actually, sinz and I have some very good discussions. there are things we can agree on, and we both understand where there are some sharp dividing lines between our ideologies. aside from his occassional lapse into labeling people who disagree with him as people who want to weaken America (rather than acknowledging that they simply have a very different viewpoint of what it is that will strengthen or weaken America going forward into the 21st century) I find him very reasonable.

I’ve actually noticed a lot more opprobrium and invective hurled Sinz’s way from the right than from the left lately. For example, who do you think wrote this:

“sinz hates palin or it bitter because his inflatable girlfriend wont give him any.. got it — you hate women, you hate conservatives, teabags, polls, yada yada yada”

or

“well thank you very much for trying to shove those words into my mouth, sinz54… i didn’t say dulles was a dove and I didn’t say eisenhower was a dove either. that’s your selective spinning at full tilt”

or

“Nixon put the flag on the moon, sinz54. You can bow down with your head toward the west and worship facing Yorba Linda. Of course, you can’t. That would get someone from Boston out to your home to yank off that Kennedy decoder ring you wear with such pride, no?”

it’s their standard method of operation.

at the end of the day, they know that truth is their worst enemy and simple facts are their undoing.

like when obama’s white house got caught slamming cheney’s supposed lack of constructive involvement with afghanistan only to find out that the obama white house adopted the cheney report and strategy and asked cheney to keep the report’s implementation silent and secret from the public.

oooops!

these guys are fumbling faster than the 1938 chicago bears… who hold the world record for the most fumbles in a season.

someone needs to ask john f kerry… is a hopeless fumbler worse than a fumbling flip-flopper?

and while we’re on the subject of the least patriotic senator ever to serve in the senate, john-made-up-medals-kerry, i wonder if he’s the main guy advising obama to cut-and-run from afghanistan? it is what the democrats do best. plus, leave our allies high and dry on a whim.

the real problem the trolls have here is that they share nidal hasan’s dislike of america and distrust of the american military. they think the islamic terrorists are justified in killing innocent americans. for years we heard these trolls say that bush and cheney blew up the twin towers and then planted the evidence to make war on muslims. hasan is every bit as hateful as the garden variety troll found on this site… remember, for most of these trolls, the was no reason to be proud of america until the obama got elected.

Oddly, sadly enough, there are patriotic conservatives who believe that we really are weakened as a nation by changing our mind … even when it is clear that we are on the wrong path. The thinking is that we send signals to our enemies that we can be defeated, and signals to our friends that our resolve can’t be trusted … and thus it is worth the death of many more men in a futile cause to uphold some measure of reputation and honor.

He almost certainly did make that determination a long time ago. For most of the past 8 years most people across the political spectrum believed a stable, self-sustaining government that kept the Taliban and Al Qaeda from control was possible, provided the U.S. made a sufficient commitment. Only recently, have many thoughtful, influential people started to question this premise. So, I don’t understand why it’s doubtful that he formed this opinion awhile ago.

As for flip-flopping, getting wrong the first time is no reason to get it wrong again – particularly when getting it wrong the second time means more American soldiers will die in a fruitless cause. See Vietnam. I guess as a conservative and true patriot, you probably disagree with this.

I don’t fully understand the 2nd paragraph in your post @ 89.

Sinz first claimed Obama was boxed into adding more troops by his strong rhetoric on the war. This implies that Obama does not actually believe in the war, but is now forced to support it because of his earlier rhetoric. I responded by saying Obama may have used such strong rhetoric because he actually believes in the war. Therefore, he’s not “boxed in” by his rhetoric; his strong rhetoric is a product of his beliefs, possibly. I don’t know what’s in his heart, but the fact that, as of today, he has not pulled out of Af/Pak makes his actions consistent with his rhetoric. Aside from thoughtless partisanship, is there any reason to doubt his words when they’ve been consistent and have matched his actions?

As for Obama’s decision to now re-evaluate the strategy in Af/Pak, this is a very good thing. If he was wrong 7 months ago when he committed full-scale, it would be foolish and evil to continue on that course merely because he’s afraid people are going to consider him weak because he changed his mind. Moreover, there is very little reason to believe that more troops in Af/Pak will produce an achievable goal.

I know it’s a rather foreign concept to the conservative mind, but “staying the course” when the course is wrong will never produce a good outcome. I think Lincoln and FDR are perfect of examples of how it’s better to keep changing course if that’s what it takes to get it right than to stay on the wrong course merely because you don’t want to be criticized for changing your mind.

These kinds of predictions are essentially pure conjecture — not fact. One cannot simply extrapolate from current trends and determine the percentage of hard-line Muslims decades from now.

It’s certainly true that countries such as Sweden, U.K., France and the Netherlands have a large immigrant population (15% or more), but far from all are Muslims and those who are tend to come from relatively liberal countries such as Turkey. Bruce Bawer et al. assume Muslims will never become an integrated part of Western society, that they will retain a distinct fundamentalist and intolerant culture essentially forever and at the very least turn their local enclaves in cities such as Rotterdam into fundamentalist enclaves. At worst they will subjugate entire nations. I don’t buy it…the “newcomers” are among the poorest and least influential members of society and they are geographically isolated from their countries of origin. Today’s immigrants are not at all compatible to e.g. the Goths, Vandals or Lombards of the 6th century or the Normans of the 10th century and even those did not survive as independent ethnic groups in the long run.

Now, this does not mean that I have absolutely no qualms about immigration from Muslim areas… Far from it. Some policies such as allowing male Muslim immigrants to import wives (who have no formal education, do not speak the local language and tend to become housewives almost entirely shut off from society) from abroad are just plain stupid and I am glad the Danes ended this policy. I would encourage vigilance rather than hysteria, though.

MARCU$

Huh? Did the national debt just jump to 20 trillion dollars in the last 9 months?

I would have thought someone besides Independent would have noticed this.

Do your documentation, man – there might be a Pulitzer in this for you!

at the end of the day, they know that truth is their worst enemy and simple facts are their undoing. like when obama’s white house got caught slamming cheney’s supposed lack of constructive involvement with afghanistan only to find out that the obama white house adopted the cheney report and strategy and asked cheney to keep the report’s implementation silent and secret from the public.

oooops!

these guys are fumbling faster than the 1938 chicago bears… who hold the world record for the most fumbles in a season.

someone needs to ask john f kerry… is a hopeless fumbler worse than a fumbling flip-flopper?

Not only that, but President McCain wouldn’t have shut-out his Secy of State because he feared his own political survival… he wouldn’t have chosen tax cheats and liars and Marxists to fill his Cabinet… he wouldn’t have doubled the national debt of 233+ yrs in less than 9 months… he wouldn’t have enshrined partisan rancor into the very fabric of Washington… he wouldn’t have asked fellow citizens to spy on each other and report all “contrary thinkers” to the Fishey Office at the WH for enrollment on the newest Enemies List… and, most importantly, President McCain wouldn’t have pissed off our allies to the extent that they’re unwilling to assist NATO in winning Afghanistan.

Plus, President McCain wouldn’t have done the Obama Muslim Apology Tour to the extent where the French look more resolute on Iran than the US govt… what a humiliation.”

nicely said. a president mccain would have never gotten us this deep into trouble, this fast. what’s the first rule of politics obama forgets? quit digging the hole deeper.