Rice leaked defense info to AIPAC “lobbyist”/”spy”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/21/AR2006042101648_pf.html

F*** THE CHRISTIAN/ZIONIST SPIES AND TRAITORS

Oh well. Keep commenting, but I’d suggest you’d really try to have earnest conversations instead of what you’ve been contributing so far.

You have to fight fire with fire;

Fighting fire with fire seems like the “two wrongs make a right” strategy. I just don’t think that’ll help. Also, we don’t represent fence sitting or compromises. More than anything, we’re about creating a forum where there’s an open dialogue. We listen instead of name call. That doesn’t mean we agree all the time. Far from it, and you’ll see that in many of the comment threads. We actually have genuine debate, instead of the bomb-throwing that defines the rest of the blogosphere. And I wouldn’t give that up for anything.

Nonetheless, banning him over the above comments is even more amusing. What policy applies here: agree or be gone?

Agree or be gone? Perhaps you haven’t been reading the comments. The point of this site is to open up a forum for earnest debate, free from the venom that defines most other blogs. Trust me, we disagree constantly on this blog, but we do it with civility and respect. Well, most of the time at least…

Listen, DAV clearly crossed the line. If this were in a real world forum, his language and insults wouldn’t be tolerated. Why should the blogosphere be any different?

“See, this is what I love. Dav couldn’t contain himself and so his words speak directly to why our site is so desperately needed.

Have fun over at the Kos because you won’t be commenting here again!”

If the truth be told, I stumbled upon this site because Dav or Dave’s site was so ridiculous I thought I’d amuse myself by following his trail. Nonetheless, banning him over the above comments is even more amusing. What policy applies here: agree or be gone? Most would relish the opportunity to clock, again and again, an opponet that at worst makes their case. In any event, good luck with that.

Have fun over at the Kos because you won’t be commenting here again!

Your blog is for analogous to Vichy France.

What an odd sort of statement, considering whithering contempt for moderates and centrists was such a defining quality of fascism.

Eat Shit you fascist enabler!

This new brand of angry liberal is a much needed reaction to the far right.

Shame on you for not seeing this.

You got me Dav. Reacting to the demagogues on the far right with demagogues of our own is exactly what we need. Because spin is much better than reason.

In any event, we’ll be here when you get sick of it too.

Shame on you for not seeing this.

I checked out a republican supporting blog called misunderestimated just now which refers to those taking part in the immigration marches in L.A as, and I quote ‘cockroaches swarming in broad daylight’. Now that’s extreme.

Cian, I’m a Democrat. That’s why I talk about Kos. Of course there are hacks on the right too.

And by the way, just because Kos isn’t part of the far left doesn’t mean he doesn’t APPEAL to that base and rally them. And again, the far left represents a very small group, while independents and moderate Dems represent the majority.

By the way, good thoughts all around. I’m glad we’re continuing to have this debate.

One question, you think you could have this debate on many other sites than Donklephant?

Can’t find misunderestimated.* In any event, I’m not sure that’s an inaccurate characterization of a group of people who fall into one of three categories: they are either (a) violating the law by having illegally entered the country, (b) abusing their 1A rights by *advocating* violating the law or (c) engaging in the transparent and disingenuous sophistry of trying to turn a matter of law into an issue of race or ethnicity. Given the number of Americans who don’t take kindly to lawbreaking and/or race-baiting, I’m not sure it’s very extreme, either.

Tom - replace the word centrists with republicans and you have a fair, one sentence description of the curent administration.

I don’t want another six years of him bashing Democrats on Fox News next to a fawning Sean Hannity.�

Kreiz - it would be a nice thing to see NO ONE next to a fawning Sean Hannity.

This, from 1/27/05 Daily Kos, written by Kos himself:

“Republicans love [Lieberman] for the same reason that Democrats love McCain — because they both spend a great deal of the time beating up publicly on their own party. But for that reason, especially given our minority status (when the party needs to stick together for survival), Lieberman must go. I don’t want another six years of him bashing Democrats on Fox News next to a fawning Sean Hannity.”

Here’s the link: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/1/27/124818/547

Ok - so you’re saying that the “insurgency” is killing their fellow Iraqis because we’re there and that when we leave that may or may not continue?

Alan - I don’t really think Kos is a centrist - though it makes for an interesting dialogue. If I had to classify him, I’d probably call him a “progressive reactionary” - not unlike goy’s antirepublicans.

But unlike goy, I think there’s a place for the antis in political organizing. Social change doesn’t happen through being nice - usually, if you want to make something happen, you have to get a bunch of people real mad first. Of course, it helps a lot to have a vision and aspirational language, but anger strikes me as being more elementary. If you’re angry and you can get enough centrists to go along with you, you don’t need much vision - at least, until you’re in power.

The most effective politicians and parties, of course, are able to tap into both anger and aspiration effectively. Kos doesn’t do aspiration well. But it seems possible to me that someone could rise to balance him, without interrupting his powerful anger-energy.

Moderate: Gentle in tone, open to compromises (particularly “third way� compromises), tempered.

Centrist: Possessing views that represent “the middle majority�.

