Since no less an authority than Maureen Dowd concedes that Kevin Tillman speaks from a platform of "absolute moral authority" that means that she must also concede that every brother, sister, parent and child of a soldier who has given his life in the war on terror also speaks from that same platform. It's not just the leftists that are alloted the moral high ground. Also doesn't liberalism deny that there are any moral absolutes - oh that's right it's only when we're talking about abortion, profiling, etc.

thank goodness that some clear thinking patriot named Roy left this comment under the KT article at "truth"dig.
thanks Roy whoever you are!!!

Comment #32122 by Roy on 10/22 at 10:10 am

I appreciate your service to your country by joining the armed forces with your brother. The handling of your brother’s death was mismanaged, no question about that. However, your nobleness in joining the armed forces came with a commitment on your part, and you don’t have the luxury of picking or choosing your duty assignments. You can personally agree or disagree, but you knew that when you signed on the dotted line, you, like every other soldier, serve at the pleasure of the commander in chief. Did it not cross your mind when you signed on that you were going to end up in the middle east following 9/11? I mean, if you felt so strongly that being sent to Iraq to fight was so wrong, and so illegal, and so immoral, why didn’t you stand on your principles and just walk away and face the consequences?

The pot shots you take at the elected leaders of your own country after the fact is striking, and your choice of verbage speaks to your own personal hatred of your own government. I just wonder if the situation on the ground were different right now if you would be so overly critical and paint our leaders as “criminals.”

Your “paid for” president bashing story published here within this web site discredits you personally, and your otherwise noble service. You have managed to turn yourself into just another left wing bomb thrower with your hypocritcal diatribe by “breaking your silence.” You do a disservice sir to the men and women continuing to serve in our armed forces in the middle east. The difference between you, and the men who served in WW II, is the veteran returning home from Iwo Jima, no matter what his personal inner feelings might have been, would not take money in return for spewing venom about the mission he was tasked with undertaking.

Considering that Abu Nidal was quite probably executed by Iraqi security, and considering also that no one in the American intelligence community has ever asserted that Abdul Yasin was operating on behalf of Iraq (no matter what your rigorous research on Wikipedia and Answers,com might suggest), you're left with the fantastic claim that Leon Klinghoffer's 1985 murder somehow helps to validate this abjectly stupid war.

As for the claim that Iraq was tied to the September 11 attacks, I wish I knew what to tell you here, but you're absolutely off your nut if you think that only the "anti-war left" believed that's what supporters of the war were doing. The Weekly Standard's Stephen Hayes has been screaming incoherently about this very connection for years now (to no avail), more or less parroting claims made by Laurie Mylroie and Douglas Feith (from whom Hayes apparently gets most of his "intelligence" tips).

And finally, as for "withdrawals" -- or "redeployments," which you seem to consider to be the same thing -- how "emboldened" must the terrorists have been when the US shifted critical assets from Afghanistan to Iraq in preparation for this glorious struggle on behalf of Leon Klinghoffer's memory?

To be fair, it's got to be difficult when the battle group he was assigned with was the one providing the 'friendly fire' that killed his brother. FUBAR comes to mind, and understandable that he would project incompentence experienced in the field throughout military command.

I'm confused.

Let me see if I can understand what you're saying. Iran and Syria made America invade Iraq so that it would become the central front in the War on Terror?

But then why did you say last year;

So much for al-Zaraqawi being "the greatest" if he has to kidnap and drug people to carry out suicide attacks. It seems that the seemingly inexhaustible supply of willing suicide bombers that we westerners have come to fear is exhaustible after all. Some might even be willing to think that this validates the Bush/Rumsfeld "flypaper" strategy.

So were the Iranian and Syrians in on the flypaper thing? Is is good or bad that Iraq in a terrorists cause, recruitment and training ground?

Also how did we anti-war liberals get Bush to talk about Niger yellowcake in the SoU speech?

Dick Cheney said:

RUSSERT: The plane on the ground in Iraq used to train non-Iraqi hijackers.

Do you still believe there is no evidence that Iraq was involved in September 11?

CHENEY: Well, what we now have that's developed since you and I last talked, Tim, of course, was that report that's been pretty well confirmed, that he did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service in Czechoslovakia last April, several months before the attack.

Why do you help cover the lies of liars CY? Do they pay you? Is your ego so fragile that admitting you voted for foolish liars would destroy it? Do you like lies and just want to spread them around?

Or are you just plain stupid and can’t tell the difference?

Let me see if I can understand what you're saying. Iran and Syria made America invade Iraq so that it would become the central front in the War on Terror?

Nice job of mischaracterizing what I wrote, though hardly untypical. Iran, Syria, and al Qaeda decided that Iraq would be part of a central war after we invaded, seeing material support of terrorists and insurgents as a way to "beat" politically an American military they are too weak to confront directly.

As far the flypaper strategy, you might want to address Abu Musab al-Zarqawi for his take on that, or Ayman al-Zawahiri, who both agree that al Qaeda is getting worn down in Iraq, with many of their most experienced operatives getting killed in combat against American-led forces. On second thought, maybe you should just address that to al Zawahiri. Zarqawi become one of those dead experinced terrorists just a few months ago.

