and to give a clear signal to our enemies that they can conspire to attack us with total impunity.

It’s a shame that you have so little faith in western democracy that you view a ‘peace’ demonstration in London as some form of ‘strategy’ to communicate our weakness to our enemies.
Terrorists possibly are comforted by the thought that not everyone in western society is content with military actions in Iraq but less so than if they saw the gradual erosion of dissent and our democratic rights i.e. the right to speak against government actions that you oppose.

I would imagine that anyone in Iraq who is willing to drive an explosive laden truck into a convoy of coalition troops has probably made up his mind about his views on the war in Iraq and the people he is about to massacre.

The opposition to the war has been a factor since day 1. The anti-war movement has always been a prominent one, with the majority of British people opposed when the invasion was launched. Since then anti-war sentiment has not diminished and is starting to grow in the US as well. You simply cannot erase that when military action starts because it becomes a strategic risk.

You have stated again and again that ‘it’s not possible to oppose the war and support the troops’, so using that logic, the only option the person who opposes the war is to either pursue those beliefs and become an ‘enemy of the state’ or dispose of all their fundamental beliefs and support it. There was no refurendum on the war. I didn’t vote for the war. I didn’t even vote for the government that initiated it. So why should I, contrary to my beliefs, support the war? Is it my duty? Duty to who? The troops? They didn’t ask to be sent to Iraq, no more than their families asked for it ... or the majority of the British people for that matter. This is the big ‘conundrum’ of the Iraq war. How do you think people react to this? By foregoing their beliefs and moving over to the pro-war camp? That has happened, but only in the minority of cases. Most people feel isolated. They don’t believe in the war, but to oppose it would be ‘dangerous’ and ‘selfish’. Then the right bandies words like ‘traitor’ around, and those who never agreed with the war start to lose faith in our democratic functions and how they serve our society. I guess that’s the price we have to pay.

I think the idea of troop withdrawl is silly, and would never work. But if I did believe in it, I would say so. Not because I ‘don’t care’, but because the consequences of mass silence is much worse than the harm done to the troops which, in reality, is probably not much.

By implying that those who oppose the war are ‘traitors’ and trying to portray the issue as something that is as simple as ‘you’re either with us or against us’ polarizes our society on a political level to the point of no return, regardless of what happens in Iraq. Good luck with that.

According to Casey’s mother, Bush killed Casey, not al-Sadr’s thugs.

fr3style05:

I don’t classify any conference as a “peace conference” when it has speakers that include a representative of an Islamic fascist and gang-leader like al-Sadr or a terrorist sympathizer and apologist like Galloway.

And to answer your question, there is no reason to support the war if you don’t believe in it.  But being against the war is no reason to associate with fascists and terrorist sympathizers.

No matter what I believe in I would never do anything in association with or that would legitimize Nazis, fascists, communists or terrorists.

It it absolutly amazing how you never get tired of speaking about that woman.

You must hate her so much I wouldn’t be surprised if you got an ulcer.

Please please please please no more pruneface related posts :)

about freestyle’s post… i was opposed to going into Iraq prior to that happening. Not that I felt that getting rid of Saddam was a bad thing, just taht i didn’t think that should have been the highest priority for our forces.
Now that we’re in there, though, i’m fully in support of making the war in Iraq a success by finishing the job that has been started. I’d not have picked Iraq, but I don’t think that removing Saddam and putting a democracy in is a a bad thing. Its a mission I can support now that we’re on it.

Swissboy:

What’s even more amazing is that the media never gets tired of presenting her as if she is the second coming, conveniently ignoring more than two thousand other mothers, all of whom have exactly one thing in common with her.

"Experience proves that the man who obstructs a war in which his nation is engaged, no matter whether right or wrong, occupied no enviable place in life or history.  Better for him, individually, to advocate ‘war, pestilence, and famine,’ than to act as obstructionist to a war already begun.” - U.S. Grant

I think this is of minor significance.  To all who are willing to realize it, Lady Pruneface is a hypocrite.  And then there are a bunch of others who refuse to believe that she is anything but an altruistic mourning mother who will never understand.

Anyway, onto Fr3style or whatever…

It’s a shame that you have so little faith in western democracy that you view a ‘peace’ demonstration in London as some form of ‘strategy’ to communicate our weakness to our enemies.

