Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

"Mosque" fight reveals Cheney-ization of GOP

Jonathan Chait makes the case that the battle over the "Ground Zero mosque" is more than just a war over issues surrounding the Constitution and religious freedom. Chait notes, crucially, that this is also an intra-party struggle over the future direction of GOP foreign policy:

The second question is about laying the groundwork for Republican foreign policy for the next GOP presidential administration. George W. Bush pursued a policy of attempting to divide the mass of the Muslim world from the dangerous and radical hard core, reassuring and praising the former while opposing the latter. President Obama has pursued the same policy, adding onto it the personal touch of using his identity and unique history to dramatize the same basic message.

The Park51 episode has become a proxy fight on this question among Republicans, many of whom see the foreign policy struggle as a clash of civilizations between Islam and Christianity/Judaism.

It's also worth adding that if the battle over the Islamic center has revealed an intra-Republican struggle over whose foreign policy vision will prevail, it's clear who's winning this fight: The Cheney-ites. Consider: Virtually all leading Republicans who are currently in positions of power, or are currently lining up to run for office in 2012, have adopted the Liz Cheney line.

The project is opposed by many of the leading GOP officials in Congress, from John Boehner to Eric Cantor to Mitch McConnell. What's more, the battle over the Islamic center has actually become a litmus test for the 2012 GOP hopefuls, with Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney, and Tim Pawlenty all trying to out-demagogue each other on the issue.

Meanwhile, on the other side, the Republicans who have stepped forward to support the project are largely former Bush officials who are no longer in positions of power or aren't running for office anytime soon. In other words, the Cheney-ite line has become the required position of thise with actual influence within the GOP -- or those who are currently in the process of seeking it.

This development is actually part of a larger story that hasn't really gotten the attention it deserves: Ever since Obama took office, there's been a widening rift between Republican officials and politicans on one side, and the GOP's former allies in Washington's permanent national security establishment on the other.

Obama's positions are more in line with the old-line GOP defense establishment in D.C. -- people like Colin Powell and James Baker, as well as Bush holdovers who are working for Obama, like Robert Gates and David Petraeus. Yet Republican elected officials and office seekers have almost uniformly adopted the Cheney-ite critique of Obama on issues like torture, Mirandizing terrorists, and whether to close Guantanamo.

In other words, the widespread opposition to Cordoba House among Republicans is only the latest installment in the ongoing Cheney-ization of the GOP. I don't need to tell you that this trend has ominous ramifications in light of the possibility of a GOP takeover of Congress or even of the Presidency.

By Greg Sargent  |  August 24, 2010; 11:53 AM ET
Categories:  Foreign policy and national security  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Karen Hughes: I don't remember any of my work with Imam
Next: Dems elevate Boehner as face of Bad Old GOP

Comments

"I don't need to tell you that this trend has ominous ramifications in light of the possibility of a GOP takeover of Congress or even of the Presidency."

Who cares! Obama sucks. I'm skipping the next 5 elections to teach them a lesson!

Right guys? Guys?

Posted by: mikefromArlington | August 24, 2010 11:59 AM | Report abuse

...and now Maddow apparently picks up on what's really going on here.

The entire Mosque nonsense, pushed extensively (and successfully) by FOX News, is nothing more than this month's "Scare the White People" story.

http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/08/rachel-maddow-nyc-mosque-this-months-new-scare-white-people-story.php

The intensity, the divisions, and the consequences of the debate are real...but can we please stop pretending this is anything more than a ginned up FOX News propaganda piece?

Posted by: TheBBQChickenMadness | August 24, 2010 12:00 PM | Report abuse

This fits right in on this thread. Looks like no religious leaders can be trusted. They might all be Terrorists. Time to close down all religious buildings.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/priest-was-protected-in-1972-bombing-probe-2309739.html?service=Print

"'Priest was protected in 1972 bombing probe'

"'Priest was protected in 1972 bombing probe'

A police investigation into a Catholic priest suspected over the 1972 Claudy bomb outrage was stopped after senior officers conspired with the government and Church to protect him, a shock new report revealed today.

Father James Chesney was transferred to a parish in Co Donegal, outside the Northern Ireland jurisdiction, following secret talks between the then secretary of state William Whitelaw and the head of the Catholic Church in Ireland, Cardinal William Conway.

The two men discussed the scandal after being approached by a senior Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC) officer as the police were apparently reluctant to arrest the cleric for fear of inflaming the security situation.

Nine people, including a young girl, were killed and 30 injured when three car bombs exploded in the quiet Co Derry village in July 1972.

No-one has ever been charged with the murders, which happened on the same day as British troops stormed republican no-go areas in Derry in Operation Motorman.

That happened just six months after the Bloody Sunday killings of 13 civilians by soldiers in Derry when Martin McGuinness, now the Deputy First Minister at the Northern Ireland Executive, was the IRA's second-in-command in the city.

Father Chesney, who died in 1980 aged 46, has long been suspected as the IRA man who masterminded the atrocity but today's damning report by the North's police ombudsman Al Hutchinson also revealed the part played by the RUC in the high-level cover-up.

Mr Hutchinson's officers examined diaries belonging to Cardinal Conway which confirmed contact with him and Mr Whitelaw over the rogue cleric and correspondence between the RUC, which was led by chief constable Sir Graham Shillington, and the government.

Mr Whitelaw, a minister in Edward Heath's Conservative government, died in 1999, Cardinal Conway in 1977 and Sir Graham in 2001.

Findings in Mr Hutchinson's report disclosed:

- Detectives believed Father Chesney was the IRA's director of operations in south Derry and was a prime suspect in the Claudy attack and other terrorist incidents.

- A detective's request to arrest the cleric was refused by an assistant chief constable of RUC Special Branch who instead said "matters are in hand".

- The same senior officer wrote to the government about what action could be taken to "render harmless a dangerous priest" and asked if the matter could be raised with the Church's hierarchy. "

Posted by: Liam-still | August 24, 2010 12:03 PM | Report abuse

Part 2.

" In December 1972 Mr Whitelaw met Cardinal Conway to discuss the issue. According to a Northern Ireland Office official, "the cardinal said he knew the priest was a very bad man and would see what could be done". The church leader mentioned "the possibility of transferring him to Donegal..."

- In response to this memo, RUC chief constable Sir Graham noted: "I would prefer a transfer to Tipperary."

- An entry in Cardinal Conway's diary on December 5 1972 confirmed a meeting with Mr Whitelaw took place and stated there had been "a rather disturbing tete-a-tete at the end about C".

- In another diary entry two months later, the cardinal noted that he had discussed the issue with Father Chesney's superior and that "the superior however had given him orders to stay where he was on sick leave until further notice".

Father Chesney was transferred across the border to Co Donegal in late 1973 and never ministered again in the North. According to Church records, he denied involvement in the attacks when questioned by his superiors.

But he died seven years later having never faced police interview."

Posted by: Liam-still | August 24, 2010 12:03 PM | Report abuse

I think it's important to understand this as MORE than just an effort to scare whites for political gain. there is clearly a battle for the soul of the GOP under way here.

Posted by: Greg Sargent | August 24, 2010 12:04 PM | Report abuse

Very insightful. Best thing you've written on the Cordoba House controversy. Really.

Perhaps you should quit while you're ahead.

Posted by: Mimikatz | August 24, 2010 12:11 PM | Report abuse

If anything, Greg, this "Battle" is going to be like "Compassionate Conservatives"... there one day, gone the next.

The "moderate" GOP has NO CHANCE against the Cheneyites. They've done such a "good" job at scaring white people. There is NO way the Republican voters actually do the right thing and reject the hardliners. NO way.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | August 24, 2010 12:12 PM | Report abuse

If you persist in attacking the Left I will persist in defending it.

