I find it sadly ironic that in the days immediately after 9/11, the nations of the Western world were (rightly) united in grief, but that over the last 5 years, our own increasingly hateful and blind adherence to partisan politics (on both the Left and the Right) threatens to rend our nations apart in a way than no terrorist act could ever succeed in doing. Does anyone share these thoughts?

Posted by: A at August 12, 2006 10:24 PM

---

I don't, A.

I remember the bitter anti-Americanism I encountered right after 9/11 all too well.

Unity began to crack by the 12th. The liberation of Afghanistan was opposed by many, as being "all about oil."

How easily we forget.

I never will.

Posted by: Ontario Conservative at August 12, 2006 10:58 PM

---

Sorry A... but while I agree that partisanship can be a problem on both the Left and the Right, the thing that blows me away is how blind the Left has shown itself to be in recent years. Radical Islamist extremism -- not to be confused with Islam in general -- proved itself to be the one thing that will not accept the civil liberties that we have built for ourselves in the Western world, and instead of the Leftists acknowledging that we cannot allow the scope of our liberties to be defined, they have basically ignored the greater threat for blind partisanship.

Leftists scream out about human rights and womens' rights, but when the Western world decided to take on Islamic fascism and bring both to Afghanistan, what did they do? They did not embrace it. They spit upon it. And why? Because they are more concerned about blind partisanship than defending the rights that the West have bled for and trying to spread human rights to those who are oppressed.

The Left has forfeited any right to call itself the defenders of human rights. The Right has that claim. And so long as the Left chooses to attack the Right over the Right's attempt to usurp the power of those who would deny those rights, they have no claim on being champions of human rights.

You are right... blind adherence to partisan politics is tearing this country apart. But it is the Left that hold's the lion's share of the blame for this. Instead of acknowleding the sacrifices that need to be made to conclude the endless attacks on Western society by Islamic fundamentalists and flexed their muscles to push back on those who would dictate our lifestyles to us, they have spent more time attacking the Right.

Perhaps in history -- recent or otherwise -- there was a time the Right could be blamed for blind partisanship... but that time isn't now. Presently, it is the Left that is choosing partisanship over progress.

Posted by: Surecure at August 13, 2006 12:15 AM

---

By the 12th? I think unity had begun to crack within minutes of the first news report on 9/11, when conspiracy nuts across the nation said "It's all George Bush's fault!"

This woman made an odd decision to move to Crawford. Texans aren't known for making media darlings out of melodramatic war-widows. The first thought that came to mind after hearing about her decision was "she isn't going to get much attention or support over there". Looks like I was right.

Let's say she got her way and Bush resigned - then what? Doesn't the VP take over? Does she think Cheney would be less "hawkish"?

I also agree with Surecure; simply because it's politically "neutral" to say that both the "left and right" are responsible for the petty, paralyzing partisan politics, does not actually make it correct. It bothers me that the current Republican party doesn't actually seem to stand for small government, but I'm quite confident that if Democrats had the white house, we would not have Republicans saying that "if we'd been elected, the terrorists would be our friends".

Posted by: Aaron G at August 13, 2006 12:40 AM

---

I'd like to add "Amen" to Surecure's comments above - but that would probably get the left moaning about leaving religious comments out of politics. I would invite the lefties who drop by to spread the party line, to explain how they live with the paradoxes pointed out by Surecure. Just to keep the pot boiling, I'll also toss in gay marriage.

Being in favour of even the most basic human rights for women or the simplest kind of free speech or religious freedom or democracy or gay marriage would get you, at the very least, a severe beating at the hands of the Taliban.

Nor does the msm ever even pause to think about the hypocrisy of the left on these paradoxes.

Posted by: Tom in Mississauga at August 13, 2006 01:48 AM

---

Freedom is something of a never ending struggle. I use to think people that spouted that line were a bit too gung ho for me. SURPRISE. We are in a fight for our freedom right now. There are forces in the world that want total domination, for Islam. Read LGF, Hot Air, Israpundit to get a glimpse of what I'm talking about. The radical Islamists get stronger every day while we, the west,sit on our collective asses. Harper says Israel has a right to defend itself against these people and the left is all over him. I am going on 60 yrs. old and Ive never seen anything like this. We should be shouting from the rooftops " these radicals MUST BE STOPPED". Instead, we're all sitting here like sheep watching a horrible future unfold. I do not have all the answers, but by Jesus ,we should be asking our politicians if they are aware of this and if so,what are they doing about it. I hope I don't sound like a dingbat, but I had to get this off my chest.

