Not that I like bush in any way, shape or form, but I dislike the Washington Post and don't really use it as a source of any kind because of its moonie connections. :)

Actually, it's the Washington Times that Moon owns -- the Post is owned by the same company that publishes Newsweek, and a number of other local papers. The Times can always be counted on for crackpottery.

The reason the leftist types think that is because that is what they see happening.

Rights that people have fought for are being whittled away based on the religious ideals of individuals in power. It pisses me off.

It is, however, the Washington Times that you refer to in your third paragraph. A couple of re-readings reassured me that you meant the Post though. :)

--- Ajax.

Doh. DOH!

Thanks, I blew through that one. My bad. :>

hi...

you said "Those on the left need to realize that 'the right' is probably NOT trying to create a police state bent on conquering the world for Jesus, and those on the right need to take a deep breath and grow up, realizing that those who disagree with them are NOT anti-american terrorist lovers." and i would have to bone pick a little... the u.s. is in fact building 14 permanent bases in iraq right now and documents from the project for a new american century from 2000 (signed by many bush administration folk) says that it is critical that the u.s. gain military control in iraq. i don't know about the "conquering for jesus" statement, but i would guess that is a motivation behind some of the right's voting... i have heard with my own ears people say that christians need to bring "democracy" *meaning their form of democracy?* to those people over there. this stuff frightens me and i agree that some have to grow up, that we have to find means for dialogue and not divide the situation further, but there are some deeply held beliefs i have about freedom that do not include me building a police state in another part of the world or conquering for jesus, and until we all open our eyes a bit further to what is actually happening, i think we won't be able to "grow up" as you said... :)

I agree with you in principle: sober, rational consideration is always better than flying off half-cocked at perceived evil intentions. But, as Homo sapiens have done since the dawn of time, I can't help but doubt my ideological foes' intellectual and rational capacities.

Still, I think I'm doing an OK job of reserving judgement until I actually hear reports of Bush's plans to rebuild Babylon.

It's true. I think all of us fall prey to it easily. One of the reasons it's so difficult to see someone "get ahead" in politics by pushing those hot buttons.

"BabylonDisney!"

Sober rationalization is indeed paramount, but you can't rationalize if you don't know the whole truth, and once you start to learn more of the facts related to whatever the "whole truth" is, you start to get scared. ;)

I think she was referring to people like Ramsey Clark, who has gone quite insane with anti-Americanism over the yeares to the extent of defending Serbian war criminals solely because it was our planes that were bombing them.

I've been reading Orwell a lot lately. One of the things he keeps pointing out is that the "us or them" mentality kills truth immediately. He noticed that when his Communist friends excused war crimes only when they were committed by Russia, etc.

True, that. Very true. "Us vs Them" is a poison, and I've seen it on every side of the past couple elections. I've been a part of it, too -- as shig said, it's scary-easy to slide into.

After reading what Anne wrote, I have to disagree with you. Broad-stroke painting? She clearly is speaking about many extremists at the FAR left.

Day-to-day, I am often amazed at how quick many Americans are to believe the worst about about our leaders, motivations, and policies, while offering only a passing criticism of contrary influences. Through their lens, any government supportive of the Bush Administration is, by definition, suspect. Contrary views are elevated to the level of truth, underpinned by such revealing inside sources and "documentaries" as a Dan Rather exclusive and Moore's Fahrenheit 911. In my view, it's a short step from such manifestations of guilt-ridden, American angst to the aberrant, partiotism-turned-on-its-head Anne decribes.

So,in your view, I am either rankly stupid or a cold-hearted liar. I'll take that as a compliment.

i have heard with my own ears people say that christians need to bring "democracy" *meaning their form of democracy?* to those people over there.

You may remember from the third presidential debate, the President spoke of a need to "convert" the governments of our enemies to friendly democracies. To a certain kind of evangelical voter, the use of the word "convert" is telling. And considering that part of the Republican strategy has long been the use of "code words" as nods and winks to the less politically-correct brand of conservatism, one can guess what the voters who subscribe to these beliefs thought they were hearing.

--- Ajax.

