America's Useful Idiots

Giuseppe Cesari, ‘The Betrayal of Christ’ 1596-97 Galleria Borghese, Rome

 

UPDATE: America's Useful Idiots Part II

Glenn Greenwald posits that the Bush administration is exaggerating al Qaeda's threat to the United States for purely partisan gain. Now "Al Qaeda has a good friend in the White House" and the account of  the latest revelation by the Administration of the LA terrorist plot is bogus according to Glenn. "So I'll just celebrate the Great Rescue along with my fellow grateful citizens." [linked to of course Hinderaker and Malkin]. Amidst the celebrations, though, one can't help but marvel at just how ridiculous and inane these scary terrorist plots appear to be even when they are deliberately depicted so as to achieve the maximum possible scare value. Here is how the President described the plot."

Despte being a good blogging friend and not only a talented blogger but someone whose opinion I respect despite disagreeing with it, Glenn has sold out as far as I am concerned, and his blind loyalty to the liberal cause of sabotaging the Administartion with whatever means available at any given time, has gone too far down the road of opportunistic reasoning. He is now simply dancing to the tune of the Daily Kos audience, and it is very disappointing to watch.

During the last few months he has attempted to pulverize the talented John Hinderaker: "...digging into the deceitful, pompous morass of Powerline is highly unpleasant work...opting instead for propaganda, falsehoods and deliberate issue distortions of the type dripping out of John's post", and Jonah Goldberg where he accuses the Christian right of wishing to establish a theocracy: "Can't you smell the fear oozing from every word? Goldberg is petrified that the Christian theocrats -- with whom he thinks he can maintain an alliance in order to be protected -- will be angry if their theocratic agenda is pointed out and criticized. So Goldberg, driven by this fear, wants everyone -- and especially Jews -- to keep quiet about it and just lay low, lest the Christian Right's anger spills over to Goldberg, too".

The brilliant Jeff Goldstein, and where Glenn is hypocritical in the way he holds Jeff to a higher moral standard vis-a-vis his commenters whilst cheerfully allowing dozens and dozens of his own bile spewing commenters practically at every post. The relentlessly courageous and talented Michelle Malkin  is of course the first in the firing line, where he spares no punches in keeping with the sadly familiar malicious attacks witnessed daily at Atrios: "If you are someone still in need of dispositive proof that Michelle Malkin is one of the most un-American, liberty-hating, disturbing creatures around, please see this rancid post of hers, where she calls for Rep. Lynn Woolsey to be barred from inviting anyone to such speeches in the future because someone she invited wore a t-shirt which was critical of The Leader". He gives me a mild side kick, whilst growing in popularity as the champion of America's Useful Idiots.

I  have the feeling that as a result of the NSA Hearings having thus far not gone according to plan, Glenn is moving into the 'Islamic Fascism is not enough of a threat to warrant excessive precautionary measures' field, which he conveniently connects to the President's partisan agendas. Glenn seems to have a business plan, perhaps he has aspirations to enter politics and pitch for the Senate. His posts have become a barrage of personal attacks on conservative bloggers which were not present pre-love affair with Daily Kos, Atrios, Digby and Crooks and Liars where he plays to the audience beautifully. Like a masterful marketer he adjusts the marketing message according to the most prevalent demand of his consumers and tailors it to suit the latest liberal sound bites.

Whilst there is absolutely nothing wrong with having a strong opinion, as I certainly do, it strikes me as suspicious when the emphasis appears to be more on reflecting the most commonly held 'flavor of the day' Liberal sound bites, whilst pandering to the frenzied hype, and the reader's baser instincts

How the NSA Hearings will be resolved is very much still to be determined, and according to him its resolution depends exclusively on the course of action chosen by his Useful Idiots. Gonzales' purpoted defense of the President would have created several potent opportunities for the Useful Idiots to ensure that the Administration is held accountable for its "repeated and deliberate acts of law-breaking", but it is increasingly looking as if though their victory has been swept away from under their feet again. So now they must move back to what they consider the Republicans' holy land, and desecrate it with as much viciousness as they can muster.

It is clear that Glenn does not consider al Qaeda to be much of a threat at all to the United States. Neither do many of his compatriots on the left. That is the major reason why the American people do not trust them with their safety and will keep on electing Republicans.

We now have the ability to put remote control cameras on the surface of Mars. Why should we allow enemies to annihilate us simply because we lack the clarity or resolve to strike a reasonable balance between a healthy skepticism of government power and the need to take proactive measures to protect ourselves from such threats? The mantra of civil-liberties hard-liners is to "question authority" -- even when it is coming to our rescue -- then blame that same authority when, hamstrung by civil liberties laws, it fails to save us. The old laws that would prevent FBI agents from stopping the next al-Mihdhar and al-Hazmi were built on the bedrock of a 35-year history of dark, defeating mistrust.

More Americans should not die because the peace-at-any-cost fringe and antigovernment paranoids still fighting the ghost of Nixon hate President Bush more than they fear al Qaeda. Ask the American people what they want. They will say that they want the commander in chief to use all reasonable means to catch the people who are trying to rain terror on our cities. Those who cite the soaring principle of individual liberty do not appear to appreciate that our enemies are not seeking to destroy individuals, but whole populations.

And when they do we will be united again and there will be no left or right there will simply be STRAIGHT AHEAD....for a while until we forget again....and so it will go on, but at what price and with how many innocent lives lost...

Whilst one can somehow excuse Glenn's inability to accept that the President was not only justified in ordering the international surveillance program, but kept his instructions within the law, and his constant regurgitation of the left mantra, whereby the Attorney General's word during the investigation has been put in question, one cannot excuse his utter ignorance when dealing with matters of national security.

The line of argument which Glenn provides is feeble and smacks of partisan reflex action disapproval of the President rather than providing us with any irrefutable and succinct argument to back his scurrilous allegations, which amount to The President manipulating the public and fabricating information on past foiled terrorist plots in order to keep up the fear in order to.....well I am not sure what the latest conspiracy theory is, but presumably to rally behind the President in support of his intelligence gathering methods....or better still, simply believe him.

I wonder what the actual point is? We do not have an enemy? We are not in danger and should not keep our vigilance up, and should relax into let's all live in peace together and love each other? We have not had a serious threat in the last five years therefore we will continue not to have any serious terrorist induced disasters? The President is fabricating information regarding thwarted attacks in order to keep the fear factor up? The Attorney General is lying to protect his unlawful President, who in turn lies to the American people to justify our presence in Iraq?

One of his commenters delivers a slam dunk, Glenn has been inviting for some time:

One can only hope he and his allies in the Democratic Party continue with this line of attack through November. The result will be an electoral triumph for the Republicans.

You see, Glenn, al Qaeda really is a threat to the United States. As such, we must do everything in our power to thwart their designs to foment mayhem and promulgate murder. You may not understand this, but most Americans are more than willing to sacrifice our civil liberties and much more so than we have done so far in this effort.

Have you ever heard of the term "Useful Idiot"? The term was used most recently by Anthony Brown in The British Times:

Elements within the British establishment were notoriously sympathetic to Hitler. Today the Islamists enjoy similar support. In the 1930s it was Edward VIII, the aristocrats and the Daily Mail and it's owner  ; this time it is left-wing activists, The Guardian and sections of the BBC. They may not want a global theocracy, but they are like the West’s apologists for the Soviet Union — useful idiots.