I might suggest two additions:

Balanced: holding with conviction individual positions that are held by both left and right in current politics, in more or less equal number, thus attaining a balance. Might be “liberal” on abortion, “conservative” on gun control, “liberal” on environment, “conservative” on defense, etc. No need to be moderate. I suspect this is closer to Lieberman and McCain and possibly Dean.

Independent: considering each political question without reference to what anyone else thinks, but merely consulting one’s own inner moral compass. This probably will end up looking a lot like balanced, but it is not necessarily the same thing. Balanced can be a deliberately calculated political tactic.

Huh? Nothing would be better for the Democrats than for America to remain in Iraq through the ‘06 elections. The worse things get in Iraq, the worse things are for the Republicans — but since I put country before party, I’d rather see a pullout start as soon as possible even if it means the Democrats can’t take back Congress.

These folks have convinced themselves that U.S. military presence in Iraq is a problem. Some folks are even silly enough to claim that the current violence is a reaction to the “occupation”, even though the trend recently has been fewer attacks against Coalition forces, fewer U.S. casualties and more conflict among the Iraqis themselves. There’s even a pointless debate regarding whether or not the conflict can be named a “civil war”, which is only valuable to the Antirepublicans as a club to beat the Right over the head with - a fantasy at best since only the diametrically opposed actually care what it’s called.

The current conflict comprises everything from ongoing Ba’athist loyalist troublemaking, to Sunni “insurgency”, to Shia revenge killings, to al Qaeda terrorism, to general terrorist ransom kidnappings and thuggery, to your standard, see-it-in-every-country, gang-type violence. Call that ‘civil war’, or not. It’s moronic to even argue the point. The REAL point that the Antirepublicans keep avoiding is that NO ONE (especially the U.S.) is forcing any of these people to do these things.

The pull-out-now crowd know full well that the Iraqi military is just finally getting on its feet and their worst nightmare is that at some point in the not-too-distant-future, the Iraqi military capability will begin to truly pacify the country - **just as Saddam’s military did** (DOH - they’re the same people - just better trained, better equipped and backed by the most powerful military force on the planet!!). This will put the lie to the notion that Iraq’s descent into a state of civil war is inevitable. Can’t have that!

What’s more, pulling all Coalition military out of Iraq now would have the happy (?) consequence of *forcing* Iraq into a state of chaos and drawing attention away from all of the recent revelations that have steadily corroborated most, if not all, of the justification for deposing Saddam that was presented back in ‘02/’03.

Talk of pulling out is not only childish and unserious, but criminally irresponsible as well. There are presently good options and bad options. The worst of these is to fall prey to the relentless mainstream media propaganda and support an immediate pullout, which will equate to (1) sh!tting on the memory of every person who gave their all to free that country and (2) leaving the Iraqis to a fate they can, then, justifiably blame on the U.S. And that’s precisely what the Antirepublicans want to see happen.

p.s. Hi Justin - you still need Comment Preview, IMHO. :-)

The civil war is happening already.

The reason it is in the Iraqis’ best interests that we leave is that the violence is in part a reaction to the occupation. (Which is not to say that it is “our fault,” of course.) If we leave, there is at least a chance that Iraqis will be forced to get their act together and stop the violence themselves. If we stay, the status quo will continue.

Might Iraq descend further into civil war if we leave? It might. But if we stay, Iraq definitely will descend further into civil war, and a lot more of our soldiers will die as well.

Talk of “cut and run” is childish and unserious. The question is, among nothing but bad options, what is the best bad option? Withdrawal is the best option, alas.

On what are you basing your opinions? Please explain to me why it is in the Iraqi people’s best interest that we leave? What do you think is going to happen when we leave? A civil war? A meeting of the minds amongst the different sects? Is it relevant to you?

Two things:

1. The debate about going into Iraq is not over, because it provides a framework for understanding future mistakes. Bush should not be allowed to get away with making the same mistakes over, say, Iran that he made over Iraq — and unless the debate over Iraq continues, the same mistakes will continue to be made.

2. Unfortunately, yes, it is in our and the Iraqi people’s best interest that we leave. There are no good options in Iraq, but our presence there is making the situation worse. If we go, there will be trouble, but if we stay, there will be double.

IMHO - the debate about going into Iraq is over. WE ARE THERE NOW. Do you believe it is in our & the Iraqi’s people’s best interest that we leave?

Moderate: Gentle in tone, open to compromises (particularly “third way” compromises), tempered.

Centrist: Possessing views that represent “the middle majority”.

They’re related, but they’re not the same. By this definition, Kos is certainly not a moderate - but it’s not impossible that he’s a centrist, at least on Iraq and a few other issues. He’s just mad, as are many who identify with him.

It’s easy to confuse centrists and moderates, but we shouldn’t. And in my opinion, if “centrists” want to be more effective politically, they need to get mad.

I see very little evidence that the Democrats are strong on the war and terrorism. Please point me towards some documentation that would prove to me otherwise. From what I’ve seen the Democrats who are not anti-war are treated like traitors to their party.

