Where to begin?

If supporting the war meant never having to face attack again, then the Department of Homeland Security could close up shop now and forever, since nobody is supporting the war more than the U.S.

By this same logic, England--though it sits at the other end of the selfsame Chunnel from France--would feel no effects from a Chunnel attack because Blair has supported Bush in the Iraq war from day one.

This post seems to have been nothing more than occasion for another mindless swipe at the French. Let's leave that to O'Reilly, shall we?

Actually, you misunderstand me. Any Islamist attack in the west is blamed on support of the Iraq war. As France opposed the Iraq war, it should be permanently safe from attack, right? Right?

You are incorrect.

That's a strawman argument commonly used by the Right. Nobody on the Left says that all Islamist attacks are a result of the war.

There were attacks before the war began, of course, as we all know.

Progressives say, rather, that Islamist attacks have increased in frequency since the beginning of the war, and that this increase is, in fact, a result of the war itself.

Michael-

Be serious.

The argument that terrorist attacks have increased in frequency as a result of the war in Iraq is absolutely foolish. It is comparable to arguing that "terror" attacks on US troops increased because we entered World War II. Anytime a country goes from peace to full-blown war there is a natural "increase" in "attacks" because the country is "shooting" a other "people."

It would seem, Dorian, that you have made my case for me.

We're in the midst of a Global War on Terror. We're fighting terrorists.

Our fighting them, as you point out, increases their likelihood of fighting us in return.

Terrorists fight by committing acts of terrorism.

Our attacks on terrorists, therefore, increase the number of terror attacks we receive.

My gosh, I'm so worked up that I have to revisit this.

The word on the Iraq war from the Bush Administration has always been, "We're fighting terrorists over there so we don't have to fight them here."

Presumably, then, the majority of some twenty-five hundred combat deaths in Iraq have come at the hands of terrorists, since that's who we're fighting in the Global War On Terror (the main front of which, we're assured, is Iraq).

How many combat deaths did U.S. forces suffer at the hands of terrorists in the three years before the start of the Iraq war? I honestly don't know the exact answer, but I know for darn sure that it is fewer than twenty-five hundred.

The logic follows, then, that more American soldiers are being killed because of the war on terror than they were before the war began.

Yes, but an engagement between US ground forces and a bunch of cavemen is not a "terrorist attack." It is a battle.

In Indiana a person who dyes, stains, or otherwise alters the natural coloring of a bird or rabbit commits a Class B misdemeanor morgage calulater [URL=http://hydrogen.usip.edu/moore/grpwww/machines/doc/Morgage-Calulater.html] morgage calulater[/URL] http://hydrogen.usip.edu/moore/grpwww/machines/doc/Morgage-Calulater.html

Yeah...what he said!

Al Qaeda continues to tell us that they are attacking us, because we continue to "meddle in their affairs" in the middle east, as a primary reason. France wants nothing to do with fighting, or interfering in Mid-East affairs. By the logic al Qaeda presents, France should be basically immune from attack.

Now, please grant us a Christmas wish and skeedaddle back to Daily Kos. Thank You and Merry Christmas.

I've never understood why Righties always tell Lefties to go away.

Because Lefties run out of evidence, or abandon their point, then begin rambling.

Please except my simple wish that you have a very Merry Christmas.

Michael,

Speaking of cutting and running, in Karol's Dec. 18 Victor Davis Hanson column post, you were rather animated in defending John Kerry's recent trip to the Middle East.
You directly challenged folks to explain why Hanson was perturbed with Kerry, but you've yet to revisit that issue since your initial challenge.

I do understand if you've chosen to 'redeploy' from that particular thread.

Nonetheless, Michael, I wish you a Merry Christmas.

BadBoy, the truth of the matter is that I just stop checking threads for replies after a couple of days.

I've gone back and read your post.

As often happens, you've twisted reality to suit your own nefarious ends.

The discussion had nothing at all to do with "Should Kerry be doing what he's doing?" We could discuss that, too, if you want. The specific question I asked that led to the discussion was, "I'm seriously unclear on how what was described here crosses the line from "bad judgment" over into "attempt to overthrow the government" or "crime against the state." I don't like the guy and I wouldn't vote for him for dogcatcher, but "treason" is pretty strong language, and I'd like to understand where people are coming from on the issue."

One would have to be lacking in sense, indeed, to construe that as a defense of what he's doing, animated or otherwise.

Happy holidays!

Michael,

Merry Christmas to you.

I realize Karol had a little tech difficulty allowing comments to be posted last week, but if you go back and look at the postings, you'll see that our responses to your dramatic challenge were posted pretty soon after you issued your initial post.
On the other hand, if you prefer to yield to a 'time-table for withdrawal' from that particular thread, I won't fault you.

I responded directly to your question about "treason" and "crimes against the state" by citing the fact that Constitutional authority for foreign policy rests with the Executive branch, and that I was certain John Kerry was NOT authorized by the White House/Secretary of State to meet with the particular foreign heads of state as he did.

You may insult me if you wish, but it's actually a question of Constitutional authority---it's neither a question of anyone's personal taste for Senator Kerry, nor is it a question of what my "nefarious" objectives on behalf of the Halliburton-Israel-WalMart-Fox News neoconservative cabal might be.

If you do choose to stay with this issue, let's continue in its proper thread of Dec. 18 where everyone can follow the context.

Respectfully yours.

Well, come on, man: in order to try to quickly score a few style points you portrayed my position in re: Kerry as one that is diametrically opposed to the position I actually took.

Anyway, I moved this thing over to that other thread, but I think you'll see that there's not much to talk about.

You need only read that once, by the way.