Margolis was speaking from the perspective of a right-wing nutjob when he called the French "insubordinate." He was just saying that the reason the French are hated among "conservatives" is because they don't sit and roll over on command.

But maybe that's all changed, as you point out, in which case Hannity and friends can maybe go back to eating french fries and drinking French wine.

I've noticed the same thing re: Pat Buchanan. My guess is there's some kind of cognitive dissonance going on with people like him and Scheuer: on the one hand, they're critics of the current American power establishment; but on the other, they're kneejerk "patriots" who feel a need to defend the United States from attack, verbal or otherwise.

Anyone else confused here? Our foreign policy is the root of the problem, so we need to do a better job with our military assault along the Afghan-Pak border--oh, and torture some more people, at least until we figure out something better to do. I thought in the beginning he said we should just get the hell out.

I love when leftists resort to telling libertarians to "grow up." It's pretty ironic, considering that it's coming from people who want to cede responsibility for their own well-being to the state. And the argument that you benefit from some aspects of the state so therefore you're a hypocrite if you advocate against the state is incredibly lame. I guess that means if you're a leftist who's opposed to American foreign policy you should just keep your mouth shut--because, you know, you probably drive a car which uses oil which is relatively cheap and plentiful thanks to the US Army keeping the middle east safe for western oil companies. (Come to think of it, maybe that does explain the left's--the mainstream left, anyway--noticeable lack of protest over the escalation in Afghanistan.)

Oh, and Chris, Anthony actually hasn't offered a single criticism of any of your ideas. His supposedly greater life experience is apparently a sufficient substitute for an actual argument.

You're not missing anything. The bank robber was hired by the people who are currently running the bank, so of course they're not going to press charges against him. That's the point--to rob the bank. I guess they could be a little more subtle about it, though.

Before you get yourself killed fighting for the interests of America's corporate-financial-political elite scumbags, get yourself a copy of A Rumor of War by Philip Caputo and read it. He joined the marines in the early 60s, all gung ho to fight for his "country," and was part of one of the first combat units to arrive in Vietnam. He came back (luckily) more than a bit disillusioned as to the purpose of that war. There's a word for all this silliness about "fighting to protect your freedoms"--it's called propaganda.

I read an article today at the website True/Slant by a progressive who's annoyed that Afghanistan is back in the news because it's changing the subject from the all-important healthcare debate. The writer thinks the Republicans are behind it--or, at least, they're opportunistically embracing it. He actually referred to Afghanistan as a "distraction." If this guy's mindset is any indication of where the "progressives" stand (of course, we're talking about the mainstream, Obamanoid variety), then they're just as morally bankrupt as their "conservative" counterparts.