Keep the pressure on, Ron. People are waking up, albeit slowly, to the asymmetry and insincerity of the "rules of discourse" the Left has tried to force on us. The essential, unconcealeable unfairness of it will galvanize a reaction that will rock the Left and its Old Media allies back on their heels for a generation.

The Internet has been instrumental in making this possible.

I noticed that too -- and I am glad to see someone blogged about it. Too often the charge of "hypocrisy" is labeled at conservatives, yet when something like this happens, the silence is deafening.

Your blog is excellent, and I'll keep returning. Thanks.

And so Thomas Sowell's assessment of the Left's mindset receives yet another confirmation. When you're convinced that you're morally superior to your adversary, you can justify doing anything at all to him, including things you would regard as terminal outrages if done to you.

The world isn't running seriously short of any physical resource, but it's near to exhausted of humility.

Actually, anti-gay comments by Republican congressmen and senators are so common as to not be newsworthy. They are reported all the time in the gay press... I have read of countless anti-gay slurs made by Tom Delay, Dick Armey, Bob Dornan... heck practically ALL Republican congressmen! Yet only once have I seen such a slur reported by the mainstream press.

From another spelling (and grammar) fascist: Bravo, Ron.

A man's name is the most precious string of letters in his world. It deserves to be treated with respect, even if the man himself does not. Of course, having one of the more easily misspelled last names extant, it could be predicted that I would say that.

But if you think it's tough to get a moderately complex name spelled right, you haven't tried to get a ten-year-old to pronounce "jewelry" or "February" properly!

You must get tired of saying "Two r's, two t's every time you give out your name...(grin)

My last name is only five letters long, but it is almost always misspelled (It sounds like another name that is far more common), so I can symphathize with you there.

Regarding pronunciation, I have to admit that I pronounce the second month as "Feb-yoo-ary", as do most Americans. It's wrong, it's sloppy, but it's so common that if one pronounces it correctly, people will look at the speaker as if he had three heads."Jewelry" is a bit easier to pronounce correctly, but the British spelling of the world (jewellery) works against us.

I pronounce it 'Feb-roo-ary'. I don't have three heads, just three hands. ;)

I sympathize with the last name problem. Mine gets misspelled 'Kinsey', 'Kingsley' and 'Kinsly' on a regular basis.

I wonder how many of the "400 richest" were lottery winners with the cash option.

Regards

A quick search of the Forbes 400 archives (which only go back to 1996 online) reveals that the lowest net worth to make it onto the list was >400 million, far higher than the cash payout of any lottery winners. Even taking the 20 year payout option would not have been enough to make the list.

Thomas Sowell is great. I'm currently reading "Basic Economics". Very good book. I'm only a quarter of the way through it, for I have little time to devote to reading, but so far it's very fascinating. It's interesting to me how much of capitalism is really just commmon sense.

Actually, I was slightly inaccurate. Bush introduced the tax cut on day 20, but didn't actually sign the bill until that June. So while the law wasn't passed during the first 100 days, it was certainly passed well before November.

It's tomorrow.

"...it is disingenuous to to portray conservative minorities as equivalent to the fringe elements. Ward Connelly is no racist, and Rich Tafel is no homophobe. Simply disagreeing with the concept of special rights does not mean they advocate wholesale revocation of basic civil rights, and I think you know better.... "

I certainly didn't intend to do so, and I'm not entirely sure where you're getting that from in my post. I was unclear in my usage of certain terms: when I used terms like 'traitor' and 'sellout' I did so to explain the perspective of someone who would use terms like 'oreo' and 'uncle tom', not because I believe in those viewpoints myself. I accept that the term traitor was used inaccurately, and was a bit hyperbolic, perhaps 'works againsts the general interests of their group' would be a more appropriate phrase. The reference to a black person voting for a racist was intended as a fairly extreme hypothetical situation, not as a common case. My point was, even in such a situation, the black voter is not a racist himself, merely that he can be considered to be working against the interests of black people as a whole. Therefore, the terms you used in your previous post were not equivalent to calling Chomsky an anti-semite.It's also worth pointing out that in the case of gay people, it's (generally) not a case of getting special rights so much as of getting equal rights.

