Seth.com | Political Blog | Obama's the Perfect Candidate for the Sally Field Party

“…I've wanted more than anything to have your respect. The first time I didn't feel it, but this time I feel it, and I can't deny the fact that you like me, right now, you like me!"

That about sums up what the Democratic party strives for – likeability. They fervently believe that if an American leader is “liked,” then “the world” will like us. And if the world likes us, the possibility of war is diminished.

Sally Fields’ impromptu phrase explains the phenomenon that is Barack Obama. On the face of it, his resume is not befitting that of a President in these complex times. Experience-wise, years of “community organizing”– his longest held “position”– is ridiculously insufficient.

His long personal associations with the blame-America-first: terrorist William Ayers, Pastor Jeremiah Wright, and wife Michelle – not to mention his close association with the Chicago real estate “fixer” Tony Rezko – would have already brought down 99 percent of any other presidential aspirant.

So if it’s not experience or sound judgment that have elevated Senator Obama to the status of Presumptive Nominee of the Democratic Party, what has?

It’s his likeability, the political asset that trumps all others in Left-world. Succinctly, the Left is dying for America to be liked again!

When European articles are written with titles such as “Obamamania! Europe Can’t Get Enough!” it’s confirmation to the Left that they have the right candidate. Hillary Clinton could have had 20 years in the Senate, and crafted important legislation, but she still
wouldn’t have had the style, looks, charm or “cool” the Left yearns for in its candidates.

Being liked, has long been central to the Left’s identity. The playwright Arthur Miller says as much in his 1949 play, Death of a Salesman. The failed traveling salesman, Willy Loman, tries to impress upon his son Biff that success in life depends less on hard work and more on being “well liked” and having personal attractiveness. Biff breaks with his father when he recognizes the speciousness of “being liked” and realizes how it has led his father to live in a world of dreams and illusions. Kind of like the modern Democratic party believing that if Ahmadinejad “likes” Obama, the Iranian zealot will dismantle his nuclear program!

Harry Truman wasn’t “liked” during his last year in office and had an approval rating of 22 percent. In retrospect, we know the tough decisions he made were not influenced by thoughts of his own popularity. The same can be said for President Bush, who has had to
make even more difficult and heart-wrenching decisions – decisions that have led to ZERO attacks against our country in almost seven years.

America is safer because seasoned men like Truman and Bush knew that being right is more important than being liked. It’s something the modern Democratic party, as shown in its choice of Obama as its standard bearer, does not understand.

For, when all is said and done, the true goal of the Left, is to be able to gush from the proverbial world stage: "You like us, right now, you like us!"

So what's wrong with being liked? After all, isn't the election just a popularity contest anyway. As a matter of fact, I don't think I've ever heard of anyone casting a vote for someone they hated, other than the republicans that were ordered to vote for Hillary by Rush Limbaugh. Using your logic I would suggest John McCain's campaign slogan should be "Vote for me--I'm a prick!" If your using hate as a yardstick for success, then George Bush has had a phenomenal presidency.

I found one of your lines perhaps unintentionally laughable:

"His long personal associations with the blame-America-first: terrorist William Ayers, Pastor Jeremiah Wright, and wife Michelle..."

You're condemning Obama for a "long, personal association" WITH HIS WIFE! Now I've heard the right wing try make Obama seem like he was deeply involved with some shady characters, but when you attack Barack Obama for associating with his wife, that's when you know he's been fully vetted by the RNC and they have absolutely NOTHING left to throw at him. The Rev.Wright issue is done. The William Ayers story went nowhere as soon as the media that ISN'T run by Rupert Murdoch or the Moonies realized it was a non-story. On the other hand, we have little nuggets of hypocrisy coming from John McCain on almost a daily basis.

Your Arthur Miller analogy is quite absurd as well. But I have to give you points for citing it because it is a perfect analogy for George Walker Bush as Willy Loman and W as Biff.

Better luck next time. As always, I look forward to your next republican talking points rant.

Bill wrote:

"So what's wrong with being liked?"

Nothing, but it's more important to do what's right. Bill Clinton was someone who desperately needed to be "liked", and thus, based his decisions on that. As president you're called on to do what is right, oftentimes, when the public disagrees -- at the expense of approval ratings.

"After all, isn't the election just a popularity contest anyway."

This cynical view is true to many on theLeft. Not, to many on the Right, who care about things like : winning in Iraq (which we're doing), lower taxes (which spur growth) and non-activist judges on the Supreme Court. Little stuff like that.

"I found one of your lines perhaps unintentionally laughable:

'His long personal associations with the blame-America-first: terrorist William Ayers, Pastor Jeremiah Wright, and wife Michelle...'

You're condemning Obama for a "long, personal association" WITH HIS WIFE! ..... when you attack Barack Obama for associating with his wife, that's when you know he's been fully vetted by the RNC and they have absolutely NOTHING left to throw at him."

All we know about Senator Obama is what HE tells us (in his two books). If it weren't for Fox News, we wouldn't know about Jeremiah Wright or William Ayres. Because we know so little about Obama, we need to glean information about "who he is" from the people he associates with. His wife's strident (and blame America first) comments, shed a light into his thinking. MICHELLE OBAMA IS FAIR GAME IF SHE IS OUT THERE CAMPAIGNING FOR HIM.

"The Rev.Wright issue is done."

Actually, you ain't seen nothin' yet. And it's a completely legitimate issue: Obama spent 20 years listening to this creep and America is going to hear what Obama heard for 3 months this fall. It will be wall to wall Wright. And then you'll get a feeling for where the good Senator's thinking is really at.

"The William Ayers story went nowhere as soon as the media that ISN'T run by Rupert Murdoch or the Moonies realized it was a non-story."

A non-story? How many "friends" do you have that tried to detonate the Pentagon and Police Headquarters in NYC and then said --just 6 years ago --that he hadn't "done enough"? As with my answer before: you haven't even begun to understand how much you're going to have Ayre's face plastered in your brain come September --and justifiably so. What presidential aspirant would have a "friend" like a former Weather Underground terrorist? It's a very disturbing association that must be, and for sure WILL be heavily covered come the fall.

Mr. Swirsky once again hits the bullseye with his keen observations of the shallowness of the left. When the left screams that everybody hates America what they are really saying is that their lazy, cowardly, and visionless fellow lefties in Western Europe hate us.

If they would pay the slightest bit of attention to what has been happening in Western Europe they would know that the citizens of those countries are moving towards President Bush not away from him.

Of course that won't matter to the lefties. After all, these are the folks who so easily turned their backs on the Iraqi people by not supporting their new and fragile constitutional democracy. They so easily were willing to throw their humanitarianism to the curb and not protect the Iraqi people from the indiscriminate mass murdering al-Qeada and Iranian proxie thugs.

They did this not because they had a better plan or vision. Oh no, they did this because their fellow lefties around the world were upset at America and we weren't "liked". They did this because it was more important to them to wallow in their hyperpartisan hatred of George Bush. The fact that they are willing to enthusiastically throw their support to a freshman Senator with little are no experience who trumpets a vague and empty message of hope and change should not be surprising to anyone.

Shallow yes, surprising no.

"MICHELLE OBAMA IS FAIR GAME IF SHE IS OUT THERE CAMPAIGNING FOR HIM."

The right has nothing else on Obamasso they attack his wife. Now that's a real manly thing to do, but that's what the right calls "fair game". Beat up the woman. Nice.