Islamic radicals, like Hitler, cultivate support by nurturing grievances against others. Islamists, like Hitler, scapegoat Jews for their problems and want to destroy them. Islamists, like Hitler, decree that the punishment for homosexuality is death. Hitler divided the world into Aryans and subhuman non-Aryans, while Islamists divide the world into Muslims and sub-human infidels. Nazis aimed for their Thousand-Year Reich, while Islamists aim for their eternal Caliphate. The Nazi party used terror to achieve power, and from London to Amsterdam, Bali to New York, Egypt to Turkey, Islamists are trying to do the same.

The two fascisms, one racial and one religious, one beaten and the other resurgent, are evil in both their ideology and their methodology, in their supremacism, intolerance, belief in violence and threat to democracy.

The London bombings revealed only to those in denial the extent to which Islamic fascism has taken root. But we have a long way to go until we reach the level of understanding in mainland Europe. With one of the smallest Muslim populations in Western Europe, just 3 per cent of the total, Britain has been able to afford a joyful multicultural optimism. Other countries, with far bigger Islamic populations, from France to Germany to the Netherlands, have had to become far more hard-headed.

The support of Islamic fascism spans Britain’s Left. The wacko Socialist Workers Party joined forces with the Muslim Association of Britain, the democracy-despising, Sharia-law-wanting group, to form the Stop the War Coalition. The former Labour MP George Galloway created the Respect Party with the support of the MAB, and won a seat in Parliament by cultivating Muslim resentment.

When I revealed on these pages last year both the fascist views of Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, and the fact that he was being welcomed to Britain by Ken Livingstone, the Mayor of London, it caused a storm that has still to abate. Mr Livingtone claims that Sheikh al-Qaradawi is a moderate — which he is, in the same way that Mussolini was.

The BBC and The Guardian regularly give space to MAB to promote sanitised versions of its Islamist views. John Ware, one of the BBC’s most-respected reporters, spent years trying to make a programme on Islamic fundamentalism in Britain, but was repeatedly blocked by senior editors who feared it was too sensitive. Last month it emerged that The Guardian employed a journalist, Dilpazier Aslam, who is a member of the Hizb ut-Tahrir, an Islamist group that wants a global theocracy, and is described by the Home Office as “anti-Semitic, anti-Western and homophobic”. The Guardian used Dilpazier Aslam to report not just on the London bombings, but on Shabina Begum, the Luton schoolgirl who, advised by Hizb ut-Tahrir, won a court case allowing her to wear head-to-toe fundamentalist Islamic clothes.

The tale illustrates Britain’s naivety in many ways. Hizb ut-Tahrir is still legal, despite being banned in many European and Muslim countries, and despite President Musharraf of Pakistan pleading with Britain to ban it after it plotted to assassinate him. The useful idiots of the Left insisted that Ms Begum’s victory was a victory over Islamophobia, but even the Muslim Parliament of Britain gave warning that it was a “victory for fundamentalism”, bringing Shariah law one step closer.

In France, by contrast, the government ban on wearing the hijab, or Islamic veil, in schools was widely supported by the Left. It is impossible in France for radical Islamists to dupe useful idiots into supporting a pro-hijab campaign presenting it as pro-choice, as they did in Britain — because in France, the Left knows that the Islamists believe Muslim women should be compelled to wear the hijab.

Here the Government talks about deporting extremist imams, but does nothing. In contrast, France has deported ten radical imams in the past two years, with another one deported to Algeria last week, and ten more are under police surveillance. In France, no mosque is off limits to the police. While Britain welcomes Sheikh al-Qaradawi, Germany last week deported an imam who simply supported the Muslim Brotherhood. In Bavaria alone, 14 “hate preachers” have been deported since November 2004, and a further 20 have received notifications of deportation.

The Netherlands and Denmark, worried about the growth of ghettoised Muslim communities, have promoted integration, with the Netherlands insisting that those wanting to become immigrants take a test of Dutch language and the nation’s values before they are even given a visa. Both countries have clamped down on inter-continental arranged marriages — which are thought to comprise 70 per cent of Muslim marriages there, as in Britain — on the ground that they promote the creation of separatist communities. Such measures are barely on the radar in Britain.

Even post-bombing, Britain has a long way to go in its understanding of Islamic fascism. The tragedy is that we start daring to understand it only when innocent lives are lost.

It is difficult to distinguish between the response to this article by The Muslim Association of Great Britain and any other liberal blog full of accusations of right wing racism and misconceived ideas of liberty within a society where appeasement is the policy of the anti-government paranoids.

Powerline notices my post: "I greatly enjoyed Alexandra von Maltzan's disquisition at All Things Beautiful on certain players at large in the debate over the war on Islamist terrorism: "America's useful idiots.". Memeorandum features it here, Pajamas Media NSA files here, and National Journal's Hotline. 

UPDATE: My friend Glenn Greenwald answers to my post here: "That is why I say that whatever else these Bush followers are, they are not conservative." The ht is of course given to the Uber 'Useful Idiot' Daily Kos' Stand Strong.

My answer to his post is called America's Useful Idiots Part II.

UPDATE I: Rick Moran responds to Glenn and elaborates on the left's "slavish devotion to superficiality".

UPDATE II: Decision 8 responds to Glenn (in it's entirety):

"Glenn Greenwald is a blogger on the move…he’s become a hero on the left (justifiably) because of his work on the NSA eavesdropping story, particularly for his groundbreaking work on the Dewine legislation that would have modified FISA. He’s posting in very heady territory this days, with a spot at the Huffington Post, and big promotion from Kos, and that means big traffic and a guaranteed audience.

Kudos, then, for all of the above, and rest assured this is not a personal attack - but Glenn, hanging out in the asylum too long has got you thinking like the lunatics. The quality of Mr. Greenwald’s work is in a free-fall, and I can only assume the pressure of performing for these monkeys has gotten to him. His latest is a remarkably one-sided explanation of the ‘Cult of Bush’ that would have you think that conservatives have sold our souls to the devilish president, never mind Harriet Miers or the Gang of 14 or the recent statements of Bill Frist, George Allen, Arlen Specter, and other Republicans who have been quite openly critical of the Administration lately.

Then there are the blogs such as this one, the other members of the Coalition of the Chillin’, the RINOs, etc., etc. It’s the worst kind of broad brush tarring, devoid of nuance, and not only unfair, but almost completely inaccurate. It’ll play well with the Huff’n'Puffers, Glenn, and the Kos Kidz are no doubt erecting statues in your honor already…but you’re smarter than this, and you know it. Step back, and regain your sanity and your soul, before it’s too late…"

UPDATE III: Charles Johnson @ LGF responds to the same post (in it's entirety):

In a deadly dull semi-coherent rant about “Bush followers,” Glenn Greenwald (who describes himself as a champion of free speech) ineptly attempts to smear LGF:

"The rhetoric of Bush followers is routinely comprised of these sorts of sentiments dressed up in political language – accusations that domestic political opponents are subversives and traitors, that they ought to be imprisoned and hung, that we ought to drop nuclear bombs on countries which have committed the crime of housing large Muslim populations."

Glenn Greenwald is a liar. I have never said or written such a thing, because that is simply not my opinion. It’s a cheap, sleazy, intellectually lazy smear, setting up a straw man and knocking it down. But that’s par for the course in the dishonest, ethically-challenged childish babbling that passes for leftist “debate” in this modern age.

