What "Traditional" bodies of scrutiny are you referring to?  This is another example of what I'm talking about.  How about a quick look at American history:

The War of 1812 was declared almost in a moment of congressional passion.  A few decades later, we unilaterally invaded Mexico and conquered a significant percentage of its territory which we then annexed.  A few decades after that, a media invented "outrage" against Spain helped push congress to unilaterally declare war on Spain (1898), conquer Cuba and The Philipines, and take those territories from Spain.  Another couple decades later we declared war on Germany and sent hundreds of thousands of Americans to their deaths in a war that really had no point at all.  The list of unilateral actions goes on and on.

But suddenly, it's "unprecedented" that after 12 years of internationally made resolutions against Iraq, after countless provocations that the US would send in troops to topple the regime and replace it with another?  The only way it's unprecedented was that the US put so much effort into trying to form a consensus.  There certainly was no such effort in 1988 when the US invaded Panama, captured its leader and now has him in a prison cell in Florida and then installed a new government.

I'm not saying that the left-wing position on the war in Iraq is "wrong".  I am saying that those who argue the left-wing position seem completely devoid of any sort of historical knowledge on US foreign policy and actions. 

Let me give you a few more common examples:

When I see left-wingers rage against the Patriot Act, for instance, I have to wonder how much of the actual act they've read (versus talking points from other left wingers who have not read the Patriot Act).  I wonder how many of them have bothered to note the senate vote on the Patriot Act (overwhelming support by both parties).

When I see see left-wingers rage against Bush not supporting the Kyoto Treaty one has to wonder if they're even aware that the senate had already voted 95-0 against the treaty -- when Clinton was in office.  And when they take global warming as an article of faith, one has to wonder if they've actually looked at the actual theory and looked at the actual atmospheric temperatures.  I wonder if they're aware that things like the Eugenics theories of the 19th century were also considered to be "factual".    I wonder how many of them have bothered to read the Kyoto Treaty in the first place or looked at what the projected "results" of such a Treaty, if implemented, would be in its best-case scenario?

And like I mentioned in my previous comment, when someone starts talking about the "Far right wing" administration and their "far right wing agenda" I wonder what agenda would that be?  Domestic policy? Definitely not. At best, it's moderate to slightly liberal.  Foreign policy? It's not anywhere near as interventionist as Clinton or Wilson or Johnson's were.

Or how about "tax cuts for the rich"?  It would be nice if those screaming about tax cuts had a basic idea of what percentage of the taxes are paid by different income brackets.  It would be nice if they knew about the kinds of games the mega-rich play to get around the income taxes in the first place (look at John Edwards' tax filings as well as John Kerry's -- they both averaged paying less than 20% of their net income in taxes in the past 4 years and we're not even getting into Theresa Heinz Kerry's tax returns which aren't public for obvious reasons). 

Or when people here on JU claim that the tax cuts are what are causing "record deficits".  In what way are they "record"? In raw dollars? Well duh, when talking raw dollars you might as well start pointing out that when your father was young he could go to the movies for a nickel. You have to talk about as a % of GDP to have any sort of meaningful comparison.  And how much of the deficit is caused by the tax cuts given that the "record deficits" began before the tax cuts became effective on any sort of meaningful scale.

Or how about the basic lack of economic understanding money spent is still money spent.  That is, a wealthy person spending money is still an economic investment just as the government giving away money to people. The difference is that the wealthy person probably has more skill in spending that money in ways that will generate more wealth than the Washington drone who is just sending out checks without any regard to how well it's being spent (hence why billions are lost in Medicare/Medicaid fraud each year -- what does the government care? it's not their money, they didn't have to work to earn it).

Just to reiterate, there are LOTS of fine points in the leftist ideology.  The problem is that, ON-LINE, the champions of it seem to be lacking in understanding of those points.  They just regurgitate talking points and when confronted with counter-arguments they get nasty and have little to say but personal attacks and venom. When the discussion gets deeper then what's provided in talking points, too many left-wingers are out of ammunition and it's frustrating. At that point they're left with just insults to hurl which usually get responded to in kind and the discussion ends.

Since Dabe responded in this discussion, let me use one of her own articles as an example:

http://dabe.joeuser.com/articleComments.asp?AID=69937

In it, she poses how greedy and evil and "discompassionate" (sic) "Neocons" are.  To which I posed a bunch of questions on this.  The response? A bunch of mindless flames and rhetoric of "people getting rich off the backs of the working class" (I mean, in a country as wealthy as the United States, what the heck does that even mean? It's not like we have large segments of the population toiling in underground sugar mines for a shiny nickel per day while the owner of the mine converts the dead and injured into a personal hair tonic or something).

All too often, a talking-point filled rant by a left winger is provided. Specific questions that ask the writer to think deeper on the issue is raised by the right of center response, and the left winger simply retorts by hurling insults and responding with vitriol.

It's a lot like debating with one of those fanatical evangelical Christians who, when backed into a corner, starts quoting the bible.  When I debate evolution with someone who believes in "creationism" (or "Intelligent Design") I run into the same kind of thing. Eventually I get a bunch of insults hurled at me and references back to the bible as if that's proof enough. "The fact is, the bible is the word of God and that's all the proof I need" is the kind of stuff they'll send.   I'll give the religious zealots one thing -- at least they've read a book.

I don't care if they think they're intellectually superior or not. That's just attitude.  What I am interested in seeing is SUBSTANTITIVE discussion.

I wrot ethis article what? 2 days ago? And the left-wing responses here on JU have been what? Largely personal attacks.  Here's what Myrrander wrote:

So just a bunch of empty name calling.  Nothing substantial.  My article isn't just an empty assertion that liberals are ignorant or "irrational". I am simply looking for them to substantiate their impassioned beliefs with some facts and evidence. 

To the on-line liberal, it seems, ridicule, insults, and nastiness substitute themselves for reasoned discourse.

When someone makes an article about how the deficit is bad or that global warming is destroying the earth or that tax cuts are starving children, or whatever. Is it really that much to ask that the article author include some basis for their opinions?

Everyone is entitled to rant. I rant plenty. But once in a great while, it would be nice to see liberal ideology expressed in something more concrete than an emotional tirade.