I think you would also have to consider the number and prominence of most of the lefty bloggers you mention here vs the odd right side bloggers that might be found.

You don't have to "troll around long". Look no further than nationalreview.com, for example.
To most of us the "stridency" of the posts on the right are not surprising at all.

'Still, the stridency of these posts, even from bloggers and publications on the moderate side of the lefty blogosphere is surprising. '

Surprising to people who live in a dreamworld. It's a great opportunity to have the left to convey their sympathies without the pretense of giving a shit about America.

We believe that Bush, Cheney, and Republicans bear sole responsibility for 9/11;

We believe that the United States and its policies are responsible for making terrorists attack this country;

We believe that if we get rid of George Bush and the Republicans, we will once again be safe;

We believe that the people of America who supported those policies over the years (during Republican administrations) are little Eichmanns, and deserved to die on 9/11 ;

We are ready to believe (if the polls support us) that Bush and Cheney actually planned the events of 9/11 as a prelude to taking over this country, destroying our civil liberties; and instituting a fascist state.

We believe that Israel probably had a part in the events of 9/11, working with Bush and Cheney in some sort of neocon plot;

We believe that the only people who are innocent of 9/11 are the actual terrorists who plotted and executed it;

We believe that Bill Clinton and his administration had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11 and that, if Al Gore had won the 2000 election then 9/11 would never have happened;

We believe that anyone who disagrees with the above statement is trying to distort history and their views should be prohibited. Only we --and Michael Moore-- know the truth and should be heard.

We believe that Bill Clinton and Sandy Berger have never lied;

We believe that the most serious outcome of 9/11 is the Islamophobia and the unconscionable backlash that has victimized Muslims in the U.S.;

We believe that the greatest threat to freedom in this country occurs when images of 9/11 are used to further the warmongering plans of the Bush Administration;

We believe that all the rhetoric used by the Bush Adminsitration is pure evil, designed to manipulate people to hate; but that the rhetoric used by Iran and the fatwas of Al Qaeda are "only words" and should not be taken at all seriously;
We believe that the people who flew airplanes into buildings on 9/11 are reasonable people who you can trust, and with whom you can discuss reality;

We believe that the Bush Administration is irrational, unreasonble and certainly cannot be trusted; and that they are completely out of touch with reality.

We believe that Iraq had nothing--nothing--to do with 9/11 because Saddam Hussein and his lieutenants have clearly said so, and we believe and trust them.

We believe that the deaths of almost 3000 Americans on 9/11 is not a big deal; certainly doesn't deserve the disproportionate response that the Bush Adminsitration has taken in the last 5 years; and that the threat to the U.S. has been grossly overblown and manipulated so that the Bush Adminsitration and Republicans can accumulate political power.

We beleive that our motives in saying all this are pure, holy, and extremely patriotic; because we have no desire to acquire political power for ourselves and that it is our selfless duty to make sure the American people to accept our creed.

We believe this country has suffered horribly under George W. Bush,
whose policies have caused us to
descend into hell.

But in November, 2006 , we will rise from the dead.
and ascend into congressional heaven
and shall sit once again at the right hand of power
from whence we shall judge the current administration.

We believe in the perfection of the U.N.,
the communion of multiculturalism,
the victimhood of the oppressed,
the resurrection of a dead ideology,
and denial everlasting.

Amen.

It's good that you pointed out these posts from the left. Lots of talk from the left about Bush's spinelessness. But for real, world-class cowardice, you want to grab New York's Village Voice published right after the attack. No words of sympathy for the terrorists, nor the criticism of Giuliani and Bush that you'd find many months afterward. The Voice, and most of the left, only found the courage of their convictions when it was safe to do so. Until then, they hid behind political leaders and 'hero firefighters' like everyone else, and their fear, frankly, was palpable. You could smell it coming off the page.

Andy Rooney's quote and you assumption that it is saying it is our fault is troubling. Will you consider anything other then America being spotless? Such a stance is that of one that is uneducated. We supported and still support violent dictators. One of them being Saddam when he was useful to us. We do create people that hate us by supporting Israel so strongly.

Do I think any of that is wrong? I don't know, it depends on each situation. My point is that people have reason to hate us and if we want to win this war in the Muslim world we must do one of two things. Kill everyone or win their minds over. That is what Rooney is suggesting.

No, I'm not a liberal, no I'm not a dem. I'm just common sense that seems to have lost the Republican Party who favors a fantasy world over reality.