So I suppose you'd say seeing as Cindy McCain isn't campaigning for her husband, her drug addiction and thieving from the medical charity she ran, is off limits. That logic would also hold true for her refusal to release her tax returns to the public. If they won't be transparent concerning sources of income how can we trust McCain with the country's pursestrings? After all, he was a defender of Charles Keating, an unsavory character who ended up costing the taxpayers BILLIONS of dollars. McCain, as a member of Congress accepted vacation junkets from Keating which he paid back ONLY after he was caught.

Much to your chagrin, William Ayers has never been convicted of a crime. If he's guilty of anything, it's of exaggerating his own involvement because he admits to never "setting a bomb" himself.

As far as Rev. Wright is concerned, the public is tired of hearing about him. If the right wants to revisit it, McCain as plenty of skeletons the left will be more than willing to let out of the closet that are a LOT worse than Rev. Wright.

This is what I mean when I say he's been fully vetted and there's nothing left the right has on him so now they attack his wife, try to connect him to an old radical he sat on a board with at one time, link him to a racketeer who once contributed $200 dollars to his campaign and blame him for listening to an outspoken Reverend he's dissassociated himself with. This is ALL you have to work with for a negative campaign strategy for the next six months. Good luck with that.

You may want to check out www.mccainpedia.org.
The democrats had to launch an entire website just to keep up the the antics and flip flops of your candidate, John McCain.

In response to Bill's comment of my comment:

'MICHELLE OBAMA IS FAIR GAME IF SHE IS OUT THERE CAMPAIGNING FOR HIM.'

"The right has nothing else on Obama so they attack his wife. Now that's a real manly thing to do, but that's what the right calls "fair game". Beat up the woman. Nice."

Michelle Obama is actively campaigning for her husband. What she says is totally fair game. The Obama campaign has eviscerated Hillary's Clinton's partner for his statements on the campaign trail. Michelle Obama is the possible First Lady: her elite and unappreciative attitudes about America, that SHE has articulated, are not only fair to criticize, but important to as well.

"So I suppose you'd say seeing as Cindy McCain isn't campaigning for her husband, her drug addiction and thieving from the medical charity she ran, is off limits."

Cindy McCain doesn't give strident speeches where she says America is a country of "broken souls" and that if we don't elect the prophet Obama, we won't be healed. Cindy McCain is not giving speeches. If she was, the Democrats would criticize her. She has been forthright about her private struggles. Her tax returns are none of your f-'in business and you know it.

"Much to your chagrin, William Ayers has never been convicted of a crime. If he's guilty of anything, it's of exaggerating his own involvement because he admits to never "setting a bomb" himself."

William Ayres was a founding member of the Weather Underground:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Ayers

"As far as Rev. Wright is concerned, the public is tired of hearing about him. If the right wants to revisit it, McCain as plenty of skeletons the left will be more than willing to let out of the closet that are a LOT worse than Rev. Wright.

It has nothing to do with the public being "sick of it." It has to do with Obama's true lack of judgement. The more we hear of Wright --and we will hear lots and lots and lots --the more it will be ingrained that THAT IS who Obama is. He titled one of his books after one of Wright's speeches: he sat there for 20 --TWENTY!!! -- years and soaked up what the good preacher had to say. And to think differently would really require for usually ostrich-like liberals to bury their heads even deeper in the ground. Obama has, at the very least, black nationalist leanings and America will finally "get" that this fall. Whether they still want to elect him is another story.

And desperately looking for things in McCain's closet is futile: the guy fought for his country -- was a long time prisoner of war for his country and has served as a Senator for 25-years. So, when you go searching for stuff in his closet, I say to you: bring it on!

"This is what I mean when I say he's been fully vetted"

He clearly hasn't been. We wouldn't have known about Jeremiah Wright if Hillary had dropped out.

"and there's nothing left the right has on him so now they attack his wife"

"Reverend Wright" stuck as it should have. William Ayres is a real isue and America will come around on this shortly. Be patient. It's a real issue. Obama fraternizes with people who want harm to come to the country. Ayres said he had wished the Weather Underground had done more. He wasn't satisfied that they didn't destroy more. This is who Obama sits on a board with. I don't have a single friend that sits on a board with an unrepentant terrorist. Do you? I would disavow a friend that didn't.

"link him to a racketeer"

Um, Rezko gave Obama big bucks to buy his home. Obama gets a free pass from the decidedly left media and might have beaten this. But, don't be fooled: he took the money.

"an outspoken Reverend he's dissassociated himself with."

He only disassociated himself with Wright AFTER he DIDN'T disassociate himself from him (in his incredibly cynical and phony "Race Speech" that now, in light of Wright's return, everyone's forgotten about.

By the way, all these "issues" Obama has brought on himself with his extremely poor judgement and actions. But, the ostrich-like Left has gotten it's minority candidate to the precipice of the nomination so better bury the head a little deeper in the sand.

"This is ALL you have to work with for a negative campaign strategy for the next six months."

Yes everyone: don't dare criticize the prophet Obama --for, that would be "DIVISIVE". I still cannot decide whether the Left is more stupid or weak. I've settled on "all of the above."

"You may want to check out www.mccainpedia.org.
The democrats had to launch an entire website just to keep up the the antics and flip flops of your candidate, John McCain."

Not surprising: the Left always must create it's own version of "history" to be congruous with it's "blame America first" worldview. Suffice it to say, it will only be read by leftists that have already drunk from the Jim Jones-like, Kool-Aid already.

"Michelle Obama is the possible First Lady: her elite and unappreciative attitudes about America..."

So if John McCain, by some miracle is elected president that would make Cindy McCain...THE FIRST LADY! So let's all chant in unison:

"Cindy McCain is a drug addict. Cindy McCain is a thief!"

The left can play that game too. You could stretch the fact that she so willingly broke the law that she must hold law enforcement, lawmakers, and government officials in disdain; therefore she is anti-government and hates her country. Easily done.

And talk about elite. Cindy McCain is an heiress to fortune! She is as elite as it comes. But let's not mince words. When you say Michelle or Barack Obama are "elite" isn't that just a code word for "uppity"? The right is the one that constantly plays the race angle and when Obama or the left go to defend themselves, the right say's something just like what you've said referring to Obama as having "at the very least, Black Nationalist leanings". So then at the most he's what?? Thought about robbing the local am/pm? Black Nationalist leanings. That's like saying John McCain has White Supremacy leanings. Oh, and in case you missed it, Obama had 75,000 people at what might have been the biggest political rally EVER and I got news for you...white people were there--a LOT of white people, as in--not a lot of black people. I'll just hazard a guess and say the race issue isn't a big deal with the majority of whites. Do you think Grandpa McCain could pull that kind of crowd? The correct answer is "no".

"I don't have a single friend that sits on a board with an unrepentant terrorist. Do you?"

Well, of the boards I've sat on, the subject of "unrepentant terrorism" among members doesn't usually come up too often. We once had a Little League umpire whose breath reeked of Canadian Mist, but I think it actually improved his strike zone. I think if William Ayers were a serious threat to anyone he'd be in jail and not a professor at the University of Illinois. By the way, Charles Keating did time; William Ayers did not.

So I hope your party of good ol' white boys gets a thrill out of giving a beating to Michelle Obama, because you know as well as I do they're all just a bunch of stinking cowards. Today they chased the little black girl down the block. Tomorrow they'll beat up the Jew.

"Michelle Obama is the possible First Lady: her elite and unappreciative attitudes about America..."

