means that we don't believe Muslim fundamentalists might to hurt Americans, may I point you to Charlie Reese's very sensible editorial that lays it all out:

http://www.antiwar.com/reese/?articleid=11618

Obviously, there are Muslims who are dangerous out there, just as there are dangerous neo-Nazis, dangerous Christian abortion clinic bombers, etc. The question is, how to evaluate the threat and how to respond to it.

Demonizing all Muslims doesn't seem a very sensible way to go about protecting the West. It certainly doesn't seem to fit in with a constitutional republic, not that we have one anymore anyway.

If troops want more time at home, Kagan says, there is an easy way to achieve that: "win the war we're fighting."

!!!!?????!!!!!

(Would it be Quakerly to want to paste that guy a good one, right in the snoot?)

Democrats, cut the US military almost by 50% with the fall of the Soviet Union. Everyone was braying about the so-called "peace dividend" and how we could save all this money. Turns out they were seriously wrong, and we have today's undermanned military that has to rely on reserves and National Guard units to fulfill its mission.

It should have been cut more, and we should have a "peace dividend". This war we're in in Iraq and probably Syria & Iran next is stupid and worse than useless. If we were in a serious war against a foe that the American people thought was really a threat, there'd be plenty of folks down at the recruiting office to sign up. Who knows, maybe even one of these folks who always advocate wars might even think about signing up if they really thought there was some big existential threat, instead of a bullsh*t piece of crap war that they made up for their own selfish reasons.

If the U.S. started acting like a self-respecting citizen of the world instead of being a big cry-baby bully, it wouldn't need its huge military.

Indeed, the cart before the horse, Timberman. The freedoms this country have and enjoy exist BECAUSE we have a strong military to protect and defend it.

Sorry, wrong.

It's time to get back to a small military. Really small. This country was founded as a republic, not an empire. If we are threatened, seriously threatened, then our citizens should be willing to rise up to defend themselves from foreign invasion. If the citizens don't perceive enough of a threat to sign up for military service, then we shouldn't be going to war.

I will believe that the neo-cons actually believe in the Great and Unbearable "Islamofacist" Threat when I see their children wearing the uniform. Until then, it's all a load of hooey and deserves to be treated as such.

P.S. Other people's kids shouldn't have to fight and die for a load of hooey.

But that would mean the Government might have to admit its role in the killing of those civilians. Killing civilians is something that only "bad guys" do or is to be ignored. Besides, how would that reflect on our "honor"?

Hey, we're Warriors, ya know. Sh*t happens. Besides, "they" only understand force. If "they" complain, just show them the picture of the Glass Parking Lot. Besides, "they" behead people, so "they" deserve everything "they" get.

Hoo-rah.

Or something like that.

The worst Democrat is infinitesimally better than the "best" Republican.

-- pantanal

I have two words for you:

Joe Lieberman.

Case rested.

Thanks for pointing out this mechanism, Glenn. I'd noticed it but hadn't really figured out exactly what they were doing. Our own "Golden Boy" does the same thing -- which is why he's been accused of being either Michael Ledeen or David Horowitz in disguise -- he "demonstrates" how loathsome and unredeemable Muslims are, but when asked what to do about this alleged horridness, he always dodges the question. I hadn't realized it was an actual technique until now.

In addition to Podhoretz, he has Muslim-hating arch-neocon Daniel Pipes as an advisor, and his "homeland security" advisor is congressman Peter "There are too many mosques" King (R-NY).

Rudy is a very scary guy.

The only faint ray of hope in all of this, is that with so much nuttiness and so many wars and so much suffering, America may finally be forced to have a discussion about its relationship to Israel. The neo-cons and the Israeli Lobby (yes, I AM an anti-semite, see?) are fighting this tooth and nail -- an honest and open discussion is the last thing they want.

Dear Tiberius,

Thanks for making a statement that succeeds in being both incredibly stupid and incredibly racist at the same time.

You've exceeded yourself!

Sincerely,

Svensker

I wondered what the big rush on the FISA bill was, but now that you mention the case in SF which could go against the telecoms, that explains it.

Personally, I've pretty much lost hope.

Thanks for that! One of my favorite sketches, had no idea it was on youtube.

The whole "pussy" thing is getting on my nerves these days, too. To have "cajones" or "balls" is good, to be a "pussy" is bad (and, no, I don't believe it refers to anything other than female genitalia). Yes, there is the analogous "dick", but there is no "good" female genitalia word, only the equation with wimpiness. Particularly now that our society has gotten so swept up in glorification of "warriors" and macho maleness, I find the use of "pussy" as a derogatory to be more and more offensive.

If men had to undergo labor and childbirth, "pussy" would be the highest accolade.

Perhaps, from now on, taking a cue from Richard Pryor, my response to "pussy" will be "dead dick". :)

from the runup to war with Iraq.

The neo-cons have learned that their bullshit works.

Aren't Americans embarrassed to be so easily played? What a bunch of ignorant chumps we have become.