The Daily Kos is ranked #3 for traffic in the Ecosystem. In other words, it's a hugely popular liberal site.
You would expect its readers to be anti-Bush and cheering on the Democratic Presidential candidates.
But, should we expect a mainstream democratic sight to include this sentiment from a commentor?
To give credit where credit is due, the Iraqi resistance is doing their job, and doing it increasingly well. Though now they have to maintain it-, for as long as it takes.I've said it before, and I'll say it again: It's important for the world, and important even for the U.S.A. in the long run, even if you can't see beyond the partisan "sentiment" of the moment, that Amerika lose this one. An Amerika that succeeds at what it is doing in the Middle East, and in the way it chooses to do it, becomes an even bigger and more dangerous problem.
Surely this is an abberation, right? I mean Kos does get a ton of comments. Maybe he doesn't moderate them?
Actually, I can tell you for a fact that Kos does monitor comments, delete comments, and ban people from commenting. I'm proud to say it's the one site that has banned me from posting comments. Apparently, they are not interested in hearing any opinion that does not agree their own. As Kos told me himself at the time, his site is, "by liberals and for liberals." I love the tolerance of the left, don't you!
Note also the comments are rated, and this poster, Canuck Coot gets high marks for his anti-American wishes. In fact, it's the highest rated comment out of 181 of them.
Surely the poster above didn't get any support for stating it's important that America lose in Iraq, right? Let's read the next comment, shall we?
I agree...if the US doesn't get taught this lesson AGAIN, we're just going to become more aggressive. That's the dangerous thing about Bush, his arrogance and stupidity knows no bounds. If we'd succeeded in Iraq, then it would be on to Syria and then Iran. Eventually we'd work ourselves up to North Korea.This is not a defense of those countries, but the point is, at some point we WOULD bite off more than we could chew (it would be NK if the shit didn't hit the fan before that). In the long run the damage and suffering both to our soldiers, our economy and the PEOPLE of those countries would be greater, than if we just fail in Iraq. As bad as dictators are, they're still better than anarchy, especially when it's just anarchy for a short period before ANOTHER dictator rises up.
Do you see a trend here? Now, which poster does draw the ire of Kos readers?
"If we'd succeeded in Iraq, then it would be on to Syria and then Iran. Eventually we'd work ourselves up to North Korea.'Well, I hope so. Those are dangerous rogue states that will pose a threat to the United States regardless of which party is in charge.
Let's bring democracy and peace to them as well.
And what response do we get to the suggestion to bring democracy and peace to dangerous roque states?
Charlie, you're a neocon and you don't even know it. From everything that you've ever posted here, I can't imagine why you even want to be a Democrat.I try not to jump your case because we need every vote, but for goodness sake, do you ever read what you type?
Let's bring democracy and peace to them as well.
Now, I am very tired, and perhaps I am missing your sarcasm here, but I've never known you to have the capacity for sarcasm, and frankly, it wouldn't be the first time you said the most f-----g stupid thing in the world.
If you can stand to read the whole thread, you'll find it here.
I'm actually speechless. Forty thousand hits a day, with readers who agree and endorse the concept that America needs to lose the war. It's indefensible to wish defeat on your country, and by default on your soldiers, because you don't agree with the current President.
DC
Link via Citizen/LT Smash
P.S. Note the disclaimer on the front page that Kos does work for Dean.
Comments