals ever did.

"Or Global Warming?"

Recognize that it's a natural trend and trying to prevent it equates to peeing in a river. (the Nazi censor rejected the word pi55ing)

"Or global economic income gaps?"

Like that's our fault or our problem. NOT.

"Or massive distrust of the US?"

Rest comforatbly with the certain knowedge that those that hate us HAVE ALWAYS hated us and always will. Boo f'n hoo.

I agree, Kermit. Can you IMAGINE worrying about "global warming" for one fricking second while the threat that hangs over us in the form of Islamic Jihad is not dealt with decisively?

And "global economic gaps"?!!! Communism has worked out so well in the past...let's give it one more go-only globally so there's no free, economically-viable country such as the US left to pick up the pieces when it all goes to hell. Naive fool.

"Or global economic income gaps?"
This explains much of the electoral failure of the left these days. Go before the voters & tell them that you want to take their money away so you can give it to foreigners -- who can't vote for you.

"The argument that the Iraq war was begun so that certain individuals might make $ is a non-starter, it's the stuff of paranoid delusions drawn from inference and insinuation."

Do you know the best place to hide something Terry? Right out in the open.

Oh and the paranoid delusions comment? Save it.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/defense-20030123.htm

This is a letter to President Bush stressing the need to increase defense spending.

It's signed by, among others, Frank Carlucci.

"Look at yourself; you've accused me of being a war profiteer -- and you know nothing about me -- on the basis that I did not see fit to even acknowledge your own accusations of war profiteering on the part of the administration."

Are you profiting from this war Terry? Do you have stock in a company that is involved with the war and has turned a profit?

Check you mutual funds too Terry. Are you profiting? Yes or no?

"And you didn't even try to prove anything about war profiteering. You just stuck it in a laundry list of reasons you feel the Iraq War is illegitimate."

And isn't it interesting that since the war started, there have been only a handful of hearings concerning military contracts even though we've awarded something like a half a trillion in contracts since the war started. By comparison, in 1941, Harry Truman drove thousands of miles around the country going from one defense plant to another documenting waste and fraud. He headed the Senate Special Committee to Investigate the National Defense Program and saved American taxpayers $15 billion (in 1940s dollars).

All attempts to establish similar oversite is stalled in Congress because it can't get out of committee. It can't get out of committee because the majority won't let it.

Who is the majority in Congress Terry?

My job isn't to prove there is war profiteering Terry. That's Congress's job.

"This shows why I still have hope for conservatism."

This shows why Bush conservatives are frauds.

"So many of you guys on the left think that a half-dozen poorly reasoned arguments equal one good argument, and if that should fail, you go for the personal attack."

Do you want some cheese with that whine?

"Your point about HJR authorizing, but not requiring, the use of force against Iraq is well taken... And your point is . . .?"

The point is, just because the President has the ability to do something doesn't mean he should.

"You say of the left regarding the war on terror, "We'll win it". That's a good start, but you'll have to come up with a better plan then hoisting the white flag and declaring victory."

Really? Why... Let's review this thread - specifically the 6th post...

...A two word response from the right: "Win it".
Gee, that wasn't so tough. Didn't even hurt.
Posted by Terry at August 12, 2006 12:52 AM

Seems to have worked for you just fine.

"Check you mutual funds too Terry. Are you profiting? Yes or no?"

Doug should quit his job @ CUB. After all, they sell shrimp farmed in communist China. Shame on him for profitting on on the produce of slave labor.
Hypocrite.

Again Kermit and company show their poor reading comprehension...

Ted offers,

Good God what a ridiculous question.

Here's the counter, what are the conservatives going to do about terrorism?

Or Global Warming?

Or global economic income gaps?

Or massive distrust of the US?

Ted just got done saying they were ridiculous questions.

And Colleen... why would you worry about an Islamic Jihad? I thought you were Rapture Ready?

By the way, can I have your stuff?

On second thought, I really have no need for a 1974 Malibu, Velvet Elvis painting, Holiday Inn ashtray collection or trailer home.

Nope. Not Cub either.

