Howdy,

There is a basic difference between us as posters. I am not a representative of anything, really. As you've noticed, most liberals do not like the emphasis I place on issues, and I do not spout a party line. I'm out there on my own.

As opposed to you, who quotes entire blogs, get your talking points from Limbaugh, Coulter, et al., and repeat them back. You do represent the party line, and need to be told what it is before you can evaluate an issue.

Example: You said the reason for invading Iraq was WMDs. As that became more and more obviously an untenable position, the party line shifted seamlessly to "democracy" for Iraqis. You followed, as if WMDs weren't ever a reason, as if your entire justification for war hadn't disappeared, evaporated.

And now that "democracy" has been abandoned by Bush & Co., you say that chaos would result from this chaos if the US left. Without even a tear for "democracy".

That's the difference, the difference between a syncophant and a person who thinks and evaluates for himself.

I doubt if anyone else, even a liberal, would draw a parallel between Iraqis who support a puppet government and Quislings and other collaborators except me. Well, any Iraqi patriot who wanted independence for his country, wanted to be rid of a foreign invader hell-bent on looting my country. That person would agree.

Arf