Posted by: rick at August 13, 2006 05:52 AM

---

Why do you guys hate Cindy Sheehan so much. Her thing is that she doesn't want more 25 year old Americans to be used as cannon fodder, die for a lie, get blown to smithereens for no reason, etc.

Are you guys really in favor of killing 20 year old Americans for no reason?

I don't get it.

Posted by: word warrior at August 13, 2006 10:28 AM

---

I can speak only for myself. No I do not hate Cindy Sheehan. She runs all over God's golf ball making an ass of herself, so be it. Please don't tell me I am not allowed to laugh at her. Her antics have used up any sympathy I might have had for the loss of her son. As for your last question, who on earth would be? Jesus, Deb, think before you post.

Posted by: Rick at August 13, 2006 11:19 AM

---

And what "lie" would that be, Deb? Toppling Saddam Hussein's regime, one which caused an order of magnitude more deaths than the American occupation? Destroying Saddam's chemical weapons, which after an unfortunately painful delay they have already found the majority of? Perhaps a strategic position in the middle east which is probably the only thing preventing Iran from taking over the region completely?

Surely it's not possible that none of us are in favour of American deaths for "no reason", but consider them to be a necessary sacrifice for freedom and stability. Surely it's not possible that people "hate" Cindy Sheehan not because of her pacifist beliefs, but because she continues to exploit the death of her own son (with whom she heretofore had virtually no relationship) for her political goals, and stages a "hunger strike" in which she gains 10 pounds.

Surely not. Or perhaps you're referring to the real lie that the combination of Jihad and pan-Islamism isn't a threat to the western world, a lie which has already resulted in countless deaths, and due in part to loons like Sheehan may result in many more?

Posted by: Aaron G at August 13, 2006 12:45 PM

---

"Why do you guys hate Cindy Sheehan so much. Her thing is that she doesn't want more 25 year old Americans to be used as cannon fodder, die for a lie, get blown to smithereens for no reason, etc."

No, her thing is exploiting her dead son's memory and sucking up to leftist dictators to get the attention she so craves.

The woman has blatantly admitted in the past that Casey did not inform her that he was joining the Army and she didn't understand why he did so, indicating she wasn't as close to Casey as she claims. When it came time for him to re-up or separate, he chose to re-enlist DURING THE WAR, in spite of Cindy's claims that he didn't support the mission and her repeated pleas for him not to sign up. She's also admitted that she was unable to emotionally support her children after Casey's death because her own grief was so much greater, despite the fact one of her children had descended into taking solace in alcohol. Really, it's not hard to see why Casey enlisted, and then re-enlisted, in the Army to begin with--he was trying to get away from his narrow-minded, selfish mother.

That folks such as yourself hold up this woman as a paragon of selfless virtue is as damning an indictment of the modern narcissism of the left as ever there was. Anybody who argues that Cindy Sheehan is doing this out of concern for the troops and not out of concern for nurturing her own cult of personality is either a fool or a liar, plain and simple. That you would stick up for her is hardly a surprise.

Posted by: Chris at August 13, 2006 10:06 PM

---

Deb knows who you are now. You are not going to get away with any of your crap. The fact is that when one OBSESSES like her you start to imagine and hallucinate things. I first got introduced to her, as most Canadians did, through her beautiful "Essay" to us preachign how we all hate Stephen Harper. I am asorry but everythign that she said was complete crap and a lie. I swear she was not even in my country. I had to check ater tht that I WAS even still in MY country. like seriously eventually you just dont listen to the pathalogical liar anymore.

Posted by: Deepthinker at August 14, 2006 01:20 AM

---

Just the mention of Sindy Sheehan draws the wackos out-
Word Warrior- the post above, is no other than Debbie Frisch (google Deb Frisch), the blog terrorist.

I thought her restraining order would have gotten her to cool the blog replies- wrong.
Watch out, as she is know to threaten kids, if you cross her.

Posted by: Dwainj at August 14, 2006 07:38 AM

---

Word Warrior is slowly twisting in the wind as her date with Colorado justice approaches. Turn, baby, turn.

Her only defense is "teh crayzee"

And so she trolls and posts.

Posted by: Air Buster at August 14, 2006 10:33 PM

---

debbie is sure as hell no 'doctor'. All one has to do is read anything she writes or listen to her speak for it to be proved. She pulled some scam on someone at some PN university and got handed something resembling a phd...no one at that university will admit to being the one who gave it to her though.
Hey debbie...had any more chances to tell someone with 2 and 3 year old boys that you, Auntie moonbat, wants to give 'em a kiss, with lots of saliva, lately?

Posted by: craven at August 14, 2006 11:24 PM

---