UPDATE IV: Andrew Sullivan delivers no surprises here,and even less here

UPDATE V: The Tin Foil Hat Brigade and Still Blamimg The Victim is Sigmund Carl & Alfred's response to Glenn.

UPDATE VI: Jonah Goldberg responds here and here, and Media Lies asks 'Who Is Glenn Greenwald?'

UPDATE VII: My friend Tom Maguire is also having a heated debate with Greenwald, with some serious blogging volies being thrown both ways.

Another response @ Publius Rendezvous. and The Fly @ The Flying Lumber Yard. who is very familiar with Glenn's writing takes him to task.

Scott @ Powerline has more on when Carter spied,, and Ed Morrissey when he spied and then lied. Washington Times reminds us that he publicly rebuked President Bush's 'warrantless eavesdropping' program this week during the funeral of Coretta Scott King despite the fact that he used similar surveillance against suspected spies.

That gives a very strong precedent for Bush's argument that both Article II and the AUMF against Al-Qaeda gives him the authority to surveil international communications that may involve American residents without a warrant. It certainly has more common-sense standing than the case against Truong and Humphrey, which the 4th Circuit upheld and for which the Supreme Court denied cert, giving it the authority of precedent. It also shows what a complete hypocrite Carter has become in his bitter pursuit to damage George Bush in any way possible.

I wonder where all the Democrats who hailed stare decisis during the Alito and Roberts confirmation hearings have gone.  My guess is that we won't hear from them about this precedent.  via The Anchoress. More @ John Stephenson's, PoliPundit, Pajamas Media (NSA files), The Fly, California Conservative, Gateway Pundit, Rhymes With Right

Power Line of course noted this case much earlier in its argument for the NSA program.

UPDATE VIII: From Ed Morrissey:

That revealed the Democrats as less than honest about their sudden outrage and appeared to take the wind out of their sails for a moment. Later, they attempted to argue that the nature of the program kept them from expressing their concerns, but that doesn't fly. As Hoekstra notes, they never objected or even questioned the authorization during the briefings themselves, when they could speak freely and discuss the program. They never questioned the program during closed-door sessions of the Intelligence Committees, either, when the ranking members would be free to speak among themselves, at least.

The electorate didn't get fooled by the rhetoric, either. A clear majority supported the surveillance, with or without warrants, and believed it to be within the war powers granted to the President by the AUMF. After all, in what war have we ever required the executive branch to get warrants for espionage against the enemy? And as non-wartime precedents became more well known, especially US v Truong and Humphrey involving Jimmy Carter's warrantless wiretaps in peacetime, the public has not budged in its support for the NSA surveillance.

Now Democrats need to make the NSA program and their hysterical attacks against the President ancient history. They now want people to think that they've supported the surveillance all along, but just want to craft legislation to support it. In truth, all they had to do was to propose that legislation when the Times published the existence of the program, but Democrats instead chose to use it as a political club to beat up the Administration. That effort backfired, and now they need that legislation to avoid being seen as lacking seriousness against terrorists -- a judgment that they have only reinforced in this latest kerfuffle.

Meanwhile, public support for the NSA surveillance program is growing and the Patriot Act is very much alive, and sailing through congress. Glenn Reynolds let's it rip on CNN about their apparent cowardice: "You guys have blown it. My beliefs are offended when gangs of ignorant thugs burn embassies, and where is the respect for my beliefs? Do I need to burn embassies to get respect for my beliefs? Because that's the message CNN sends. The message they send is, We will reward violence. And you're going to get more of what you reward, that's how it works."

RELATED: 'America's Useful Idiots Part II'
 

Comments

[MarcH]

I’ve read Alexandra’s post, the relevant post by Greenwald and some comments. I cannot see why the man rates this much attention.

From the top of his post, Greenwald shows that he is incredibly un-serious regarding terrorism. He hears information from the President that KSM, arguably the most successful terrorist planner in history, was targeting LA skyscrapers, considering the possibility of hijacking an airliner to facilitate the attack, and considering utilizing explosives concealed in shoes to access the cockpit. Greenwald immediately dismisses and ridicules the threat. His basis? The threat didn’t make sense to some unnamed reporter at the press conference ( a 28 year old with an M.A. in Journalism?) and Greenwald (a New York civil attorney) thinks such threats are “ridiculous and inane.”

I briefly reviewed Greenwald’s site. He displays zero experience or serious study in any field relevant to counter-terrorism operations. The combination of ignorance and arrogance is breathtaking. Dots the size of Michigan hailstones could hit Greenwald on the head and he would never connect them.

[Dumb Ox]

Carter, warrantless surveillance, after FISA, authorized everybody and their brother, maybe even his brother, to authorize warrantless surveillance.

And as for Clinton, just Wikipedia Echelon, Carnivore, and Omnivore. I'm not going to copy and paste for your lousy convenience. Those are facts as big as your fat useless mouths.

You ignoramuses should be ashamed of your colossal ignorance.

Do you ever question the drivel fed you???

Shame, shame, shame!!!

Ooops, forgot, you are shamless.

You drips don't have the intelligence OR facts in your doped up heads that Alexandra has in one dainty finger. Not to mention the blackness of your souls is creeping me out.

God bless.

[D. Ox]

I am so sick of you lying blowhards.

Who's the Bimbocile, Boing!!!

Carter 1977, FISA 1978? You're an ignoramous or a liar or, I suspect, both.

Read it and weep, Executive Order #12139

By the way your "useful idiot" is believed to have been coined by Lenin. Wikipedia before you shoot your fat unuseful face off.

#3 Well, hello Michael Moore, glad to see you are drinking heavily.

Read the FACTS you nasty moron full of hot gas.

EXERCISE OF CERTAIN AUTHORITY RESPECTING ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE
EO 12139
23 May 1979

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By the authority vested in me as President by Sections 102 and
104 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C.
1802 and 1804), in order to provide as set forth in that Act (this
chapter) for the authorization of electronic surveillance for
foreign intelligence purposes, it is hereby ordered as follows:

1-101. Pursuant to Section 102(a)(1) of the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1802(a)), the Attorney General
is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign
intelligence information without a court order, but only if the
Attorney General makes the certifications required by that Section.

1-102. Pursuant to Section 102(b) of the Foreign Intelligence Act
of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1802(b)), the Attorney General is authorized to
approve applications to the court having jurisdiction under Section
103 of that Act (50 U.S.C. 1803) to obtain orders for electronic
surveillance for the purpose of obtaining foreign intelligence
information.

1-103. Pursuant to Section 104(a)(7) of the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1804(a)(7)), the following
officials, each of whom is employed in the area of national
security or defense, is designated to make the certifications
required by Section 104(a)(7) of the Act in support of applications
to conduct electronic surveillance:

(a) Secretary of State.

(b) Secretary of Defense.

(c) Director of Central Intelligence.

(d) Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

(e) Deputy Secretary of State.

(f) Deputy Secretary of Defense.

(g) Deputy Director of Central Intelligence.

None of the above officials, nor anyone officially acting in that
capacity, may exercise the authority to make the above
certifications, unless that official has been appointed by the
President with the advice and consent of the Senate.

1-104. Section 2-202 of Executive Order No. 12036 (set out under
section 401 of this title) is amended by inserting the following at
the end of that section: ''Any electronic surveillance, as defined
in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, shall be
conducted in accordance with that Act as well as this Order.''.

