The Right's obsession with the Manly Virtue of the Virile Warrior seems incomplete without their delusional fear of homosexuality, particularly of gay men. While they affect to despise us, they also seem to believe that we are uniquely powerful. It seems we're able to 'recruit' hapless heterosexuals, to precipitate the collapse of straight marriages and families simply by living openly,

I'd always wondered about this absolute fear that many on the Right have of gay men -- it being patently obvious that a straight guy is not about to be "turned" gay by homosexual advances. All of a sudden it hit me -- the Right is afraid of gay men because there are so many Righties in the closet and they CAN be "turned" gay! Their fear is actually legitimate.

I never in a million years thought we'd be living thru Doctor Strangelove again. Precious bodily fluids, indeed.

Liberals like to point to a mythical liberal Muslim state

Which doesn't actually operate anywhere and then they use this to claim that ALL Muslim states are the mideast/Asian equivalent of freewheeling Holland.

Which liberals? Where has anyone done this? Links? Backup? Straw man factory?

These are the days of Viagra and Cialis, surely useful in treating symptoms of masculinity dysfunction.

Same didn't seem to help Rush's overcompensation. Although, maybe he was a Liberal while he was having his sex vacation in the Caribbean!

Mentioning "Protein Wisdom" twice and Jeff Goldstein once, while ignoring the actual author isn't either.

I'd say it's a draw, as to which of you two is slimier in this episode.

-- shooter242

Was the post by Dan Collins NOT on Protein Wisdom's site (directly under their header, it looks to me) and ISN'T the site run by Jeff Goldstein? Or am I missing something? How is mentioning this not kosher?

If you just read the post, and didn't open the cite or enlarge the jpeg, one would assume the comment was written by Goldstein and representative of the blog in general, no? The fact that it was written by a third party is down in the fine print. It's not illegal, immoral, or fattening, but it is purposefully misleading. Sleazy.

-- shooter242

Well, it's obviously NOT written by Goldstein, because it has Dan Collins' name real big right next to the header. And the fact that it is prominent on the blog page leads me to believe that the blog approved this message. No? Do you think Collins snuck on to the blog and inserted his column without Goldstein's approval? If THIS is what you call "purposefully misleading" I can't believe your head hasn't exploded after listening to Bush/Cheney/Gonzalez, et al.

This dog not only won't hunt...this dog is deceased.

I will call for a standing, bipartisan Consultative Group of congressional leaders on national security. I will meet with this Consultative Group every month, and consult with them before taking major military action.

It was an excellent speech and certainly one that I would like the President of the U.S. (now and future) to take to heart. But the bolded line got me -- he's supposed to get permission/b> from them, not consult with them. Although, consulting before getting permission would be a good thing, too.

Gad, wouldn't it be nice to have a President who actually talked to people, even ones he/she didn't like particularly?

(sorry about the screwed up html -- preview, preview, sigh)

So is shooter. Neep a slap, both of them. -- William Timberman

The memos were disclosed in Thursday's editions of The New York Times, which reported that the first 2005 legal opinion authorized the use of head slaps, freezing temperatures and simulated drownings, known as waterboarding, while interrogating terror suspects, and was issued shortly after then-Attorney General Alberto Gonzales took over the Justice Department. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071005/ap_on_go_co/bush_terrorism_22

This officially unmasks you as a thug and wannabe nazi.

-- shooter242

No, thugs and wannabe nazis hit people who need a slap. WT advocates slapping people who neep it. Totally different.

Re Ignatius -- What diplomacy with Iran? Urging the rest of the world to put sanctions on Iran? Calling Al Baradei a lier for saying that Iran is cooperating with the NPT? If we "don't talk to Evil!!!!" how can we be trying diplomacy?

Re Broder -- I just got a letter from my ultra-creepy frothing wingnut congressman (in response to something anti-war I wrote him, I lose track) saying that he has sponsored some dumb initiative to promote "bipartisanship" in Congress. By which he means that anti-war people don't say anything critical of the administration or any wars it is/wants to be fighting. He and Broder should get together.

To whichever poster wrote in saying Glenn shouldn't bother with these guys, I say, as ludicrous as it may seem, these guys still have a lot of power to form the narrative. When Ignatius can blandly and bald-facedly state in a major paper that the administration is trying diplomacy with Iran but it may not work, then Glenn still has lots of hoeing to do in that row.

The article echoes left-wing thinking about More War, and it's also full of unattributed quotes and information.

Maybe both sides do it?

-- Jim

The difference is that in the Hersh piece, he is quoting people the government doesn't want you to hear. They are sources that need to stay black in order to protect themselves.

Ignatius is quoting people the government DOES want you to hear, i.e., it is propaganda. There is no need for these sources to stay black, except to protect the government.

BIG difference, and one most of the press seems to have forgotten.

She's as bloodthirsty as pretty much any Republican, and more bloodthirsty than Ron Paul.

Er, RP ain't bloodthirsty at all. He's strictly non-interventionist.