"Who cares! Obama sucks. I'm skipping the next 5 elections to teach them a lesson! Right guys? Guys?"

Is that what Independents are saying? If not, no worries because the Left is puny and irrelevant. Naturally, if Obama lost Independents that is ALSO the Left's fault; I just haven't concocted the theory yet.

"there is clearly a battle for the soul of the GOP under way here."

The Democrats solved that problem by getting rid of their soul and attacking anyone with the audacity to mention it.

Posted by: wbgonne | August 24, 2010 12:16 PM | Report abuse

I don't know Greg, it seems like it is nothing more than a continuation of the Southern Strategy to me. The 14th amendment, New Black Panther Party, Shirley Shirrod, @nchor babies... The GOP is using a "Xenophobic Kitchen Sink" strategy; they are throwing as much racial, nativist, xenophobic nonsense as they can and hoping something sticks.

I think this will come back to hurt the Republicans that are pushing out this xenophobic nonsense.

There were a lot of Democrats who voted for the Iraq war out of fear of losing their political clout. I'm guessing many of the Dems who voted for the Iraq war knew it was a mistake, but lacking anything like a spine they went along with it. They didn't want to be painted as weak on defense or what have you. But come election time that ended up hurting them. I realize this is a highly tortured analogy, but in that the Dems went along with the prevailing opinion, as are many politicians on this issue, I think it stands (if just barely.)

This could end up being a similar situation for the right.

For many the first inclination when they hear about building a mosque so close to ground zero is, "Really? I don't like that." But when they find out that it is NOT a mosque, it is NOT at ground zero, it is NOT related to the kind of Islam that attacked us, that there are other businesses that are less than savory in the area and there are also other mosques in the area, then they change their minds. That is the reaction many of my friends and I had.

Given time, and I'm guessing not much time will be needed; this very well could backfire on the rightwingers who are pushing it. It is clearly, beyond a doubt, xenophobic and nativist in origin. While it might play well with the far right, I'd bet that in time it will turn off independents.

Posted by: nisleib | August 24, 2010 12:16 PM | Report abuse

nisleib, think of it like this...while that's likely what it's all about for some Republican candidates, the Cheney-ites very definitely do care about foreign policy and want the GOP to toe their line on it. And that's happening on issue after issue. So this has real ramifications for the GOP going forward and for 2012.


...and agreed, Ethan, the Cheneyites can't be denied.

and thanks, Mimi, I think.

Posted by: Greg Sargent | August 24, 2010 12:23 PM | Report abuse

Chait says: "The Park51 episode has become a proxy fight on this question [Republican foreign policy for the next GOP presidential administration] among Republicans, many of whom see the foreign policy struggle as a clash of civilizations between Islam and Christianity/Judaism."

Who are these unnamed GOP politicians who see our foreign policy as being about a clash of Islam and Christianity/Judaism? (Rather than a problem of a particular, limited, radical strain of Islam that results in terrorist attacks on innocent civilians.)

When Greg writes about "whose foreign policy vision will prevail" I am wondering if he can define the foreign policy visions? Is he trying to say that Dick and Liz Cheney and Kristol think that our foreign policy should be based on the view that we are currently in a clash between Islam and Christianity?

Posted by: sbj3 | August 24, 2010 12:24 PM | Report abuse

O/T:

John Boehner: Fire Timothy Geithner and Larry Summers

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0810/41396.html#ixzz0xXf5crXF

We have finally achieved bipartisan nirvana!

Posted by: wbgonne | August 24, 2010 12:35 PM | Report abuse

wbgonne.

Nope, that's the second time.

First was kill the bill.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | August 24, 2010 12:40 PM | Report abuse

What I really don't understand properly is how the Cheneyites have been able to overrun the GOP like this. It seemed to me that in a post-GWB America, Cheneyism should have been the first aspect of Republicanism to die off, not the one that would become so very prevalent. I mean, my parents are loyal and lifelong Republicans, albeit socially liberal Rockefeller Republicans (in true New Hampshire libertarian Republican fashion- as I don't care what you say about the mountain west, NH is the quintessential Libertarian state- see low taxes paired with legalized same-sex marriage for an example). They do loath Obama, fairly passionately indeed, but exclusively for his economic policies, and they admit, when pressed, that the current batch of Republicans are not an acceptable alternative. Despite what I've seen and read, I struggle to believe that they're viewpoint doesn't represent the majority of actual Republicans on the ground, a 'silent majority' if you will. I believe they still intend on voting mostly a Republican ticket this fall (although I'll concede that you could certainly do worse than Charlie Bass and Kelly Ayotte, they will both likely moderate after inevitably beating the idealogues in they're primaries). But to get to the point, I'm almost certain that they don't want leadership that pursues a Cheneyite policy, but sadly are willing to accept it in the effort to get their beloved Reagan-style economic policies.

What I'm getting at is that I wish more Republicans on the ground would be willing to compromise on some of they're pet issues in order to prevent situations that I'm certain most of them don't want. Voting by triangulation, if you will. Democrats have been doing that for decades, and I wish the silent majority of Republicans would speak out, even if they aren't moderates (which I venture to say that despite their social positions my folks are not as such), but that they would not carry the party line, as the consequences of the parts they do not agree with are dire indeed.

Posted by: holyhandgrenaid | August 24, 2010 12:41 PM | Report abuse

The Chait piece is just too funny.

Among the more amusing aspects of it was the lament about the "process". Since Mr Sargent didn't see fit to provide that particular slander here it is:

"Generally the story is elevated by the right-wing alternative media, driven by a lurid stew of half-truths and wild speculation that seems to reveal in the minds of the conservative base some deeply sinister trait on the part of whoever happens to be leading the Democratic Party at any given moment. The conservatives agitated over the episode will act as though the fate of the world hinges upon the outcome of the drama, but eventually the poisonous cloud of outrage evaporates into thin air."

First it is important to note that no "analysis" of the political opposition written by a lefty is complete without insults and smears. Here we have them on display.

Next, can Mr Chait guarantee that no such hyperbolic process exists for the causes that the left espouses? I doubt he can. In fact the process he describes could easily fit just about any movement any where.

Further, note the use of the term "alternative media" Does he mean, gasp, blogs, like his own at TNR? And given the Journ o list revelations isn't "alternative media" simply anyone not invited to join Mr Klein's in crowd?

And why should anyone simply accept Mr Chait's "analysis" as gospel. What special insight into his political opposition does he have? Lefties have been sagely advising the right about how to avoid extinction since the Obama election. OK, so when will Chait pen a colum similar to Mr Ponnuru's "The Democrat Panic Begins"? All he need do is tell us why the Republicans are facing another huge loss in November. Oh, wait. Maybe because the Republicans aren't facing a huge loss. The Democrats are.

Thanks for the morning laugh Mr Sargent. I'm looking forward to more such gems as the day unfolds.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | August 24, 2010 12:44 PM | Report abuse

nisleib: "it seems like it is nothing more than a continuation of the Southern Strategy to me. The 14th amendment, New Black Panther Party, Shirley Shirrod, @nchor babies..."

Yes, I agree, however, they are applying the same "southern strategy" tactics to foreign policy. Scary foreigners of all sorts, including those who live in the ME and other Muslim countries, whether they are friend or foe. Remember a few weeks back all the pot shots taken at Turkey, an ally?

Posted by: suekzoo1 | August 24, 2010 12:46 PM | Report abuse

I see from the comments here that it is perfectly fine to bash any Christian Faith hard with lies and insults by the left wing. But tell the truth about the violence associated with Islam, that the original Cordoba House was a monument to a victory over the infidels as this one will be percieved to be, that the Imam who is heading this up blames America for 9-11 and you are a racist bigot.

