HaloScan.com - Comments

That interpretation of McCain's comments is almost as dense as those conservative interpretations of your support for outing Senators. Geez. He didn't say that at all.
Jeremy | Homepage | 10.20.06 - 10:11 am | #

Circular reasoning and incoherant rambling are the only tools the GOP has left to keep the voters distracted and confused.
anon. | 10.20.06 - 10:13 am | #

The old maxim comes to mind:

Every country gets the government it deserves.

Could someone please tell me how we as a nation screwed up so badly we actually deserve this?
yankeependragon | 10.20.06 - 10:15 am | #

The phyiscal cowardice of these guys really hits me. People ran to the recruiting office after Pearl Harbor. People joined in large numbers when they thought they would be fighting Osama in Afghanistan, now in Iraq, not so much.

These idiots are so arrogant. They genuinely believe being a 101st keyboarder makes them too critical to be cannon fodder. Bullshit. The war is bullshit. If they genuinely thought Iraq was a life and death struggle of freedom and tyranny, even these cowards might sign up. They don't. Their rhetoric is empty, their actions are just as shallow.
trifecta | 10.20.06 - 10:15 am | #

By "this", I mean clowns like Bush, Cheney, McCain, and the rest.
yankeependragon | 10.20.06 - 10:16 am | #

That interpretation of McCain's comments is almost as dense as those conservative interpretations of your support for outing Senators. Geez. He didn't say that at all.

As I said, what he described was largely incoherent, which is why I said that this was McCain's plan as best as I can tell.

But since you claim that I got it wrong, tell me what his plan is, then? He said that in order to win, we need 100,000 more troops that we don't have. What is his plan for how to get them or how to win without them? Describe what he said and I'll be happy to post a correction.
Glenn Greenwald | 10.20.06 - 10:19 am | #

Jeremy

And since you understand his "straight talk" so well what does he exactly expect is going to happen? No draft needed, no troops available... where the soldiers are going to come from? Outer space? Parallel dimension? New Bush magic power? Cloning of Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly?

Just curious you know, please enlighten us...
Kimba1970 | 10.20.06 - 10:23 am | #

Glenn:

I literally don't know whether to laugh or cry. That putz is from my state, and I still hear every day what a splendid maverick he is, how he's his own man, and a fighter, etc., etc. How scheming, mendacious, and just plain dumb does he have to be before anyone but you will call him what he is?
William Timberman | 10.20.06 - 10:24 am | #

I'd expect more from McCain given his military background. Yesterday, I was sent a podcast of an enraged, distraught wife and mother who learns her husband is being deployed to Iraq.

I urge you to listen to it and take a moment to assess what has happened to this country and why are hurting our own?

http://www.wildvoice.com/MySite/...42/ Default.aspx

It is really powerful and made me cry.

McCain, Bush, Cheney and all the rest of them should take a gut check moment and listen to this women. Their views and policies are hurting people on the left and the right.
nsmiley78 | 10.20.06 - 10:25 am | #

When one worships Die Partei Republikkkanische all things are possible--they're magic, you see.

If you need 100,000 troops for a war and the public is neither volunteering nor being conscripted, where do they come from?

That's Glenn's post. McCain's babble is part and parcel of an over-hyped, pre-senile dribble-bucket whose days of gory were spent picking lint out of his navel in a Hanoi prison.
Johnny Wendell | Homepage | 10.20.06 - 10:26 am | #

JW: ...days of gory...

That's the most inspired typo I've seen in weeks. John McCain should be forced to write it a thousand times on a blackboard before he does his next interview.
William Timberman | 10.20.06 - 10:33 am | #

CLAP HARDER, DAMMIT!
r€nato | Homepage | 10.20.06 - 10:34 am | #

John McCain has a plan: If you can't win the war, the only way to avoid losing it is to prolong it. This man is widely respected in the United States. Scary.

He must have been gratified to see how many advocates of our continuing adventure in Iraq would be staying home, choosing not to march into the meat grinder. They need to stay alive to provide support McCain and the rest of the bloodthirsty crew as they drive the country further down into its destiny. These are the future chickenhawks, who will provide vital support for our future aggression.

All that potential in the audience, asked to make life-and-death choices under the guidance of two idiots.
McCain't | 10.20.06 - 10:37 am | #

There's never been any coherence between the pro-war crowd's rhetoric and its actions. This is the great battle for our civilization, they say, it's WWIII, but we'll do it on the cheap, with too few troops. There's no need to even discuss a draft, and the only sacrifice we ask of the people (other than those already committed to the volunteer army) is that they go shopping.

It's a bit like believing that tax cuts pay for themselves.

Do these people actually believe their own rhetoric? Is it that they're incapable of selling anything but a free lunch?

It's like the girl in my daughter's grade school who ran for president of the class on a platform of "Recess all day long, and no homework". Our political leadership is no better.
lewp | 10.20.06 - 10:40 am | #

McCain's babble is part and parcel of an over-hyped, pre-senile dribble-bucket whose days of gory were spent picking lint out of his navel in a Hanoi prison.

Mr. Wendell,

I'm not going to defend what McCain is doing now, but I'd like to point out that minimizing what he may have suffered as a POW using language like this does nothing to enhance your argument.
JTL | 10.20.06 - 10:42 am | #

We will eventually have a population large enough that we will be able to conjure up the extra 100,000 needed...population growth and a population that needs something to do to earn a living. Since we are never going to leave Iraq, we just wait it out until we have enough people. perhaps this is why the GOP is so intent on destroying the middle class, they need to fill up the ranks.

Or, we won't have a draft, we'll just offer solid gold houses to everyone who walks into a recruiting station and agrees to go fight over there.
roondog | 10.20.06 - 10:42 am | #

McCain's message for 2008:
The Democrats lost China.
The Democrats lost Tibet.
The Democrats lost Korea.
The Democrats lost Vietnam.
The Democrats lost Iraq.
Our military is the world's best.
So, if we lose, it must be because:
the USA was stabbed in the back.
If only we'd listened to McCain in 2006!
sysprog | 10.20.06 - 10:43 am | #

Remember, according to Bush, Cheney, numerous conservative congressman, and various neo-con pundits, we are in a war that represents the greatest threat to American civilization. Our very lives are at stake here. Hell Glenn, you wrote all about it yesterday (and brilliantly as always).

And yet McCain says: "But I guarantee you, if these young people felt that this nation was in a crisis and we asked them to serve, virtually every one of them would stand up because I have the greatest confidence in the young people of America"

Which leads one to ask the following questions: 1.) Does McCain actually NOT believe this is a nation in crisis right now?; 2.) How much worse does he believe this "crisis/GWOT" must get before his prediction comes true?
Super Steve | 10.20.06 - 10:44 am | #

100,000 troops should be able to fix any problem. 100,000 sounds big, powerful, and who could disagree.

500,000 troops couldn't "fix" Vietnam. Nothing but withdrawal will "fix" Iraq.
nuf said | 10.20.06 - 10:45 am | #

JTL: McCain's entire raison d'etre as a politician is based in his harrowing experience as a POW.

Really, that's where the boomer adulation comes from, let's get real.

People wonder how anyone could have endured such a horrible stretch. And so, they believe it imbued McCain with some kind of tremendous gravitas.

In reality, he has become a complete candyass in the last 6 years, voting with Bush 90% of the time, never talking his lips off the RR's ass.

Kerry was a war hero as well and look what it got him.
Johnny Wendell | Homepage | 10.20.06 - 10:46 am | #

i don't even know what these guys mean by "win" and "victory"....
selise | Homepage | 10.20.06 - 10:49 am | #

"Waiting for a big thunderbolt from the sky to strike down the Insurgents seems like a more probable and rational plan."

That's plan "B".
Plan "C" is to erect a large "somebody else's problem" field and ignore Iraq.
See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Som...s_Problem_field
afterthought | 10.20.06 - 10:49 am | #

Yeah Jeremy.

Tell us what McCain meant since you seem to be so clear on it.
AJ | 10.20.06 - 10:52 am | #

What I find really interesting is that McCain himself didn't take the opportunity to do a little recruiting for the military.

He's a veteran. Everyone knows it. How hard is it to say to the audience:

"I think a lot of you would enjoy and benefit from a military career. We need your help to win in Iraq. Please join. If any of you are interested, see me after the program and I will give you a phone number to call. Thank you."

That's the real followup question Matthews needed to ask McCain:

"Senator, why won't you yourself ask people here to voluntarily join the military?"
Alderaan | 10.20.06 - 10:55 am | #

Can one of the lawyers here answer a quick question -- it was raised the other day here but I cannot find the discussion using the search feature. Isn't it in fact the case that the 12th Amendment would prohibit Clinton from being Vice President because he and Hillary are legal residents of the same state?

Because Peter Baker just wrote a whole article on that conservative bogeyman without once mentioning that. And he talked to a bunch of constitutional scholars who mention both the 12th and 22nd Amendment but say nothing about that point.
AJ | 10.20.06 - 10:56 am | #

One of the largest problems McCain doesn't discuss is the huge logistics needed to support 100,000 additional troops.
If you want to take them off track just ask them how much an additional army would cost.
They can't even produce more than 48 armored Hummers a month.
Unfortunately, NeoCons will only want to prosecute the war with more exotic weapons because they see power as the only true path to victory.
brainfaht | 10.20.06 - 10:56 am | #

From Jeremy at 10:11am:

He didn't say that at all.

Glenn simply responded to exactly what McCain stated in the transcript.

If there's some super-secret GOP code being used here, please either translate for us or provide us the cypher key.