But what if I said I was self-employed doing network marketing?

"On second thought, I really have no need for a 1974 Malibu, Velvet Elvis painting, Holiday Inn ashtray collection or trailer home."

Check out the half-assed Angryclown impersonation.
Network marketing? Oh! You're the guy who keeps calling after I've REPEATEDLY told you I'm on the Do Not Call List. From clerk to telemarketer. Now I know why Doug is so angry.

I think John Kerry summed up the Dem thought process on battling terrorism with the following quote at the '04 Democratic Convention:

"Any attack will be met with a swift and certain response."

So, we're to wait for another cataclysmic event like 9/11/01 before we take out the Al-Qaida types?

Yeah, that'll inspire confidence with voters.

Doug-
You respond with . . . nothing really. More paranoid rants, more emotional statements dressed up as half-baked ideas about how the world really works. With you guys it's the Project for the New American Century today; tommorrow it'll be the Bilderbergers, and after that, who knows? Opus Dei? The Protocols of the Elders Of Zion?
There are good points to be made against the administration's conduct of the war on terror, but you aren't making them.
As for whining, gee whiz, Doug, knock yourself out with baseless personal attacks if it makes you feel better. If letting off steam on Mitch's blog keeps you from throwing a bucket of pig's blood on a military recruiter, then getting called a "war profiteer" by a clueless lefty is the least I can do for the war effort.

Good Lord Terry ~ aren't we defensive...

I asked a simple question and you go all psycho.

I guess having the evidence laid out in front of you is more than you can handle.

And you didn't answer the question. Do you have investments with companies that were awarded no-bid contracts?

I know I shouldn't take the bait, but...I live on 60 acres of beautiful northern woodland in a nice regular house, don't have a '74 Malibu but wouldn't mind-that'd be kind of cool, we have an oil painting on our wall bought in Dublin along with collected antique steel engravings, (sorry, no velvet Elvis), no ashtrays of any sort. But, I know you're no bigot because you're a leftist....that only goes one way we're told.

Mitch lied: "And I'll tell ya what - I'll not only respectfully ask for any heckling from my right-wing commenters (the vast majority, doyyy) to be muted, but I'll make sure it stays that way.

So lefties, here you go; convince me. What is the left going to do about terror?"

Anything to change the subject from the botched war to the necessarily imperfect plans for dealing with the botched war once your guys are run out of town on a rail, eh? Wingnuts *hate* to be on the defensive.

And Mitch, what happened to the promise to keep your right-wing pit bulls on the leash?

Haha! Angryclown wasn't dumb enough to fall for that old trick! (Neither, I suspect, was Doug. He just wanted to raise your blood-pressure.)

Wingnuts is so silly!

Colleen said,

"we have an oil painting on our wall bought in Dublin along "

Alright, so I'm wrong. You're actually just a typical rich Republican. We Democrats - regular Americans are content to build our walls out of 2 X 4's and drywall rather than having them shipped in from another country.

And kermit,

Shows how much you know... Network marketing isn't tele-marketing.

Here's an example of network marketing.

http://www.quixtar.com/

and

http://www.looking4leaders.org/bww.html

If you'd like to know more, I might be able to find someone who can answer any questions you might have about this wonderful opportunity.

AC said,

"(Neither, I suspect, was Doug. He just wanted to raise your blood-pressure.)"

...busted... but AC, let's keep it our little secret...

Geez, Doug, show some respect. I bet Colleen's painting is a lovely pastoral scened of Irish Setters and Wolfhounds playing p0ker.

Angryclown calls dibs on the painting when she gets raptured!

Fine AC, you can have the the painting but I get the "collected antique steel engravings".

I'm looking for a first edition, "Wisconsin - America's Dairyland" and the extreemely rare "Wisconsin - Come Smell Our Dairy Air".

Yeah. Lefties are NEVER bigots.

Oh, Network Marketing! That's just great, Doug. Andy Whilloughby Finally got some one to bite on the Three Step Plan.
Just a little friendly advice: you're not much of a salesperson. Now Angryclown on the other hand could sell shoes to fish

Kermit said,

"Oh, Network Marketing! That's just great, Doug."

