Well, when you have members of a party calling the sitting President who has rid the world of an oppressive tyrant, a threat to the security of the United States and freed millions of poeple, Hitler, you have to question their ability to dress themselves in the morning and not allow drool to get on their clothing.

Here's Mark in a nut-shell. Claims conservatism is morally superior to liberalism. Writes a lengthy post stating that hatred is inherent to liberals and that conservatives are better than that. He also went on to say no more vulgar or attacking posts would be tolerated on this site.

When the reality hits that conservatives spew just as much or more hatred on this sites than liberals, he looks the other way. Keefer consistently doles out unprovoked attacks on liberal posters, but Mark does nothing. Another guy made comments about a liberal poster's wife. When asks why he didn't delete that, he tried to rationalize it as part of a "hit and hit back" exchange. When this was shown to be untrue he didn't respond.

All these posts by Mark are just him trying to paint the right as morally superior than the left. I'm not even going to address the substance of this post because it's all BS. Mark talks a good game, but doesn't walk the walk.

Fact of the matter is conservative are responsible for just as much bile in cyberspace than liberals. It's part of the human condition for people to act like that. It's not inherent to either ideology. If Mark could get past his blind hatred of the left, he might be able to see the light.

Mark talks a good game, but doesn't walk the walk.

Fact of the matter is conservative are responsible for just as much bile in cyberspace than liberals. It's part of the human condition for people to act like that. It's not inherent to either ideology. If Mark could get past his blind hatred of the left, he might be able to see the light.

Bingo. While Mark's hypocrisy gets revealed on a fairly regular basis, posts like these just show him wallowing in it. Which, of course, makes it easier to dispense with his foolish comments, but at the same time, it's rather sad. Not all of his hypocrisies and untruths are on display here, but we've got sort of a greatest hits:

*Implication that the right wing has a monopoly on god (laughable on its face)

*Claim that "the left" is fueled purely by hate and, indeed, is the only bastion of hatred (laughable on its face)

*Claim that "the left" has been wrong since the 18th century, if not longer (offering zero proof of this, of course, and completely ignoring the body count and massive transgressions of the right wing and/or his religion)

*Ascribing the acts of a few to the mindset of a much larger population group he must see as monolithic in order to make his half-baked theory work

*Asserting something rather than proving it, then considering it proven

I'm sure as the comments wear on, we'll get more of Armchair Historian Noonan, plus Faux-Humble Catholic Noonan, and probably I Know You Are But What Am I Noonan in addition to the regular dose of Hypocrite Noonan. The post is a real laugher, but he's only just begun....

Yep the hate filled left, they gonna win it all, just as soon as they convionce the other 95% of the country to hate with them. Not gonna happen.

Kooks don't attract anything but flies.

Ann Coulter:
Liberal soccer moms are precisely as likely to receive anthrax in the mail as to develop a capacity for linear thinking.

My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building.

We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's war. And this is war.

Sean Hannity
Is it that you hate this president or that you hate America?

Is it that you hate this president or that you hate America?

I can just feel the love coming from the right.

Tom, as you know, I took a 6 week hiatus from B4B from the middle of March to a little over a week ago. I left because I always felt like I needed a shower after reading nasty, sarcastic, condescending comments from people like slipgrid and republicant or the mindless drivel from people like renne P. and shortz. (all of whom appear to be gone) You should take your feigned outrage to some of the sites I visited during that time if you think this site lacks civility. Coming back here was like a breath of fresh air. The comments like the ones Mark linked to above from his Sept. '05 post are typical of many leftist sites, and virtually nonexistent on mainstream conservative sites. I can imagine feeling that way about someone who just raped my wife or daughter. I can't imagine feeling that way about someone with whom my only disagreement is social, economic or political philosophy.

One thing I did discover in my cyber travels is that Mark, and to a lesser extent, Matt, tend to write about more controversial subjects and present their ideas in as provocative a way as possible. If they just simply repeated news items without any personal invective, it wouldn't generate much discussion.

RS

I'm not outraged. I did follow the links to what liberals wrote about Mark. And I don't excuse that kind of behavior. I've been on other blogs and called out liberal posters for crossing lines in going after conservatives.

I've been on other conservative sites and been attacked pretty regularly for just stating my opinion... perhaps not as extreme as Mark's case, but my opinions were also not as extreme either.

My point here is that Mark only seems to play up morality when it's politically expedient. It's foolish to paint hatred as a liberal trait. I've seen plenty hatred from the right in my day. I've seen 8 years of the right vigorously attack Clinton. And I think these days you probably will find more liberals lashing out because they have more to lash out about. During Clinton's reign, it was conservatives lashing out much more. When you're in power, you tend to be a lot less reactionary.

If you want proof that there's hatred on the right, just look at Coulter's book sales. Look at O'Reilly's numebrs. I can't think of a liberal equivalent to Coulter. She spews some of the most vitriolic rhetoric as anyone I've ever seen. And a lot of conservative LOVE her.

As I've said before, I am friends with many conservatives. In the course of blogging, I've found many conservatives I respect (you being one of them) and many liberal posters who I found to be idiots. I judge people on their actions and I think that's how everyone should be judged.

Mark is trying to take liberal bloggers who spew venom and say all liberals are hate filled... that's just wrong AND un-christian.

Hate is common among all men. Trying to say the right or the left is inherently hateful is ignorant, short-sighted and political gamesmanship.

Tom

I agree, there seems to be a surplus of spiteful comments on both sides. I hope you are wrong, though, about a lot of Conservatives loving the trash that Ann Coulter spouts. How could they possibly square that with teachings of Christ?

Wow, what generalizations. You make it sound like liberals are super organized and dont disagree with each other. Sorry these are traits carried by conservatives. I love how conservatives are trying to act like they do not have any hate to spew when they are the ones who have learned to take hate to new heights. Its quite hypocritical.

Tom,

But I didn't pain hatred as a liberal trait - you're making the same error made by those who wanted me strung up: you're not reading what I wrote, but working on the presumption that I said something which neatly fits your pre-conceived notions about me.

The hatred is from the left - if it makes you feel better, fascism and and Nazism were also built on hatred (and this explains the eerie similarity between, say, the art of Nazism and Communism). Liberalism is merely built on what I perceive as folly - an inability to recognise that men sometimes are just bad for no reason whatsoever. But liberalism isn't evil - leftism is.