Posted by: Pilot1 | August 24, 2010 12:47 PM | Report abuse

"Voting by triangulation, if you will."

Both far left and far right sides see that as caving in on your values and selling out your country.

I'm sure next round you'll not see so much teatard support for Scott Brown because of his compromises. Sure, Armey will be there because he knows that without a majority, you don't control the committees.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | August 24, 2010 12:48 PM | Report abuse

"Is he trying to say that Dick and Liz Cheney and Kristol think that our foreign policy should be based on the view that we are currently in a clash between Islam and Christianity?"

What do you think, sbj, is the foreign policy view of the Cheneys and Kristol?

Posted by: cmccauley60 | August 24, 2010 12:49 PM | Report abuse

"Nope, that's the second time. First was kill the bill."

Well, thankfully, the Grownups & Professionals running the Democratic Party would have none of that. They simply killed THE BEST PARTS of the bill and THEN passed it in the most gruesome fashion imaginable so that by the time they finished they WERE finished.

Posted by: wbgonne | August 24, 2010 12:51 PM | Report abuse

The Lunatic Left were the ones who voted for Nader, and made it possible for Bush to claim Florida.

The Lunatic Left will not be satisfied until they put another Right Winger in The White House.

WoeBegone prefers to enable The Bad, instead of appreciating the imperfect good.

He is a misery addict, and loves to wallow in it. He yearns to return to the bad old days, so that he can get his daily undiluted fix of sheer misery.

Posted by: Liam-still | August 24, 2010 12:55 PM | Report abuse

"I see from the comments here that it is perfectly fine to bash any Christian Faith hard with lies and insults by the left wing. But tell the truth about the violence associated with Islam, that the original Cordoba House was a monument to a victory over the infidels as this one will be percieved to be, that the Imam who is heading this up blames America for 9-11 and you are a racist bigot."

Not really.

But, since you want to speak of a history of violence. I condone nobody's history of violence but most major religions had their dark pasts.

From wiki:

"On 29 June 1236, after a siege of several months, it (Cordoba) was captured by King Ferdinand III of Castile, during the Spanish Reconquista."

"The Tribunal of the Holy Office of the Inquisition, commonly known as the Spanish Inquisition, was a tribunal established in 1478 by Catholic Monarchs Ferdinand II of Aragon and Isabella I of Castile. It was intended to maintain Catholic orthodoxy in their kingdoms, and to replace the Medieval Inquisition which was under Papal control. The Inquisition was originally intended in large part to ensure the orthodoxy of those who converted from Judaism and Islam. This regulation of the faith of the newly converted was intensified after the royal decrees issued in 1492 and 1501 ordering Jews and Muslims to convert or leave."

I don't think I need to tell you what happened after that.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | August 24, 2010 12:55 PM | Report abuse

So, if it is just a peaceful expression of their freedom of religion why are they planning to dedicate it on 9/11/11?

Posted by: standard_guy | August 24, 2010 12:56 PM | Report abuse

"They simply killed THE BEST PARTS of the bill and THEN passed it in the most gruesome fashion imaginable so that by the time they finished they WERE finished."

Tell that to the millions of poor people that will finally have access to decent health care or the millions of others that won't get turned away.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | August 24, 2010 12:57 PM | Report abuse

"Let me ask this question: Assuming that "liberals" are unreasonable either in policy, politics, or both does it not remain true that "liberals" are NOT in control of the Democratic Party, never mind the country? If so, the Centrist and Establishment Democrats are in fact in control. That means THEY, not the Liberals, have the power and are making the crucial decisions.

And then I ask you: How have those decisions turned out politically? If you agree that the Democrats have not fared well since the Election then who or what is to blame? Is it Liberals, who have no power, or is the Centrists, the Democratic Establishment that, apparently, has never gotten past 1968?"

Still waiting for your answers, Liam. Or Mike. Or anyone ...

Posted by: wbgonne | August 24, 2010 1:00 PM | Report abuse

I see from the comments here that it is perfectly fine to bash any Christian Faith hard with lies and insults by the left wing. But tell the truth about the violence associated with Islam, that the original Cordoba House was a monument to a victory over the infidels as this one will be percieved to be, that the Imam who is heading this up blames America for 9-11 and you are a racist bigot.

Posted by: Pilot1 | August 24, 2010 12:47 PM |
----------------------------------------
Their biggest victory has been to unleash the forces of ignorance not only in NYC, but in places like Murpheesboro. Congratulations on being played by Al Queda. It's probably the most use you've ever been to anybody.

Posted by: oldabandonedbeachhouse | August 24, 2010 1:00 PM | Report abuse

The real analogy is Germany in 1933, and its battle between the forces of democracy and the forces of National Socialism. Cheney wants war. Hitler wanted war. Cheney scapegoats a religious minority. Hitler scapegoated a religious minority.

Cheney invaded Iraq in 2003 as only the start. Hitler invaded Poland in 1939 as only the start. Cheney's war on Islam will be ruin us the same way Hitler's war on Russia ruined Germany.

And like Hitler, Cheney will take all of us down with her if that's what it takes.

Already Cheney's lunatic rants sound like Hitler's.

Posted by: Garak | August 24, 2010 1:00 PM | Report abuse

Worst of all is the Cheney-ization of the Obama White House. Our Dear Leader has embraced the diabolic plot to enslave Afghanistan with American culture and bombs.

The Cheney-ization of the Afghan War has got to go into the dust bin of history - along with our Dear Leader.

Posted by: alance | August 24, 2010 1:01 PM | Report abuse

Sounds like the perfect date to dedicate something dedicated to peace and reconciliation.

Posted by: Liam-still | August 24, 2010 1:02 PM | Report abuse

Is there a bigger idiot in this country than "man on dog" Rick Santorum? OK ... maybe there is an idiot at least AS big, but this is idiocy in its truest form:

Rick Santorum says Imam Rauf, the man at the center of the mosque controversy, is a "jihadist", just not a "violent jihadist".

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2010/08/helpful_distinction.php?ref=fpblg

Posted by: cmccauley60 | August 24, 2010 1:04 PM | Report abuse

Greg, please respond to the comments of several of your liberal commenters demanding banning a commenter on the morning thread.

Ethan's demand requires his own banning, as proven by the archived thread and comments I linked, and I would like to know what you plan to do about it.

Posted by: quarterback1 | August 24, 2010 1:04 PM | Report abuse

Garak - Let us all please try to avoid Nazi comparisons. It never advances an argument and weakens whatever arguement you are trying to make.

Besides, if you look at the history of the neo-cons calling them Nazis is inaccurate.

Posted by: nisleib | August 24, 2010 1:07 PM | Report abuse

Tune Town Lawyer. Stop lying. Your claim that several people called for the banning is a blatant lie.

Posted by: Liam-still | August 24, 2010 1:09 PM | Report abuse

It is called Cordoba House or Inititiative because it is an aspirational symbol of Islamic conquest and subjugation of the West.

That is what happened at Cordoba. Not complicated.

It's incredible that the American left allies itself with Islamist ambitions and forbids any inquiry into the sources and motives behind the mosque project.

Posted by: quarterback1 | August 24, 2010 1:11 PM | Report abuse

"What's in a name?"

Let us change the name of the proposed Muslim Center to:

The Karen Hughes Forget Me Not, Muslim Outreach Center.

That should end all the protests against the proposed center.

Posted by: Liam-still | August 24, 2010 1:14 PM | Report abuse

I sure hope our conservatives will wake up and realize that these muslims are out to take away our beliefs and freedoms.
We neeed strong leadership that will stand up and call it the way it is these people are radicals who will destroy this country and our core beliefs. We do not need more of the lefty ideas about who we are.
Do not be oblivious to the truth about who is responsible for the (9/11 castrophy
Go build the mosque somewhere else if you truly want to have a dialogue which they do not they just want to stick it to us one more time. You whiners who want to get along with everybody will never be the strength of this country that has given us our freedom and kept us safe from our enemies.