1-105. Section 2-203 of Executive Order No. 12036 (set out under
section 401 of this title) is amended by inserting the following at
the end of that section: ''Any monitoring which constitutes
electronic surveillance as defined in the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act of 1978 shall be conducted in accordance with that
Act as well as this Order.''.

Jimmy Carter.

[Boing!!!!]

1. Making up your own facts doesn't make for good support of your arguments.
a. Jimmy Carter in 1977, FISA in 1978? Timelines!
b. Lyndon B Johnson via J. Edgar Hoover wiretapped ML
King,among others. ML King was murdered (1968) before
Nixon took office (1969)
c. Useful idiot was not a communist phrase, rather a
counter-communist phrase frequently used with "fellow
traveler."
Based on three examples I will just declare you incompetent to discuss historical facts and name you the Red Queen. Sentence First, Trial Later!
2. If you are going to personally attack people while decrying the personal attacks pointed at you, you might try and have a reasonable, fact-based argument on your side. You have mustered a litany of right wing opinion mongers and argued your points based on their authority. No reasonable person is going to accept that evidence if there is money on the table. You are not a victim if you are basically wrong-and you are.
3. The fact is, the Bush Family has long standing and deep connections to Muslim terror supporters. The fact that we never got any answers to what happened with October Surprise, Iran-Contra, the Bush-era child prostitution ring run from the Executive Office Building, Reagan's allowing 241 Marines to be killed in Lebanon by terrorists, and Dick Cheney's connections to the Oil for Food scandal does not give me any faith that this administration is working for America. The GOP has been prostituted by foreign interests since Nixon made nice with China. Bush I sold them missile technology (Litton scandal), and Bush II has sold them all of our foreign owned debt as we dive further into national bankruptcy.
We as a nation, together, are in deep trouble with an incompetent ideologue driving the bus over the cliff. The failure to prevent terrorist attacks on the US is a Republican failure entirely. The failure to prosecute, apprehend, or locate the whereabouts of those alleged to have attacked the nation in five years is a Republican failure. People in the reality based community have tried to help the Bush cultists, from both sides of the political bench (Scowcroft, Bush I), and been abused and burned by the cultists.
4. I am struck by a new word-bimbocile. This word shall stand for every person whose right-wing invective is based on how they want the real world to be instead of how things really are. Mary Matalin is a bimbocile because she is covering up for what she obviously knows to be a failed administration. Michelle Malkin is a bimbocile because she argues for things that could bite her back-how many rank and file Americans could identify her as Pilipina, rather than some other Asian ethnicity? She could be an Indonesian Muslim terror supporter mole! Ann Coulter is the Courtney Love of Connecticut country club privileged bigotry. Bimbociles. Karen Hughes? Lead bimbocile. Ken Mehlmen? Closeted bimbocile in drag. George Will? Baseball bimbocile in bowtie. Russert? Rusty bimbocile. Chris Matthews? Blonde bimbocile.
The stakes are too high for all the people of this nation to allow the current administration, based on smoke, mirrors, and out and out bullshit artistry, to continue to squander our troops and treasure in the egregious fashion they clearly are committed to doing.

[Semanticleo]

Peach;

Alexandra does not entertain at her court with
the Solomonic intent of encouraging dialogue,
but rather the absolute certainty of Caesar,
and the crystal clarity of power embued with
the Olympian heights.

Imperious Rex!!!!

[narexbyrnes]

Since you obviously subscribe to the Linda Tripp school of friendship, Glenn is much better off without you. It's a testimony to his sense of fairplay and bi-partisanship that he would engage with you in the first place. Just like the Bush administration, you personally smear anyone "disloyal" to Bush II. Ick. I hope your other "friends" are taking notice.

[Eric]

"Why should we allow enemies to annihilate us..." You're an idiot. 'Annihilate' means to utterly destroy, I would hardly call what has happened as utter destruction. You're simply spreading FUD for your own narrow idealism.

[Tony]

Alexandra,

I would agree that I, too, want to be protected by my government and I doubt you'll get many to say otherwise. What those of us who agree with Glenn are trying to get across is not that we think protection is unnecessary, but that any exercise of authority by our government must always be subject to oversight by some other branch of government.

There can be no compromise on this basic point because all men are susceptible to abuse of power (ask all the Republicans who couldn't seem to resist the sweet-talking Abramoff). I want the government to do everything within the confines of the law to protect the safety of this country. If there needs to be some action that the Administration deems necessary to protect the public, but that action is prohibited by law, then the only recourse the president has is to ask Congress to amend the law prior to the action or retroactively.

The president is saying he alone determines what is legal and will not ask for the law to be changed either retroactively or hence-forth. That is wrong.

The president is a man, no more and no less. He must abide by the same laws as everyone else.

We are asking for oversight into what is being done. I don't expect to know the intimate details of a top secret governmental program to safegaurd the country from terrorists, but I do expect another branch of government to have been given enough information about the program to determine whether it is carried out in accordance with the law.

[peachkfc]

Alexandra,

I was not familiar with your blog before linking to it today from Glenn's blog, so I have no context in which to place your post. However, I find it quite confusing that you would spend what had to be a substantial amount of time writing what amounts to a lengthy personal attack on someone you claim as a friend. You mention in the comments that you have not replied to Glenn's response because he did not respond to the "substance" of your post, but wrote about different issues that, as he put it, were implied in your post. I disagree with you that Glenn's response does not merit any reply from you, but to the extent that he does not respond directly to the content of your post, perhaps it is because there is, in fact, no substance to it. I've read it several times and there really isn't much to it aside from complaints about Glenn's "selling out," numerous comments about Glenn, other liberal bloggers, and liberals in general all being "Bush-haters," "Useful Idiots," etc. (at least you didn't call us all traitors like many of your fellow conservatives do,) and repeated references to the talent and brilliance of your favorite conservative bloggers, Glenn Reynolds, John Hinderaker, and Michelle Malkin. (Could you explain, though, just how Malkin is "courageous?" I found that remark extremely mystifying and I have read her blog frequently. But to your credit, at least you didn't characterize Jonah Goldberg as brillaint and talented; that would have destryed any credibility you have as far as I'm concerned.) So, what's left, expecially when taken together with the your additional comments following your post, is just more of the same: first, misrepresenting the nature and substance of Glenn's and other liberal bloggers, politicians, and individuals actual positions on the issues,and, second, mischaracterizing disagreement with this Administration's policies nothing more than mindlessly hating Bush, giving aid and comfort to the enemy, and generally being just plain stupid. I would have expected more from a friend of Glenn Greenwald's.

[Vladi_G]

if al Qaeda attack again you'll be out of business for a very long time.

Someone is going to have to explain the twisted logic by the bed wetter crowd. Just so I have this straight, you're saying that if Al Qaida kills thousands of Americans again sometime in the next three years, that means we will have two of the deadliest attacks ever against Americans while Republicans held every branch of the government. And somehow this means that the Republicans are more trustworthy on national security?

I suppose that you truly believed such nonsense, you'd also have to believe that John Hinderaker and Jonah Goldberg at talented, Jeff Goldstein is brilliant, and that Michelle Malkin is something other than a crazy racist.

