We must of made some damn good points to get attacked like that.  If that is the case I hope we get attacked more.  Traitors?  Sure that James Taranto isn't just a psuedonym Karl Rove?

to scare centrists away from opposition to the war. They are very afraid, and should be. Only a few months ago, words like "withdrawal" and "exit strategy" could be branded as "extreme left" viewpoints. Now they see the unpopularity of the war going more mainstream, and the repercussion that could have.

Also, Taranto isn't quoting many of the growing number of anti-war Republicans now is he? Taranto figures that this is an opportunity to brand the entire Democratic party as the anti-war party. I personally don't think that is a bad thing, but it is what it is.

Finally, if we've shaken them up, then good for us. Regardless of one's position on the war, exposing the other side's cracks can have one of two effects: 1- they can fix the leaks, or 2- the dam will burst.

Looks to me like we're on the right track.

If Taranto allowed comments on Opinion Journal they would make this place look calm and dignified. Perhaps you should suggest it to him.

It is clear that Bush's speech will be the dud these McCarthy mouthpieces fear.  We serve a purpose for them; they can divert attention from the emptiness of their vision and purpose trying to use us as a scapegoat. Anyone who is satisfied with the answeers provided by Bush, Inc. will be dissatisfied no doubt by the obvious criticisms made by us and the public generally. Once the public begins to see the Liars,Inc cartel for what it is, there will be no putting back a veneer of honest purpose on this pack of liars, knaves and fools. Our bigger problem is the reluctance of so many elected leaders to say plainly what is clear to us. 

Bush & Co. are shooting us in the foot, (and lots of other places), not shooting themselves.

We are the targets of their reckless behavior.

True or false?

Reid, Kerry and Hagel, by the way, all voted in favor of liberating Iraq.

 Gee, I thought they voted in favor of protecting the United States from imminent danger. But now that he mentions it, liberating Iraq seems to be the next logical step. Will Congress be voting on that plan?

Gee, thanks, James Taranto. I like being called a junior Josh Marshall. And I agree with all your negative assessments of Mr. Bush's speech. Are you thinking of becoming a Democrat?  You are also right about me when you say, I "really, really can't stand the president." I just want to add, My respect for the office is intact even though my respect for the midget who currently holds it is not.

Wow! We are in the Big Leagues now! So, let's remember how we got here and keep up the good work.

Howard Dean was on Chris Mathews show tonight, and treated the insults he gets from Cheney, Rove, etc just the way we should. He laughed and refused to engage in similar insults. So, let me just say the Mr. Toronto is welcome to hold any opinions he choses. Sorry, I meant Mr. Tanrito.

9/11 did not justify the liberation of Afghanistan. 9/11 justified Osama bin Laden's head on a stake, and a focussed effort to battle jihadism.

I think the real problem here is with the word "liberation". The mission in Afghanistan wasn't so much to "liberate" it as it was to reconstitute it as a functioning state. Yes, the Taliban were an oppressive totalitarian regime, but more importantly, they were a failed state - not so much tyranny as anarchy. But conservatives have no vocabulary, no intellectual furniture, for apprehending this sort of enemy or this sort of problem. To them, Ayn Randites to the last, all political evil is tyranny; they do not recognize the existence of anarchy, or the problem with it. So they think all you have to do is go into the baddies' country, topple the tyrant, and split; the people will then fix it all up, in accordance with natural law.

That's why they had no plan for nation-building in Iraq. The reasons why conservatives are helpless to address any of the real problems facing 21st-century America - health insurance, the energy crisis, the deficit, Social Security, education, maintaining our position in science and tech research - are the same reasons why they have proven incompetent at managing the GWOT. Our soldiers in Iraq are dying for the idiocies of modern American conservatism.

The Christian Right's hypocrisy almost makes you want to root for Al Queda.  I've considered perhaps we ought to post target maps for the reddest of red areas in red stats for Al Queda to nuke.

But we are all in this together.  I think we are still a Country United.  Although California Seccession sounds pretty good to me at this point in history at least.  I'd like to see the look on Bill O'Really's face then when the IRS no longer had California's tax dollars.