I battle against the left because it needs to be battled against...you can rely on it, that by so doing I am working to protect you as much as me...you don't march in lockstep behind the left, which means that if the left every truly gained power, your execution would just follow mine after a short delay.

The biggest problem you have is that you view the left as your ally - because they speak some of the language of justice, you think they actually mean it...it is sort of like believing that a People's Republic was a republic that cared a whit about the people. What the left cares about is death and destruction - they wish to kill and destroy so they can build anew from scratch. All of what we have has to go, because only then can the leftist start to form men as the leftist thinks they are supposed to be.

They are opposed to everything I hold dear, and I will battle them to my last breath - it is my duty to do so. What I've done here is point out the hatred - it is now your choice of what to do with the information. You can ignore it and just say I'm being equally hateful, or you can recognise that all I'm doing is pointing it out, and that once you see it for what it is, you must reject it if you are to be a decent person...and by reject it, I mean reject all of it...you can't say "well, I don't like that that lefty said, but I'm still with him in opposition to the liberation of Iraq"...there must be a complete break.

Let me preface this by saying that I voted for Reagan in 1984 and served in his, and Pres. G. H. W. Bush's, United States Marine Corps from 1986 to 1990.

That being said, I find it amusing that the party that swept to power under the Gingrinch Revolution on the backs of 'Angry White Men' in 1994 is now shocked, shocked, that the same stratergerey is being implemented as a viable tactic by their opponents on the Progressive end of the spectrum.

Boo hoo.

Cry me a river, why dontcha?

This just proves what I've known all along, you're just a bunch of chicken-hawk, girlie men that are so dense that you can't see when you're being hoisted by your own petards.

Whatever.

It is fun to watch you guys flailing around in your own self-created mess that you've painted yourselves into a corner with.

That's right, we're no longer laughing with you, we're laughing AT you.

It's your bed, you made it, now sleep in it.

You want angry?

I'll give you angry.

It'll be you a year from now when Nancy Pelosi is sworn in as President leading to Rush violoting his probation by relapsing on his Oxycontin and taken off the air while wearing his Golden EIB Handcuffs.

If you can't stand the heat.... get out of the kitchen.

Regards,

nwa

"But I didn't pain hatred as a liberal trait"

Not in this thread, but you have in the past.

"But liberalism isn't evil - leftism is."

AHHH. It's all clear now!

Spook,

It is great to have you back...Tom is all right, as is Maf - Sees is, as usual, a bit out there.

I hope you stick around; our liberal and left posters think I'm being unfair by not hitting Keefer's posts more often, but they also forget that I have a day job and, also, that I don't really see Keefer as all that bad...harsh, but not that bad. I think that keefer stands out a bit because the liberal and lefty posters who try to do a "keefer" forget that we really do ban obscenity...

That said, we have had a lot of fun - and we're about to have a lot more; the mid-terms are coming, our lefties are convinced that absolute victory is already theirs, and its gonna be fun watching them get all crestfallen in November.

"You can ignore it and just say I'm being equally hateful, or you can recognize that all I'm doing is pointing it out, and that once you see it for what it is, you must reject it if you are to be a decent person...and by reject it, I mean reject all of it...you can't say "well, I don't like that that lefty said, but I'm still with him in opposition to the liberation of Iraq"...there must be a complete break."

This is about the most retarded thing I've read on here.

I've already said I don't agree with what those people said... yes, I reject those comments. But because I don't think people should attack others like that, I MUST ALSO change my view on Iraq?

How bout I go grab some hate-filled posts from Malkin's site directed to those college kids who protested the war. If I post those, does that mean you must reject those comments AND turn against the Iraqi invasion?

RS, you got to admit this incredibly lame logic. Please, restore my faith in humanity.

"when Nancy Pelosi is sworn in as President"

DigiComp:

I hope she gets her eyelash fixed befor then.

Wait a second...

"But I didn't pain hatred as a liberal trait -"

"Leftism has as its root pure, unadulterated hatred."

Mark, are you for real?

Hate is common among all men. Trying to say the right or the left is inherently hateful is ignorant, short-sighted and political gamesmanship

It may come as a surprise, but I don't disagree with you. I don't listen to Hannity or Coulter, and I haven't watched O'Reilly or Hannity & Colmes for over a year, so, to a great extent, I've insulated myself from what you're saying.

I think a lot of the Clinton bashing from the Right was a result of his behavior and his penchant for lying, not from the way he discharged his duties as President. He actually did a lot of things I, and I think many conservatives, agreed with like signing welfare reform, NAFTA and the capital gains tax cut (all Republican initiatives). But I always had the feeling that his first thought when he got up in the morning was "how can I fool them today". I don't know anyone who hated him -- distrusted maybe, but not hated. Even with the Lewinski affair -- if they'd shacked up at the Marriott instead of soiling the Oval Office, I think most people would have given him a pass. And if he hadn't suborned perjury by trying to get Lewinski to file a false affidavit, I'm not sure he would have even been impeached. An awful lot of the grief he got from the Right, he brought on himself. I contemplated voting for him in 1992 until I met some friends from Arkansas at a convention that summer. I asked them what they thought of Clinton, and their response was "they don't call him 'SLICK WILLEY' for nothing."

"It may come as a surprise, but I don't disagree with you."

No, it doesn't surprise me. I can tell you're a rational person.

Keefer is a gift. His predictably hate filled posts are caused by either:
-Chemical exposure from his day job as a furniture refinisher

-Carbon monoxide poising from his part time-job collecting tolls

-Delusions caused by ingesting Viagra and Budweiser

His posts are hilarious (unintentional of course) and you know that he will always end with some comment regarding the usage of “there” and “go hang yourself”.

I don't know where to begin after such a diatribe.

Your joking right? The party of O'rielly, Hannity, Coulter,Micheal Savage,Rush,David Gould,on and on and on.

On the left, we have the "hateful" Al Franken,Bernie Ward,Randy Rhodes, Ray Taliafero, as I stand back, way back, way, way, back, I try to see the "hate" spewing from them. Pure unadulterated HATE. Wow. Are you mad?

On one hand you equate the left to hippy peacenik, hand over everything, Kum bye ya rabble.

Then out of the blue we're the most hateful, evil, death and destruction party on earth.

You must be mad.

Liberation of Iraq? The only hate I have for you is to ask you to go there. Live there. Spread your republican love. I'm sure they will just feel the love oozing from your very concerned for their welfare soul. You bloody hypocrite.