[BiggerBill]

What's that you say? Carter spied illegally in 1977? The scoundrel. Knowing that he was going to excoriate a successor at a high-profile funeral twenty-six years in the future no doubt fueled his signing FISA into law in 1978. He also no doubt has a DeLorean hidden down in Plains, as well.

[Laur]

Liberal is not a dirty word, nor is conservative. They're just words fanatics have highjacked for political purposes. When Glenn speaks the truth, I listen to what he has to say. Up until today, I had no idea he "used to be considered" a conservative. Couldn't care less. What I do know is that this Administration has committed criminal acts. May justice prevail! :)

[Dumb Ox]

Nobody, Tony, Incisive, et al.,

Glenn's arguments do not amount to facts that have to be refuted, they are dogmatic assertions that in fact run counter to facts. The 9/11 Commission, the Senate investigation into the pre-war intelligence, the current NSA hearings, the progress in Iraq, those are facts or rather reflect facts, and all of these crazy assertions are mind-numbed sour grapes. Right up to Napollary's disgraceful Martin Luther King day comments.

Gotta laugh at all the ad hominem, or rather ad dominam, attacks. Rather proof of a lack of evidence.

Yeah, listen to Mo Dowd, get madder guys. That'll work.

[RL]

and everybody said, Amen !

another Thatcheresque statement by our favourite conservative
beauty queen, Alexandra, at all things beautiful.

Viva Alexandra !

: )

[Alexandra]

Tony,

I understand what you are saying and I agree with you, an administration is accountable to Americans through their elected representatives in Congress. My problem is that the Bush hatred prevents the liberals from engaging in serious debate about our war policy. And that will prove to be detrimental to America for all the reasons I have written about in my posts ad nauseam.

My problem is the dismissal of every administration action out-of-hand. As a commenter said earlier every Bush policy is pernicious, and every Bush statement mendacious.

Tony that is just simply not reasonable.

Please read my long comment above, it really sets out my view quite clearly, as well as this in the main body of my post: Why should we allow enemies to annihilate us simply because we lack the clarity or resolve to strike a reasonable balance between a healthy skepticism of government power and the need to take proactive measures to protect ourselves from such threats? The mantra of civil-liberties hard-liners is to "question authority" -- even when it is coming to our rescue -- then blame that same authority when, hamstrung by civil liberties laws, it fails to save us. The old laws that would prevent FBI agents from stopping the next al-Mihdhar and al-Hazmi were built on the bedrock of a 35-year history of dark, defeating mistrust.

More Americans should not die because the peace-at-any-cost fringe and antigovernment paranoids still fighting the ghost of Nixon hate President Bush more than they fear al Qaeda. Ask the American people what they want. They will say that they want the commander in chief to use all reasonable means to catch the people who are trying to rain terror on our cities. Those who cite the soaring principle of individual liberty do not appear to appreciate that our enemies are not seeking to destroy individuals, but whole populations.

[dotorg]

Dear Ms. von Maltzan,
Please learn to write better. Thank you.

[Incisive]

Rhetoric.

Please state specifically where Glenn's facts are wrong.

[Tony]

I think what Glenn is trying to get people to realize is that while this Administration says it's doing all these great things (Iraq, Medicare, Patriot Act, rebuilding New Orleans, No Child Left Behind). The vast majority of evidence has shown that the Administration has bungled each of these efforts.

Once a mistake has been found, Republicans have blocked any meaningful oversight and the White House refuses to release information that would help the American public assess where things have gone wrong and where things can be improved.

After enough stone-walling and doublespeak ("last throes of the insurgency" or how about "no one could have anticipated the levee's breach") it tends to make you wonder.

The President and every other elected official works for us. They are answerable to Americans through their elected representatives in Congress. We are entitled to ask questions and we're entitled to have those questions answered.

If elected officials refuse to answer to the public (and you should check the latest polls because the majority of the public does not trust President Bush) then there is something wrong.

Bottom line: It'd be one thing if everything was going well and we were asking questions (I guess that could be perceived as nitpicking, or sour grapes), but things are not going well. Our brothers, sisters, friends, co-workers are dying in Iraq for a cause that cannot be explained. Yes, there's terrorism, but that's not why we went to Iraq and Osama's not there.

Our brothers, sisters, friends, and co-workers died here at home due to the bungling of Homeland Security and Fema (so don't tell me 9/11 was a turning point, b/c obviously the Administration still hasn't learned how to handle a national emergency).

Our parents and grand-parents are being over-charged for their medicine, or worse, they can't get their medicine at all due to the failures of the administration.

So please forgive those of us who have no faith in the President's ability to handle the safety and security of American citizens.

Glenn is spot-on for attempting to force the Administration to answer legitimate questions by the public. That's what elected officials are supposed to do. A thriving democracy requires oversight by it's people.

[ahem]

From that FreeRepublic post that Glenn links to:

"Secrecy during a sensitive, on-going investigation into criminal activity is one thing. Secrecy forever is quite another."

It's quite something when Chuck Schumer's line of questioning to Gonzales echoes the Freepers in the days of Clinton, no?

[ahem]

"The lady doth protest too much, methinks."

[nobody]

The presidency of George W Bush has been (so far) a 5 year-long slow motion train wreck. He is a habitually dissembling intellectual midget surrounded by Machiavellian political operatives, cronies, and extremist ideologues who promote fear to bolster their power. Of course all that's mostly just my opinion. What's objectively true is that he is the most divisive force this country has seen since slavery.

But he and I really are very good friends.

[Alexandra]

Ghost

You clearly bought into the liberal 'Bush-is-a-dictator' mantra. Yet despite countless historical examples to the contrary, you and all your liberal friends stubbornly refuse to acknowledge (a) that we are at war, and (b) that the Bush administration has thus far shown a hitherto unprecedented level of civic restraint, very much in keeping with the ideological sensibilities of our squeamish day and age--which given the unparalleled levels of violence displayed in everyday Hollywood and video games would appear to be a more fruitful basis for your evident interest in psychoanalysis.

I assume the main thrust of your 'Bush-is-a-dictator' charge is based on the wiretap issue. Victor Hanson puts it yet again in perspective:

The Patriot Act and reports that President Bush has ordered wiretaps on suspicious phone calls between suspected terrorists have prompted outrage among liberals. Such wartime measures pale, however, before Abraham Lincoln’s censorship of the press and suspension of habeas corpus. Franklin Roosevelt forced the relocation and internment of Japanese-American citizens, ordered executions of German saboteurs convicted in military tribunals, and censored news concerning wartime disasters like the German slaughter of hundreds of Americans training for the Normandy invasion. Usually such exigencies are tolerated during war, rescinded when hostilities cease, and then retroactively damned during the luxury of peace.

But what is much more annoying with your relentlessly repetitive attempts to discredit wherever and whenever, no matter how absurd or contrived the pretext may be, is that none of you seem to take cognizance of and responsibility for your liberal policies under Carter and Clinton which got us into this mess in the first place:

More recently, the Palestinian intifada grew from the mistaken, but understandable, perception that there was little likelihood Israelis would fight back after the scare of Iraq’s 1991 Scud shower, Ehud Barak’s unilateral withdrawal from Lebanon, and the generous Oslo concessions. Few Palestinian radicals imagined that the Israeli public would bring back from their past a no-nonsense Ariel Sharon to restore its lost power of deterrence.

