OT: Via Bros. Judd:

Seems Condi's boots prefer to walk somewhere else...

U.S. secretary of state delays trip to Ottawa
CTV.ca News Staff

The ripple effect created when Canada said 'no' to signing on to U.S. missile defence seems to have penetrated deeper south of the border than first believed.

CTV News has learned that U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was so displeased by Canada's decision to opt out of the program that she's postponed a planned visit to Ottawa in mid-April....

That was Ed Kilgore.

Talking about Lebanon.

What if we held a revolution and the usual suspects don't show up?

Oh right, we are and they aren't.

Check this piece written by good ole Josh in April 2003:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2003/0304.marshall.html

I read it today and fell on the floor laughing. It has to really suck to be on the left these days.

Actually, Josh's post pretty much sums up all the Dems and the left in general have left. They're going to fall back on the "accident of history" argument, as they tried, unsuccessfully, to do with Reagan. It's perfect left-think: it's wrong, it didn't work last time, and we get to repeat it over and over and over...

Has he even read the quotes from the Lebanese themselves who say the Iraqi elections were their inspiration for these actions?

What the hell does Walid Jumblatt know about Lebanese politics? Josh Marshall can tell us everything we need to know!!!!

As psst notes above, that post is from Ed Kilgore, a guest blogger. This little mix-up has happened a few times before to other bloggers when referring to TPM; I wish they would make the guest bloggers more easily identifiable (like at Dean's World).

Besides, the only way Josh Marshall would talk about Lebanon is if they tried to reform Social Security.

Yep, in Josh Marshall's world, Clinton had more to do with what's happening in Lebanon than Bush 2. I agree with the aforementioned statement: it must suck to be on the left.

Not only is his excuse lame, it is also rather telling...

He apparently posts only on things that he believes reflect on GWB. How sad is that?

All you need to know about Josh Marshall is that he calls his site Talking Points Memo without any apparent irony.

Pixy Misa,

I beg to differ. All you need to know about Marshall is what you said and that he defended Clinton even after the pardons and continues to defend and support him now.

Someone that stupid doesn't deserve to be taken seriously.

Ah, yes, the self-correcting blogosphere.

Let's try again.

That was Ed Kilgore.

So what if it's Kilgore's piece? It's on Marshall's site. If either of my cobloggers were to say something so boneheadedly stupid (fat chance!), I'd either take down the post, or argue against it on my own website.

Marshall needs to disown this thing. As it stands now, it stands with his endorsement.

Josh complains about not receiving email from Republicans. Perhaps this is some kind of roundabout insult, but I am not quite sure what it is... He must think that it means that we are not smart enough to disagree with his brilliant PhD level blogging, so we don't even try, or something along those lines. However, I think it probably comes down to the fact that there is not point in trying to reason or argue with a blind-party-line idealogue like him.

I stopped reading his site a year ago, when he posted a note of surprise that fewer than expected republicans responded to his survey. I sent him a note, saying I read his site, but was disappointed at the lack of non-democratic party line approved viewpoints, and I was for this reason a less intent reader. This also, I opined, would account for fewer right leaning regulars. He responded that I should keep my opinions to himself, and that he had plenty of GOP readers.

That was about the last time I visited his site with any regularity. I am reassured of this, now that it is a full time Social Security Is Not A Crisis site, seemingly a ticker for the democratic party news organization.

The post was by Ed Kilgore, and there's a significant point that was left out of your excerpt:

"This is a president and an administration that chronically refuse to accept responsibility for the bad things that have happened on their watch--even things like the insurgency in Iraq that are directly attributable to its policies."

Now perhaps this president deserves credit for what's happening in Lebanon, but let's also give him credit for everything he's done wrong in Iraq--and elsewhere. Credit where credit is due. And if Lebanon spirals down again into civil war (let's hope not), will he deserve credit for that as well?

"So what if it's Kilgore's piece? It's on Marshall's site. If either of my cobloggers were to say something so boneheadedly stupid (fat chance!), I'd either take down the post, or argue against it on my own website.

Marshall needs to disown this thing. As it stands now, it stands with his endorsement."

That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

".. this note from Josh Marshall ..."

Who, to reiterate, is not Ed Kilgore.

No, praktike, your last post is the dumbest thing you have ever heard.

....gosh, what an advanced form of rhetorical skill!

Just curious here... how is the insurgency directly attributable to Bush's policies? What alternate policy would have avoided the problem?

Secondly, I rarely hear anyone claiming that Bush hasn't made mistakes. It's just that one side sees war as an inherently and unavoidably mistake filled activity and the other demands perfection. One side understands the vital importance of confident leadership and the other prefers self-abasement. (And praise God those folks aren't in charge of our military.)

Thirdly, on topic, I doubt anyone is claiming that there are not other factors involved in Lebanon, after all, if the conditions were not right, nothing Bush could do would force a change. But the conditions were right. Part of those conditions are the other events going on in the region. Does Syria have other concerns than Lebanon just now that would make it less likely they intervene? What might those concerns be?

No, Reagan is not single-handedly responsible for the end of the Cold War. I believe there was a Pope and some workers in Poland who had a hand in it as well. What if there was a Pope but no workers? Workers but no Pope? What if there hadn't been Reagan?

What if there was no Bush, but instead Gore, to take a criminal prosecution approach to combating terrorism and Saddam was still in power, defying sanctions while the US ineffectively blustered to show how serious we are while the whole world is secure in what they learned from Clinton, which is that the US simply has no ability to follow through on any show of force. (Empahsis on "show.")

Would people in Lebanon have the confidence to stand up to Syria then?

Why can't Josh Marshall admit we're winning? because he is an unprincipled partisan hack who in a battle between a ruthless terror sponsoring dictator and a Republican President, would rather see the dictator win. Josh Marshall can't say "we're" winning the war because the side he's on isn't winning. Sadly among democrats these days he's the norm rather than the exception.

Yes, that was a partisan hack statment also, the difference is I'm open about my partisan hackery, and I'm partison on the side fighting terrorists rather than the side obstructing for them.

Rememeber, folks: to Josh Marshall and Ed Kilgore and their coreligonists, totalitarianism isn't bad... America is. To them, Saddam Hussein or the Baathist/Sunni Resistance aren't bad or wrong... George Bush is. To them, Democracy isn't good... Democrats are.

Understand those ideas, and Kilgore's post (and Marshall's silent approval of it) make more sense.