I believe in making one's voice heard, but if you want people to respect your opinion, if not agree with it, than you lay off the snark and the temper tantrums and lay you [sic] argument out in a civil way. I'm not saying you don't do this, but there are plenty on the left who sound just like the right when they don't get there [sic] way.

What does the "plenty on the left" refer to? I'm always confused when I read/hear this "clarifier" used (I don't think much of it as a clarifier).

How is this imprecise labeling and dismissal of people/opinion fundamentally different from the "snark" and "temper tantrums" you're criticizing?

Seriously: do you really believe that everyone who has expressed concerns about what Obama has said re: the NIE estimate and Guantanamo, and commenting here, should simply be dismissed as "on the left" (and therefore, presumably, their opinions should be held suspect)?

I'm genuinely curious. And if the answer is yes, where would you say your geographical position is on the political landscape?

Just blowin' snot?

That's all ya got?

Either you're using that word differently than I would or you haven't read much about Obama's career and, in particular, anything regarding his grooming, by the Democratic Party elite.

You may want to start with Ken Silverstein's report in Harper's ["Barack Obama, Inc.: The Birth of a Washington Machine," Harper's, November 2006] or Paul Street's "Barack Obama: The Empire's New Clothes" [available at blackagendareport.com].

(p.s. Apologies to Chris S., but I couldn't resist...)

Because Bill Kristol wrote a column today that is somewhat similar in theme to yesterday's and today's posts here.

Continuity We Can Believe In

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/12/opinion/12kristol.html?ref=opinion

you got there before me (re:Stellarae), and in much stronger fashion . . . .

"I honestly find it nothing short of creepy, really. For those whose stomach gets queasy when reading anything that criticizes him, this is not a place to come. Just save yourselves the heartache. In 9 days, just go here, and you'll see all the praise and hagiography your little hearts desire"

Who said anything about never criticizing Obama? It's all the hand-wringing and speculating that I see in your posts and the discussions that follow that are annoying. What exactly do you think you're accomplishing? As for criticism, isn't it just possible for us all to wait until he's in office and actually starts DOING things, or does that just take all the fun out of it? And you can also can the defensive snark. It's unappealing in a professional journalist.

teazing between Derbig Mooser and GBT. I've no idea what Mrs. Derbig Mooser might think of this flirtation but, for the sake of all that's good and holy, please stop. It's too embarrassing if your mind is stringently secular. Aren't there lots of sites for this sort of thing?

I haven't read those articles. Do they mention Obama's friend Zbig? I must admit that I am fan of Webster Tarpley.

1. Since the NIE issued their report, one of the authors suggests that it was misinterpreted.

Which one? Under what circumstances? What was "misinterpreted"? Details, or this objection is meaningless.

2. Iran continues to enrich uranium and to do so in a more efficient manner. They are getting better at it. The enrichment of uranium is considered one of the more difficult steps to conquer when developing a nuclear weapon.

So? How much uranium has been enriched? How much of that is "weapons grade"?

3. Today Iran brags about their enrichment capabilities, several years ago they denied such an intent.

Yeah, how dare they trumpet how advanced they've become technically. How dare they let the rest of the world know they can do this stuff now.

4. Iran continues to develop and test its missile capability.

And the US continues to develop its own. Again, so what?

5. Iran states that it only wants to use its nuclear technology for peaceful purposes. However, when offered enriched uranium from Russia, Iran didn't like the strings attached to such a deal. The "strings" involved limiting use of the uranium to power plants.

Ooooo. How dare Tehran refuse to allow a foreign government to put limits upon its actions. How dare they!

This led rational thinkers to conclude that Iran's stated intentions are not their actual intentions.

Buzz! Wrong! It led some thinkers (maybe a few of them were rational) to think this. Its led this thinker to shrug and accept that Tehran wasn't willing to let itself be dictated to.

6. Since becoming president elect, Obama has received security briefings that were unavailable to him a year ago (when he commented about the NIE report).

You have a marvellous command of the obvious. Your point?

7. Many of the past loony-left conspiracy theories are soon to be proven untrue (marshal law, permanent seizure of power by Bush and Cheney, and the "self-pardon" of Bush by Bush).

Gee, you mean we didn't invade a country under false pretexts? And the President of the United States didn't authorize illegal surveillance operations?

You've been reading too many potboilers, son. How about you keep with current events instead?

Correct me if I'm wrong on or after January 20, 2009.

You were never right to begin with, so your choice of dates doesn't impress much.

Gross violations of the constitution are no small issue. Neither is a nuclear blast in one of our cities.

Its hardly a zero-sum choice, son. Worrying about one doesn't make the other any more (or less) unlikely.

When former Sec. of Defense and other leaders, who have no apparent axe to grind, warn of the current and future threats we face, . . . I think it's obvious that Obama is taking their advice to heart.

I could warn him of similar things and a dozen others besides. So what?

You want links? google "iran enrich uranium" and "iran missile" and "iran russia uranium" and "iran uranium iaea".

You really have a hate-on for the Persians, don't you? How about we worry a bit more about Pakistan imploding, or North Korea getting belligerant again, eh?