I can just feel the republican love oozing when the elderly in this country are so confused by the medicare plan that they actually don't know what to do.

My only hate for you is that your loved ones do not feel the confusion and fear when they are stonewalled by the system.

I can just feel the republican love ooze when every respected country with concern for the environment is doing something, anything, even meeting together to understand and combat global warming issues.

The only hate I have for you is that your children and children's children have something to eat (like fish) and lovely country sides to wonder at and to contimplate.

You see I am on the left, a liberal. You and only you have turned that into a dirty word. You have done that by spewing forth the "twisted logic" in your post.

I do not spread hate. I do not hate you or your kind.

I feel sorry for you.

Maroons.

that I don't really see Keefer as all that bad...harsh, but not that bad.

Well, keefer is a fellow retired spook, so I have to cut him some slack. I have often shared his frustration with much of the Leftist-speak. I guess I'm just a more roll-with-the-punches type of guy.

It's good to be back, Mark. I told you I probably couldn't stay away for long. A lot of what drove me away seems to have been weeded out. Debating the validity of our basic system of government with people like Purple Jay did get a little old. It is going to be interesting to see how the discussion changes in 181 days, when the negative message of the hapless donkeys fails yet again to resonate with the majority of voters. A local radio talk show host was reading a list of Democrat agenda items on which they are pinning their hopes of regaining control of Congress. My first thought was that, in the unlikely event of that unfortunate occurrence, their first order of business better be to repeal the Second Amendment.

Mark, Spook - please show some integrity and address the issue of the Coutlers & Malkins on the conservative side and the "hate" that they spew.

Only fair, right?

Mark, I just wanted to comment on the following part of your post.
"It is to be hoped that more liberals will realise that they have hitched themselves to a hate-filled leftism that cannot be worked with - that it is high time to either purge the Democratic Party, or split off and form a new liberal Party."

I think that'd be a wonderful idea, given your current "liberl party" isn't left in any sence of the word, it'd be nice if america actually had a real left party. Only problem is most americans are taught lies about what the left is, they are taught the ussr was communist, they are taught china was communist, so an america with a truely left party will never work since to really be left it would have to be willing to fight capitalism in every way (ie be socialist or communist).

Only fair, right?

maf, Ann Coulter is a nasty, vindictive woman. I am not a fan, and wouldn't walk 10 steps out of my way to see or hear her. In all fairness, though, I suspect that much of what she says is designed to get exactly the reaction that you have to her. I've probably visited Michelle Malkin's site a grand total of 3 or 4 times, always through a blind link from somewhere else. My reaction, based on very limited exposure, is that she's pretty good at pointing out the hypocrisy on the Left, but I've never sensed the vile hatred from her that I do from so many on the extreme Left. Again, I'm not a big fan, but if her rhetoric gives you heartburn, you probably need to get a thicker skin or quit reading her blog.

"... if her rhetoric gives you heartburn, you probably need to get a thicker skin or quit reading her blog." - Spook

"I left because I always felt like I needed a shower after reading nasty, sarcastic, condescending comments from people like slipgrid and republicant or the mindless drivel from people like renne P. and shortz." - Spook

I guess you took your advice when it came to this site.

Apparently you haven't read the letters from Malkin's readers sent to that anti-war group who was protesting at some college a few weeks back (I could Google it probably if you like).

The point it - there are sarcastic, snide, obnoxious, and "hate-filled" comments/statements coming from BOTH SIDES of the aisle, my friend. I'm not crying foul on Coutler or Malkin. I really don't care about either one of them. I swear - I'm not offended by any of their comments in the least. Nor do I care about the "liberal" Richard Cohen crying foul about a couple of nasty emails he got.

But it DOES bother me when Mark goes out of his way to paint this as a one-sided issue (if it even is an issue at all) when it's not. You know it, I know it. How come Mark won't admit it?

To get back to the topic at hand,
The reason, I think, that Mr. Cohen got so many e-mails is that he started a column by saying "I'm funny," and then wrote a boring few hundred words saying (as a self-proclaimed expert in humor, of course) that Mr. Colbert WASN'T funny (in spite of the fact that you can hear the laughs Colbert got all the way through the video). Stand-up comedy is not a subjective thing. No opinions needed. No partisanship involved. You get laughs, or you don't. Mr. Cohen heard the laughs Colbert got and decided to ignore the evidence for whatever reason. Cohen is the "Family Circus" of columnists, the Perry Como, an Art Buchwald for a new generation.

He's probably wondering why they didn't ask HIM to give the WHCD keynote.

Which is exactly the problem.

Keefer here! Thanks for the compliments and attention, but I really don't deserve it. Allow me to now address the topic, so as not to break the rules.

Mr. Cohen stated his opinion about Colbert's performance at the Correspondent's Dinner. His opinion was that it was an inappropriate forum to attack the President, who was powerless to do anything other than sit there and take it. So, since Cohen was "supportive" of the President, he was villified from the same ilk who agreed with him on the Gore issue.

This is how you kooks operate; you villify good people. You've been doing it since Election 2000, and your leaders in Congress do it every day. Compare the demeanor of the two parties and you'll see who's got the hatred. Also, observe the unprecedented behaviour of the last two DemocRAT presidents, Carter and Clinton. The criticism they've thrown, at home and abroad, at a still sitting president, is totally reprehensible. It's never been done before.

Your side is loaded with hate.

Sorry, Retired Spook, but you and I part ways, albeit slightly, when it comes to Ann Coulter. Sure, she's as extremist as right-winger comes, but there are many times when I feel empathy for her. It comes from all the talk radio, C-Span, and news I listen to. Some of the crap the left spews tends to run up my B/P. Also, her books are great, bettrer than any of that tripe that eminates from the left.

Now Tom, I'm sorry if my name-calling offends, you, but gee, I just happen to think you're an idiot. Not a moron like Barney or raper13, but an idiot. And it's real nice that you have conservative friends. I have no liberal friends, nor do I desire any. To me, a liberal is a dishonest apologist who hides behind a false curtain of compassion. All you libs ever do is bitch and moan about everything that's right with this country. Doom and gloom is your mantra, and I'm sick of it.

If you don't like the topics here or how they're presented, then go elsewhere. You do a poor job refuting the topics, and your writing sucks.