No -- you're not a rankly stupid cold-hearted liar. It's Anne's gross hyperbole that earns that distinction. Unless of course, you're calling me an america-hating terrorist lover. *grin*

Anne's statement wasn't about people "Believing the worst" about our leaders, or "offering only passing criticisms of contrary influences." Both are valid criticisms of the right and the left -- witness the 'George W. did Coke in the White House' theories and the 'Clinton had Vince Foster executed' theories trotted around by left and right of center ideologues during the last several administrations. No matter what side we're on, the will to see the worst in "The Other" and gloss over the failures of "Our Guy" is deep and profound.

That's a far cry from "Hatred of America," though. Why is it that I was allowed to call myself a faithful patriot when I called for Clinton's impeachment, but old friends gather 'round to accuse me of anti-Americanism when I disagree with our government's foreign policies? I love my country -- but I don't love it like a parent. I love it like my home. When there's something wrong with it, I want to see it fixed, same as all of us do. Regardless of whether a Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, or Socialist is in the Oval Office, it's the responsibility that all of us bear. We disagree, we debate, we deliberate -- that's the process of democracy. It's worked OK for us over the last couple of centuries, and it pains me to see that those with different ideas of the proper course to follow are not seen as participants in a national dialogue, but as haters-of-the-country, somehow in league with

Anne accuses a nebulous group of people of something very specific: hating America (or Bush, which she seems to consider the same thing) so much that they are willing to support tyrannies to spite our nation. It's like a car salesman pitch on steroids: if I don't buy the rustproofing of military intervention, I'm not weighing the risks and rewards. I'm a car-hating rust lover willing to spite my own automobile to get back at Chrysler.

Trust me, this rhetoric happens just as often on "the other side." Liberals and Democrats I know have spent the last month hand-wringing about the American Taliban of the Religious Right -- the extreme fundamentalists who want nothing more than to ban sex, execute gay,s and forcibly convert the muslim world one cruise missile at a time.

That's an offensive, divisive charicature that has no place in public discourse. But it's no less accurate than the 'America-hating leftie' stereotype that Anne trots out. BOTH are wrong.

Jeff as of late I have just found myself more and more involved in the escape of books. Anna Karenina and Alice in Wonderland. Yep. Why? Because its getting to be too much. After the election I just kinda felt like blah.. its better to focus on what we can do to change things than point fingers. This isnt to say that I have suddenly found some sort of love for our the president. Lord knows I havent. But we've got him for another 4 years. So rather than continue to bitch on the net about things I'd rather try to find out what I can to do make a difference to change them.

The expectations we have for our leaders should be great, but the ones we have for our selves should be greater.

I'd agree -- personal change and the pursuit of goodness on a minute-by-minute basis should always be my top priority, regardless of who's in office, of whether I live in a democracy or a tyranny, or whether it rains or shines.

One point worth noting:

We're in Iraq, and we're deeply, heavily invested in the region. Our troops DO need our support as a nation, and the region depends on a wise and judicious US policy for the next several years. Whether we should invade Iraq is water under the bridge. HOW we should've invaded Iraq is water under the bridge. But to refuse to lean lessons from it, and to refuse to apply those lessons to developing situations in the same region (Iran especially) is tragic.

It's a tragedy of national discourse that so many separate issues (support of troops, love of America, support for the president, support for a broad philosophy of international relations, support of specific policies, support for 'freedom,' etc) seem to be treated as one gigantic YES/NO question these days.

Through their lens, any government supportive of the Bush Administration is, by definition, suspect.

Ten years ago you could have said the same thing, substituting Clinton for Bush, and been talking about the other side of the aisle. I'm afraid neither side has a monopoly on slavish adherence to the party line; for every Michael Moore, John Stewart, and Al Franken, there's a Rush Limbaugh, Anne Coulter, and Bill O'Reilly, and as many mouth-breathing knuckle-walkers hooting and hollering behind each of them.

Wooo. I did a fun search on Ramsey Clark. When Salon Magazine calls you "a tool of left-wing cultists," you know you're ooouuuuuut there.

