« Exponential, Accelerating Growth in Transportation Speed | Main | The Stock Market is Exponentially Accelerating too »



I agree entirely unfortunately. This trend of anti-americanism has been going on for decades. We were admired greatly after we saved the Europeans from fascism for a couple of decades. Portions of Europe welcomed us with the fall of communism. Generally we are not a self loathing nation.

We win grudging respect through our ability to project force. But no superpower remains on top forever. I reccommend Paul Kennedy's (1987), The Rise and Fall of Great Powers....

I always ask such anti-americans, where in the world can masses of people live better than here? or Why do so many people want to live here and would do so at the drop of a hat?

Great thread.


One more, if the person names a place they think is better than here, I tell the person to please move there and renounce their American citizenship.



Thanks. And you are a great reader, from whom I learn new things.

The crux is, anti-Americanism has become what is *fashionable*, hence even people who stand to lose a lot if this country is harmed (like wealthy single people in NY or SF), parrot the fashionable view that 'America is bad'.

These are some of the same people who waved flags after 9/11, because that was the fashionable thing at that time. They forgot that and followed the next fad.

But I do think that America will remain on top at least until 2040 (and after that humanity will be dealing with very complex issues around the Technological Singularity, which would be much greater than a discussion of which nation is ahead of which).

These double standards and secretive forces of opposition that we withstand are the wage of any superpower. China has no experience in dealing with such double standards, and so will find it much harder to achieve parity with, let alone surpass, the US (refer back to the Jan 25 post).

The barrier-to-entry of genuine superpowerdom is very high, as a result.

And if somehow they do make it, the burden gets divided and the heat on us becomes less...


I have lived through the Vietnam war and the cold war. The anti-American rants of the fashionable self loathing have always been around. Celebrities, including the pro-Nazi Charles Lindbergh, are generally ignored by the vast majority of Americans. The slogans are ephemeral. They have no more impact than shooting spit balls at a battle ship.


ACLU and Lesbians Attack Boy Scouts at 9th Circuit



That is very, very depressing...

But we in the blogosphere now have power. If enough can get to the right outlets and make this issue widely known, then the majority of people who are still sane may rise up.


Regarding your prediction of more and coordinated attacks against us, yes I speculate that will happen.

The politicians will use this to spend lots of money on Homeland Security and to rally the politically faithful, their base. Now, Republicans own this issue; however, Hilliary has moved toward the issue and other Democrats may follow. After actual threats and large scale actions, America will unite as it did after 9/11. The more actions there are, then the more united we will become.

In the extreme,we will become fortress America. Britain already has vast numbers of cameras everywhere. Israel built a fence. We could reinflate a deflating economy with expenditures and employment to become a fortress.


Think of the impetus for new technologies and implementations of technology in R&D. Read George Orwell's, "1984".



Perhaps. One driver of technological innovation is military/security.

But another driver is also the free market and the press towards higher living standards. This means people may take 1984-type measures of their own free will.

IP Cameras (which can monitor your house through a webpage without a PC being on) are becoming popular, and are capable of linking to networked storage to store footage of a person's home for years worth.

Also, most people support cameras on street corners if it reduces crime. Plus, Nikon has a new camera technology that can recognize faces in its field of view, from other photos it has stored. This was once a pentagon/Dod technology. Combine the two, and you get cameras that can notify police when fugitive appears in front of a particular camera. The police can pinpoint his location just from the camera recognizing his face pattern.

Good or bad? It depends.....


Yes, yes, yes.

The boomers are just starting to edge into retirement age. The demand for those protective technologies can only increase.

Steng Alsop

"There are two superpowers in the world today. The United States of America, and anti-Americanism. "

More "america is the center of the universe" garble. Perhaps you should visit China or Russia some day - there's more than one bully on the block. Grow up.



Bull. Russia is not even one of the top 10 economies of the world.

China can't even recapture Taiwan. How many Chinese movies or songs have you paid to experience in the last 3 years? Name five Chinese billionaires.

The fact that anyone stating that America is a superpower offends you itself proves that America is, after all, the sole superpower and center of the world. Hence, you feel driven to hate America, yet are not man enough to admit it.

Communism failed. Get over it.


Try this on for size:

I am American. I love my country. I opposed the war in Iraq before it started on the grounds that I thought Bush's evidence about nuclear weapons was obvious crap, and the stuff about chem/bio weapons was suspect at best. I also believed that Bush was unable to implement a war policy without completely messing it up.

I believe I have been proven correct on all counts.

Regarding your hypothetical -- I never really cared about "WMD". I cared about Nukes. But with that fear in mind, I thought that inspections and disarmament was a better option than invasion.



That does not make you anti-American, yet. So then, two questions :

1) What approach do you suggest with Iran?

2) Iraq, at one time, did use chemical weapons against Kurds, and Iranian troops. What happened to the weapons he once had?

Hindsight is not wisdom, so you have to demonstrate that you have suggestions for situations that face us NOW.



Are we supposed to be impressed with your prognosticating skills? You're simply using 20/20 hindsight and saying "see I told you so" after the fact.

If a bellicose tyrant who has repeatedly used WMDs in the past (against the Kurds, Iranians, and Shiites), and repeatedly stopped inspectors from verifying their destruction while attacking international air patrols on an almost daily basis -- as Saddam did for 12 years -- then what should we do? Wag our finger at him and call him a meanie for another 12 years, while his people continue to suffer under UN santions and the corrupt Oil-for-Food program?

Every major intelligence gathering agency in the world -- including the UN and the Russians who OPPOSED the liberation of Iraq -- said that Saddam had WMDs. Not 'probably' had, but did have. So explain to us, how exactly did Bush falsify everyone else's WMD evidence, along with that from the Clinton administration, all while he was the governor of Texas?

You're also make a meaningless distinction by saying that "nuclear weapons" are not WMDs. Of course they are. Saddam was pursuing nuclear technology in the early 80's but was stopped by Israel. Yet the Duelfer Report proves that Saddam had the means and intention to restart his WMD programs once sanctions were lifted. He even kept weapons scientists on his payroll all the way up to the 2003 invasion.

The Iraqis are thanking God for President Bush, without whom their oppression would never have ended. The fact that you can excuse a murderous dictator who killed over 300,000 of his own people and half a million Iranians -- with WMDs no less -- and who attacked Israel, and who attacked America in the 1993 WTC bombing (Ramsey Yousef was Saddam's intelligence officer), and who even tried to assassinate a president of the United States, demonstrates just how much you "love" your country.



I think dbt means "love" in a gay-marriage sense of the term.


Good point, Toaster.

Back to you, dbt.

You've been posed some serious questions about your views. Now, are you going to use a response or silence to shed light on the moral bankruptcy of your opinion of Operation Iraqi Freedom? Please let us know.



DBT- If this scurrilous claim about your prognostications is true, then I call on you to prove it. Where is that link showing your "predictions" in text prior to the Iraq war ?

Boy, that would really be great if you actually had one.

However, I suspect we will hear how you just got a computer, you never posted back then, they're all deleted now since the site changed, or you just can't remember but the truth is out there.

If none of those fit come up with another.