Otherwise, can we please just say the Senator was giving off methane from his backside and be done with it?
yankeependragon | 10.20.06 - 11:00 am | #

Well as to Matthews wondering why so many in the crowd stood up in support of the war and yet so few stood up to say they were joining the military in order to join the glorious fight the answer is a simple one. The vast majority of those that stood up in support of the war are Cons and very few Cons are willing to put their asses on the line. They would much prefer that the poor fight their wars for them. They are all back-row rah-rahers. Classic chickenhawks.

I am a former Marine myself and I think McCain and all his little brownshirt followers should be demanding a draft if they truly believe in the glorious Iraq War against islamoliberalfascism. We all know why they aren't though...

Even if one is too old to join our nation's military and shoulder a weapon in the great and glorious clash of civilizations, shouldn't those that know how serious the threat is be participating in some real way? Shouldn't Bart and "the Dog" be over in Iraq volunteering to teach monarchial law at an Iraqi law school? Shouldn't shooter242 be over there lending his great insight in some way? And what about Daleyrocks? How old are you daleyrocks? Don't you have anything, any skill you could be using to aide our great warriors that are dying to save our civilization? Surely all of these great thinkers realize the peril we are in and are willing to drop everything to go to Iraq and, in some way, fight the greatest enemy we have ever known! After all none of us will have our stock portfolios if we are dead and is there any doubt that, if the enemy is not engaged and destroyed, we will not all be dead?

We need your help Bart, Dog, Shooter and Daleyrocks! We need you to save us. Won't you answer the call?

.
... | 10.20.06 - 11:05 am | #

The apolitical missus was watching McCain the other day on telly.

"Jesus Christ, he looks old".

Judging by his exegesis on what would constitute a winning strategy in Iraq, his thinking's ancient as well.

Let's say you added 100,000 new pairs of boots. They'd be combat ready for real in how many months? And deploying them?

And with what infrastructure and revenue to pay for same?

He's a bloviating, puling phony. He knows this will never happen.
Johnny Wendell | Homepage | 10.20.06 - 11:07 am | #

Who exactly IS the "enemy" that we're fighting in Iraq? Iraqi insurgents? Surely there's a broad variety of the makeup of the insurgency in different parts of the country.

Kennedy seems to think that we're exclusively fighting Al-Qaida in Iraq. That doesn't seem to make much sense.

Jeff
Jeff Coleman | Homepage | 10.20.06 - 11:15 am | #

yankeependragon

Could someone please tell me how we as a nation screwed up so badly we actually deserve this?

Because we lie to ourselves about ourselves. Until you face the evil you do, and stop it, you'll receive the blow-back from the evil you do.

Some, a tiny sliver, highlights of our moral hypocrisy:

20+ Veto's against condeming aparthied in South Africa. Multiple vetos against nuclear weapons development, testing, the nuclear arms race, chemical & biological weapons, etc. (made all made the more ironic as things are getting further and further out of hand in these areas).

Multiple vetos against resolutions condemning Israel for not allowing NUCLEAR INSPECTORS at their plants. (Yet, Iran, who hasn't attacked anyone in the last 50+ years, is a dangerous regieme...)

But it's really the hypocrisy that gets us in the worst trouble; because people see we don't act like we say they should act, for example:

Fundamentalist Christians in the USA shoot doctors who carry out abortions. They have attempted to ban the teaching of evolution in schools. They approve of, encourage and finance Israel's illegal occupation of Palestinian territory for religious reasons. Even so, the USA lectures countries about religious fundamentalism.

The USA refuses to allow inspectors to examine its chemical or biological weapons facilities. The USA sells arms to regimes that are undemocratic (Saudi Arabia), oppress their minorities (Turkey, Indonesia) or are an occupying power (Israel). The USA spends more on arms than the next six countries put together. Even so, the USA insists on weapons inspections for others, criticises countries like North Korea and Iran (for "gun-running") and inisists on trying (selected) war criminals from other countries.

The USA has supported some of the world's nastiest dictators (Pinochet in Chile, Duvalier in Haiti, the Saudi Arabian royal family). The USA has trained some of the world's nastiest death squads and secret police (El Salvador, the Contras in Nicaragua, the Shah of Iran). The USA has financially and militarilly supported Israel as it terrorises the Palestinian population, takes their land and ethnically cleanses large areas of the West Bank. Even so, the USA criticises countries for "supporting terrorism".

It is illegal in the USA for foreigners to make contributions to political parties or to interfere in the USA elections. Even so, the USA pumps money into favoured candidates in many countries around the world. It uses "economic coersion" to ensure that the USA's favoured candidate wins. It will also appoint the members of a country's government to put a "local face " onto an occupation.

And that doesn't include our 40+ attempts (a huge number of them successful) in over-throwing countries since the end of WWII. Including many democracies, such as Iraq and Iran.
Moses | 10.20.06 - 11:16 am | #

I particularly like that "and by the way" change the subject immediately thing. Very polished.
Anonymous | 10.20.06 - 11:21 am | #

I just wanted to congratulate everyone in here for the useless babble that has been bandied back and forth. This is now the 4 billionth time this has been done. It makes no difference whether it is a pro-war chat or an anti-war chat, it has all broken down into a conversation containing the substance as 2 pre-schoolers calling eachother names. The problem is simple, no one knows what the solution is. It is undeniable that Sadam Hussein was a bad man and a dangerous man, but should we have ousted him? I don't know. Am I against the war or for it. To be honest I don't know. Who is our enemy? I don't know. Obviously the majority of people in the countries that we are "enemies" of are probably average decent schmo's like the rest of the world. Their only blame is that they accept their situation. I am sick of the useless chats that never have enough substance to help create a plausible solution and rip others for coming up with unplausible solutions, they aren't constructive and they are just repeats of eachother.
Adam | 10.20.06 - 11:23 am | #

I would think that we could stabilize the Iraqi situation if we could have a 2:1 troop to Iraqi ratio, so perhaps Senator McCain would begin recommending that we increase US forces to about 50 million or so.

With 50 million US troops in Iraq, we should be able to accompany each and every Iraqi throughout their day, in two 12-hour shifts.

Of course, ideally we'd only have 4 hour shifts, which would require 150 million US troops, and that is simply too many to be realistic.

We should probably tell the military to increase recruiting so that we can add those 50 million US troops by, let's say, the end of November.

And also a teleportation device would help, so please ask Senator McCain if he would recommend that, too.
El Cid | 10.20.06 - 11:24 am | #

Concerning Mark Kennedy's remarks, we can at least be pleased by the fact that he is trailing in the polls by a double-digit margin.
Midwest Product | 10.20.06 - 11:25 am | #

The USA has supported some of the world's nastiest dictators (Pinochet in Chile, Duvalier in Haiti, the Saudi Arabian royal family).

Er... you forgot one. Saddam Hussein.

Moses, pointing these things out is not helpful you hate-America-firster you. We are, after all, the "good guys". Just because we did those things you mention does not change that fact. Actually, the mere fact that we did those things makes them acceptable and good, by definition.

.
... | 10.20.06 - 11:26 am | #

Adam, i honestly have no idea what point you are trying to make, but some dem candidate for congress (can't recall which one) recently said, if you drop an egg on the kitchen floor, don't ask me how to put it back together.

there is no good solution, only bad ones. that's what it was a mistake to enter into this little adventure....
howard | 10.20.06 - 11:27 am | #

Jeremy clearly subscribes to the Green Lantern School of Geopolitics - all we need is more "will" and everything will be fine.

Nevermind that it is impossible to FORCE SOME OTHER NATION TO BE DEMOCRATIC, oh no, the impossible can be overcome if we just will it hard enough. (Clap Louder, indeed).

I always want to ask the Jeremys to go stand by the Empire State Building and jump over it. Once they get the "will" together to make that happen, then we'll talk.
LittlePig | 10.20.06 - 11:29 am | #

"The most important thing for Americans to remember about the Iraq War is that the vast majority of U.S. military personnel are serving admirably."

Tim Kane (Heritage Foundation), July 21, 2006.

Makes the heart go pitter-pat.
George | 10.20.06 - 11:31 am | #

I am sick of the useless chats that never have enough substance to help create a plausible solution and rip others for coming up with unplausible solutions, they aren't constructive and they are just repeats of eachother.
Adam | 10.20.06 - 11:23 am | #

But your defense of ambivelence and uncertainty holds a far, far more compelling insight. Here's a hint -- this isn't even talking about the past wrongheadedness of the Iraqi quagmire. This is addressing the current insanity from one of the "respected" leader-types whose entire solution for Iraq (other than "smacking heads together") is to knit together 100,000 soliders we don't have.

What do you propose? You don't know.

There are many of us who see an obvious solution -- get out. You might gnash and wail about it (in absence of having any tangible point of view), but that's a serious proposal. McCain's isn't on any conceivable level.
Jay B | Homepage | 10.20.06 - 11:33 am | #

Adam

"..it makes no difference whether it is a pro-war chat or an anti-war chat.."

To you and your twisted morality maybe, to people with a conscience and a minimum understanding of what is right or wrong it makes a hell of difference..
Kimba1970 | 10.20.06 - 11:33 am | #

Ok Adam.

You say "you don't know" -- so educate yourself.

The you'll realize we have three options basically.

Leave now. Admit defeat and come on home.

Stay the course with troops at the current level -- and let our military forces and the Iraqi people die the death by a thousand cuts.

Up the troop level by another 200,000 (McCain is low-balling what's necessary) and actual make a reasonable attempt at nation-building.

Pick one.
AJ | 10.20.06 - 11:33 am | #

Finally, someone with a plan that improves on "stay the course." El Cid, you're absolutely right. Tell Cheney quick. Hallilburton will supply the hot dogs.
Raptured | 10.20.06 - 11:34 am | #

Adam is just irritated that all of this discussion about silly wars and such is interfering with all the good reporting on who the latest missing white woman is. He is not able to sit comfortably and watch Fox News without being inundated with silly war discussions.