Posted by: jerry29 | August 24, 2010 1:14 PM | Report abuse

"If you agree that the Democrats have not fared well since the Election then who or what is to blame?"

Democrats in general.

Ever look at the http://www.pollster.com/polls/us/party-id.php.

Democrats still lead. There is a massive enthusiasm gap going on right now. This is prevalent in the generic ballot polls. More Republicans are going to show up this election.

The question is why are Democrats so upset at getting what I'd call a center left agenda passed? Is that not what they wanted? Is it not possible to pass agenda's that might benefit both the population and the business communities simultaneously.

The fact of the matter is if corporate funding and PAC's aren't removed from politics, purely progressing or liberal agenda's are a thing of the past. With no compromise, nothing even remotely resembling progressive or liberal policy will ever be under consideration.

Either you can accept that or decide not to show up. Don't get mad though when it takes another decade to undo the harm Republican majorities in the House, Senate and WH happen again. Don't blame it on the Centrists who work to get decent legislation out the door. They work with what they got.

Now, let me ask you this. Is there any policy Obama has signed you are hoping the Republicans overturn? If the answer is no or is at a bare minimum one or two things then I guess overall the bills he's signed haven't been all that bad.

Think about the alternative. If Boehnhead is in charge, they will begin once again the push to privatize everything and further cut revenues to starve the Govn't beast knowing full well more programs will have to be cut.

Right now there is a game of chicken going on. Republicans cut taxes in hopes Dems will be forced to make unpopular decisions to cut programs. Dems continue to keep them in place or make tweaks as to not go into political oblivion and throw the ball back to Republicans.

The good thing is this in a way. If Republicans gain control of both House and Senate, they won't increase Govn't revenue by raising taxes so they will undoubtedly try to cut programs which will make them very unpopular which in the end they'll probably back down and then Dems will get in power again and it'll be their turn to either tweak or raise revenue.

Bla, that ended up veering far off track. lol I need coffee.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | August 24, 2010 1:14 PM | Report abuse

I think there is a confluence of interests here. The Cheneyites are using the Cordoba House fight to delegitimize Islam in the US and provide a justification for perpetual war in the ME. But the opportunists like Gingrich and the 2012 wannabes are using the scare white people strategy, in which they have pivoted neatly from scary illegal aliens to scarier (for the moment) Muslims.

I see Boehner is back to talking about GOP economics and Paul Ryan (Ryan Paul?)'s plan to end Social Security and Medicare and end taxes on the wealthy.

Could we go back to talking about what the GOP WOULD ACTUALLY DO if they get back into power? Scary GOPers is our best strategy and Boehner has given us an opening.

That's what I meant by the backhanded part of my compliment.

Posted by: Mimikatz | August 24, 2010 1:16 PM | Report abuse


"KaddafiDelendaEst - so you are back to cut and paste nonsensical rightwing talking points again? Who do you think you are convincing? Nobody here is dumb enough to fall for the poo you are selling.
"Stop lying. Your claim that several people called for the banning is a blatant lie."

Liam the Liar, you just can't seem to get a fact straight to save your life, can you?

"And you want to call us all Quislings. Do you even know what that means?

Greg - Ban this offensive troll please.

Posted by: nisleib | August 24, 2010 10:55 AM | Report abuse "


Now stop bothering everyone with your silly lies.

Posted by: quarterback1 | August 24, 2010 1:20 PM | Report abuse

I Do Not Agree That Democrats have not fared well, since the 2008 elections.

They have enacted many pieces of strong progressive legislation.

Those who hold the most seats, will always be the ones who will have more seats in play. That is just how it has always been.

Elections are for to put people in office, to get things done, before the voters turn, once again, as they always do.

Democrats have gotten a lot of things done.

That is all that matters. Staying in office, and kissing the Arses, of only The Lunatic Left is not what the majority of voters wanted.

Posted by: Liam-still | August 24, 2010 1:21 PM | Report abuse

Tune Town Lawyer;


Look up the definition of the word "several", which is what you claimed.

Posted by: Liam-still | August 24, 2010 1:25 PM | Report abuse

Well that got garbled. Should say:

Liam said: "Stop lying. Your claim that several people called for the banning is a blatant lie."

Liam the Liar, you just can't seem to get a fact straight to save your life, can you?
Here was nisleib:

"KaddafiDelendaEst - so you are back to cut and paste nonsensical rightwing talking points again? Who do you think you are convincing? Nobody here is dumb enough to fall for the poo you are selling.

"And you want to call us all Quislings. Do you even know what that means?

Greg - Ban this offensive troll please.

Posted by: nisleib | August 24, 2010 10:55 AM | Report abuse "


Now stop bothering everyone with your silly lies.

Posted by: quarterback1 | August 24, 2010 1:25 PM | Report abuse

So everyone opposed to the victory mosque is a demagogue? Does that include Howard Dean, Gov. Paterson and Harry Reid? On second thought, I see your point.

By the way, what do you think Barry's position actually is? After his ringing endorsement of the victory mosque at the Ramadan dinner, he quickly walked back his support to merely affirming the radical imam's legal right to build it, which no one disputed anyway.

Posted by: eoniii | August 24, 2010 1:25 PM | Report abuse

Well if the GOP has been Cheney-ized it must mean current Republicans are pro Gay Marriage same as Dick Cheney.

Posted by: walker1 | August 24, 2010 1:25 PM | Report abuse

That was a single request to ban the latest socket puppet of bilgeman. ONE REQUEST, nickel. Clearly not "several liberal commenters."

Really, nickel, lying when the truth is so obvious is just stupid.

Posted by: cmccauley60 | August 24, 2010 1:26 PM | Report abuse

Dick Cheney's "method of operation" as the VP under Bush was a "good cop - bad cop" relationship. Cheney would come out of the gates spitting and fuming, lying and story telling, and never backing down. He was a fighter, and as a fighter he did whatever he had to do to win it.

This usually meant exaggerating threats, and talking about national security. It also meant telling little white lies and/or twisting the facts as a means to an end. This happened time and time again via the weapons of mass destruction propaganda, and the purported connections between, 9/11 and Saddam Hussein, and/or Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda.

After a while of repeating these claims, or in most cases not disputing these claims (especially once they were proven false) the American people began believing the lies and distortions.

During the Bush/Cheney years there was so much craziness going on that the American citizen wasn't sure what to believe. We invaded a country based on bogus information (Weapons of Mass Destruction), the war machine ramped up, money was being spent, families were being torn apart, people began dying, and within a a year or two Americans learned the difference between a Sunni and a Shiite.

The GOP is using the same formula for spreading xenophobia throughout the nation. And sad but true they are getting the results they are after. They are painting themselves as the defenders of America, and making the Democratic Party appear to be the outsider. This formula has been in action for a decade or more. The GOP own the American flag, and the Dems are going to have to figure out a way to get it back.

Posted by: burlydave | August 24, 2010 1:29 PM | Report abuse

"Well if the GOP has been Cheney-ized it must mean current Republicans are pro Gay Marriage same as Dick Cheney."

"It's also worth adding that if the battle over the Islamic center has revealed an intra-Republican struggle over whose foreign policy vision will prevail, it's clear who's winning this fight: The Cheney-ites."

Just foreign policy. Most Republicans are still afraid of teh gayz.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | August 24, 2010 1:30 PM | Report abuse

Liam - I think he should be banned. I think anybody who comes here and calls other commenters Nazis/quislings should be banned.

I also think anyone who cuts and pastes stupid partisan hackery, regardless of ideological slant, should be banned.

