In claiming that Dems risk exacerbating "image as soft on national defense," NY Times' Kirkpatrick falsely suggested only Dem base favors withdrawal
In an October 29 article, New York Times reporter David D. Kirkpatrick suggested that congressional Democrats could exacerbate the "party's image as soft on national defense" by "[p]leasing the party's 'bring 'em home' base" and calling for a timetable to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq. But Kirkpatrick's assertion about the "party's 'bring 'em home' base" rests on a falsehood. Contrary to his suggestion, it is not just the base of the Democratic Party that is calling for troop withdrawal from Iraq -- it is a majority of the country, as indicated by recent polling. Kirkpatrick even mentioned a USA Today/Gallup poll (subscription required) that shows the public supports withdrawal, but cited it for a different point -- that "more than 80 percent of the public expects Democrats to set a timetable for a withdrawal from Iraq if they take control of Congress."
While noting the 80 percent figure, Kirkpatrick left out that the USA Today/Gallup poll also found that 63 percent of respondents would "approve" if Democrats "[s]et a time-table for withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq" upon regaining control of Congress. The poll was conducted October 20-22, and had a margin of error of +/-3 percentage points.
Other recent polls have similarly found that a majority of the public supports the setting of a timetable for withdrawal. According to an October 26-27 Newsweek poll, 61 percent of respondents "think the United States should set a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. military forces in Iraq," and a Pew Research Center for the People and the Press public opinion poll conducted September 21-October 4 found that 53 percent of respondents favored a timetable for troop withdrawal from Iraq.
From Kirkpatrick's October 29 New York Times article:
Democrats have spent three decades trying to exorcise the ghost of Senator George S. McGovern, whose losing 1972 presidential campaign calling for a withdrawal from Vietnam crystallized his party's image as soft on national defense.
But surveying the midterm elections last week, Mr. McGovern, 84, said he sees an opportunity for an antiwar campaign in the 2008 presidential race.
"I would love to be running again if I were 25 years younger," he said in an interview from his Montana home. "I think I would win."
On the eve of the midterms, dismay over the Iraq war has propelled the Democrats to a political status they have not enjoyed since before Mr. McGovern: for the first time in decades, polls show that the public trusts Democrats as much as Republicans to handle foreign affairs.
But as they look ahead, Democrats are torn between two visions of their history. Some potential candidates in the 2008 Democratic primary and many liberal activists argue that the Republican responsibility for the Iraq war has, in effect, freed the Democrats from Mr. McGovern's legacy. They say the 2006 elections will provide a mandate for a new antiwar argument: that troops can be pulled from Iraq in order to shore up American security elsewhere in the world.
Other strategists and political scientists argue that the Iraq war has given the Democrats a different opportunity to lay to rest their McGovernite image, in part by rejecting calls for a quick withdrawal in Iraq.
"All voters are doing is giving Democrats a chance, and we better not blow it," said Gary Hart, the former senator and presidential candidate.
A younger McGovern could probably win the Democratic primary, Mr. Hart said, but he would still lose the general election. "Just running on a platform of 'get us out of Iraq' is not going to solve the Democrats' problem on the issue of national security," he said.
[...]
During the midterm campaigns, Democrats have risen in the polls merely by attacking President Bush's conduct of the war. They have not spelled out or agreed on a clear alternative of their own.
That luxury, however, is coming to an end. On Nov. 8, the day after the election, attention will shift toward the 2008 presidential race. How to handle Iraq could be the defining issue of the Democratic primary, and criticizing President Bush may not count for much in the general election since the Republican nominee may also be a vocal critic of his administration's handling of the war.
Pleasing the party's "bring 'em home" base while burnishing its security credentials may not be easy. A USA Today poll released Friday showed that more than 80 percent of the public expects Democrats to set a timetable for a withdrawal from Iraq if they take control of Congress. But so far none of Democratic Congressional leaders has called for a fixed deadline.
[...]
Many Democrats, Mr. Feingold argued, have made a "serious mistake" by getting caught up in the party's Vietnam history. Fearing Mr. McGovern's fate, they are stuck in what he called "the Iraq trap."
"They think if somebody calls for a timetable to get out of Iraq they will be labeled as 'cut and run,' " Mr. Feingold said. Democratic gains in the 2006 elections, he said, will show that the public accepts the broader argument for a pullout from Iraq in order to fight terrorism more effectively elsewhere in the world.
