True leadership requires that one do unpopular things.

So far this post has 1/9th the number of comments as the "BBQ Ribs in the Winter? Oh yeah!" post that appears directly below it. If I could stop laughing long enough I might reread Wanderlust's wanderings long enough to figure out why that is -- but for now I can't stop laughing...

I also think it's funny that Jay used Wanderlust as a proxy... to promote the idea that proxies are a bad idea. That's fitting... lol

Hmm, Ive noticed a lot of your posts are getting little or no comments, Jay - why do you think that is? Would you like some suggestions on what you could differently?

Lee - thanks again for proving the point. First you wrote that you didn't even finish the piece, which fits the mold exactly - when faced with the truth, lefty moonbats like yourself have nothing.

The second point is at the end of Wanderlust comment:

"There's my reasoned arguments, to the trolls who whine about there being no reasoned arguments. Go ahead, refute away. Just use logic and reason to do so, rather than your usual name calling and political grandstanding.

Dare ya."

And - so far he's got your half-baked, stupid observation that only supports his argument through your lack of an argument...

Happy to help out, Clancy - here's some more help.

"First you wrote that you didn't even finish the piece, which fits the mold exactly... [snip]"

Nope. Here's what I wrote - apparently your reading skills are on a par with other conservative trolls, so I'll help you out.

"If I could stop laughing long enough I might reread Wanderlust's wanderings long enough to figure out why that is -- but for now I can't stop laughing.."

Nope. I read the whole thing, as hard as that was. Found nothing worth commenting on. I see you didn't find anything in his wanderings that was worth commenting on either.

I'm with Lee concerning Wanderlust's "wanderings" (oh! I get it now! Good one!). blaming the Dems for not "lead"-ing by following W??? And bitching about a politically correct war strategy as if were ANYONE'S fault by W's(!!!) And then the bugaboo of Cindy Sheehan. Maybe if W would confront his demons when they're in the neighborhood (Achmadinijad, Chavez) or pay a suprise visit next door (Cindy) he could drain their evil essence. Or at least play the Marlboro Man being straight with wingnuts. I'm sure W's amen chorus would appreciate some validation for a change. This passive-aggressiveness in a president is the damnedest thing i've ever seen!

Jay, thanks for the hat tip.

I feel the same way you do, in regards to the need for a strong two-party political system in the US. Unfortunately, right now it's as weak as it ever has been. I used to think that this phenomena was relatively recent, until I read the history of the War of 1812.

What I have never properly understood is the vehement nihilism that characterizes most of the beliefs and actions coming from the Left these days, and their expectation that everyone else should pay for the consequences of their own actions, out of some kind of belief that it's "good". But it can't really be "good", in a moral sense of "good", because morals are "bad". Yes, that premise does make my head hurt sometimes.

Meanwhile you have groups like CODEPINK that are friendly with Islamists and Communists who would jail or even torture women in their own countries for even thinking of speaking out the way the CODEPINKers do. The level of ignorance and/or cognitive dissonance boggles the mind.

Clinton was able to make the famous statement of "it's the economy, stupid" back in 1992 because of the public's perception that with the fall of the Cold War, we could turn our eyes back inwards and focus on domestic issues. Yet I would remind the Left of that statement now, more than ever, with an additonal twist: "it's the economy and the geography, stupid".

Why geography? Because crude oil (the backbone of international commerce) and Islam (amounting to 1/6th of the world's population) converge in the Middle East. And Iraq (which has lots of crude oil) is the dead center of that convergence, both in geography and demography, since its Sunni and Shia populations are pulled westward (by Saudi Arabia, which is beginning to run out of oil) and eastward (by Iran, which is also beginning to run out of crude oil). And then there is Israel, the little cherry on this sordid dessert, sitting just to the west northwest of Iraq (which has very little crude oil of its own, but its tiny country has both a functioning democracy AND a GDP that outperforms all Islamist countries combined in the areas of agriculture, industry, technology, and medicine). This powder keg has been simmering for years, aided and abetted by the ignorance and duplicity of the Great Powers during the Cold War, Carter's appeasement beginning with the Camp David accords and the overthrow of the Shah, and the fact that Islamist dreams of the Caliphate re-emergent have never slept all that soundly to begin with.

Food for thought, between Lee's poor partisan jokes and his (and bryanD's) apparent gross ignorance of history, religion, and human nature.

Wanderlust:

And back then, like now, that war came about because the US failed to address a political situation that had got out of hand, affecting its international commerce.

Well, the current war on terror and the Barbary War of 1801 aren't really comparable, IMO. That first Barbary War started because those states paid mercenaries to go out and extort money...they weren't trying to influence foreign policy by attacking civilian targets. And they certainly were not engaged in what they considered to be a Holy War against the US. Two very different cases...but yes, they were both cases in which the enemy happened to practice Islam. So you have that.

