Part of the problem is that you idiots were so smug that you never considered the possibility you could be wrong.

Whereas for me the problem is, they're almost always wrong. Hence, when they start coming on board I get the heebie-jeebies.

I worry more that my (future) children will end up riding in a little yellow bus to a school with Jon Stewart's name on it. Or Ward Churchill's.

Hell, when W gets his schools named after him I may re-enroll!

Me too.

I think the fact that Jon Stewart is willing to entertain such revolutionary ideas and speak about them openly speaks well for Jon Stewart. Most liberal comics are still making Ashcroft jokes.

I don't know guys.

I think we're at the point where electoral defensiveness is breaking down. We should embrace these "questioners" and cut them some slack. Sure they were assholes (Stewart especially), but if he's really reconsidering the Bush presidency, he might not be completely irredeemible. Just call me Frodo, but I think Stewart sill might have a little Smeagol in him.

The moonbats aren't ALL totally hopeless, as the slow roasting of MyCountry yesterday showed. She's now retracted her silly "Bush has nothing to do with Lebanon" statement and is questioning her political beliefs.

Maybe it's just me, but when we join hands with liberals who are smart on the War on Terror, we build a much better national defense than without them. I'd guarantee that Charles Johnson and I disagree on just about everything from music to public trasportation, but as an ally in the WoT, he's a superpower.

I'm just thinking we should cut wavering libs some slack, and maybe they'll come around. Even if they start calling all the WoT successes their own, it's still better to have them on the team.

I love it! But, I still hear the "this wasn't why he said we were invading Iraq crap." I'm not afraid that many liberals are gonna "join" our side- they've proven pretty defiant when faced with having to come to grips with reality. I still debate people who think the Moore movie was accurate.

After reading the entire article I am reminded that friendly interviews can be the most damaging. Stewart got her to admit that the dems are hoping for failure in the Middle East. If you caught the interview of that crazy NY congressman who thinks Rove is Satan on Hannity/Colmes ... Colmes was the one who got him to admit he had no evidence of his claims.

http://www.naharnet.com/domino/tn/NewsDesk.nsf/Lebanon/43103688E9E74F36C2256FB70037A25B?OpenDocument

Hafez Assad's Statue Torn Down in Qana
"A statue of Syria's late President Hafez Assad has been torn off from its stand in south Lebanon's village of Qana, dramatizing the burning anti-Syria sentiment ignited by ex-Premier Hariri's assassination."

It keeps spreading.....

Stewart said: if they had just come out at the very beginning and said, "Here's my plan: I'm going to invade Iraq. We'll get rid of a bad guy because that will drain the swamp"--if they hadn't done the whole "nuclear cloud," you know, if they hadn't scared the pants off of everybody, and just said straight up, honestly, what was going on, ..." he's actually right about that. I remember the first time I heard Bush using the MWD rationale, I knew it was a bad idea. We didn't need it to invade Iraq the first time around, '41 merely had to say the truth - it was to protect the oil supplies and almost the whole country accepted it. (And the price fell to $10 bbl and stayed low during 1990's thereby giving us prosperity which Bill Clinton promptly claimed was his.) W never should have handed our enemies a propoganda weapon that could be used against us universally around the world. It was ablunder we shall be paying for for a long time to come.

I'm cutting Stewart some slack on this.

He pretty much skewered her whole point.

He's taking about how positive the news is in the Middle east.

72Virgins - Yeah and he made another blunder by not continuing the sanctions long enough for the whole world to see that they wouldn't work and the situation had deteriorated so badly that something had to be done and done immediately. He then let the Europeans know that they they needn't lift a finger to get Saddam, we'd spend our blood and treasure to do it without them, so why should they help?

I thought it was striking that Stewart was actually having trouble forming the questions, but finally got them out. The willingness to ask the question shows a desire to seek the truth. However, given that, I'm still not inclined to cut Stewart any slack. He's got a long road to hoe towards redemption in my book.
Its fun watching reality smack the libs upside the head.

