Blogslapping the Thin-Skinned Right

[I left the following comment at an obsessively long anti-Sheehan screed at Blogs for Bush titled Bush Lied!!! And Other Leftwing Fantasies. I am reproducing it here, because the moderator has decided not to post it.]

From the OP:

You see, the people who believe conspiracy theories about the war might seem like laughable lunatics to most of us....

Mark, you seem to ignore the conspiracy theories permeating through the right wing narrative of recent history. The architects of the Iraqi invasion were convinced that Saddam had WMD and was tricking the weapons inspectors. So convinced that Saddam was conspiring with terrorists to hit us that they pulled the inspectors out early and commenced Shock & Awe.

Do I think Bush lied? No. I believe he sincerely made a mistake. But I don't believe that the entire intelligence community and every intelligence officer was deluded by imaginary stockpiles. The "Bush lied" crowd is misdirecting their anger, because they are apparently under the false impression that Bush will take responsibility for the mistakes of the agencies he oversees.

[The end of the GWOT] would likely already be here save for those Americans who have by their actions ranged themselves on the side of the terrorists.

I don't believe you have sufficiently argued this point. Evidence of a Fifth Column movement in this country is so fragmented as to be laughable. I would hazard a guess that protests in this country that are targeted at ending war are far less effective at emboldening the enemy than images of dead Iraqis and Afghanis on Al Jazeera.

As regards the military actions we are engaged in, no sensible American possessed of the facts can dissent from the desire for absolute military victory.

Our military leaders have not defined an end game scenario for Iraq or what they continue to call the GWOT. Even if we follow the one you outline, concerning state sponsors of terror, how can we all be sure that "amateur" terrorists will not strike our urban centers? Unlike our own military actions, which require tax revenue and a sophisticated infrastructure, history has proven that terrorist acts only require "four guys in a gym in Leeds" as Juan Cole put it.

For the fool who's driving a car bomb into Baghdad, this might not make much a difference...but for the mullah in Tehran who set the driver on his way, it makes a huge difference.

Got proof?

And finally, your use of the term "Islamo-fascist" exposes, even more fully, your inability to effectively comment on these matters. It is a disgusting term meant to conflate Salifist extremists with mass murdering dictators. This isn't the Cold War, Mark. Wake up.

[You can view B4B's comment policy here. I don't believe the above to be the least bit more "nonsensicle" than Mark Noonan on any given day.]

Update: More on civility. More deleted comments. Unfortunately, I didn't save the final versions before they were sucked down the memory hole. C'est la vie.

---