Now Barney, you think you bother me with the "toll collector" comments? You don't, son, in fact, I've met many toll collectors who were very nice people. Also, there's a lot of Hispanic toll collectors in Northern Virginia. They're just here doing jobs that you and raper13 are too stupid to do.

You're harmless, Barney; you wouldn't last 2 minutes alone with me. But don't worry, son, I ain't threatening you. It's against my principles to strike a minor, especially a window-licker who is so stupid, he got kicked off the short bus...

*Chuckles*

I knew this thread would be fun the second I read the original post. :)

Now I'm not as "heated" as any of the posters here, but I've been here quite a while and I've had my moments/topics so I'm not without some "hate."

To me, the biggest problem with the internet and postings such as these is you don't hear the person making the comments. A lot of things are conveyed through the way we talk and how we say things that don't get through with text alone. Unless you try really hard, the dry words can be misinterpeted easily. Which is one reason why I put up my smilies and chuckles. :)

Probably a third of all the "hate" we get on these threads come from these misinterpetations. Another third I'd chock up to passions over topics. (Such as mine on Gun Control) The final third is probably just the simple fact that folks want to be right, don't want their opponents to get anything, and hence the natural base human instincts of "Nu UH!" :D

I honestly think that even the craziest of our posters either left or right, would be able to have a sane and normal discussion in person, but online where no holds are bared, the gloves come off. That's the double edged sword of annonymity the internet gives us. Love it or hate it, it's all a part of posting online.

As for "real life" vitriol I agree that no side has a monopoly on it. Personally I like Anne Coulter, she's funny; but I've never seen her in person nor do I own any of her books. I listen to Rush and Hannity on a regular basis and enjoy both of their shows. I'm also a regular listener of LA radio guys John and Ken and John Zigler. All fun shows to listen to, but that's all they're really there for. To listen and voice opinions. That's what make America great no?

The only "hate mongers" as it were that I dislike and can't really stand are the ones in positions of power. You can be a pundit and say whatever you like, I mean it's not like Rush or Coulter votes on anything that affects anyone any more than we do. But when you get folks like Sharpton, Kennedy, and Pelosi running their mouths off saying some of the most wacky things I have to wonder if that's just these guys or a part of their movement.

Mark, is finally spot on with this post. The Right believes that man is corrupt(original sin) and that he can never be enlightened(perfected) so the "thing" to do is to keep him happy and under control as much as possible and that means "law and order". The Left believes that Christ(Mohammad,Zoroaster,AmenhotepIV) was(were) correct and using gnosis, man can become enlightened, one at a time or en masse. Therefore, in the end, anarchy will reign as the individual takes complete responsibility for himself and his fellow man. Peace

I have to agree with you Gozer. I'd bet ole Keefer and I could be next door neighbors in real life and never have a cross word. Unless I embarassed him on the golf course. It is too easy to pound out insults and non sequitors on a keyboard in such a impersonal forum.

I almost lost a job once firing off a very angry email to my boss. About a nano second after I hit the send button I knew I had made a mistake. I seriously thought about running to his office and pulling the plug out of his computer! While wonderful inventions, computers are not without their downside.

One other thing you may want to consider Gozer is how helpless we all feel sometimes. Getting on the net and viciously pounding out good common sense and the answer to all the worlds problems can be theraputic. Just imagine what keefer would be capable of if he wasn't on B4B all the time!

Retired Spook,

Could you tell me what a spook is? I assume it's a military connotation but I have not heard it before.

Thanks

Keefer,

Personally I'm not offended by name calling. I think it's stupid and pointless and detracts from any real discussion, but I'm not offended. I've been know to name-call myself.

Personally, where i draw the line is talking about someone's family.

I only bring up your name calling because Mark wrote an entire thread about name calling and personal attacks, trying to paint these tactics as inherently liberal.

I believe he also said such behavoir would not be tolerated on this site. At the time, I pointed out that most of the personal attacks on this site came from those on the right.

And when i and others challanged Mark to follow up on his thread on cleaning up the personal attacks by making examples by those on the right who were personally attacking people on the left, he refused.

And this gets to the root of Noonan. His actions are rooted in politics, not principle. If he were a man of principle, he would condemn any personal attacks on this site, no matter the political orientation of those making the attack. But when it's Keefer or dbog he rationalizes. When it's a liberal who makes an attack, he uses it as an excuse to pontificate about the evils of liberalism.

It's why I can't take him seriously.

The reason Cohen is a hack is that he saw genius and courage, and didn't recognize them. Colbert will be remembered long after Cohen is forgotten.

Cohen tried to tell millions of Americans who had set records downloading the video despite a media blackout, that what they were doing while rolling around on the floor with tears streaming down their faces, gasping for breath and holding their sides, could not possibly be "LAUGHING," dammit.

A few thousand people disagreed, and told him so. Retreating into a strawman fantasy, Mr. Cohen takes no responsibility for publishing a moronic thought, nor does he provide any evidence to support his characterization of his critics. The blame must be assigned to those who held him to account.

Down is the new up.

Repack, laughter and comedy is such a subjective thing. What you called brilliant and hilarious wasn't anything of the sort to many others. Heck, I like his show but I felt his bit at the dinner was boring and not too funny. Sure it had it's moments but I wasn't "on the floor with tears" streaming down my face.

Were there folks who loved it? I bet. But there are probably just as many who were just scratching their heads.

In the end, Ash and I agree again that the internet allows us to do things that might not be taken as we intended. Or, do things that are liberating that'd we'd never even consider doing in person. Though I bet keefer does plenty even though he is on B4B a lot. :)

Ash,

I'm not exactly sure when or where the term "spook" originated to describe members of the intelligence community. I spent 24 years in the Navy and Navy Reserve Security Group, the signals intelligence branch of the Navy. The term "spook" was around when I enlisted in 1965 and probably a long time before that. Keefer's a retired Air Force Spook -- maybe he knows.

And, Keefer, if the most significant thing you and I ever disagree on is Ann Coulter, well, I can live with that. As I said before, I don't go out of my way to see or hear her, but even when I hear her say something I agree with, she manages to say it in a way that makes me uncomfortable.

Not to add a different dimension to this topic, but I think Mark should substitute for the word hate and hatred, anger and rage.