Kevin Mattson, a liberal historian at Ohio University, argued that the comparisons to the McGovern campaign were misleading and "goofy."
For one thing, unlike critics of the Iraq war, neither Mr. McGovern nor any other prominent Democrat opposed the Vietnam War because it was an impediment to the fight against Communism - an argument that would have been hard to make at that advanced stage of the cold war. Advisers to Vice President Hubert Humphrey urged him to make such a case in 1968 but he refused, Mr. Mattson said.
Others, however, argued that letting their victories this year eclipse the McGovern experience may be the biggest risk that Democrats face in 2008. "My concern is that some Democrats will learn the wrong lessons from our victory," Senator Joe Biden of Delaware said.
Noting the number of conservative Democratic challengers this fall, he said that voters are seeking "a bipartisan consensus" about how to leave more than chaos and instability in Iraq. "A pullout is not a plan," Mr. Biden said, "it is a reaction." What sealed the Democrats' image after Vietnam, historians say, was not just Mr. McGovern's campaign but also their reaction as public opinion turned on the war. After 1968, Democrats in Congress began pressing to curtail the war or cut off its financing. And their efforts reached a peak after the post-Watergate midterm election of 1974, when many Democrats interpreted their landslide gains as a mandate to cut back on national defense.
No one is making similar proposals today. But James M. Lindsay, a director of the Robert S. Strauss for International Security and Law at the University of Texas in Austin and a former national security official in the Clinton administration, said big wins in 2006 may well embolden antiwar Democrats in 2008, while pulling "centrists" like Mrs. Clinton closer to withdrawal.
"But there are going to be a lot of Democratic strategists whispering in their ears that 'you don't want to go there' because it is bad politics, and it is bad policy to boot," he said. "The problem is you also have to win the general election. You don't need to appeal to people who have made up their mind and had a bumper sticker on the back of their car for the last four years."
Mr. McGovern, for his part, said the debate reminded him of the way Republicans used to accuse Democrats of being weak on Communism, even though containment was a Democratic idea. "I sure hope we are not going to have 50 years of being weak on terrorism in the eyes of Republicans," he said.
Let's just forget how these neocons weaseled and counterfeited our nation into an invasion of Iraq. Because if we ignore the criminal hubris of these militant demagogues we can make sensible appeals for national security appear obtuse and weak.
Remember the claims that Iranian legislature passed a law requiring members of religious communities to wear identifying badges. Psy-ops by benador crafted to stir the pot.
Yeah, debunked lie.
Why are you such a death merchant?
Most of your posts have this murderous subtext of kill them all.
To call others liars with whom you disagree. That has been the text of most of your posts.
Since you clearly do not understand who the enemy in the war really is or what their goals are, let me explain it for you.
The enemy are a loosely allied collection of Muslim fundamentalists who share a common vision expressed succinctly and clearly by the Koran and the Hadith. They are literally, Muslim Holy Warriors, crusaders. The goal which is so clearly defined in their holy texts is the establishment of a holy Caliphate over the entire earth. A Caliphate is an absolutist theocratic government ruled by one man, an absolute ruler known as the Caliph, in whom the laws of both God and man are fused into one. There is no parallel for this in the modern western tradition. We have had no tyrant, no dictator, no tyrannical regime in the last 500 years at least in the west where one man, or small group of men, has possessed such utter tyrannical power, and that covers a lot of tyranny.
Now, since Benadar Associates are all liars, then you will no doubt argue the lengthy list of known Al Qaeda operatives and terrorists from other organizations living Iraq were not guests of Saddam prior to Sept. 2003. This is hard to do. Zarqawi was treated for a leg wound in one of Saddam's private hospitals after he fled Afghanistan. Abu Nidal and Abbu Abbas were both harbored in Iraq for many years. Ansar Al Islam was in Iraq, whether Saddam liked them or not. Saddam paid much blood money to and harbored the fugitives of, Hamas and Hezbollah. Like it or not, the contents of your original post, that Saddam had nothing to do with OBL or Al Qaeda is false. Zarqawi is or at least, was, Al Qaeda. Ansar Al Islam is allied with Al Qaeda. That Saddam had nothing directly to do with 9-11 is not relevant since 9-11 is only one of many operations Al Qaeda has attempted or executed. He was clearly in bed with Al Qaeda on some of their other schemes. [link to www.nysun.com]
Of course, you believe these people are lying too.