From the passive American responses to the Iranian hostage taking of 1979, the murder of our Marines in Lebanon, various bombings of U.S. facilities in Saudi Arabia, East Africa, and Lebanon, the first attempt to take down the World Trade Center, the suicide ramming of the USS Cole, and the hasty withdrawal of American forces from Somalia, Osama bin Laden understandably concluded that “the American soldier is just a paper tiger.” He failed to reckon that the United States would crush his Afghan base should he attack American centers of power inside the United States. [...]

We saw the 1991 Gulf War as a tremendous victory; Saddam Hussein begged to differ. He defined his survival against a global coalition as proof of his prowess — necessitating additional years of no-fly-zones and sanctions, and ultimately another war.

Each of the nations in the “Axis of Evil” — theocratic Iran, Saddam’s Iraq, and communist North Korea — shared one thing in common: all had prior encounters with the United States that were never fully brought to a close. These incomplete wars increased their venom against, but not necessarily their fear of, America. A failure to impose clear defeat thus led to greater danger later.

A lesson which this adminsitration has understood and the liberals, in keeping with tradition, continue to fail to grasp.

[Alexandra]

No Matt I do not deal with Glenn's point, just as he does not deal with any of mine. I simply quote his last sentence which he unsurprisingly links to your Leader.

As for Glenn's post it is entirely lead by his own sentence, and absolutely nothing to do with a single point of my entire post:

I want to leave the personal issues to the side and examine a few of the substantive issues raised (unintentionally) by Alexandra’s post.

I therefore see no need to be led by the nose in the direction Glenn himself wishes to go, without dealing with any substantive issues in my post.

[matt]

So, you refute Greenwald's point about real conservatives opposing FISA back in the day by pointing out that it's linked through Kos? What could be lamer?

[Ghost Dansing]

Quite verbose, however it is also quite unclear what exactly you're advocating in terms of public policy. My concern is that fascist sympathizers use ANY threat from ANYWHERE to justify repressive public policy and expand their power base.

You babble on about "leftest" this, and "leftest" that. Rightests and Lefts are the joining end of the same circle; both ultimately espousing draconian and totalitarian approaches to governance; the only difference being, perhaps, the hyper-ideological books they read to justify their power lust.

It is interesting that many who suffered under Communist totalitarian governments ended up with thought processes that, as Freud would say, constitute and identification with the aggressor, tacitly embracing political and general philosophies that are, at heart, fascist in nature.

Ayn Rand comes to mind with her heroic, yet patently fascist notion of an individualistic "ubermensch" from whom all great things in society flow. But there are many others.

Strong-man government on the left...Strong-man government on the Right...no difference. In fact the Chinese are now demonstrating that, apart from popular belief, it is quite possible to carry-on captitalistic principles with a Communist Totalitarian government...capitalism is an economic engine, not a moral philosophy...doesn't guarantee human rights or anything else.

[Marc Schulman]

Alexandra -- This post exceeds even your usual high standards. It amazes me that a trained lawyer can sink to the depths that Greenwald has. He's clearly joined the group that cares more about the messenger (who they detest) than the message. His and their blindness to what's happening in the world is astounding. I wonder what Glenn would have to say about the Iranian bomb -- if he would take time to notice it.

Keep up your great work.

[nasty90]

I have recently been reading a book that makes reference to the future of Britain. In as little as 10 years the muslims will be a majority there. Once that happens the foolish Brits who pride themselves with their tolerance of the intolerable, will find out for themselves first hand that there really is such a thing as “evil” that masquerades as “good”. So many people anymore mock the concepts that there is such a thing as “good” or “evil”, but they will receive an education in this in the not too distant future. Personally, I would prefer that this would not happen at all, it is my sincere prayer. So many people in western nations are as Jean Val Sartre described “forlorn” and people who are trying to “determine good from evil”. The problem is they have no basis for right or wrong anymore, thus this is the real root cause for why we have the terrible situation western nations are in (they are inept and unwilling to examine the evidence concerning Islam). This is why we are so vulnerable. The laws of any nation are really based upon the common belief of a given people as to what is “right” and what is “wrong”. What is “good” and what is “evil”. Most people laugh at such concepts anymore in western nations. Muslims on the other hand do know what it is that they believe is “good” and what is “evil” (I think a lot of it is madness myself, all you have to do is examine their belief system). If you don’t know what I mean by this let me help you, when Iran has been declaring the USA as the “Great Satan” since the Islamofacists took control there years ago, guess who it is that they think is evil? (by the way, don’t pat yourself on the back if you live in ANY western nation and think your nation doesn’t fall in the same category as the USA, you do!!). All I can say is that I hope that people from western nations come to a place where they realize that there really is such a thing as “good” and “evil”. What kind of horrible world would we live in today had this kind of naivety existed at the time of WWII? I think we would all be marching in goose-step fashion, and all there would be is a hideous fascist state that would exterminate anyone who was considered an “enemy of the state”. In my humble opinion, that is why all western nations are vulnerable. God have mercy on us all, the west is deluded.

[RogerA]

Very well done post--Ignoring the personality issues that simmered, the substance was precisely on target. I have come to understand how Churchill must have felt when watching Chamberlain and the appeasers of the 1930s act: Keep feeding the beast in hopes he eats us last, and because they failed to act, untold millions of people died.

The Jihadis mean us harm--terminal harm. If there was such a thing as "moderate muslims", they should have protested at the gruesome killings of innocent people--yet with a very few exceptions, they have remained silent; their silence speaks volumes. In the English common law, silence was deemed to be assent. I am left with the conclusion that there really isn't such a thing as moderate Islam; moreover, it is evil. A so-called religious code that tacitly approves of the slaughter of innocents is pure and simply evil. I suspect that the chattering classes in the west fail to see evil for what it is, because they have imbibed in politically correct multiculturalism for far too long--we now have the EU suggesting (that Frattini chap) that freedom of speech might be curtailed if we arent more sensitive to our murderes.

One has to ask: is this really happening? Samuel Becket or Franz Kafka could not have written about this! It is absurd! Western Civilization is ready to restrict freedom of speech to people who do no blink twice while killing innocent men, women and children. The left has genuinely lost its moral compass--not that it ever had one of import.

[Liquid]

Quoting Beth, "we, as Americans, are not cruel enough (yet) to do what has to be done to fight this enemy"

This statement is exactly what fuels the confidence of the enemy too. I was told one time, while having a similiar discussion like this with a person that had left the middle east, that the islamist, in their agenda to dominate us and force us to bow down to allah, had decided that they would take America with very little force. That they were patient and could out breed us in numbers in the parts of the USA where the votes count and that they would use our democracy against us in every legal venue and loophole that was left open and when the time was ripe that they felt Americans would bow down in their suburbs and submit voluntarily, sure they understood that there would be some that would give it up it up as martyers by choice in the end, since they would not verbally take the shahadda and say that allah was the ONE and TRUE God, but even then they would go down on their knees in confusion of what had taken place with the look of puzzlement on their faces before the swift sword to the neck, because the bottom line is that the enemy knows that inside us there isn't the savage beastly spirit that resides inside them from generation to generation and drives them spiritually for this cause and promised reward. They know that the beast inside them has spent years practicing for this moment and it has lied in wait and deception of peace only to emerge before we ever think quick enough to act against it. The enemy counts on it!

