It would sure seem to me that the real issue here is being missed entirely.

If you're going to put forward the notion of freedom of the individual to live the way he or she chooses within the fairly wide boundaries of the law, as we do in this country (how well we do that is another discussion), then you have to accept the notion that there are people who will disagree with that expression of freedom, and even the definition of freedom. That's democracy. We get to keep re-examining the question, redefining it over again and in the process refining it. I think what Mr. D'Souza wants is the same thing the Islamist radicals and the Christian Right want: a repressed theocracy that keeps women under control and foreigners away from the gates and leaves only powerful strongmen, "anointed by God" in leadership roles. As DeBlock306 would suggest, if they love this kind of society so much, then they should move en masse to any of the countries on the planet where theocracy is embraced. They'd all fit right in. The problem is, because they'd be foreigners, they'd likely be denied admittance. Furthermore, to suggest bin Laden is torqued off because we and other nations in the West have "open" societies is to further miss the point. He may not dig the notion of equality for women, minorities and gay people, but no fundamentalist (which, strictly speaking, bin Laden is) would. Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and Rod Parsley don't like it either. So instead of staying here and wishing all of us freedom-loving progressives would go away, why don't THEY go away instead? And may I suggest that the easiest way to solve our argument with bin Laden would be to leave Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and the Middle East altogether. Stay out of this business with Israel and the Palestinians until we can be honest brokers in the process. Howard Dean said during his presidential campaign that the best way to do that would be to be in a position of not needing them for our economic survival, namely the oil. For everybody talking about our "strategic interest" in the region, the truth is, it's all down to the oil reserves and the interests of greedy men. Let's be honest with ourselves about that and leave this tinderbox region alone for our own survival.

We really do need to mind our own house first.

I took the time to read the case made by he who must not be named against us.

I tried not to take a moral stand one way or another. I tried to be dispassionate. But the truth is, I'm finding it hard to distinguish bin Laden's rhetoric from that of any self-styled Bible thumper you'd see on TV. They have a lot in common. The Rod Parsleys and Jerry Falwells of the world would like to see America repent and embrace Christ and stop with all this silly business of equal rights for women, minorities and homosexuals. Put women back in their "traditional roles" in the home, put men back in positions of leadership, and keep the foreigners away from the gate. The irony here is that OSBL and the Religious Right are in common cause, yet if they were put on a battlefield they would destroy each other entirely.

This is the point that intellectually lazy conservatives like D'Souza here, continue to miss.

What the bloody hell does that mean?

If, by the "Nancy Pelosi" brand, we mean ending our involvement in Iraq, requiring some reasonable ethics reform, raising the minimum wage and having a real dialogue about climate change, as well as doing what Congress is supposed to do which is to bring oversight to this rogue Executive branch, then what in the name of "Joe-mentum" is Harold Ford talking about? Ending our involvement in Iraq has bipartisan support. Hell, even John McCain, whose politics I despise, wants to talk seriously about climate change, and the Repubicans seem to be going along with the notion of oversight and ethics reform if only for political reasons. Seems like Nancy Pelosi's and Howard Dean's kind of politics is exactly what the country needs. I don't get what Harold Ford has a problem with. Seems like pretty centrist stuff to me. I notice that President Clinton didn't have a problem with most of this. How far to the right does the DLC need to go to win over these Bible-thumping, nutbag evangelicals who want us in Iraq till the next decade and don't give a right damn about the poor, the middle class, or corruption? The country has turned a good deal bluer since November's elections, Harold. If you have a prayer of making it to the Senate, quit your bitching and join the rest of us here in "sane" America. All we're arguing for is what's right and reasonable to ask and expect. Since when did that become too "radical"?

As far as I'm concerned, the DLC is still feeding on that sewer-grade mind candy from FOX "news" and the like. They need to either wake up or risk being irrelevant.