I agree it is a shame.  Maybe if they didn’t compare anyone who disagrees with them to Hitler, acted civily, and didn’t have people like Hasan Zergani Hashim (who represent those are CAUSING the violence) speaking, I for one wouldn’t.  If they just walked in and said, “I think this war is causing too many casualties, and in good faith, I believe that insergents would just stop hurting people if we left,” then fine.  But it’s more about scapegoating and putting on a Roman circus for every little Chomsky loving dope in a Che-shirt than any respectable dissent.

Iraq but less so than if they saw the gradual erosion of dissent and our democratic rights i.e. the right to speak against government actions that you oppose.

Here we go again.  Look, you still have the right to speak out against government actions you oppose.  On the other hand, those who support said actions have the right to speak out against YOU.  Both sides tend to call each other names when one says something.  Always have, always will, but here, you act like someone saying, “oh, those stupid Bush bashers,” is like locking them up.  Meanwhile, this doesn’t seem to apply to people who say, “you want to cut taxes?  You’re heartless and want the poor to [somehow] suffer!  You’re black and you disagree with Julian Bond?  You’re an Uncle Tom,” so please, when will you liberals drop this innocent victim act?

I would imagine that anyone in Iraq who is willing to drive an explosive laden truck into a convoy of coalition troops has probably made up his mind about his views on the war in Iraq and the people he is about to massacre.

At first, I wasn’t going to argue, because I wasn’t sure what his point was, but I think I understand.  All I can say is that people like Sheehan provide the means of engineering people who think that way.

The opposition to the war has been a factor since day 1. The anti-war movement has always been a prominent one, with the majority of British people opposed when the invasion was launched. Since then anti-war sentiment has not diminished and is starting to grow in the US as well. You simply cannot erase that when military action starts because it becomes a strategic risk.

The anti-war crowd may be the majoriy, but that doesn’t meanwe can’t dissent from them.  Hey, it’s kind-of like what you guys claim to be.

You have stated again and again that ‘it’s not possible to oppose the war and support the troops’

No, it is possible.  What we’ve stated is that you can’t suppo the trooa antoOwis ha would happen if we withdrew.  Plus, when people like Sheehan say things like, “I detest every one ofthose meatheads who sign up to kill other human beings,” or when the city of San Francisco elects a symbolic law to keep military recruiters out of schools, you can legitimately question their support of our troops.

By implying that those who oppose the war are ‘traitors’ and trying to portray the issue as something that is as simple as ‘you’re either with us or against us’ polarizes our society on a political level to the point of no return, regardless of what happens in Iraq. Good luck with that.

I don’t recall Moorewatch saying that anyone who the warit"iththeliels nn ert anpletrai as a sm dist from othy call s many people” NAZIs or “Fascists") it’s just that this woman is an attention hound with a rabid hatred mixed with a faux-pious “what did I do?” mentality I can only identify with the likes of Al Franken and she’s also a bald-faced liar.

I don’t recall Moorewatch saying that anyone who the warit"iththeliels nn ert anpletrai as a sm dist from othy call s many people” NAZIs or “Fascists")

Sorry about that.  You know what happens when you write a long post here.  What I meant to say was, “I don’t recall Moorewatch saying that anyone who disagrees with the war a traitor (although I think that the left only brings it up as a smokescreen to distract people from how they keep calling war-supporters, et.al. ‘NAZIs’ and ‘Fascists’).” I am paraphrazing myself, of course.

And, yes, I’m aware that people like Ann Coulter and Michael Savage DO do that, but they’re the minority among the right.

Cindy Sheehan is an opportunist who will ultimately be ignored. I agree with those who never want to hear from her again.
Siding with Islamofascists who call for the deaths of presidents and prime ministers, fund terrorists or actually commit or have committed acts of terror against others is worse than no support at all. If white supremicists were anti-war, who would stand with them?
Syria is responsible for the death of Rafiq Hariri.
What is so detestable about Israel that one would rather support the likes of Hamas, the PLO, Iran and Syria over them?
And the conflict between Israel and the rest of the Arab world has been going on for decades.

What Morris doesn’t understand is that the Islamofascists like the one Cindy Sheehan is appearing with represent the faction of the Iraqis who DON’T want liberation.

