>>It will never cease to amaze me that almost anything you discuss >>comes back at some point to celebrity gazing.

It's a reasonable comparison. The right wing media are fanatical about celebrity gazing and the left wing media's idea of a scandal is when Joe Citizen does something they disagree with (the affirmative action bake sale was a good case in point...)  

>>I think the only thing more bizarre is your mindless partisanship.

LOL... this is not disimilar to being called a tree-hugger on a Bruce Cockburn message board. I thought mindless partisanship was one of the staples of this board?! Or if my mindless partisanship had a more marxist tone, I'd be `normal`.

>>There are not different rules being applied here as much as you'd >>like to insinuate that idea.

Yes there are. When boundless stupidity eminates from the left side of the spectrum (like an Al Franken book tour) that's protected speech, when boundless stupidity eminates from the right (fill in the name of the current conservative author you dislike) then it's `hate`.

>>Where are the factual errors? Well, if you want to promote the idea >>that all Musilms are terrorists .

Read Serge Trifkovic's `Sword Of The Prophet` and get back to me. It does seem as though Islam has taken the place of Communism as the new thing the left will defend at all costs when it comes to either that or the USA. They appeased Communism as Pol Pot was rocking and rolling and now they'd appease Islam regardless of how much innocent blood is spilt.

>>Well, this has got to go down as the dumbest hog twaddle

And I'm the one who popped out from under a rock? Since it sounds like you've never left the main street of No-Neck, South Dakota this `opinion` is borne out from public declarations from Osama Bin Laden, Sheikh Aidid & Uday Hussein. They looked at Vietnam, they knew Clinton posed no threat to them and they looked at the current `dissenters` and concluded that the USA was weak. Since the general will of the country  is driven by cowards, they thought they could get away with attack after attack.

Instead of the folksy insults, do you have some source to prove that Bin Laden/Aidid etc had some respect for America since they knew they'd have Clinton to answer to next time they kill a few more Americans?   

>>I've ever read Rich. By this logic Bush would be the weakest on >>defense in our history because 9/11 happened on his watch.

After 8 years of inaction (WTC 1, USS Cole, Mogadishu, the embassy bombings etc) it could be argued that the terrorists had eight years of practise and appeasement. Had there been a prior admin of prinicple, there would be no need for a war on terror if they'd only dealt with the root of the terrorism back in the 90's.