"Regarding Chomsky—I don't think he is an anti-semite, just an idiot. He is most assuredly anti-American and anti-Israel, but not necessarily an anti-semite. However, his shrill ranting has become ever closer to the rantings of the anti-semitic left, so it's a matter of the company he keeps. (If you are going to tie the right to some of our less reasonable ranters, I see no problem with replying in kind)."

An idiot? He is (as I understand it), considered to have completely revolutionised the field of linguistics! If that's your definition of an idiot, perhaps the world needs more idiots. I don't believe he's anti-american or anti-Israel- he merely criticises certain policies that the governments of each country has. It's also worth pointing out that a lot of right-wingers seem to frequently confuse anti-zionism with anti-semitism. At the anti-war demos I've been to (in Britain) I've seen a lot of Pro-Palestinian banners and so on, but nothing I would deem to be anti-semitic.

I'll respond to the "Bring it on" stuff in a later post...

For my first link, you're right, the article is explicitly about the fact that they're being kept out there even longer than expected. However, I get the impression (from this and other sources) that these guys are more pissed off than can be attributed to shifting return dates. It seems to me that the fact that the case for war is rapidly turning out to be a pack of lies, the fact that they are notably *not* being welcomed as liberators but rather as targets, and the fact that their commander in chief apparrently thinks that it's a good thing for them to be attacked by the iraqi people all add up to their current state of extreme peevedness. I'm sure I've seen quotes from vets, soldiers, and soldier's families saying how unhappy they were about the 'bring em on' comment, but couldn't find them while I was writing that post.
There are actually TWO factual statements in the strip, the second being where it says "'you see, the president is deliberately using the ongoing conflict in iraq to lure the terrorists out into the open.' (actual argument making the rounds in conservative circles)." I'm pretty sure I've seen both Glenn Reynolds and Andrew Sullivan make this very same point. The rest of the strip illustrates how ridiculous this fantasy is. As Tom Tomorrow explains why i consider these theories 'ridiculous justifications' so eloquently, i decided to let him do it for me. The point was to justify my use of the 'bring them on' incident as an illustration of what should be seen by both left and right as an example of right wing idiocy which the right are making excuses for.

"The point is that the current anti-Bush line is all about compassion for our troops, when most of the people doing the talking don't give a rat's ass about our troops unless they can be used to score points against the Republicans."
This argument pretty much works both ways. Many on the right used the 'support the troops' meme to criticise anti-war protesters, and to drum up support for the war. This is despite the fact that the anit-war people were the ones supporting the troops by trying to prevent them being sent off to fight an entirely pointless war. Now that the troops are being critical of Bush and co, some right-wing extremists have now started saying that those soldiers should be punished for criticising their leaders.

I'm sure that there are many soldiers out there who are still trying to support Bush, of which the three guys you cited are indeed fine examples. But I'm not convinced that these are representitive of the majority of the troops. When you say " the sooner all the terrorists and Saddamites are rooted out, the sooner our people can go home." you make the assumption that there's a finite number of terrorists/Saddamites, and that increasing warfare won't encourage others to join, and seems to imply that the people doing all the fighting are either from other countries or pro-saddam, despite the evidence to indicate that there are many anti-saddam, anti-american guerillas.
As it stands I've still yet to see a right-winger either criticise these idiotic statements from George "come and have a go if you think you're hard enough" Bush, or produce a halfway (quarter-way? an eighth-way!) convincing justification for them.
I too doubt that Clinton would ever say something like that, but primarily on the grounds that he wasn't an idiot.

Re. Chomsky - While Chomsky's contributions to Linguistics are important (though, I'm told, increasingly under attack), I'm sure that doesn't affect the point that regarding politics the man is a complete idiot.

Brilliance in one field does not preclude, or even imply, non-idiocy in any other (For instance, Einstein was, while not in Chomsky's realm, at best naive in terms of political thought, and any number of examples can be thought of where someone is very skilled and intelligent in their chosen field (or some other), but incompetent in others).

It's also worth pointing out that in the case of gay people, it's (generally) not a case of getting special rights so much as of getting equal rights.

I'll buy that, but many who are opposed to ENDA and gay marriage don't see either of these as equal rights, but rather as special rights. In the case of ENDA and similar legislation, it is pretty clear-cut—there is no equivalent protection for someone who does not fit into one of the protected classes. It's a lot harder to justify a proscription on gay marriage (on strictly legal ground), but marriage is an issue with a lot of emotional weight attached. Much of the more overwrought railing is nothing more than naked emotion.