Let me spell it out for you, Morris: the Islamofascists are everything you accuse conservatives of being only for real!

I have a question:

Who is paying her bills?

Hell, the fact that the Iranians picked Mahmoud Ahmadinejad pretty much shows that the Middle East doesn’t want democracy, despite whatever Bush claims.

I beg to differ. The fact that eight million Iraqis voted in the recent elections, despite the constant threat of bombers and snipers, suggests to me that there are plenty in the Middle East who are pretty keen on the idea of democracy.

And if Iran has nukes, it just proves Bush’s war on terror was a failure.

All it proves is that Russia, China and the EU are willing to supply Iran with the technology to create nuclear weapons.

It didn’t matter that the cleric had millions of followers or that he was scion to an important political family with a history of standing up to tyranny.

Being the leader of thousands of thugs (i.e. a gang leader) doesn’t mean you have millions of followers.  Besides, elections results show he and his people got a collect “f**k off” from the voters. 

It didn’t matter that Sadr’s forces were providing food aid to the poor, or organizing traffic patrol and garbage duty in an atmosphere with no basic services.

It did matter than when he was run out of Najaf his “religious court” contained dozens of bodies that had been tortured and killed in grotesque ways.

Every other sentence you write has “Bush this” or “Bush that”—you seem to have a classic case of Bush Derangement Syndrome.

Well shoot, everyone took all the good points/already refuted the EWLs.

But ugh… Casey Sheehan’s mom going along with the al-Sadr rep? Yeah, that’s not spitting on her son’s memory or anything. Talk about BDS--she won’t even call the people who actually killed her son to account. She clearly already has her ‘It’s all Bush’s Fault’TM template.

And I KNOW it’s already been responded to, but where does the Left keep getting off trying to repress free speech by brow-beating opponents with twisted interpretations of the First Amendment guarentee of freedom of speech? To the EWLs in general and the Mooreons in particular, it’s not free-speech unless when they talk, everyone has to listen and noone can rebut. And then they have the unmitigated gall to talk about the erosion of democratic freedoms--the freedom they deny others via the support of reppressive regimes so they can pocket oil money that was supposed to go to the hungry?

Then the right bandies words like ‘traitor’ around…

Gee, the Left goes and gives political support to people we’re at war with, malign our troops (with charges either being dubious or outright false), follow troops casualty rates like it’s the New Years countdown, and generally badmouth everyone who tries to support the country at home or abroad--and then wonder why anyone would think they’re not behind the country 110%.

Treason? Not a word I’d throw around since it’s a term of art that’s defined by Congress under the U.S. Constitution. But I’d seriously question the love of country [no, I’m not questioning the Left’s partiotism--they redefined the word to mean a measure of how badly you trash your country] of anyone who would work so hard to justify and continue to allow the death of innocent Americans [for the Mooreons, I’m referring to the Eichmanns that you think deserve whatever they get].

And finally, when are the Mooreons going to get that Bush isn’t the guy to beat in 06 and 08? The only reason I can fathom that they keep running against the man is because they’re trying to use the “he’s withdrawing!” PR strategy as with Iraq:: “Bush isn’t leaving [the presidency/Iraq] so [another president/the Iraqi government] can assume control, Bush is leaving because he was beaten!”

You know, I’m actually MOORE pressed that the Left is recycling the same playbook rather than giving honest and/or constructive criticism as then they’d be helping and doing the country a service. But it’s going on 6 years under this administration and yet all we have is Leftist political opportunism [as Lee’s article demonstrates]. As a de facto member of “the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy"TM, I find the idea that we’re repressing debate to be hilarious as it’s the Left that has as of yet to stop spewing spin and start talking sense.

For the Update:

Hatred makes strange befellows

I find it interesting that fr3style got so many replies when his/her entire post seems to be based on a misrepresentation of Lee’s words.

Let’s review, shall we?

Lee, as selectively quoted by fr3:
and to give a clear signal to our enemies that they can conspire to attack us with total impunity.

fr3’s response:
It’s a shame that you have so little faith in western democracy that you view a ‘peace’ demonstration in London as some form of ‘strategy’ to communicate our weakness to our enemies.
Terrorists possibly are comforted by the thought that not everyone in western society is content with military actions in Iraq but less so than if they saw the gradual erosion of dissent and our democratic rights i.e. the right to speak against government actions that you oppose.