As for Bush's "16 words," he never said that Niger supplied uranium to Iraq, only that it sought uranium. The apolitical Factcheck.org verifies this is accurate.

And so another "reality-based" myth down the toilet. Not that you’ll stop believing in it, of course.

As for the link to the White House transcript that you selectively quite from to attack Cheney, I ask readers to read the larger context of the comments, and see if they come up with the same conclusion you did (my bold):

RUSSERT: Let me turn to Iraq. When you were last on this program, September 16, five days after the attack on our country, I asked you whether there was any evidence that Iraq was involved in the attack and you said no.

Since that time, a couple of articles have appeared which I want to get you to react to. The first: The Czech interior minister said today that an Iraqi intelligence officer met with Mohammed Atta, one of the ringleaders of the September 11 terrorists attacks on the United States, just five months before the synchronized hijackings and mass killings were carried out.

And this from James Woolsey, former CIA director: ``We know that at Salman Pak, in the southern edge of Baghdad, five different eye witnesses--three Iraqi defectors and two American U.N. inspectors--have said, and now there are aerial photographs to show it, a Boeing 707 that was used for training of hijackers, including non-Iraqi hijackers, trained very secretly to take over airplanes with knives.''

And we have photographs. As you can see that little white speck, and there it is.

RUSSERT: The plane on the ground in Iraq used to train non-Iraqi hijackers.

Do you still believe there is no evidence that Iraq was involved in September 11?

CHENEY: Well, what we now have that's developed since you and I last talked, Tim, of course, was that report that's been pretty well confirmed, that he did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service in Czechoslovakia last April, several months before the attack.

Now, what the purpose of that was, what transpired between them, we simply don't know at this point. But that's clearly an avenue that we want to pursue.

RUSSERT: What we do know is that Iraq is harboring terrorists. This was from Jim Hoagland in The Washington Post that George W. Bush said that Abdul Ramini Yazen (ph), who helped bomb the World Trade Center back in 1993, according to Louis Freeh was hiding in his native Iraq. And we'll show that right there on the screen. That's an exact quote.

If they're harboring terrorist, why not go in and get them?

CHENEY: Well, the evidence is pretty conclusive that the Iraqis have indeed harbored terrorists. That wasn't the question you asked the last time we met. You asked about evidence involved in September 11.

Cheney made it quite clear that he was not ready to make a direct link, only that charges made that day by the Czech interior minister was an interesting development worth pursuing to determine if there is any truth to the allegation.

Salvage then goes on a Franken-esque rant about “lying liars,” which is particularly rich considering his entire argument was based on purposefully mischaracterizing what others said in every single example he provided.

I’ll leave it for others to determine which one of us is lying based upon the preponderance of the evidence.

d

Iraqi forced "probably" killed Abu Nidal?

No *&*( sherlock. What you tiny single neuron mind cant grasp is the question of WHY they would do that. Perhaps he ......knew something?

As far as Yasin- CY DIDNT assert he was acting on behalf of Iraq either. He asserted that Yasin- a terrorist who intended to kill 50,000 Americans by blowing up the WTC- was harbored by Sadaam Husseins regime.

Of course you'll reply that Yasin was "incarcerated" in Iraq all those years.

Yeah, sure he was.

Okay, so Iran, Syria, and al Qaeda decided that Iraq would be part of a central war after you invaded.

So what that means is that the terrorists have adapted their strategy to Bush’s. That they have taken the invasion that was supposed to destroy them and made it work for them. They have more recruits, a cause to rally around and a trial by fire that is sure to create some hardcore and experienced killers.

Are we allowed to point out that means Bush played right into their hands with the invasion? That the invasion of Iraq has done nothing but good for the bad guys? Can I point out that there are more terrorists and attacks now then ever before? Do you know that the situation in Iraq is collapsing even faster into full out civil war, that each month is more violent than the one before? Or is all that part of the master plan?

Oh and here’s the thing, the point you can’t seem to get. Terrorism has no “front”, it never has and never will. Do you really think that terrorist cells around the world are packing their bags for Baghdad? “Well we were going to blow up California but gosh Iraq is just too tempting to pass up!”

This is a rather obvious point that you don’t seem to understand, I wonder why?

As far the flypaper strategy, you might want to address Abu Musab al-Zarqawi for his take on that, or Ayman al-Zawahiri, who both agree that al Qaeda is getting worn down in Iraq, with many of their most experienced operatives getting killed in combat against American-led forces. On second thought, maybe you should just address that to al Zawahiri. Zarqawi become one of those dead experinced terrorists just a few months ago.

Your trust in the alleged writing of a terrorist leader is touching, gosh he’d never lie!

Hmmm no experience operatives yet the Coalition body count is the highest it’s been in nearly a year. Weird… unless… maybe… the terrorists aren’t getting worn down? That maybe they’re learning all kinds of new tricks and tactics?

See when your opinion is at odds with the reality it’s time to look hard at your opinion because it’s hard to argue with a pile of corpses.