How have you determined that we have refused to learn from our experiences in Iraq? What crystal ball are you using? Do you honestly think our nation's leaders are so dim-wittedly inept and bumbling as to not get what seems so apparent to you, or so criminally insane and morally corrupt that, in the full knowledge of the folly of their ways, they proceed with their ill-fated plans? I'm not asking if they make mistakes, I'm asking about open, vocal support for the ones charged with making the decisions, as opposed to the constant fault-finding based on interminable second-guessing. The latter seems to dominate.

I agree with your last paragraph, though I'm still working on how one can support a guy with a gun and not support his using it, or the decision to send him there. Having BEEN there, I can tell you I didn't feel supported ONE IOTA by those who said I shouldn't be there doing what I was doing and that my boss and my country were responsible for the chaos.

Again, Anne was talking about one faction of the FAR left. How is this gross hyperbole? I see it as her characterization of the way this group comes off. Not hard to do when 90% of what comes out of their mouths and off their pens magnifies our faults and brushes aside open brutality by others in a ceaseless torrent. They don't see their actions as "hating their own car" - they think it's an honest, car-loving act to be so morbidly introspective and self deprecating. Yes, they actually DO think that Bush is so contemptable that whatever ANYONE else thinks is preferable.

When something is wrong you want to see it fixed? Good. What do you do in the meantime? Are you critical at most every turn? Is there any balance to what you observe?

This is good.

Ten years ago? Actually, this has always been true. It's not new phenomena. While I find your string of adjectives describing the supporters of party-line pundits visually amusing, it's the kind of harsh rhetoric that strengthens the divide.

How have you determined that we have refused to learn from our experiences in Iraq? What crystal ball are you using? Do you honestly think our nation's leaders are so dim-wittedly inept and bumbling as to not get what seems so apparent to you, or so criminally insane and morally corrupt that, in the full knowledge of the folly of their ways, they proceed with their ill-fated plans?

Speaking strictly for myself, I firmly believe in the old maxim, "What has happened twice will happen three times." And considering that our president is in the process of purging his Cabinet of many of the people who have recommended anything other than what he's already been doing, I find it unlikely that this indicates that he wants to explore alternatives.

No, this is not hard evidence, but it's certainly suspicious enough to make me angry at Bush, and depressed about his chances -- or even willingness -- to make a course correction. If you're more comfortable believing that nothing short of a crystal ball or letters in the sky reading "YOU BLEW IT. -GOD" are sufficient proof that things aren't headed in the right direction, that's your privilege. We all evaluate evidence in different ways, and from it draw our various conclusions.

I agree with your last paragraph, though I'm still working on how one can support a guy with a gun and not support his using it, or the decision to send him there.

It's the responsibility of our leaders to keep our soldiers safe unless there's no other alternative. It's our responsibility as citizens to exert pressure on our leaders to bring the troops home when our leaders have failed in that regard. That's what we mean by "we support the troops, but not the war."

I know a half-dozen people currently serving in the military, and work with several who have been rotated back to the States after being deployed in Iraq. I can tell you that several of these were disgusted with the state of affairs there, and although they were justly proud of having fulfilled their duty to the country, felt no pride whatsoever in the Iraq endeavor as citizens thereof.

It is not necessary that you agree with your orders to be a good soldier, or respect the judgement of the man giving them. And in the civilian realm, it turns out that good citizenship sometimes requires that you loudly and publicly express your disapproval with the state of affairs in your home country, and use every legal means within your power to change it.

--- Ajax.

We live in a representative democracy. I can live my life as I believe Christ would have me live it, and speak out when I see our leaders making decisions I believe are dangerous, unrighteous, or short-sighted. I can encourage them, via letters and telephone calls, to support the positions I believe in. I can pray for the leaders of our country -- not JUST the ones I voted for, but all of them.

Until I'm elected to a position in the Senate or House of Representatives, there isn't much else that I can do. It's the way our system works.

"Far Left" is a label without meaning -- just as "Far-Right" is a label without meaning. The vast majority of those who are concerned about or nation's foreign policies are not 'Far left' America haters, any more than the majority who supported Bush are 'far right ' segregationist militia members.