It's time that each of us, including our nation's leaders as well, to define who we are and rebuild our faith on it. The "Give me liberty or Give me death" rings a bell with a louder sound as each day grows more complicated, but it continues to ring with persistence while waiting for us to finally wake up from this luxury sleep. It know that we will wake up from this slumber only to find that in the mind of our enemy; that chose centuries ago to not be our friends via their quran, that they are already on the front line of the battle field planning and boobytrapping everything available to them and are desperately calling out for back up troops and unity of their army in the call for jihad.

[beth]

This is a great discussion.

North by Northwest ... I've said since 9/11 that we, as Americans, are not cruel enough (yet) to do what has to be done to fight this enemy.

It's a very sobering thought. It's very sobering to sit down and actually think through what kind of enemy we are up against and what we will have to do to finish it.

I feel so strongly about it because I truly believe that everything is at stake.

[Barry Johnson]

The Constitution is not a suicide pact, though civil liberty hard-liners seem to think it is...

[Cooter]

Hooray for Alexandra! Another beautiful, intelligent Conservative woman.

[Dumb Ox]

p.s. The liberals have all of their bases covered, they think. If we get hit again it will be Bush's fault no matter what he does or does not do. They never put forward any practical proposals about anything so they can criticize the President no matter what happens. Then they say its not their place to make proposals!

The party of unrestricted abortion and same-sex onanism hasn't much to stand on except hoping they can make people mad at the President.

Problem for these dimwits is that #1 the president isn't running for anything, and #2 talk radio and the blogosphere have totally changed their ability to manipulate the news.

We see you behind the curtain, Oz.

[Dumb Ox]

In academia I'm surrounded by such useful idiots that I simply cannot have a decent conversation with any of them, except about the weather--no even that's out because of Bush causing global warming.

You have no idea how many times a conversation ends with my liberal interlocutor raising their voice and saying something like "But the facts don't matter! He lied or He ________ (fill in the blank)

Meanwhile, Europe takes another step in the wrong direction. There's an E.U. proposal to introduce standards, a "press code," on religious matters.

http://thomistic.blogspot.com/2006/02/eu-moves-towards-press-censorship.html

Good luck with that.

I have a European news round-up (planning to do it regularly on Saturday mornings) that you or your readers might find useful. I read several online papers from England, France, Italy, and Germany and put the frontpage stories in some context.

http://thomistic.blogspot.com/2006/02/saturday-european-news-round-up-new-ox.html

All the best,
D. Ox

[Darrell]

Did I read about Brown's testimony or the biased coverage of that testimony?
Sure...But I am able to recall that Bush ordered the total evacuation of New Orleans before the storm even made land. Funny how the MSM can't recall such things. I suggest Gingko Biloba.

[Alexandra]

Thanks Fly,

Yes that is a classic. But you say nothing of your great post I just noticed from this morning. The link is here

Meade,

You'll have to do better than to simply wait for "the administartion to self destruct" as your election plan, and if al Qaeda attack again you'll be out of business for a very long time.

[The FLY]

Mr. Greenwald repeatedly claims that republicans are using fear to manipulate the public, yet here is a comment posted by one of Mr. Greenwald's readers:

-- "Glenn, your [post] is very frightening." --

-- "I guess Germany and Japan teetered on the brink and came back --

-- Do we target the leadership or the population? --

-- "So this is what it was like in Germany when Hitler won his election." --

-- "I’m scared. Glenn, do you have ideas as to what ordinary people should do?"

Read the whole thing here.

[meade]

Sabotaging this Admin? are you kidding, did you listen to any of A.G. Gonzalez' testimony this week or "Brownie's"?

This Admin needs no ones help, it is self destructing right before our eyes.
The only thing keeping it afloat at this time is the blind loyalists ("The Harriet Myers effect), and the ever fearful MSM.

[Liquid]

United we stand...Divided we fall

Oh if our elected officials would just understand how important that is and how much 'we the people' need a strength of unity more now than ever!!!!

[David]

I've read the Mona Charen book. It's a good read.

As I read the article above it struck me that one way to analyze all this is to realize that 911 and the Bush response to it has forced all of us to face reality and as a result to take a stand.

In the 1990's we pretty much rolled along (merrily it seems) without much thought to the growing threat from Islamic terrorism, despite the first attacks on the WTC (I can't even remember giving much thought to it at all. I remember Waco a lot better than I do the first WTC attack) . Thus we went to our jobs, raised our kids, took our vacations without giving much thought to reality outside our own little world. Oh, we thought about such things in passing but didn't REALLY consider it would happen here. Remember, we had just won the cold war thanks to President Reagan and we basked in that victory. In fact, you could make the argument that President Clinton was able to win the elections because most Americans may have felt that the conservatives had accomplished their task of making the country safe and it was time to focus inward.

Then 911 happened. Suddenly the world had changed. That far off threat was here, in our own little corner of the world. The Bush response to it was pretty much the same as most conservatives - this was war and we needed to treat it as such (not a crime as we had previously dealt with it). It is one grounded in reality based upon knowledge of history and how previous challenges to freedom were defended. And that meant pursuing the enemy wherever he may be.

And for a while it appeared that both parties were on the same page. But were their worldviews on the same page? No.

Since the 1972 election, the Democratic Party has been dominated by liberalism. In their worldview, the United States has been the aggressor, the "bad guy" so to speak, in our conflicts around the world (due in large part to their pacifism). They opposed just about every effort to defeat the spread of Communism. In fact they pretty much threw up their hands and said we must learn to co-exist with it. The 1975 legislative defeat of sending aid to South Vietnam was one of the dark spots on the history of this country's foreign policy. As a result millions of people died (something liberals claim to be stopping by opposing war). And this has been their policy ever since (except of course, when such opposition would hurt them politically). They were for a nuclear freeze in the 1980's when President Reagan made the decision to spend the Soviets into oblivion. (BTW, shouldn't Reagan get some credit for defeating the Soviets without "firing a shot").
And they consider the UN to be the final decision maker on matters of war and peace.

So when 911 occurred, I knew it wouldn't be long before their true colors were shown. At first they were able to "hide" from having to take a stand, simply because the public greatly supported the war in Afghanistan and to oppose it would have been career suicide (although this didn't stop the Hollywood crowd from speaking out against it). But as the war started, cracks begin to form. They took the form of criticism such as "we're in a quagmire" in Afghanistan (every conflict is a quagmire to liberals), "we can't beat the Taliban - after all they defeated the Soviets", and "why can't we catch Bin Laden". This attitude was an extension of the thinking that came to power in the Democratic pary in the 1970's.

So when Bush made the decision to go to war in Iraq, that was more than they could take. The facade came down, leaving the liberals bare and naked (symbolically of course) for all to see. And boy have we seen it! They have become shrill, filled with hate and seething rage against Bush and the Republicans, and are more and more showing signs of complete insanity. But why? Is it Bush? Is it the war? What then? It has taken a while but personally I think it is because 911 exposed the total failure of what liberals espoused and but into practice for 30 years: war solves nothing, Communism is not a threat, we should strive for a global community where we all try to understand one another, the US is just a big bully, we should use the military for humanitarian missions, not war etc.. Well, we did all that in the 1990's and where did it get us? Nowhere. We left the world alone and we were still attacked. In fact, Bin Laden has stated that the weakness we showed in Somalia led him to believe we were a paper tiger (just like Japan did in 1941).

