Redstate

the Iraq conflict is not a liberal/conservative issue, it's a focus issue... while we've practically abandoned Afghanistan (the home of Al Qaeda and the Taliban) and moved over to Iraq, Iran (our next war) and North Korea have made some dangerous moves... it's amazing how this "threat of terrorism" argument in the context of Iraq is being kept alive... it's not been substantiated... but I understand your desire not to rock the boat...

and terrorists weren't trained in Iraq right?

should take solace in the fact that the right, once again there is no left, has failed to undermine the objectivity of the NY Times.  You can't have it all Fortney!  BTW, how do you get Pete out of Fortney,or  however the hell he spells that name.  A word of advice to "Pete", ask Castro how he did it.

The Middle East has been heretofore run by medieval dictatorships and mullahs, where "death to American and Israel" is taught to the kiddies from before they can walk.  Removing the region's token Stalinist and replacing him with a democratic government, social plurality, replaces bald hatred with hope and potential, and the reality that there are universal values.

This is about terrorism and the way to squelch it.  Some people think killing bin Laden will make the world rosy: Kill OBL, let a few in the Middle East program the many to want to see us dead.  That will not work.

It requires conceptual thinking, and arguably, we're all equipped to do it.

I understand what the guy is saying here though. Where I come from (bluest of blue states) NYT is considered left-of-center and the WaPo is considered right-of-center. Been that way since at least when Bush 43 came into office. So I'm sure those in Stark's district percieve it the same way, and might think of it as WaPo moving from right-of-center to the full-on right.

Obviously not.

But I understand the concern.

shoot first think later, probably thinks Philip Roth is a dentist.  

Outside of the fact that I sorta don't like the idea of government officials telling newspapers what they ought to have in them, I think Fortney here might have a good idea.

Wouldn't it be funny if the Post hired some moonbat from Kos and it turned out that the guy's opinion pieces were indistinguishable from the Post's news stories?

I've typed enough of these in my lifetime to realize that someone on Pete Stark's staff brought this to his attention and he probably dictated that into a recorder inside of 5 minutes.  You have to realize how powerful and genuinely insightful congresspeople are -- when something comes to their attention, they need to spend a few minutes thinking kind of hard, and then writing a letter that they've pulled out of a file folder.

But what really bothers me about Pete Stark is that he's an MIT engineering grad, but then got his business degree from Berkeley.  Sometimes when I read things like this I believe that he's so deeply removed from the country that he doesn't realize what's actually happening.  That would be my:  "Give Pete Stark the Benefit of the Doubt Because He's a Busy Man" idea.  But frankly I don't believe that -- in the pantheon of pathetic protests, this has to be the Panth of the Panth.  

It still doesn't excuse this.  He honestly believes this garbage?  To me it's proof positive that someone from MIT can be utterly twisted by the MBA professors at Berkeley, but after all, he had to want to go there.

. . . an editorial in favor of the Iraq War considered prima facie evidence of conservative bias? the AUMF passed the house by 296-133 and the senate by 77-23. To put it another way, in Stark's world if you take a position a position the 2/3 or more of congressmen and senators agree on, you have demonstrated a right-wing bias.

When I read stuff like this I get less worried about the midterm elections.

I say we plant the flag, declare victory and go home.

"The Iraq war is not a liberal/conservative thing. It's more about the ones take on the reality of the terrorist threat faced by the United States."

How intellectually dishonest.  Its not the presses job to conform to your world view.  Just because you perceive that the terrorist threat is somehow different today than it was before Sept 11 doesn't mean the press is liberal.  The same press that held the Abu Grabe story for almost a year, and held the illegal wire tapping story until after the election, and beat the drums for war is somehow liberal!  I guess if you can't get your point across with facts, you might as well find some kind of attack strategy...

velocette....your forgetting who had the majority when the vote was taken...

that all the degrees in the world do not convey wisdom or thoughtfulness.

I'm not surprised at this, not coming on the heals of the stellar performance of the Congress in the DPW debacle.

...you might have had a point on your stick.

"Just because you perceive that the terrorist threat is somehow different today than it was before Sept 11 doesn't mean the press is liberal."

If you are trying to rebut Mark Kilmer's point, you should try to avoid big, fat non sequiturs...but I see by your next statement that your tinfoil hat is on too tight:

"The same press that held the Abu Grabe story for almost a year, and held the illegal wire tapping story until after the election, and beat the drums for war is somehow liberal!"

At least you had the good taste to keep your CAP gun in its holster...probably because both hands were busy twiddling dials on your Talking-Point-O-Matic.

"I guess if you can't get your point across with facts, you might as well find some kind of attack strategy..."

Lefty Projection, Nino?

What was that about?  The Abu Ghraib story concerned the behavior of some military prison guards and the terrorist surveillance was not an "illegal wiretapping story."

Did I mention the press?

The choice of how to deal with the terror threat depends on how seriously you take it.  If you see it as a casual threat, you advocate punishing bin Laden and then going about our business.  If you see it as  a serious and global threat, you advocate on destroying the institutions which promote it.

I have a feeling, though, that you and I could not have a serious conversation.  I won't say why, but if it makes you feel better, call it a hunch.

The WaPo already has a 'Blue America' blog.

It's called the front page.

O'Rourke, p.176: Office Christmas parties. Wine-tasting parties. Book-publishing parties. Parties with themes, such as "Las Vegas Nite" or "Waikiki Whoopee". Parties at which anyone is wearing a blue velvet tuxedo jacket.

BenDom: Christmas parties. Wine tasting parties. Book publishing parties. Parties with themes, such as "Las Vegas Nite" or "Waikiki Whoopee." Parties at which anyone is wearing a blue velvet tuxedo jacket.

O'Rourke: It's not a real party if it doesn't end in an orgy or a food fight. All your friends should still be there when you come to in the morning.

BenDom: It's not a real party if it doesn't end in an orgy or a food fight. All your friends should still be there when you come to in the morning.

http://yourlogohere.blogspot.com/2006/03/nail-meet-coffin.html

That's P.J. O'Rourke's Modern Manners, by the way.

But not me.

You're my last solid hit for a little while. I'm savoring this.

Farewell, jackass.