So if John McCain, by some miracle is elected president that would make Cindy McCain...THE FIRST LADY! So let's all chant in unison:

"Cindy McCain is a drug addict. Cindy McCain is a thief!"

Cindy McCain is not on the stump making speeches.She is not fair game, politically. If you want to have the standard poor manners the Left has and trash her for prior drug misuse that she has been forthright about, go ahead. But, the comparison is a poor one and I won't explain why again.

"And talk about elite. Cindy McCain is an heiress to fortune! She is as elite as it comes."

No she's not. "Elite" is an attitude of which The McCain's do not have.

"But let's not mince words. When you say Michelle or Barack Obama are "elite" isn't that just a code word for "uppity"? The right is the one that constantly plays the race angle and when Obama or the left go to defend themselves, the right say's something just like what you've said referring to Obama as having "at the very least, Black Nationalist leanings". So then at the most he's what?? Thought about robbing the local am/pm? Black Nationalist leanings. That's like saying John McCain has White Supremacy leanings."

I was waiting for the race card to be pulled: it's ALWAYS pulled by the Left when Barack is in trouble --and he's got so any things things to explain about the choices HE MADE that we'll be hearing a lot of Republicans called racists this fall --or shall I say, anyone who dares question the prophet Obama will first be called "divisive (God forbid you question the prophet!) and then "racist." Your guys game is so predictable.

Here's the deal: I listened and understood Martin Luther King. I judge peole NOT on the color of their skin but on the content of their character and Obama shows me very little character -- in his associations, in his wanting to befriend enemies of our friendsand in his narcissism. I'd vote for Michael Steele tomorrow, because his worldview is correct -- he just happens to be black.

"Oh, and in case you missed it, Obama had 75,000 people at what might have been the biggest political rally EVER and I got news for you...white people were there--a LOT of white people, as in--not a lot of black people."

Correction: a lot of Oregonian LIBERALS were there.

"I'll just hazard a guess and say the race issue isn't a big deal with the majority of whites."

Tell that to the majority of working class whites who didn't vote for Obama in the states that matter (which doesn't include Oregon): Pennsylvania, Texas, Ohio and Indiana. Those Reagan democrats have a very good shot at voting for "Grandpa McCain" because he shares their values, unlike the elitist Obama.

"I don't have a single friend that sits on a board with an unrepentant terrorist. Do you?"

"Well, of the boards I've sat on, the subject of "unrepentant terrorism" among members doesn't usually come up too often. We once had a Little League umpire whose breath reeked of Canadian Mist, but I think it actually improved his strike zone. I think if William Ayers were a serious threat to anyone he'd be in jail and not a professor at the University of Illinois. By the way, Charles Keating did time; William Ayers did not."

Wow-- you really got me with that profound fact: Ayres didn't do time but Keating did. Man, I have to re-think everything now.

"So I hope your party of good ol' white boys gets a thrill out of giving a beating to Michelle Obama, because you know as well as I do they're all just a bunch of stinking cowards. Today they chased the little black girl down the block."

She's not little and she's not an innocent victim --but, oops--you're a liberal, where all the "good guys" are victims!

"Tomorrow they'll beat up the Jew."

In fact, the Republican party supports Jews and the Jewish state. Where anti-semitism resides today is directly on the Left. Visit any college campus and the "progressives" are marching against Israel, the apartheid state. It would be laughable if it wasn't so sickening and disturbing. Any Jew who votes for Obama --with his close associations with Israel (and Jew) haters, is insane.

Lev wrote:

"Bill, Seth is very partial to guilt by association."

No, Seth is guilty of judging a person by the company they keep.

"However, I understand that he is friends with someone who once wore an American flag shirt. Seth has a friend who desecrates the US flag!!! Seth must really hate America! QED."

I have no idea what you're referring to or what this means.

"A lot of the "support" to the Jews that comes from the Christian Right is about stewardship of the "Holy Land" and the concomitant apocalyptic fantasies they have. So I also agree with Bill that these right wing intolerant maggots are by-and-large anti-semitic. "

Israel has very few friends in the world because people are plainly jealous of her: 7 million in a democracy --read, FREE --surrounded by a totalitarian neighborhood of 350,000,000. (That is, until Iraq becomes fully up and running, which they've made tremendous strides toward, despite American liberals waving the white flag and rooting for their defeat).

But, I digress: the evangelicals in the U.S. are a great friend of Israels when that is what she needs.

The intolerant ones are liberals, constantly trying to make evangelicals out to be evil. In the elixir they made you drink in grade school and beyond (me too, as I was once a liberal), you were meant to think of evangelicals as "evil" --Republicans as well. Funny thing is, Republicans/conservatives and evangelicals are far more charitable ,do more community service, give more money and are more compassionate than our friends on the Left, who grow up thinking they have the copyright on "compassion":

http://philanthropy.com/free/articles/v19/i04/04001101.htm

"By the way, you can have deep problems with the State of Israel (a caricature of what it was supposed to be) and not be biased against Jews."

Love this argument --only topped by lefties saying "I'm against the war but I'm for our soldiers." My response: Yeah, right!

So, let's talk about the "deep problems" you have with Israel. When all is said and done, the "deep problems" some have with Israel --when it's all boiled down --is that....drum roll... Israel defends it's right to exist. Plain and simple.

Oh yeah, I know about "proportional responses" -- Israel is supposed to be able to pick out Hezbollah or Hamas killers, when those cowards hide amongst the citizenry in the Palestinian territories or in Lebanon. I'm sure that is one of the "deep problems" you have with Israel. Well guess what? The IDF doesn't have time for political correctness. Israel still fights and defends itself in the most morally correct way possible (trying to keep innocents deaths to a minimum).

One other small bit of info that you clearly do not recognize: Hamas/Palestininas/Hezbollah/Iran/Syria/much of Europe want the end of Israel. Thus, it is a war. And in war the side who devastates the other side, WINS.

Now isn't that so simple? When all is said and done, Israel hasn't done enough to devastate her enemies. In fact, the concept of 'land for peace' is a foolhardy one for Israel to still have. Know why? Hamas doesn't want peace. Thus, everytime Hamas launches a rocket into Israel, Israel should build another home in the West Bank. Everytime Hezbollah fires a rocket on Israel, Israel should fire one on Damascus. Let's see how long that game will play on. Answer: not very long.

"Indeed, many Israelis don't support their government. But Seth equates not supporting a government (e.g., the US government) with hating the country it governs."

It's one thing to criticize your government, but quite another to consistently blame it for the world's ills --as, liberals do constantly with the big satan (the U.S.) and the little satan (Israel). It explains the natural affinity radical muslims (Hamas, al Qaeda) have with American liberals.No wonder the prophet Obama wants to sit down and take tea with them: he likely agrees with them!

The comment about the flag wearing friend was a Joke!! Just extrapolating from your foolish rants against Obama's connection to Bill Ayers. A tempest in a teapot.

Israel is a democracy similar to ancient Rome. If you are a Jewish (or a Citizen) then you are given rights. If you are Arab (or a slave) not so much. Of course it is a very complicated situation in Israel. You have the indiginous Arab population and the now very established Jewish population living in a rather small piece of real estate. The answer seems to be some kind or real democratic arrangement for everybody and no easy way to get there -- you are fine with the Israeli's oppressing the Palestinians -- I'm not. The really sad thing is that the Palestinians, who had been the most secular and cosmopolitan of any Arab grouping, have been driven into the arms of islamists because of their dispair. They have been screwed not only by Israel, but by the surrounding Arab states as well (e.g., the black september massacre).