It's tough Adam. I know exactly how you feel. Where has all the fun gone?

.
... | 10.20.06 - 11:36 am | #

Up here in WA-02, we have the brilliant Republican candididate Doug Roulstone's plan for victory in Iraq, as explained to me this morning by our local paper (don't worry, it's a safe Democratic seat):

Regarding the war in Iraq, Roulstone said the U.S. shouldn't leave until after the insurgency dies down, which he thinks will happen after Saddam Hussein's trial. People in Iraq are too scared to turn in people they know are insurgents because they're afraid the U.S. could leave and Saddam would return to power, only to punish them. The trial will show people he won't return, Roulstone said.

"For those people that want us to leave Iraq soon, they're going to have to find somebody other than myself and my opponent to vote for," he said, adding that it's impossible to support the troops and not support their mission. (my emphasis)
bravenewworld | 10.20.06 - 11:37 am | #

McCain -versus- McCain
Who will win the debate?

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/15330717/page/3
MCCAIN: I think that gay marriage should be allowed...

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/15330717/page/4
MCCAIN: ... I do not believe that gay marriages should be legal.
(BOOS)
MATTHEWS: Next question.
MCCAIN: Obviously some disagree with that last comment. Thank you, it‘s nice to see you.
sysprog | 10.20.06 - 11:37 am | #

With Jim Baker going in with the
political EMS brigade looking for
near exits...and like they always
say in airplanes..the nearest one
may be behind you...we know the last
quarter is well started and the USA
is not where it thought the PNAC was
sure we would be at this point. Dick
and Donny still following the NAC
plan and happy talk points.
Coherence? The DC system we now
have hardly bothers to think about
it. Right now the goal is November
7th. The DC GOP Machine is creaking
and throwing sprockets aplenty. The
GOP thinks $100,000,000 or about $33
million a week until Nov.7th will
move the ball towards another GOP
run Congress and a new ink pad for
the GOP auto-stamping of Bush2WH
desires and illusions. Americans are
in for a tough slog now in ME. Under
the best of circumstances invading
Iraq was a dicey idea. Incompetence,
PNAC delusions and GOP end of nose
foresight now having made the dicey
level fully inoperative. It now has
entered into the last helo out
of Saigon realm of reality.
R.Ashen | 10.20.06 - 11:42 am | #

First, I prefer to call our military imperial adventure for what it is: an "occupation" or an "invasion".

The Iraq invasion is without a doubt a criminal action by the United States of America and the only honorable and rational way out is to sue for peace.

I presume that total withdrawal (troops, bases and economic interests) plus the payment of mutually-agreed upon damages to some impartial third party (some kind of UN commission?) to be allocated to relieve the humanitarian crisis and rebuild Iraq would achieve this goal. Plus some kind of apology would be nice, too.

It would not only be the honorable thing to do, but I suspect the most cost-effective way out of the mess we created.

Until a proper peace is agreed upon by all the parties, the United States remain a criminal nation, and all its citizens and assets are de facto targets for legitimate reprisals.

Maybe the Democrats can be the party who successfully sues for peace (under, no doubt, some Orwellian "peace with honor" doublespeak cover) but at this time, I remain skeptical.
Lupin | 10.20.06 - 11:42 am | #

Adam:
I just wanted to congratulate everyone in here for the useless babble that has been bandied back and forth.

Indeed. This looks like a good opportunity to remind everyone that we went in to Iraq to secure WMD's.

The usual response is that there WERE no WMD's, to which I reply "how did you find that out"? At this point, rather than admitting the simple logic of having to go look for ourselves, most will tangent off into "inspections not being allowed to work" or incompetent intelligence.

So Saddam ran a bluff thinking that the US would follow it's usual pattern of fire and forget, and got called.
Now we are in, Saddam is out and sectarian violence is escalating in hopes of scaring out Dems.

It seems to be working. My own view is that we need to stay exactly where we are while Democracy has time to take form philosophically. The end result could be any number of things, but leaving now has easily forseeable consequences.

In the end though there's always one foolproof method of understanding it all.... who would the killers in Iraq vote for?
shooter242 | 10.20.06 - 11:44 am | #

Well,

I think one thing is absolutely clear:

If the Bush administration attempts any attacks on other countries, the backlash will be overwhelming. At that point a draft WILL become necessary.

And hey, if you are able bodied and haven't shown your allegience by "volunteering" for it, maybe you'll be labelled an unlawful enemy combatant.

Who knows, these days. All the rules have changed.
Eric in Ottawa | Homepage | 10.20.06 - 11:44 am | #

One reason so many people stood up in "support" of the troops without committing to join the military is that "supporting the troops" is an abstract concept which doesn't actually mean anything.

People can put yellow magnets on their car or pundits can go on Fox and say "I support the troops" all they want, but just saying "I support the troops" doesn't mean any more than standing by watching a guy get mugged saying "I support you!" while the thieves stab him in the gut and run off with his wallet.

Shouldn't "supporting" the troops actually require giving some type of support? Moral support is important, obviously, but just saying "I support the troops" doesn't actually provide moral support, it's just abstract political code which lets you seem like you're on the "right" side of the war versus the side who "doesn't" support the troops and wants to surrender to the terrorists etc etc.

It's completely Orwellian how "supporting the troops" has come to mean "wanting the troops to stay in Iraq and die" versus "wanting the troops to come home to their families alive".

Jeff
Jeff Coleman | Homepage | 10.20.06 - 11:44 am | #

I wanted to comment on your Thursday post. I thought it was an excellent post and that you explained the feelings of the right perfectly. I must say though that I do not understand. Your arguement seems illogical to me. How are civil liberties useful to dead people? In other words if we keep the current level of civil liberties in spite of the fact that people may die because a terrorist may use those liberties to 'escape'? How well are current civil liberties serving us if we are being killed in spite of them? I understand the Bill of Rights and the 4th ammd. etc, but I am not opposed to the policeman being able to have, at times, more abilities to search for the serial killer because if the serial killer kills me what good was the Bill of Rights to me? Please understand I am not accusing anyone of being unpatriotic or not loving their country, but I honestly don't understand this logic. I am more free when I am dead? In closing I enjoy your blog very much, a liberal friend suggested it to me months ago and in many ways it has helped me to understand other points of view and I look forward to it everyday ! Thanks!
Paul | 10.20.06 - 11:45 am | #

McCain was a cowardly war criminal who rained bombs on the civilian population of North Viet-Nam, whose plane got shot. No war hero in my book.
Lupin | 10.20.06 - 11:45 am | #

I think you miss the KEY point that mccain said. Mccain does not expect to get his 100,000 troops by spontaneous magic. He expects a national crisis to trigger massive military enrollment:

"But I guarantee you, if these young people felt that this nation was in a crisis and we asked them to serve, virtually every one of them would stand up"

In other words, if we just had a national crisis, all our Iraq woes could be solved. This is the essence of the reich wing/republican thinking. They are in search of crisis to complete the militarization of the US. Expect suspension of ALL civil rights when it occurs.
.
pluege | 10.20.06 - 11:45 am | #

McCain got caught bullshiting, plain and simple. Although you would think he'd have thought this stuff out by now.

Here's what I want: we've been there about the same time we were involved in WW II. If you want us to stay, tell us how long, how many lives should be expended and how much it will cost. That way, we can make a rational decision like we do in our ordinary lives.

BTW: Adam, your statement about babble is quite ironic, since yours is the penultimate babble. Why don't you make a modicum of effort to inform yourself before you express an opinion?
Anonymous | 10.20.06 - 11:46 am | #

"... we've launched a bold new agenda to defeat the ideology of the enemy by supporting the forces of freedom in the Middle East and beyond." -George W. Bush

How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for an agenda?
George | 10.20.06 - 11:47 am | #

That John Hinderaker doesn't even know who he's cheerleading for. Norm Coleman was so two-faced, for example, that he was head of Minnesotans for Bush in '00, but head of Minnesotans for Clinton in '96. This Hinderaker guy is practically my neighbor and he has his head stuffed so deep in the sand that he doesn't know who he's backing. He's right that the Star Trib poll was wrong two years ago, but advocating other polls only looks worse. Rasmussen has Kennedy even FURTHER behind. It's a well-acknowledged fact among Republicans here that Mark Kennedy is a lost cause and that money is better sent elsewhere.
Colin Lee | 10.20.06 - 11:47 am | #

Can one of the lawyers here answer a quick question -- it was raised the other day here but I cannot find the discussion using the search feature. Isn't it in fact the case that the 12th Amendment would prohibit Clinton from being Vice President because he and Hillary are legal residents of the same state?

[snip]

AJ | 10.20.06 - 10:56 am

It's no big deal. He could simply change his legal residence to Arkansas at some point before the election, and the problem is solved. The same thing came up with Darth Cheney in 2000, who was a resident of Texas (as was Bush) until he changed his residence to Wyoming.
Spokane Moderate | 10.20.06 - 11:47 am | #

One issue that comes to mind when reading McCain's (ahem) plan: would Rumsfeld go along with any attempt to nearly double our combat forces? After all, he has based his entire tenure as SecDef on making the military smaller, faster, and easier to deploy. He doesn't seem the type to abandon his baby just because it is failng miserably.

Could someone please tell me how we as a nation screwed up so badly we actually deserve this?

Enough people voted for Bush in 2000 and 2004 to make it possible for him to steal the election. That's why we deserve Bush; you or I may not personally deserve him but our nation as a whole does. And hey, roughly a third of our country are still--still!--overjoyed at having Bush in the Oval Office.
Notorious P.A.T. | 10.20.06 - 11:48 am | #

Even fat, old, pasty white boys can be taught to drive a truck in about six weeks.