But you are right, several is a term that implies more than two.

Posted by: nisleib | August 24, 2010 1:31 PM | Report abuse

No matter what the GOP does, there are two things it cannot change.

1. The constitutional protection of freedom of religion.

2. The fact that within ten to twenty years, Americans with Northern European ancestry will be in the minority in the USA, and the Latino/Asian voting public will NEVER forget or forgive this neo-nativism.

Period.

Posted by: mpmck | August 24, 2010 1:34 PM | Report abuse

I am against calling for banning. That should not be put in the hands of people who comment on here.

The ones who called the most for banning bilge, because they were offended by him, are the ones who rarely showed up here, and have rarely shown up here, after they got their banning wish.

Greg can decide for himself, how he wants to monitor his blog.

Posted by: Liam-still | August 24, 2010 1:38 PM | Report abuse

mpmck - neo-nativism? How is what is going on any different than regular nativism?

Not that it matters, but someone here mentioned "The Gangs of New York" in relation to nativism so I rewatched it the other day. Nativism had been in America for a long time. Heck, it was around before we managed to wipe out a majority of the real Natives. How ironic is that?

As to this, "Latino/Asian voting public will NEVER forget or forgive this neo-nativism," I hope you are right, but I doubt it.

Posted by: nisleib | August 24, 2010 1:39 PM | Report abuse

Oh my, only two and not more than two, and here I thought there were three! I'm not going to go back and count, since it isn't material. Oh, the mortification I feel! How can I show my face after such a "blatant lie?"

Really, Liam, you don't tell jokes, you are a walking joke.

I assume that nislieb endorses the demand that Ethan be banned for calling other posters Nazis, racists, terrorist symptathizers, etc. Ethan agrees his conduct violated the rules.

So I await Greg's response.

Posted by: quarterback1 | August 24, 2010 1:40 PM | Report abuse

I've seen nothing even close to Bilge on display. That guy was purposely offensive in just about every post to the point I don't think he had it all up there.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | August 24, 2010 1:40 PM | Report abuse

Mike:

I appreciate your thoughtful response. I will address several points in return:

"Democrats still lead. There is a massive enthusiasm gap going on right now. This is prevalent in the generic ballot polls. More Republicans are going to show up this election."

To start, the Democrats have lost Independents. How did that happen ?

"The question is why are Democrats so upset at getting what I'd call a center left agenda passed?"

Because the agenda, in many people's opinion, has been both unnecessarily weak and politically inept (see above). Also, the gratuitous and incessant insults don't help very much.

"Is it not possible to pass agenda's that might benefit both the population and the business communities simultaneously"

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. My view is that the tentacles of corporatism are so deep into the body politic that nearly all efforts to trim corporate control will be zero-sum.

"The fact of the matter is if corporate funding and PAC's aren't removed from politics, purely progressing or liberal agenda's are a thing of the past. With no compromise, nothing even remotely resembling progressive or liberal policy will ever be under consideration."

I disagree. However manipulated and misinformed they may be, voters still have the final word. Voters must, however, be adequately informed and suitably motivated. That is the job of the Administration and the party in power. Many people, including me, think this present Democratic regime has been brutally inept. We are angry about that.

"Don't blame it on the Centrists who work to get decent legislation out the door. They work with what they got."

The so-called DemCentrists are the problem. For all the attacks on the Left as being ideologically purists it is, in fact, the Centrists who acted out of ideological purity when they squelched the public option. The bizarre thing -- and very difficult for the Left to accept -- is that the DLCers ideological bent is that of the GOP, not the Democratic Party.

Yes, the present GOP is insane. But EVERYONE already knows that. We want to beat them to a pulp and get on with governing the country. That won't happen until the Democrats stand up for their principles and convince voters that they are worthy of power.

Posted by: wbgonne | August 24, 2010 1:40 PM | Report abuse

"Staying in office, and kissing the Arses, of only The Lunatic Left is not what the majority of voters wanted"

And the Democrats followed your advice and ignored and mocked "the Lunatic Left." So why are "the majority of voters" about to vote Republican? What went wrong?

Posted by: wbgonne | August 24, 2010 1:45 PM | Report abuse

Democrats are going to get thrown out all over America on November 2nd. The ordinary people who love this country can't wait. You leftists will learn what a tiny, isolated minority you really are. Most Americans hate the direction Hussein is taking us.

Posted by: eoniii | August 24, 2010 1:46 PM | Report abuse

"So, if it is just a peaceful expression of their freedom of religion why are they planning to dedicate it on 9/11/11?"

Is that a real date, or is that just a anti-Park 51 rumor?

If that's seriously when they wanted to dedicate it (good luck getting that construction done in a year, btw, in Manhattan. Hah!), I do kinda think that's not the best idea.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | August 24, 2010 1:50 PM | Report abuse


Sounds more like the latest White House talking point.

Associate Cheyney's name with those GOP politicians in office or seeking office, to frighten voters from voting for them.

Bottom line is that Obama and the Democratic Party are also divided on this Mosque issue.

Every name or label has been used by the left to demagogue those conservative politicians and Americans who oppose the building of the Mosque at Ground Zero.

I think more sensitivity should have been made by the Imam when choosing a location and more vetting into his ties with known radical Islamic groups should be done.

Also a note of interest, someone told me that while watching a newscast on the Mosque there was a sign that had CBRE. Senator Diane Feinstein's husband is on the Board of CBRE.

I have looked at several pictures of the proposed site and there is a sign on the building, but none of the pictures I've seen has a large enough image of the sign to be readable.

Could any MSM journolistas look into this possible revelation?

Posted by: janet8 | August 24, 2010 1:50 PM | Report abuse

qb, didn't you threaten to take your ball and go home if Bilge was banned? Why did you break that pledge?

Posted by: suekzoo1 | August 24, 2010 1:50 PM | Report abuse

Why hasn't the GOP gone to court in NYC to stop this whole thing? Are they just all talk and soft on terrorism?

Posted by: SoCal | August 24, 2010 1:50 PM | Report abuse

Whenever I think of the Cheney clan I see them feasting on the corpse of America. None of the entire family has served a day in uniform, daughter Liz only given a forum because of her last name not her actual qualifications (much like Palin who continues to amaze with her lack of intelligence). Under Bush/Cheney we entered into 2 wars - one to satisfy the unspoken push to "pay Saddam back" and give their buddies jobs. The other was ignored and cost us unnecessary deaths and billions wasted. They do not care what anyone else knows or thinks - they believe they are given divine knowledge they need not explain or defend - anyone who questions them is wrong. That the party would adopt this is against everything this country is - and if you know history you know that we have been warned that the enemy who approaches wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross is more dangerous than any foreign terrorist with a gun.

Posted by: Lemon7221 | August 24, 2010 1:51 PM | Report abuse

No, nickel, not two or more than two -- it was ONE. But in typical GOP fashion, caught in a lie, you try to mock and minimize. Truth is not important so long as you can make a point. What is wrong with you. Have you no shame, no honor, no pride?

Posted by: cmccauley60 | August 24, 2010 1:52 PM | Report abuse

I agree with Mimi.

I'd LOVE LOVE LOVE to see a post or a whole dang series of posts about the GOP's economic plan (or lack thereof) if they get control of Congress.

That would be GREAT.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | August 24, 2010 1:53 PM | Report abuse

Here, ethan, post on today's standoff over the economy. read the White House talking points on Boehner:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/08/dems.html

Posted by: Greg Sargent | August 24, 2010 1:56 PM | Report abuse

@Lemon: "if you know history you know that we have been warned that the enemy who approaches wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross is more dangerous than any foreign terrorist with a gun."