I think there are people who hate on both sides. People who dispose others for their views. But what I see significant from the Democrat/left/liberal viewpoint is anger. And I don't know if it's left over anger from 1994, or if it is still rage from 2000. I think the theory that they could loose "the game" when they knew what the rules were still fundamentally makes them Rage against Bush and other Republicans. It didn't help that in 2002 and 2004 they gained seats in Congress and the fear that they were soon to be a permanent minority party.

I am firm in my belief that their rage and anger will continue until at minimum Bush is no longer President or a Democrat becomes President.

Unfortunately, I normally would tell them if they don't like it to go to Canada, but unfortunately, there is a Conservative leader in Mexico, a Conservative leader in the United States, and best of all, a Conservative leader in Canada...

I also believe that Conservatives/Republicans are frustrated in how so many people in this country have an attention span of a fly and can't stomach anything if it doesn't end before the end of the American Idol Season.

Tom,

There a difference between liberalism and leftism (or, if you prefer, communism).

Liberals do actually believe in liberty, leftists don't. Liberals do believe in free markets, leftists don't. That sort of thing.

Liberals a based on a love which, while incorrect, is love...leftism is based upon hatred; it is built upon envy, greed, spitefullness...it is The Terror, writ ever larger generation after generation - it was, after all, leftism which decided that the best means of ensuring its control was the use of terror (ie, the random killing of people in order to scare the rest into compliance).

If you can't see the difference, then I'm really very sorry for you.

waw,

People can always slip into hatred and anger - I do, too; I'm a human being, and therefor entirely flawed. What I assert, and will never retreat from, is that political leftism is based upon hatred...it isn't a matter of a particular leftist getting hateful, to be a leftist means to advocate policies based upon hatred.

Leftism has a "baby out with the bathwater" hatred for Judeo-Christian civilization - it believes our civilization is a monstrous imposition upon mankind and that it must be utterly destroyed.

Peet,

The man was merely expressing his opinion, and the left pounced on him because he dared utter and opinion not in accord with the left...that is the problem. You can think Cohen the biggest idiot the world has ever seen, but you have to be a leftist to do what they did to him...

maf,

I don't see Malkin as having any hatred; perhaps it is because I have met her and found her to be charming. I'm not too impressed with her writing - personally, I think a lot of bloggers out there do a much better job in the actual nuts and bolts of writing than she does.

Coulter is an over-the-top polemicist and she can sometimes get downright mean...but there is a difference, in my view, between a conservative or liberal getting over the top and the basic assumption of the political left.

Coulter or Malkin or Rush will get angry at this or that thing which happens and will lash out - some times unfairly and crudely. So, too, will liberals...but when you get to the left; when you, say, get to a Michael Moore, or a Howard Dean - then you have got to leftwing hatred; a hate-filled worldview which informs their words and actions.

A leftist doesn't let fly with intemperate remarks - a leftist makes up whatever slanders are necessary to blacken an opponent's reputation and then repeats them endlessly in the hope that they will catch on. To the everlasting shame of some genuine liberals in this country, leftwing lies about the War on Terrorism and President Bush have been accepted as gospel...some of these lies surfaced within days of 9/11 but took a couple years of endless leftwing repetition before they caught on.

You only need look at what happened to Chambers, Muggeridge, Horowitz and others who converted from leftism - their former leftist allies turned on them with a vicious cruelty unmatched elsewhere in politics. No lie was too crude or too absurd - any bit of dirt that could be thought up was shamelessly tossed at them...leftwing friends of decades-long standing refused to have anything further to do with them and, indeed, joined in the vituperation.

What is really bad, maf, is that you who are liberal (and I count both you and Tom as liberals in essential politics) are hitching your star to these leftists...it isn't entirely your fault. This process started at the 1968 Democratic convention and has just gone on further since then...hardcore leftists dressing themselves up first as "liberals" and then as "progressives" when the word "liberal" had become too tainted due to leftwing extremism masking as liberalism.

Let me be clear: I think liberalism is wrong. I'm a conservative, after all...but I can work with liberals. I can, at times, even agree with them...but I can't work with or agree with leftists. It is just impossible.

Also, you are operating under a false assumption, namely that hatred is the wrong reaction by default. In this case, yes. But if my "worldview is filled with hatred," it might be because I hate that the Constitution is being ignored, people are using Jesus Christ as a political brownie point (while ignoring His message, natch), I hate political scheming and slandering, etc. These are justifiable things to hate. Hatred at ideas and people who justify oppression, slander others, etc. is not a bad thing.

Well maf stick out your hands and let Mr. Mark rap them with a ruler.

Or as my friend Gozer would say:

*chuckles*

I love that Gozer, I really do. I use it on other blogs I set straight. Hope you don't mind. I used it this time because I can't think of a single word to describe him (Mark) full of cow manure.

Heh

It's not like I have a TM on the old chuckle. Feel free to use it at will. I use it because there are just so many things to chuckle about, especially on blogs.

I love that Gozer, I really do. I use it on other blogs I set straight.

Translated, this means you've never used it. Oh wait, I forgot--you really set 'em straight over on Preschoolers for Democracy, right?

Wake up, Ashtray, and smell the fertilizer. You do not possess the mental capacity to set any blog straight, unless Barney's got a blog...

It's why I can't take him seriously.

Then why waste your time here, Tom? Mark's not looking for you to take him seriously. I used to do the same as you and the rest of the trolls; I used to hang out at lefty blogs, and get them all pissed off. Then I'd be banned, and I'd move on to another. It's a colossal waste of time.

Ash, a "spook" is someone, usually military, who works in the intel field. I first heard it from a coworker who was a "spook" in the Army.

BTW, Ash, "intel" is short for a term you're not familiar with--intelligence. Bwahahahaha!!!

I always think it is funny that liberals claim that peole hate them when someone says or does things to then they do not like. Hate is so final. I am sure its not that. We just don't like you or your ideas.

That is much different than hate. Most people who hate someone, wish they were dead and may be willing to help them along. I don't think that is the case here.

Thomas Lifson over at the American Thinker (a guy I admire a gread deal) had his usual thought-provoking take on this topic, including some excerpts from Cohen's column. His first couple paragraphs speak directly to our discussion here:

America’s Left and the political party it calls home, the Democrats, have been seized by anger ever since the disputes of the 2000 presidential election, with its razor-thin margin, judicial intervention called forth by Gore, and the ultimate victory for President Bush. Intoxicated by the endocrine-like jolts of energy, the Left has become addicted to anger.

