Jim Geraghty isn't impressed by the response to the Danish cartoon controversy by the left regions of the blogosphere:

The one common refrain on the blogs of the left has been to compare the rioters, the imams threatening violence, and embassy-torchers to prominent members of the religious right. Oliver Willis huffed, “We’ve certainly learned that religious fundamentalism is the domain of the truly insane, whether that’s Pat Robertson and the Family Research Council, or Muslims rioting over a cartoon.” At the Huffington Post, Harry Shearer wrote, “It’d be fun to ask Pat Robertson and Pat Buchanan what they think of this fuss, and how they’d react to similar cartoons of Jesus, and Mary.”

They would probably react similarly to the way they responded to Serrano’s art “Piss Christ” or the controversial painting depicting the Virgin Mary in feces. They would complain, protest and perhaps boycott the publication. But this facile comparison is the mark of a mind incapable of detecting distinctions, as it is hard to imagine Christian riots, burning down embassies, or large demonstrations full of banners saying “BEHEAD THOSE WHO INSULT JESUS.”

...Since the 2004 election, the Democratic Party has embraced liberal bloggers as a source of energy, excitement, campaign donations and grassroots support. They are reaching out to a motley mob of simple-minded fools whose touchstone is an irretractable belief that President Bush is the root of all evil.

Well some of us who read here get the difference. Evidently Mr Geraghty does too.

Ms. Huffington, and her Hollywood Illuminati crowd don't ever get it right. Mr Shearer is someone whos work I once liked, but no longer watch or listen to, because MY money in HIS pocket is the same as ME donating to Hollywod Kooks Against America. Wouldn't be prudent at this juncture. Their loss, not mine.

Anyone who would claim there is any resemblance between Islamic terrorism and fundamentalist Christianity, or any other religion on the planet for that matter, is just plainly and simply an idiot. IMHO. The violence of Islamic terrorism knows no equal in intensity and/or quantity.

Congratulations, Harry! You have now officially laid to rest rumors you were intelligent, informed, and not a complete jerk.

Jim,
IS THAT BEST YOU COUKLD DO ON THIS SUBJECT!!

Fundamentalist religions, world wide terror, Christianity versus Islam, radical Imams vs Pat Robertson, east versus west, Hollywood versus "fly over", artistic freedom versus religious beliefs, and you revert to name calling. How old are you, 9?

Well nahny nahny boo boo, stick your face in doo doo. :p ppphhhttttt!! on you

nahny nahny boo boo, stick your face in doo doo.

Heheheh.. I never saw the 2nd part o' that before. Coolish.

Commenter Cecil is right vis-a-vie our modern times. He may need to check his History though, if he doesn't think (and I'm not completely sure he doesn't...) Christianity is capable of equally heinous and vicious acts. THAT is why lefty bloggers (an admittedly hyperbolic bunch) do such equating. They (we) are stretching, but not as idiotically as Cecil suggests.

President DubyaBu certainly is not the root of all evil. He's just an incompetent example of the evil of irresponsibility which results when using fear and ignorance as a rally point.

I'm anti-war. Certainly anti-This-War. And I still don't think we should pull out right now. THAT would be irresponsible. It would have been a hell-of-a-lot more efficacious to have finished up in Afghanistan, caught bin Laden, and then cracked the military whip over a couple of the actual responsible nations' heads.

Does anyone on the Right OR the Left really think a quagmire in Iran would be much worse than what's going on in Iraq? I don't think that anyone who isn't ruled by their emotions does.

A truly rational understanding of the whole mess makes it clear that the US would likely have suffered some terrorist attacks had we invaded Iran instead. We'd also be closer to bringing the issue of the "Clash of Civilizations" to a head if we'd done so. The enormous difference is that Iran, and thus any terrorist quasi-organizations, would NOT be as close to having Nukes as they are today.

Regardless of the likely events spawned by that alternative approach (ie, relevant instead of ridiculous) the Admin would NOT have had to lie through their teeth about WMD's and Hussein sponsoring terrorism to get America behind such a horrifying mobilization of material and human resources. There also would likely have been a LOT more world-wide support (even if no more assistance) for that invasion. THAT would have been better for our United States in both the short and the long terms.

I'll take Honest Ineptitude (ala Carter) over Brutally Self-Serving Lies (ala Cheney's Admin) any day. The consequences of knowing are always more resolvable than those of lies and ignorance.

Sorry for the length of this comment. I just hate seeing otherwise intelligent folk miss the, ahem, Fundamental Point that disingenuity inevitably leads to more problems than it resolves, and disingenuous is the one word that most fully describes this neo-con regime.

Too bad my damn Dems have evidenced next-to-nothing with which to oppose it.

cross-posting @ Silly Humans

I don't think that anyone who isn't ruled by their emotions does.

Ah, there's a powerful argument. "Anyone who doesn't agree with my obviously-correct opinion just isn't thinking."

the Admin would NOT have had to lie through their teeth about WMD's

Whenever I hear this mindless trope about the administration "lying" us into war, I ignore the rest.

I love the whole invade Iran instead of Iraq simplistic argument! It is proof of the old dictum that knowledge is not a prerequisite for offering an opinion.

What sea port would we have used to move our heavy equipment thru? We had Saudia Arabia and Kuwait as staging areas for Iraq.

Afghanistan as a staging area for invading Iran is much more problematic as we would have had to arilift an ungodly amount of stuff, proabally would have tied up every spare civilian cargo plane for 5 years. It would have been a massive undertaking. To accomplish such an invasion with our restricted ground forces, we would have had to conduct an air campaign more savage than any seen since World War Two. The losses of Iranian civilian life would have been staggering and the destruction of the nations infrastructure would have been immense.

I doubt Pakistan would have allowed us to use their nation as a staging area so we can rule that out.

We now have a staging area to deal with Iran, its called Iraq and I have always suspected a very major reason we invaded Iraq was just this. We just can't come out and say it.

Remember: "Losers study tactics, winners study logistics."

"Whenever I hear this mindless trope about the administration "lying" us into war, I ignore the rest."

See Rand, you have had the Hyperbole Kill Switch inadvertently installed too!

You mean that France and other nations would gladly have helped us invade a country that did not have 19ish Security Council resolutions against it, did not have a de facto state of war against us, and indeed was an active trader with Europe, Russia, and China?

You mean that when Europe gives Iran more and more and more slack on nukes for years, they *really* would have supported us when we invaded Iran in 2003?

"Anyone who would claim there is any resemblance between Islamic terrorism and fundamentalist Christianity, or any other religion on the planet for that matter, is just plainly and simply an idiot."

on all the liberal blogs ive seen this type of argument, what they are saying is there is a resemblance between islamic fanaticism and christian fanaticism, not that they act in the exact same ways. it is much more sane to condemn fanaticism in general than to say "we should invade all their countries and convert them all to christianity". luckily the majority of christians in america are not willing to kill (abortion-performing doctors, for example) for their beliefs.

Willis and Shearer may be missing a big difference. "Piss Christ" was funded by the U.S. government.

I think many of those others were, too, and Shearer probably would have defended it.

Can you imagine the hell we'd have to pay if the NEA funded Muhammad toons?