Kos' birthday is 9/11? Wow, just like Butters!

Joannes Jacobsen asks that we look no further than nationalreview.com for examples of bloggers on the Right using the day as an occasion to bash Democrats and explain that why Voting for Any Democrat is Tantamount to Surrender to Osama Bin Ladensmall>TM.

Oddly enough, Jacobsen didn't link to any pieces that were exaples of this, so I went over myself looking for them.

The site has posted a bunch of articles under the heading, "9/11: FIVE YEARS LATER." About the only piece that looked promising was Patriotism Faded, by John O’Sullivan.

How strident is this?

And it is undeniable that there are often good (and patriotic) reasons for opposing particular aspects of U.S. foreign policy.

Senator Biden and Peter Galbraith, for instance, have advanced criticisms of our Iraq policy that one recognizes as prompted by a desire to improve U.S. policy and Iraq’s future even if one disagrees with them. John Bloom similarly wrote very strong columns criticizing the arrest and detention of Middle Eastern immigrants as terror suspects on the basis of inadequate evidence and in violation of due process. He thought such things as the unmarked detention center on New York’s lower East Side were a fall from what should be America’s high standards in civil rights. He sought to arouse the American conscience.

And if dissent can be patriotic, it is not invariably so. After all, treason is the highest form of dissent. When “critics of the war” describe the terrorists as the equivalent of Minutemen in the Revolutionary War, or argue that the abuses at Abu Graib make Bush and Rumsfeld the equivalent of Saddam Hussein, they are crossing the boundary that separates even very strong dissent from a diseased partisanship that would prefer America to be defeated by terrorists rather than prevail under the wrong party. That partisanship is hardly distinguishable from hatred of country and gradually mutates into it.

Doesn't sound like a blanket denunciation of Democrats or liberals to me.

"Still, the stridency of these posts, even from bloggers and publications on the moderate side of the lefty blogosphere is surprising."

Why?

So legitimate discussion over policy and response is now considered traitorous...then I guess the terrorists have won because you all seem to think taking away freedoms from people who don't agree with your limited world view is ok...you should move to saudi arabia where they allow that!

Such a stance is that of one that is uneducated.

Such a sentence is that of one that is an ungrammatical ass clown.

You must understand James, that America is more than just Americans, it is the real-world expression of ideals and principles - of democracy and liberty. Any defense of America must ultimately be a defense of these principles.

As horrible as the attacks were, they killed "only" people. Nothing that Osama or any such scum could ever do can damage our beliefs in our principles and ideals.

Only we can do that to ourselves. This administration has relentlessly divided our nation when we need unity, undermined our Consitutional system of checks and balances, and rode roughshod over basic Constitutional principles of due process (not even mentioning their disastrous policy choices within the scope of their legitimate responsibilities). These trends, though not as dramatic as a singular event of mass murder, are ultimately more destructive of the America-as-embodiment-of-ideals than any amount of killing of indiviuals.

Many of us non-conservatives have been thoroughly heartbroken at the spectacle of our conservative brothers and sisters seemingly responding from such a well of fear, to embrace and propel the authoritarian tendencies that Bush has embodied. Bush is the focus of this, for he is the leader, but the tendency would probably be found in any leader in such circumstances. It is why so many other countries turn to dictatorships in times of uncertainty - why indeed authoritarian dictatorship is the default political arrangement in human history.

I dont fear that we would ever come close to such a dictatorship here in America, nor do I think that Bush and his supporters have any such explicit vision. But they have taken a few steps in that direction, and this has provoked an absolutely necessary reaction. The price of liberty is eternal vigilance.

The right-wing in this country seems so fear-addled that they believe that American liberty could be damaged by terrorists. They fail to realize that the whole strategy of terrorism is to establish the circumstances under which terrorized people will defeat themselves. For America, such defeat would occur by an abandonment of our principles. We will not allow that.

Osama bin Laden said in October 2001, "This battle is not between al Qaeda and the US. This is a battle of Muslims against the global crusaders." The newly aired AQ tape contains statements of the 9/11 attackers that their actions were inspired by an urge to avenge the suffering of Muslims in Bosnia and Chechnya. The US saved Muslims in Bosnia and had nothing to do with Chechnya. So the notion that AQ is simply reacting to US foreign policy is without merit. And the notion that you are going to change the minds of religious fanatics also lacks a degree of common sense.