I can smell a liar a mile away. Here's a dead giveaway;

"I thought Bush's evidence about nuclear weapons was obvious crap"

LOL - It was Bush's evidence, right ? LOL
Is that why Bush was suspect of it, and asked Clinton's holdover George Tenet,as the MSM reported with glee, " How sure are you ? ", and the reply came, " It's a slam dunk! "

Lefty dumb dumbs never do seem to put two and two together, they are too busy bashing, and their string of lies winds up in conflict when they just can't resist one of those tremendous political attacks of the moment.

Let me help you dbt. If Bush asked how sure the CIA director was of the intel that proves:

1. Bush had reservations on it, and expected a percentage guess from the CIA director.
2. It wasn't Bush's evidence, but in fact evidence delivered to Bush, from a Clinton holdover, indicating Clinton also agreed, as we well know, from his own words and actions.
3. The "slam dunk" answer was use as fodder against Bush and Tenet after the fact, but the mud slinging goofballs forgot what this would mean when applied to Bush's prewar condition and analysis.

Let's not forget Scott Ritter, who said, " you can't prove Saddam has weapons !", but also said, " My team was the reason WMD was found in Iraq during UNSCOM, not the lying defectors Cheney, and we can find the rest of the WMD there ! "

Of course, one realizes, the only way to prove hidden weapons are there, is to find them. The liberal never quite grasps that fact, like Scott Ritter did, and so he used a good rhetorical jab, that proved something to the dummy left, that still don't get it generally.

Then he got on board demanding he be given the chance to go back in and get the rest of the 5-10% that was never accounted for. This never quite hit the craniums of the left either. I suppose they figure it was just posturing ( lying )to prevent a war they didn't want.

Now, the lie about all the Cleo's dashing about in self reflective elusive glory is abundant.

Their intellect is apparently LOADS above the democrats in congress, whom merely claim they were "fooled" by the (Bush)evidence and therefore voted for the war.

Yes, it is a tremendous thing to be above all those representing and not representing you in DC after the fact.

Nice, too when all you have to do is say so, and provide absolutely no evidence for it whatsoever.

Don't look now, though either. One of Saddam's best buddies, the only person who could reportedly tell Saddam " NO! " to his face, the #2 Air Force man from Iraq has come forward and claimed that 56 sorties of WMD were flown out of Iraq on 757's and 727's in April before the November inspections were to come, flwon into Syria, and claims he has it firsthand knowledge of it from the pilots, and has come out of Iraq only a few weeks ago, and delivered a book to outline it as well.

Deulfer and Kay both stated we may never know if WMD was hidden, destroyed right before or during the war, or transferred out of Iraq.
All either one of them can do is speculate on the actual truth of the matter, and admit they didn't find a gigantic motherlode, but found more than sufficent evidence of the ability to surge production of WMD and make deliverable WMD within several weeks still in Iraq.

Since Saddam factually had the capability to surge production of WMD and have the weaponry ready and able for warfare in 2 weeks according to the reports by Deulfer and Kay, then one can clearly understand that having a large stockpile is really beside the point right now, concerning the WMD issue.
Today, or two weeks from today isn't much different when it comes to a madman with WMD.



Everything you said is true. However, people like dbt are not interested in facts. They are only interested in what is fashionable, and it is currently fashionable to bash Bush and bash America.

Such people are perfectly comfortable with holding an opinion based on no facts, and won't change their opinion even when presented with simple logic.

Facts are not their objective, fashion is.

Kobayashi Maru

This is indeed a longstanding (festering) phenomenon. Jean Francois Revel (yes, a Frenchman!) wrote eloquently about it in his 2003 book, .">http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1893554856/qid=1139884658/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/102-6651937-4636944?s=books&v=glance&n=283155>"Anti-Americanism".



Keep one of these handy.


WMDuh, (at least you admit that the left is dumb).

You don't like it that you have been found out, eh? Well, the lies of the left are up.

No wonder you lost the election so heavily. It still hurts, eh? tee hee..


"WMDuh, (at least you admit that the left is dumb).

You don't like it that you have been found out, eh? Well, the lies of the left are up.

No wonder you lost the election so heavily. It still hurts, eh? tee hee.."

Yeah, for some the pain is over..

and they have you to thank.


Yawn... can't debate the article, eh? I know. That is why we win elections against you losers so easily.

And you don't care about the people who terrorists killed in London, Madrid, Bali, Delhi, Beslan, Jordan, Egypt, etc. do you.

You are just as bad as Al-Qaeda. The only difference is they have the courage to admit that they hate a great and decent country like America. You have no such courage, coward.

Big Worm

I, too, handily win non-existent debates with imaginary opponents.


Big worm,

So, a simple question for you :

Would you support the Iraq war, if WMDs had been found?

Hal Bowman

I think Option 1 doesn't work the way you think. If the person says, "yes", they might still oppose the invasion of Iran or Korea as too dangerous or whatever - they are not Iraq, they are independent cases. If they say, "no", they are exposed as falsely beating the "No WMD" drum, but they need not "oppose the very ideals of the US." They might just be vanilla pacifists and be against all war. You could claim that pacifism is against the very ideals of the US, but I don't know you'd get much "gotcha" advantage from that.



What you say could occur *in theory*, but in practice, 99% of those who parrot the 'no WMD' slogan are :

1) Fashion sheep who want to take the path of least intellectual effort, yet remain current with whatever is the 'fashionable' opinion of the time. Thus, they hear something on TV and are comfortable with thinking they are fully informed. Or..

2) Anti-US hatemongers who are trying to get away with pretending that hindsight is wisdom. If the US were to take action against Iran (with France's help this time), they would still oppose that, even though they claim 'no WMDs' is their reason for opposing Iraq.

They are phony, and steering the debate into 'what would you do if...' teritory is the only way to expose their phoniness, rather than try to show them facts, as they are not interested in facts in the first place, due to their true position not being genuine.


I'm with Hal. Iran and north Korea are different cases. The idea that if a reason applies, it always applies is absurd nonsense. I would turn over a turtle if I found it struggling on its back, this does not mean I will devote my life to travelling the world and seeking out turtles to rescue. North Korea is not the same issue because it does not inspire vast hordes of terrorists- and that is the primary danger. Iran is not the same issue because it is too big for us to tear down and rebuild. We could tear it down, but the reasoning behind Iraq was that we could then rebuild the place as per Japan and Germany, and then create an Arab/Muslim society with a modern outlook. The end result is sociological change, which you do not get by devastation alone. This is an important consideration because the enemy is an ideology more than it is a nation, and so we will win only by altering the social fabric that underlays the ideology. We do not have the resources to do this to Iran, we can merely destroy the place.

The people who look at Iraq and think its hypocrasy that we have not invaded north Korea and Iran are the sort that would watch you take a knight in a chess game, and call it hypocrasy because you are making no moves to take the bishop or the rook. We are playing this to win, not to be fair.

Bear in mind, we responded to the attack in Hawaii in 1941 by invading French North Africa. Iraq is a battle, not a war, and it was chosen for specific reasons of grand strategy.

That the president did not do a good job spinning his reasons for that move is another issue entirely. I have no fault with any deception, because deception is a part of war- Rooselvelt lied about the intended objective of th Normandy Invasion, so what? I only fault them for not lying well enough.