In regards to Chomsky, Sigivald nicely summed up my feelings on his intelligence. Anyone who considers the US to be carrying on the aims of the Nazis, while simultaneously denying the atrocities that occurred in communist nations such as the USSR and (especially) Cambodia is detached from reality.

You accuse the right of cynically supporting the troops only to support the war, and then attempt to link an anti-war position to real support for the troops. While there were probably a few people that felt that support for the troops entailed keeping out of the war, the vast majority of the anti-war protestors were those that protest against *any* war that supports US interests. People that advocate reducing the DoD budget by 50-75% cannot be considered those who support our troops. People who support unilateral disarmament cannot be considered those who support our troops. People who are against war, but support "peacekeeping" missions in Liberia, Kosovo, Somalia, and elsewhere cannot be considered those who support our troops. Many of the anti-war protestors are self-professed socialists, and I cannot think of a single socialist group that supports the US military in *any* fashion. If you are aware of one, please let me know; I am convinced that such a group cannot exist.

As I am not currently deployed over there, I cannot speak for the troops on the ground (or floating nearby), but I do know that most of my co-workers (some of whom have just returned to the US after spending time in the area during the war) are still strongly supportive of the administration's position.

As to the finite number of Hussein supporters, you're right—I *do* believe that there is a finite number, and eventually most of them will be marginalized. Now that Iraq has a functioning government (one that is pretty strongly anti-Baathist), you will see the Iraqis begin to work in an organized fashion to deal with the remnants of the opposition. Salam Pax has a letter from a friend at his blog, and it supports what I have said; most Iraqis support the US, at least more than they support Hussein and his partisans.

A Twinstalanche?

overtime pay = increased union dues....

Does extra time off in place of $$ in the pocket rob the union coffers?

Got it in one, oceanguy. Union dues are often calculated as a percentage of compensation.

Don't think that stamping the feet and holding the breath is a viable means of getting anything other than passing attention. This guy has got to regroup. Come to think of it the whole organization needs to regroup.

The Dems don't need to pay any attention to the NAACP, they'll do jacks#!t for blacks like they have for the last 30 years and they'll still get 75% of their votes

But Stanley Thornton, an NAACP member from Miami, said the Democrats have moved so far to the center that sometimes he can't tell them apart from Republicans. Democratic candidates must distinguish themselves to win black votes, he said.

Note the implicit equation of a spot on the ideological spectrum with its relative appeal to black voters. "We sho' don't look alike but we sho' does thinks alike."

I rather suspect that you will have a very, very long wait before Leftists, such as the current loons occupying Eschaton, go after their own. On some of these sites, I've recently observed a rehabilitation of folks such as Noam Chomsky, Edward Said and other anti semites.

This sort of ties in with the Left's other incomprehensible tendency: its habit of embracing wildly inconsistent causes with uniform and uncritical enthusiasm. All it demands is that they be opposed to freedom, capitalism, and American national interests.

Ah, well. I suppose everyone should have a hobby.

Excellent post, and I won't be holding my breath.

As an aside, a closer read would reveal that Santorum didn't exactly equate those things. It's amazing the number of commenters who say he did, though.

You're right, Oscar. But he failed to differentiate them, by saying that allowing one would necessarily require acceptance of the others, which is a false analogy.

I took a whack at Pat Robertson in a post last night. And I'm very right-of-center--I not only hit him for his Liberian mines, but for bad doctrine. To think I once supported that guy for president...

The left doesn't self-criticize anymore, which is why it tends to embrace all sorts of nonsense and never weeds any of it out. You can be an open bigot and still remain in good standing with the left so long as you equate Bush with Hitler or otherwise tow the liberal line. The right does self-criticize, almost too often in some cases. But Roberston isn't one of those cases. He deserves what he's getting.

More directly on point, the left just happens to have a nationally prominent, religious leader, former presidential candidate of their own who has been deeply in bed with the very same Charles Taylor. Unlike Robertson, he apparently has no $ at stake in Liberia, though he, or at least his allies are reported to be the recipients of Sierra Leone diamonds obtained by the machete wielders. Need another hint, he was largely responsible for Clinton administration Africa policy and in particular preventing rebel groups from overturning Taylor and his friends in Sierra Leone. Still no guess? The initials are JJ. See Timmerman in 7/10 NY Post for more.