Just thought you might like a little history to help you sort it out. Ciao.

Lev wrote:

"The comment about the flag wearing friend was a Joke!! Just extrapolating from your foolish rants against Obama's connection to Bill Ayers. A tempest in a teapot."

The joke is that Obama now has a flag pin plastered to his lapel: But, he's not a normal politician, right? Next-

"Israel is a democracy similar to ancient Rome. If you are a Jewish (or a Citizen) then you are given rights. If you are Arab (or a slave) not so much."

Mmm...Israeli Arabs were the only Arabs in the history of Mankind with the right to VOTE (until that is, the undeserving --according to the Left -- Iraqis voted three times. I would say the Israeli Arabs have more of a voice than any Arabs ever!

"Of course it is a very complicated situation in Israel. You have the indiginous Arab population and the now very established Jewish population living in a rather small piece of real estate. The answer seems to be some kind or real democratic arrangement for everybody and no easy way to get there -- you are fine with the Israeli's oppressing the Palestinians -- I'm not."

Israel "oppressing" Palestinians? Israel has bent over backwards (Oslo,Camp David) to give the Palestinians 98 % of what they asked for. And what did Israel get back in return? Suicide bombers that killed 1044 Israelis from 2000-2008. That translates into about 63,000 Americans. The Palestinians, you see, still have in their charter that Israel must be destroyed. But, you, with the other Pal apologists, conveniently forget that. Note: The Palestinians live in tents because that's what they CHOOSE to do --after billions of dollars of aid from the E.U. and the U.S. Stolen by Arafat, they CHOOSE to teach their children that Jews are Pigs and that they "deserve" the land. Correction: they deserve their condition. I shed not a single tear for them: I save those for the innocent Israelis who got blown up for no reason. Those Israelis are you and me, but you don't want to recognize it.

"The really sad thing is that the Palestinians, who had been the most secular and cosmopolitan of any Arab grouping"

There was no such thing as a "Palestinian" until the term was coined in 1964.

"...have been driven into the arms of islamists because of their dispair. They have been screwed not only by Israel, but by the surrounding Arab states as well (e.g., the black september massacre)."

They drive themselves to despair, having been given every opportunity to CHOOSE to live good lives. But, they CHOOSE to strap bombs on their teenagers to kill innocent Israelis.

Former Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir had it right when she said: "Peace will come when the Arabs will love their children more than they hate us. "

"Just thought you might like a little history to help you sort it out. Ciao."

Funny thing is how you cherry pick history to fit your false narrative of "Palestinian suffering at the hands of the wicked Israelis" which is patently absurd.

Lev wrote:
"Can a people really be evil? Do you think that under any kind of normal circumstance they would choose suicide bombing as
an excellent career path? Are the Palestinians (or whatever-the-hell you think they should be called) an evil people? I'll buy that there are evil individuals...but evil peoples? I doubt it."

The Palestinians elected Hamas to represent them. You know, the group that bombs Israel daily? As long as the Palestinians have in their charter the avowed goal of destroying Israel, yeah, I'd call them evil. Just as I'd call the Germans who vigorously supported Hitler deserved their just desserts -- the bombing of Dresden. It was Britain and America's way of saying to the German people -the entire country - if you support people like Hitler again, this is what happens to you. Fully justified.

The Palestinians have beengiven land (Gaza) that they've ruined; they've been given 10s of billions oif dollars that they allowed Arafat to squirrel away; they've been offered 98% of their "demands" at the Camp David Accords in July, 2000. Yet, they CHOOSE war. I capitlize the word "choose" because you seem to want to overlook behavior: they could have had peace in 2000 (and many times before that), but they CHOSE to blow up innocent human beings. However they live, whatever their fate, they have it coming to them. Personally, I have not a scintilla of sympathy for them: I save that for the innocent Israelis that dare live life like you do: in freedom, harming no one, except in defense. THEY deserve your sympathy - not a society of killers that cheered in the streets on 9/11!

"Please don't try to cite Nazi Germany."

Too late. And the similarities are correct.

"Yup, those wacky Palestinians..."

I wouldn't have chosen the word "wacky". "Homicidal", "destructive" and "War-making" would have been more apt choices.

"In fact, the Republican party supports Jews and the Jewish state. Where anti-semitism resides today is directly on the Left. Visit any college campus and the "progressives" are marching against Israel, the apartheid state."

I would say to you: take the Yarmluke challenge. Don your Yarmluke and go through Kentucky and West Virginia, (very republican states), travel through a handful of small towns, and hit a handful of local watering holes. At each stop keep a notebook on what type of reaction you get. It might be a very interesting study you could turn into one your short films or maybe a book. Call it "Jewish, Like Me". But if you get any type of negative reaction, I would be dissapointed if you "pulled the race card" because if you were to get your teeth knocked out, you may try to paint yourself as an "innocent victim" and that just wouldn't be right.

"Tell that to the majority of working class whites who didn't vote for Obama in the states that matter (which doesn't include Oregon): Pennsylvania, Texas, Ohio and Indiana."

I'll admit, there are a lot of racists in those states. I've been to all of them and truth be told, the "n" word is used pretty frequently in all of them. They're not afraid to use it as a noun OR an adjective.

I doubt the left will attack Cindy McCain, but the right has no problem attacking them. I'm sure you're familiar with the "black baby" push polling in 2000 instigated by Karl Rove.

As always, enjoy the the point-counterpoint.

You certainly are one blood-thirsty SOB. You think the incineration of 100,000 people was a good thing? Serves them right for living in Dresden (what the fuck were most of them supposed to do, move to Switzerland? How about the children who were killed). It was not a military target, but was meant to terrorize the population. The war was pretty much over as the Red Army was destroying the German military on the eastern front. It was gratuitous. And if you give me any of that "war is not pretty" shit I am going to puke. Seth have you ever faced ANY major privations in your life (like having a parent spontaneously combust?). Shame on you!

So if you ever get blown up by some islamic terrorist, who rightly thinks your country committed unspeakable atrocities in the name of "freedom" in the arab world, can you blame the islamic fanatics for thinking "good riddance to Seth" (and your family, friends, etc.). Perhaps you have more in common with them than you think (e.g., gratuitous slaughter of civilians of my enemy is just fine). You call the palestinians a society of killers so that you can feel OK about murdering them. There are many different points of view among palestinians and most of them are at least as decent and as worthy as you are, you know.

You are just like the maniacs who are running the country now -- bravely willing to slaughter any number of people if they are on the "other side." Like many of them, you never served in the military (Oy, your mother would have plotzed) and are merely a hawk from your Barca Lounger. ICK!!!

You are a good musician, but a sorry excuse for a political blogger. I've sort of enjoyed our back and forth, but when you paint things in your black and white, reactionary and really hateful way(rah rah Dresden), I'm taken aback. I guess I'll say what Nietzsche said to Wagner: "cobbler, stick to your boots."

Lev wrote:

Serves THEM right for supporting Hitler and his murderous thugs.

"It was not a military target"

Europe was a military target. Hitler made that so.

"...but was meant to terrorize the population."

No, it was meant as a lesson never to think about making war again: and for 63 years now, it's worked.

"The war was pretty much over as the Red Army was destroying the German military on the eastern front."

So?

"It was gratuitous."

It was payback and it was justified.

"And if you give me any of that "war is not pretty" shit I am going to puke."

War is not fun and games , where the loser sits at the negotiation table and says "never mind". There must be sever punishment to the makers of war, especially the kind that Germany perpetrated in World War II.

