You’re being deliberately provocative, but I’ll take the bait: it’s disappointing that you claim that liberals are "pain[ed]" by either the death of Zarqawi or the fact that there will be an investigation of Haditha rather than summary dismissal of the issue. It’s the right, not the left, that wants to brush such things under the rug out of a misguided sense of what’s required for national security. But your calumny is not surprising, I suppose, since the liberals you describe exist only in the fevered imaginations of the propogandist Right. Good to be reminded that principles of hermeneutic generosity have rather severe limits.

I feel Brett’s pain but I ain’t gonna hug ’im.

I believe Zarqawi’s death was an oppurtunity for the new government to "turn the tide" ,Even President Bush said , "The ideology of terror has lost one its visible and aggressive leaders".

Well, Julie, how many of your liberal friends have you hugged so far? Tell the truth.

Who did you cop that sophomoric post from, anyway? Limbaugh, Coulter, Malkin?

Brett- Julie’s liberals do exist. Probably not as much as she paints them to, but they do exist.

As a side note, is anyone else amused at the simple acceptance by much of the MSM that the President is the worst ever, or at least in living memory? What I mean is that one can hardly read a news article about any national issue without the obligatory statements about poll ratings, the failing war in Iraq, etc. Regardless of one might think about the Bush Presidency, it is at least amusing to spot them strategically placed. It’s become almost a game to spot them.

Poll ratings are irrelevant for historical judgments. Abe Lincoln wasn’t all that popular, nor was Truman. On the other hand, men who have done real harm to the country (e.g., FDR and Billary) are wildly popular. Bush’s reputation rests on what happens in Iraq, although he needs to come around on immigration.

But your calumny is not surprising, I suppose, since the liberals you describe exist only in the fevered imaginations of the propogandist Right.

Oh, they exist. They’re definitely at the fringe, but there’s a considerable number. Far more than the quack "Clinton had Foster killed" numbers that plagued Republicans last decade.

Interesting article from the Washington Timesdiscussing the "Take back America" rally in D.C. yesterday. Clinton, Kerry, and Pelosi -oh but to have the chance to be there!

It seems as though the Democrats are having a tough time finding a center with ever changing national events. Clinton pro-war (at least until it is politically beneficial to become anti again)? Pelosi and Kerry have at least kept their normal stipes. I find it interesting to note that aside from the Dems gaining access to a crytal ball they will have continued problems in gauging public opinion (or at least using it to their advantage)as the year continues. Advantage Republicans!