They do need truck drivers over there, you know.
-
QuentinCompson | Homepage | 10.20.06 - 11:48 am | #

Perhaps they're serious and responsible because they keep repeating over and over that they're serious and responsible.

Kind of like a meditative mantra.
JM | 10.20.06 - 11:51 am | #

"Adam is just irritated that all of this discussion about silly wars and such is interfering with all the good reporting on who the latest missing white woman is. He is not able to sit comfortably and watch Fox News without being inundated with silly war discussions.

It's tough Adam. I know exactly how you feel. Where has all the fun gone?"

-Annonymous

I forgot to mention all the witty comebacks.
Adam | 10.20.06 - 11:52 am | #

In reality, he has become a complete candyass in the last 6 years, voting with Bush 90% of the time, never talking his lips off the RR's ass.

Johnny Wendell

I don't disagree with you in the slightest. At one point, I thought that McCain was principled but now he's either changed or perhaps he's just showing his true colors. He wants to be the President and he's doing and saying whatever he thinks he needs to do to achieve that goal. In some ways, it's like a microcosm of the Republican party - doing and saying whatever they think will win them the election with no regard for the consequences to the country or its people.

However, having said that, it doesn't mean that you should characterize his time as a POW as "picking lint out of his navel in a Hanoi prison." Doing so does you little credit and, in fact, detracts from your argument.

That was my point.
JTL | 10.20.06 - 11:52 am | #

Glenn [from the post]:

A reporter should only sit by and heap praise on McCain as the responsible, serious Leader that he is.

Typo. That's "Responsible, Serious Leader@trade;"....

Cheers,
Arne Langsetmo | Homepage | 10.20.06 - 11:53 am | #

Ooops:

My own typo.

That should be:

Typo. That's "Responsible, Serious Leader™"....
Arne Langsetmo | Homepage | 10.20.06 - 11:54 am | #

AJ,
500,000 troops and 58,000 dead in
Vietnam didn't win the war for us. So please tell me how 200,000 additional soldiers will have any effect in Iraq?
I can't remember the name of the General who spoke the other day, but he lamented the fact that we can't build more than 48 armored Hummers a month when during WWII we produced 4,000 airplanes a month.
Six months ago we even had a critical shortage of ammunition.
Please tell me what is an acceptable figure of cost for this additional ramp up, $600 billion a Trillion?
Somewhere in this mix you need to start dealing with reality, No one in this country is going to send their kid to war without the proper equipment, and no one is going to run this country into bankruptcy for a war that over 60% don't want in the first place, and no one is going to want a war run by a pompous neocon windbag who thinks he is the reincarnation of Douglas MacArthur.
brainfaht | 10.20.06 - 11:54 am | #

I'm curious, Adam: what do you think would be a better way for us to spend our time. Volunteering for Iraq? Joining the Weather Underground? Emigrating to New Zealand?

You say you don't know what to do about Iraq. Fair enough. So let's open up the discussion a bit. Where do you think this country is going, where do you think it should be going, and would do you think we should do to get it there?
Ames | 10.20.06 - 11:55 am | #

Shooter

My own view is that we need to stay exactly where we are while Democracy has time to take form philosophically. The end result could be any number of things

How long are you thinking that's gonna take? How many Americans should die for it. We've been there three plus years and counting. Are we closer to democracy "forming philosopically".

The end result of your suggestion is a military quagmire with roughly 1000 American deaths per year ... unless we are willing to dramatically increase our own troops levels.

At least be honest enough to admit it.
AJ | 10.20.06 - 11:55 am | #

I think that the Republicans who are ensconced in Washington are heaving a big sigh of relief at the polling numbers, and McCain's rhetoric shows this.

They need a big deus ex machina ending to this, and Democratic control of the House may provide it. There is no other explanation of McCain's blithe inconsistencies in the interview. He's treading water until after November. He realizes that there is a huge contradiction in his statements, but knows that now is not the time to concede that things are FUBAR. The time to admit it will be in late November, when the corporate media can start amplifying the new message that the "Democrats lost Iraq." As long as the Republicans who are not in tight races continue to deny the blindingly obvious fact that there no possible way to win right now, they preserve the possibility of shifting blame later.
MarkC | 10.20.06 - 11:56 am | #

You rarely merit a response, but this is stupifyingly stupid and demands an answer:

The usual response is that there WERE no WMD's, to which I reply "how did you find that out"? At this point, rather than admitting the simple logic of having to go look for ourselves, most will tangent off into "inspections not being allowed to work" or incompetent intelligence.

What are you talking about? To the sentient among us, there were no fewer than three American-led reports, including the Kay Report, the Duefler Report, and the Silberman/Robb Report all of which stated that Hussein's WMD program was defunct and there were no usable weapons to be found.

You really do live in a fantasy world. And you're still too chickenshit to fight in this war you so blindly believe in.
Jay B | Homepage | 10.20.06 - 11:56 am | #

From Glenn: ...continuing to advocate this war while knowing -- as McCain and so many like him do -- that (a) it is achieving nothing positive and (b) there are no viable and realistic options for achieving anything positive, places one in a different moral universe entirely.

Adam: I'm going to say something illiberal: If the U.S. had applied and maintained sufficient force in Iraq from the time we entered, the situation might not be so thoroughly hopeless now. Doing so would have required more manpower, possibly a draft, and definitely a halt to increasing tax cuts for the duration of the conflict. I'm not opining on the morality of any of this, but we probably had the ability, if there were the will, to conquer Iraq and maintain a martial sort of peace.
The situation now is that Iraq is a true quagmire. Proponents of the administration are reduced to proclaiming that a peer-reviewed study in the Lancet must be wrong because they estimate "only" 100,000 to 200,000 people have died as a result of this invasion, and the slaughter continues apace.
The Bush administration has given us at least a generation's worth of blowback potential from this action, without even some unstable improvement in the status quo.
The only people who can be satisfied by the current situation are 1) those who are currently profitting in an oversight-deficient war zone, 2) those who crave the onset of Armageddon, 3) those who would re-establish a world-spanning Caliphate centered in the Arab heartland.
There are "plausible solutions" but they all suck, utterly. The "useless" babble of the blogosphere reflects that fact. The incoherence of our political leadership reflects it as well -- and there is every reason to highlight their babble. They got us to this point.
Fluffy | 10.20.06 - 11:56 am | #

MCCAIN: I said we need 100,000 more ...

MATTHEWS: Right.

MCCAIN: ...members of the Marines and the Army. We need additional troops there, but I think we need to expand the Army and the Marine Corps by 100,000 people.

"MCCAIN: I didn‘t say we need 100,000 -- more recruitment."

"MCCAIN: Some of these young people have been to Afghanistan or Iraq two or three times already. We have put an enormous strain on them. They have performed magnificently, but we can‘t keep it up."

Is he saying.

1. We need a lot more troops in Iraq.
2. Our current troops are under enormous strain.

BUT...

We dont need more recuritment
AND
we dont need a draft.

It doesnt add up. Even if he does agree we need more recruitment how are we going to recruit enough more troops without further lowering standards?

"MCCAIN: I don‘t think we need to think of the draft again because I don‘t think it makes sense in a whole variety of ways. But I guarantee you, if these young people felt that this nation was in a crisis and we asked them to serve, virtually every one of them would stand up because I have the greatest confidence in the young people of America." In other words contrary to what the Bush administration claims, the nation is not in a crisis and our enemy is not on the order of the Axis in WWII?
Catch22 | 10.20.06 - 11:57 am | #

Glenn [from the post]:

So, John McCain's bold, straight-talking Plan for Victory in Iraq is to wait for Rich Lowry, Jonah Goldberg, Peter Beinert and Glenn Reynolds to realize how Western Civilization Hangs in the Balance in Iraq and that only more troops can save us. And once they realize that, they are going to stand up bravely and risk their lives in combat in Iraq -- waves and waves and waves of them -- and that will fortify our military presence there and we will win.

You forgot the "steal the underpants" step. ;-)

This is getting ridiculous..... Jon Stewart is saying there really is a god, and irony is officially dead. Can we lock the Republicans up in padded cells for their own protection?

Cheers,
Arne Langsetmo | Homepage | 10.20.06 - 11:58 am | #

Keep in mind the ratio of actual combat arms troops to logistics and support soldiers and the idea of 100,000 more troops is even more ridiculous. 100K gets you maybe 20,000 soldiers, at most, actually patrolling, rifles at the ready. We would need one million more troops, minimum, to begin effecting operations in theater. Utter nonsense without a draft.

And none of it addresses North Korea.
Todd | 10.20.06 - 11:58 am | #

Let us suppose Shooter 242 is right. We need to stay. Is it fair to require troops to continue to serve beyond all expectations? To not expect sacrifice of everyone? To stop cutting taxes? To have some idea how much time, money, lives we should expend in this democracy project?

BTW 242, do you think the sectarian violence is being perpretrated in an attempt to have our troops leave?
Anonymous | 10.20.06 - 11:58 am | #

brainfahrt

I don't disagree with you. I am a Vietnam-era veteran (although I didn't serve in Vietnam --- I just worked at processing and medically treating the refugees after Saigon fell) and I remember the debates.

I am just trying to get the diehards to see what we would need to commit to even pretend we are making a serious effort at nation-building in Iraq.

They all want to stay -- they just to want to add up the costs and consider what's required. Shooter has been spouting off the same nonsense for the last three years, here and elsewhere. He never inches one step closer to the real world.
AJ | 10.20.06 - 12:00 pm | #

It's not a war.

