I wrote earlier this morning that whatever I (and a lot of other people) voted for last fall, it wasn't surrender. Here's an interesting approach to the war, that seems beyond the Democrats. We win, they lose. Go sign the petition.

"it wasn't surrender."

Every time necrocons talk about "surrender," they just make abundantly clear to everyone else in America what opponents knew they were from the beginning--liars. Nobody beyond a microscopic fringe thinks this characterization bears any resemblance to reality, and a single instant of rational thought would vaporize any trace of it, but because you've become so utterly isolated and at psychological (if not literal) war with the entire world, all you're doing is preaching to the cult and preparing your Kool-Aid. So many people are dead because so few are such a pack of lying psychotics.

"We win, they lose."

We aren't at war.

Squidward says: So many people are dead because so few are such a pack of lying psychotics.

How quickly we forget the buildings falling. Oh that's right, you're with Rosie in that its Bush's fault.

> We aren't at war.

Then why are they shooting at us?

Which reminds me, are the dems really promising another war on poverty?

Mac: "How quickly we forget the buildings falling."

Apparently, since you don't seem to remember who made them fall or where they came from. Like characters in an Orwell novel, all you need to see is some Rove-scripted TV ad transposing the towers in flames with some arbitrary, unrelated enemy and the connection is burned into your mind like a computer circuit. Are these words even registering, or is it all automated responses?

"Oh that's right, you're with Rosie in that its Bush's fault."

Nouns and verbs just melt together like liquids in your mind, don't they? You hear me comment harshly on Bush and the Iraq disaster, hear Rosie O'Donnell spout a nonsensical conspiracy theory, and suddenly 2 + 2 = 5 and I, Rosie, and Desmond Tutu are tapdancing with Pol Pot and Robespierre in King Osama Bin Koopa's fortress.

Andy: "Then why are they shooting at us?"

An illegal occupation of their territory.

"Which reminds me, are the dems really promising another war on poverty?"

This lot? Unlikely.

Squiddie says: An illegal occupation of their territory.

Al Qaeda is a legitimate state now?

He also says: Apparently, since you don't seem to remember who made them fall or where they came from.

Terrorists made them fall and they came from outside the US. As for the Rove-script, since they played it so well on the Today show, I would be forced to assume that Rove then owns the media.

He says: You hear me comment harshly on Bush and the Iraq disaster.

Nearly ad-infinitum, but I still disagree at the word "disaster."

"Al Qaeda is a legitimate state now?"

No, al Qaeda is a second illegal occupier in Iraq. Fighting them does not make any others legitimate.

"Terrorists made them fall and they came from outside the US."

And that's as distinct as you're willing to get, because acknowledging those pesky details would limit the range of acceptable responses.

"As for the Rove-script, since they played it so well on the Today show, I would be forced to assume that Rove then owns the media."

Huh?

"Nearly ad-infinitum, but I still disagree at the word "disaster.""

Oh, excuse me. It was a "warroom malfunction."

Squiddie asked: Huh?

Let me review...

You said earlier...all you need to see is some Rove-scripted TV ad transposing the towers in flames with some arbitrary, unrelated enemy and the connection is burned into your mind like a computer circuit.

I said that since the entire 9/11 incident was on every national show, like the Today show...I would be forced to assume your "Rove-scripted" comment means he owns the media. As soon as the second plane hit, a huge percentage of Americans who saw it KNEW it was a terrorist attack. Hardly arbitrary, nor unrelated.

Al-Qaeda is in Iraq, and we are at war with them. The Iraqi government wants us there to support them until they are able to support themselves. So, we are there, legally. We are at war with a actual enemy on-site...not arbitrary, nor unrelated. Saddam refused to honor the resolutions from the 1st Gulf War, and then the UN resolutions, so we enforced those resolutions as we said we would. Not arbitrary, not unrelated.

"...and a single instant of rational thought..."

Something Harry Reid is apparently incapable of. Mr. 'We need a change in direction' Reid is trying to force another Vietnam exit strategy.

Guess what? RUN FOR THE HILLS is not a strategy...ask the French!

Brian, when a group declares you their mortal enemy, when they declare war against you, when they dedicate substantial resources to fighting against you, when they train forces to fight against you on multiple battlefields across multiple nations, when they mount attacks on you year after year (and decade after decade), when they target your civilian infrastructure to maximize economic and political damage, when they kill your countrymen on the battlefield and at home and revel in those deaths, when they do all that, then you are at war whether you think you are or not.

Groups. Most of the militia in Iraq that are killing US soldiers aren't Al Qaeda. Infact they hate Al Qaeda forces more and would shoot them first, but there are precious few of them around.

Most of the militia in Iraq that are killing US soldiers aren't Al Qaeda.

You state that very confidently for someone who can't possibly know that. In fact, it strikes me more as wishful thinking than fact.