As does the notion that you would allow them to control your lives our your country's foreign policies. "They hate us" because we supported Saddam? OBL hated us because we were containing Saddam through a presence in Saudi Arabia. Now "they hate us" because we toppled Saddam. Jihadis will always find a reason to hate us, because we are infidels.

But what about the non-jihadis in the region? Since the invasion of Iraq, favorable opinion of the US has doubled in countries like Indonesia, Pakistan, and Jordan. It dropped recently in Turkey, probably because of border problems with the Kurds. Support for sucide bombing has dropped in the region. The exception in that poll -- Jordan -- has joined the general opinion since 2005, after Zarqawi attacked the country.

So legitimate discussion over policy and response is now considered traitorous…

Um, it which reality of yours did you hear this stated?

'So legitimate discussion over policy and response is now considered traitorous'

Funny - I didn't read the word traitorous until I read your comment

'then I guess the terrorists have won because you all seem to think taking away freedoms from people who don’t agree with your limited world view is ok'

Funny - I didn't read a word about taking away freedoms until I read your comment

'you should move to saudi arabia where they allow that! '

WTF are you talking about?

Kevin Drum links the Tomasky piece above approvingly, noting that a ceremony where Bush, Guiliani, and New York governor George Pataki lay a wreath in commemoration of the attacks on the World Trde Center without inviting any Democrats is “enough to make you ill.”

After witnessing how Democrats behaved at the Wellstone memorial and funeral service for King's widow, it is perfectly understandable why no Democrats were invited...

What sticks out in my mind amidst all this partisan sniping is the simple fact that 5 years after 9-11, Bin Laden remains at large and there has been no justice for the Americans murdered in the WTC.

I know of no laws curtailing freedom of speech or making dissent a form of treason. As well, not listening to poorly reasoned arguments is certainly not a form of censorship.

I believe in reasonable debate with reasonable people but it's awfully hard to have such a debate with so much Bush hatred infecting the left.

A few posts above show just how unreasonable people can be.

Shorter Tano: You must understand, James, that in the long run, Bush is worse than bin Laden.

At least he wasn't strident about it.

This administration has relentlessly divided our nation

Which side is being divisive?

The right-wing in this country seems so fear-addled...

It is the left that is fear-addled -- afraid that we cannot prevent murder and attacks to property without the remote possibility of maybe slightly threatening the civil rights of people who would murder and attack. Cry me a river. I'm really glad September 11 happened in September. Every election, you goofy lefists have been well-positioned to defeat this mediocre president and mediocre Congress, and every year you laughably say stuff like These trends...are ultimately more destructive of the America-as-embodiment-of-ideals than any amount of killing of indiviuals..

Yet, somehow, conservatives are the morons. Whatever you say.

We believe that Iraq had nothing–nothing–to do with 9/11 because Saddam Hussein and his lieutenants have clearly said so, and we believe and trust them.

LOL. Yes, Americans are uniquely evil and manipulative. All others are innocent little lambs.

The Voice, and most of the left, only found the courage of their convictions when it was safe to do so.

Indeed, it took awhile to gather steam, but the self-flagellation really took off when the threat receded.

One of them being Saddam when he was useful to us.

I.e., when the alternative was worse and his megalomaniacal tendencies were not yet revealed in stark and undeniable relief. I suppose you probably believe the canard that we supplied Saddam with his WMD, even though it is well established that his stocks of chemical weapons were of European origin.

Tell me, Ben, do you believe the fanatical Muslim hatred and persecution of the Jews began in 1948? Do you believe we uniquely have manipulated events in the Middle East in pursuit of our national interests? Do you believe that we always have a choice between supporting the good against the bad, as opposed to the bad against the worse? Do you believe in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy?

What sticks out in my mind amidst all this partisan sniping is the simple fact that 5 years after 9-11, Bin Laden remains at large and there has been no justice for the Americans murdered in the WTC.

Yes, the fact that the Taliban was toppled, AQ leaders hide in caves, Khalid Sheik Mohammed and others are captured, etc. all mean nothing. A completely non-partisan observation there.

It's interesting that your reaction to the fifth anniversary of 9/11 is to condemn and attack the reactions of others.

Yes, we all learned something from what happened on that day.

Tano -- It seems those 3,000 dead mean little to you. I'd rather be alive, and know my loved ones are safe. If the administration has to monitor international phone calls and hold those responsible for 9/11 in Gitmo, get over it. As far as I'm concerned our response should have been a lot harsher.

To paraphrase James Lileks, you will know when the terrorists have won when you're DEAD, not when you're inconvenienced in an airport security line.