That's my point. The comment Anne offers is either a tautology, or a nebulous slur. Is she saying that "All America-haters hate America?" Or is she saying "Some vague mass of people I refer to as 'the far left' hate America?" Is she talking about Michael Moore? It's her word against his about the America-hating.

Many people I know are classified as 'far left' by those who disagree with them. I know none who hate America or wish ill towards her. That's the trouble with relative labels -- what DOES 'Far left' mean? Or 'Far right' for that matter?

Do you believe that I 'hate my car' and don't realize it? i.e., do I hate America but believe I'm really helping it? That's not baiting, it's an honest question. I think it's a slippery slope for me to say that about ANYONE who hasn't said it themselves, but if you feel that it's the fruit of the views I hold, I'm very curious to dialogue more about it. Maybe we should grab coffee this weekend. *grin*

Ten years ago? Actually, this has always been true.

I was using that as an example. Go to any point in history and substitute the name of the sitting president or reigning ruler, and the same applies.

While I find your string of adjectives describing the supporters of party-line pundits visually amusing, it's the kind of harsh rhetoric that strengthens the divide.

It was describing the non-thinking supporters of all of the pundits I named, on both sides of the aisle. I don't see how that's divisive. There are plenty of people I wish weren't on my side, believe you me.

I understand what you were describing. What I am saying is that name-calling has rarely if ever opened constructive dialogue. It separates you and me from those who slavishly support one pundit or another not in philosophical/idealogical terms but in a "you're a stupid nethanderthal and I am a fairminded, balanced thinker" way. I realize this is livejournal and is at some level a closed venue, so maybe I'm just being too sensitive.
You make an excellent point.

I say that all of the conservatives and liberals on my blog get together and decide who we want to vote out of our own ideological camps. Let the purges begin! ;)

LOL Remember: Pillage THEN burn. (c;

Process is IMPORTANT. ;)

As do you. Perhaps it's unfair of me to characterize some people as mental robots, and arrogant and elitist to claim that I and certain others are not. It's a failing I'll continue to indulge in, and usually unapologetically, but it's healthy to be reminded every now and then that it is indeed a failing.

"Kill all the men, rape all the women, and round up all the livestock. And this time, PLEASE try to get it right."

"We all evaluate evidence in different ways, and from it draw our various conclusions."

Yes, and this is good. What grates on me is the cocky, smugness permeating so much of the discourse.

"If you're more comfortable believing that nothing short of a crystal ball or letters in the sky reading "YOU BLEW IT. -GOD"

Again, it's the attitude that one's views are so informed when as you stated we all evaluate evidence in different ways, and from it draw our various conclusions. I'm saying there's plenty of room for less attitude - for allowing that just maybe there are good reasons why the President would prefer to listen the advice of others, even though you react with anger.

The troop support thing is still unclear to me, but perhaps it's complicated by the fact that I think what they're doing is worthwhile. I too am disgusted by the state of affairs, but I see terrorists bent on undermining a freer Irag as the problem, not Presdient Bush. If it weren't for the so-called insurgents, we would very close to leaving Iraq.

BTW - The coffee thing sounds VERY appealing. This weekend may be out, but perhaps Sunday? I need to be able to throw something at you. (c;

I am blessed to have you as a friend!

It's a tremendously complicated question, I think.

When someone's in the military, their job is NOT to debate the relative merits of a given military action, protest, recommend alternatives to the president, and so on. Barring extreme cases (like refusing orders that would violate the Geneva Convention, etc.) a soldier's job is to faithfully complete the mission they've been given to the best of their abilities.

It's our responsibility as those NOT in the military to hold our decision-makers accountable for the missiones they send that military on. My friends in the armed forces are going to carry out their orders safely -- it's the job of the REST of us to make sure that the men and women giving those orders -- our elected officials -- are held VERY accountable for the lives that they're putting on the line.

I am not willing to say that military action in Iraq was "right" or "wrong." The whole 'you broke it, you own it" approach that Colin Powell advocated before the war started goes back much farther than 2002 -- we put Sadaam into power because he WAS one of those 'America-Friendly leaders' that we wanted in power. I believe that we do have a moral responsibility for the decisions we've made as a country.