At least we know this: the enemy agrees that Iraq is a critical battlefield. That is why they have devoted so many of the their resources to Iraq that they have been unable to make any strikes in the United States, in more than four years. If the enemy gave up on Iraq and turned its full attention on the United States homeland, our thin line of baggage inspectors and NSA wiretaps would not hold them back.



So the enemy agrees that Iraq is a critical battlefield (Osama admitted this in his recent tape, offering a truce if we withdraw fom Iraq).

But fifth-columnists and fashion sheep still insist that 'Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11' and so 'it is wrong to invade Iraq before catching Osama'. Fine, that is one view, but that is directly contradicting a view that 'Iraq has distracted us from the real threats of North Korea and Iran.'

People who say this are just anti-US phonies, as they hold contradictory positions that have no common thread other than anti-Americanism.


How big is a stockpile of bilogical weapons? Counter-terrorism expects say that one problem with a bio-weapon is that we might not even know we were attacked, let alone by whom. Can anyone prove that West Nile Virus was not a bio-weapon released in the US? Some scientists say it apears to have been bio-engineered to be more deadly. If an erreant mosquito could spread it by accident, could it not also be easily spread on purpose?



Quite possible. However, if an Islmaic terrorist spreads a disease that is airborne, it will backfire on the Islamic world.

Developed countries might take measures to contain the disease quickly, but poor, backward regions like the Middle East, will not be able to, and will suffer more from the disease the terrorist hoped would kill Westerners.


What I am getting at is the West's inability to imagine outside its conceptual boundaries. West Nile Virus has already been spread - we just can't figure out how or see that the answer might lead to a different view of the Iraq WMD question. Similarly, the artillary shells and storage drums filled with a mystery liquid that initially field tests as Sarin, but later lab tests do not show an exact match so it is dismissed as a false alarm. However, the Germans who sold Iraq "pesticide factories" knew they would be used as poison for "two-legged flies" (Der Speigal). Yet warehouses full of perticide precursor materials are not considered as stockpiles of WMD. Why? Well, pesticides are OK, right? Yet, one blogger did ask the right question: why else would you put a liquid inside an artillary shell? Where is the best place to hide WMDs? In plain sight! Deulfer concluded it was Saddam's strategy to develop delivery systems because it would be easy to ramp up production of the chemicals. He was on to something. Our intelligence failure today is the inability to get outside our own world view and think 'deviant' like our adversaries. Such as, some experts dismissing "too small" aluminum tubes as not relevant to uranium refinement, yet the detailed scientific report happens to mention that they could be used for that purpose, but that it would be more timely and expensive. I say, so what, our enemies are very creative,and it would still work. They preplanned the military dispersal and resistance and prepositioned stockpiles of explosives. They preplanned the looting of WMD research sites to destroy evidence of programs. Did the CDC drop the West Nile Virus investigation because the logical conclusion is that we are incapable of defending ourselves against such an attack, or are we just too smart to figure it out?
Good point as to WMD blowback to Islamic countries, but any "work accidents" will, or course, be blamed on Zionists.


I'm anti-American and proud of it.


At least you are honest. More than I can say about 99% of anti-Americans.

So does this mean you are on the side of Al-Qaeda?
Note that this also means you approve of terrorism in London, Madrid, New Delhi, Beslan, Bali, Egypt, Jordan, and Turkey.

Is this correct?


What is more American than openly disagreeing with the government/President?


Doing it for phony, disingenuous reasons is un-American.

What do you disagree with him about, and why?


"So if WMDs were found, would you support the war?"

They can either answer "no", to which you can say "So why do you obsess over WMDs if you still would have opposed it anyway? That appears rather phony on your part."

Or they can answer "yes", to which you can ask them "But Iran and North Korea are openly admitting to the pursuit of nuclear weapons, and are threatening to use them. By your logic, invading them is fully justified, is it not?"

False dilemma. If there had been WMDs in Iraq, invading Iraq would probably have been justified, but still not advisable,for many reasons, just as invading Iran and North Korea may be fully justified, but not advisable.

But at the more basic level of your question lies the double standard: When is it okay for a President to tell a bald-faced lie, and when is it not?



So you admit that it would have been justified (although not advisable) if WMDs were found. I can appreciate the 'not advisable' part.

Thus, since no one can predict the future, the President simply made a decision based on the information he had, which also was information British and Russian intelligence possessed. He was wrong, but certainly no deliberate dishonesty.

So those who claim he lied, are being disingenuous and anti-American. Hindsight is not wisdom, as the critics so often demonstrate.

Thanks for agreeing.


I think the preponderance of the evidence indicates that Bush most definitely ignored some intelligence, overvalued other intelligence, deliberately misinterpreted intelligence, and purposefully distorted intelligence when presenting it to others. (In some cases, this represents the actions of Bush's representatives - the drawback to acting as a unitary executive is that no doubt is left with whom the responsibility lies...)

But still, my focus has never been the lying, despite its omnipresence on almost every issue from this administration - rather it is the complete lack of planning which only added to the inadvisability of invasion.

The CPA has been described as the most corrupt government in the history of the world based on percentage of dollars lost to said corruption, and this can because of one or two options: design or incompetence. Either way, thumbs down.

And a claim that the way the 'reconstruction' has been handled isn't making America more vulnerable in the future is simply inoperative.

I love America. We do many things very well. The Iraq war, from its very conception before Bush's initial ascension to the Presidency, has not been one of them.


Many things could have been done better. I for one would have liked twice as many troops. We could then have sealed off the Syra and Iran borders. The war would have finished quicker, even if the number of casualties had been the same.

But on balance, I think we did the right thing, and will come out ahead in the long run. History will judge it positively. I suspect that you disagree, which means you don't really love America if you hate the President so much that you are hoping that America looks bad while he is President, just in order to harm his reputation.

To really know what is going on in Iraq, go to this blog :



percentage of dollars

Probably goes without saying, but let's be precise: That should of course be "percentage of monies."


There seem to be a few problems keeping this from being a test of hypocrisy and anti-Americanism. First the things about WMDs is that there are people who thought that WMDs is not necessarily a good enough reason to go to war (depending on other circumstances) and are simply pointing out that it was the best reason/reason that was sold to the public and might therefore still think it was wrong to go to war or might think because of the circumstances in Iran and North Korea (Like how the heck would we occupy Iran) it might not be worth it to go to war. (Personally I would consider going against North Korea simply because of WMD, which unlike in Iraq they have or will soon have, and that they seem to have form what I’ve heard much worse political systems and living conditions so bad we couldn't screw it up worse even if we screw up the rebuilding)
The second problem is with the question about America having done the most to benefit humanity. It is a very complex problem involving causation. It is very difficult to track down the roots of history to see what causes benefits to humanity, and considering the age of the US many countries have invented and accomplished much over their history which might have changed the world for the better. Also are you talking net benefit (benefit minus cost) or simple benefit? Are you talking about only countries that have existed as autonomic countries in similar geographic terms for many years or the net accomplishment of approximate geographic areas that now belong to a certain country? Also the asteroid thing seems totally inapplicable as that is measuring only wealth and the most advanced space program of any countries rather then the net benefit to humanity (yes if the US took the major role in stopping the apocalypse then it would have the largest benefit to humanity but you are asking about actual current status and not based on a theoretical event).
Signed a lover of his country (America) despite it's faults.