As for Bush's "16 words," he never said that Niger supplied uranium to Iraq, only that it sought uranium. The apolitical Factcheck.org verifies this is accurate.

I did not have sex with that woman!

Yes you did! We have stains! DNA you liar!

Well ah oral se… stuff isn’t sex… yeah that’s it.

Dude.
Don’t.
Even.

There are endless examples of the Bush Administration talking incessantly about WMD. The most salient being Rummy saying “WE KNOW WHERE THEY ARE.” What was Powell talking about at the UN? How do you argue with that? You can’t. Stop.

Any mention of any WMD related material and Iraq was meant to make a connection. You want to parse the words in a Clintonesque attempt to make a lie the truth then go crazy. The rest of us know the reality; they ginned up the WMD to sell a war they thought they could win in a cakewalk.

We simply don't know at this point. But that's clearly an avenue that we want to pursue.

We don’t know but we’re going to keep talking about it like it could be true or is true!

I don’t know if Confederate Yankee likes to dress sheep up like nuns and copulate with them in the basement, I just don’t know at this point, this guy in Poland told me so, I’ll investigate and get back to you. In the meantime, just to be on the safe side don’t leave CY alone with any sheep or wimples.

Whenever your kind does this of wide-eyed innocence thing, I have to wonder, are you really his gullible or are you choosing to be this gullible? A child could see through the semantics and the plausible deniability. But you know what? What you can’t deny? That at one point 70% of Americans thought there was a connection, now where the heck did that get that idea I wonder?

Fact: Iraq was invaded for WMD, not other reason is legal or even sane.

Fact: Iraq did not have WMD. At best you could argue that the Bush Admin was grotesquely incompetent and should all be fired at worst they’re liars who should be tried. Either scenario (and those are the only two that fit the facts) means that they deserve no support.

Fact: You continue to stick your fingers in a dyke that is nothing but holes. Iraq was a mistake on every level. There is nothing to defend and as each month crawls by and the pile of bodies gets higher and higher you are going to find yourself even more alone.

salvage

The increasing pile of bodies is being created by terrorists, not George W. Bush.

Just wanted to re-set your moral equivalence compass back a few notches.

You can make the argument that we shouldnt be standing up to these people- but dont confuse who is actually creating the chaos and death

The increasing pile of bodies is being created by terrorists, not George W. Bush.

Uh huh, that is literally true and beside the point.

Tell me, who created the environment for those terrorists? I don't recall daily multiple bombings when Saddam was running the place. I’ve never heard the term “Al Qeada In Iraq” until America invaded.

So guess what?

The bodies may not be the direct fault of Bush but they are certainly the result of his policies.

Everything that happens in Iraq is now the responsibility of Bush and America. Every attack on civilians and infrastructure is America’s duty to prevent. See no one asked you to invade, y’all went and pulled that stunt on your own (ooops forgot Poland!) so it’s all your responsibility.

It’s like Bush walked into a room full of buckets of gas and started flicking matches around, now that the fire has started his tireless defenders in the face of logic and reason are insisting it’s the gas’ fault for being so darn flammable.

You were warned that this would happen, you laughed it off with an unmatched hubris.

Just wanted to re-set your moral equivalence compass back a few notches.

That actually doesn’t make any sense, a compass measures fixed variables, it cannot be put back any more than it can be put forward. I was making no argument about moral equivalence, I was stating facts; Iraq is in real trouble, people are dying there everyday in horrible and violent ways and it’s all the ultimate responsibility of GW Bush and you.

But if you want to talk moral equivalence, what’s worse? Being murdered by Saddam’s goons or being murdered by one of the many factions in Iraq today?

Yes- you are technically correct that there weren't many terrorist attacks when Sadaam was in power.

Thats because the terrorists were in power.

Hyuck! That's funny, so when America was selling weapons to Saddam they were arming a terrorist! It's good that you can admit that.

So then I can say that it only bothers you when Iraqis are killed by Saddam, anyone else doesn't bother you?

Before we start piling up too many bodies at W's feet, has anyone stopped to consider how many of his own people Sadaam executed? Yes, I know "That was never given as a reason to go to war", but during WWII the extermination of European Judaism was never given as a reason to defeat Hitler, it was just a happy byproduct of removing a perverse despot. The same can be said of Sadaam

Sigh.

You are correct, CY.

Liberalism is indeed a "persistent vegetative state"

Exhibit A: "Salvage"

Ah the "we armed Saddam" canard.

Yeah, and we allied with the Soviets against the nazis also.

And at the time we "armed" saddam (also a falacy and not historically accurate) there was a little thing called the Islamic Revolution going on next door. It was sort of a priority at the time. And Saddam's mass murdering rampage and subsequent turn to jihadist language and training of his fedayeen (you know, the guys we are pretty much fighting now)didnt get into full swing until the 80s.

But like all liberals, you think in a completely historical vaccum and are incapable of seeing beyond your "getBushIhaterepublicansDemocratswillsavehumanityfromevil" prism.

What sad little people you all are.