It's an Invasion and Occupation.

Bush invaded and occupied Iraq.

No war was made on us, except by Bush.

Calling what Bush did a war from the right is sucking Bush's dick.

Calling what Bush did a war from the left is sucking Bush's dick.

It's not a war.

The Invasion and Occupation of Iraq is not a war.

Stop sucking Bush's dick
JamesRaven | Homepage | 10.20.06 - 12:01 pm | #

Arne,

Jonah Goldberg has spoken. Yesterday in fact.

His brilliant plan:

Hold another Iraqi election so the Iraqis can tell us to go home so they can continue with their civil war.

His version of Peace with Honor.
AJ | 10.20.06 - 12:02 pm | #

AJ: Yes, the President and VP have to be residents of different states. So, for a Hilary/Bill ticket to fly one of them would have to change his/her state of residence.

There is precedence for this. At the time of the 2000 Republican Convention Bush and Cheney were both Texas residents, so Cheney changed his residence to Wyoming. A court challenge was filed by Democrats but it was denied.
Galloping Goose | 10.20.06 - 12:02 pm | #

If McCain wants to send 100,000 more troops to iraq, then we need 300,000 new troops. For each person you've got there, you'll have one who just got back, and one ready to go next. Recruiting only 100,000 new people won't allow you to send that many over.
Mike | 10.20.06 - 12:02 pm | #

(1) in order to win in Iraq, we need to expand our military by 100,000 more troops; (2) we don't have anywhere near 100,000 troops to send to Iraq, and nobody suggests that we do; (3) a draft is absolutely unnecessary.

Creationists don't do math. It's all a liberal lie.
.
Grand Moff Texan | Homepage | 10.20.06 - 12:03 pm | #

My point is this same exact conversation has happened 90billion times, always coming at the heels of some blog about some news story. These things always disintegrate (almost immediately) into a group of people all agreeing with eachother and berating the lone dissenters. It is not debate it is name calling and a "your wrong" match. No one ever says anything affecting change in these chats.

Attaboy, stand up for the meek middle! Won't shut up all these people with opinions?

But seriously, have you ever had a debate without disagreement? And as far as 'no one ever says anything affecting change', you're just wrong. Three years ago, this lunacy was looked upon as overwhelmingly successful and popular. Yet now it's not. How would that be possible without those of us who hate this war convincing other people of the myriad of false assumptions, distortions and rationales that have been dumped on the people?

The debate you so abhor has led many people to conclude otherwise -- and the change you need to see will come Nov. 7th.

Still, it really is touching to see someone who stands strongly behind his lack of opinions go onto a blog and expect the world to change because of it.
Jay B | Homepage | 10.20.06 - 12:04 pm | #

How are civil liberties useful to dead people

They're not, obviously. But run the numbers, man. How many terrorist attacks have there been on American soil since WW2, and how many people have they killed? The answer is a handful, and about 4000.

This country is simply too big and too powerful. Terorrists simply can't hurt us enough to actually have real effects. All they can do is terrorize us, and to defeat that all we have to is refuse to be afraid. I am not the least bit afraid of terrorists, because I know that I'm more likely to die driving home _today_ than I am to die at the hands of some terrorist at any point in my life.

Terrorism kills as many people as lightning strikes. It is simply not worth it to corrupt your entire country to defend against it.

Now, compare that to the damage that could be wrought by a corrupt, despotic government. That government runs or at least has its fingers _everything_. Law enforcement, industry, environment, taxes, you name it. A couple dozen jihadis with murder on their minds is as nothing next to a couple million cops, judges, and bureaucrats blindly following orders from up top.

Look at the kind of state-run terror that went on in regimes that have no accountability. Deaths orders of magnitude beyond 9/11.

That's the worst-case scenario, of course. But the US already has the largest prison population in the world. What happens when due process goes out the window for good?
Jared | 10.20.06 - 12:05 pm | #

I understand the Bill of Rights and the 4th ammd. etc, but I am not opposed to the policeman being able to have, at times, more abilities to search for the serial killer because if the serial killer kills me what good was the Bill of Rights to me?....
Paul | 10.20.06 - 11:45 am |

Dear Paul,

Millions of Americans have gone to war and died to support our system of government and the rights it grants us. What good was the Bill of Rights to them? Um, was it so their children wouldn't have to live in a totalitarian police state?

If you had your way you might be lucky to have a merciful serial killer end your miserable life, as opposed to say being sent to the Guantanamo Gulags as a result of your traitorous attempts to speak or associate freely.
bravenewworld | 10.20.06 - 12:05 pm | #

'adding that it's impossible to support the troops and not support their mission.'

Translation:

our way, or no way.

Brilliant.

Is that the constructive converstion you were asking for Adam?

Just askin.
willyjsimmons | 10.20.06 - 12:07 pm | #

Posted by "..."

Even if one is too old to join our nation's military and shoulder a weapon in the great and glorious clash of civilizations, shouldn't those that know how serious the threat is be participating in some real way? Shouldn't Bart and "the Dog" be over in Iraq volunteering to teach monarchial law at an Iraqi law school? Shouldn't shooter242 be over there lending his great insight in some way? And what about Daleyrocks? How old are you daleyrocks? Don't you have anything, any skill you could be using to aide our great warriors that are dying to save our civilization? Surely all of these great thinkers realize the peril we are in and are willing to drop everything to go to Iraq and, in some way, fight the greatest enemy we have ever known! After all none of us will have our stock portfolios if we are dead and is there any doubt that, if the enemy is not engaged and destroyed, we will not all be dead?

We need your help Bart, Dog, Shooter and Daleyrocks! We need you to save us. Won't you answer the call?

*Shooter*

Well, what about it? Shouldn't you be buying a plane ticket?
frankie4fingers | 10.20.06 - 12:07 pm | #

It's unfortunate that we have to humor our moronic politician class until they decide they have saved adequate face. Then they'll figure out a way to squirm out of Iraq, having left thousands more dead. And no matter what actually happens, they'll spin the same old peace with honor bullshit.
steve_e | 10.20.06 - 12:08 pm | #

Shooter persists in the canard that we could only determine whether Hussein had WMD by going in militarily and looking for ourselves.

This, of course, is the purest horseshit. Iraq was under constant U.S. scrutiny, and if any real development of nuclear weapons had been taking place, we would have seen indications. That aside, as I'm sure Shooter and others may argue that point, the UN inspectors were on the ground in Iraq for three months, and they were given access to every site they asked to see. They found NO EVIDENCE of any WMD programs or of extant armaments. The inspectors were not allowed to complete their search, as Li'l Butch had already determined he was going to war against Iraq, and the date was predetermined. Putting the inspectors in was a sham, was strictly for show, and when the time came, Li'l Butch told them to get out so he could commence bombing.

Revelatory of Li'l Butch's ongoing lying about the war from top to bottom, he repeats the fiction that "we gave Saddam a chance, we asked to to allow in inspectors, but he refused, so...we had to kick his ass!"

Scott Ritter, among others, had it right all along, and he pronounced months BEFORE the war that Hussein had no weapons. This idea that we were but victims of "poor intelligence" is another "but nobody could have imagined anyone would take planes and slam them into buildings as weapons" lie, (they had envisioned such scenarios): the intel was manipulated and cherry-picked by this administration, "the facts fixed to fit the policy," as the Downing Street Memos revealed, and any information which cast doubt on the assertions of WMD programs was ignored.

Li'l Butch and Big DICK, et al., should spend their lives in Supermax prisons for their crimes against humanity.
Robert1014 | 10.20.06 - 12:09 pm | #

One thing that rubbed me the wrong way about McCain's answers was his use of rank nationalism to get applause and support from the audience. It went something like this:

STUDENT: What do you think of [serious issue]?

MCCAIN: I believe that America is the greatest country, on Earth, ever, bar none. The Athenians had nothing on our Democracy. Ancient Egypt? Morons! We're awesome!

Of course, it wasn't all like that, but I find that component to be especially disturbing.
. | 10.20.06 - 12:10 pm | #

From shooter242 at 11:44am:

In the end though there's always one foolproof method of understanding it all.... who would the killers in Iraq vote for?

No, there's an even simpler method:

What are YOU, shooter242, prepared to do to bring the expedition into and occupation of Iraq to a "successful" close?

My guess is: nothing.

Feel free to surprise me.
yankeependragon | 10.20.06 - 12:10 pm | #

Bush Will "Consult" with Generals
http://breakingnews.nypost.com/dynamic/stories/B/ BUSH_INTERVIEW

Oct 20, 11:37 AM EDT
Bush to Hear About Changing Iraq Tactics
WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush acknowledged Friday that the situation in Iraq was tough and said he would consult with American generals to see if a change in tactics was necessary to combat the escalating violence.

The president is personally handling the OIF tactics?
sysprog | 10.20.06 - 12:10 pm | #

All the spin about WMD aside, we went into Iraq with two incompatible goals: the rhetorical goal of bringing the Iraqis 'freedom and democracy' and the usual political goal of establishing a stable state which would serve as a reliable proxy for U.S. political and economic interests and provide us a base of operations to project imperial power throughout the region. Of course, if the Iraqis really had freedom or democracy they would never allow the latter goal to be achieved. Since no path at this point leads to anything Republicans could spin as 'victory', all they can offer is confusion, denial and dire warnings that any real plan would lead to 'defeat'. Characterizing outcomes as victory and defeat is in itself very telling. It reveals the mindset that this is not about Iraq or the Iraqis, but about us. That's been the real problem from the beginning.
Dread Scot | 10.20.06 - 12:10 pm | #

John McCain unveils his Grand Plan for Victory in Iraq

Plan rejected. Next case.