Every step of the way, though, I've grown more and more concerned at the way that our government has approached the region. Looking back over the past four years, dozens of reasons for the invasion have been given -- then retracted, then changed, then spun, then altered, then forgotten -- leading most observers to conclude that even if Sadaam needed ousting, the motivations of the US leaders making the call have been less then transparent.

That, though, is a side issue. Once the decision to invade was finalized, the question of "how" was critical. Rumsfeld brought a passion for a downsized hi-tech military to the Pentagon, and his plans for the war reflected it. Powell and others insisted that Rumsfeld's blitz would produce initial results but crumple in the long run. Sending Powell's preferred 'overwhelming force' of 200,000 to 300,000 troops was politically unviable, though, and the invasion followed Rumsfeld's vision.

For over a year after the invasion, it was apparent that Powell had been right. High-ranking military officials who opined that more troops were needed were reprimanded. Though lip service was given to 'Giving our men everything they needed to win,' story after story rolled in of requests for more manpower denied, of insufficient equipment and overextended troops trying to keep the peace in a nationwide version of the Rodney King riots.

While the initial invasion would've gone off flawlessly with even FEWER troops than we sent initially, keeping peace and preventing the total breakdown of Iraqi society required more than Rumsfeld's 'lean, mean strike force.' For all of my pacifist rhetoric, military tech and tactics have always fascinated me and I've tried to keep up on it. The difficulties in securing the peace in Iraq are NOT a suprise to those who looked at mulitple opinions during the late 90's and early 2000's. The situation we're in right now was predicted by numerous voices inside the State Department and the Pentagon, but other positions won out.

This was NOT a failure of our military. It was NOT a failure of our troops. I'll even go so far as to say that it was NOT a failure of our overal policy -- ie, invading to depose Sadaam. It was a political failure on the part of those who decided to pursue a 'lean mean strike force' approach to a war that was far different than the one we fought in 1991.

Other instances abound as well. The initial invasion of Fallujah after the killing of American hostages was unecessary -- and the Marine commanders on the ground had an alternate plan in place at the time, a less dramatic but potentially more effective surgical strike. They were given orders to invade, though, and surgical strike plans were shelved. Halfway through the invasion of the city, as international outcry mounted, they were ordered to stop. It was the worst of all possible worlds -- politically motivated military planning overruling tactical expertise, and doubling back before the goal could even be accomplished.

Many writers on the ground in Iraq have pointed to that as a key 'loss of credibility' moment for US troops in Iraq. Is this the fault of the troops? Hell no. Commanders on the ground had an arguably better approach, but we'll never know what would've come of it. They were given orders and the followed them to the best of their ability.

Prison torture scandals stemming from changes to official policy. Sanctioned violations of the Geneva convention. Policies to kidnap families of insurgents to coerce surrenders. All these have surfaced -- not in shady talk-radio circuits but in official government documents and memos. They are NOT failures of the men and women of our armed forces -- I honestly believe they're failures of our policy makers, who misuse the tools they have.

For my friends in the military, for my country, and for the rest of the world, I believe it's my responsibility to encourage my leaders to change.

The problem is, these issues are deeper than 'Policy A' or 'Decision B.' They're indicative of a set of deeper priorities and worldviews that defy simple sound-byting and summarization. Discussion on THAT level is increasingly difficult to find in our current climate. Again, it worries me.

According to this posting at Crooked Timber, one of the specific commentators Applebaum is referring to in the pullquote is better characterized as part of the far right.

"Every step of the way, though, I've grown more and more concerned at the way that our government has approached the region. Looking back over the past four years, dozens of reasons for the invasion have been given -- then retracted, then changed, then spun, then altered, then forgotten -- leading most observers to conclude that even if Sadaam needed ousting, the motivations of the US leaders making the call have been less then transparent."

I must have been asleep during all this retracting, spinning, altering. I distinctly remember the reasons, unfolding over many weeks, to include:

1. The blatant disregard for 10-20 UN Resolutions
2. 10-15 years of manipulating UN Inspectors
3. Based on this and other, now possibly overestimated, intelligence the growing liklihood of a threatening WMD capability. (Hindsight is 20/20)
4. The extreme viciousness and destabilizing actions of the regime.