Actually, the foreign terrorist can shoot you at a distance, while the guy wrapped in the flag has to be able to catch you to beat you with the cross, and since he's wrapped in the flag, he keeps tripping. If I've gotta face danger, I'll pick flag-and-cross guy over terrorist-with-gun any day of the week.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | August 24, 2010 1:57 PM | Report abuse

Kevin, don't you think the guy with the flag and cross also has a concealed carry permit?

Posted by: cmccauley60 | August 24, 2010 2:00 PM | Report abuse

Kevin - LOL! You don't do nuance or metaphor, do you?

Posted by: nisleib | August 24, 2010 2:00 PM | Report abuse

Kevin:

"I do kinda think that's not the best idea."

You anti-Muslim bigot!!!!

(Sorry...was channelling Greg there for a moment.)

Posted by: ScottC3 | August 24, 2010 2:09 PM | Report abuse

@mikefromarlington:

the invocation of the inquisition is interesting. Your underlying assumption is, of course, that the muslims' behavior while they ruled was beyond repoach. Why else would bring up the inquisition without mentioning the 48 martyrs of Cordoba.

That these 48 people were slain by the Muslims for their failure to observe Muslim law is not a fact you cared to include.

Isn't that interesting. So let's sum up here: According to Mike the christians have a history of straying from their religion and engaging in behaviors that we now find abhorent. The muslims have no such history.

Did I get that right Mike?

I thought so.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | August 24, 2010 2:10 PM | Report abuse

SoCal @ August 24, 2010 1:50 PM wrote "Why hasn't the GOP gone to court in NYC to stop this whole thing? Are they just all talk and soft on terrorism?"

The GOP are very soft on terrorism. If you peek behind the rhetoric, you see that:

1. Went after the wrong guy for the Anthrax attacks in 2001;
2. They ignored the warnings about BinLaddin;
3. Allowed AlQaeeda to flee to safety in Pakistan in 2001;
4. Launched an attack against Iraq, though they knew there was no relation to 9/11;
5. Allowed AlQaeeda to enter Iraq in force;
6. Thoroughly ignored the borders, especially the southern border where all those anchor and terror babies originate;
7. Financed trips by the Imam who wants to build Park51 repeatedly, and sent him to Muslim countries (while Cheney was VP and Liz Cheney was at Dept Of State).

There are many more examples. But they all point to a party that is effectively aiding and abetting the enemies of the country.

Posted by: AMviennaVA | August 24, 2010 2:26 PM | Report abuse

"I don't need to tell you that this trend has ominous ramifications in light of the possibility of a GOP takeover of Congress or even of the Presidency."

The GOP may gain control of the House in November. They don't know it yet, but should that happen, it'll be the final push toward a generational exile from power.

Why?

Just look back at what they said they would do with control of the House. The resulting cluster*&$k would become so bad they'd be booted out of office in 2012.

They're at the point they can't help themselves.

Posted by: grosmec | August 24, 2010 2:28 PM | Report abuse

I miss Natalee Holloway.

Posted by: mattintx | August 24, 2010 2:29 PM | Report abuse

http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/08/the-daily-show-debates-is-fox-news-evil-or-stupid-video.php?ref=fpb

all of the gop and fox news go hand to hand.... interesting video... to bad REAL journalist havent done research to bring this to light!lets follow the money trail of the muslim community center back to fox news.

Posted by: AllforOne | August 24, 2010 2:29 PM | Report abuse

@Mike and Liam...

A question. I'm not really sure where all your vitriol towards the "lunatic" left is coming from.

Since I agree with wbgonne I guess that make me a lunatic as well. I visit this blog frequently but perhaps I missed the day when wbgonne or lmsinca or myself have said we're not going to vote Dem...or more specifically AGAINST republicans. We haven't deserted the ship.

But isn't it sad that our enthusiasm has to come from our fear of wacky R's...and trust us we FEAR them...instead of the same feeling we had during the campaign when we were FOR something.

As you and I both know Mike it's always dangerous to argue from the general to the specific and back again but you made the specific point...about the folks who WILL be getting something from HCR. First of all call me skeptical but so far all we've gotten is a massive rush to raise the rates before anything even kicks in...secondly again call me skeptical but I'll believe it when I see it ACTUALLY happen...and lastly what about my wife and I. We are literally forced to work three more years even though we're ready to retire because our health care costs are now pushing $40,000 a year and that is with a "group" plan at our business..and we are HEALTHY...OMG what if we actually got sick?

We have never said we weren't going to vote...enthusiastically to stop the wackjob fright wing...however wbgonne makes very, very, valid points.

The Obama administration screwed the pooch when they couldn't figure away to leverage overwhelming public support for a public option and instead let the Koch bros..DICK Armey and others galvanize a crowd of screamers, the majority of whom already have their Gov't insurance. There was a public mandate for the P.O. and the Obama administration failed big time. Largely because of that cowardly effing retard O has for a chief of staff!

http://www.wpasinglepayer.org/PollResults.html

wbgonne points out facts...never once has said he/she will not vote Dem this fall and has never threatened to sit it out either. I truly don't get your problem.

Posted by: rukidding7 | August 24, 2010 2:29 PM | Report abuse

"qb, didn't you threaten to take your ball and go home if Bilge was banned? Why did you break that pledge?"

No, not quite accurate. I'm sure you can find my statement in the archives if you are interested.

But I am especialy interested, having seen Ethan second nislieb and declare that "quisling" was VERY OFFENSIVE and violated the rules, in seeing how he and Greg will handle the situation.

Ethan has a long history of posting some of the most vile hate speech and name calling. He is not the only one, but is one of Greg's favorite commenters nonetheless. Republicans (and conservative commenters) are never just wrong for him; they are insane with evil, bigotry, racism, are terrorists and war criminals, etc.

Of course, Greg for his own part encourages this kind of rhetoric with his own posts. He keeps his rhetoric more restrained, but it certainly runs in the same direction.

Then, evey so often someone like nisleib comes along who has no problem with the liberal Ethan's of the world but has a big problem with a nonliberal who uses a term like Quisling. And Ethan, typically, has the nerve to pile on and adopt a self-righteous pose, denouncing the VERY OFFENSIVE VIOLATION OF THE RULES.

What rules, I again want to know? The rules Ethan and any other liberals trample every day with impunity?

Ethan clams that "Quisling" violated the rules. He has said much worse himself. I want an accounting, or not. He and Greg can remain silent, but that will be its own answer.

Posted by: quarterback1 | August 24, 2010 2:38 PM | Report abuse

cmc,

You know, I care what you think about this about as much as I care what my dog thinks. You think Ethan wasn't seconding nislieb? Ethan is welcome to clarify. But he hasn't. Nice try at being relevant, but you aren't.

Posted by: quarterback1 | August 24, 2010 2:42 PM | Report abuse

can AMviennaVA be any more wrong?

here's just a sample:
"They Ignored the warnings about bin Laden."

don't you mean that Bush gave the bin laden situation the same priority as that assigned by his predecessor, Mr Clinton? How many warnings about bin Laden did Mr C have? How many did he act on?

Next there is this old liberal chestnut: "launched an attack on Iraq blah, blah, blah" Coupled with "Allowed Al Q to blah, blah, blah"

What comments such as these clearly demonstrate is an ignorance of warfare and world affairs. Indirect attacks, on places that aren't an enemy's stronghold, but which the enemy must relieve, are a fundamental strategy. But don't take my word for it, try reading Sun Tzu

As for the cordoba house guy, the parallel I don't see being made is that of the lockerbie bomber. It is important to recognize that snookering infidels is something that Islam smiles upon. That's what makes this libyan thing such a complete scam.