"Seth have you ever faced ANY major privations in your life (like having a parent spontaneously combust?). Shame on you!"

This has nothing to do with me: It has only to do with crime and punishment.

"So if you ever get blown up by some islamic terrorist, who rightly thinks your country committed unspeakable atrocities in the name of "freedom" in the arab world, can you blame the islamic fanatics for thinking "good riddance to Seth" (and your family, friends, etc.)."

But they'd be wrong because my country didn't commit unspeakable acts. One day, you and hopefully many other in left-world will stop equivocating "good" and "evil". They are very different. America and Israel are the force of good in the world (and other western countries). Radical Islam, Nazi Germany are clearly forces of evil. Just reminding you.

"Perhaps you have more in common with them than you think"

Nope --we're not equal: I am for 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness'. They are for the opposite of those ideals. The two aren't equivalent. One is good, one is evil. I'll let you guess which is which.

"You are just like the maniacs who are running the country now -- bravely willing to slaughter any number of people if they are on the "other side." "

The president isn't slaughtering anyone: he's giving them freedom at the same time he's made us much safer. Again, your tripped-up by your moral equivalency problem.

"Like many of them, you never served in the military (Oy, your mother would have plotzed) and are merely a hawk from your Barca Lounger. ICK!!!"

Do you have an opinion on abortion? I'm sure you do. Have you ever had one? of course you haven't. Then, how can you have an opinion on it? Next -

"You are a good musician"

Thank you!

"...but a sorry excuse for a political blogger. I've sort of enjoyed our back and forth, but when you paint things in your black and white, reactionary and really hateful way (rah rah Dresden), I'm taken aback. I guess I'll say what Nietzsche said to Wagner: "cobbler, stick to your boots."

Mmm...Nietzsche and Wagner...not my favorite people -- a little too Jew-hating for me.

"I've been to the deep South many times: extremely nice people who are caricatured constantly, by leftist Hollywood".

I have to agree, many people are very friendly and overly accommodating. However I can say-- leftist Hollywood aside, there is a reason they call them stereotypes, and that applies to both sides of the coin. I worked in Owensboro, Kentucky and you'd be surprised how many times I'd see a check or invoice dated May 32nd. Honest. You'd hear people talking about "Niggertown" and there was lots of tobacco and alcohol abuse. There were drive-thru liquor stores where you could get drinks to go with a piece of tape over the end of the straw to get around the open container law. I think the town, at that time had five distillerys and the smell of mash was in the air constantly.

As far as "leftist Hollywood" is concerned, I heard complaints about the revisionist history in "Munich" and the racsism of "Crash" and of Mel Gibson's "Apacolypto". I'd like to see a list of movies and which direction the political slant is going and why. You may be a film buff, why don't you put together a list or write an article. I promise I won't argue your findings because films can go both directions. Ever seen "The Believer"? That's one that goes both directions at the same time.

Lev wrote:

"FYI, one of the reasons Nietzsche broke with Wagner was because of the latter's anti-semitism. Just thought you might like to know."

I happily stand corrected. Thank you.

"And of course you are allowed to have an opinion about things you have not personally experienced.My point was that you seem to believe that obliterating thousands of people is Jim Dandy."

Now isn't that a silly assumption? You obviously didn't read my previous post. So, let me re-explain: When countries, like Germany, start two world wars, resulting in the deaths of over 65 million human beings, that country must be punished for that behavior. The punishment was not only the devastation of Berlin but also Dresden. It was a message sent by the West that served as a reminder to future generations of Germans not to even think about starting wars -- EVER again. Simple crime and punishment, my friend.

65 years later, we see the wisdom of those decisions: Germany is an extremely productive (and peaceful) country. The world cannot allow countries like Germany of the 20th century to get off with a hand slap. We didn't and that was correct.

"And coming from a person sitting on a very comfortable perch, your bloodlust is rather unseemly."

More silliness...

"Especially where unarmed civilians are concerned."

The German people bet on Hitler: there are consequences to actions, my friend.

"It is not as though Iraq attacked the US. What are the Iraqi's being punished for? Oh, I forgot! We are blessing them with "freedom.""

You're finally getting it. And the Iraqis see that we're not abandoning them and thus, they are "with us". Unlike the American Left who are "against" the forces of good,continually making nice with bad actors like Syria's Assad (Nancy Pelosi had tea with him recently); Hamas (Robert Malley, Obama's just-resigned 'advisor' on the Middle East, has been meeting with them); Iran's Ahmadinejad, who Obama can't wait to take tea with, believing , narcissisiticly, of course, that the power of HIS personality can convince the Iranian zealot to give up his nuke program. Why doesn't it surprise me that you consider the plight of the evil doers of history and not the good guys (America, Israel, the West)?

Hi. Did you miss me? This collective guilt thing with the German people is problematic. You say the German people bet with Hitler. Did all of them do that? Not by a very long shot. Did you know that the concentration camps were originally built for political opponents of the Nazi regime -- Mostly Communists and Social Democrats. They were Germans, Hundreds of thousands of them were killed. The people of Dresden were, by and large, not SS members. Do you think they had a big choice in 1944 about what to do vis a vis the Nazis? And again, what about the children that were incinerated? It's OK, as long as their not your children? Look, I know that my position that Dresden was an atrocity is probably not the majority opinion here, but I don't believe that you have such low regard for human life that you really think that it was OK.

Punish the Nazi leaders, you bet. The entire civilian population of a major city, not good. And again, I repeat: Iraq did not attack the US, did not even have the capacity to do so -- remind me why are we punishing them?

Oh, have you had a chance to read any of McClellan's book. He's a putz, but what he says is of interest, no?

Apparently, Scott McClellan's Christian conscience finally got the better of him. His book contains no revelations, he simply stated what most of us have known for years: the Bush Administration catapulted us into an unwarranted war and outed a CIA operative in the process. As a result, we've killed more innocent Iraqis than Saddam and have tainted our reputation as a World Power.

If you want to know what really has gone on in Iraq watch this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5oosB7YqROc

You can see why the media didn't cover it. It is pretty damning evidence of the wanton killing that is going on there and how the military is rewarding soldiers for brualizing Iraqi citizens. We went there under the auspices of liberating the Iraqi people and ended up establishing an occupying regime as horrific as the one we displaced.

You can tell that McClellan is being truthful, because all the right wing pundits and Fox News are calling him a liar and a traitor to the "inner circle" of the Bush Whitehouse. As the weeks go on and Rove is forced to testify before the Judiciary Committee, I have a feeling we'll all see the long knives being drawn.

Re: "Scott McClennan's book":

It matters not to me what a press secretary has to say regarding The Iraq war: I only care about what Bush, Cheney or Rumsfeld have to say. Why? Because the Iraq war was the correct move to make at the time. Childish "gotach' lefty's --consumed by Bush/Republican hatred -- would have damned Bush today if he hadn't gone in and taken out Saddam Hussein who had plans (that we recovered) to re-constitute his WMD program. The Left would have said "Bush was too cowardly to ACT on Saddam: now look!"

You see, the Left ALWAYS acts in reverse --it's a reactive party, not pro-active. It blames, it doesn't initiate.It's the party of "blame America first", not "America's the last great hope of mankind."

Thus, Scott McLellan matters very little. The policy of ridding the world of Saddam --post 9/11, when all the evidence of all the world's major intel institutions agreed he had WMD-- was correct and justified.