Lloyd, read Jim Miller's post (linked above) for a bit more on "JJ". Timmerman's book "Shakedown" has a lot of information on the man's dealings with Africa, most of it sordid and some of it probably illegal.

Timekeeper: What Santorum said is that if a consitutional 'right of privacy' bars laws against sodomy, then it also bars laws against any other private sexual act - including incest, etc. Justice Scalia also thinks so. The issue is not whether there should be laws against sodomy. Justice Thomas wrote that the law in question was constitutional, but ought to be repealed as bad policy. The question is whether there is a right of sexual privacy, and _what_ _other_ _acts_ such a right might protect, whether such protection was intended or not.

Oh, but Bryan, the left most certainly does engage in self-criticism -- like a mudslide, it's an ugly and awe-inspiring sight. All it takes is one leftist saying that another leftist is "carrying white privilege" or "reacting from a self-hating colonized mentality" and suddenly there will be this outpouring of guilt and shame, as all the lefties try to top each other with how far they need to go and how much work they need to do before they become "really progressive." One of the many reasons I'm leaving the Bay Area is that I just can't hang with these people -- as nice and as sincere as they are -- for one more second.

Ignorance and greed will be the downfall of the conservative right in due time. Anyone who would vote for Pat Robertson is ignorant of the basic fundamentals of democracy and common sense.

"I've recently observed a rehabilitation of folks such as Noam Chomsky, Edward Said and other anti semites."
Um, Chomsky IS Jewish. How can he be an antisemite?
Also, there are plenty of right-wing idiots the right *isn't* going after: what about that guy who lives in Washington and likes to encourage Iraqis to attack USuk troops?

I took on Robertson, too.

In defense of the leftists though, I think we need to differentiate libertarians from conservatives. Most of us from "the right" who criticize the likes of Robertson are in the former camp, certainly including Messrs. Reynolds and Green. Most of us aren't particularly religious or, indeed, somewhat anti-Big Religion. So it's not necessarily a matter of criticizing one of our own.

Johnny—In reference to Noam Chomsky, it is the same mechanism that allows Black conservatives to be labeled as "Uncle Toms" or "Oreos", that allows consevative Asians to be called "Bananas", or conservative gays to be called antigay homophobes. Of course, it's all right when such perjorative terms are lobbed by the left, isn't it? <sarcasm>

As for the slam against Bush, why don't you ask the soldiers who are affected by his statement, such as this guy, or this guy, or this guy; their opinions probably differ considerably from your own. Don't presume to speak for "the troops" to further your own agenda; most of us (here, and over there) don't buy into your particular worldview.

James,

We get lumped in with the conservatives whether we like it or not. (Despite my distinctly Libertarian bent on social issues, I have been called a rightwingideologuefascist, among other terms, by some of the more energetic lefties). And people such as Jim Miller and Michael Barone are solidly conservative, yet they too have been condemning Robertson.

Timekeeper:
Okay. You're saying that, in some way, Chomsky's opposition to Israel's occupation of Palestine is equivalent to, say, voting for someone who opposes your basic civil rights? There's a big difference between supporting someone who seeks to oppress your particular group in some way and telling members of your particular group to stop oppressing others. Saying that a Jew who opposes the occupation of Palestine is an antisemite is as ridiculous as saying an American who opposes the invasion/occupation of Iraq is UnAmerican...oh, hold on a sec.... The point is, being against the occupation is not equivalent to being anti-Israel. Being against the occupation is not the same as being in favour of the (often actually anti-semitic) terrorists who attempt to fight it.
It's also worth pointing out that 'Uncle Toms' and so on don't actively hate their own group, they merely (in the mindset of people who use such terms) betray their group, usually for some manner of personal gain. I don't think it'd be valid to call a black person who voted for a conservative- even an (anti-black) racist- a racist themselves, merely a sellout of some kind. Therefore, even if you believe that Noam Chomsky is in some way betraying all Jews by asking the Israelis to stop occupying Palestine, he is merely a traitor (to his ethnic/religious group) rather than an anti-semite.
And as for the soldiers affected by Bush's statement? How about these guys? They (by which I mean the entire 2nd BCT) certainly don't seemed too chuffed about Bush and co, and I'd wager that those comments of his had something to do with it. I've been looking for the past wee while for any comments by actual soldiers in iraq about the 'bring it on' comments, and can't find any, either on the blogs you linked to or elsewhere. But if I remember rightly, when the story broke there were a lot of veterans, army family and other people affected by his statement that were seriously unhappy with bush for his latest moronism.
I'm not presuming to speak for the troops (they seem very capable of speaking for themselves, and a lot of them seem to be agreeing with me) or trying to further some kind of agenda- I'm really not the agenda-making type. I'm not necessarily asking you to buy into my worldview. All I'm asking is that the right-wingers at least concede that encouraging enemy troops to kill your own country's soldiers is really not a very clever thing to do, rather than coming up with ridiculous justifications for it. If Clinton had done said the same things there would have been outrage from the right (and rightly so). Why do they make excuses for this particular incident?