And who are these "most observers" you cite? Where are you getting your information? In my opinion, many of the major media outlets (print and broadcast) hovered over the events just waiting to pounce on something that would fuel their money machines for another few days. TEvents can be spun, the President is not perfect, people ahve agendas, and that's all it takes.

The fact is neither you nor I really know for certain what happened and why. We can choose to keep looking for reasons to support our ideologies, or we can humbly say "here's what I think based on reports from these sources" WITHOUT ALL THE VERBAL STRUTTING. For example, your use of that denigrating phrase "water carrier" to describe Sec. Rice's open support of the President. I'm not sure how you separate this kind of characterization from just gossiping. Did you call her that when you prayed for her? Yes, we must challenge what our leaders ask us to support, but it's the incessant challenging, mission to discredit and malign that tells me there's more to this than constructive participation in the democratic process. Perhaps you're not doing this, but it's hard to tell from the content of your posts.

"Other instances abound as well. The initial invasion of Fallujah after the killing of American hostages was unecessary -- and the Marine commanders on the ground had an alternate plan in place at the time, a less dramatic but potentially more effective surgical strike. They were given orders to invade, though, and surgical strike plans were shelved. Halfway through the invasion of the city, as international outcry mounted, they were ordered to stop. It was the worst of all possible worlds -- politically motivated military planning overruling tactical expertise, and doubling back before the goal could even be accomplished."

Again WHERE are you gettig your information? Mounting international outcry? The major new sources I heard reported the first invasion of Fallujah was stopped to allow the Iraqi forces to take back the city. I didn't agree with doing that, but if it had worked as planned, it would have been criticized for a host of other reasons.

"All these have surfaced -- not in shady talk-radio circuits but in official government documents and memos."

Assuming you didn't actually see these, please cite your source.

"The problem is, these issues are deeper than 'Policy A' or 'Decision B.' They're indicative of a set of deeper priorities and worldviews that defy simple sound-byting and summarization. Discussion on THAT level is increasingly difficult to find in our current climate. Again, it worries me."

Except for the "worries me" part I agree. That's why discussion is needed, not verbal strutting and name-calling. So what DO you think are President Bush's priorities and worldviews? I'd like to see if I've misread the theme.

A couple quick clarifications -- I was referring to newspaper columnist Christopher Hitchens as a water-carrier, not Ms. Rice. It was based in part on his quick jump to attack Colin Powell, along with many other politically right columnists.

Second, the commentary on the Fallujah flip-flopping is based on briefings by Lt. General James Conway, former commander of Marine ground forces in Fallujah. In April, Marines were ordered to invade Falluja, despite the objections of the Marine general on command on the ground, Lieutenant General James Conway. After three days, the Marines were ordered to pull out. General Conway says his superiors vacillated, making things in Falluja worse. We can certainly question his motives and truthfulness, but the idea that political leaders and high-ranking generals would make tacticaly unsound decisions for political reasons isn't without precedence. By all accounts, including the administration's explainations, the orders to pull back and hand operations over to Iraqis came from Paul Bremer, the appointed overseer of the Iraq occupation. The assembling of the Fallujah Brigade to complete the assault of the city is now regarded as a major catastrophe -- many of the people we hastily trained and armed ended up joining the insurgency with weapons we'd provided.

If the assault of Fallujah had worked as planned, no one would be more thrilled than me. Well, scratch that. I'm sure there are others with far more personal investment in the outcome. I *want* our country to succeed in nurturing a free and independent Iraq, capable of governing and defending itself and stable in a region full of unstable states. But like many observers (the "naysayers") I'm concerned that the fundamental assumptions of the administration have and continue to set us up for failure. (The mideast will be stabilized by the invasion, terrorists are being harbored by Iraq and the invasion will deprive them of sanctuary, the invasion will be simple, military resistance will occur in a traditional fashionduring the first phase of the occupation, we'll be hailed as liberators, we'll be able to pull troops out within a year, etc...)