Kermit... Really? Is that all? I throw you a bone with 14 ounces of 100% pure choice grade beef still attached and this is all you deliver?

You got an email didn't you...?

As for being a good salesman? I'm not saying this to boast but to simply illustrate a point... I work part-time and own a 4000 square foot house on 5 acres in the country. I take 4 - 5 weeks of vacation every year to our cabin on a lake in northern Wisconsin. What do you think?

I think you can claim to be the Prince of Wales, Doug. Trying to impress people with one's real or constructed accomplishments is almost as telling as, well, no, I take it back. It's pretty sad.
You go from "I gave up a high-paying job to work in retail so I can spend more time with my kids" to "I'm in network marketing, etc, etc."
"I'm not saying this to boast but to simply illustrate a point..."
As long as yoou are impressed with yourself Doug, that's all that really matters.
E-mail? No, I've got really good spam filters.

Kermit, I didn't say I actually worked in network marketing.

I said,

"But what if I said I was self-employed doing network marketing?"

And again, I'm not boasting - just refuting your silly little jabs...

Say hi to you-know-who for me...

So much for muting your right-wing commenters, and especially keeping it that way.

What does the left propose to do about the war on terror? I think the first thing would be to recognize that it's a stupid idea. You can't make war on a word.

After that, I'd ask in response what it is about Islam that leads to terrorism? Something in the blood, maybe? Or is it just that the religion itself is corrupt?

I'm sure there are no Christian "prophets" who preach hatred, of that I'm certain.

Your civility is amazingly satirizabull.

"I...own a 4000 square foot house on 5 acres in the country...What do you think?"

Unsustainable! Unsustainable!

"I'm sure there are no Christian "prophets" who preach hatred, of that I'm certain."

The vast, glaring difference that the left REFUSES to acknowledge is this: Nutjobs like Fred Phelps and abortion doctor killers are reviled and denounced by the vast majority of Christians. Ahmadinejad proclaims that Israel must be wiped from the face of the map, and that the U.S. is the Great Satan? Tens of millions of Muslims around the world cheer in adoration, or at least agree. The vast majority of the rest of them refuse to denounce him or keep silent about it.

Fundamentalist Christianity preaches peace and love. It grew out of the dark ages hundreds of years ago. Fundamentalist Islam preaches death and hatred. It still wallows in its own dark ages.

Good God... Did I call this one or what?!?

http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/20060815_stewart_mocks_rnc_chairs_adapt_and_win_makeover/

Hey Guys? What's the Strategy in Iraq?

"So lefties, here you go; convince me. What is the left going to do about terror?"

Let's see... First were going to go see a guy like Frank Luntz and we're going to test market a bunch of really catchy jingoisms. Then we'll decide on which one to use based on feedback from our respondents. Then we'll go on all of the Sunday Morning talk shows and toss them around making sure they get into at least 75% of our sentences.

Fundamentalist Christianity preaches peace and love, yep, every bit as much as Fundamentalist Islam does.

Go tell your fairy tales to the Templars or to the Jews of Europe. What a fantasy land you live in. Perhaps you are referring to Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, or Bob Jones. Maybe it's Phyllis Schlaffley you mean (who said that all Muslims are terrorists). I can see peace and love breaking out all over with that sort of sentiment I'm sure.

There are those who preach violence in the Fundamentalist Christian camp, including it's most prominent speaker after Billy Graham - namely Pat Robertson. Robertson is denounced, but there has been fatwah after fatwah condeming terrorism, you just don't happen to either apparently want to acknowledge it or know about it.

Ahmadinejad professes a desire to wipe out Israel, Bush professes a desire to wipe out Hezbollah. Both are seen as extremists by the other side. Bush's pronouncements are embraced in the US - despite the peace and love world you claim exists. Ahmadinejad's pronouncements are embraced in Iran. I fail to see the difference. Does that mean Israel is a terrorist organization, no, but they are hardly angels, and they are certainly perceived as the equal of terrorists by the Muslims considering their horrendous treatment of Palestinians in Gaza.

