-- Michael Harold
The bottom line is this. We launched a war based on lies against a country that was no immediate threat to us. It was a war of aggression. A criminal war.

Being wrong is not lying. Bush's sixteen words were true then and are true now, along with the CIA interpretation of Wilson's report as supportive of Iraq's attempt to buy yellowcake. O'Hanlon's observations about the universality of the case for invasion is still true. In the end the ultimate responsibility for all this lies with Saddam.

And now we are engaged, not in a war, but in an occupation of a country that had disintegrated into civil war between religious and political factions, a civil war that threatens to engulf the entire region. Many innocent people have died. Because we started this, their blood is on our hands. Our hands. All of the spin and speculation in the world cannot change that.

No. We did not start the civil war. We are certainly not the cause of religious strife. If you are going to argue that freeing people to be who they are is negligent, then you'll be arguing for totalitarianism. Good luck with that one.

I have a different scenario for you. What if we had not invaded Iraq? Would most of those dead, damaged and dispossessed innocents still be alive and with their families?

Another argument for totalitarianism. Who's the fascist now?

With a "friend" like the NYT, progressives do not need any enemies. I had for some time been mourning the likely eventual demise of the "great" newspapers due to the Internet. No longer. Good riddance to these disgusting corporate rags. -- Chaszz

Gosh, you folks have trashed all the former liberal icons. Like Moyers says you are left with blogs and comedians both of which are biased by design. Pretty soon you'll be promoting Kucinich and Gore as mainstream.... Oooops, too late.

Lucky for you, Glenn's Pew poll expose demonstrating that Democrats are still approving of the MSM by a large margin over the Republicans reinforces the observation of liberal bias in the "drive by" media.

And then we will have to be Muslims and "our women" will be forced into burkas and there will be no more music or gay bars or churches or blogs. This is an acutal fear that they have -- not a theoretical fear but one that is pressing, urgent, at the forefront of their worldview.

Perhaps you should consider the prospect that Swedish politicians are estimating that country to be majority Muslim in their lifetime. How about Dutch authorities that repress "native" riots but not Islamic ones. Doesn't the Islamization of the UK affect you at all or even the call for the Islamization of Indonesia and the Conference for Caliphate?

But putting that all aside for the moment, Simon's point about how the gay, feminist, and secular, factions of the left are either supporting or remaining silent regarding their ideological opposites remains. Why are you supporting people that would kill you for being gay? Why remain silent? Do gays have no sense of self-preservation, or is BDS syndrome so overpowering as to make gays, feminists, and secularists, insensate. It is way past time for the left to stand up to the ultimate bigots of the world.

it is the most liberal of states that will suffer first. But just in case, some items for the unbelievers here to consider....

* the recent murder of a San Franscisco reporter doing a story on a muslim criminal enterprise,
* the suspension of immunity by Congress for people pointing out suspicious behavior like the flying Imams who are now suing their accusers.
* the use of hate crime legislation to immunize muslims from scrutiny
* As pointed out by Mona, the truncation of free speech here by Muslim intimidation elsewhere, as evidenced by the fear of publishing the Danish cartoons.
* Malmo, Sweden is currently 25% Muslim. Swedish administrators are anticipating what will happen when they reach a majority.
* Also in Malmo, as in France, Muslims refuse to assimilate, prefering to live in segregated neighborhoods. Non-muslims are not allowed in, under pain of injury or death.
* an attempt was made in Toronto to segregate muslims into Sharia seperate from Canadian law.

So no, we will not be invaded by force. Like the Swedes and the Dutch have amply demonstrated it will be by the familiar intimidation of Political Correctness. In the UK we have all sorts of things like banning Winnie the Pooh (Piglet), all the way up to changing tax laws to accomodate polygamy (no matter that polygamy is illegal). When they get around to closing gay bars and banning bacon and ham sandwiches, I'm sure conservatives will be right behind you. What was that poem "When they came for..."?

It seems the very same people here that insist on subdividing Islam into peaceful democratic types, and radical lunatics, would never do the same for Republicans or the Religious Right.

Some people posit that the difference is cowardice. Radical Islamists will kill you for saying something they dislike, while Republicans and the Religious Right won't. I'd say that sounds just about right.

Margalis
Read the actual article dumbasses. Holy fuck some people are flamingly stupid.
"When Canadian Muslims demanded the right to use faith-based tribunals to settle civil disputes, as used by Christians and Jews"

That's the fucking BYLINE. Jesus fucking Christ, "get a brain morans" is right.

My goodness, Margalis. We didn't know you were generally in favor of bypassing civil law in favor of religious law. Wouldn't that make you a religious fundamentalist? Are you a religious nut of some sort?