What sticks out in my mind amidst all this partisan sniping is the simple fact that 5 years after 9-11, Bin Laden remains at large and there has been no justice for the Americans murdered in the WTC.

Can't win with the goofy leftists. Osama bin Laden may or may not be dead. If we killed him, we would have trampled his civil rights. By leaving him alive, we are also wrong. We arrested Saddam Hussein, but taking out one man won't make any difference. Unless it's bin Laden. Of course, there has been no justice for the victims of 9/11. We could repeat Dresden or Hiroshima somewhere, but this would involve "disproportionate" response. And Haditha and prison torture are awful violations of civil rights.

Let me know when you wake up from the miasma of theory and want to try to tackle some real-world problems. Until then, enjoy the view from Outofpower. I hear it's nice there. Quiet. Peaceful.

Tano - I really don't get the "Bush as separation of powers-busting authoritarian" argument. What civil liberties has he curtailed?

-The right to talk to out-of-country terrorists without being monitored (arguably falling well within his intelligence-gathering powers as C-in-C)?

-Due process: for who - non-US citizen terrorists who were captured on the battlefield acting as illegal combatants, therefore surrendering any claim to Geneva convention protections? Arabs who violated their visa obligations, and maybe were rounded up with a little bit more vigilance than usual? Jose Padilla? Well, there is an argument there.

-Military tribunals (which the USSC found against because Congress didn't explicitly authorize them, and which he is now working with Congress to authorize, rather than recklessly ignoring the Court)?

-Outing a covert CIA agent out of partisan vindictiveness (oops, that was State)? In fact, isn't the Plame affair what started most of this "authority abusing" brouhaha? Isn't it time to walk that back now that Armitage has been exposed?

No, I’m not a liberal, no I’m not a dem. I’m just common sense that seems to have lost the Republican Party who favors a fantasy world over reality.

Reality? Arms linked singing K-U-M-B-A-Y-A?

7M - they just want OBL dead so that it will be future chic to wear him on their t-shirts. Viva la jihad! The next Dem administration - in a nod to restoring our civil rights - will not only pardon Lynne Stewart, but appoint her AG.

As someone who was actually involved in the events of 9/11 (I was working at the Pentagon), and not just watching them on TV which I assume you were, I find your post absurd.

With the exception of the Andy Rooney quote, I agree with the posts you linked: THIS DAY IS NOT ABOUT GEORGE W. BUSH, and why the Republicans should win the election. Why is Bush using this somber day to make political points? Why did he not invite Senators Clinton and Schumer to the memorial ceremony? Those 49 percent of us who did not vote for Bush are Americans who mourn 9/11 as well. Those 60 percent of us who agree that the War in Iraq was a mistake are Americans who mourn 9/11 as well. Those 60-something percent of New Yorkers who voted for Hillary and Chuck Schumer are Americans who mourn 9/11 as well. Yet the President chose, and continues to choose, to attempt to paint us as not true Americans, who in the words of the Vice President yesterday "embolden" the terorists by disagreeing with the President's policies. Disgusting.

We have a right to be pissed off that the President and his supporters, such as you, are attempting to use this day to their political advantage.

Karl, this quote from Mark Steyn on National Review Online is about as disgusting as it gets, and evidences the "Right's" attemts to politicize 9/11 today (I put "right" in quotes because I, unlike the author of this post, do not subscribe to the idea that half the country is responsible for the comments of right-wing pundits):

In the end, very little changed. The so-called “9/11 Democrats” are almost as invisible a presence as the “moderate Muslim,” and, insofar as one can tell, are most likely outnumbered by members of the Scowcroftian unrealpolitik Right still wedded to stability uber alles. In theory, if you’d wanted to construct an enemy least likely to appeal to the progressive Left, wife-beating gay-bashing theocrats would surely be it. But Islamism turned out to be the ne plus ultra of multiculti diversity-celebration — for what more demonstrates the boundlessness of one’s “tolerance” than by tolerating the intolerant.

The assertion that al-Qaeda has beomce the "ne plus ultra of multiculti [sic] diversity-celebration" for the half of this country that considers itself "progressives" is a libel. He has no evidence for that, and no evidence exists. People who disagree with the President's foreign policy do not support al Qaeda and the implied assertion that they are our heros is disgusting and ought to be denounced by those on the right. That quote makes the linked Daily Kos quote above look like nothing. You people here disgust me.

"Americans are puzzled over why so many people in the world hate us."