What's Hillary's Grand Plan for Iraq?

But continuing to advocate this war while knowing -- as McCain and so many like him do -- that (a) it is achieving nothing positive and (b) there are no viable and realistic options for achieving anything positive, places one in a different moral universe entirely.

Anyone who is not for immediate withdrawal is "continuing to advocate this war". Both McCain and Clinton voted to invade Iraq. Now both are against immediate withdrawal.

Everything else is irrelevant, mere words used to play to particular sets of audiences.

When can we examine Hillary Clinton's plan for Iraq? When two people point to the same object but each calls it a different name, it's still the same object. Clinton can say "soon, it's a disaster, a mistake from the beginning, sorry guys, let's wrap things up and get out" (ten years) and McCain can say "Victory" (ten years) but that doesn't matter to the thousands, tens of thousands or more American and Iraqi human beings who will be killed while our august frontrunners deliver their semantically different, similarly neo-con in fact arguments to their various constituencies.

We are talking about "serious" and "responsible" plans for Iraq and who is offering them up and who isn't. Aren't we?
.
Eyes Wide Open | 10.20.06 - 12:12 pm | #

Adam

Go ahead. Take a position. I promise not to call you any names.

You know the options.

Leave now.
Stay the course.
Escalate.

Pick one.

And quit trying to debate the civility of the debate. It's insulting to the men and women of our military. They are the ones who were sent to Iraq supposedly in defense of our right to be as uncivil as we like in our debates. Democracy ain't pretty. Deal.
AJ | 10.20.06 - 12:13 pm | #

AJ you listed three outcomes including

"Leave now. Admit defeat and come on home."

but you forgot

"Leave now. Declare victory and come on home."

say we've accomplished want we wanted and its time to leave!
Joe Blow | 10.20.06 - 12:13 pm | #

An idiot wrote: 'In the end though there's always one foolproof method of understanding it all.... who would the killers in Iraq vote for?'

Well, we already know who al qaeda would vote for, the greatest recruiter they ever had.....W the magnificent!
toM | 10.20.06 - 12:14 pm | #

Incidentially, shooter, you never answered the question two threads back whether you have any standards in the first place.

The silence, as you say, is telling.
yankeependragon | 10.20.06 - 12:15 pm | #

JAMES RAVEN - Good to see you have your priorities straight. All we have to do is adopt the right words and the argument will be magically made. Superficial "framing strategies" are the key to everything.
Glenn Greenwald | 10.20.06 - 12:17 pm | #

I'm glad you brought that up, how about Kim backing down before the Chinese?
I'd say that cements the concept that Bush's 6-party talks worked while the Clinton bribery scheme didn't.
[...]
shooter242 | 10.20.06 - 12:03 pm | #

I'm sorry, what? When did Kim back down? He just announced Wednesday that he intends to conduct three more tests. This is hardly a triumph of diplomacy, unless the intent was to goad the DPRK into getting nukes.
IngSoc | Homepage | 10.20.06 - 12:18 pm | #

Ames and Glenn,

Good posts. I agree that this war has been mis-handled...horribly. Glenn your right, these blogs are the way they are because people care about the shitty situation, which is good, I guess I get frustrated with the repetetiveness of it all.

Ames, I actually think that our country is doing ok. I think our Foreign Affairs have clouded the fact that we are a nation with a constantly morphing identity. To be honest I think the best 9/11 respnse possible would have been virtually no response, besides mourning the dead. If terrorism doesn't get our attention than why do it? If it doesn't work its a waste.
Adam | 10.20.06 - 12:19 pm | #

From Eyes Wide Open at 12:12pm:

We are talking about "serious" and "responsible" plans for Iraq and who is offering them up and who isn't. Aren't we?

Given no-one on either side of the aisle - John Murtha notwithstanding - has been able to come up with one, wouldn't such a discussion be a short one?

Anyway, remind me which party has complete and sole control of the White House and both houses of Congress? Isn't rather incumbent upon them to chart a course out of this disaster they've marched us into?

Or is responsibility abdicated as soon as things go south?
yankeependragon | 10.20.06 - 12:19 pm | #

Shooter. Aren't you willing to answer the call?? If not for great men like yourself, the crazed muslims will massacre us all in our sleep.

I suggest you answer up lest we think you are a coward and a fake "partiot".

Well, what about it shooter??
Anonymous | 10.20.06 - 12:20 pm | #

Art. I, Section 8:

"The Congress shall have power . . . [t]o raise and support armies . . . ."

I know the Constitution is out-of-fashion in our brave new post-9/11 world, but John McCain is a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, one of the committees that authorizes the raising and support of armies.

It's all very well to talk about needing another 100,000 troops, but they need to be trained, equipped and organized. What have John McCain and the Republican majorities in Congress done about that? It's been 3 years since it became clear that we didn't have enough "boots on the ground". In the equivalent period in the 1940s the United States trained and equipped 11,000,000 men and women in our armed forces that were fighting on four major battlefronts simultaneously (northwest Europe, Italy, the Philippines and the Central Pacific).

Yet today's crisis is not so severe as to call for even five percent of that commitment, while being so life-threatening that we eliminate freedoms that we had little trouble preserving while fighting the Nazis (including their spies and saboteurs who had infiltrated this country).

If Congress can force the Executive to build expensive weapons it doesn't particularly want, it can certainly force the Executive to raise an army it actually needs.
DeWitt Grey | 10.20.06 - 12:22 pm | #

From the Hinderacker interview:

HINDERAKER: Let's talk about the war in Iraq. What's the difference between you and your opponent, Democrat Amy Klobuchar, when it comes to the war in Iraq?

KENNEDY: You know, I've been consistently focused on adapting to win - whatever it takes to make sure that we prevail against an emey that has stated that their goal is to - y'know - eliminate us from the face of the earth.

My opponent came out on Meet The Press and twice said that the approach should be a diplomatic and political solution - that we should negotate with people who would just as soon kill us as look at us. We need to make sure we prevail, but we can't just get there by wishing it would go away. We have to make sure we support our troops and do what is necessary to achieve victory.

The Republicans (and such as "Bart", "The Dog", "shooter242", etc.) continue to purposefully and dishonestly conflate al Qaeda with Iraq in discussions. Even assuming arguendo that al Qaeda's ultimate goal is the killing of every non-Muslim (which is a quite arguable, if not outright dubious, proposition in itself), Iraq is not hell-bent on killing every baby in the U.S. They'd probably be content for the most part for us to leave, and then continue killing each other until some authoritarian regime(s) re-emerge(s) from the ashes.

But admitting that would mean that Kennedy, Hinderacker, and the rest of the sorry lot were and are "culpable" (as Glenn says) for a travesty and a disaster, and they're not about to do that. So they just make things up! ... and hope the rubes and proles swallow it.

Cheers,
Arne Langsetmo | Homepage | 10.20.06 - 12:23 pm | #

AJ | 10.20.06 - 11:55 am
How long are you thinking that's gonna take? How many Americans should die for it. We've been there three plus years and counting. Are we closer to democracy "forming philosopically".

Well let's see, we've been in South Korea for over 50 years now right? That should do it.

The end result of your suggestion is a military quagmire with roughly 1000 American deaths per year ... unless we are willing to dramatically increase our own troops levels.
At least be honest enough to admit it.

No problem. Glenn said it nicely here...
"That worldview -- that maximizing physical safety to the exclusion of all else leads to a poor and empty way of life, and that limiting government power is so necessary that we do it even if it means accepting an increased risk of death when doing so -- is what lies at the very core of what America is."

I understand that he didn't mean this particular context, but if he's willing to sacrifice civilians, then I'm sure this applies to the military as well.
shooter242 | 10.20.06 - 12:23 pm | #

Joe Blow ....

re: leaving out the "We've won. Let's go" option.

That's because I believe that such a bald-faced lie dishonors those who have died.

I'll leave that stuff to the Jonah "I really am too stupid and intellectually doshonest to have a column" Goldberg.
AJ | 10.20.06 - 12:23 pm | #

An idiot wrote: I'd say that cements the concept that Bush's 6-party talks worked while the Clinton bribery scheme didn't.

This friends, is how diplomacy is supposed to work.
shooter242

Lets see....under Clinton no N Korean nuclear bomb, under Bush they have one. I guess the Republican concept of success must be contrary to what most would expect.

Come on Shooter, get your head out of your ass (if possible).
toM | 10.20.06 - 12:24 pm | #

Hinderaker's moniker of 'assrocket' is appropriate. What a hard hitting , thorough , insightful political interview( insert sarcasm here).The rightwingers' total lack of integrity is showing so clearly , as their political fortunes implode. Amy Klobuchar is going to beat Mark Kennedy by double digits. Here in Minnesota, it looks like we may even take the govenorship , too. The winds , they are a-blowin'.
jimbobuddy | 10.20.06 - 12:29 pm | #

The only reason McCain said he wants 100,000 more troops is so he can cover his a$$. In 2008, when asked what he did about Iraq, he can say "I wanted 100,000" more troops, and imply the reason Iraq is in total civil war in 08 (I'm really going out on a limb here) is because we didn't have a big enough military presence. He's playing for the future sound bite.
mepex | 10.20.06 - 12:30 pm | #

From shooter242 at

Well let's see, we've been in South Korea for over 50 years now right? That should do it.

Let's see: keeping a limited number of troops in a small country we didn't invade, versus keeping a correspondingly adequate number of troops in a big country we did invade.

Does anyone here see the disconnect?

No problem. Glenn said it nicely here...
"That worldview -- that maximizing physical safety to the exclusion of all else leads to a poor and empty way of life, and that limiting government power is so necessary that we do it even if it means accepting an increased risk of death when doing so -- is what lies at the very core of what America is."

