Ask a conservative who feels people are being too tough on Bush this:

What would your reaction be if Clinton were president during 9/11, went to war in Afghanistan, failed to get Osama, then went to war in Iraq to stop Saddam because he had WMD's, then it turns out he had no WMD's and then due to POLICY errors the war in Iraq which he claimed would only take about 6 months, and be paid for by Iraqi oil dragged out to 4 years and costing over 3000 American soldier's lives, hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilian lives, several trillion dollars, and not only shows no sign of coming to an end anytime soon also turned Iraq into a haven for al-queda which it wasn't before as well as a breeding and training ground for countless terrorists for generations to come? Oh, and Al Gore shot an old man in the face?

(I could of course go one. Sad to say the above description doesn't even cover all of Bush's misdeeds)

Of course Human Rights are more important than National Security!

What happened to "Give me liberty or give me death!"?

Sure angry people may destroy bits of American real estate or property and take some lives but only by betraying the principals and ideals that make America 'AMERICA' can we truly destroy ourselves.

Anyone who sacrifices American ideals in order to hopefully prevent a terrorist attack is a coward and truly is handing the terrorist a victory.

To those who say that you can have liberty and security, I say: Fuck security.

Why? Because security is an illusion. When you give up liberty for security, all you get is less liberty.

As George Carlin put it on this very subject:

"You need a little danger in your life. Take a fucking chance, will ya? What are you gonna do, play with your prick for another 30 years? What, are you gonna read "PEOPLE" magazine and eat at Wendy's till the end of time? Take a fucking chance....."

Since we are 'fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here' what is the goddamn need to reduce our liberties anyway?

I sure wish a reporter with balls (i know, not gonna happen) would ask the Pres or his current tool, why we need to change laws affecting Americans in America IF we're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here? Hell if we need so much protection here may as well bring the troops home.

I'm a little slow, you're going to have to break that down for me. How does not reducing our civil liberties justify invading Iraq?

"...arguing that the position that human rights should take precedence over security is (paradoxically) the argument that the neocons make vis-a-vis Iraq"

I see now thank you. However the arguments don't really compare. Neocons are nothing if not intellectually dishonest. When you are talking about 'civil liberties' and 'national security' they can only be in the context of the relationship of a government and those it governs. When it is between two differing nations it is called war.

When a country attacks another country, dismantling its government, infrastructure, killing hundreds of thousands of its civilians and fostering conditions of ethnic strife that is going to kill so many more it has nothing to do with anyone's civil liberties, and certainly when you consider the generations of terrorists who are being born and trained in Iraq now, it has nothing to do with either nation's national security.

...the price of gas now at the pump, I'd say these birds lucked out.

...no one actually believed him at the time, I'd say this is old news.

I hope the next 10 years doesn't play out with the MSM and blogsphere playing "gotcha!" with this administration since:

A. We already knew.

B. Will keep the MSM nicely off point on whatever lies and crimes the current administration is up to.

C'mon! let's keep the focus on Hillary and Giuliani!

Bruce Springsteen song has been written.

And the hits just keep on coming!

That picture and caption are insanely prejudicial. I'd have to say that they alone change the situation from Joe Klein being an idiot to asking if Time mag isn't flat out pursuing an agenda to elect republicans?

Anyone but Hillary or Giuliani!

Go Obama! Go Huck!

Perhaps Huckabee, being all "evangelical" is merely putting forward his faith that the state of Israel must be a "state" which means not giving up any land as a precondition of the apocalypse?

That makes it all better right?

"He's in the pocket of his Jewish paymasters"

Seeing as how Huck's motivation for not giving away land in Israel in order that it be a whole state so god can come and destroy it before sending all jews to hell for eternity, I'm not sure you've got a handle on this situation.

While I do believe the dynamics of our global society are driven by economics, and the small percentage of people who control the vast majority of the wealth, the 'paymasters' if you will, you'd be doing them a favor if you insist on believing that racial, ethnic or religious differences are to be blamed rather than their simple greed and sense of entitlement of their own power.

Racial, national, ethnic and racial tensions are a diversion that keeps those with power safely in power. Whoever and whatever 'they' are, they are first and foremost the people with wealth and power. All else is secondary, if not completely irrelevant.