Here is a transcript of Rosie and Tom's dialogue on the Second Amendment.

http://www.geocities.com/rofaq/nradebate.html

The NRA would do well to drop the Ted Nugents and have a Tom Selleck represent them instead. He's a fairly thoughtful and intelligent fellow. I'm not going to bash Rosie here. Trump already has that job.

Selleck describes himself as "registered independent with a lot of libertarian leanings".

Naturally, the "L" Liibertarians are quick to claim him as one of their own. I'm not convinced he would agree with most of the ALP platform.

http://www.theadvocates.org/celebrities/tom-selleck.html

Maybe he can run as a Republican in 2008. He's better looking than Fred Thompson.

Glenn... The whole premise of the post is that "Ledeen accuses war opponents of viewing Arabs as 'untermenschen'" and the whole rest of the post proceeds from that premise.

Which is nonsense... That is more the province of the paleocon and isolationist/xenophobic right. The Pat Buchanans and such.

Next expect to hear that "the left" opposes tough immigration policies because we all have pools and landscaping that needs to be done by cheap illegal labor. Anyone here own their own pool? I bet Ledeen does. Does he use chlorine it? You betcha.

"Evil" is a bit vague. Your worldview is more simplistic and weak than a decent adult comic. Do you have any idea who the threat is?

And we had better learn to deal with it and narrate the history effectively so the true culprits get the credit. Our troubles in that region are just beginning, and much worse than when any previous president left us after leaving office, and for all intents and purposes, Bush left office when this Congress convened. Bush has put our finger in the Chinese handcuffs and we cannot just pull out. The damage is done. There is a an actual needle that needs to be threaded in that region now, between occupation and total disengagement, which we cannot do, thanks to them. It will not be easy. There are no good moves for us. We are deep in the shit, thank you very much.

And we will surely get it. We used them as proxies to kill a million "accused communists" in Indonesia in 1965. We used them against the Soviets in Afghanistan in the 80s. Then our former allies and proxies flew some planes into some of our buildings after the collapse of "our" mutual enemy, the Soviet Union. We were their allies then. We are their enemies now, the Shia and the Takfiri, and you think we can just walk away without repercussions? If Bush had not gone into Iraq, maybe. If you think we can just disengage and be safe, you are kidding yourself. There are no good moves. That is a failed policy. There is a damn good chance we will be hit again, perhaps not here, but hit where it hurts, and neither staying in Iraq nor redeployiing from Iraq will prevent that. We have Bush to thank for that. Get that narrative straight and start reciting it because that is the reality and those are the facts. Welcome to the new millenium. It's going to be an ugly century. Make sure the blame goes where it should. Attacking, invading and occupying Iraq was as much a crime against humanity as OBL attacking NYC and the Pentagon.

"There's a cancer growing in the mideast!" "If Vietnam falls, the rest of Southeast Asia will fall like dominos!"

The Shia-Sunni schism is a domino that fell a long time ago. If religious extremists can take over our political processes, they can do it anywhere. I would never make light of it. I'd rather deal with socialists.

The term is highly problematic when used in contemporary political discourse wrt Iraq. The Neocons can sell all the crap they sell because of ignorance of the region, (cultural, religious, tribal), that most Americans, like Areaman, are laboring under. There are many "insurgencies". Some of them are fighting each other much of the time.

The Mirror UK article is misleading.

"International law does not necessarily prohibit the use of napalm or other incendiaries against military targets, but use against civilian populations was banned by the United Nations' inhumane weapons convention (often referred to as the CCW) in 1981 Protocol III of the CCW restricts the use of incendiary weapons (not only napalm), but a number of states have not acceded to all of the protocols of the CCW. According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), states are considered a party to the convention, which entered into force as international law in December 1983, if they ratify at least two of the five protocols. The United States, for example, is a party to the CCW but did not sign protocol III."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napalm#_note-4

I just finished reading the MYDD article linked to in the Greenwald post.

One little point - if the typical RWA typically submits to authority, then what explains the Clinton years?

I have no answer to your question. I have no idea why the military didn't refuse to go to Somalia, or the Balkans, and instead, just drive their tanks right up on the WH lawn and evict that evil adulterous "liberal". You obviously buy into the myth that there is a great big difference between William Jefferson Clinton and George Herbert Walker Bush. Clinton was the best "Republican" president since Eisenhower.

Perhaps you should just quote chapter and verse from Dr. J.J. Ray, (the source of all your talking points and arguments about liberals). It would make it much easier for all concerned if we just cut to the chase and examined the font of all this "conservative wisdom". He is a prolific writer, blogger and former member of academia that none of you ever seem to mention...

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com/2007/04/homosexuality-drastically-shortens-your.html

Like the crazy aunt locked away in the basement.