The Left has been self-administering a daily dose of derision, bile, and venom in an effort to keep its energy levels high in the face of a continued Republican hold on the presidency and Congressional majorities. But these are dangerous drugs. Whatever satisfying kick they provide, the side effects are so serious as to threaten the survival of the organism itself.

Thomas Lifson over at the American Thinker (a guy I admire a gread deal) had his usual thought-provoking take on this topic, including some excerpts from Cohen's column. His first couple paragraphs speak directly to our discussion here:

America’s Left and the political party it calls home, the Democrats, have been seized by anger ever since the disputes of the 2000 presidential election, with its razor-thin margin, judicial intervention called forth by Gore, and the ultimate victory for President Bush. Intoxicated by the endocrine-like jolts of energy, the Left has become addicted to anger.

The Left has been self-administering a daily dose of derision, bile, and venom in an effort to keep its energy levels high in the face of a continued Republican hold on the presidency and Congressional majorities. But these are dangerous drugs. Whatever satisfying kick they provide, the side effects are so serious as to threaten the survival of the organism itself.

"Tom,

There a difference between liberalism and leftism (or, if you prefer, communism).

Liberals do actually believe in liberty, leftists don't. Liberals do believe in free markets, leftists don't. That sort of thing."

Kind of the rightists who believe in their one true religion and will attack other countries because that God told to?

Give me a break.

So Mark, you know for a fact that all those posters who attacked you don't believe in free markets? They must, eh, since they are so hateful.

I think you'll find the vast majority of American leftists/LIBERALS believe in a regulated free market. And if a regulated free market are "commmunist" then Pope John Paul was a communist.

"And he saw danger in the spread of "neoliberalism" in the Americas, describing it as a system "based on a purely economic conception of man" with "profit and law of the markets as its only parameters."

Sounds to me like he'd back social programs to help the less fortunate in our country. That we must not always bow down to the mighty economy when governing our peoples.

Gozer makes a great point about people acting differently on the Internet than in "real" life. He understands that in purley political, and mostly anonymous forum, people will say things they normally wouldn't. They let their anger get the best of them.

Remember when I called you "un-christian"? Well, this is why. Gozer empathizes with these people. He gave them the benefit of the doubt. You, on the other hand, compare them to Stalin and use their words as part of a campaign against the American left -- which is made up of LIBERALS.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. You claim not to be able to hate. But when you don't empathize, don't consider all the facts and take certain facts to fit your skewed and fringe views to paint your political componants as based in hatred and essentially evil, I don't know what else to call it than hate.

Any other "righties" on here stand by what Mark's saying?

"A leftist doesn't let fly with intemperate remarks - a leftist makes up whatever slanders are necessary to blacken an opponent's reputation and then repeats them endlessly in the hope that they will catch on."

Kind of how Righties repeatedly infer that Bill and Hilary Clinton are responsible for a string of murders to "cover-up" their many crimes?

Kind of how Righties repeatedly infer that Bill and Hilary Clinton are responsible for a string of murders to "cover-up" their many crimes?

Tom, who are you reading that is "repeatedly inferring" this? I haven't heard a reference to the so called "Clinton murders" for over a decade, and then it was from kooks that were farther to the right than KOS is to the left. You really don't do your position any justice when you resort to such an allegation. I thought you were a better person than this.

RS,

I'm simply trying to show that both sides.

Mark wrote this:

"a leftist makes up whatever slanders are necessary to blacken an opponent's reputation and then repeats them endlessly in the hope that they will catch on."

The Clinton murder allegation is an extreme one, but this type of behavoir happens from both righties and lefties.

Notice he doesn't cite any examples here. This is part of his MO.

He engages in this type of generalization all the time. And many times when I get him to talk about specifics, he refuses. Like the time he made the blanket statement that Moore, Moveon.org and others on the left were guilty of treason through their political dissent. I asked him to cite specific examples of what they said that he thought consituted treason, and he refused. And which time I called him a f'ing coward (a comment I stand by today). He wouldn't cite examples because he A) didn't know of any or B) knew they wouldn't hold up the treason charge.

He makes wild and irresponsible generalization about the left ALL THE TIME. And when it comes time to get down to the facts of the matter, he runs off.

He's an idiot, I'm sorry. I don't know why you bother defending him.

Should say...

I'm simply trying to show that CERTAIN MEMBERS OF both sides DO THIS.

"a leftist makes up whatever slanders are necessary to blacken an opponent's reputation and then repeats them endlessly in the hope that they will catch on."

I didn't know Karl Rove was a leftist. After all, he planted a bug in his own office and tried to make it look like his political opponent did it. He stole the letterhead of a political opponent and used it to make a flyer about a (nonexistant, of course) party with booze and girls galore. There is, of course, his disgusting attack on John McCain in South Carolina because McCain dared to be a far better candidate and person than George Bush. You know, slanders like that to blacken an opponents reputation. The list goes on and on (and on and on and on...).

Notice he doesn't cite any examples here. This is part of his MO. He engages in this type of generalization all the time.... He makes wild and irresponsible generalization about the left ALL THE TIME. And when it comes time to get down to the facts of the matter, he runs off.

Nail hit squarely on the head. It's sort of sad that he gets taken seriously when his hypocrisy is so blatant, but then again, the onanosphere is all about putting forth pabulum you know your like-minded chorus will agree with regardless of veracity, so I guess he's just your average blogger in that regard.

Tom,

Examples? You want examples? Ok, here goes:

1. WMD was the only or main reason for liberating Iraq.

2. President Bush said that Saddam had definitely tried to obtain uranium in Niger.

3. We liberated Afghanistan so we can build an oil pipeline.

4. We torture people at Guantanamo Bay.

5. We have secret torture prisons in Europe.

6. The Bush Administration claimed the threat from Saddam was imminent.

7. The Bush Administration said Saddam had a hand in 9/11.

8. Al-Qaeda wasn't in Iraq before we liberated it.

9. There were no terrorists in Iraq before we liberated it.

10. We've killed 100,000 Iraqi civilians.

11. President Bush cooked the intelligence books pre-liberation of Iraq.

12. President Bush was warned in advance about 9/11.

I know, you think these are true things - but they are, without exception, slanders endlessly repeated by leftists until the stuck in your mind. You believe them not because they are true, but because they have been repeated very often and you WANT them to be true because you wish to be anti-Bush.