Was the Country this divided when Clinton was in office?

The point about the RW approach to Clinton (a prez with whom I have plenty of bones to pick BIG TIME from the left) really hits the nail on the head.  These people just don't accept the idea of an opposition.  When they are in opposition they can impeach a president over a soggy cigar (and some other stuff), but now -- who ever held the Repugs to the standard even of calling the Democratic Party Democratic rather than the "Democrat" Party.  And now they want to hold Democrats to a standard of 'constructive criticism'?  The essence of these Tory mentalities is that they don't feel they are beholden to the same standards as the mere peasants (unless they are that each should receive according to their rank, equal to their status and just desserts...); comcomitantly they want to play Alexejente for the opposition. 

I would add that, although this view may not be popular at this site, not only do I generally admire Noam Chomsky greatly (to be honest, his views are closer to mine by far than to Kerry or Edwards, for whom I voted).  I think it puerile to attack people like Chomsky or Roy for alleged 'America hating', just as those who really do have what I call a 'US out of North America' spin going are also puerile.  I don't agree with everything Chomsky says, and felt his book on 9/11 left much to be desired -- but he  is not only one of America's most famous political intellectuals around the world, he merits every bit of his recognition, as many others do not.  Manufacturing Consent is a superb study of the US media, and I urge anyone at this site interested in the truth about the function of the media to read it
(and others not at this site too). 

In the year 2000, when I was arguing with Nader supporters (mainly over radio or other indirect venues) I explained that if I HATED America, I would be gung-ho for George Bush. Gabriel Kolko made a similar argument -- for Bush in 2004 on the grounds that his unilateral imperialism is unsustainable.  THAT
does merit the label antiAmerican.  A jeremiad is not, even though I may not always agree with it.

And again, while I am not anti-American, I can happily do without Taranto and his ilk, just as I have no doubt whatsoever he would and does feel the same way about me and my kind.

Clearly, Bush is not going to listen to us, as Iraq and now Afghanistan go south. We can only energize the American people to oppose this charlatan (and his puppetmaster Rove) and get this group out of power, replacing them with competent leaders.

Here is some constructive criticism:

Mr. President, there have been three times in the past 5.5 years when you have been popular with the American people, and two of them were when you started wars (no thanks necessary for the third). So, I would suggest the next time you start a war in order to raise your approval ratings, you tell the truth about why we're going. Once we're there, I would suggest you tell the truth about how it's going. And finally, after a couple of years have passed and Americans are dying in larger and larger groups, I would suggest you tell the truth about when we're going.

As a loyal patriot, I concede that I will forever more conjoin 9/11 and Iraq.  Therefore, to prevent the terrorists from attacking us at home, I support the effort to take the fight to the terrorists even if that means invading a country before the terrorists actually get there.  Bring it on!  We will conduct war with the insurgents and then when our resources are exhausted, we can turn that role over to the new democratic alliance, claim victory and hope that the jihadists do not follow us home before the next election. 

Also, by conjoining 9/11 and Iraq, I constructively concede that Iraq cannot be called a war of preemption because the real war of preemption would have occurred before 9/11 and possibly prevented it.  I will concede that intelligence justifying a preemptive strike by law enforcers on terrorists within the US was ignored -- cutting brush and fund raising on a month long vacation after 8 months in office is very constructive for a president.  After 9/11 I concede that the process of building intelligence on WMDs in Iraq including the return of arms inspectors to Iraq was preempted  because the intelligence problem was already fixed, er, constructed.  Seeing that law enforcement and intelligence did not prevent 9/11 or our invasion of Iraq, I constructively agree that the only other option is through military action.  

My only question, "Is our children learning to be as constructive?"  I better get them a subscription to WSJ.  Less  tax, more construction, and more distance from the recruiting office.  This construction stuff is easier than I thought it would be. 
 

nice observation about conservatives and anarchy (or chaos) -- also applies to Bush pere going into Somalia.  What did he expect he would accomplish there?

If only the liberals had constructive criticism to give, Dear Leader might be able to save the situation in Iraq.  But because you don't his hands are tied, and we will suffer the fastest if not the biggest defeat in American military history.  I hope you liberals are satisfied, you've wrecked America.