I think had you been present on Oahu Dec. 7, 1941, you would have been among those many who tried to explain away the presence of many strange aircraft as 'the army on manuevers' since they all just KNEW the Japanese could never be attacking.
You don't read my posts. If you did, you would know that I don't call other posters liars. Check them if you like. The label of liar that I just applied to Benador may have been my first, I'm not positive, but I make an effort to not call folks liars. Disagree if you like, doesn't matter much to me.
As for the rest of your post, I admire your persistence. I respect your adherence to your beliefs, we just disagree on aspects of America's enemies.
As for the Pearl Harbor reference, well...let's just say that you're entitled to your opinion.
Peace.
I wasn't referring just to posters here, most of whom are far leftists.
Some examples from your past posts:
1. George Bush 2. The CIA, presumably to include its past directors Porter Goss and George Tenet, who curiously is one of your guys. 3. Bandar Associates in the post above.
My point is made.
As for you view of the enemy, it is simply not supported by facts, such as the actions of the enemy and the public statements of the enemy leadership:
This one justifies the 9-11 attack after that fact [link to news.bbc.co.uk]
This one calls for holy war against Israel, all Jews andhe United States and originates from 1998: [link to www.fas.org]
A perusal of web published literature strongly suggests that only one author associated with Benador has ever been successfully debunked, that being Amir Taheri, who has been taken to task for both truthfulness and scholarship on more than one occassion.
I was aware of the questions about Mr. Taheri's truthfulness and scholarship, which is why my Benador reference was not Mr. Taheri.
And you can save your breath about arguing that all of Benador's associates are tainted by association, because its list of authors/consultants include names like Natan Sharansky, Charles Krauthammer, Victor Davis Hansen, and James Woolsey. While you may find disagreement with these authors in areas of opinion, they are most certainly sound on matters of fact and scholarship.
Debunked? Not hardly, especially as real life events unfold confirming many of the prognostications made there.
You said, "Democrats have spent three decades trying to exorcise the ghost of Senator George S. McGovern, whose losing 1972 presidential campagin crystallized his party's image as soft on national defense."
Well Dave, if your criteria for "exorcizing the ghost of ... McGovern" is the Dems winning a presidential campaign, seems to me we'd already exorcized that particular ghost just short time afterward, not the "three decades" you seem to think its taken.
And if your criteria for a party's image being "soft on national defense" is a large number of its most prominent members having little or no military service, seems to me that image description fits the Republicans moreso than the Democrats . . . especially when I think about all the Dems who have served, in many cases honorably {Kerry, Murtha, Kerrey, Inoyue, etc.}, as compared to those Republicans who did not due to "other priorities" {Cheney}, were "too busy" {Rove}, or whose service was inexplicably shoretened {Bush}.
One last thing, Dave: if your criteria for the Dems supporting withdrawl from Iraq is simply pleasing the "bring 'em home base", perhaps you ought to take a look at some other polls - instead of cherry-picking just one - that say that MAJORITY of the people in the USA think the war was a mistake and we should not continue that mistake. That's not simply pleasing a base, that is complying with the will of the people, which is how a representative democracy works.
I'd ask what your criteria is for complying with the people's will, but I'm a little afraid of the answer {for some reason Stalin comes to mind}. . .
It's time this country embraced the life of Senator George McGovern, not to exorcise his ghost. Although he lost the 1972 presidential election, lets remember who won and how they won.
If George McGovern had won the election, there would be more than 3,000 names that would not be on that wall in Arlington. Thousands more would not have been wounded, thousands could have returned to their lives whole in body but never in spirit. We could have healed as a nation, instead of becoming more divided over the years. And the majority of those men and women were not even old enough to cast ballots in the election.
I cast my first presidential vote for Senator McGovern. It was one of the proudest things I've ever done.
George Bush is not fit to shine his shoes.
THANK YOU. njguy93@yahoo.com
You got THAT right.
"GEORGE McGOVERN IS A WAR HERO AND AN INTELLIGENT, HONEST, DECENT, AND GOOD MAN WHO WOULD HAVE MADE A GREAT PRESIDENT."