Attacking Iraq was being soft on terrorism. I think it is pretty obvious by now that attacking a secular country that did not have Al Queda ties was not helpful against the war on terrorism (not terror) and has made us as a nation LESS safe.

GW was simply not up to the task. This fight is going to go on a long time, and going to war just inflamed it. If he had any dimplomatic skills he would have gotten a colalition together, and had Arab countries on the ground, not us.

I is unfathomable that you see impotent chest thumping as strong. The world is a little more complicated than that. You need a leader that is can think things through and take advice.

Today’s “Real Security” document is a start.

But the thing is, I’m not sure we’re even on the same page when it comes to what is “strong on the war and terrorism.” For example, Iraq. The war in Iraq was not in America’s interests and is making America less safe every day. Therefore supporting the infinite continuation of that war, the way Bush and Lieberman do, is being weak on national security — therefore, Bush and Lieberman are weak on national security. Because Bush ignored the hunt for Bin Laden and focused on Iraq instead, Bush is weak on terrorism. Because Republicans have ignored port-security and chemical-plant-security proposals offered by Democrats, the Republicans are weak when it comes to guarding against terrorism.

If you define “strength” as “supporting a disastrous war,” then the Democrats can never be as strong as the Republicans. By any other definition, the Republicans are a disaster on national security.

I see very little evidence that the Democrats are strong on the war and terrorism. Please point me towards some documentation that would prove to me otherwise. From what I’ve seen the Democrats who are not anti-war are treated like traitors to their party.

I simply cannot reconcile what you’re telling me and what I’ve seen. I’m willing to be proven wrong - actually I would gladly accept it. I would frolick around my house in glee if I thought the Democrat party was what you claim. So, please, please, please show me where the Democrat party is strong on the war and terrorism.

Thanks

The reason the Kossacks hate Lieberman is twofold: a) He is on the wrong side of the issue that matters most to them, the Iraq war, and b) He frequently derides and belittles his own party as soft on war and terrorism, which plays into Republican stereotypes. It has very little to do with wanting him to be more left-wing.

You can pick and choose specific examples of when someone at Kos said this or that, but the sum of what is written there is decidedly on the left end of mainstream because most readers/writers there subscribe to the world view I described above. As I said in the previous comment, my summation is a bit of a generalization but the point is valid.

And did I say anything about hating America? I don’t believe Kos or Michael Moore or any of that contigent hates America. But I do think they tend to blame America for too much of the world’s problems.

Disagree if you wish but your scale seems off to me and, I would bet, most other Americans. If Kos is moderate then what is Donklephant? Right? And if Donklephant is right, is Red State fascist?

Of course, now that I think about it, the writers at Donklephant are often right. ; )

One more thing. Just because Kos skews left means just that- it doesn’t mean that Kos is wrong. It just means its immoderate.

I can clearly see that you’re convinced that the Democrats are less extreme/radical than the Republicans. Not all of us share your view. Some of us believe that both are extreme and radical about different topics.

No, you are using a straw man that has nothing to do with what these people actually believe.

I wish both parties would stop “mobilizing the base” and start handling issue in much more productive ways.

But it is wrong to call Daily Kos moderate just because their specific policy choices are not extreme. They are leftists because their world-view is based around a knee-jerk distrust of power and a knee-jerk sympathy for those without power. They see America, Christianity, big business, the rich and other powerful insitutitions and groups as inherrently corrupt, weilding power in devious, distructive ways and gaining pleasure out of other people’s oppression. But they see minorities, Palestinians, the poor, the third-world, homosexuals and all those without power as inherrently noble, their shortcomings and misdeeds just symptoms of their oppression.

That’s over-generalized. I realize. But Kos or others of that ilk have just as narrow a view of the world as do similarly immoderate groups on the right. That’s why they are so unable to compromise, not because their positions on issues are ridiculously extreme but because their worldview is narrow. That’s also why they are so angry–they see their world view as obvious and assume anyone who doesn’t agree is either an idiot or dangerously manipulative.

No, Kos is not moderate. Not at all.

My favorite example of this is the Michael Moore example. Yes, Jimmy Carter let Michael Moore sit in his box. Michael Moore makes movies where he says bad things about a) Politicians and b) Wealthy businessmen. But Rush Limbaugh every day says unspeakably vile things not only about Democratic politicians, but about “liberals” as a group — in other words, Limbaugh and his ilk encourage his listeners to hate their relatives and neighbors just for being liberal. And do the Republicans distance themselves from this eliminationist talk? Nope. Dick Cheney appears on Limbaugh’s show, for God’s sake, even though Limbaugh is far more extreme than Michael Moore could ever hope to be (when Michael Moore encourages people to hate “conservatives,” rather than just politicians, then we’ll talk).

So the Democrats are clearly a more moderate, less extremist party than the Republicans.

At least use more than the basic labels when you’re name calling. I may roll my eyes when someone insists on calling Rick Santorum “Senator Man-on-dog” but it quickly traces back to a specific position that tells me (what I presume is) the writer’s biggest beef with the guy. I’d still prefer the writer just get onto talking about their current beef with the guy, but at least that kind of name calling still tells me something beyond a generic label that’s supposed to invoke some knee-jerk dislike.