It is our trusting nature, as westerners that makes us vulnerable to these kinds of scams. We're told the guy was on his deathbed, now we find out he's still going strong. Lying is completely acceptable to Muslims. Rather than call me a bigot, why not google taqiyya or kitman.

there are many more examples of how the liberals simply got it wrong.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | August 24, 2010 2:43 PM | Report abuse

"It is called Cordoba House or Inititiative because it is an aspirational symbol of Islamic conquest and subjugation of the West.

That is what happened at Cordoba. Not complicated.

It's incredible that the American left allies itself with Islamist ambitions and forbids any inquiry into the sources and motives behind the mosque project."

What I find incredible is the display of colossal ignorance and slothful recitation of copy&paste talking points.

Now, be a good boy, sit down, take paper and pencil...and learn from those who know what they're talking about:

http://gotmedieval.blogspot.com/2010/08/professor-newts-distorted-history.html

"The problem is, in order to give that impression of immediacy, Newt elides three hundred years of Christian and Muslim history. Three hundred years. The Muslims conquered Cordoba in 712. The Christian church that was later transformed into the Great Mosque of Cordoba apparently** continued hosting Christian worship for at least a generation after that. Work on the Mosque didn't actually begin until seventy-odd years later in 784, and the mosque only became "the world's third-largest" late in the tenth century, after a series of expansions by much later rulers, probably around 987 or so.

Then there's the matter of the two odd verbs in Newt's summation of Cordoba's history: "transformed" and "symbolized". Surely, a mosque as great as The Great Mosque of Cordoba has symbolized a lot of things to a lot of people over the years. But Muslim historians writing about the Great Mosque don't point to it as a symbol of Muslim triumph over Christians; rather, they treat it primarily as a symbol of Muslim victory over other Muslims.

Keep in mind that when ground was broken on the Great Mosque, the vast majority of the men who had been personally responsible for conquering the Iberian peninsula were long dead and most of their sons were dead, too. Sure, a few extremely ancient grey beards might have been present as very, young men, and a few older men might have been able to talk about what their fathers had done during the Conquest, but Muslim control of Spain was simply a fact of life for them, not something they felt they had to justify to the Christians.

[...]

it's easy to see why a group of Muslims creating a community center in the heart of a majority Christian country in a city known for its large Jewish population might name it "The Cordoba House" They're not, as Gingrich hopes we would believe, discreetly laughing at us because "Cordoba" is some double-secret Islamist code for "conquest"; rather, they're hoping to associate themselves with a particular time in medieval history when the largest library in Western Europe was to be found in Cordoba, a city in which scholars of all three major Abrahamic religions were free to study side-by-side."

Posted by: grosmec | August 24, 2010 2:44 PM | Report abuse

Greg, you are right about Cheney, the daughter is just a stalking horse for the father. He was certainly the second worst VP in history, and one of the few people who I would actually call evil in American political life. If Liz Cheney wants to talk Islam, she should be asked why her father personally intervened to place Iranian double agent Ahmed Chalabi on board American military aircraft shortly after the invasion. Cheney has done more to elevate Shiite Islam to the position where they now challenge Israel than any other American of any faith.

Posted by: 54465446 | August 24, 2010 2:49 PM | Report abuse

It very well could be a Chenyization of the GOP. But it's also a noticeable pattern in the modern GOP. Whenever confronted with the reality that negates whatever position it may be, Republicans have an instinct to not recall history.

Whatever the subject, the debt or deficit, to the Stimulus, and now Karen Hughes' lack of memory when it comes Raul, the answer is always the same. No memory whatsoever.

Check it out...http://www.thefoldblog.com/2010/08/when-confronted-with-reality-amnesia.html

Posted by: Chris-TheFold | August 24, 2010 3:01 PM | Report abuse

Q.B.

A very honest question with no snark or name calling. You and I have certainly had our differences. We have both called each other names that perhaps we both regret...at least I regret any name calling in which I indulged. You have my apology.

Now for the question part...Why do you come to this blog? I'm not suggesting you stop or trying to make you feel unwelcome...not my place to do..and I don't feel that way.
But I am truly curious as to why you visit here if it upsets you so.

I have used hyperbole and name calling at times and others like Bernie and Kevin W have chided me for it and I accepted their opinions with several mea culpas.

When Ethan was ripping Kevin...I chided Ethan and he responded favorably and now I see he and Kevin seem to have become buds based on their love of Egyptian history.

In other words Q.B. if you already know you are not going to find common ground but instead simply be on the end of rabid opposition...well..I don't wish to call you a name but it does sound a bit like masochistic behavior if you will.

Perhaps however you have an explanation...not that you owe anybody one...just curious. Since you're here frequently I'm just trying to find if there is any common ground...perhaps like me you can look to Kevin W a proud conservative as an example.

Posted by: rukidding7 | August 24, 2010 3:06 PM | Report abuse

Ruk, fair question. Heading for the airport. Will answer later.

Posted by: quarterback1 | August 24, 2010 3:34 PM | Report abuse

Q.B.

Thanks...I genuinely (no snark) look forward to your thoughts.

Posted by: rukidding7 | August 24, 2010 3:53 PM | Report abuse

skipsailing28 @ August 24, 2010 2:43 PM: As usual you come out swinging and miss:

'don't you mean that Bush gave the bin laden situation the same priority as that assigned by his predecessor, Mr Clinton?': No. I mean that he ignored the warnings from Clinton and Clarke; the Republicans also ignored the memo that there was imminent threat because it was 'a historical document' according to Rice. That is, did not have a specific date.

'launched an attack on Iraq blah, blah, blah' - He did. Sincerest apologies.

'Allowed Al Q to blah, blah, blah' - He did. Sincerest apologies.

The rest of what you posted is, as usual, a rant that is best ignored. But you do have my sincerest apologies that the Republicans f4cked up their great area of expertise: war.

Posted by: AMviennaVA | August 24, 2010 4:13 PM | Report abuse

I've been waiting patiently all week for the ACLU to denounce the “chilling effect” on the 1st Amendment exerted by Speaker Pelosi's obvious attempt to intimidate the citizenry and inhibit them from freely expressing their dissent against Cordoba House.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/08/pelosi_clarifies_call_for_prob.html

But it’s still August, maybe they’re all on vacation over at ACLU-HQ?

I’m sure they’ll all be chiming in on the Speaker's MCCARTHYISM!!! any time now, you betcha.

Meanwhile, Greg will offer up this silly 'tu quoque' and horrify us with tales of "ominous" ramifications of Cheney-ization... whatever that is.

*crickets chirp*

Posted by: KaddafiDelendaEst | August 24, 2010 5:00 PM | Report abuse

@AMviennaVA.

Nothing in your reply refudiates my point. Nothing.

Mr Clinton certainly didn't give capturing or killing bin Laden a high priority. Why, therefore should Bush? You want to use 20/20 hindsight but that's just not valid(and I suspect that you know it).

so spare me the snark. My point stands. Prior to 9/11 what reason did Bush have to be any more concerned about Bin Laden than Clinton was? There was none.

You've provided nothing but rote repetition of liberal misinformation. How does it feel to be part of the big lie mechanism?

As for your response to the rest, well all I can conclude is that you really don't hav a valid answer. hence the snarky dismissal.

Unimpressive at best.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | August 24, 2010 5:05 PM | Report abuse

This is but a nodal point on another fractal of cancer created by the denial of Truth and Justice in America: Bush and Cheney committed 9/11. Viz. "The New Pearl Harbor," Griffin, Ph,D.. Any position apart from the proven truth is treason or accommodation of treason and Our Creed's three mottoes require "divine Providence," Equal Justice, and absolute Truth as pillars of government policy and national prosperity. In the Arc of History America's foundational Whiggism, the clear fulfillment and blossoming of all prior human culture, established Our Nation. The Constitution and People, of, by, and for the Black, White, Jew, and Gentile Whigs who, in covenant, established the United States, must be upheld through obedience to the Bill of Rights; and the traitorous fascist plutocracy, whose minions now seek to subvert us, expropriated and extirpated, that America be reborn, yet again, in Righteousness.