Auguste wrote:

"I think the preponderance of the evidence indicates that Bush most definitely ignored ... undervalued ... deliberately misinterpreted ... and purposefully distorted intelligence when presenting it to others. .... But still, my focus has never been the lying, despite its omnipresence on almost every issue from this administration ..."

If you claim to "love" America, then why are you calling it's elected leader a liar, deciever, etc. without giving any evidence or examples? You sound just like your hero Al Gore declaring to an Arab audience in Saudi Arabia last week that America routinely "rounds up" Arabs in the US, "abuses" them and holds them in "unforgivable" conditions without giving a single example. BACK UP YOUR CLAIM. Even the Democratic party, which has the most to gain from proving that Bush is the liar that you claim he is, to date has not been able to give a single example or shred of evidence that Bush lied or distorted or witheld anything from Congress or the American people. If you disagree, then let's hear it.

Also explain why you won't call the Clinton Administration, Russian intelligence, British intelligence, French intelligence, and the UN also "liars" for saying the exact same things Bush did about WMDs in Iraq. Or is this inconvenient fact too much for you to process?

It's depressed and miserable liberals like you who are the only liars and incompetents with regard to Iraq. The liberals' only alternative to democratizing and fighting terrorists in Iraq is to declare defeat (as you're doing) and to retreat (a la John Murtha's silly declarations). Please explain how your approach is any different from SURRENDER.

The only way you can reconcile the thrashing you routinely get at the ballot box is by screaming that the victor cheated, with the hope that people get distracted by your emotional agitations and not question you on the substance of your false claims.

Also, rtaycher1987 said:

"The second problem is with the question about America having done the most to benefit humanity. It is a very complex problem ... It is very difficult to track down ... and considering the age of the US ...."

It's actually a rather simple matter and only a complex one for those unable or unwilling to face reality. Name any other country that has shed half as much of its own blood or sacrificed even 5% of the national treasure that the US has for the freedom and prosperity of others across the world. Can you name a single nation in history that has fought any campaigns comparable to WWI, WWII, the Cold War, Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq I and II, whose objective in every case was not subjugation but the punishing of tyrants and liberation of hundreds of millions of oppressed people?


The fifth column in this nation are the neo-cons and all the conservative haters which have lied and deceived the public into thinking that buying a yellow magnetic ribbon on their car (made in China) is a patriotic thing to do, at the same time that they systematically destroy the fabric of this nation. Neo-cons and conservatives are the most irresponsible people I know. They want other people's children to fight their battles, while they shop. All the while the richest of Americans buy real estate overseas, hire employees overseas and screw America--all the while having their Hummers filled with yellow magnetic ribbons extolling the virtues of America. If these rich corporate whores and their children love America so much why are they traitors to our founding fathers and traitors to their fellow countrymen? bottom line: there are traitors amongst us--and they are the right wingers. Someone stole my America, and it was the fascist right-wingers.


right-wingers love to extoll the virtues of violence, and are quick to mention all the wars that Americans have fought. This is absolutely against the philosophies of the founding fathers of this nation, who hated the idea of this nation getting involved in foriegn wars, and yet since world war II, the richest 1% of this nation has been like sharks--insisting on military interference in every nook and crany of the war, most of the time propping up dictarors and tyrants. And so when the fascist right-wingers here (and lets face it--thats exactly what they are) extoll the virtues of American military intervention, they are 100% in opposition to the ideals this nation was based on. The traitors are the right-wingers. The traitors are the right wing whackos who would sell our soul to other nations for the almight dollar. You right-wingers are whores. That is all you are. I am not even a "liberal". I am an American who knows that you right-wingers don't stand for me. I can smell fascism and YOU ALL STINK WITH IT.



Everything you said is the typical low-intelligence left-wing screed with no specific debate at all. Everything you said is, unsurprisingly, already refuted in the article.

I have two questions for you. Let's see if you have the courage to answer them :

1) You seem to hate the richest 1% of Americans. So, tell me, if a person or any race or gender starts a small business, is he a good person for doing so? Or is starting a small business bad?

And if, over a few years, that business starts to do well, he hires 10 people, and he becomes rich, is he now a bad person?

2) You claim 'right-wingers prop up dictators and tyrants'. OK, I agree that is wrong. So does that mean you SUPPORT our efforts to remove Saddam Hussein, and correct the mistakes of our past?

By your logic, removing Saddam, instead of propping him up, is the correct action, is it not?

Or are you saying Saddam should have been kept in power, which then contradicts your earlier statement?


Hi Brill,

Also, explain whether the "rich corporate whores" George Soros, Michael Moore, Steve Bing, John Kerry, John Edwards, Ted Kennedy, Jay Rockefeller, etc. etc. are liberal Democrats or "conservative neo-cons".

Or, are we again wasting our time trying to squeeze a rational thought out of yet another anti-American loon who can't debate?


The Futurist? Bold..? I don't think so. Brash and narrow-minded. You really can't label others, sorry. If it's derogatory, it's merely name-calling and for what purpose? If you must judge people, look at their deeds. What have you yourself done for the world lately? Define yourself, the only person you are qualifed to label and then debate issues not your personal naming system.



So answer the two questions of the original post :

1) If WMDs were found, would you have supported the Iraq War?

2) Which country has done more to benefit humanity than the US?

Let's see if you have the courage to answer simple questions.


Nothing gives me more hope for our troubled world than to see the comedic depths to which the neocon loyal have sunk, while you struggle to make sense of the confused messages your leaders are feeding you. I suggest if you don't like it here, and all you have to offer is more division of America and paranoia, y'all oughta get on a slow boat for Dubai.

Liberal Smasher


What are you babbling about? What does it have to do with the article?

Or are you just upset that your hatred for American, capitalism, and heterosexuality have been exposed?

Stupid liberal faggot...

LC Mamapajamas

GK: "Fashion sheep who want to take the path of least intellectual effort, yet remain current with whatever is the 'fashionable' opinion of the time."

I think this describes about 90% of the Bush bashers and the peaceniks. If they're like they were circa 1968-1972, they have absolutely no clue what they are advocating. They're just warm bodies to appear in the peace marches.

I know... I used to BE one of them... till I grew up!

Nately's Old Man

'America,' he said, 'will lose the war. And Italy will win it.'

'America is the strongest and most prosperous nation on earth,' Nately informed him with lofty fervor and dignity. 'And the American fighting man is second to none.'

'Exactly,' agreed the old man pleasantly, with a hint of taunting amusement. 'Italy, on the other hand, is one of the least prosperous nations on earth. And the Italian fighting man is probably second to all. And that's exactly why my country is doing so well in this war while your country is doing so poorly.'

Nately guffawed with surprise, then blushed apologetically for his impoliteness. 'I'm sorry I laughed at you,' he said sincerely, and he continued in a tone of respectful condescension. 'But Italy was occupied by the Germans and is now being occupied by us. You don't call that doing very well, do you?'

'But of course I do,' exclaimed the old man cheerfully. 'The Germans are being driven out, and we are still here. In a few years you will be gone, too, and we will still be here. You see, Italy is really a very poor and weak country, and that's what makes us so strong. Italian soldiers are not dying any more. But American and German soldiers are. I call that doing extremely well. Yes, I am quite certain that Italy will survive this war and still be in existence long after your own country has been destroyed.'