So, Larkin, you want someone else to do your dirty work? Fine. Go through your house and get rid of all plastics, waxes, and anything else directly or indirectly based on petroleum, and stop utilizing any method of transportation that is fossil-fuel based. Get all of your 300 million friends to do it too, so that the US is no longer dependent on oil or any other trade from the Middle East. Then go hire your proxies and sit back.

It's nice to see someone being honest and talking more realistically about what this war is really about: oil, resources, and national interests. Few people on the conservative side admit that. Usually they say that it's all about Iraqi freedom, liberty, and all that. But if we were really all that concerned with freedom and liberty and stopping atrocities, we would have been all over Sudan and Rwanda.

To recycle Clinton again here: "It's the oil, stupid."

I do agree with you about the Democratic Party...they have been weak and reactionary, and haven't really come up with any alternatives or good ideas. All I have heard from them the past several years is how much they disagree with the Republicans. Time to start coming up with some solutions, and start doing something. Growing some balls and maybe a message would be nice too.

Lee, its quality, not quantity that usually matters. This particular thread, it seems folks are spending more time thinking before they type, and then typing more than Leetle condescending broadsides full of braggadocio and little substance. 'Cept for Leetle ol' nonconformist you.

As I said below WL's post in the other thread: well put.

ryan, regarding your statement (emphasis mine):

Well, the current war on terror and the Barbary War of 1801 aren't really comparable, IMO. That first Barbary War started because those states paid mercenaries to go out and extort money...they weren't trying to influence foreign policy by attacking civilian targets. And they certainly were not engaged in what they considered to be a Holy War against the US. Two very different cases...but yes, they were both cases in which the enemy happened to practice Islam. So you have that.

I think you should read Hitchens' recent post at Slate regarding the Barbary States and tribute monies paid prior to Jefferson's First Barbary War in 1801 (emphasis mine throughout):

A few years later, in 1786, the new United States found that it was having to deal very directly with the tenets of the Muslim religion. The Barbary states of North Africa (or, if you prefer, the North African provinces of the Ottoman Empire, plus Morocco) were using the ports of today's Algeria, Libya, and Tunisia to wage a war of piracy and enslavement against all shipping that passed through the Strait of Gibraltar. Thousands of vessels were taken, and more than a million Europeans and Americans sold into slavery. The fledgling United States of America was in an especially difficult position, having forfeited the protection of the British Royal Navy. Under this pressure, Congress gave assent to the Treaty of Tripoli, negotiated by Jefferson's friend Joel Barlow, which stated roundly that "the government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion, as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen." This has often been taken as a secular affirmation, which it probably was, but the difficulty for secularists is that it also attempted to buy off the Muslim pirates by the payment of tribute. That this might not be so easy was discovered by Jefferson and John Adams when they went to call on Tripoli's envoy to London, Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman. They asked him by what right he extorted money and took slaves in this way. As Jefferson later reported to Secretary of State John Jay, and to the Congress:

The ambassador answered us that [the right] was founded on the Laws of the Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have answered their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Mussulman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.

Medieval as it is, this has a modern ring to it. Abdrahaman did not fail to add that a commission paid directly to Tripoli--and another paid to himself--would secure some temporary lenience. I believe on the evidence that it was at this moment that Jefferson decided to make war on the Muslim states of North Africa as soon as the opportunity presented itself.

I will grant you that yes, the Barbary States were not engaging in slavery against civilians as a deliberate act to piss off the United States. No, they were not. They were equal opportunity Islamists, merely following their religion. Just as they are now.

I can count on one hand the number of honest "moderate Muslims" to surface in the media in the five years since 9/11 (that is, ones who are not linked to CAIR). Yet those precious few pale in comparison to the love of freedom exhibited by Walid Shoebat, Wafa Sultan, and Hirsi Ali. Unfortunately, it took those three to completely repudiate Islam before they could appreciate the peace, liberty, and happiness afforded by a world founded on Judeo-Christian values.

And don't ever forget how the Religion of Peace treats the ones who try to leave its "Hotel California" way of life...

NOTE: To Muslim Unity and any other Islamist reading this page, I swear:

1. "There is no God but Allah, and Mohammed is his Prophet"

2. "There is no God but Allah, and Mohammed is his Prophet"

3. "There is no God but Allah, and Mohammed is his Prophet"

There. I'm now a practicing Muslim.

And next I choose to repudiate my Muslim faith, and embrace Christianity. Jesus Christ is my God, and I believe in the unity of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.

Let the fatwas on my life commence...

See? He's just another looney who's escaped from the right-wing looney bin....