Okay, we're getting closer. Painfully slowly, but inch by mother loving inch we're getting closer.

Now that you've named some people/groups who I will allow are "steering the agenda" (I still have issues with that characterization, but what the hey), you have yet to provide any evidence what so ever that these individuals/group are, as you asserted, "making excuses for terrorism". Since this is a pretty fricking nasty charge you're making, and considering that all these people/groups you are using as an example are internet entities with a record a mile wide, 2 miles deep and stretching back easily to 2007, you should be able to provide some link, some evidence to back up your claim that they are "making excuses for terrorists".

I know it's simply an article of faith on the right that Marcos, Huffington and Moveon are all just terrorists by any other name - fifth columnists, as Andrew Sullivan himself would put it. The problem is, you actually have to provide some evidence for this assertion and not just expect us to take it as a given, as such is the style on the right.

Seriously. I don't want to go through yet another series of comments asking you for evidence. It'd be nice if you would just produce some. There's this wonderful thing called the internet and it allows really easy linking through the use of URLs you can embed in your comments. Surely, if it's widely known that the people you're using as examples are well known for making excuses for terrorists, you could find something - anything - which could support your claim and share it with us.

Otherwise, you're simply asserting and no one really has any reason to believe your assertions are true.

Okay, fair enough as far as the explanation of the magnitude issue.. The problem is that you're just speaking in the passive voice, merely asserting that something is true without, as they say, naming names. I'm sure I can come up with groups/individuals who have a large influence over the democratic party who are, for example, advocates of women's rights or african american rights. I'm not sure I could come up with, for example, someone from those groups who are saying wacky things (like, for instance, Jesse Jackson) about one would claim that they have their hands "firmly on the steering wheel" of the democratic party.

You've asserted that there is a non-trivial part of the democratic base which "makes excuses for terrorism". Not only that, you've asserted that they're actually controlling the democrats on this issue. I'm calling you out. Simply name a few. Any. Simply asserting that this is the case does not make it so.

So far, that's all you've done.

You obviously know nothing about what you are talking about.

Sullivan is quite the opposite - actually dicussing (sometimes at excruciating length) his doubts about the things that he has supported in the past, or his reservations about the things he believes today. He even wrote a book about his doubts, and how they are, to him, a core element of his philosophy.

Why do you bother writing stuff like this?

And that's where the conversation stops. It's pretty clear you don't want any serious conversation but are here merely to make points.

Thanks for playing.

Wow, point by point, complete nonsense. It might be a few years before you get that big promotion at Starbucks.

Numerous false charges, hmmm, how many library records were pulled? zero. How many people have been tortured? Well three were water-boarded. Koran flushed? Nope. Burned with cigarettes, splatted with menstrual blood, made to eat pork. Nope.

The majority of country to country long distance calls switch through the U.S. Yes indeed it was about foreigner to foreigner phone calls.

You don't know what Turkey has to do with terrorism? Do you have a globe? Do you understand the U.S. is using Turkey to supply its forces in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Does the constitution grant jury trials to foreigners? Could you tell me where that is? Could you also let me know why no one thought this in any previous war in American history?

AQ has stated numerous times that Iraq is its focus. In terms of men and money nothing else comes close.

A straw man huh? How popular was the Iraq war when it started? About 80% of Americans supported it.

Elevated Assad's status and getting nothing in return is not diplomacy.

So Iran helped us out tremendously in Iran. Any references? Are they now helping the Taliban and up until recently Shia militias fighting Americans in Iraq, or is that our military lying again?

The opposition groups don't want our money? Funny how State thinks otherwise and no Dems have stated this when cutting funding. Any references on this or just a baseless assertion?

I'll just take these point by point:

Numerous false charges of civil liberty violations from folks who have never heard of RICO and can't state any specific complaints about the patriot act.

References, please. "Numerous" would imply you have an ample number of resources to draw upon. Please give specifics rather than just assert meaningless generalizations.

Attempting to block wirer tapping of foreigner to foreigner phone conversations.

A common misconception. That was never an issue. The issue is blocking wiretapping of conversations where one end is on american soil. So, you simply don't understand the issues involved.

Attempting to pass a resolution admonishing Turkey.

Not sure I understand WTF this has to do with terrorism, but I'll agree it was stupid to let this get to the floor to be voted upon. But, pray tell, did Turkey commit genocide? I guess we're now supposed to look the other way on genocide as well as water boarding as a form of torture. My, what a slippery moral slope y'all are on.