And thus being exposed they cannot deal with the reality of knowing that something they so deeply believed in could be wrong. It is. But instead of learning and adjusting, they hole themselves up in their mental echo chambers and continue to recite the same mantra: Iraq was not a threat (Communism), the military is killing and torturing innocent people (this is so insightful because John Kerry in the early 70's compared the US military to Khan and just recently said we were brutalizing women and children in Iraq. At least he's consistent), Bush is an idiot (just like Reagan, and Eisenhower, although he is smart enough to steer Hurricanes into New Orleans), we are losing in Iraq (Vietnam), and on and on. How else do you explain their lack of ideas to campaign on this fall? They keep saying that they will unveil their plan later this year. Can't wait for that one. I've been to some liberal blog sites and frankly I am astounded at the articles that they think pass for serious news analysis. One in particular I loved was one about how Republicans were all addicted to "meth" and that was why Bush won the election! Another took pleasure in the tape that came out from Al-Qaeda last month claiming victory because the US was withdrawing. The article said that they "were playing Bush like a fiddle".

This kind of attitude is becoming more and more destructive on a daily basis, not only to their own party but to the country as a whole. Alberto Gonzales is exactly right when he said that our enemy must be sitting back and smiling over our debate about wire-tapping. Indeed they are. So where does the madness end? I don't think it will anytime soon. Liberals are so enraged that they are going to say and do things so idiotic that it will make our heads spins. We just need to make sure these loons don't EVER get power back anytime soon.

[North by Northwest]

Scott

And then I got up and stopped thinking about it so hard, because I decided that you would be the one sitting, contemplating and I the one taking action when they came for you.

I think you have misunderstood my comment--although inadvertently capturing my very point in your conclusion ;-). Must have got your blood boiling before you read to the end...:-)

I am NOT AT ALL interested in psychoanalyzing the bastards in order to cook up some relativist excuses. I am addressing those, who deal with Islam in an intellectual vacuum, all nicely kept in the abstract. To those I say, "wake up and smell the coffee -- these guys don't tick like any of you apologists".

[Liquid]

QUOTE "the only hope for muslims, like all other guilty-sinners, is to acknowledge that they are sinners who have sinned against the One True and Living Creator God, for them to repent(turn- away from) their sins, and turn toward The Messiah"

RL, I think this is the ultimate hope from all of us, that muslims would have a change of heart and give up their jihad martyership, but there is no promised salvation within Islam except this dictated route for them, so they would have to renounce it all together to change. Allah didn't give them any free will or any free choice.

Alot of people don't even understand why the muslims are flogging themselves and taking razors to their child's scalp during their Ashura. The rituals are sickening and so many westerners just toss it off as honor to Hazrat Imam Hussain, but they should ask themselves why they do this each year and what was the battle of Karbala? There is no coincidence that the muslims staged their cartoon "hatefest protests" during this time. Their timing had purpose. I have some good links about it on my blog if you want to read it because it is used each year to glorify martyerdom into every muslim that practices it because they believe Hussain sacrificed it all for Islam in the way that Christ sacrificed it all for our sins. This has become their substitute.
Your welcome to read it HERE

[Scott]

North by Northwest writes:

> Do we actually fully comprehend what we are dealing with? Have we ever, each and every one of us, quietly sat down and imagined step by step what it would take for us--you and me--to reach the point when we are firmly decided to either plant a bomb in a major city or to blow ourselves up with the full intent, to kill as many innocent civilians as possible so as to strike maximum fear into the hearts of those who we would on any other day call our neighbors?

Yes, I have quietly sat down and considered what drives people like Hitler's followers, Saddam Hussein and Islamofascists to do what they do. And then I got up and stopped thinking about it so hard, because I decided that you would be the one sitting, contemplating and I the one taking action when they came for you.

[I should have known...]

"For the past 10 years, I was a litigator in NYC specializing in First Amendment challenges (including some of the highest-profile free speech cases over the past few years), civil rights cases, and corporate and security fraud matters." The magnitude of self importance in this city is shocking.

[godfodder]

I think the entire American Left is sinking into a morass of paranoia and rage. They're seeing elaborate plots and theocrats under every rock. The Left of today has become exactly the same as the McCarthy Right of the 1950's.

I guess that people who feel powerless are prone to paranoia regarding those they see as more powerful. Actually, I am being too kind. This nonsense is really a character flaw.

[antimedia]

Why should Glenn Reynolds waste his time with the attention whore? Alexandra may call him friend, but I'll call him what he is - afraid to engage on real ideas, eager to criticize anyone who points out his flaws or merely disagrees with his position and whoring for links and attention everywhere he can find them.

Greenwald should be ignored. He's Kos in lawyer's clothes.

[Pathetic]

Semanticleo:

The reason those who view the WOT as something other than an abstract law enforcement fantasy are considered dhim-witted reflects the very essence of your post: lightweighted. You remind me of the chap in a pub who instigates a fight and expects his friend to do the fighting. Better yet, I have an idea (you might take a lesson from this notion), why not just have a barfight - then you and your elk of useful idiots can avoid having to provide cogent arguments altogether - the bete niore of the liberal creed. Logical reason is why Glenn gets such a seething feeling when he writes about Powerline?

As for Glenn, his own reader said it best. Living here in the heart of liberalism (NYC) - I am always amazed at how smart and talented people can hold a worldview that repeatedly fails the test of time. Liberal ideology reminds me of the fish flailing around the dock hoping to avoiding its most certain fate. Alexandra, you ask exactly the right questions. And Semanticleo I am going to give you a hint here: there are no binary outcomes to these questions. Leave all the worthless Bush lied, Iraq war/WMD ruses for the chatterling class of the left. For those of us wired to reality, one can only marvel at what a sad lot you really are.

[Semanticleo]

"I am not going to organize Glenn and Glenn"

Fine. But Reynolds doesn't seem as interested,
even as you, to have a definitive debate
on the legal issues which define us.

Some just want to rant.

[Alexandra]

Semanticleo

You are rambling now. Finally, I am not going to organize Glenn and Glenn so if you would like to, be my guest.

As for Glenn Greenwald, he is a friend and I have made it crystal clear in my second paragraph above how I feel about him. I don't really need you to cloud the issue with some trumped-up imaginary personal "pique", where you are simply projecting your own issues which are irrelevant in this discussion.

[RL]

and what is the "fruit" of the "useful idiot's" pooping all
over the UK since the Second War,

muslims have planned a big march in London next week to
defend the "honor" of their illiterate, woman-hating, violent,
and false "prophet". let's just hope that this march doesn't
turn as ugly and violent as the historical-records of the
illiterate-founder and head of their man-made and totally
false-religion.

There is also a good read by Mona Charen by the same-title,
"Useful Idiots".

the only hope for muslims, like all other guilty-sinners,
is to acknowledge that they are sinners who have sinned against
the One True and Living Creator God, for them to repent(turn-
away from) their sins, and turn toward The Messiah(Saviour)
and One and only Son of the Living God by faith in Him(alone)
and in His finished work of redemption on The Cross of Christ.
Christ proved His Deity by rising from his temporary-grave
on Easter Sunday. the illiterate and violent founder of islam
died and rot in his own grave, just like the fraudulent
founders of all of the other man-made and false religious
belief-systems.

Not a sermon, just a hopefully useful thought.

simpletruth.org
answering-islam.org

greatcom.org/laws/english/flash/