You did not provide the actual difference, so here it is, Islam lacks central unifying authorities. Any person can claim to be a Cleric and issue religious edicts or fatwahs. It's definetely a problem, but has nothing to do with the base teachings of Islam. However, that has not stopped thousands of Clerics from decrying terrorism as a sin, a violent abberational practice of misguided maniacs preaching entirely the opposite of what is in the Koran, and in that, they are right. Nowhere in the Koran is terrorism tollerable, in fact it is a gross offense to kill women or children. Conversely, Elijah tells the Israelites to slaughter the followers of Baal, presumably on God's orders.

Extremist Christians are no more tollerant or peace loving than Extremist Muslims. History in no way supports your claim, not in the least at all. If you think so, travel to Northern Ireland sometime, or maybe to Columbia, or Nicaragua, or go tell the families of the victims of Timothy McVeigh that extremist christians are peace loving.

Ted-the new ass on the block.

"Fundamentalist Christianity preaches peace and love, yep, every bit as much as Fundamentalist Islam does."

And then the Christian fundies flew the planes into the WTC, killing thousands.

"Go tell your fairy tales to the Templars or to the Jews of Europe."

Strawman. Nobody is defending atrocities from 500 years ago. And the Catholic Church has at least started atoning for its persecution of the Jews.

Which is more than most of Islam has done.

" What a fantasy land you live in."

I'm sure you'll substantiate that eventually, right?

" Perhaps you are referring to Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, or Bob Jones. Maybe it's Phyllis Schlaffley you mean (who said that all Muslims are terrorists). I can see peace and love breaking out all over with that sort of sentiment I'm sure."

Strawman. Nobody said some Christians don't say dumb things.

"There are those who preach violence in the Fundamentalist Christian camp, including it's most prominent speaker after Billy Graham - namely Pat Robertson. Robertson is denounced, but there has been fatwah after fatwah condeming terrorism, you just don't happen to either apparently want to acknowledge it or know about it."

And when he issued his fatwa, how many Methodist zealots ran into moslem restaurants in Dearborn and blew themselves up?

Pat Robertson's ravings never killed a single person.

Do you see the difference? Or, as you put with such charming, unqualified condescenscion, do you neither acknowledge or know the difference?

"Ahmadinejad professes a desire to wipe out Israel, Bush professes a desire to wipe out Hezbollah."

Israel - a nation of five million people where people of all ethnic groups (that don't advocate murdering the Jews) co-exist under the rule of law.

Hezb'allah - a group of thugs who not only advocate murdering the innocent, but carry it out daily.

Do you now acknowledge or know the difference.

"Both are seen as extremists by the other side."

The difference: one side is evil.

" Bush's pronouncements are embraced in the US - despite the peace and love world you claim exists."

What on earth are you talking about?

" Ahmadinejad's pronouncements are embraced in Iran. I fail to see the difference."

Then you have a problem.

" Does that mean Israel is a terrorist organization, no, but they are hardly angels, and they are certainly perceived as the equal of terrorists by the Muslims considering their horrendous treatment of Palestinians in Gaza."

You give equal weight, it seems, to all "perceptions". Reinhard Heydrich's "perceptions" were that Jews were sub-human; George Bush's is that they are not. They must, by your logic, be equal.

"You did not provide the actual difference, so here it is, Islam lacks central unifying authorities."

So does Christianity.

" Any person can claim to be a Cleric and issue religious edicts or fatwahs. It's definetely a problem, but has nothing to do with the base teachings of Islam."

Untrue. It has *everything* to do with the interpretation of the State of Jihad, and the commandment to Moslems to convert the infidel.

" However, that has not stopped thousands of Clerics from decrying terrorism as a sin, a violent abberational practice of misguided maniacs preaching entirely the opposite of what is in the Koran, and in that, they are right."

Unfortunately, these moderate clerics fall into two categories: clerics who preach in areas of the world where extreme Wahhabism is rare or controlled and the rule of law is the rule, and clerics who preach in Wahhabi areas and speak islamic truth to power and are also dead or scared underground, since the most dangerous thing to be in this world is a moderate moslem.