I do believe that America is capable of being a force for positive change in the rest of the world. In some cases, that does require the intervention of our military. I do believe that America HAS done much good. But I also believe that America has done much wrong. Many times, the difference between those two is not "What" but "how."

You asked what I believe President Bush's priorities and worldviews are. I'll try to tackle that in a more detailed post (or conversation?) soon. I'm starting to frequently hit the limit on how many words are allowed in a single journal comment. :)

I'm saying there's plenty of room for less attitude - for allowing that just maybe there are good reasons why the President would prefer to listen the advice of others, even though you react with anger.

I would agree -- until my conclusions are proven correct, and those of the other side are proven inaccurate. We may differ on what the standards of "proof" are, but when you find yourself attacking the source of an assertion, rather than its content, it is typically a sign that you are losing the argument.

Eventually all those doubts that we've been asked to give the president the benefit of will resolve themselves one way or another. (In my view, many of the important ones already have.) There comes a point when one side of an argument is ignoring or discounting too much evidence, ambiguous or otherwise, for their conclusions to be taken seriously.

Then, in my view, it's up to the side that was wrong to demonstrate humility. Whether or not they had good intentions -- and regardless of whether things would have been better for all of us had their views been correct.

--- Ajax.

I'm unsure what some of your comments have to do with my post, but okay. I am pleased that we can believe whatever and whomever we wish to believe and for whatever reasons.

"The Times can always be counted on for crackpottery."

As can the Post.

"Rights that people have fought for are being whittled away based on the religious ideals of individuals in power."

If you care to, please be specific.

"...one can guess what the voters who subscribe to these beliefs thought they were hearing."

True, but "guess" is about all one should do with speculation.

While I agree with you about the danger of assumption and projection, do you believe there is a point at which conclusions about a person or group's purposes, beliefs, or priorities can be drawn?

If it's accurate to say that some people hate the US and don't want governments to support it (even though they've said no such things), there are I believe grounds for such judgements in the *other* direction.

That was the purpose of my original post -- pointing out the divisiveness and the danger of such sweeping statements about either "side" in the discussion.

Well... The times in particular has a long tradition of publishing articles with little factual basis and offering no apologies when evidence vanishes.

Rev. Moon's ownership of the paper has been pretty heavy-handed over the decades... The Post, while imperfect as all human endeavors are, is certainly wayyyyyy higher on my credibility meter.

For Christians, Moon's close ties to our government, via funding and lobbying, are just asdisturbing -- if not moreso -- than claims that Scaiffe or Soros are 'buying politics.' He's considered a part of the "Religious Values" crew, but the things he teaches are genuinely poisonous to Christian faith. His recent "Trade Your Cross For A Crown" campaign, while drawing on Christian language, has some really chilling implications for those of us in the church.

http://gadflyer.com/articles/?ArticleID=131
http://www.afromerica.com/knowledge/religion/cults/moon.php
http://www.gorenfeld.net/blog/2004/05/im-and-i-approve-this-messiah.html

Ooo! And a blog entry by Eirc Pament, one of the oldies from the Christian Research Institute who moved to JPUSA and became their resident-cult-expert.

http://www.student.northpark.edu/pemente/nocross.htm

"do you believe there is a point at which conclusions about a person or group's purposes, beliefs, or priorities can be drawn?"

Can be, yes. Should be? Maybe not. People who like to refer to the collection of folks who statistically tend to share similar views as "Far right" and "far left" are doing just that.

"If it's accurate to say that some people hate the US and don't want governments to support it (even though they've said no such things), there are I believe grounds for such judgements in the *other* direction."

In other words, you don't draw the same conclusion as the writer. You have "decided" that your judgements are sound and the other person's isn't.

"That was the purpose of my original post -- pointing out the divisiveness and the danger of such sweeping statements about either "side" in the discussion."

It seems to me that we can agree on this point. Perhaps I would expand the caveat to include other labels and generalizations.

I stand by my comment.

Abortion rights?

While I repsect what I infer to be your take on this, I would characterize this as fighting FOR the rights of fetal humans.