Golden Greg

Nately, what is the name of that book, I have read it but cannot remember the title.
And GK, I live in San Francisco and know first hand what you are talking about. I go out of my way to bring up politics at work to get everyone out of their comfort zones. Then we get to facts and they go away. It is funny, no one ever brings up politics when I am around, even though I am surrounded by libs. At least most are not the "frosthy rabies mouth" types, so they can still listen.


Golden Greg,

I know what you mean. At work, do notice that most of the people who say nothing when leftists talk, are conservatives themselves.

They just are afraid to speak up. That is why leftists think most people agree with them. They assume silence is agreement but in reality the opposite is true.

At least on this blog, we have a written record of fanatical Bush-hating fashion sheep getting trounced in debate after debate.

Golden Greg


Yes this is true and goes both ways. I usually only discuss with moderate lefties or righties, since far lefties just don't know the word "listen" when they do not agree with something.
Since I have lived and grown up here for 30 years, needless to say I was a "Democrat by default" until my mid 20's. Slowly I started seeing the hate and slogans towards anyone who did not agree with the "one brain" thinking, regardless of the facts and feel good issues. This is the same in most Universities who claim diversity. Well diversity in everything but thought at least it seems.
Unfortuneately we live in news snippets, and the MSM is more than happy to omit whatever does not fit their worldview. Remember, only young reporters who show they are "one of us (left)" get promoted. Is it really a surprise? 5 years ago I was giving up hope, but with great thinking bloggers like yourself and others, as well as radio, I think the message is slowly getting out and people have woken up. The news monopoly is fading, and they are panicking...


A liberal homo calling himself 'Pliskin' wrote:

"I suggest if you don't like it here, and all you have to offer is more division of America and paranoia, y'all oughta get on a slow boat for Dubai."

Trying hard to sound like the rednecks you see in Hollywood movies, aren't you? Too bad, we can all see that you're just another weak leftie coward who'll never bring anything of value to society, hence your hatred for the American meritocracy wherein you always find yourself occupying its lowest level.

Liberals, if there's a man among you, just answer one question: Which country has done more and sacrificed more for the freedom and prosperity of others around the globe than the United States?


Thanks, the encouragement helps. I started this blog just 5 weeks ago, after reading other common-sense blogs for the last couple years.

The thing is, 40-60% of the people are 'fashion sheep', who just follow what others tell them to think. After 9/11, it was fashionable to be a patriot and wave flags, so they did that and the MSM encouraged them. Now, it is 'fashionable' to be anti-Bush without exception, so they do that, having no recollection of their own post-9/11 actions.

Do visit again, there are usually 5-6 posts per week (across 3 different categories).


That is one of the most amusing things Ive seen all day. To think a scripted coonversation with guided questions can tell if a person is anti-american or not. Still stuck on childish labels. I wish everything could be cut and dry and black and white but thats not the world, never has, never is, and never will be. Labels are what make people ignorant to different point of views, not saying you have to agree with them, but at least have the open mind hear them out. When you shut someone out based on that and that alone, well congradulations are in order, you are ignorant


The author confuses anti-Americanism with opposition to the current administration's policies which are damaging to America).


...What are any of us worth without love?...You folks should honor the truth, right?? So, why all this name-calling and inflammitory language?? Reasonable people know of these diffrences of opinion, don't be unreasonable... You are in peril of having them infect your own ability to reason, my friends...the truth is out there...not very forthcoming, when it comes to matters of powerful men, but, it's coming...but you have to watch and seek and..listen for that to come to be..

" I believe he dost protest too much.." W. Shakesphere


Correspondent and Marco,

The scripted conversation does work to expose anti-Americans, because they merely parrot what the leftist media tells them to think. That you actually consider hindsight to be wisdom makes your defeat both predictable and rehearsable.

You dodged the questions in the post too. Answer them, if you have the courage.

zeke L

here's my dilemma.

i'd say i love america. just the way i was raised. but what i learned was to love her for our ideals, our values. as an example, when i saw those old war movies the nazis were the bad guys because they did things like ignore the geneva conventions. and even though the enemy did that, we still stuck to it, because we're americans, dammit. the soviets might tap their own citizens' phones whenever the KGB felt like it, but in america you'd better get a warrant, mister.

as you said, "despite many flaws" we've been a force for good in the world. as an adult i learned that yes we did have skeletons in our closet. we've started wars of aggression for domestic political gain (the mexican-american war), we've suppressed free speech (the sedition act), we've had presidents think they're above the law before (nixon, for instance), we've even tortured maimed and killed in violation of geneva and norms of civilized conduct (my lai, latin america, etc.)

i know all that. the difference is that we got over it, and we recognized that these things didn't fit our values. we tried to cover it up because we knew it was shameful, and when that didn't work, we told ourselves these things were aberrations, un-american.

over the last five years we seem to have lost our way on our values. we hold prisoners from a foreign battlefield without trial or repatriation, and everyone just shrugs. we find out we're torturing people, one and a half of our two political parties declares that they're outraged that anyone would be outraged over it. the president openly declares that he will ignore laws on torture and domestic surveillance and congress deserts its duty to check and balance. the list goes on.

now moral relativism is the order of the day. anything we do we claim is justified because we're at least a little better than the enemy. then when we find out that maybe we're doing the exact same deeds, sometimes oddly in the very same prisons, we cross over into moral essentialism: anything we do is good because we're us and that's that.

sorry, but i can't get behind that. i'll stand up for real american values - the kind in the constitution, the geneva conventions, all sorts of human rights declarations, etc - any day you care to name. but i can't support what we've been doing over the past five years, and what we seem to have become. i want us to be a nation that is aspiring to do better and better.

so when i say with langston hughes, "let america be america again, the country that never has been yet," does that make me anti-american?



You accuse America of moral relativism, yet appear to be more bothered that we hold terrorists (who are not represented by any state, and thus not entitled to Geneva conventions), than that terrorists saw the heads off of innocent American, British, and Korean civilians. Which do you think is worse, us holding them in Guantanamo, or them sawing off the heads of civilians on videotape?

You don't appear to be bothered that in the last 4 years, Islamic terrorists have murdered innocents in London, Madrid, Beslan, Bali, Egypt, Jordan and Delhi. None of these victims were Americans. So, tell me, why did the terrorists kill all these non-Americans?

Lastly, you seem so worked up about 'Bush not having a warrant for wiretapping'. Fine. I agree he should get a warrant. But then do you admit that AFTER getting a warrant, he has the full right to spy on suspected terrorists?

So, answer these three questions if I am to believe you are actually on America's side..

Failure to answer them will merely confirm your hidden anti-Americanism.

zeke L

i'm not accusing america of moral relativism, i'm accusing certain people, including our leadership and the MSM, of moral relativism.

your response illustrates my point perfectly, thank you.

torture is wrong, and it is always wrong. the fact that the other side does evil does not make it right for us.

Which do you think is worse, us holding them in Guantanamo, or them sawing off the heads of civilians on videotape?

both are wrong. as a christian i despise violence, torture and depriving people of their rights. deciding that one is "worse" and we are somehow justified because they're worse is the heart of moral relativism.

there is a difference, though. i have no control over the actions of al-qaeda-inspired terrorists. they're criminals and murderers and should be stopped one way or another, obviously. in a democracy, however, i do have a say about how our government conducts itself. i have both the right and the sacred duty to demand that we hold ourselves to a higher standard. if we're not going to act like the good guys, what are we fighting for, anyway?