... and it continues from there.

Now, let’s look at the actual context of Lee’s comment:

The stated goals of the “peace conference” are, according to the main article:

The article:
He said the peace movement wants to see coalition troops withdrawn from Iraq, justice for Palestinians and a ban on any Western military attacks on Iran or Syria.

Notice that last item?

”a ban on any Western military attacks on Iran or Syria.”

This was the goal that Lee was interpreting as

”a clear signal to our enemies that they can conspire to attack us with total impunity.”

He wasn’t claiming that this was the result of any protest or a natural outcome of the beliefs of anti-war people, he was referring to a conference which stated as one of it’s goals a ban on attacking Syria and Iran.

Ok, now, let’s say the US approves a ban on any attack again Iran or Syria. What logical, rational, natural conclusion that can one draw from that? Why, it’s that Iran and Syria (a.k.a. the enemies of the US) can conspire against the US without having to worry that we will go after them for it (i.e. with total impunity)

Lee can feel free to correct me if I’m misinterpreting him, but like I said above, it looks to me as though fr3’s entire post is an off-topic response to an allegation that Lee didn’t make.

A good Question Jim, who is paying her bills? Did Cindy accept donations while camping in front of Bush’s ranch?

What I’m wondering about now is how Cindy will try to capitalize on this in the long run. I see a book deal. Possibly a made for tv movie - maybe. I see her capitalizing on her own feigned misery. She’ll have her personal journal released. A book about her struggle released as well. And books about what a hero she is released.

“Ah, the feigned misery of a mother Dollar. That’s a good one.”

But I’d seriously question the love of country [no, I’m not questioning the Left’s partiotism--they redefined the word to mean a measure of how badly you trash your country] of anyone who would work so hard to justify and continue to allow the death of innocent Americans

Ha!  Good one!

Seriously, though, have you noticed that during the election, their gripe was that we were “questioning their patriotism,” and now they’ve upgraded it to “we’re calling them traitors.” Geeze.

By the way, it seems like a lot of these people call African-Americans who don’t like Julian Bond “Uncle Toms” or “Oreos”.  Isn’t that like calling them a “traitor” to their race?

Anyway, back to Pruneface, at this point, I don’t know that anyone needs to “pay the bills.” Her act is low-cost.  It’s just her talking.  She gets paid to talk.  That’s it.

...and a guy who made millions of dollars from Saddam through the oil-for-food program.

Sorry Lee, as much as I can’t stand Galloway he didn’t make millions of dollars from the oil for food programme. In some ways I wish he had so we could have nailed the treacherous scum bag to the wall. As far as I am aware there were dealings where he was promised off ‘goodies’ Saddam but nothing was ever given in cash or oil. As I said if it was and provable we could have nailed the bastard.

At first, I wasn’t going to argue, because I wasn’t sure what his point was, but I think I understand.  All I can say is that people like Sheehan provide the means of engineering people who think that way.

NO no no no no…

People like Jesus Christ, Muhammed and other religious absurdities provide the means…

(I’m ready do get to get teared apart by a bunch of angry church goers now ;)

Sheehan is an enigmatic character to me, she makes very little sense if any, but you cant make her the reason for islamic fundamentalism. Its too far feched.

dont mind the “do get”

NO no no no no…

People like Jesus Christ, Muhammed and other religious absurdities provide the means…

Sigh… first of all, Jesus and Muhammed preached peace.  Second, this guy calls Muhammed a “religious absurdity,” so doesn’t that mean he doesn’t make him Muslim?

(I’m ready do get to get teared apart by a bunch of angry church goers now ;)

I love how the Left is so paranoid about the “angry church-goers.” It’s all part of their “we’re so brave for disresp… standing up to the religious right” dogma.

Sheehan is an enigmatic character to me, she makes very little sense if any, but you cant make her the reason for islamic fundamentalism. Its too far feched.

First, she’s hardly “enigmatic.” She’s plainly a willing media-darling.  Second, I said “people like her” meaning those who wish to paint America as an awful place.  And her ilk isn’t responsible for Muslim Fundamentalism itself, but they’re partly responsible for the feeling on behalf of them that it’s okay to do it.