" Nowhere in the Koran is terrorism tollerable, in fact it is a gross offense to kill women or children."

And yet many of them justify it by the thousands, undenounced by masses of clerics as well as moslem nations.

" Conversely, Elijah tells the Israelites to slaughter the followers of Baal, presumably on God's orders."

You compare an Old Testament story to a 21st century reality?

"Extremist Christians are no more tollerant or peace loving than Extremist Muslims."

Arguably true, and irrelevant. There is no extremist Christian threat to this nation or its people. "Extremist Christians" are not actively trying to bring the world back to the Middle Ages.

" History in no way supports your claim, not in the least at all."

Only if you ignore the inconvenient bits.

Or, as you do next, make stuff up:

" If you think so, travel to Northern Ireland sometime,"

The extremists in Northern Ireland were not operating from any religious imperative; there was no Catholic Jihad to convert the Protestants or put them to the sword. In fact, religion was a complete sideshow in Ulster; Catholics and Protestants defined ethnic divisions (Protestant Scots-Irish Ulstermen versus Catholic Irish). Northern Ireland was not, at its root, a religious war; it was an ethnic civil war.

" or maybe to Columbia, or Nicaragua,"

There is no significant, driving religious component to the war in Columbia, and no war to speak of today in Nicaragua (and the one there was had no significant religious component).

" or go tell the families of the victims of Timothy McVeigh that extremist christians are peace loving."

Again, you're making stuff up. McVeigh did not murder in the name of Christ. His goal was not to install a theocracy and kill the infidel. He was a white supremacist and a neo-nazi. Religion wasn't even a sideshow in his crimes.

"There is no extremist Christian threat to this nation or its people."

Unless you're queer or a doctor who provides abortion services.

Um, yeah. Note that I said "the nation" and "Its people". Not every single individual in every single case.

But the "queer" is in less danger from Christian fundies than from, say, Moslem fundies in any case.

And the death toll among abortion doctors is about 2 right now. Which is 6/100 of 1% of the number of people - Christian, Moslem, Hindu, atheist and drunkard - killed on 9/11.

Mitch, you said "There is no extremist Christian threat"

"Threat" being the operative word. There are threats made against abortion clinics and doctors all the time. Same with gay men and women.

You know as well as I do that in a lot of cases the violence is done in the name of Jesus or God. You may not like it but it's a fact. If it wasn't for our laws that thankfully (for now at least) still frown on things like - oh, I don't know, murder, I have no doubt there would be more killing.

Think back 60 - 70 years ago when we had laws against murder in the South. Didn't stop the lynching did it? How many crimes went unpunished because the law simply looked the other way.

What a long and pointless response. Just a small hint, simply saying something isn't relevant, doesn't prove your point.

In one breath you say that Muslims are required by commandment to convert the infidel, and in the next you say it is irrelevant to consider the old testament's instructions to slaughter the Baalist priests?

Perhaps instead we should consider the New Testaments requirements to convert, to evangelize, to expand the faith.

You have a double standard, one for your view, and one for the one you don't like.

By the way, are you sure it says "infidel" in the Koran or is that just your interpretation?

In the next breath of irrelevance you say that Robertson is criticized, while in the next you claim the criticism from the Muslim World doesn't count.

Certainly Robertson is criticized, but just like extremist Muslim Clerics, he still has his followers, in fact he has a whole nation of them, several million in fact. Bob Jones has the President of the United States speak at his University and declare it a place of God and morality. This is the same Bob Jones that says that all Muslims are terrorists. Why is the condemnation from Algeria of the 9/11 attacks worth less than the condemnation of Robertson by Billy Graham? I don't recall the Switzerland condemning Robertson, I don't recall the US condemning the overreaction of the Israelis to the kidnapping of two soldiers. In your eyes it wasn't an overreaction. In the eyes of Syria, throwing 4000 Rockets at Israel, even at civilians, given that entire civilian areas of Bierut were destroyed, wasn't an overreaction.