I'm tired of this view point as it ignores the reality of Muslim extremists killing tens and tens of thousands in Algeria, Pakistan, India, etc.

A recent letter writer to a local paper asked more specifically that Americans need to ask "Why Arabs hate us so much?"

Stupid question. It is like asking a black, "why does the KKK hate you so much?"

The problem with twits like Atrios is that heave out this nonsense about "it isn't about him" referring to Bush when it comes to 9/11...EXCEPT when it comes to the issue of blame. Then it's ALL ABOUT Bush.

Karl -- this quote from Mark Steyn on National Review Online is about as disgusting as it gets, and evidences the "Right's" attemts to politicize 9/11 today (I put "right" in quotes because I, unlike the author of this post, do not subscribe to the idea that half the country is responsible for the comments of right-wing pundits):

In the end, very little changed. The so-called “9/11 Democrats” are almost as invisible a presence as the “moderate Muslim,” and, insofar as one can tell, are most likely outnumbered by members of the Scowcroftian unrealpolitik Right still wedded to stability uber alles. In theory, if you’d wanted to construct an enemy least likely to appeal to the progressive Left, wife-beating gay-bashing theocrats would surely be it. But Islamism turned out to be the ne plus ultra of multiculti diversity-celebration — for what more demonstrates the boundlessness of one’s “tolerance” than by tolerating the intolerant.

The assertion that al-Qaeda has beomce the "ne plus ultra of multiculti [sic] diversity-celebration" for the half of this country that considers itself "progressives" is a libel. He has no evidence for that, and no evidence exists. People who disagree with the President's foreign policy do not support al Qaeda and the implied assertion that they are our heros is disgusting and ought to be denounced by those on the right. That quote makes the linked Daily Kos quote above look like nothing. You people here disgust me.

My nephew today wrote, amongst other things, "in the five years since 9/11 Americans have thought and said many things that I find very sad and scary." I responded to him that I couldn't agree more, unfortunately, that is where the agreement ends, you see, his comments tend to parallel those noted in your post while mine seem to parallel those of Hugh Hewitt and Glenn Reynolds.

As someone who was actually involved in the events of 9/11 (I was working at the Pentagon), and not just watching them on TV which I assume you were, I find your post absurd.

With the exception of the Andy Rooney quote, I agree generally with the posts you linked: THIS DAY IS NOT ABOUT GEORGE W. BUSH, and why the Republicans should win the election. Why is Bush using this somber day to make political points? Why did he not invite Senators Clinton and Schumer to the memorial ceremony? Those 49 percent of us who did not vote for Bush are Americans who mourn 9/11 as well. Those 60 percent of us who agree that the War in Iraq was a mistake are Americans who mourn 9/11 as well. Those 60-something percent of New Yorkers who voted for Hillary and Chuck Schumer are Americans who mourn 9/11 as well. Yet the President chose, and continues to choose, to attempt to paint us as not true Americans, who in the words of the Vice President yesterday "embolden" the terorists by disagreeing with the President's policies. Disgusting.

We have a right to be pissed off that the President and his supporters, such as you, are attempting to use this day to their political advantage.

"It’s interesting that your reaction to the fifth anniversary of 9/11 is to condemn and attack the reactions of others."

Uh... isn't that what you're doing, Lenny old boy?

"And I’m sure that if I trolled around long enough, I’d find some bloggers on the Right using the day as an occasion to bash Democrats"

You don't need to troll around anywhere, just listen to what the Veep had to say Sunday.

Joe -- So you are angry because the President allegeldy did not invite two people you don't even know to an event. And 60 percent of Americans agree with you? Golly, you'd think your side would, you know, have a branch of Congress or the presidency.

Maybe it is precisely your stupid, juvenile, immature anger that is keeping your side out of power. Maybe Bush is medicore and lacks brilliance but you have no policy vision whatsoever and appear plain stupid to a majority of Americans. Maybe, if you were to elaborate on a foreign policy instead of just bitching about whatever the president does, you might win an election.

Also, Joe, I discourage you from entering the legal profession because you have no idea whatsoever what libel is.

>Yes, the fact that the Taliban was toppled, AQ leaders hide in caves, Khalid Sheik Mohammed and others are captured, etc. all mean nothing. A completely non-partisan observation there.

Do you dispute that Bin Laden is still at large and has not answered for his crimes? My statement is one of fact. How is it partisan?

The Taliban is still very much alive and shipping heroin to the US, in spite of Bush's claim (lie) that he destroyed it. The current govt in Afghanistan would fall in a month without the US military to prop it up.