So, tell me, why did the terrorists kill all these non-Americans?

first of all, you don't seem troubled speaking for me when you say i'm not concerned. i'll ask you not to tell me what i believe, thank you very much.

now, the reason the terrorists attacked the citizens of those other countries was to get those governments to respond in ways that will further alienate them from their people and/or provoke the dreaded "clash of civilizations." terrorist strategy 101. you should at least watch the battle of algiers or something if you don't understand what they're doing.

OTOH, the US hasn't been attacked again because there was no need, from their point of view. our current commander-in-chief has made 9-11 pay off far better for al qaeda than bin laden's wildest dreams.

But then do you admit that AFTER getting a warrant, he has the full right to spy on suspected terrorists?

he is then operating within the law, yes. that's what FISA was intended for, to get the executive to make at least a concession to justifying their actions to someone, even someone as compliant as a FISC judge. seeing how easy it was to get these warrants, it seems pretty clear that the only reason they would make an end run around this simple process would be to spy on people the FISC would not approve a warrant for, IOW people not connected to terrorism.

my libertarian side is uncomfortable with how easy FISA makes it for big brother to watch us, but that's a topic for another day.

Failure to answer them will merely confirm your hidden anti-Americanism.

spoken like a true blackshirt.

good day to you, sir. anyone else want to weigh in?



So, as a Christian, are you not offended when the ACLU fights to get the cross removed from the LA county seal, courthouses, etc., but the MSM is too afraid to show some relatively benign cartoons of Islam?

Or are you a 'Christian' only when it suits you?

Sure, you have no control over terrorists, but you can suggest how we treat them. I say that since they are not part of any state's army, and do not follow rules of engagement, they are not entitled to Geneva convention protections. Do you disagree?

Is there ANY country that DOES treat terrorists with the protections you suggest? Don't list countries that just bash our Guantanamo practices, show me examples of ACTIONS they have taken.

Or can you only criticize Bush's actions when judged against a utopian standard? That appears to be the case, and is also an admission that the US is treating terrorists far better than any other country has or would.

In fact, the anti-terrorism measures taken in the UK and Netherlands now make our Patriot Act look lax.

And as for your ridiculous claim that we have not been attacked in 4.5 years because 'Al-Qaeda does not see a need', how do you know that? Many terrorist plots were foiled (like Richard Reid, Jose Padilla, the Portland and Buffalo cells, etc.). I know you must be upset that these plots were foiled, as a member of the fifth column.

In fact, any intelligent person can see that Iraq has acted like a flypaper to attract terrorists there, and be picked off by US troops. That is why they cannot attack the US mainland. They have their hands full in Iraq.

That is why you oppose the Iraq War, as it has kept the US mainland safe.

zeke L

face it, you know i'm right.

you're just afraid to admit, possibly even to yourself.

there's no point in participating in a discussion with you anymore. for one thing, you're a pretty lousy host. all you do is insult the people who come here.

and you still haven't answered my question yet. does standing up for american principles and ideals make me anti-american in your book?

the answer appears to be yes, but you haven't given me a straight answer.



Your question is bogus, as your interpretation of what 'American values' are, is itself inaccurate.

Standing up for American principles means not exhibiting double standards or moral equivalence, but rather offering better ideas to protect American lives. You should it sometime.

Now, answer my two simple questions :

1) As a Christian, are you not offended when the ACLU fights to get the cross removed from the LA county seal, courthouses, etc., but the MSM is too afraid to show some relatively benign cartoons of Islam. Do you not find this unfair?

2) Sure, you have no control over terrorists, but you can suggest how we treat them. I say that since they are not part of any state's army, and do not follow rules of engagement, they are not entitled to Geneva convention protections. Do you disagree?


Zeke is no Christian, at least not like any I associate with. He is a Moby, and his anti-American bias shows through, even as he vainly tries to hide it. C'mon--moral equivancy between AQ terrorists and U.S. military actions? Zeke would be shocked, shocked, I tell you, if he really knew what lengths we went to win WWII.



I agree. The good news is that people are figuring this out, and Democrat politicians will distance themselves from this fifth-column fringe.

Plus, this blog has many written records of anti-Americans being exposed and defeated in simple debate, for all to see :)

zeke L

look you two bozos, this is america, and around here we don't go insulting other people's religion.

you're both lucky you and your cheetos-stained fingertips are safely behind a computer monitor, because i'm not *that* much of a pacifist.

some other things we don't do in america that you might care to take note of.

we don't torture people for one. we're the good guys. you don't seem to believe we are or should be the good guys, so i have to ask which of us is the one who really hates america.

we don't believe the president is above the law. that's exactly the kind of autocratic BS this great nation was founded to get rid of.

we don't tolerate corruption in our government.

we don't let whole cities of our own people drown.

we don't start wars on false pretenses.

i could go on and on, but you already know the list, because you've been working all kinds of what you think are clever responses to all of it. defending the indefensible, and you know it.

so please, if you don't like living in a free country that lives by the rule of law, perhaps you should move to russia or north korea or singapore or some nice dictatorship like uzbekistan.

that's america pal, love it or leave it.



Threats of violence from a puny leftist? Yawn....BRING IT ON! (tee hee). Please go threaten other conservatives too.

Plus you didn't answer my questions (because you know that it exposes you). Answer them. They are quite simple, even for a leftist :

1) As a Christian, are you not offended when the ACLU fights to get the cross removed from the LA county seal, courthouses, etc? Do you not find this unfair?

2) I say that since terrorists are not part of any state's army, and do not follow rules of engagement, they are not entitled to Geneva convention protections. Do you disagree?

Let me add a third :

3) Who is more evil, George Bush or Osama bin Laden?

If you don't answer them, you have lost the debate - just like you lost the election - in utter humiliation.

What is funny is that an anti-American claims to love America, yet refuses to get angry at Islamic terrorists that kill innocents, or even offer suggestions on how to fight them. This is obvious anti-Americanism.

What is also funny is that anti-American leftists spend so much energy trying to criticize America against a UTOPIAN standard, but never get up and move to Canada, Britain, France, etc. That shows not only their hypocrisy, but that they are too cowardly to take risks. Plus, if the only way to criticize America is against a UTOPIAN standard, all the more reason we are doing the right things now..

zeke L

my plan was to leave off right there, since i’m giving up political blogging for lent (no joke). i figured i could get that last one in since i hadn’t been to church yet, then shake the dust of my sandals off at you guys before moving on.

but then at the ash wednesday service i was chastened by these words in the hymn:

Forgive me, Lord through Christ, I pray,
The wrong that I have done this day,
That I, before I sleep, may be
At peace with neighbor, self and Thee.

then stronger in this line from isaiah 58 (today’s lectionary, do read the whole thing):

Your fasting ends in quarreling and strife,
and in striking each other with wicked fists.

ouch. so i knew i had to come back here one last time tonight before signing off for the season.

besides, our men's group is having the rabbi over tomorrow night to lead our discussion of the plot against america, so it'll be at least another day before i can sweep out the politics and move on to Higher Things. (don't expect me to read anything here, though.)

first off, let me take care of GK’s two little questions here, just to set your minds at ease. oh wait, here's a third!