Oh, yes and didn't 70 % of the country agree that taking out Saddam was a good idea? Methinks, YES. Oh, and didn't a whole lotta democrats vote YES on going into Iraq? MeKnows, Yes. But, those democrats were duped by the "stupid" Bush, right? Yeah, I got it now.

The 3-week invasion to rid the world of Saddam was a stunning success. The MISSION was ACCOMPLISHED! Who could forsee the kind of warfare we would face? No one could (especially not that true imbecile, Obama, who tries to pawn himself off as someone that "knew" it wasn't the right move. Typical, know-nothing, pacifist, who thinks (like his mentor the Reverend Wright) that America had 9/11 coming to her. This guy is a joke, whether he is elected or not.

Wars are won by nations that adapt. We've adapted and we are winning. Clearly. But, the Left wants to throw away an amazing victory. This is reminiscent in history of how the Left of Civil War days wanted to quit in the summer of 1864 asking 'why are we fighting for blacks--they can't adapt to freedom anyway.' If we had listened to those dolts then, where would we be now? 600,000 men lost their lives to free blacks, but liberals to this day wallow in their guilt of what an 'evil' country we've been. It explains the joke known as "Obama".

regarding "Dresden": the Germans had it coming. If you make war, there is a penalty. Dresden was a way of saying: try this again and look at what's going to happen to you. And YES, GErmans supported the wars it started--and YES, Germans supported the systematic mass murder of Jews and deserve every ounce of punishment they received in return. Succinctly, there is a reason they 'play nice' in the world now.

As in Iraq and Dresden, we've cut off the head to save the body.

I tend to agree with you on the success of the the "3-week invasion", unfortunately we've been there long after "mission accomplished". We set out to depose a dictator, change a government and infuse democracy and stabilize a country that has been in political shambles for decades. We did that and it is now time for us to declare victory, begin a gradual withdrawal and let the Iraqi's perform their own security, which the DOD claims they are capable of.

I'm disappointed to see you resort to name calling where Obama is concerned. Perhaps by lowering the bar to that level you're attempting to attract more bottom-feeders to you're blog.

As far as your "know-nothing pacifist" remark is concerned, need I remind you that Jesus was a pacifist, as was Einstein and Albert Schwietzer. I'll leave you with the words of another famous pacifist:

"If someone thinks that love and peace is a cliche that must have been left behind in the Sixties, that's his problem. Love and peace are eternal".
--John Lennon

Bill wrote:

"As in Iraq and Dresden, we've cut off the head to save the body."

What?

"I tend to agree with you on the success of the the "3-week invasion"

Good. The world is safer without Saddam Hussein and (eventually) a free, democratic Iraqi state.

"unfortunately we've been there long after "mission accomplished". We set out to depose a dictator, change a government and infuse democracy and stabilize a country that has been in political shambles for decades. We did that and it is now time for us to declare victory, begin a gradual withdrawal and let the Iraqi's perform their own security, which the DOD claims they are capable of."

It's not time to declare victory until the place is totally stabile --or-- they will be overrun by Iran and/or al Qaeda. It is NOT the time to abandon the Iraqis who are incredibly thankful to us for liberating them. You will be seeing statues of George W. Bush all over the middle in the coming years.Mark my words.

"I'm disappointed to see you resort to name calling where Obama is concerned. Perhaps by lowering the bar to that level you're attempting to attract more bottom-feeders to you're blog."

Look, I've come to feel that Obama is not particularly well versed in recent history. He doesn't understand what happened vis a vis the Munich Conference in 1938 (with its horrific consequences); he doesn't understand that JFK was eviscerated by Khruschev when they had their summit in 1961 (which, again, had terrible consequences): he doesn't understand that Nixon going to China is not the same as the president going to Iran. It's staggering , Obama's lack of grasp on recent history and that's to say nothing of his downright lies: his grandfather didn't free the Jews of Auschwitz; his father didn't come to America because of JFK's program to bring people over from Africa. You can write all this off to a 'bad memory' but Obama is scary in his lack of a firm grasp of history.

"As far as your "know-nothing pacifist" remark is concerned, need I remind you that Jesus was a pacifist, as was Einstein and Albert Schwietzer."

Pacifism = weak. There ARE things to fight FOR: freedom is one of those things. Are you a pacifist if Iran threatens to nuke our country? The Swiss, with their "neutral" stance on war are weak. "Nuetral" means, that they won't take sides when it comes to good vs. evil. Mmm...was Hitler evil? The answer is clearly YES.
It's easy to call yourself a pacifist: it's tougher to do the heavy lifting of winning wars against nations or groups that INTEND to destroy your way of life --like bin Laden, Hitler, Ahmadinejad and others.

"I'll leave you with the words of another famous pacifist:

"If someone thinks that love and peace is a cliche that must have been left behind in the Sixties, that's his problem. Love and peace are eternal".
--John Lennon "

When I was 7, I sang "All You Need is Love" and until my 40s, believed that, as the song that Lennon wrote says, "Love is all you need."

But it's not true. The truer title would be: "all you need is love (and a strong American military)." You know why? Because without the American military, you'd be speaking German -- that's if you aren't Jewish, whereas, you'd have never been born because the Germans would have wiped out every Jew in the world.

Finally, Lennon was a man of his ever-changing times. A cuddly toy at the beginning, a clever author, the next. A non-political guy one minute, then an un-realized radical. At the end of his life, Lennon wasn't FOR all the 60s junk he himself peddled. He was a fan of Ronald Reagan AND despised Jimmy Carter. His years of "Imagine" were long gone by the time of his death in 1980.

Well, of course the results of the US invasion of Iraq are stunning!!! The country is stunned and my not recover for a century. And you know what? The fucking democrats were totally complicit in the Iraq fiasco. They either bought or allowed the administration to prattle on about a six-week commitment costing a few billion $'s. So is it OK that they were off by several orders of magnitude. Don't start with the "Left." There is no single such entity. Besides, the lame liberals you quote aren't leftists. They are merely to the left of your own private Idaho.

Seth you are so blinded by your loyalties that you can't tell a debacle from a victory. Replacing Saddam with islamic militias and general chaos being the order of the day is not good. Oh, and FYI, it was the Soviets who broke the back of the German military machine. The US (allied) invasion of Normandy came very late in the game.

Lennon at some points was a socialist. His views tended to move around quite a bit though. As Seth here is far better at making music then generating useful political commentary so was Lennon (although, I think we might agree he was at least a little bit more accomplished than Seth). Lennon, however was naive. Seth is cynical and bloodthirsty (what he calls realistic).

Lev wrote:

"Well, of course the results of the US invasion of Iraq are stunning!!!"

Yes, in fact they are. Lowest casualty rates, an Qaeda seriously on the run. Improved infrastructure. You see what al Qaeda got for what they did on 9/11? 2 NEW DEMOCRACIES IN THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD! Not what they expected. Liberals would have "turned inward" and asked themselves what "America did wrong" and then would have tried to raise the "self esteem" of radical muslims --because, , of course, it's all about 'self-esteem' now isn't it? Not.

"The country is stunned and my not recover for a century."

It's a budding democracy that is RECOVERING from 30 years of the most brutal dictator.

"And you know what? The fucking democrats were totally complicit in the Iraq fiasco."

It's not a fiasco --it's war. And war isn't won with the snap of a finger, like the shortsighted, impatient (or "child-like", is you prefer) Left demands. But no matter.

"They either bought or allowed the administration to prattle on about a six-week commitment costing a few billion $'s...."