Guess taking out Saddam, who even the GOP senate says had nothing to do with Al Qaeda, was more important the finishing the job in Afghanistan. Oh yes, Mullah Omar remains at large too.

As for AQ leaders being in caves, that is an assumption on your part, nothing more than a gop talking point.

What makes you think Clinton and Schumer weren't invited?

And God forbid Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld et al actually make arguments in favor of their policies! That's "disgusting!" How dare they!

anjin-san: You do not know what you are talking about on a number of levels/

1. I do dispute that Bin Laden is still at large. He is likely dead.

2. The Taliban is out of power in Afghanistan. It may be making money off of heroin in the sense that the FARC is making money off of cocaine. Heroin is far and away Afghanistan's #1 cash crop and the "economy," such as it is, of that "country," such as you can call Afghanistan a country, depends on heroin sales. You are suggesting that the Taliban is controlling heroin sales. That's simply wrong and belies a simplicity and misunderstanding that is all too common.

3. The Taliban fell in less than a month without Pakistan's support. Afghanistan is not a country in the sense that Westerners understand the term. Imagine Montana with a few basically autonomous city-states. Who controls Kabul controls Afghanistan insofar as it can be controlled.

4. What does "finishing the job" in Afghanistan even mean? Here's a question, foreign-policy genius: what was Afghanistan like before the Taliban?

This is exactly why the Democrats can't beat the Republicans, despite the absurd mediocrity of President Bush and the Republican leadership. Give the American people the choice between mediocrity and people living in a fantasy land who have no idea what they are talking about, and mediocrity will win every time.

James,

Your shallowest post ever, far below your usual standard.

You wouldn't have had to troll far or long - nor are we talking about insignificant insects of the blogging ecosystem.

Michelle Malikin - the uberright's version of an extremist Imam -

...context the appeasers and the Islamophobia-phobes prefer to ignore, misremember, or whitewash...the jihadi-coddling Left"

LGF:

The latest Democratic/Islamist talking point making the rounds of the media

Stop the ACLU simply runs a cartoon suggesting the ACLU is the true enemy US soldiers should be fighting.

That's number 2, 4, 7 in the TTLB. I could fill your screen with more.

Oh, and here's my take on the day, from a Lefty who isn't interested in using today of all days to make political hay.

Regards, Cernig

Maybe it is precisely your stupid, juvenile, immature anger that is keeping your side out of power. Maybe Bush is medicore and lacks brilliance but you have no policy vision whatsoever and appear plain stupid to a majority of Americans. Maybe, if you were to elaborate on a foreign policy instead of just bitching about whatever the president does, you might win an election.

They'll teach you in any reasoning class your freshman year in college what a weasel word is, and maybe is one of them. So, Seven Machos, maybe you are right. And maybe you aren't.

Maybe George Bush invited no Democrats to a 9/11 memorial because he's a "uniter, not a divider", right? Or maybe he's worried about losing control of Congress no matter what the occasion and saw the ceremony yesterday as a great Repbulican photo op.

All the big talk that Democrats can't win comes from people who won the last two presidential elections with 51% and 49% in a Supreme Court mandated electoral college victory for the loser of the popular vote. What an impressive win. People who have a huge 15 seat edge in the gerrymandered House and 5 in the Senate and a president with a 33% approval rating. Maybe a Bush dead-ender shouldn't call others stupid.

See, Seven, I'm not angry at all. Maybe it's because I think things are about to get better.

Seven,

You dont make a convincing case of being amongst those who "know what they are talking about".

To wit:
There is a fair amount of evidence that bin Laden has recently been alive. And zero evidence that he is dead. Thus you desire to believe him dead speaks only to your willingness to believe what you wish, rather than what the evidence points to.

Heroin has become, once again, the mainstay of the Afghan economy. It wasnt under the Taliban. It fluorishes in direct proportion to the weakness of the central government.

The apporpriate question to ask is not what Afghanistan was like before the Taliban, but rather what it was like under the Taliban. They had effective control of most all of the country, belieing your claim that Afghanistan is inherintly and necessarily a pathchwork of ungovernable regions.

Finishing the job in Afghanistan means defeating the Taliban once and for all, and capturing bin Laden and Zawahiri. Why does this need to be explained to you?

It is precisely your stupid, juvenile, immature anger that is keeping your side out of power. Bush is medicore and lacks brilliance but you have no policy vision whatsoever and appear plain stupid to a majority of Americans. If you were to elaborate a foreign policy instead of bitching about whatever the president does, you might win an election.