Who is more evil, George Bush or Osama bin Laden?

"god alone is lord of the conscience." you guys are *too* easy!

i can tell you think your first question is especially clever. it’s not.

the ACLU fights to get the cross removed from the LA county seal, courthouses, etc.

good. the State can keep its stinking hands off my religion and its symbols, thank you very much.

the MSM is too afraid to show some relatively benign cartoons of Islam. Do you not find this unfair?

this must be connected in your mind somehow, but it’s opaque to me. i don’t like it when media types mock my faith, so why should i be offended when they don’t try to mock someone else’s?

next question: I say that since they are not part of any state's army, and do not follow rules of engagement, they are not entitled to Geneva convention protections. Do you disagree?

i do disagree with this. (FWIW, wilhelm keitel would agree with you and AG gonzales that geneva is “obsolete,” but look how that worked out for him when faced with real american prosecutors.)

i’m apparently not having much success getting through to you guys what it means to have values and principles and live by them. the way i was raised, back when we still thought we should act like the good guys, was that looking for loopholes in the geneva conventions was something tinpot tyrants and dictators would do, not americans. it’s not about them, you see, it’s about *us*. we follow the geneva conventions and treat everyone with dignity because that’s an expression of who we are as civilized people.

it’s about honor: our honor.

zeke L

now back to brass tacks and the reason i came here.

first a reminder. you remember, i hope, how jesus says in mark 3 that, “the sons of men shall be forgiven for many misdeeds and whatever blasphemies they may have blasphemed. but whoever blasphemes against the holy spirit will find no forgiveness in all of eternity, no he’s guilty of eternal sin.” so be very careful what you’re doing here. you sound an awful lot like the guys who threw jeremiah in the pit for being “anti-judah.” i’m sure if you had been there you would have been denouncing him for drawing a moral equivalence between the tribe of judah and the babylonians, preaching that god would shortly take their side if the nation didn’t repent, and so on. consider what you’re doing.

now for what’s really important: i’ve come for forgiveness.

i’m sitting here now with the ashes on my forehead, and i’m forgiving you for the bitter hatred you’ve spewed at me, and for your intellectual harlotry.

and even though you seem to have got a secret thrill out of it, i’m asking _you_ to forgive _me_ for raising my fists to you.

and i’ll be praying for you. especially i’ll be praying for god’s sacred breath to come over you and cleanse you, that you might learn what it means to “make justice the line, and righteousness the plummet.”

oh yeah, please do go and read all of isaiah 58, god really throws down there.

so, flame off. peace.

ciao, futuristi.



Again, you avoid answering simple questions, because it exposes you for the phony anti-American that you are.

1) You have revealed that you have no problem with people insulting Christianity, but insist that Islam should not be offended.

2) You claim Geneva conventions should be applied to terrorists, but don't explain why. I know why, because you are on the terrorist's side. What other reason could there be?

3) You didn't answer the question of whether Bush or Osama is more evil. You didn't answer because it would reveal where your true allegiances lie.

Behold, readers, and efficient and effective way to expose an anti-American, pro-terrorist leftist.

Always debate them on principle, asking 'What would you do if...?' questions, and press them on contradictory, hypocritical views that they hold. They will get increasingly humiliated, and even threaten you with violence (as above).

Remember these easy tactics for future use.

Liberal Smasher

I agree. That disease-laden faggot Zeke really made a fool of himself, and is obviously an America-hater, from his answers.

I like how you told that coward to 'bring it on'. That really must have made that girlie-man cry.

B. P.

I think you give these folks too much credit for rationality. If you ask them "what country has done more..." they will blithely reply "Cuba." No amount of rhetoric will dissuade them that they are right. Facts are unimportant.



"So if WMDs were found, would you support the war?"

I found the phrase "were found" to be a little vague. True, it IS a hypothetical question, but I'd like to nail down the timeframe, mostly to eliminate ANY possibility of Lefty wiggle room. Meaning of "is", and all that.

For example, did we (hypothetically) find WMD's in, say, early 2005?

Or, did we (hypothetically) stumble across them within two months of the takeover?

Or, that we Might find them in the future (coughSyriacough)?


P.S. My answers to your questions:

A1) Yes, then and now. In fact, I thought we should've finished the job back in '91, and I wanted us to go in to remove Saddam. The WMD's will be a nice catch when we finally nab them, but I wanted Saddam out.

A2) Maybe Britain, or the Roman Empire. But that's an iffy proposition either way. And anyway, the list gets really short after that...

A3) Why, U.S., of course. Where do I sign up?

Jeff Lipton

Who is more evil, Jeffrey Dahlmer or Pol Pot?

Are you a cannibal or a Commie?

(If A is "less evil" than B, it doesn't mean A isn't evil. Jeez.)


Jeff Lipton,

Your answer already exposes you in exactly the manner the article predicts.

Answer 2 simple questions :

1) If WMDs were found, would you be in support for the Iraq War?

2) Which country has done more to benefit humanity in the 20th century than the US?

Very simple questions.


good. the State can keep its stinking hands off my religion and its symbols, thank you very much.

Except it's not your religion, nor do you own the symbols.

we don't let whole cities of our own people drown.

When and where did this ever happen?

we don't start wars on false pretenses.

Since when have we?

Further, who stated this is "what America is all about" other than you?


i'm not accusing america of moral relativism

torture is wrong, and it is always wrong

You're way, way too stupid to see the irony.


Folks, a couple of observations from me, a guy who's been labelled as slightly to the right of Darth Vader (ouch, 'cause actually as a former combat soldier, I am a bit of a softy. Something to do with having seen too much ugliness in the world)

GK, I do like the gyst of your argument. You don't need to justify to zeke why the ragheads in the carrot patch are there. He has to justify to you why they should be covered by the Convention. As it stands they are not. That has been tried and tested in International Law. Contrary to leftie thought, no Nazi ever hanged for executing a known partisan after a proper (according to the Convention) court martial. They were hanged for their summary executions, and for mass reprisal raids.

But zeke has a point about torture, guys. It is still a debatable point about whether it is justified, and when. I think the argument has been made and won that it IS justified in some cases (we should have BUTCHERED that piece of s**t Moussaoui to get all we could out of him bfore 9/11: my $0.02) Then again I think there are all kinds of wonderful pharmaceutical products that are cheaper and more "accurate".

But I think it is possible that he is imply well-meaning, but misguided. I'd hate to think we have become so dismissive of each other that we no longer recognise meaningful debate. It's waht makes us BETTER as Westerners!!

Long Live America, you guys rock, and if it weren't for 82nd US airborne (or was it 101st?), my grandad would have died as a POW in Germany...So you have a lifelong friend in me. And for what it's worth you guys are welcome in my country anytime, and I hope you kick serious ass in Iran soon, and take names!



I don't support torture that is physically brutal. But I do support aggressive interrogation that involves tough psychological techniques.


Instead of continually deleting my civil post merely commenting on the language of your commentors, why don't you just police your own like Malkin says you right-wingers are so quick to do?



In the interest of civil discourse, lets address specific questions from the article :

Please answer :

1) What is your main reason for opposing the Iraq War? What alternative strategy do you propose the US take, from this point onwards, to stop terrorism?