Jimmy Carter was all of the above except war hero, and he was possibly the worst President in living memory.
Many people on your side of the aisle extol the greatness of the Clinton Presidency despite the fact his was the most corrupt administration is US history as evidenced by the number of members of his administration and their associates who were convicted, fined and imprisoned.
As history has demonstrated, not only do intelligence, honesty, decency and goodness will not ensure a successful presidency, it appears the the absence of these qualities does not necessarily ensure a bad Presidency either, in the view of youir side of the aisle.
Consistency is not a Democratic virtue.
Why is it so difficult for the media to grasp that Americans want us out of Iraq? It's as though the media disbelieve the polls showing that Americans want us out... and then they reinforce old stereotypes by suggesting Dems are soft. It's like saying Repubs are the party of fiscal responsibility... it's just a false stereotype. Sometimes people in the media strike me as just incredibly lazy and stupid.
I feel exactly the same, King. This would have been a much better country if McGovern had been our president, rather than that disgraced paranoid Nixon. McGovern has long proven himself to be a man of courage, intellect, & compassion... three elements that one would thing should be basic requirements of office.
Kirkpatrick uses some peculiar logic in his piece. He tells us that 80% of the American public expect the Democrats to withdraw from Iraq if they come to power. Well, if 80% of the public EXPECT the Dems to withdraw, & the public goes on to then ELECT them anyway, doesn't that in itself suggest that the American public WANTS US TO WITHDRAW FROM IRAQ?
I mean, what am I missing here? Kirkpatrick seems to be arguing that the voters will hold it against the Democrtic Party if they are foolish enough to GIVE THEM WHAT THEY ARE DEMANDING! This appears to be more what Kirkpatrick is HOPING will be the reaction of the electorate, rather than what logic dictates will happen. The corprate media just seem incapable of relenquishing their long-held acceptance of neocon doctrine.
Irony101 is right. This is a matter of clinging to outdated stereotypes. This is simply laziness & stupidity on the MSM part.
I guess that, ultimately, this is what they're paid for.
In his rise, someone must have told our current president that a bad decision is better than no decision. And once a decision is made, you have to stick with it.
Bush's state of denial can only be remedied by entering a state of acceptance. The State Department recently admitted arrogance and stupidity in the conduct of the Iraq war. That might be an early sign that reality is dawning. We should carefully follow the future career of Alberto Fernandez. Perhaps he won't be sent to take charge of building maintenance at the American Embassy in Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia.
The Bush regime erred in its cavalier attitude towards sending troops to war. They erred in invading a culture they did not know. They erred in their reasons for going to war. They erred when they gutted the military strength of the invading force. They erred in not using the best of the Iraqi military and government. They turned potential friends into simmering enemies. And now they want to stay the course in the "long war." The continual war. The never-ending war story.
Bush and his boys are weak-minded on defense. It is unlikely they will ever come to terms with their arrogance and faulty actions. What is sad is that they will continue to despise and weaken with words the party that used to be called the "loyal opposition."
There are millions of soldiers, young and old, who lived and died as Democrats. When the Dems come back to take charge, let's hope they govern with wisdom and intelligence. These are the seeds of true strength.
all columnists and to all radio show people..Hark, the public has seen through this "weak on security and the liberals don't care about your lives". This rhetoric is sooo passe that you probably don't believe it yourselves. On one hand you say that liberals voted for supporting the troops and then blame them for not supporting the troops. You cannot have it both ways. But the American people will let you Repubs(you say Democrat, I say Repub)know next Tuesday. And when the Democratic party wins, I am going into the shovel business because the Repugs will be digging fallout shelters to hide from the enemy who may live next door as we speak. Remember, who has been in command of this country for 6 years. Think about it. And, HAPPY DIGGING.
On one hand you say that liberals voted for supporting the troops and then blame them for not supporting the troops. princeofwheels
No we're saying some liberals voted for supporting the war but have not supported the troops.
It's like supporting the building of a fence along the border but not funding it.
Another words, it's worthless.