My reply will be a seperate post.

Update—Response can be found here.

I think of this as Zero-Issue Politics. What matters is solely how useful the issue is as a stick with which to flog the opposition. It's disgraceful, but it seems to be the trend.

Little mystery here as to the why. Simplicity itself: The Dems have NOTHING that can win them ANYTHING of significance. Hence they must grasp at SOMETHING, no matter how transitory or lame, just to keep themselves in the news cycle.

Advice to Dems: Get a candidate and sink the clowns rather than sending them in.

"In June (2002), a floppy disk found near the White House turned out to contain a presentation used by Karl Rove on White House strategy for the midterm elections. Focus on war was a key point in a talk that centered on the White House's desire to, quote, "maintain a positive issue environment." Around this time, Rove was criticized for telling a Republican group that the war and terror themes could play to the GOP's advantage in the November elections. Not long after, White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card was asked why the administration waited until after Labor Day to try to sell the American people on military action against Iraq. Card replied, `From a marketing point of view, you don't introduce new products in August.'"

[link]

(Edited by Timekeeper; changed text link to hyperlink.)

A floppy disk? In 2002?

Who still uses floppies?

RE: Memo to Dems
If "Using the war for partisan political gain is such an ugly thing...", then how would you characterize efforts to use the Anniversary of 9/11 for partisan political gain?

The entire issue is a non-starter. The first Democrat who raises it in a debate must address their awful behavior after 9/11 when they were demanding to know why the Administration did not 'connect the dots' of intelligence information to predict and prevent 9/11.

They can't have it both ways. When the same administration takes intel seriously (even if from the British) and uses it together with a mountain of other intel to make recommended policies, they are 'connecting the dots', which the Democrats will find that the American people the President to do.

Just how bad off as a party do you have to be before a true statement in the SOTU address; "The British government believes that Iraq has tried to purchase Uranium from Africa," which is not a false statement or a lie or even a prevication, can become an issue upon which you attempt to build a case for your party to take over leadership of foreign policy. The story in all of this is how marginalized the Democratic party has become. Is this the BEST you've got? How sad.

Oh, I could find a floppy disk with ANYTHING on it NEAR my political oppostion...

That is just truly pathetic.

MaB—And your point is...?

Remember that the congressional Dems were the ones who wanted to hold interminable hearings on the whole subject. It blew up in their faces because they didn't think it through.

James—That was the point I was making. Last year at this time, the Democratic Party was screaming bloody murder that the GOP sought to capitalize on Bush's leadership abilities, with which I have no problem. Now the Dems are using a perceived stumble in the war for political gain, which is a bit hypocritical. I don't have a problem with them using the issue (although I strongly disagree with them), but the double standard is breathtaking.

A floppy disk was found??!!! Gee, it must be the real thing 'cause only the White House has access to those, and the Presidential staff is known to carelessly drop them all over DC. And, of course, enterprising reporters at the WaPo have their eyes peeled to find these derelict floppies. How conveeenient.

That is so lame.

I found a floppy disk from saddam to his nigerian ambasador regrading the purchase of uranium.

Oh but MaB's floppy is credable evidence.