The idea is that there are two sides of a story, two points of view, and rarely is one purely good, the other purely evil, but you profess to KNOW that the Islamic view is evil, apparently in every case.

You then go on to declare the violence in Northern Ireland wasn't about religious intolerance and wasn't done in the name of God. That wasn't what I said, but you decided to distort it, thanks. I made that point that Fundamentalist Christians (aka Catholics) act violently it suits their need. I appreciate you changing the argument to simply suit your need too. Despite that, it most certainly was the case that Catholics killed Protestants in the name of God in Northern Ireland, if you think otherwise, you don't know jack about the conflict. And then members of Sinn Fean applauded, and gathered more money for bombings of English pubs. Is that the peace and love and tolerance you speak about of your holier than Islamic terrorist terrorists you were referring to? The non-evil IRA terrorists who killed civilians because the English weren't properly god-fearing enough, the same strife that had at its roots the same strife that brought Elizabeth to have Mary executed?

There are dozens of examples of Fundamentalist Christians doing anything but acting peacefully, and equally examples of other Fundamentalist Christians turning a blind eye, not condemning it. Sure some do, but some Muslims, many in fact, condemn terrorism. As Doug points out, which faiths zealots bombed abortion clinics, while other clergy stood by and said nothing?

It seems as if the core complaint you have is that Middle Eastern Muslim nations don't condemn terrorism against Israel. You are right, they don't. They don't because they feel an injustice was forced upon their brothers. This injustice is something they believe the US supports, and they believe we are hypocrites, talking about our superior piety while turning a blind-eye to the plight of billions of poor, millions of children under the age of one who die for the lack of simple clean drinking water, while we have more money in the hands of 2500 people than exists in 1/3 of the population of the rest of the world. They see that we worship the dollar first, and God second.

They also know they have almost no recourse in fighting Israel, after all the US backs Israel, Israel has nuclear weapons, and a powerful army. So they agree with the Palestinians use of unconventional warfare. Did we condemn the Czechs or Hungarians for using guerilla warfare against the Soviets, why should we expect them to condemn violence against Israel? It's violence against civilians, designed to cause terror and fear, but they have little hope of attacking the IDF, and I'd put money that if the Czechs could have impacted the opinion of the Soviet people in a way that mattered by attacking the Soviet population, they would have done so. Total war is not a new concept, you are niave' to think that only one side is allowed to engage in it an call itself moral.

You can't see your own double standard of view. I am not saying that Syria is right, but rather that in their view they are, and it is that perception which is what matters.

You make a ridiculous claim that "they are evil" that's the difference. Killing innocent people is evil, sure, but then again, we killed 100,000 on March 5, 1945, so I guess by that definition we're evil. It is only you who believes that the only evil is their evil. It is only you who believes that your side is pious, on the side of good, in nearly all things. Reasonable people assume both sides break laws, and the rules, and when one side has all the power, the other side will feel oppressed, and may act irrationally.

By the way, you are wrong claim there is no difference in the way clergy are ordained/begin preaching and are regulated between Islam and Christianity, and it is a fundamentally vital difference to understand. Christian denominations, with almost no relevant exception, have a training process; seminary, pastoral development, whatever, and once they graduate, they are expected to follow the strictures of their denominational council or face discipline, even expulsion. That is true whether we're talking about the Association of Southern Baptists or the Papacy. In Islam, many "clergy" have no training, and there is no requirement that they do. There is also absolutely no unifying denominational instruction, authority or council. Anyone can claim to represent Islam, and just as David Koresh didn't represent Christianity, neither does Osama Bin Laden speak for all, most, or even a significant majority of Muslims. Your claim that the two faiths are identical in this is wrong.

You go on to assert that a significant minority embrace terrorism and use the phrase that Islam teaches them "to convert the infidel" as some sort of argument that Islam embraces terrorism. One comment in no way argues for the other. What evidence of the support of terrorism by the faith of Islam, not by the conduct of a miniscule minority, but the faith, do you have, a quote to evangelize, to convert? That's some evidence you've got. Perhaps next you can claim that all Christians seek to destroy the Church because Christ said he'd tear down the temple in Jeruselem?