Two completely different posts on completely different subjects? Pray, explain your reasoning (if such a thing is possible, which I seriously doubt).

I understand that he didn't mean this particular context, but if he's willing to sacrifice civilians, then I'm sure this applies to the military as well.

I await you elaboration of this nonsense with bated breath.
yankeependragon | 10.20.06 - 12:32 pm | #

My interpretatin of McCain's statement was that he felt the Army and Marines needed to expand by 100,000 troops, not that 100,000 more troops were needed in Iraq. I infer hes saying that this larger army would allow current troop levels to be maintained indefinitely, but he's not exactly clear.

To me he's simply describing the mechanics needed to 'stay the course.' As for getting the numbers without a draft, I guess he figures they'll buy them. Again he doesn't say.

I think his argument is awful, but the fact remains, he didn't say 100,000 troops in Iraq (at least not here) he said expand the Army and Marines by 100,000 troops.
Bullsmith | 10.20.06 - 12:32 pm | #

Shooter,

You think we should plan to have troops in Iraq for 50 years?

And these soldiers who are dying today. How exactly do you see their deaths as promoting the "philosophical formation of democracy" in Iraq?

Be specific please.
AJ | 10.20.06 - 12:33 pm | #

Iraq a mistake, says flip-flopper Jonah Goldberg.
http://townhall.com/Columnists/JonahGoldberg/2006/ 10/20/iraq_was_a_worthy_mistake

Friday, October 20, 2006
... If we had known then what we know now, we would never have gone to war with Iraq ... If it was a mistake to go in, we should get out, some argue. But this is unpersuasive. A doctor will warn that if you see a man stabbed in the chest, you shouldn't rush to pull the knife out ...

... We should ask the Iraqis to vote on whether U.S. troops should stay. Polling suggests that they want us to go ... If Iraqis voted "stay," we'd have a mandate to do what's necessary to win, and our ideals would be reaffirmed. If they voted "go," our values would also be reaffirmed, and we could leave with honor.

sysprog | 10.20.06 - 12:33 pm | #

Scott Ritter, among others, had it right all along, and he pronounced months BEFORE the war that Hussein had no weapons.

I don't know anyone who didn't think the whole WMD thing was a made-up bullshit excuse for going to war.

About the only thing the Bush admministration is good at is fucking with our heads.

I also count myself in the tiny group who thought supporting the President after 9/11, as he stood on the rubble of the Twin Towers, was a fatal mistake. I never turn my scepticism off with these people. Never.
George | 10.20.06 - 12:35 pm | #

willyjsimmons | 10.20.06 - 12:24 pm |Interestingly enough, there is a new book about by some dude (sorry I don't remember his name), and he said that Bill Clinton is 'obsessed' with Karl Rove's tactics and that Hiliary is a 'big fan' of Rove as well.

His name is Mark Halperin, and he writes ABC's The Note. Halperin is himself obsessed with Karl Rove, and therefore assumes that anyone with serious Whitehouse ambitions would logically adopt his strategies as well.
bravenewworld | 10.20.06 - 12:36 pm | #

From toM at 12:24pm:

Come on Shooter, get your head out of your ass (if possible).

To be fair, I don't think he can.

First, he's from New Jersey.

Second, its been stuck there for the past 5 years, one month, and nine days (give or take).
yankeependragon | 10.20.06 - 12:38 pm | #

shooter242 said:
At this point, rather than admitting the simple logic of having to go look for ourselves, most will tangent off into "inspections not being allowed to work" or incompetent intelligence.

So Saddam ran a bluff thinking that the US would follow it's usual pattern of fire and forget, and got called. Now we are in, Saddam is out and sectarian violence is escalating in hopes of scaring out Dems.

But shooter, if the primary reason to invade Iraq was to verify that Saddam had no WMDs, then doesn't that mean the primary reason to leave Iraq is that we have accomplished that mission?

You seem to want to pragmatically explain why we had to invade Iraq, for better or worse. But you then abandon that pragmatism, saying "now we're in" and oh well, that's how the cookie crumbles!

You seem to want to add missions for our military to endure, "now that we're in." It's not like picking up a bottle of milk, "now that we're in" the grocery store for bread. This is war, but you seem to handle it with a shoulder shrug. "Now that we're in" indeed.

Staying in is a conscious choice, just like it was a conscious choice to invade. And staying in requires a commitment to succeed at that mission. That means more, many more troops to succeed at staying, but it seems you don't want that. If you want to stay, why don't you want to succeed at staying?

Weakling.
cfaller96 | Homepage | 10.20.06 - 12:40 pm | #

My own view is that we need to stay exactly where we are while Democracy has time to take form philosophically. The end result could be any number of things, but leaving now has easily forseeable consequences.

We literally do not know a single Iraqi family that has not seen the violent death of a first or second-degree relative these last three years. Abductions, militias, sectarian violence, revenge killings, assassinations, car-bombs, suicide bombers, American military strikes, Iraqi military raids, death squads, extremists, armed robberies, executions, detentions, secret prisons, torture, mysterious weapons – with so many different ways to die, is the number so far fetched?

There are Iraqi women who have not shed their black mourning robes since 2003 because each time the end of the proper mourning period comes around, some other relative dies and the countdown begins once again.

http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/

So what do people in Iraq want?

Friday, May 07, 2004

Just Go...
People are seething with anger- the pictures of Abu Ghraib and the Brits in Basrah are everywhere. Every newspaper you pick up in Baghdad has pictures of some American or British atrocity or another. It's like a nightmare that has come to life.

[…]

I sometimes get emails asking me to propose solutions or make suggestions. Fine. Today's lesson: don't rape, don't torture, don't kill and get out while you can- while it still looks like you have a choice... Chaos? Civil war? Bloodshed? We’ll take our chances- just take your Puppets, your tanks, your smart weapons, your dumb politicians, your lies, your empty promises, your rapists, your sadistic torturers and go.
http:// riverbendblog.blogspot.co...og_archive.html

Shooter242 takes up the white man's burden and counsels a stiff upper lip. You know shooter – I think that the people of Iraq are learning all about Democracy. I think you need to think about just how bad things can get if the US stays.

I believe that it was Dick Gregory who said "If democracy were so great, we wouldn't have to shove it down people's throats. They would steal it."
edwin | 10.20.06 - 12:40 pm | #

Good posts. I agree that this war has been mis-handled...horribly. Glenn your right, these blogs are the way they are because people care about the shitty situation, which is good, I guess I get frustrated with the repetetiveness of it all.

Adam

Adam, I refuse to say this war was "mis-handled." To use such terminology plays into the hands of pro-war Democrats who voice opposition only to provide the illusion of an alternative to it. This war is WRONG. Whether there are 100,000 troops or a million, we still made a big mistake.

If we'd gone to the U.N. and gotten approval to remove Saddam, this would've been a different war.
Colin Lee | 10.20.06 - 12:43 pm | #

'Superficial "framing strategies" are the key to everything.'

Interestingly enough, there is a new book about by some dude (sorry I don't remember his name), and he said that Bill Clinton is 'obsessed' with Karl Rove's tactics and that Hiliary is a 'big fan' of Rove as well.

The book was titled, 'How to take back the White House' or something like that. His idea is to adopt Rove's tactics(even the questionable ones), and apply them to democratic campaigns.

'Framing Strategies' being one of those tactics.

Framing strategies are what the conservative movement have used to convince a very large number of people that wrong is right and to replace human decency with the politics of hate. If there is anything we should have learned from the last few decades it is that being right is not good enough. You have to be able to reach people at a very basic moral level and show them that you are right. Glenn is actually very good at providing a clear moral frame in which his arguments fit and the right wing's rhetoric is exposed for the moral degeneracy it is. That is why his posts draw so much fire.

The idea of adopting the right's tactics, inheriting the power they have siezed and simply replacing one brand of moral degeneracy with another is why many of us are not enthusiastic about voting for Democrats.
Dread Scot | 10.20.06 - 12:45 pm | #

Robert1014
Iraq was under constant U.S. scrutiny, and if any real development of nuclear weapons had been taking place, we would have seen indications.

Right, you're talking about the same people that had NK and Iran develop secret nuclear programs under their noses.

I'm sure Shooter and others may argue that point, the UN inspectors were on the ground in Iraq for three months, and they were given access to every site they asked to see.

And sites they may not have known about? Blix also had this to say at the UN February 2003.....
UN Chief weapons inspector Hans Blix told the Security Council that "Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance, not even today, of the disbarment that was demanded of it."

As always, hindsight is indeed 20-20.
shooter242 | 10.20.06 - 12:48 pm | #

IngSoc |10.20.06 - 12:18 pm
I'm sorry, what? When did Kim back down? He just announced Wednesday that he intends to conduct three more tests. This is hardly a triumph of diplomacy, unless the intent was to goad the DPRK into getting nukes.

Headline --
Report: N. Korea 'Sorry' for Nuke Test
North Korean leader Kim Jong Il said Pyongyang didn't plan to carry out any more nuclear tests and expressed regret about the country's first-ever atomic detonation last week, a South Korean news agency reported Friday.
shooter242 | 10.20.06 - 12:55 pm | #

Glenn,

I don't intend to vote for John McCain, but I don't think this excerpt deserves the treatment you're giving it.

You imply here that McCain is advocating for 100,000 troops in Iraq that it is impossible to create without adding a draft.

I don't think you've made that at all clear. There are not that many troops available under current force structures. Presumably, a law passed to expand the size of the army, along with a big chunk of money to pay for it, could conjure those troops without a draft. The war may not be popular, but doesn't mean it is impossible for the country to gather 100,000 troops if it chose to. Bush hasn't chose to try.