=-P

zman

You can check out the PowerPoint presentation here:

http://www.presidentmoron.com/rovepresentation.html

MaB, the presentation you cite is hardly a smoking gun. Please explain to me which one of the 26 slides is so awful, so sinister, that you had to bring it up here.

But, surely, anything critical of Bush posted on a website called President Moron must be genuine. I mean, nobody who goes to the trouble to set up such a website would ever be party to a hoked up PowerPoint, would they?

I've got a floppy disk with documents proving that Usay traded some of his love slaves for Nigerian yellowcake.

No, you can't have it.

The presentation, if true, confirms that Karl Rove thought that the war should be a campaign issue, and therefore the bed-wetting about "politicizing" the investigation of possibly hyped pre-war claims is rather funny.

I'm not going over to the site to see it, but I have a question: would it fit on a 1.4 M floppy?

What is so alarming about putting "Focus on the war and the economy" in your campaign strategy? I would guess it was all over FDRs strategy in the late 1930s before we were at war then. Is a better strategy IGNORING the possible war and it's implications? for pity's sake!

You guys are so lame the way you can't see MaB's point.

The original post said:
"Stop politicizing the war. Using the war for partisan political gain is such an ugly thing."

Karl Rove's planning document says to:
"Focus on the war" as a campaign strategy.

Can't you see that both sides have been guilty of politicizing the issue? That's MaB's point.

Personally I believe the Democrats have more to lose by politicizing the issue, but maybe that's just 'cause I was in favor of the war.

And yes, the floppy disk is authentic. Rove never denied that it was his. Nor do I think anything on the disk is shocking or scandalous, just proof that the Republicans are not above using the war for their own political advantage, as anyone with half a brain would already know.

Brian, MaB, you are both missing the sarcasm in my original post. It was the Democratic Party (Tom Daschle, especially) who accused the GOP of "politicizing the war" all through the second half of last year. See this link for an example.

As my previous comment indicated, I don't have a problem with the Dems using this as an issue, although I think it is an awfully weak issue on which to base a campaign. What I *do* have a problem with is the double standard they enjoy; not only do they get to have it both ways, but the press blithely ignores the 180 degree change in direction.

Timekeeper, you're right, I did miss the sarcasm. Or actually what happened is I got it when I first read it, but by the time I read through all the comments, I forgot it. :-)

(I think the thing that threw me off though was the lame attempt by some posters to deny that the Rove disk existed or that it constituted evidence of politicization if it did.)

As a Democrat, I have to agree with you that Daschle has handled the whole war issue pathetically (and Howard Dean as well).

Sorry, Brian, government officials are taught from day one to neither confirm nor deny things like that. This is not a credible document.

In any case, the Democrats politicization of the war has been in such a way that emboldens America's enemies and will cost American lives down the road. If Saddam is still alive, he is counting on the Dems to come to his rescue and return him to power. Iranian officials are brazenly telling the students protesters not to count on Bush being around for long. And, North Korea is ratcheting up the rhetoric as they sense a chink in Bush's armor. Thanks loads, Dems. Your futile, floundering attempt to wrest political power at any cost is going to cost more than you imbeciles know.

I'm a professional soldier. I've been one now for 18 years. I don't see how any war can be kept out of the field of politics. I believe that is one of the reasons our Constitution stipulates an elected civilian be in command of our armed forces, and an elected body be responsible for declarations of war. How could our founders be so brilliant on other matters, and have missed this thought so completely? Of course they didn't, they expected a President to have to win public support (through 'politics') for any war he was to command, and for Congress to have to take into account the wishes of their constituents before and after voting to declare, or not declare, war. This is all politics, and it was expected to be done for every war. Generals vote, and guess what, Privates are allowed to vote, too! Pacifists even get to vote, and are likely to be in a booth right beside someone who wishes wars could go on forever. Imagine!
I want that this war, and all wars, be politicized. Not because I don't want to fight (I'm currently deployed as part of Op Iraqi Freedom), but because I want to know that I and my fellow soldiers are supported by a majority of the American populace. The only way I will know that is through their support of politicians who hold their views. Let them be heard, and let their wishes hold sway. I don't fear the public, as many do.
PS. On the disk with the slides supposedly by Karl Rove...if that sophmoric effort is the best he can do (there is nothing there that a ninth grader interested in politics couldn't have put together), then the Dems should be able to outmaneuver old Karl every day of the week. I'm pretty sure that is not the case.