The numbers I've heard are that perhaps as many as 30 Million people are Islamic Radicals (High side). If that number is true, it is a large number in absolute and alarming, but it still only represents less than 3/10ths of 1% of all Muslims. Meaning 99.72% disagree, and yet you claim they are told to "convert the infidel", by what, force? And from that, terrorism is acceptable? Based on what do you make such an outrageous and insulting claim?

Terrorism is a horrific practice of extremists who will stop at nothing to get their way, and saying that Islam embraces it as a de facto truth, or written fact, is unsupportable bias.

Contrastingly there are perhaps 15 to 20 million "fundamentalist" Christians in the United States alone, pure conjecture might say there are perhaps double that throughout the Western Hemisphere, no one really knows. How many are willing to engaging in violence for their cause - despite being peace and love oriented? I would guess it's a very large percentage. Your comments of irrelevance are just so much dottering bile, you claim irrelevance because "that violence wasn't done in the name of Christianity", in some cases correct, but the claim was that Christians - fundamentalist Christians believe in peace and love, and then they are perfectly happy to go kill protestants, or communists in Nicaragua.

Attempting to claim that your band of extremism somehow is unlike all others, that your version of faith is somehow superior in its brand of racism and religious intolerance only further proves you are in fact little different. Claiming that you are better and you are superior only sounds like the braying of donkeys. You claim the other guy would kill civilians without regard, but it was your Fundamentalist Christian President who invaded a country that never wanted us there, discarded evidence of which the vast majority disputed his claims of imminent danger, discarded evidence the vast majority of which said Sadam never cooperated with terrorists seeking to kill him, and only would have done so in dire emergency, and pulled out inspectors who pleaded to merely be allowed to complete the job the UN resolution had sent them to do, simply because they were getting close to concluding Sadam no longer had WMD, and with that claim his war would have been made irrelevant and unwarranted. If you believe it is evil to kill innocent civilians, how do you reconcile the 30,000 dead Iraqi civilians killed as a consequence of an invasion based on sham evidence? Who is the pure of heart, seeking peace and love, and who is the terrorist? Christianity has many fine people, so does Islam, but the Christians to admire are those who actual practice finding peaceful resolution, not just snake-oil peddlers who talk about it while cheering on their armies.

The only one making things up is you, by claiming I said that McVeigh killed in the name of God. I never said anything of the sort, I said that he was a fundamentalist.

There seems little difference between the willingness of the Fundamentalist Right and the Islamic Radicals to use violence except that one side has a powerful army and the other doesn't. That perhaps and maybe the the Islamic Radicals recognize that there is no difference.

As for who I am, why is that any of your business, exactly? Or is this simply more satire?

I'm sorry, it was very late when I wrote this, and Mitch is such a long-winded guy.

30,000,000/1,300,000,000=.3/13=2.3%

97.7% of Muslims don't embrace radicalism, can the same be said of Christians? US Christians?

Long-winded, insulting, never really makes a point...

"Ted" is really PB!

Ted,

Your "numbers", when you deigh to use them at all, are seemingly pulled "ad rectum".

You make statements of immense import that have no factual basis - they are simply your opinion, albeit they seem similar to much anti-Christian propaganda I've heard.

I"m not long-winded - I'm prolific. And you write excessively long comments - which, if I'm going to bother to answer them (perhaps a mistake), need long answers.

Advice: 1) write shorter comments (more, if you need) and 2) use facts, rather than self-generated inferences. It'll help.

"Fundamentalist Christians (aka Catholics)"...boy, that's a phrase I haven't heard before! Hilarious.
Us Baptists and the rest of the Evangelicals are usually on the receiving end of any approbation directed towards "fundies".

Ted's post was one long-winded show of anti-Christian bigotry. Pure and simple. Masked as love and concern for Muslims. BS.

Let's see:

You write a 4000 word screed seeking help in understanding why you just don't get how to stop terrorism, and that's prolific.

Then you proceed to post a comment that repeats one distortion after another, responds with irrelevance, and that's prolific.

But criticism, well that's long winded.