Spook,

Well, we all know that the hatred of Bush is part revenge for what the liberals think we did on purpose to Clinton and, of course, revenge for our daring to prevent Gore from stealing the 2000 election.

Thanks…

Tom,

Examples? You want examples? Ok, here goes:

1. WMD was the only or main reason for liberating Iraq.

It was the main reason. Remember the blitz before the invasion saying how great a threat Hussein and his WMDs and nuclear program were. You take that “threat” away, and there’s no invasion.

2. President Bush said that Saddam had definitely tried to obtain uranium in Niger.

"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

That sounds pretty definite to me. There’s also the fact the the administration and CIA said that sentence should not have been used in the State of the Union.

3. We liberated Afghanistan so we can build an oil pipeline.

This I’ve heard some talk of, don’t really know the facts. Will write it off as not at all likely unless I see good proof suggesting otherwise. But seems a lot like claims that Clinton attacked the Taliban to distract the country from the Lewisnky affair.

4. We torture people at Guantanamo Bay.

There is solid evidence that we do.

5. We have secret torture prisons in Europe.

There is evidence that there are.

6. The Bush Administration claimed the threat from Saddam was imminent.

"Absolutely."
White House spokesman Ari Fleischer answering whether Iraq was an "imminent threat," 5/7/03

7. The Bush Administration said Saddam had a hand in 9/11.

They did claim there were ties between Iraq and 9/11 terrorists. They also invoked 9/11 so much in gaining support for the Iraqi invasion that most Americans came to believe that Iraq had something to do with 9/11.

8. Al-Qaeda wasn't in Iraq before we liberated it.

I think most people thing there were al qaeda members in Iraq before 9/11. But they were in the Kurdish territory and did not have a working relationship with the Iraqi government. There was also an Al-qaeda training camp in Alabama pre-9/11.

9. There were no terrorists in Iraq before we liberated it.

See above…

10. We've killed 100,000 Iraqi civilians.

One study purports that 100,000 Iraqi civilians have died as a result of the invasion. Most other surveys say roughly between 15,000 and 40,000. But just because one group claims 100,000 have been killed A) doesn’t mean they are wrong B) doesn’t make this a lie made up and repeated by hateful leftists…

11. President Bush cooked the intelligence books pre-liberation of Iraq.

Plenty of evidence of Bush playing up flawed intelligence while downplaying intel that would go against his case for war. Just so happens the intel that supported Bush’s push for war turned out to be wrong in many cases.

See the Downing St. memos and statements by former intelligence guys and administration guys.

12. President Bush was warned in advance about 9/11.

There are some conspiracy theorists out there who think that Bush administration knew about this attack and let it happen. These people, however, are a small minority. I think the more mainstream controversy here is the Bush administration’s assertion that no one imagined airplanes would be used to attack our country when it just so happened there was a government report issued on just that subject during the summer of 2001.

You characterizing these things as

“slanders endlessly repeated by leftists until the stuck in your mind.”

Is just waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay off.

Here is a good article of the secret prisons in Europe:

http://villagevoice.com/news/0619,hentoff,73121,6.html

Tom,

No, not at all - over the past three years, right here on this blog, I have disposed of all of those myths and the alleged evidence you bring forth to back them up. I'm not going to bother re-doing all of them again...but you wanted examples, I gave them to you...they are endlessly repeated slanders which you have bought in to; proof positive that the Big Lie theory works.

Do you know that I first heard of Bush knowing in advance about the 9/11 attacks on 9/13/01? Just two days later - no one on God's green earth could have even the slightest iota of info on this, but the story was already being pushed in far-left circles...after years of it being repeated endlessly, you have got to the point where you don't just dismiss such obvious nosense out of hand...I suspect that by next year, if you don't pull back and start looking at evidence instead of accusation, that you'll fall in to believing it...

Its pitiable to watch, this complete destruction of a person's connection to reality...and all of it just because you want to hate a moderately conservative President....

"Its pitiable to watch, this complete destruction of a person's connection to reality..."

Take a look into the mirror, Mark.

One big tip-off about you is you're quick to label people detatched from reality or full of hate or some other irrelevant tag. I only deal in facts here. I don't generalize, I don't try and grab some sort of moral superiority. I don't, as my grade school teacher may have said, put people down to bring myself up.

I put forth pretty solid arguments here, and all you can say is "i've bought into the big lie." Very weak.

Your hypocrisy and demonization is becoming clear to even those on the right. Notice how none have answered my question as to whether they agree with your posts in this thread?

Silence is golden. I'm glad to see others aren't as dim.

But, have fun fighting your war against leftist. Keep up the hate...

"Tom, who are you reading that is "repeatedly inferring" this? I haven't heard a reference to the so called "Clinton murders" for over a decade"

RS, every so often someone on a blog with reference these to this day.

But, yes 10 years ago, this had a pretty good amount of people buying into it.

Given that Tom spent the whole day on Blogs for Bush, if I were his boss, I would demand recompense.

Village voice .... good article....bwa bwa hah hah.

Next thing you're going to tell me that CBS isn't biased or CNN or any others.

Do you think Tom has a job? Judging from most liberals I know, they are either in school and haven't spent a second of life in the real world or they are so ass backwards that they can spend all day on a website of a sitting US President and just rant and rave all day.

Tom,

I don't make my arguments based upon whether or not anyone will find them agreeable...they are what I think, and you can like it or not as suits you.

That aside, I did offer you a concrete thing, and you just glided right past it...you don't want to confront things.

I'm telling ya, Tom, dig deeper...go further and further back into every negative assertion you believe about President Bush and/or the War on Terrorism...keep pushing it back and pushing it back and, eventually, you'll come up against "someone told me" as the verification for the story; your "proof" will vanish in a puff of un-named sources.

I do, I think, have an advantage over you here - I don't know if I am older than you, or just happened to find out how this sort of thing works....'round about 20 years ago I stumbled across the method whereby a lie can be made to seem plausible. The way it was done back then took a bit more time than it does today - someone who, say, wanted to say that the US is committing some sort of nefarious act would have a story about it planted in a decidedly anti-American news outlet in a foreign country; other more mainstream media outlets in that country would, by and by, pick it up; finally, some small American liberal or left outfit would write it up, and then it would make it into the MSM...the source of the MSM would be a well-respected, left/liberal publication; the source for the well-respected left/liberal publication would be an un-scotchable foreign MSM outfit...and hardly anyone would press back to find that the ultimate source was some kook-left foreign rag who just made it up out of whole cloth...