"What is your main reason for opposing the Iraq War?"

The destablization of the Middle East including the eventual replacement of the secular Saddam with more extreme Islamist regimes.

"What alternative strategy do you propose the US take, from this point onwards, to stop terrorism?"

Less short-sighted and ultimately immoral foreign policy coupled with much higher domestic security expenditures. We've spend 300 billion dollars invading and destabilizing a country that had little or nothing to do with terrorism while our domestic ports remain wide open to infiltration and/or attack.



1) How is it destabilization when all stock markets in the region are booming? When Syria has pulled out of Lebanon, Libya has given up their WMDs, and Palestianian suicide bombing has all but stopped?

An Islamic regime can only come in if US troops leave, you know.

2) That is just a vague slogan with no specifics at all. Plus, Iraq had a lot to do with terrorism, such as paying $25,000 to Palestinian suicide bombers, the 1993 WTC bombings (Ramsey Yousuf was a member of Saddam's cabinet), the Salman Pak training camp, and Zarqawi being a close friend of Uday Hussein.

The declassification of documents already proves this. Plus Clinton, Blair, and Putin all said Saddam had WMDs. He HIMSELF said he had them. You can't avoid so many inconvenient facts, and expect to be listened to.

Now, more questions :

1) You said the ports should be more secure. Do you support the Patriot Act?

2) Would you support the Iraq War if WMDs had been found?

3) Do you want US troops to leave Iraq? Note that you said you are worried about an Islamic regime coming in.

Please answer these three questions.


"Please answer these three questions."

Please quit deleting my post regarding your bigoted, homophobic commentors, and then maybe I'll take the time. As it is, I've wasted enough time talking on a blog that's apparently about one notch up from the ideological cesspool that is LGF.



I have spoken to you with civility, but you retreat when posed with simple questions.

Your rather clumsy tactic/excuse of changing the subject, when presented with very simple questions about your positions and worldview, speaks volumes of how you simply cannot debate the issues at all.

For all your talk of 'civil discourse' you can't sustain it for more than a post.

I'll give you one last chance to answer those three questions. If you don't, your fleeing in the face of polite questions will be saved here for all future readers to see, as a lesson on how to swiftly defeat people like you in a debate.

1) You said the ports should be more secure. Do you support the Patriot Act?

2) Would you support the Iraq War if WMDs had been found?

3) Do you want US troops to leave Iraq? Note that you said you are worried about an Islamic regime coming in.

Last chance...



It appears that you are unable to answer simple questions about your views.

Readers, note how 'Anon' whined about wanting discourse to be civil, but when asked simple questons about his principles, he attempted to change the subject to avoid answering, knowing that his answers would expose his illogical, contradictory set of views.

Always debate such people on principle, in terms of 'what would you do if...' questions. They will retreat with great haste, as in this case.


For the record, GK, I originally posted regarding the bigoted language of your commentors, and instead of addressing that, you changed the subject to your "Iraq war patriotism test."

Thanks for playing, though.



No, you wanted civil dialog, and I gave you one. You only brought up your dodge/excuse later, as the questions got inconvenient.

It is also hypocritical (but not surprising) for you to complain about name-calling from pro-America posters, but condone threats of violence from anti-American commenters.

Just answer those three questions, and I will remove the flag that cites this dialog as an instructional example. Otherwise, you are continuing to prove it to be true. Remember, hundreds of people will read this.


Oh noes. Your bigoted readership might think less of me! Gosh!

Why don't you quit trying to change the subject and answer my original point, made (and continually deleted) before your Iraq red herring was trotted out? I did not post here to debate the Iraq war with you, but rather to comment on the bigoted language of your commentors.

Please explain why even an ostensibly educated and reasonable blog host like yourself will repeatedly allow base slurs such as "raghead" and "faggot" in his moderated comments? Do they reflect your personal feelings and language, or do you only delete/censor posts by your ideological opponents?

You claim to desire honest rhetorical engagment, and yet you yourself keep attempting to change the subject while deleting my posts commenting on the nasty ad hominems employed by above posters such as "Liberal_Smasher."



You are being dishonest. You did engage in the Iraq discussion, and are dodging as questions got difficult.

Your phony claim to be bothered by insults, posted over a month ago, does not hold water, particularly when you are excusing threats of violence by anti-US commenters. I have nothing against your sexual orientation, but don't claim to be tolerant when your selectivity of outrage is palpable.

Condemn that first, to prove you are not hypocritical, and then answer the questions, to prove your views have logic and intelligence behind them.

Don't resort to the typical anti-American tactic of calling someone a bigot when you have been checkmated in a debate. I have been 100% civil with you. BTW, I am a person of color, so don't pull that card with me.

Three simple questions :

1) You said the ports should be more secure. Do you support the Patriot Act?

2) Would you support the Iraq War if WMDs had been found?

3) Do you want US troops to leave Iraq? Note that you said you are worried about an Islamic regime coming in.


Anon: Perhaps this will ease your mind--"Liberal Smasher" was clearly an offensive caricature of a right wing bigot created by a liberal such as yourself. He never existed, at least, not as advertised. He was created to discredit this site. The comments by "Liberal Smasher" are ridiculous, and are representative of nobody.



You are right. That was probably a plant by some anti-American in order to hide behind. Maybe it was posted by 'Anon' himself.

Readers, look at the length 'Anon' goes to to shield his preconceived notions from simple questions that would shatter them. The inability of anti-Americans to answer simple questions can be used to defeat them very quickly and easily, as shown above.

Pieter Friedrich

"They can either answer 'no', to which you can say 'So why do you obsess over WMDs if you still would have opposed it anyway? That appears rather phony on your part.'"

I "obsess" about WMD not being found because President Bush and his cronies obsessed about WMD being in Iraq as the primary reason for war. No, I wouldn't have supported the war if there were WMD because I don't believe the U.S. has the right to screw with the sovereignty of other nations. But I'm more than willing to point out the lack of WMD because it's proof positive that Bush's main reason for the war was based on faulty premises. It's also proof positive that Bush's most convincing argument for war, *which was STILL tenuous*, was completely unsubstantiated.

Your logic is not only ridiculous, but evidences your obvious intent not to actually face up to facts (Saddam wasn't a threat) but merely to mud-sling at people with a different opinion of the war.



Yawn... every parroted piece of nonsense you put forth has been debunked by earlier comments, but just for fun, I'll do it again.

Please answer the following questions, if you have the courage :

1) Saddam used chemical weapons against Iran and the Kurds. If he does not have them now, where did they go? Why did he still pretend to have them right until the invasion?

2) You say the US does not have the right to attack sovereign nations. Do you also oppose the War in Afghanistan? How about Clinton's attacks on Bosnia and Somalia?

3) Why did the US Senate vote to authorize war by a 77-23 vote? Why did Kerry, Edwards, Clinton, Kennedy, etc. vote in favor of it? Surely you know that it is the Senate that authorizes Bush to go to war.

4) Why did Bill Clinton, Tony Blair, and Vladimir Putin also say Saddam have WMDs?

Answer these questions, if your 'logic' is so sound. I predict that you, like most anti-Americans, will not have the courage to answer them.

At the very least, answer question 2).

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)