pcs

Under the prevailing rules of evidence, it does. I am in an effort to mirror your own skepticism. Or carry their skepticism through to its logical conclusion.

So long as I can be equally skeptical of secularists.

So the other sides argument is to paint men like Amr Khaled, and go farther and color Christian ministers in this country, with the same brush as religious statists thousands of miles and a world's worth of ideological difference away. Classic. I'm glad to know I can view every atheist here with the same lens I apply to Stalin. Even myself, I guess.

For all the ridiculous comparisons people make between American Christian evangelists and the traditional vein of imams, I wonder why no one ever mentions men like Amr Khaled, someone who actually engages in televangelism, has diversified his message with appeals to young Muslims to stay fit, develop hobbies and an interest in bettering their communities, and all without the cosmopolitan learnedness typical of the Islamic and...yes, left-leaning Christian clergy?

You mean sex? There's a multitude of outlets for that subject without pouring your heart out before strangers. I suggest you talk to your parents, preacher, or a respected community leader.

What tangible meaning is there behind these "attention" and "focus" criticisms? They come across as very shallow.

Well, the disconnect between MSM reporting and the reality on the ground has a less nefarious explanation. Most MSM journalists recycle unit public affairs media releases from secure enclaves in major cities, and those media releases generally deal with violent acts. Local news and embeds, on the other hand, generally have a far wider range of contact (geographically) that helps to percolate stories other than those dealing with friendly or enemy casualties. Essentially what we have here is a well established process which already provides MSM with a select set of data points supporting the popular (and dour) view of Iraq's security and reconstruction prospects.

Let's just scrap sex education period.

Nope. I'm simply illustrating why you shouldn't allege fallacies where none exist. I could, but I won't. At least not in this thread. Probably in the other, in defense of a position that I've actually put forward. But I will continue to do so.

You need to stop dropping fallacies like it's the Asperger's mailing list--you're dealing with assertions of fact. Good for you. Talk to your buddies.

Yep. Oh, you mean the part that doesn't exist? I haven't read the invisible chapters of Leviticus yet. I'm hilarious. Hill-air-eee-us. He claimed to be fulfilling natural law, which is just the way things are. Who knows? You'd probably want to go through them on a case by case basis--you know, like a thinking man would. Because you made up the bit about Jesus being and international liberal. Which has squat all to do with politics or national identity.

What about a society upholding Jewish law earns it the label "welfare state?" He said it was easier to pull a camel through the eye of a needle. Whether or not that's hyperbole is something to dwell on, but considering weath in that day and age was landed perhaps it might be better to interpret "rich man" as "idle wealthy liberal." Really? When did Jesus ever advocate that his views be encoded into the laws of the state? He forbade his disciples to defend themselves on one particular occasion. How his views on cheeks translate into pacifism requires a leap of imagination I'm not prepared to make. Which I believe is an interpretation you cut out of whole cloth.

I don't see how an apostle's vows of poverty and charity, the ideal of civil peace and order, and lawful respect for political institutions of ones parent political affiliations equates with Marxism, pacificism and international liberalism.

Ghenghis Khan was a complete statist. Jesus never worked in the public sector a day in his life. Hell, he was a carpenter before there was any such thing as a guild, let alone a union.

To say you're passionate about nuclear disarmament is about as useless a sentinment as saying you're passionate about breathing. The question is how thoughtful and informed your position is on the subject. Actually, I asked that question--and I directed it towards the entire opposition. More to the point, it was a rhetorical question aimed at illustrating the bankruptcy of a particular political tact of the Democratic party. He's also a loving father and loves walks in the parks. My point is just don't throw out the guy's resume and say "Hah! Bush fails if he does anything less than extradite the man." Explain to us how he's a danger now. I'm less concerned about the non-proliferation treaty than I am about...say...proliferation of nuclear weapons amongst regimes of increasing threat to US national security. In other words, I don't particularly care whether Israel or India have the bomb, I have a strong interest in Pakistan's nuclear status, and I definitely don't want to see North Korea and Iran have any weapons whatsoever. My question is why would the Democrats harp on Israel, India and Pakistan and cave before North Korea and Iran? I don't, partly because Pakistan has historically been our ally but largely because I can read a map. The same argument pretty much flies for Saudi Arabia (sans nukes), Israel and India. Well whoopdie doo. God forgive us for ignoring the great Israeli nuclear threat. Need I remind you Pakistan and India have been nuclear powers for nearly a decade now? If Kerry worried so much, why didn't he run in 1998? Did general nuclear proliferation just become a national security concern? We already have a planetary monitoring network for weapons grade nuclear material. It's called the IAEA. It works when countries capable of generating the material cooperate. It doesn't when...well...they don't. And there isn't some magic technology that's going to change that. Which, of course, is impossible. That's why we assume that an untrusted regime is up to nefarious things and leave the others alone. We only have so much force to back up the agreements. Is that why the opposition is so hell bent on letting Iran get away with it?