The best way to support the troops is TO BRING THEM HOME! To allow them to cintinue to be picked off... one after another... because neocon arrogance won't allow them to admit that this war of aggression was A MASSIVE F*CKUP from the very start is both stupid & callous beyond all reason. This war & occupation is HARMING America. It is draining our treasury. It is getting our young men & women killed & maimed in the fruitless cause of impirialist adventurings. It has weakened our standing in the international community. It has strained our military beyond its ability to react to other potential crisis. It is becoming more & more apparent that it is little more than a naked repitition of the Viet Nam War. Why should Americam military personel continue to be killed & mangled in what any thinking person can see is a lost cause?
The real question, Taz, is why do you & your neocon bretheren hate our troops?
Why do you hate America?
Support for the war and support for our troops are two different things. Knowing that our government has placed our service personnel in harms way, without a plan, without proper equipment and without an exit strategy, is not supporting the troops. The body count for October has just passed 100. How many more have to die or be mangled because GWB and less than a majority of the people in this country are too proud to admit that we've made a huge mistake?
I know if I were in Iraq, I'd much rather hear that our involvement would be ending and I might be going home, than to hear that my tour had been extended. Believe it or not, these guys want to come home more than anything.
Actually, some democrats authorized the use of force in Iraq, if necessary. Nobody has actually voted for war, as there was no declaration of such between the United States and Iraq.
The question that a lot of democrats, and according to the polls most of the American public, now has is; was it necessary to invade Iraq? From what we've found once we went into the country, and from what has been happening since invasion in 2003, the answer, at least for me, has always been, and always will be unequivocally, no.
Now, is it bad to go back, and question the hows and whys of Iraq? Especially by an institution charged with the oversight of the federal branch of the government? I think not. Just because someone voted to use force, doesn't mean they don't question it now. Now if Bush could actually go back, and review his decisions, this would be called being reflective. But instead, we get more of the same from him. Does he still maintain that he has made no mistakes? If so, that is scary, especially coming from the leader of the free world. Really, very scary.
'Nobody has actually voted for war, as there was no declaration of such between the United States and Iraq.' -Magnolialover
How does George get away with all these excessive executive wartime powers if we're not at war?
I have always found it funny, since Iraq began, that republicans in particular have said they "support the troops", and by supporting the troops this means (to republicans it seems) keeping them in harm's way, and letting them get killed and or shot at, and or bombed every day of the week? What kind of crazy logic is that?
I would bet a lot of money, if you asked the soldiers in Iraq if they wanted to come home, right now, they'd all be on board, Iraq be damned. They are unfortunately the pawns in a big game of Risk being played by Bush and company, since most of them didn't have the cojones to go and play soldier when they had the chance.
I also find it funny that the republicans keep saying that democrats are weak on terrorism and national security. I want to see a dem ad where they state the plain simple truth. Such as, "Who was in charge of Congress and the White House when we were attacked on 9/11? Republicans. Who lead us into an unnecessary war in Iraq? Republicans. Who is responsible for almost 3000 dead American Soldiers? Republicans. Who has made the country less safe according to NIEs released? Republicans. Who has taken away civil liberties from normal American citizens in the name of national security? Republicans."
You know, and so on. How come we don't see ads like this out there?
In the context of politics I have always regarded the phrase "support our troops" as just another hollow, Republican, focus-group tested, bumper sticker saying. Of course everyone in America supports our troops... who in their right mind wouldn't?!? The troops are our children, our nieces and nephews, our neighbors and our friends. But the Republicans, as they are wont to do, try to turn everything to political advantage by suggesting that Dems don't "support our troops"... it's insulting, divisive and wrong to do that.
Taz has demonstrated this shameless practice perfectly. Equating sycophantic adoration for Puddinhead George with support for the troops is nothing short of fascist propaganda.
If your son plays baseball, and the coach is molesting the players, you fire the coach, right? Would anyone accuse you of "not supporting the players?"
Irony, your sentiments are right on point. However, may I take a stab at your question: "Of course everyone in America supports our troops . . . who in their right mind wouldn't?!?"
I submit all those who voted for the Military Commissions Act (including the 11 democrats who joined in voting for it) don't support our troops. Here's my reasoning:
Every person in the military has taken an oath to defend the CONSTITUTION of the United States -- not the people of the U.S. -- or even the United States alone. The reason why they are duty bound to defend the Constitution is because that document secures and protects our unalienable rights (See Declaration of Independence) from intrusion or elimination by the Government; it is that Document which makes us Americans, Americans.