Muslim Americans will have a better chance freeing themselves of their obviously false religion when we rid Our Nation of the papist false religionists we allowed to establish, through assassinations, false war, finance of Hitler, Vietnam, Waco and 9/11, a covenant-threatening "Fifth Column." Let them build their Cordoba House while we hang Bush and Cheney for treasonously creating "Ground Zero." Arabic Islam will then be more likely to stop being the culture of Sodom and Gomorrah...in Our Country, at least.

Posted by: iamerican | August 24, 2010 7:33 PM | Report abuse

iamerican:

There aren't too many people crazier than Glenn Beck but . . .

Posted by: 54465446 | August 24, 2010 8:18 PM | Report abuse

So, ruk, you ask, why do I suffer the slings and arrows to comment here? I am actually less sure of the answer to that question than most others, but I suppose it is a combination of things.

-- I care a lot about "the issues" and where the country and world are going

-- I care a lot about ideas and their consequences (I hesitate to say "political junkie" any more, since that means different things to different people)

-- I like to argue, or discuss, if argue seems too combative to you

-- I am interested in (or continue to be amazed by?) what liberals believe (can I say, the crazy things they believe?) and how and why they believe them

-- Exchanges with those with whom one disagrees are more interesting than constant discussion with those with whom you agree (I really don't understand how you are not bored sharing the same three ideas with your ideological compatriots)

-- I like to have my ideas challenged and tested

-- I suppose some tiny fiber within me harbors subconscious hope that there is a reasonable liberal out there who has an open mind

-- Even if not, and even if no one ever admits to error or change of mind, there is value in confronting ideological opponents with the truth in a place like this which otherwise functions as part of the liberal "noise machine" and echo chamber, percolating the liberal conventional wisdom that I believe is destroying the country

-- I like proving liberals wrong, even if they won't admit it, and, if they have any integrity they might just stop repeating a given lie or smear even if they won't admit error

-- Perhaps arguing with foes is addictive (someone once posted a link to some scientific research about that, and it could be true)

Somewhere in all that is the best I can do for an answer.

I would say it is the flip side of why so many liberal commenters go through cycles of "don't address QB [or Scott or sbj or name the conservative]" but soon do so. You could be asked the same questions.

Why do you come here to talk to people you largely agree with and repeat the same things over and over, and why do you engage me, if there is no point? Or lmsinca, who has told me countless times I am beyond hope or help but still pounced on me yesterday when I commented on taxes and growth.

I doubt that any of us is very good at self analysis of questions like these. I think for most of us it comes down mostly to, we are passionate about the issues and have a . . . personality defect, if you want to call it that . . . of liking to argue about them.

Posted by: quarterback1 | August 24, 2010 10:09 PM | Report abuse

Part II for ruk:

Despite your frequent bombast, I suspect that if you and I sat down over coffee or a beer we would probably have a friendly if heated discussion, because I think you probably are good natured and have a sense of humor despite the barbs. In college and law school, I spent countless hours going hammer and tong with my liberal friends, who are still dear friends. On the web, things don't work quite the same. It's the same with email.

Others, like Ethan, I'm afraid I find to be truly disturbing. He is not only consistently malicious but is humorless. Ever notice that? I truly believe, based on reading him for many months, that if given half the chance he would be part of a mob who would round up people like me for the gulag. You can't say the kinds of things he does without having that proclivity inside. And it's ironic, given that he routinely accuses his opponents of the same. People like him need to be called out.

But I see he and Greg have completely ignored his recent comments, and I am not surprised.

Oh, I also forgot -- I like talking to Scott C, sbj and other conservatives who brave the storm here, and seeing how they deal with your side. It's different from reading Free Republic or something like that.

Posted by: quarterback1 | August 24, 2010 10:23 PM | Report abuse

gros,

Speaking of cutting and pasting talking points -- that's what you did.

It's a lovely and valiant effort at sanitization, but they and you might as well realize its fatuousness based on this single sentence: "The Muslims conquered Cordoba in 712."

Everything beyond that is obfuscation. They invaded, they conquered Cordoba and made it capital of their newly renamed territory: It was the prize of al Andalus. It changes not a thing that they consolidated their rule and descrated the principal Christian church, transforming it into the Great Mosque, over many years.

It is staggering that you think it is some sort of defense of the Cordoba House to argue that the generation that actually conquered Iberia was dead by the time the church was desecrated, so that "Muslim control of Spain was simply a fact of life for them, not something they felt they had to justify to the Christians."

Look at those words and think about what you are arguing: We shouldn't find "Cordoba House" troubling, because the Muslims are just harking back to a time when they took their conquest and subjugation of part of the Christian West for granted. Oh, that makes it inoffensive?

Imagine the shoe on the other foot. Imagine Christians had once invaded and conquered Muslim land, established their capital in a conquered city, and turned its leading mosque into a church. Imagine Christians eight a few years ago carried out a terrorist attack on a major Muslim city and murdered thousands, and now wanted to build a church there and name it for their erstwhile conquered capital. And you would tell them they should welcome it, because the historical Christian conquest had taken a long time to be consolidated? The mosque had not been desecrated for 70 years???? That makes it okay?

Of course, you can't imagine it, because it is utterly beyond the pale. The outcry from Muslims would be deafening. And no one would care about the self-serving "interpretations" of Christian historians who said it shouldn't be seen as a provocation or symbol of conquest. They very thought is preposterous.

You can put all the window dressing on it you want. Cordoba House is named for the city the Muslims conquered, subjugated, and made the capital of their foothold in Europe, which they continued to try to further invade and conquer. That is what it means in history, and no one should care what a hundred or a thousand self-serving Islamic "historians" say to the contrary.

Isn't it interesting, by the way, the habit that Muslims have, of "transforming" churches and temples into mosques? Mosques that, per Muslims, become inviolate and cause for war for all time?

Posted by: quarterback1 | August 24, 2010 10:57 PM | Report abuse

one nation under god we have a beautiful christ full of grace and we have been taught by his wonderous words that he is not a respecter of persons everyone is welcome at his table all this talk about intolerance is disturbing we have spent billions of dollars keeping many muslims as we could safe from the same radical Islams who attacked New York we have always welcomed anyone and there religion to come to this country and live free. that is pretty tolerant but we are still one nation undergod a god who taught us to seek peace and pursue it it is troublesome to me that anyone would pick this particular place to make such an outrageous statement there is a difference between tolerance and lack of empathy if this nation forgets that they forget the precepts of what people fought for to make this country and defined the religous freedom that we always believed in they forget the god I believe in and what will become of us then how much more tolerance will save us without faith and love and charity

Posted by: robertajkaufman3 | August 25, 2010 12:31 AM | Report abuse

how come we spent millions of dollars to protect innocent muslim men women and children if we were not tolerant how come are soldiers have been dying to protect the same if we are not toleranthow come there is no lock and keys in our cities and any house of worship can be built and visited if it is we are not tolerant there is a difference between tolerance and lack of compassion for hurting brothers and sisters here who need our prayers and protection for there loss was great that day and the suffering in a time of war should be honored not ignored or dismissed my god would never do that he is merciful and full of grace and would know that the only way to heal this is by caring more and posturing less oh how will it end I wonder yes we can or no you wont not here not now search your hearts seek peace and pursue it and hope without more violence in the most turbulent times in recent history that this matter is resolved peaceably afterall we are Americans who still live in a free country still yet

Posted by: robertajkaufman3 | August 25, 2010 12:57 AM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company