Mark your calendars

I read that editorial the other day in the Journal-World, and I admit it took me by surprise, even knowing the LJW's typical slant. Dolph himself must have written that one. We all deserve better -- from our newspaper, and from our leadership. At least a little critical thinking every now and then would be nice. But one can only hope.

The LJWorld editorialized THAT? Jeez. Have aliens taken over at the editorial desk?

The LJW's publisher (Dolph) is very conservative, and I'm inclined to think Andrea's assessment is right. What's funny is that the endorsement works very nicely as an endorsement of Boyda if you think Bush's agenda deserves to be challenged more than 2% of the time.

"Diane" divulges

Many of us are afraid that in an ultimate crisis, the Democrats would not protect us.

They might even surrender to a foreing power in the right circumstances.

You really have had more than your share of the Kool-Aid, Diane.

To folks living in the real world, it is quite clear the Republicans have no monopoly on patriotism or courage. In fact, if you objectively look at the Democratic and Republican candidates in the last presidential election, you would have to conclude that the Republican is a draft-dodging, cheerleading frat boy and the Democrat a patriot who volunteered to serve his country in combat. How does that jibe with your black-and-white view of the world?

But Albatrossity, there are people who didn't actually serve with Kerry who, in retrospect, don't like him.

"Diane's" attitude above is the most absurd part of modern politics. When I disagree with George Bush or with Phill Kline or whoever, I don't assume that they are sleeper agents for some foreign power who actually hate their country. We may disagree, but I consider it beyond the pale to attack the patriotism of people who have dedicated their lives to public service. People like "Diane" think that if you disagree with their view of what America should be, you must not like America at all.

Bizarre.

I know of no one who treats anyone but people who committed war crimes as war criminals. And some soldiers have been tried and convicted of war crimes.

We cannot defend America without defending the principles of fairness and liberty that are its founding ideals. If we defeat our enemies by abandoning what makes us great, we lose the only battle that matters.

Congress had only the inaccurate information that the President chose to give them.

And "Ian" and "Diane" are avatars of clueless trolls who have been banned from forums across the internet.

Amongst all the fallacious statements in Ian's messge, this is the most offensive:

Of course you don't. But your agenda allows you to rejoice in American defeat if it means beating Republicans.

In reality, the agenda of the current Administration is to continue sacrificing American lives if it means electing Republicans. In this Admninistration, everything is political. Foreign policy, domestic policy, alliances, and yes, even the lives of American soldiers, all take a back seat to getting Republicans elected. That is their agenda, and it is repugnant. Open your eyes.

Oh, and the second most disgusting falsehood in Ian's litany of lies is that he wants to impugn the patriotism of those who "slander our troops". Perhaps he doesn't read the papers much, but John Boehner (R-Ohio), the House Majority Leader, just told Wolf Blitzer that it is the generals who should be blamed if the war is going badly. Last time I checked, those generals are included in "our troops". Is this slander, Ian? Is Boehner a traitor? Or do you have an excuse for him, just like all the excuse for Ryun's pitiful voting record on issues deemed important to veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars? Oh, and if you do go to that web site and see the facts, can you explain why ALL of the Kansas Republicans, including Brownback and Roberts, seem to have lower ratings from this group of veterans than Dennis Moore, the lone Democrat in the group? Does that make sense in your "the democrats won't protect us" world view?

Or are you just refusing to face reality?

"Diane" diverted

If the democrats give in to the terrorists, play ball and negotiate, it will be MUNICH all over again.

And if the Republicans do it, what will be the difference? In case you forgot, go to this site and refresh your memory of Republicans helping Saddam when it seemed to be in their best interests. The point is that nobody and no party has a monopoly on patriotism. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a simple-minded idealogue.

As for your question (which you mislabeled as a "hint", for some reason), I don't know any "democrat leaders". If, however, you mean Democratic Party leaders, I think it was Howard Dean. So what? There are partisans on both sides of this issue; nobody has a monopoly on partisanship either. More evidence of simple-mindedness.

At least Democratic partisans are not leading the charge to make more terrorists by invading countries on false pretenses, trashing the Constitution, and makeing sure that people all over the world lose respect for America.

Now do me the courtesy of answering my question. Is Boehner a traitor?

I seem to recall Bill Frist suggesting that we ought to bring the Taliban into the Afghan government and of extremists into the Iraqi government. Democrats rightly objected to those Republican proposals.

"Diane"

Thanks for the generalizations.

But I noticed you didn't answer my question, even though I answered yours. Let's try again.

Based on his comments about our troops, is Boehner a traitor? Or is he just a hypocrite?

Interesting twists, "Chet". And thanks for the insult. I'd reciprocate, but I don't believe in getting into a battle of wits with an unarmed "man".

I'll try to word this response so that even your simple mind has a chance to get the point.

Your strawman

Are you seriously saying that letting Iraq go to the terrorists will bring "Peace"?

ignores everything I have been saying. Read the posts above. The notion that the Democrats are uniformly willing to give Iraq to the terrorists, and the notion that the Republicans are our only hope, are equally simple-minded. I realize you probably can't even pronounce "nuance", but please do try to get that point.

Republicans, including the present secretary of defense, were perfectly willing to let Saddam, who is universally acknowledged as a terrorist, run Iraq as long as it suited their business interests. Republicans, including the present vice-president, were perfectly willing to back Osama bin Forgotten in the fight against the Russians in Afghanistan as long as it suited their business interests. So if you want evidence of what can happen when your guys let those countries "go to the terrorists", all you have to do is read the papers and count the body bags as they come home.

But there is a deeper point, and although I realize that this message is probably already waaaaay too long for your reptilian attention span, perhaps it will be useful to point it out as well. The current Republican bogey/strawman, as espoused by Elizabeth Dole yesterday ("The Democrats WANT to lose the war in Iraq") is pretty harmless when you realize that this cannot be as bad as what the Republicans are doing right now. They are actually losing the war. Neither side wants that, but only one is actually accomplishing it.

Sorry, "Chet", I almost forgot to ask this.

If you think that "Boehner IS a traitor AND a hypocrite", why do you promote, defend, (and probably vote for) the party whom he represents? He is speaking for the Republicans, and no Republican has denounced these views. Usually people promote, defend and vote for the party that best represents their point of view. Is that what you are doing here? Perhaps you can enlighten us on this point as well.