Under the MCA, the government has declared that many of our unalienable rights no longer exist. By voting for this legislation, the supporters have, esentially said we are going to give up those unalienable rights -- without even the whimper of a verbal protest.
I submit this willing elimination of our rights essentially says to our Troops: "The oath you gave, to defend our Constitution (even to the death) is meaningless and foolhardy. We're willing to give away that which you have pledged to defend. We frankly don't care that you are willing to die for the Constitution, we'll give it up for nothing." Does that sound like supporting our Troops? Is there any wonder that when you talk to a person who has actually been in the fight, somewhere in their conversation they'll say they are there to protect "my buddy?"
Jaxson
Wow... that is indeed an excellent point. As I've gotten older I've come to appreciate the Constitution more and more as that which sets America apart and the reason the United States has endured. I've jokingly said that we should fly copies of the Constitution instead of the American flag.
If nothing else, to stop this fascist freight train known as the Bush administration. They are gradually trying to set the Executive Branch above the Constitution. If they get two more years of a rubber-stamp Congress, they may actually succeed.
I like that...a simple flag with the words "We The People" written in that familiar script.
There is nothing illegal about the Congress establishing a federal court and defining its jurisdiction. Article III, sectyion 1: ".. such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish"
Indeed, the only court actually established by the Constitution itself is the Supreme Court of the United States, and even that is not fully specified. e. g., no where does the Constitution specify how many justices that court should have.
The Dem base may hate the war, but the Dem leadership loves it. They've been voting to blow up Iraqis since the early 1990's and still vote to do it. The party has even been picking pro-war candidates to run against anti-war candidates in the primaries. If the Dem leadership were any more loyal to Israel and the anti-arab agenda, they'd all have dual citizenship. And they know their anti-war base will vote for those pro-war candidates because they're far too loyal to the party to revolt at the ballot box.
Funny how the Repubs keep claiming that voting for a Democrat is a vote to leave Iraq. It's totally bogus. A vote for the Democrats will be a vote to continue the war. But that's the Game...the Repubs drive the anti-war vote to the Dems and the Dem leadership screw those voters over by supporting the war.
If you are really anti-war and liberal, the Greens are the only option. They have NO track record of mass murder and do not support Israel and the anti-arab agenda.
Sorry, but that is a totally bogus comment IMO. Just ask Joe Leiberman. If anyhing, Dems are NOT loyal to the party. I'll bet there were more Dem to Repub crossover votes in the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections than Repub to Demo.
...why do they keep fantasizing that their leadership are NOT pro-war, kill-the-arabs, war criminal bastards?
I compare the Democrat base to abused housewives who keep thinking that with just a little more love and a second (or twentieth or ninetyfith) chance, that he'll change, he'll stop beating them. So they let them back in, and lo and behold, they get abused yet again...but still, with a little more love, another chance....
Time for you liberal Democrats to burn the bed and get out of this abusive relationship. The Greens are the only real liberal party in this country, give them a try this election.
The Greens have no chance of winning. A vote for the Green party is a vote for Republicans. At least, if the Democrats take Congress, we can slow down the runaway fascist freight train that is the Puddinhead George administration.
No, a vote for the Greens is a vote for the Greens, and how do you stop the corruption by returning a corrupt party that's up to it's ears in the corruption. Your logic escapes me.
a vote for green is a vote siphoned off of someone who could actually win.
Redking, greens need to build a party apparatus from the grassroots before anyone can see fit to vote for one. I've said this to you seveal times and you never bother to acknowledge it. Even Tim and Susan know this. Or at least they have acknowledged it by now. I will vote for Greens when there is a competitive race where a Green has made inroads to the point where they aren't just getting Republicans elected.
..then whine they can't win? Well, if you voted for them, they MIGHT!
You go ahead and vote for people who bomb children, I'll vote my conscience.
He calls everyone to his left a loony liberal. You call everyone to your right a fascist sympathizer.
It seems to me that the Green Party contains more than a few self-righteous idealists who only belong so that they can claim to participate in the political process while keeping their "delicate" consciences squeaky clean. I'm not saying you're necessarily as bad as that, but calling anyone who doesn't share your views a fascist is not a position any reasonable person should take.
I hate to be so harsh, because I do agree with one of your pet peeves: America's unquestioning support of Israel's actions. But your rhetoric seems to be as extreme as that of some of the right-wing nuts on this board.