Neither do I, but if it bugs people I'd like a way to at least make me think about double posting. In fact, I think I just double posted this morning.

I can't see any evidence of an ideological shift. The bulk of criticism over the DP World flap from conservatives comes from outside the security establishment and the shipping industry, and in this case it's fed by a political decision not to expend political capital to make the case to the American people. I don't and can't know how much we could risk revealing, but this looks more and more like a case of good security policy simply playing out as bad politics. Because the full extent of Gulf State participation in the War on Terror cannot be freely discussed, leaving the Opposition and the mainstream media a free hand to frame a national security agenda over the perceived failings of our allies. Which brings us back to my main point, whether or not the Opposition's opportunism here reflects their fundamental disinterest and, by extension, trustworthiness on matters related to national security.

Wahhab isn't the founder of Salafism. He was a Salafi revivalist in the 18th century. His stature amongst Salafis is no greater and probably significantly less than contemporary Saudi thinkers like Baz. Of course it is, Wahhab was a Salafi. We might as well point to Billy Graham as the nexus of modern traditional Protestantism.

I don't bait. Definitely don't believe in "bilge." I can't say I'm astounded by your position, it's not like we haven't heard it before from countless others. But that brings us back to the OP. I don't understand this shallow fixation on the whereabouts of two or three people in Pakistan and allies with internal security problems; especially when the opposition foreswears any genuinely muscular action towards entire states that as course of policy declare or support armed hostility against the West.

No they're not, and I dare you to say as much to a Salafi's face. You might as well call a Baptist a Phelpsian. He was raised in a Salafi family, but he is a Qutbist. Are we to start branding all Salafis as such?

This is almost dumb a claim as "Bush ceased pursuing Osama bin Laden," even more so considering that AQ Khan--a single man--was not the target; the network he was plugged into was. What purpose does it serve to go after one man who lay several removes from a transfer terminus? To ease your mind? Does one guy really scare you that much? Khan's been removed from his position, and joint US-Pakistani field work has uncovered the network that employed him and sharply reduced the proliferation risk. That work continues. So here's another example of the opposition seeing the trees despite the forest. The common religious denominator in al Qaeda is Salafism; the key operational sheikhs are all Salafis as is Bin Laden himself. Either way, there are Salafis and Wahhabis in the US as well, do we propose that Americans should wage state war against themselves? So you'll jump on countries for their religious proclivities, but not those not only pursuing nuclear weapons but also, as a matter of state policy, sponsoring anti-American terrorism or threatening their neighbors with invasion? Fascinating When you propose "swatting flies" as viable operational art, then I find it hard to disagree with you. But since it reflects the opposition's new-found national security agenda, I suppose i can forgive you for that.

It's not so bizarre. Republicans did the same thing during the Clinton administration, and they so far as actually impeaching the guy in his second term after losing seats in the 1998 midterms.

Congressional job approval has oscilated around the mid-40s for the past decade or so [1]. I'm hesitant to draw any firm conclusions regarding something as broad as public confidence, but it does appear that whenever Congress is in the national spotlight it tends to suffer in the polling. Here I definitely have to disagree. In 1994, something like 45 of the 54 Democratic seats Republicans took in the House were open (six in the Senate). Right now, the Democrats have something like 15 open and contested seats, most of which sit in districts Bush won in both 2000 and 2004. One thing is for certain, absent some unforeseen dynamic like 67 congressmen vacating their seats for early retirement in 1994, we're not going to see anything like that midterm for any party for a long time. Because it is the only unifying national agenda the Democrats have right now. Whatever policy agenda the DNC and Congressional Democrats allegedly intend to release "in a matter of weeks" (which is already an election and a year behind schedule), you have to wonder how thoroughly watered down it will have to be to stick with the governors?