I wasn't labeling all who question mass immigration policies right-wing extremists, David. (Sorry, I should probably phrase that: "Do you really think I was labeling all who question mass immigration policies right-wing extremists, David? Do you, David?") Nor do I even think many of the working-class Brits who voted for the BNP are that either. The term "protest vote" exists for a reason, even if that sounds euphemistic in this case.

The point I intended was that Labour's failure to adequately discuss demographics in Britain (Tony Blair's capitulation to radical imams in London did not help his party's chances in the North) is in part to blame for the electoral success of an out-and-out fascist, neo-Nazi group. The mainstream left has succumbed to p.c.stupefaction; it's learned nothing since the days of Enoch Powell's "Rivers of Blood" speech, which took the tone of Nick Griffin but also anticipated many of the problems we see today.

I would not do you the dishonor of mischaracterizing your argument here as apologetics for the BNP, but I would direct you to any number of articles written about them to see just how dire Sunday's results are for the UK, the EU, and everyone else.

"What do you call what's above the subtext?" "The text." "Okay, that's right, but they never talk about that." -Barcelona

You've been around how long and haven't hipped to the fact that I'd sooner post about our hothouse office environment using actual names?

Will take credit for the painting pairing, though. Thanks. 

Well, it'd be libel, not slander (unless I went on TV and repeated the above), but I don't  think it amounts to even that. His islet cell cancer is now established fact, and surely speculating as to its severity is all we have to go on thanks to Apple's reticence on the matter. Kennedy, by contrast, was very forthcoming about his prognosis, as well he should have been given that he's a prominent legislator. Also -- and not that this is exactly comparable -- weren't we all curious as to John McCain's questionable health when he ran for president?

That's exactly what I was going for, too.

The simple answer is: American slavery preceded the Democrat and Republican parties.

But the surge wasn't just an increased number of troops -- this was the big misconception put forth when it was announced. More troops would have done nothing without a comprehensive new war strategy, which indeed has been put into effect to great benefit. If you can defer to what the majority of editorialists think about Bush, then allow me to defer to what most long-term observers of Iraq -- particularly Dexter Filkins of the NYT -- have admitted: namely, Petraeus's breathtaking success. While you're right to note that the Anbar Awakening and Maliki assist contributed to the overall drop in violence, those two things still wouldn't have been enough with the coalition's about-face.

The Status of Forces Agreement, signed by the Iraqi government, does, you're right, work toward the end of a U.S. military presence in Iraq. But there's every indication that we'll stay in country in some capacity well beyond the designated leave-date of 2011. See Gen. McCaffery's "after action" memo, or Eli Lake's piece in TNR about what Sofa really entails: http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=3692c736-406c-4ee1-9bb9-4ec6cc...

al Qaeda ops have access to bubonic plague

yeah, that was the sun's claim, but eli's source says it's bogus. whatever it is -- anthrax, ricin -- still chilling that they've got some.

 

The comment was deleted.

The IDF on Tuesday released video footage from 2007 showing Palestinian militants firing from the school compound and carrying a rocket launcher with them as they fled the scene.

Gunness said the 2007 video bears no connection to Tuesday's military strike on the school.

But do you not see how this doesn't bear comparison with France 2's mistake, which mis-dated the images as having come from the present when they came from the past? There is no indication in the above that the IDF tried to pass off 2007 video as 2008 video; indeed Gunness's response derives from the accurate timestamp.

What this does signal is a weak or insufficient defense of IDF military operations; i.e. "Look, Hamas has done this before, here's proof. Of course they'd do it again."

Well damn you all to hell for making me go out on a limb! (So to speak.)