Not acknowledging that AQ has focused the majority of its resources on Iraq.

Again, references. I'm not aware of anyone who doesn't acknowledge that AQ hasn't been focusing a lot of resources on Iraq. The actual criticism by the left is that this wasn't the case before the invasion of Iraq. Indeed, Iraq has been a bonanza for AQ. The whole fiasco has created more terrorists, provided them with graduate studies in urban guerilla warfare and has been a recruiting poster operation. Bravo!

Attempting to grant constitutional rights to foreign terrorists.

You know, it would do you well to actually read the constitution and understand the concept of habeas corpus. It doesn't require citizenship - clearly and explicitly so.

Supporting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan until finding out people can die in war.

I'm not even sure WTF you're trying to say here. Let's just say that I'm pretty sure you have a lot of fun with this incomprehensible straw man.

Visiting Assad in Syria.

Yes, diplomacy is an age old mechanism to show "not taking terrorism seriously". Again, not sure you're aware of this, but this administration has done the exact same thing. I guess that makes the Bush administration one that does not take terrorism seriously.

Attempting to pass legislation to prevent any military response to Iran.

Guess you don't understand the difference between Shiites and Sunnis. Also, I guess you don't remember that Iran helped us out tremendously in Afghanistan. Further... Yi. I could go on and on wrt this lunacy.

Ending U.S. funding of Iranian opposition groups.

I guess you're also ignorant of the opposition groups telling us that our support is hurting their efforts, not helping them. Also, I see how well supporting Chalabi has worked out for Iraq. Maybe you should do your homework...

This points out the ridiculousness of proclaiming war on a noun. But saying so would make me deeply unserious and expose my apologia for said noun.

Numerous false charges of civil liberty violations from folks who have never heard of RICO and can't state any specific complaints about the patriot act.

Attempting to block wirer tapping of foreigner to foreigner phone conversations.

Attempting to pass a resolution admonishing Turkey.

Not acknowledging that AQ has focused the majority of its resources on Iraq.

Not responding to the 1993 WTC bombing, Africa embassy combings, the Cole bombing. Not arresting OBL due to concerns by lawyers.

Attempting to grant constitutional rights to foreign terrorists.

Supporting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan until finding out people can die in war.

Visiting Assad in Syria.

Attempting to pass legislation to prevent any military response to Iran.

Ending U.S. funding of Iranian opposition groups.

I take it that they are on the record as deploring Hiroshima and Nagasaki, then, which were deliberate efforts to terrorize Japan into surrender by killing large numbers of its people?

Or is it not terrorism if there's a state of war? Who gets to declare war? The U.S.? The Taliban? Osama bin Laden?

Opposition to "terrorism" seems to mean opposition to terrorism carried out on an insufficiently grand scale.

It's wrong to complain about it's use but not have the fortitude to step up and legislate.

Thank you for not disappointing me by the use of this fine debate tactic which has a long and honored tradition in American politics.

But seriously, your logic is simply erroneous. The congress doesn't have to ban it - it already is banned. What's happening is that this president has asserted it's necessary, redefined the system and now the democrats are in a pickle because they've been repeatedly punched in the gut by being characterized as soft on X, in this instance, X is terrorism and being soft means you're not gonna torture to fight it. It's an insane conversation, not - as James describes it - a welcome intellectual discussion brought about by 9/11. As to the specific reason why the congress hasn't restated something that doesn't need to be restated, I would venture to guess it's because the democrats don't have a solid majority and some of the members of the democratic caucus seem to agree with the right that torture is essential to fight terrorism. Now, this fact certainly does portray the right in a bad light as well as the democrats who agree with them on this issue. But given this reality, it's completely idiotic to suggest that they don't have the fortitude to step up and legislate. Of course, there's also the fact that the legislation would be clearly vetoed by the very administration that is pushing for torture.

Pretzel logic, Steve. Pretzel logic.

If these treaties are being broken why hasn't congress invoked those to force compliance by the administration?

I guess you're also ignorant of the way our govenment works as well as the definitons of "legislative" vs. "executive". But that's apparently par for the course.

More to the point, we already have invoked compliance by actually prosecuting and punishing those who have committed torture via water boarding. But I guess precedent doesn't mean much to a guy who is clearly uninterested in legal basis of what he's talking about. Far better to just speak off the cuff in ignorance.