All this other hand wringing about "cost-free moralism" is high school debate nonsense. Both parties and most human beings practice it.

Can we therefore take it as a given that your lot don't have any real morals?

It would simply acknowledging reality, granted. Something we all know you are loath to do.

Sounds like kindergarten is in session.

No, that would be Redstate.com. Clearly, the matter under discussion is far too serious for someone as young as yourself.

Salon writes about Rove, he wins.

"Wins" what? The girl? The race? The jackpot?

That is but a vivid illustration of how this political movement reasons.

Is it even possible to call this type of thinking "reason", which at the very least implies a degree of cognition that would reject the inherent contradictions of this movement functions with? As you've pointed out, it is impervious to logic, counter-argument and evidence.

How does one work to counter such a mindset?

No, I actually don't agree with this, and I've been trying to find clear ways to make this point recently.

A subtle point of Glenn's that bears examination. What does it say for our country that there now a veritable multitude of once-prohibited practices that are now perfectly 'legal'?

Have we as both a country and society fallen so very low that such things as torture, rendition, and warrantless surveillance no longer seem wrong, legal or illegal as they may be?

Islamic terrorists are an existential threat to the West,

In what way? How do they hope to erase the very existence of all that is American?

have attacked us multiple times already (beginning arguably in 1979 with the takeover of the US embassy in Tehran--an act of war, according to international law)

Actually those were student radicals, not representatives of the Iranian government at the time, and (wisely) no real effort was made by the embassy staff to resist or repulse them. In effect, they surrendered the embassy rather than risk a pointless bloodbath.

but most especially beginning with the attacks on the WTC in 1993.

A home-grown cell? Doesn't that argue we Americans are a greater threat to ourselves?

They have attacked us (the West) multiple times since, have bragged about these attacks, and promise to continue them until the West is either destroyed or becomes part of their worldwide caliphate living under medieveal sharia law.

I see. And who exactly has been doing all this "bragging" and "attacking"? Who speaks collectively for this "They" you keep referring to?

Pantanal (and his/her ilk) are delusional, worse than ostriches with their heads in the sand. They are so blinded by their Bush hatred that they are willing to overlook the enemy that is threatening to destroy them (and sometimes actually wishing that enemy's victory if it will make Bush look bad).

You know, its quite rude to speak to yourself in mirror like that. Suggests the onset of meglomania.

And you've yet to explain how a gaggle of different radical groups with different interests and intents pose such a clear and dire threat to the very existence of the United States, never mind demonstrated how these callow thugs might actually manage to literally wipe the United States off the map.

Pray, enlighten us as to the exact dimensions and capabilities of the danger we now face and which you see so clearly!

Is that really the kind of guy you are, or have you just given a bad impression?

He's chosen the name of paranoid mass murderer and tyrant whose name is synonymous with pedastry and perversions as his handle.

What did you expect? Actual morals and temperance?

Um, 1993 WTC attack (act of war) (two of the perpetrators were Iraqi!)

An attack by a home-grown cell. Guess that means we declared war on ourselves.

1996 Khobar Towers attack on military barracks (act of war)

1998 attacks on US Embassies in Africa (two acts of war in a single day)

Actions ultimately determined to have been perpetrated by a non-state, transnational actor: Al Qaeda. Care to tell me how you "declare war" against something that has neither a government nor fixed borders?

2000 attack on USS Cole (act of war)

Same problem as the 1998 bombings.

Technically, Clinton didn't actually "lose" any of these, since he didn't actually fight any of them, being happy just to blow up the odd aspirin factory or a tent or two.

But he did direct his national security team to work up a serious pushback plan once actionable intel became available. His successor, in contrast, just sat on his arse and read "My Pet Goat" before going MIA for three days when 9/11 hit.

How many Haitians attacked the US?

Zero. Your point?

How many Bosnians attacked the US?

Zero. Your point?

How many countries were invaded by Haiti or Bosnia?

Zero. Your point?

How many people were killed by Haitian or Bosnian WMDS (see Iran-Iraq war, Kuwait, Halabja, etc.)

Do I have to keep repeating the obvious?

And read the recently released memoirs of General Sir Mike Jackson, just retired chief of the British military, on his opinions of Clinton's efforts in the Balkans and his pathetic leader, Wes Clark.

So? Have you actually read General Clark's books? Examined the historical and political context for the Balkans (which was centered in Kosovo, btw, not Bosnia) intervention?

Out of curiousity, do you fly F-18Cs or -18Ds?

Give up. You just make yourself look stupid.

Pray, explain how pointing out the blindingly obvious to each of your points makes me "look stupid".

Seriously. I'd like to hear it.

So for you to come a lecturing...what a pathetic joke.

So say we all, Kitt. Doubt the sad little thing will get the message, tho'.