This is the "Bush lied and thousands died" segment of our program. No one "fooled" democrats. Bill Clinton, Al Gore, all of em, SAW THE SAME EVIDENCE AS PRESIDENT BUSH DID --provided by all the world's major Intel services. That the war-making radical, Saddam Hussein, had WMD.

After 9/11, would it have been responsible to allow WMD to be in the hands of someone that would use likely it (or why have it?)? No, it wouldn't. Bush did the exact right thing. It was right then, it's right now.

Now, on to Iran, who is making WMD. Time to destroy their nuke sites, The sooner the better. For the safety of the world.

"Don't start with the "Left." There is no single such entity."

Really? The Democrats are now the party of the far left, the party of moveon.org. If you're a liberal who happens to be for the humane notion of supporting a budding democracy Iraq, then you get booted from the party. Can you say "Joe Lieberman"?

"Seth you are so blinded by your loyalties that you can't tell a debacle from a victory."

I was a longtime Democrat. I switched because I discovered that what liberals say is filled with hot air. They stand for nothing; they are reactive not pro-active; you have to be a VICTIM, or support victimhood to be a member of the party; it's a party of 'group-think', not individualism; it is a party of 0 vision and absolutely no patience --like children. Very glad not to be a democrat anymore.

"Replacing Saddam with islamic militias and general chaos being the order of the day is not good. "

The Iraqis are now "with us" even while the U.S. Senate is "against us."

"Oh, and FYI, it was the Soviets who broke the back of the German military machine. The US (allied) invasion of Normandy came very late in the game."

Yes, the Soviets deserve the lion's share of credit --they lost 20 million men in the war. But it could not have been won without our extremely brave soldiers. We lost over 1/4 of a million men in 3 years of fighting in 2 continents, having to defeat two brutal, inhumane peoples, Japan and Germany.

"Lennon at some points was a socialist. His views tended to move around quite a bit though."

Lennon was politically unaware until 1968, preferring to spend most of his time hooked on drugs.When the Beatles broke up, he became a faux radical. That didn't work. By the end of his life he was donating $1000. to the N.Y. policeman's fund to get more bullet proof vests. He loved NYC and would have been rather upset at those that killed 3000 people in the city he adopted as his home. Stop re- 'imagining' Lennon as someone he wasn't.

"As Seth here is far better at making music then generating useful political commentary so was Lennon (although, I think we might agree he was at least a little bit more accomplished than Seth). Lennon, however was naive. Seth is cynical and bloodthirsty (what he calls realistic)."

Bloodthirsty? Do you think I like war? That would be silly, but unsurprising. My position is quite clear: I think that sometimes pre-emptive war can stop much larger and destructive war. Succinctly, if we had taken out Hitler in 1938, 53 million people might not have died in World War II. Making Iraq and Afghanistan democracies now are tremendous blows against the very real forces of radical Islam that want to chop your head off. Peace!

Bill, I missed the statue comment from Mr. "give war a chance" Swirsky! Good point!

Seth, how do you propose the US would have "taken Hitler out" in 1938?

Maybe sometime we can have chat about how you can't build bourgeois democracies based on the social and economic realities of countries like Iraq and Afghanistan. And Bush and Co. (and the Democrats too) are not interested in the well-being of Iraq'speople just in what the US will get out of this bungled mess. They do not give a crap about "democracy" in Iraq. So wither you are unbelievably gullible, which I doubt, or pretty damn cynical yourself.

You do like this war, you think incinerating civilians is just fine and I bet you think dropping A-bombs on Japan was cool. Eisenhower himself was very critical of that you know. But I guess he was a leftist.

[When he learned of the dropping of two atomic bombs on Japanese cities, Eisenhower commented: "It wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing . . . to use the atomic bomb, to kill and terrorize civilians, without even attempting [negotiations], was a double crime." (Ike on Ike, Newsweek, 11/11/63] Quoted from How We Got Into This Mess By SAUL LANDAU, Counterpunch 5/30/08.

Lev wrote:

"Seth, how do you propose the US would have "taken Hitler out" in 1938?"

By any means possible. It was clear to the world that Hitler had ramped up his war machine. There was oppositon to Hitler but it was useless after Neville Chamberlain's appeasment of Hitler at Munich. That's the same message that Obama wants to send, by meeting unconditionally with Ahmadinejad, to those who support democracy.

"Maybe sometime we can have chat about how you can't build bourgeois democracies based on the social and economic realities of countries like Iraq and Afghanistan. And Bush and Co. (and the Democrats too) are not interested in the well-being of Iraq'speople just in what the US will get out of this bungled mess. They do not give a crap about "democracy" in Iraq. So wither you are unbelievably gullible, which I doubt, or pretty damn cynical yourself."

This is just over-the-top cynicism on your part: Bush cares that people are free, but what he most cares about is that Americans are safe (0 attacks in almost 7 years and still counting). 2 new democracies in the middle east as a response to 9/11 -- Obama or Kerry or Gore, or whatever feckless, weak democrat was in office from 9/11 on would have tried to "understand" why those nasty people did that to us. Bush correctly surmised that more democracy in that region would give a choice to the repressed people there. And he's right. It's why the Iraqis are fighting with us now --they know they we'll be there to help them, unlike the deeply disturbed democrats who want to leave them to the almost assured bloodbath there would be if we abandoned the Iraqis. Oh yeah --did you see who won those recent big battles in Iraq? If you guessed "the Iraqi army" you won the prize! Democracies don't happen overnight --but patience was never a virtue to leftists who demand, like little children, to get what they want when they want it or they'll take their ball and go home, regardless of the circumstances.

"You do like this war, you think incinerating civilians is just fine"

Is that statement more stupid or silly or both? You pick.

"and I bet you think dropping A-bombs on Japan was cool."

Not "cool" but necessary to STOP the war before Americans had to go onto the Island of Japan where the estimate for American deaths were 250,000 and Japanese deaths, 1 million. The bombs stopped the war.

"Eisenhower himself was very critical of that you know. But I guess he was a leftist."

No, he became a politician and a politician's job is to get elected.

"When he learned of the dropping of two atomic bombs on Japanese cities, Eisenhower commented: "It wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing . . . to use the atomic bomb, to kill and terrorize civilians, without even attempting [negotiations], was a double crime." (Ike on Ike, Newsweek, 11/11/63] Quoted from How We Got Into This Mess By SAUL LANDAU, Counterpunch 5/30/08."

Saying this in 1963 is different from being the president, making the decision to end the war, in 1945. Even if Eisenhower believed this in 1963 or in 1945, he was wrong.

Lev wrote:

"IRAQ HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11!!"

Radical Islam is intertwined: Saddam gave to Arafat and Hamas; Iran financially supports Hezbollah and Syria -- after 9/11, we couldn't allow a determined madman like Saddam Hussein to be an actor in that region. Radical Islam has no borders: Saddam had to go.

"Bush has also prevented a major earthquake and tsunami from destroying the eastern US. Hurray!"

Back to being silly again...

"Might I remind you that you have stated in these pages that you think the fire bombing of Dresden was fine."

Yes, it was justified as a way of punishing Germany for the worst human rights abuses in the history of mankind.

"You defend our attack on Iraq whenever it comes up -- is there some ambivalence that I'm missing?"

"Attack on Iraq"? Or...more accurately, the taking down of a vicious dictator, with proven, evil intentions, who (according to all the world's intel services) had WMD. Not only did we take him out in a brilliant 3-week campaign, we gifted democracy to 23 million human beings. As the saying goes, "Freedom isn't free" and it has taken time to get the ship righted, but General Petraeus seems to have done that with the surge that John McCain had been advocating for many years.