What's not constructive about criticism saying that someone else should be in charge of fighting the Iraq war? Here's some constructive criticism for Taranto: he should pull his head out of his ass and start making sense. 

 I hope that helps....

According to WSJ, TPMCafe has in a just few weeks already spawned a thousand Josh Marshalls? Are they saying that the US media might someday soon be dominated by clear-eyed, honest, insightful, intelligent, constructive political reporting and commentary? Oh, I hope so. This is one of the most exciting prospects for this country's future  I've encountered in many years.

According to Einstein, the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.

In Iraq, we have a situation where things have already gone from bad to worse and are now well on their way to truly awful (unless, of course, you listen to Cheney when he says that the insurgency is in its last throes--oops, guess he wasn't "cc-d" on that last memo.)

The President's plan to deal with the increasingly problematic situation in Iraq is...to keep doing the same thing over and over again. I'm not sure that this is insanity, but it's certainly dumb. When you are on the wrong track, it is lunacy to stay the course.

So my constructive advice to this Administration would be to pull your collective head out of your collective kiester. Quit screwing around, and do what it takes to get the job done. 

I think the important conculsion to draw is not  that Taranto is a jerk (which we already knew) but rather that bush's speech was a complete and total failure.

I suspect, in retrospect, the speech will be seen as a signal event, when all but the most deluded of bush's supporters (who amount to, roughly, 40% of the american people) recognized that the man doesn't have it in him to lead this effort. Our problem is how to deal with the next 3.5 years. Perhaps Taranto has some constructive suggestions?

Attacks on Chomsky always consist of name-calling. I have never heard or read anyone refute his facts.



"if I HATED America, I would be gung-ho for George Bush. "



That is perfect.



As for Taranto:



"All they have to say is that they really, really can't stand the president."



No, we have plenty to say about why we really, really can't stand the president. I love it when Republicans give Democrats advice. It's always the same: be nice, tone down your rhetoric, don't be so partisan, get rid of that mean old Howard Dean. Sure thing. While we're at it, do you need a back rub? Shall we scrub your dick?



Taranto wants constuctive criticism. How about this:



Stop lying. Stop trying to tie Iraq to 9/11. Admit that we're blowing any chance for minimizing the damage of this horrible debacle by building permanent bases. Ask Cheney to resign. Fire Rumsfeld. Purge the neo-cons. Fill those jobs with people who aren't sinister kooks.



Is that constructive enough?

Here's some constructive criticism. Bush and Cheney should resign, and take their whole cabinet with them. In their place they should appoint some replacements who are honest, intelligent and informed. That would go a long way to solving this mess.

Maybe Josh should have titled his post "We've Arrived!"

Encouraging that WSJ and Republicans are desperately looking for Democratic/Liberal advice and proposals for a few things like Iraq and Social Secrurity.  Maybe by 2006 or 2008 they'll just say, "Screw this, you guys run the country for awhile."

Keep people from starving

Sometimes people fail to understand not because of the lack of effort, but by exercising a tremendous effort.

 By repeating the same phrase over and over an individual may achieve self-hypnosis.  Even hypnotised, someone could be jolted out of transe by a particularly egregious violation of logic.  To achieve a totally impervious state of mind, it takes years of practice (I am not talking about prodigies who achieve total stupidity with hadly any effort).

 Repeat 500 times "culture of no"

 Repeat 100 times "highly qualified nominee for the ambassador to UN"

 Etc.

I don't understand all these calls for the left to come up with suggestions, advice, plans, or what-have-you. The only time that I can recall that Bush ever listened to anyone was that he did, in fact, control his facial expressions better during the second debate than the first. Can anyone think of any other time? (Well, I suppose not invading Iraq the day after he took the oath would be the other example -- is this list of two complete?)
How is Bush's complete unwillingness to listen to reason or to consider facts, evidence, science, or reality itself the fault of the left?
How is it that the party that controls all 4 branches of government (including "The Fourth Estate" as it were) can continually blame the party that does not?