Diggs, thanks for clarifying it...

I served 4 years Honorable duty, and detested 'politics' every step of the way...

But the policy-making aspects of communal decision-making is 'politics', and it must happen.

I, too, am proud to have guarded and carried forward the interests of and the high ideals of America, despite any short-comings America may have made along the way.

Politicizing something may be 'bad', but it is MUCH more than the rational acknowledgement that 'a war is happening' and 'America is fighting it' juxtaposed with 'here's how we best present these realities later this year...'

As others have noted... how VERY pathetic!

With reference to finding a floppy disk on the ground and immediately thinking "Hey, why don't I go take this disk of unknown origin and put it in my Dell Inspiron and see if the virus checker works!" -- Right there is where I assume the thing is bogus. I don't even have to see which side "found" the disk, nor what the disk is claimed to contain. Like, who would put that disk into a computer?

"(I think the thing that threw me off though was the lame attempt by some posters to deny that the Rove disk existed or that it constituted evidence of politicization if it did.)"

I think what's lame is claiming to find a floppy disk laying on the ground that lays out your opposition's strategy for an upcoming election. I mean, come on, that doesn't pass any test you care to name - laugh, smell, whatever.

Sure, its remotely possible that Karl Rove dropped a floppy disk on the ground containing secret info, but until Karl admits it or somebody comes up some kind of proof, I am not buying this one for an instant.

I served 26 years 1 month, and honorably retired in 1976. Politics are involved with every aspect of our lives today, and should be. I agree with much of what has been written, but if the past week is the best the Democratic Party can support, then Republicans should sweep the elections. I question the intelligence of candidates who would quibble over "16 words" that are truthful, were truthful in 1991, and God only knows how many other countries Saddam tried to buy yellow-cake from? Possibly France, Germany, North Korea, India, where else? At least President George W. Bush does not "whistle past the graveyard" as the past administration did for 8 years, and the United Nations did for 12 years. All the whistling will not keep the devils, hobgoblins, or demons away.
George Bush and Tony Blair may just show the world how to fight terrorism (by whomever).

Frank, there are no hobgoblins or demons...stop lusting after Ann Coulter.

The sixteen words were a major point in an argument. They were technically true, but misleading to the average idiot watching tv. This was deliberate and calculated, and I'm sure they knew this issue would come up and the way they are behavingtoday is as they planned before the SOTU address.

Your first problem is believing in God. Doing so, you relinquish your freedom of thought and you enslave yourself to the whims of charismatic leaders.

I pity all of you good people.

The Bush people can politicize their war on terrorism all they want to, because they have earned the right.

In contrast with the Clinton people in the past and the Democrats in the present (cf. Byron York's article in "The Hill" cited by Glenn Reynolds on the Iowa Democrats who simply don't care about the war on terrorism--that's got to be the ultimate of some kind), the Bush administration has got one simple, massive truth very, very clear, and their political opponents are dodging it any way they can.

That truth can be stated in the following manner: everyone in America reading this post is marked for death; everyone in America not reading this post is marked for death. Islamist terrorists want every American dead, and they have the will and the wit--but not yet the access or the military means--to accomplish that end.

The Bush administration is making amazing efforts, with some amazing results so far, to counter this assault. And the Democrats did nothing when in the White House with Clinton, and don't give a damn now.

This is so black and white I don't see where the argument is or can be. If Democrats by their stated attitudes give aid and comfort to the Islamlist enemy (and does anyone reading this not know what that phrase is the definition of?), then we don't need Ann Coulter to tell us that these American citizens are the enemies of this country and of the rest of us that love this country and want to defend it.

Bush wants to make this issue political? What the hell.

"Land line"? How last century of you.

What's the number? I'd like to call.

Huh? I'm no fan of PETA but...
Apples and oranges.
I doubt PETA would object if a hen chose to destroy her own eggs.

Ummm ... where to start?

(1) Many PETA activists probably *are* opposed to eating eggs because egg-laying chickens are kept in atrocious conditions.

(2) If egg-laying chickens were kept in good conditions, PETS activists would porbably not be opposed to eating eggs because those eggs are UNFERTILIZED. So there is NO analogy to aborting a fetus at all.