These days it is a lot faster than that - someone on DU or Daily Kos cooks up some new slander, and its all over the liberal/left blogosphere in minutes, and endless repetition will get it into the MSM, which does have a decided bias in favor of the liberal/left side of the argument. Instead of taking years to implant a false story with a patina of Authority, it takes just a few weeks, or months at the outside.

So, push back, Tom...if you dare.

"I'm telling ya, Tom, dig deeper...go further and further back into every negative assertion you believe about President Bush and/or the War on Terrorism.."

I will do that. I will lay out detailed cases showing why all 12 "slanders" you posted. And when I do, I challange you to explain to me why I'm wrong--saying I've "bought into the big lie" or ranting about some vast liberal MSM conspiracy ain't gonna cut.

Let's talk facts. I dare you.

Mark,

This is by far the most incoherent thing you've ever posted.

Mark,

This is by far the most incoherent thing you've ever posted.

Here's 1. Didn't spend too much time researching, but I think these are some pretty compelling pieces of evidence I found rather quickly. May get to 2 and 3 later today.

You with me, Mark? Or are you going to refuse to talk about actual facts again?

1. WMD was the only or main reason for liberating Iraq.

Now, whether WMDs were why Bush and company wanted to invade Iraq, or if they wanted to for other reasons, but used the WMD threat as the main rational in selling the war, I don’t know. But, make no mistake, in getting the world on board, getting other countries to join the invasion, WMDs was the main reason given.

1. WMD was the only or main reason for liberating Iraq.

Officials inside the government and outside advisors are now admitting that the Bush administration emphasized the danger of Saddam's weapons to gain legal justification for war and to play on the unsettling feelings Americans have about national security after 9-11 to gain support for the war. "We were not lying," said one official. "But it was just a matter of emphasis."

http://www.8bm.com/diatribes/volume02/006/106.htm

From the Prime Minister of Australia:

“It may have terminated one of the world's most brutal regimes, but that was not why John Howard went in.
He sent 2000 troops primarily to rid Iraq of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, to prevent the "ultimate nightmare" of such WMDs falling into the hands of terrorists.
"That, more than anything else, is the reason why we have taken the stance we have," he said when outlining his justification for war a week before President Bush gave the nod.”

From Wikipedia:

Reasons for the invasion and occupation as stated by the United States in 2002 before the Iraq invasion are controversial, having varied over time. The first calls for war on Iraq came from the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), and the American Enterprise Institute, with arguments based largely on the alleged threat that Saddam posed to American interests in the region, and the project of American influence into the next century. These reasons were not those originally given (before the 2003 Iraq invasion) by the Bush administration of the United States before or after the initiation of the war, which instead focused on Iraq's alleged arsenal of Weapons of Mass Destruction and the threat they posed to the U.S. in the post-9/11 world. [29][30]

This from Tony Blair before the war:

I detest his regime. But even now he can save it by complying with the UN’s demand. Even now, we are prepared to go the extra step to achieve disarmament peacefully.
and
it takes no time at all for Saddam to co-operate. It just takes a fundamental change of heart and mind. Today the path to peace is clear. Saddam can co-operate fully with the inspectors. He can voluntarily disarm. He can even leave the country peacefully. But he cannot avoid disarmament. One further point. The purpose in our acting is disarmament.

From Bush’s 2002 state of the union:

Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and to support terror. The Iraqi regime has plotted to develop anthrax and nerve gas and nuclear weapons for over a decade. This is a regime that has already used poison gas to murder thousands of its own citizens, leaving the bodies of mothers huddled over their dead children. This is a regime that agreed to international inspections then kicked out the inspectors. This is a regime that has something to hide from the civilized world.
States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world. By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger. They could provide these arms to terrorists, giving them the means to match their hatred. They could attack our allies or attempt to blackmail the United States. In any of these cases, the price of indifference would be catastrophic.
We will work closely with our coalition to deny terrorists and their state sponsors the materials, technology and expertise to make and deliver weapons of mass destruction.
We will develop and deploy effective missile defenses to protect America and our allies from sudden attack.
And all nations should know: America will do what is necessary to ensure our nation's security.
We'll be deliberate, yet time is not on our side. I will not wait on events while dangers gather. I will not stand by as peril draws closer and closer. The United States of America will not permit the world's most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world's most destructive weapons.

The above State of the Union excerpt was really the first inclinication that the US was considering and invasion. And what does Bush emphasize here? WMDs and the threat they pose to the world and the US. Other reasons were given, but WMDs stayed the main reason. But Powell’s UN address removed any doubt that the main selling point for the War in Iraq, the main justification for the invasion… the main reason for the invasion was because of Saddam’s WMDs.

Found another piece of compelling evidence. This is from an Egyptian editorial before the war. It's not a head of state, or a governemt body saying this, but it gives you a good idea of the mood and perception of what the conflict with Iraq was all about...

"There is no doubt that Iraq's refraining from cooperating with the UN in the matter of WMDs is the main reason for the crisis's escalation."

http://www.memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Area=sd&ID=SP47103

Also, this is from the President's press conference on March 6, 2003:

"Second, we have arrived at an important moment in confronting the threat posed to our nation and to peace by Saddam Hussein and his weapons of terror. In New York tomorrow, the United Nations Security Council will receive an update from the chief weapons inspector. The world needs him to answer a single question: Has the Iraqi regime fully and unconditionally disarmed, as required by Resolution 1441, or has it not?"

AND

"Inspection teams do not need more time, or more personnel. All they need is what they have never received -- the full cooperation of the Iraqi regime. Token gestures are not acceptable. The only acceptable outcome is the one already defined by a unanimous vote of the Security Council -- total disarmament."

AND

"The cause of peace will be advanced only when the terrorists lose a wealthy patron and protector, and when the dictator is fully and finally disarmed."

Here's the whole thing:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030306-8.html

Tom,

You've got a blogger, a State-controlled media outlet, and some out of context quotes...you can't just put part of a Bush speech on the subject...you have to put up the WHOLE thing...the whole thing is what is at issue here; you assert that WMD was the sole or main reason for our liberation of Iraq...a quote cannot prove that, you have to show that everything said prior to the liberation stated clearly that WMD was the sole or main reason for the liberation.

Keep trying....