Pot meet kettle.

You accuse me of having "bogus" facts, when I clearly indicated that some was conjecture, yet your facts, like the fact that Muslims are "commanded to convert the infidel", are in fact, wrong.

And your fact that there is no difference between Christian and Islamic clerical oversight or training, also wrong.

Pot meet Kettle

Then you accuse me of being anti-Christian, and by it attack my sincerity in my faith. I'm not only Christian, I'm Catholic, but you sure know my religious intent.

Pot meet Kettle

Then to sum it all up, because you can't actually quote anything that comes from the Islamic faith, you distort what I said and accuse me of saying that Christianity is perverse, when I said no such thing. In the next moment you accuse me of attacking Christians. That sort of "red-baiting" is nothing less than putrid hate speech. Can't win an argument, accuse your critic of being (gay, black, godless, lazy).

The simple fact is that there is nothing unique to Christianity to puts it's followers above the rest of the world's religions in behavior, and that's all that I said. They have their failings, engage in violence, turn a blind eye to other violence or corruption, no differently than Muslims, Hindus, Jews or Buddhists. The singular unique thing, and it's a great thing, is that Christianity has Grace, and no other religion does, but nothing about Islam preaches tollerance of terrorism, or forcible conversion for that matter. That's just made up bulldung to suit your particular bias.

The problem you face is that it is not about religion, despite your incipid, vile screed to the contrary, it's about power. Christianity, at least in the US and Europe has a lot, while Islam, outside of maybe Pakistan and Indonesia doesn't. So you want to claim the followers of one religion are craven because a tiny minority is tired of the disparity and chooses to immorally attack innocent people. You look stupid to the world for your naivete', your approach fails - as it is doing in Iraq and Afghanistan, because you've treated the symptom, not the illness - the symptom being terrorism, rather than the illness of injustice, and all the while you wilfully turn a blind eye to your own craven conduct.

It has nothing to do with Christianity and nothing to do with Islam, it only appears that way because you want it to, and claims that Christianity somehow left it's failings behind are absurd. People are people. I said nothing other than that, it is you who've claimed to be something different than normal, human, and flawed. It is you who've claimed to be better than the next man or woman. From where I come from that's about as un-Christian as it can get. As I was raised, in your daily life and before God supposedly all are equal, and you are commanded to love your neighbor as you would have God love you.

Suggesting the followers of another religion are more flawed, more craven because of their religion, while your peers are the near perfect imbodiment of peace and love, and that they don't turn mute when their sacred cow is on the block, is unreasoble, untrue, and unhinged.

Ted - I'm with you buddy but here's the deal...

Mitch will scan and selectively comment on things out of context, Colleen will pick out any reference to Christianity and get offended, Eracus will have his wife explain what the big words mean then tell you you're just a tool of the left wing politbureau and kermit will focus on your use of Pot meet Kettle and deduce that you work at Eddingtons selling soup.

I admire your spunk - shut up kermit - but I think it's a lot easier to just be snarky...

Doug,

I'm sure you're right, it's not worth more than just sniping because after all, no matter how logical the argument, they'll never be convinced.

Sarcasm is more fun, comedy more effective, but the whole continuum suggests that this is all just a charade of solicitation for opinion read but not understood, heard but not listened to.

Back to sarcasm! Mitch, considering the Administration is now preparing for a government in Iraq after the failure of a democratic one - and privately admitting to it - where exactly will that put our grand crusade for freedom? I'm quite certain if we can just find the right kind of charismatic leader - a Sunni I'm sure - and definetly not a radical fundamentalist, I mean we all know how weird those fundamentalists are! - well I'm sure we'll be right back on course. Hey, I've got an idea! Perhaps Sadam, I mean, he's not doing anything, we just have to convince him we'll deal straight with him. Gosh, maybe Alan Simpson could go, no wait! I've got it! Dick Cheney! He's got loads of experience with Sadam, perhaps he should take some Sarin along, you know, as a peace offering, one peace and love arms dealer to another.

nduqp qmnx ahujdivb yudz cpyzxjk wtnrsi uidhnav