(1) Where does Dinesh "The Cultural Left & Its Responsibility for 9/11" D'Souza fit?

(2) 5 years after 9/11, we haven't even *indicted* Osama for 9/11. Is it because there's no evidence that can be presented to a grand jury? Whose fault is *that*?

Anderson: D'Souza isn't a blogger, so far as I know. I've liked a lot of the stuff he's written but that whole argument strikes me as silly. Steve Verdon had a post on that the other day, if fact.

Tano -- You are simply wrong.

Heroin has been the mainstay of the Afghan economy for decades.

The Taliban never had effective control of most all of the country. The Taliban controlled Kabul and a few other cities. Life for the average non-city dweller in Afghanistan has not changed for centuries. Most of Afghanistan is remote, largely uninhabited, and cannot be controlled politically.

How do you propose "defeating the Taliban once and for all"? Firebombing? Nuclear weapons? Those are your best options. There is also the complete militarization of the economy that would involve drafting most able-bodied men into the military. Let me know your choice, and we can go from there.

Tano

You are "only" an asshat.

The strategy of terrorists isn't to force us to defeat ourselves. The strategy of terrorists is to force us to surrender to their demands.

It is funny how the American Left is always whining about supposed right-wing "fearmongering" simple because some point out that our enemies are determined and won't be defeated easily and that we are in this battle for the long haul. This from the side of the aisle that indulges in absurd conspiracy theories about 9/11, tries to convice us that Bush is Hitler and the Patriot Act is the end of freedom as we know it, that Bush has cost us our (once solid) support from such reliable and useful international partners as Jacque Chirac, etc. etc.

The new motto of the American Left: "Bush is Doom! DOOM I SAY!"

Sorry about the typo. I meant "simply" not "simple."

D’Souza isn’t a blogger, so far as I know

Thank god--he's not up to our quality standards!

"We do create people that hate us by supporting Israel so strongly."

And just how have we supported Israel so strongly? We didn't even stand by them long enough in their most recent military activity to let them demolish Hellbollah. We don't support Israel anywhere near as strongly as we should, not this administration anyway.
Besides, are you saying we shouldn't stand up for what we believe in because we might make enemies or make people hate us? That doesn't sound like a good enough reason to abandon support of your friends, especially when they share so many of your western democratic values. If you don't have enemies than you have probably never stood up for anything in your life. Sometimes you just have to do what you feel is right... something few leftists will undertand

"See, Seven, I’m not angry at all. Maybe it’s because I think things are about to get better."

Of course they are, Pug. Events are going to do a 180 in your favor. Right around Fitzmas.

As for Joe's reference to Mark Steyn's comment, I would note that his sole reference to Democrats is in the first sentence, in remarking that "9/11 Democrats" seem scarce these days. And considering that Joe Lieberman went from the Veep candidate to being repudiated by his party in the course of a couple of years, the protests against Sens. Clinton and Cantwell, etc. I'd say he's right.

The remainder of his comments refer to the progressive Left, which Steyn may define differently from Joe (esp. since I doubt Joe can produce any evidence that half of the country considers itself "progressive"), but which in any event is not a direct comment on Democrats, which was what James mentioned.

And while Joe claims Steyn has no evidence for his comments, the comments of people like Rooney are in fact evidence of it. The entire "why do they hate us?" mindset, untethered from a consideration or understanding of who the enemy actually is, is the direct result of a warped, knee-jerk mutliculturalism. As I noted above, people in countries in the region actually hate us less today than they did before the US invaded Iraq. As I also noted above, the 9/11 attackers considered it a response to their grievances about Bosnia and Chechnya -- neither of which were the product of US policy. I'm sure that doesn't fit in Rooney's pre-existing stereotypes of Muslims or Arabs or even terrorists, but that's his problem.

Oddly enough, what struck me was that nobody in the quotes above could condemn or even remember the actions on 9/11 without attacking Bush. I think they are worried that any sympathy for 9/11 would be seen to have "bought into" the presidents plan, so they justify it with a bit of Bush bashing.

As for the old "we deserved it", this angle is political suicide for the dems.Seriously, what rape victim would want a prosecutor that personally believes that she was "asking for it"?
Lets not of course forget all those other parts of the world, that have nothing whatsoever to do with US foreign policy, that are under seige by people who just so happen to be muslim.