Sigh… first of all, Jesus and Muhammed preached peace.

Muhammad preached peace?  Maybe for Muslims.

Qu’ran 2:191 - And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. And fight not with them at the Inviolable Place of Worship until they first attack you there, but if they attack you (there) then slay them. Such is the reward of disbelievers.

Qu’ran 9:5 - Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

I’m not an expert on the New Testament, but I’m pretty sure that Jesus didn’t take up the sword.  Muhammad not only did take it up; he used it.

Okay, we’ve got a barking moonbat from the “peace” movement, a spokesman for an Islamofascist, and a guy who made millions of dollars from Saddam through the oil-for-food program.

Not sure exactly which one of these is Tony Ben, I can take a guess which you think it is but I’d say it was wrong.

Take a look at the guys history before writing him off like this

We’re already retreating. Don’t blame us. Blame Rumsfeld.

Retreating?  From what?  Once again, your arguements lack any sort of credibility or substantiality.  I guess if all the troops left two years ago, it would have been a “pullout”, but now we’ve allowed the Iraqis to get a firm military and police force foothold (not to mention democratic elections) and we’re handing things over to them.  I guess that’s a retreat, according to Morris.

I thought Bush ignoring 9/11 and levy warnings did that.

What??  Ignoring 9…

*ehem*

Maybe you’ve heard of a man, goes by the name of Bill Clinton?  Or how about Jimmy Carter?  Do the Somali conflict or the Afghan-Russian war mean anything?  What big messages were portrayed by the U.S. government in both?  Well since you probably haven’t figured it out yet (too busy trying to tie everything to the current administration?) I’ll spell it out for you.  We sent in military support for both, but as soon as the public started whining about military casualties, we turned tail and ran.  Not to mention the extremely weak (if any) response to the numerous embassy bombings in the years in between.  So what do you think Al-Qaeda thought their consequences would be for 9/11?  Are we learning anything here?

Still not as much as Preston made through the nazis and Neil made through the S+L bail-out

Wow, that was relevant to the topic. (Not.)

I’m trying to catch the relevance here, but the hypocrisy’s too thick.

I thought you’d be happy that Cindy’s siding with the Iraqis who want to be “liberated”.

I’d actually might consider conceding here, except for the fact that the article is ridiculously biased.  I think it lost its credibility around, oh, let’s say:

I had traveled to Sadr City to cover the Bush Administration’s undemocratic attack on the movement of Shi’ite cleric Muqtada Sadr.

When’s the last time a military unit had to call the head of state to attack a target?  Let’s see, about Vietnam time?  What a success that was.  Anyways, articles from some peacenik website aren’t going to fly in an arguement to support Cindy Sheehan.  And if Al-Sadr was so against Saddam Hussein, then why was he so adamently against any American help in the situation?  If his ultimate goal was a peaceful, democratic Iraq without leaders like Saddam Hussein, he would be wise to ally with us and use the democratic processes in place to get the votes from his “millions of followers.”

Am I off on this one?

Tripper:
Not sure exactly which one of these is Tony Ben, I can take a guess which you think it is but I’d say it was wrong.

Take a look at the guys history before writing him off like this

Hey Tripper! Slow day on the boards ;)

But anyway, I’m pretty sure none of them is Benn. I interpreted them this way:

Moonbat = Sheehan
Islamofacist = obviously the Sadr guy
Money maker = Galloway

Again, it’s the same thing I had to say in my other post, pay attention to who/what Lee is quoting before assuming who/what he is responding to.

The quote above the part you quoted says this:

The scheduled speakers included Sheehan, who has become a focus of anti-war sentiment in the United States by camping outside the Texas ranch of President George W. Bush; Hasan Zergani Hashim, a spokesperson for Iraq’s radical Shia cleric Muqtada al-Sadr; and leftist British legislator George Galloway.

Here’s the thing about Sheehan.  She’s allying herself with the Iraqis who want to prevent the liberation not because she agrees with (or even cares about) their cause, but because it’s the Leftist thing to do at this point.

