"It all depends on whether hate blinds you!"

-- Juan Enrique

You must mean the kind of hatred that lies in the hearts and minds of the most morally bankrupt administration in US history - the Bush Administration. I'm not pro-killing, that's more the province of devoutly religious folks like Republicans.

Maybe to you blowing the heads, arms, and legs off men, women, children, babies -- burning them to death with chemical weaponry, destroying their infrastructure (from their homes to their water supply) -- the young, the old, infants, toddlers, innocent people all – is no big deal, or someone else's fault, or whatever "convenient justification" you give yourself for the over one million dead and displaced people killed by the terrorist madman in the White House.

It would have been nice while Saddam Hussein was Ronnie Reagan's friend & freedom fighter throughout the 80’s (by the way, explain how the Reagan/Rumsfeld/Bush ties to Hussein isn’t a thousand times worse than any ties between Ayers & Obama?), and he was slaughtering Iraqis with not only the Reagan administration's overt blessings, but also with the Reagan administration's chemical weapons, that the johnny-come-lately's who today rail about Hussein’s “mass graves” poo-pooed those crazy leftists like me saying we didn't want our tax dollars going to fund a homicidal maniac. Only to have George W Bush come along 12 years after Reagan to pick up the Hussein franchise, and torture & murder more Iraqis than Saddam could have ever imagined to have done in 5 & 1/2 years.

I know those inconvenient truths are not acknowledged on the sources you get your news from (which probably includes an unhealthy dose of the propaganda from the foreign-owned FOX network) and none of that bothers you as long as reality is avoided like the plague from the sources you go to.

Apparently, if the terrorism is committed under the auspices of christianity or republicanism then it's not as bad as those committed under the auspices of Islam.

"You said Ayers did not kill anyone but surely he tried."-- Juan Enrique

Unfortunately, George W Bush did! Over one million and counting! And that was with MY tax dollars! That bothers me a shitload more than some asshole from 40 years ago (most likely that you never even heard of till Rush Limbaugh clapped his hands and you came running) who never killed anyone - and didn't commit his terrorism on my dime!!!

At this point, regardless of whether President Obama can get Bin Laden, or if Bin Laden is dead, the battle was fought and won decisively by Osama Bin Laden, thanks to the impotence and lack of leadership of George W Bush.

Bin Laden attacked the USA over 7 years ago, killed 3,000 people, and faced no reprisal. That's called winning.

It's akin to asking Eisenhower to respond to Pearl Harbor if FDR had the same hands-off policy on Japan that Bush had on Bin Laden.

It would have been great to have a president for the last 8 years who would have defended this nation. We didn't. We had Bush. And as he boasted a mere 5 months after 9.11, "I don't think about (Bin Laden)"

At every parade there's a guy who stands next to the cop as the parade goes by. He wants everyone to know he's standing next to the cop. The cop is his friend, and he's friends with the cop. The cop won't do anything to him, because they're friends!

That's who the Democrats remind me of. The guy at every parade who wants the world to know he's the cop's friend... In other words, a total fucking loser.

Just a question I’m sure has a long, bloviating answer on the gigantic difference between internal rightwing terrorists and external dark-skinned terrorists.

Has the government of Qatar (as just one example), where Al Jazeera is headquartered, made any attempts to bring charges against the United States for their crimes? Or do any of the foreign governments whose people are being illegally detained and murdered by the Bush regime make any attempts to prosecute the US?

For all the talk of "Clinton haters" and "Bush haters", there is one faction you will never hear of, nor have they existed over the last 7+ years when they should have existed - that being "rightwing Bin Laden haters."

And no one on the left, no one on the right, no in the media, ever asks why. It's truly bizarre...

This point may have been made, but the left has been supporting any number of politicians over the past several years despite having none of the progressive traits being projected on them.

Remember the ludicrous support for Chuck Hagel a couple years ago solely because he was against the US occupation in Iraq? More than once I heard him mentioned as a possible VP runningt mate in 2008. The fact that he's a hardcore right-winger who has consistently voted with Bush was seemingly unimportant. And Ron Paul, a dyed-in-the-wool Reagan Republican who not only is against Social Security and Medicaid, but who agreed with the Limbaugh-right that the federal government had no business aiding the Katrina victims ("Why do people in Arizona have to be robbed in order to support the people on the coast?"). Or demagogue-extraordinaire Ralph Nadar who never even tried to explain how he would work with congress to accomplish anything, nor did he make any gestures to help anyone else in the Green Party even when he was their presidential candidate. Has anyone received more of the misplaced liberal support than Nadar?