Quick! Get a rope!

Rob- you have hit upon why I don't post on CE much anymore. Its like some sort of bizarre cheerleading squad for an administration that can't do any wrong whatsoever. Its spooky in that 1984 sort of way, not in that 'boo' sort of way.

Just on a roll-through, I could count maybe 15-20 (out of 70-100) non-'n/t' posts from the standby 'left' here above the active line. so I am not the only one.

This admin has done a few things I liked, and even supported whole-heartedly (Afghanistan), and I can actually admit it without flinging myself from a cliff. However, the reverse does not seem true for the 'core cheerleader group' (or whatever you want to call them) here.

A year ago I was arguing with folks whose motive for war was stockpiles of WMD, active nuke programs and 'clear and obvious' terrorist ties. Now we are down to post-facto arguments of liberation, and justifications predicated on the 'bad-guyness' of Saddam. Now we invaded because Saddam had 'intent' to acquire WMD someday in the future, and was a real piece of human excrument. Nobody here seems fazed (outside of you and McFly) about their massive retroactive revision for why this war took place.

So one must wonder. When a democrat gets in to power, or some group that this fan club does not like, and when that democrat uses the exact same bar for war (a speed bump, in otherwords), and marches american soldiers off to the next conflict, what will this group say?

Probably nothing good, and they will probably be right. But the irony will be lost none the less, I am sure.

Robert S. is right. The political well in this land has been poisoned. Somehow, because it is a war, we are not allowed to question this administration, the disparity between statement and empirical fact, our jutifications or our reasons for this war without being publically reprimanded. Labeled a traitor, a Bush hater or a Saddam Lover.

Somehow, political discourse got turned into a winner-looser structure, and not an attempt to define a consensus that is consistent with reason and close to empirical fact. It never was this ideal, not entirely, but at least there was the notion that in a perfect world it should be.

Now, it seems that the accepted way of answering a challenge based on fact or reason is to impugn the motives or character or patriotism of those who make the challenge (and to support this, we reference Orson Scott Card doing the same thing!? WHAT?!). Frankly, thats all I see on the CE side of the Zone anymore. Its pathetic if you ask me*.

Space is still worth reading, though, as long as the mars nuts are pretending to be polite and the anomalists keep their post rfrequency low. The zone will always be worthwhile for that.

But anyway, now you are a 'Saddom Loving Bush Hating Net Crank with No Facts To BAck You Up and No Patriotism Obviously And. ... . .. . . ' blabity blah ad nauseum. All I can say is, enjoy the show and welcome to the circus.

Davin L.

*Really, just look below. Dean is a pathetic liar, big bad liberal 'Old Media' is swooning because of Saddams capture. Those questioning Bushes veracity are propagating a memetic lie, Donald is whatever derogatory title ebnelson can vomit up, the democratic party has no scruples.... yaddyaddayadda. Nobody is talking about positions here, just character.