Now, this is what cracks me up: the Left says GWB is anti-Islam because he’s “occupying” Iraq, having gotten rid of Saddam (who is a lot more “like Hitler” than any President THIS country has had) and introducing Democracy: that thing that liberals claim to love (i.e. generally joining the Democratic party) but I dunno… (i.e. condemning all special elections, supporting filibustering as if it were this eally heroic deed).  And yet, people like Sheehan talk about the Iraqi insurgents--people who kill innocent bystanders on purpose, who slaughtered her son, and who want to live in (depending on the individual) either an oppresive regime like that of Saddam or a REAL theocracy (as opposed to just a country where you can’t have a partial birth abortion) like the Taliban--as the innocent victims!

Long story short: the far Left DOESN’T KNOW WHAT IT’S TALKING ABOUT!!!  Indeed, they’re so full of hot air, they should be known as the Fart-Left!

Duck, thanks Duck, you may well be right. Too much beer on Sunday changes one’s perception of a post sometimes.

Why are any of us shocked that Sheehan will whore herself and her dead son for any leftist cause so long as she remains in the media.  Criticising her is a tricky subject.  For some it will let them pretend that criticism of moon-battery equates to validity of the same moonbattery.  Refuting her is the right thing to do, but gives her a disproportionate amount of attention. 

Europe can have her.  She can have pretend peace conferences with radicals, zealots and buffoons all day long.  It has the same effect as if I thought if I played with my daughters toy kitchen that I will wind up a professional chef.  These buffons will have a similar effect on reality.:)

What will these moonbats do after President Bush leaves office at the end of his second term?  Their oft bogus ideas hinge ont he fact that everything is his fault.  That will be a fun day.

What will these moonbats do after President Bush leaves office at the end of his second term?

Well, then they’ll have President Rice to complain about and call an oreo house n***er!

There’s nothing like a conservative black woman in the White House to throw the left into an orgy of hypocritical name calling.

As great as it would be to have Rice in the White House, I don’t think it’s going to happen. Too bad though, that would really piss the Dems off.

Swissboy wrote:

“People like Jesus Christ, Muhammed and other religious absurdities provide the means”

Wait for the lightning.

Did a bit of googling and I came up with this account of the conference in London:
U.K Anti-War Conference

Here’s the section about our favourite moonbat:

The panel concluded with Cindy Sheehan who said “ending the Iraq war is so important, so urgent. There is no more important job than peace and bringing the war criminals at Ten Downing Street and the White House to justice.” She described how the media often ask “stupid questions” like “Your son volunteered?” Her response “Are you saying he got what he deserved?” Or, “Do you want Iraq to descend into chaos?” She responds “What is your definition of chaos? Look at Iraq today.” And, “Do you think you’re being used?” Her response, “Do you think you are being used!?” She urges people to get active, take action and not to stand for the abuses of government saying “They will only take away our freedoms if we let them do it.”

I love the bit about ‘stupid questions’!
‘Your son volunteered?’ to which she replies ‘Are you saying he got what he deserved?’ Errr, no - we’re saying he was an adult who believed in the cause he was fighting for and knew the risks involved.
‘Do you want Iraq to descend into chaos?’ She responds ‘What is your definition of chaos? Look at Iraq today.’ Yes, let’s look at Iraq today, shall we Cindy? A country holding democratic elections! Not much chance of that under Saddam, was there Cindy?
And my personal favourite:
To Cindy: ‘Do you think you’re being used?’
Her response: ‘Do you think you are being used!?’
Brilliant! Give that woman a Nobel Prize for incisive debating skills!

Hell, the fact that the Iranians picked Mahmoud Ahmadinejad pretty much shows that the Middle East doesn’t want democracy, despite whatever Bush claims.

Oh PLEASE.  You’re ignoring some very large obstacles inherent in Iranian politics that prevent any semblence of true democracy; not to mention the accusations of vote-rigging before and during the elections.  Saying the election of Ahmadinejad is “proof” that the Iranians reject democracy is intellectually dishonest at best.  That’s like saying the “election” of Saddam before the war is proof that the Iraqis accepted Saddam.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/02/22/wiran22.xml&sSheet;=/news/2004/02/22/ixnewstop.html

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/006705.php

Sheehan and a spokesman for Al Sadr standing together?  U gotta be kiddin!

I’m an Israeli, and last time I visited the US was a year ago, so I don’t really know just how crazy the American left is, no matter how much I read.  It’s just unbelievable.  This stuff is funnier than the starkcast.  Thanks, Lee, I needed a good laugh.