"There were also alternatives to nuking 2 cities -- you are in the majority when you defend it -- obviously a demonstration might have been in order -- or a warning or just nuking one city.

We warned Japan a number of times. They CHOSE to continue to make war. We bombed Hiroshima and they again CHOSE to continue the war. We bombed Nagasaki and guess what? They now play baseball, trade stocks and DON'T MAKE WAR! What do you know!

"What's so funny about peace, love and warmongering, Seth?"

The opposite of war isn't necessarily peace. It's oftentimes WORSE WAR, which all want prevented.

"Face it, Eisenhower would probably be called a closet communist by the likes of you and your political co-(and I use the term loosely) thinkers."

Not.

"Your utter cluelessness about what a real marxist, or even left would look like, could be due to growing up in a very impoverished political culture."

If it sounds like a Marxist, has hung out with Marxists and has been influenced by Marxists, it's probably a Marxist. Just sayin'...

Lev wrote:

"OK, your main argument on most issues is guilt by association."

No, it's not. I reject the "change" Obama wants: it's socialism.

"On that count, McCain has just as much baggage as Obama."

This is just not reu by a long stretch. McCain didn't it ina church and soak up White superiority (for instance). Obama's main mentor was a bigot. And Obama STILL hasn't said why he was there for 20 years. You know why? Because he believes in that stuff. That goes to his judgement and that's a fair issue. McCain has ni such character issues. Sorry.

"Obama neither sounds, hangs out or has been influenced by marxists (unless he is a remarkably stealthy). Show me one marxist aspect of any proposals he has ever made."

Read the article from Investor Business Daily I posted. Obama has a myriad of Marxist connections.

"If he actually proves to be one, I would happily give him my vote."

Why would you support a completely failed ideology? To each his own, I guess.

"Oh, and the "If it walks like a duck. . ." argument was used a great deal by the McCarthyite Witchhunters in the the 50's. Ruined a lot of lives. But then old dead Joe is probably a hero of yours, too."

The biggest "McCarthyites", by very, very far, are those on the left in Hollywood: if you aren't "one of them", try and get work. And P.S.: those that supported communism in the government and Hollywood RUINED their own lives. Unlike you, I'm glad communists were outed out of our government and out of making propagandist films. I'm proudly pro-American, unlike you, who doesn't appreciate that because you live in this country are you allowed to even express your nonsense. That's what our soldiers --who you do not support --are fighting for: your unappreciative "ideas" about your own country.

Yes. Those soldiers are fighting and dying to keep Saddam Hussein from invading the US and destroying the Constitution. Only thing is, Bush is beating him to the punch.

Your assumption (and it is only that) that the policies Bush has fostered have prevented a major terrorist attack in the US cannot be proven. It could be dumb luck. Given that the ports/airports/chemical plants/nuclear plants have not been made significantly more secure than they were before 9/11 I suspect that is the case. And in terms of the world situation, he has made things much more volatile and dangerous. The instability in Pakistan alone could be catastrophic (they have nukes, you see.

As for communism (small "c") as a failed ideology, you should learn what it is before you condemn it. Capitalism has given rise to wars that have killed more than 100 million people in the last 100 years. We have famine in a world where food is plentiful. People die of epidemics that are completely preventable. I'm just guessing based on your calling Obama a marxist that you haven't done a lot of reading of Marx, Lenin, or Trotsky. There are many who have called themselves marxists (e.g., Stalin) who were not. Looking around the world, it is apparent that capitalism isn't doing real well. I agree with Engels when he said that ultimately the choice for humankind is socialism or barbarism.

Lev wrote:

"Your assumption (and it is only that) that the policies Bush has fostered have prevented a major terrorist attack in the US cannot be proven.

Um...let's go slowly here, because your deranged hatred of Bush (like almost everyone on the Left) has made your already fact-challenged views, sound even stupider (chosen word): There have been 0 (zero) as in NO attacks on this country since 9/11, that killed 3000 of our citizens in 30 minutes. Bush put a host of policies into place --all approved by Democrats. And they have worked, even as the feckless leftists bitch and moan about their Rights to voice their un-American opinions have supposedly been taken away. Clearly they haven't been as you haven't been arrested.

"It could be dumb luck."

Or, you could be "dumb". Ever think of that?

"Given that the ports/airports/chemical plants/nuclear plants have not been made significantly more secure than they were before 9/11 I suspect that is the case."

Again, and as many times as it takes: we've had 0 (zero) as in NO attacks against this country since the devastating attacks of 9/11, when the question was "when" we'd be hit again, not "if".

"And in terms of the world situation, he has made things much more volatile and dangerous. The instability in Pakistan alone could be catastrophic (they have nukes, you see."

The Pakistani's are "with us" not against us, like the American Left.

"As for communism (small "c") as a failed ideology, you should learn what it is before you condemn it. "

I don't need to: I don't want to be a slave. You can if you like for under communist regimes, you couldn't type your anti-American screeds. I'll choose America and freedom every day of the week.

"Capitalism has given rise to wars that have killed more than 100 million people in the last 100 years."

Capitalism gave rise to wars? I don't think so. Things like Nazism gave rise to wars. Capitalists don't fight eachother. Moreover, it's been America that FED Europe after both WWI and WWII and much of the world today. We are the most moral, decent nation in the history of mankind.

"We have famine in a world where food is plentiful. People die of epidemics that are completely preventable."

Chicken Little, the sky is falling, the sky is falling....

"I'm just guessing based on your calling Obama a marxist that you haven't done a lot of reading of Marx, Lenin, or Trotsky. There are many who have called themselves marxists (e.g., Stalin) who were not. Looking around the world, it is apparent that capitalism isn't doing real well. I agree with Engels when he said that ultimately the choice for humankind is socialism or barbarism."

Capitalism is doing better than well and it's the only hope for mankind. But you keep preaching enslavement, go ahead: it's a FREE country!

"I do have an intense dislike for Bush. But he too will pass. And it's pretty strange to watch you denounce an ideology that you profess to know nothing about."

I don't need to know more about Marxism other than it enslaves people.

"It's all black and white, good against evil."

I used to believe in "nuances", as the Left is wont to call the opposite approach. But, when all is said and done, nuance mostly leads o over-thinking and thus, misguided judgements. It's one of the reasons I left the Left. When most things are boiled down, it does come down to "good" behaviors vs. "evil" ones. Succinctly, I have no interest in radical Islam's "grievances" when: A) they CHOOSE violence (and that was a choice) at every turn B) they have no interest in talking as Hitler didn't.

This is where the liberal approach is dangerously naive and why Bush has been an outstanding president: you must take on evil-doers, regardless of the 'grievances' BECAUSE BEHAVIOR speaks volumes louder than anything. Bush has taken on Bin Ladenism and it's showing amazing results: 2 new democracies in THEIR backyard, the American will to stand up for freedom (if we don't do it, no one will), etc.

"I think a reasonable reading of the Senate Intelligence Committee's report would be that the president and his administration lied, repeatedly and almost constantly in the run up to the invasion of Iraq. Two Republicans on the committee approved the release of the report, so it's hard to argue this is a partisan abomination."

Not:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/08/AR2008060801687.html

"And what's with the name calling? I think you are very misguided and maybe naive, but I don't call you dumb."

Did I call you dumb? If yes, I sincerely apologize. probably caught up in the moment, but uncool. Thanks for pointing it out. I appreciate your thpughtful posts.