I'm not cutting these weasels any slack, Phil. ". . .as a Democrat, you don't want anything nice to happen to the Republicans and you don't want them to have progress." Yeah, that's the ticket:

"What's the matter, bunky? You say your best friend just got fed through a woodchipper and your wife was carried off to a rape room a week ago and your son just came home with his tongue torn out for saying he thought the Americans might not be all bad? Is that what's bothering you, brother? Well, never fear! We'll come and help you. . .just as soon as we can get a Democrat in the White House. Hope this helps - and keep your head down till then, kiss kiss!'

But I guarantee you a fool like Soderberg would whine that her patriotism was being questioned.

And notice the little dig that Iraq wasn't really the first domino; the Syrians had just gone a bridge too far in their assassination? Ol' Chimpy McSmirkhitler was just lucky enough to be the pReisident when it happened. Nothing else to see here, folks.

Sorry to post twice, Ace, but check out these little bits of Soderburg's rant, courtesy of Junk Yard Blog:

"There's still Iran and North Korea, don't forget. There's hope for the rest of us. . .there's always the hope that this might not work." (my emphasis).

I take back my "whine" comment above. Miss Soderburg, you are unpatriotic. Nay, you are as close to treason as you dare without actually calling up OBL's 1-900-KILL-JEW dateline.

The sooner this miserable, suppurating sewage pit of a Democrat party is dead and buried, the better for all of us.

I thought it was striking that Stewart was actually having trouble forming the questions, but finally got them out. The willingness to ask the question shows a desire to seek the truth. However, given that, I'm still not inclined to cut Stewart any slack.

I agree. I defended Stewart on some thread after he made similar comments following the Afghan election turnout. Namely, he's a smart guy who was funnier when he was an equal opportunity hatchet man going after both political parties, but that maybe he was coming around. Shortly after that he regressed into his MissionAccomplishedfreude asshole persona as soon as their was a setback in Iraq.

When Bush's plan succeeds it will be without the help of the Dems and MSM; actually it will be in spite of them. You gotta wonder how many are now searching Nexis to see how exposed they are to criticism for having been completely wrong (again). These people's concept of leadership is taking a poll to test the popularity of midnight basketball.

I'm just wandering through, but...

I actually caught the Soderberg interview. I doubt any of you watched it. She was clearly being satirical. When she said

"There's still Iran and North Korea, don't forget. There's hope for the rest of us. . .there's always the hope that this might not work."

It was satire. She was making fun of all the jerks who say things like this to liberals:

'Miss Soderburg, you are unpatriotic. Nay, you are as close to treason as you dare without actually calling up OBL's 1-900-KILL-JEW dateline.

The sooner this miserable, suppurating sewage pit of a Democrat party is dead and buried, the better for all of us.'

Transcripts can be quite misleading.

I thought it was striking that Stewart was actually having trouble forming the questions, but finally got them out. The willingness to ask the question shows a desire to seek the truth. However, given that, I'm still not inclined to cut Stewart any slack.I agree. I defended Stewart on some thread after he made similar comments following the Afghan election turnout. Namely, he's a smart guy who was funnier when he was an equal opportunity hatchet man going after both political parties, but that maybe he was coming around. Shortly after that he regressed into his MissionAccomplishedfreude asshole persona as soon as their was a setback in Iraq.

When Bush's plan succeeds it will be without the help of the Dems and MSM; actually it will be in spite of them.

Look guys, I thought Stewart made his (and many liberals) point of view quite clear. The fact that you've still misinterpreted it is quite astonishing. The left in this country believes that it isn't our job, as a country, to establish democracy in every corner of the globe. It's as simple as that, really.

Their dislike of this war is based on this belief, not because of their lack of patriotism.

When John expressed concern about the positive things we were causing in the middle-east, I don't think it was because he wanted to see the U.S. go down in flames, but rather that he was worried about the precident that they might set. He didn't "like the way these guys operate", in other words.