People who disagree with the President’s foreign policy do not support al Qaeda and the implied assertion that they are our heros is disgusting and ought to be denounced by those on the right.

And yet strangely enough, the left spend 99% of their time attacking the president, and anything anti-terrorist, and none of it actually attacking the very people that want to kill them. As they say, you are judged by your actions. When was the last time a democrat or a lefty blogger called for tough action against terrorism that wasn't some veiled attack on Bush to imply he wasn't doing his job right? The only one I can think of is Lieberman and he was just pretty much ejected from the party. It's not that we think you are "for" terrorists, just that you seemed opposed at all costs to anything stopping them here and abroad.

Perhaps when those on the left (academia, media, blogs, democrats etc..) stop acting like the cheering squad for the insurgency and show even half the concern to US troops, Islamofascism, and terrorist threats as they do for people in Guantanamo, then perhaps their motives might be judged a little better.

If Bush said the sky was blue, the left would do it's best to dispute it just so they don't appear to lend any credence to Bush. I believe there was an article the other week about journalists where they were downplaying these issues rather than agree with Bush.

Pure childishness.

Look, this is the thing people don't understand about Israel: before 1948, the history of the Middle East had been 200 years of unmitigated peace, harmony, and economic success. Then, the dastardly Jewish people had to come in and screw it all up. You can imagine how angry the world is that the USA would support such a country -- warmongers and such a drag on the overall GDP of the region.

Taliban us, anjin-san, what does Taliban heroin look like? What color is it? What kind of buzz do you get off of it? In other words, can you offer proof that Taliban™ heroin has made it to the U.S.?

Seven Machos,

The only thing showing is your lack of knowledge about Mideast history. Here is one of many not-so-peaceful events from before 1948:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1929_Hebron_massacre

The Mideast was not "economically prosperous" either. It was a complete backwater before the discovery and large-scale exploitation of petroleum.

Anderson writes:

"5 years after 9/11, we haven’t even *indicted* Osama for 9/11. Is it because there’s no evidence that can be presented to a grand jury? Whose fault is *that*?"

Bill Clinton, I suppose.

Actually, I think most are hoping that a 500 lb. bomb is dropped on Osama; not that we get to see him in court represented by F. Lee Bailey. There are some of us who are not looking for a law enforcement solution to terrorism any longer.

No shit, Tommy. My last post was 100 percent sarcasm. I would hope that you are the only person who has read it that would fail to see that.

OK, Seven Machos. I thought you might be making that comment sarcastically. I apologize.

Believe it or not, I run into the very sort of attitude you are satirizing reguarly on many Arab blogs. Many people really believe that all was well-and-good before the creation of Israel.

I don’t mean to suggest that most people on the Left don’t mourn the tragedy of 9/11, hate America, or any such nonsense.

OK, then, I'll say it: most people on the left (at least the far left) don’t mourn the tragedy of 9/11, and most appear to hate America.

I don't know why you would think that's nonsense; I think it's self-evident.

I mean, read their web sites, where the leftys gather to drop their phoniness and commisserate together. See them wish death on our President, observe as they cheer our military difficulties, try to comprehend their utter hatred of everything that's fine, and good, and worthy of respect in this country. Explain for us why the terrorists are quoting the left's own words to further their vile causes.

I too wish these things weren't so, but they are, and I'm frankly no longer surprised by it. Horrified? No doubt. But surprised? Not anymore.

Actually, I think most are hoping that a 500 lb. bomb is dropped on Osama; not that we get to see him in court represented by F. Lee Bailey. There are some of us who are not looking for a law enforcement solution to terrorism any longer.

Really? I would *love* to see Osama in court, represented by the best lawyer that his money can buy. I happen to believe in the American system of government, you see, & to be quite proud of it.

The only thing as certain as bloggers on the Left attacking Bush on the anniversary of 9/11 is bloggers on the Right attacking bloggers the Left for attacking Bush on the anniversary of 9/11.

Congratulations: you've helped complete the circle of idiocy.

There is a fair amount of evidence that bin Laden has recently been alive. And zero evidence that he is dead. Thus you desire to believe him dead speaks only to your willingness to believe what you wish, rather than what the evidence points to.

What evidence? An audio tape that the US and the Arab World tells us is Bin Laden, even though they both have something to gain by it being Bin Laden, and his being still alive?
Why no video that isn't just 'stock footage' with a voiceover? Why no video with him talking about recent events, even holding up a recent newspaper? He made one shortly after 9/11 but nothing in the la