I don't favor expanding troop presence in Iraq. I favor withdrawal. On the other hand, adding troops, in my opinion, would be better - for the Iraqis - then our current posture of being just involved enough to stalemate things but not enough to control them.

So, I don't think that John McCain's plan is in any way obviously impossible or made in bad faith. I think you've failed to prove that and overlooked some relatively straightfoward ways it could be done.

glasnost
glasnost | 10.20.06 - 12:57 pm | #

@bravenewworld

Mark Halprin, thank you.

What he said was he personnally interviewed both Bill and Hillary, and they attested to liking Rove's 'style'.

He also went on to say that Hillary said she would have 'no problems' adopting some of Rove's tactics herself.

Whether he's exaggerating what exactly they said or not, I don't know. But he claims it's all straight from the horses mouth.

Good.Bad.Indifferent.

(My opinion of the Clintons has soured lately, which leaves me a tad bit confused, so I won't make a judgement call either way. Guess I'm indifferent at this point)
willyjsimmons | 10.20.06 - 12:58 pm | #

Right, you're talking about the same people that had NK and Iran develop secret nuclear programs under their noses.

So secret we found out about them almost right away.

Ok Mr. 20/20, what do we do now. Pick your poison.
AJ | 10.20.06 - 12:59 pm | #

Dismissing the lunatic ravings of the war criminals among us, even from the left, there are some horrible assumptions being made blithely.

Let's not use the overused Nazi Germany analogy, but merely replace "United States" or "America" with "USSR" or "Russia", and "Iraq" with "Afghanistan", and perhaps you'll realize how badly framed this entire discussion is.

We are the aggressors and we're not entitled to *anything*, until we make peace and offer reparations. Frankly those of us who are alive and healthy are lucky to be so; many Iraqis cannot say the same.
Lupin | 10.20.06 - 12:59 pm | #

A Neocon's view on a board I frequent..This guy worships the marines but never served himself:

"Let me say something to all the dickheads out there who think us rightwing neocons are ruining America:

I am willing to die, right now, to protect and save your children and grandchildren. I don't have any kids and I don't even like kids. What are you willing to do to save our country? I'll take a bullet for your progeny. What will you all do, besides whine about what we are trying to do to insure a future for Freedom?

Shut up or prepare to say your Muslim prayers. It is nut cutting time. I hope you like getting up at 5AM to bow to Mecca.

If you don't have the courage to fight then you deserve what you get. ESAD."
Neocons View | 10.20.06 - 1:07 pm | #

The biggest problems with the concept of partioning Iraq are the concentrations of population in the 4 largest cities, about half of the total population resides in those four cities, and the population is mixed.

Thanks to our inaction to this civil war we have developed fiercly bitter feelings that are not going to be extinguished for a very long time. Even if we were successful in dividing Iraq these divisions we've created will almost certainly guarantee failure. How do you get a man to forgive and forget the people who killed his wife and daughter?This kind of bitterness may kill ant attempts we make to solve this problem.

Dividing Iraq also makes it ripe for a takeover from its next door neighbors.

So the next President will have to:

1. Keep Iran from the Shi'te areas.

2. Assure that the oil industry revenues are properly dispersed, and please keep Hallibuton out of that equation.

3. Keep the Kurds from engaging Turkey.

4. Try to keep the Sunnis from falling inder the spell of Syria or Al Queda.

5.Keep the Shi'ites from adopting a radical religious government.

Given these options it really does look like a quick ending is out of the question. Who in government would be capable of pulling this off? I for one would give absolutely no faith in the current government, and as to a future government we'll have to wait and see, there is much to ask and learn.
brainfaht | 10.20.06 - 1:07 pm | #

If your policy is to control domestic politics through Perpetual War, justified by the symbols and verities of American goodness, would you really care if the Iraq conflict lasted 2 years or 20 years?

Of course not.

And, would you care if millions of Americans devoted their attention and energies to debating the wisdom and tactics of some meaningless war, which posed no existential threat to the currently sitting US regime?

Of course not.

In fact, that very debate and conversation would validate your tactics in the creation of a "crisis narrative" and "war environment." Those who engage in such debates, such as Sen. McCain, can then be portrayed as "serious and responsible," because they take the charade at face value.

So with debaters and interested citizens. To paraphrase Joe Stalin: "How many divisions do they have?"
MD | 10.20.06 - 1:09 pm | #

Shooter:

Iran has never been in violation of the NPT, there isn't an ounce of evidence that they have any nuclear weapons programs.

NK developed their weapon AFTER they withdrew from the NPT and kicked out the inspectors, which had their plutonium sealed at the time. Did the Koreans detonate a uranium weapon, or a plutonium one? It is a very relevant question, because until Bush (who is completely dismantling the NPT) intentionally provoked the Koreans, all of their plutonium was under IAEA inspections, so if it was a plutonium bomb, it is directly Bush's fault.

Your analogy is either based on lack of information or willful fallacies, since those same inspectors gave Iraq a clean bill prior to invasion as well. Both Iraq and now Iran are being told to prove a negative, and that is something that is not possible, All that they can do is cooperate with the requirements of the NPT and both did.

There were quite a number of people both inside our own intelligence agencies, as well as with the UN that were on the ground and reported that there was no evidence of WMDs in Iraq prior to the invasion. To say otherwise is nothing more than a fucking lie.
Rip | Homepage | 10.20.06 - 1:09 pm | #

Earlier, Shooter expressed three beliefs he apparently holds:

1. There were no post-war inspections/searches by coalition forces for WMD;

2. The Iraqi people are engaging in sectarian violence in "in hopes of scaring out Dems;" and

3. The "killers" in Iraq would vote for Dems.

As to the first point, Shooter is just plain wrong. David Kay and his fellow inspectors looked after the invasion and found nothing. (google "Kay report wmd") The best they could do is argue that Saddam really, really, really one day, someday, maybe, wanted WMDs, if he could get them.

As to the second point, Shooter is just being silly. First, it is incredibly arrogant and ignorant to believe that the Iraqi Shiites and Sunnis are coordinating when to kill each other so as to influence the Democrats, who have no power whatsoever in our government and who won't have much to say about troop deployment until Bush is out of office, even if the Dems win both houses of Congress next month. These people are killing each other over centuries-old grievances, not for our amusement. This is not a video game or a TV show.

As to Shooter's final assumption, that the "killers" in Iraq would vote for Democrats over Republicans, I strongly disagree. Although Shooter is not clear on which "killers" he has in mind, I am assuming that he is referring to the terrorists (e.g., Al Qaeda) who focus on Western targets as opposed to the Iraqis who are currently engaged in a civil war (i.e., insurgents). Iraq is a great recruiting tool for Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations. And the way that the Republicans have been running the occupation of Iraq has proven to be completely inept, which has worked in the terrorists favor. Why switch horses now?
Griff | 10.20.06 - 1:10 pm | #

shooter, I'd be happy to see how you reason that the Chinese taking the North Koreans to the woodshed counts as victory for Bush's policies (unless you think that his policy includes the promotion of China as a player in the region). Then perhaps you can explain how it is a vindication of Bush's approach that the North Koreans set off a nuclear device on his watch, using plutonium that had been locked up for 8 years due to an agreement forged by the Clinton administration, but which the Bush administration had decided they could access.
Tulse | 10.20.06 - 1:10 pm | #

BTW, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld (during the Ford administration) supported the Shah of Iran's desire to produce nuclear energy rather than waste oil on producing electricity. Some of those reactors were begun by American contractors, who were run out during the revolution in 1979. For them to now claim that Iran doesn't need nuclear power is ridiculous, since they themselves previously supported it.
Rip | Homepage | 10.20.06 - 1:14 pm | #

AJ
Shooter,
You think we should plan to have troops in Iraq for 50 years?

We had troops in Bosnia for 9 years, I'd say that's minimum.

And these soldiers who are dying today. How exactly do you see their deaths as promoting the "philosophical formation of democracy" in Iraq?
Be specific please.

I think the Iraqis need time to figure out that killing themselves and us is not productive. That's not going to happen if we leave. War will erupt and Iran will move in. That's worse than what we have now.
shooter242 | 10.20.06 - 1:14 pm | #

You imply here that McCain is advocating for 100,000 troops in Iraq that it is impossible to create without adding a draft... The war may not be popular, but doesn't mean it is impossible for the country to gather 100,000 troops if it chose to. Bush hasn't chose to try.

glasnost

Then where are you getting 100,000 troops from? They're already promising $20,000 enlistment bonuses and still can't compete with contractors who pay five times as much. There's only so much that money will help before folks realize they're not willing to give their lives for a wrong cause.

Unless you've got some spectacular brainwashing idea they haven't already tried, they'll need a draft to get that many more troops. The proof is in the pudding. They're trying hard and failing.
Colin Lee | 10.20.06 - 1:16 pm | #

@tulse

Don't forget Bush's changes allowed NK to kick out the inspectors as well.

Way to go Shrub!!!!
willyjsimmons | 10.20.06 - 1:16 pm | #

Can someone tell me how to remove a link I mistakenly pasted in the URL box a couple of weeks ago? I keep deleting it and it keeps showing up.
Rip | Homepage | 10.20.06 - 1:17 pm | #

Shooter: "War will erupt and Iranwill move it."

It would be funny if it wasn't so stupid.

Um, dipshit, war has been the norm since we started it and Iran (according to our own intelligence) already is funding it.

If you're so hell bent on keeping this losing proposition going, sign your own ass up rather than sacrificing other people.
Rip | Homepage | 10.20.06 - 1:19 pm | #

Well I guess with the election scaring the shit out of Bush and his accomplices they are now making sounds about 'changing the course'. This is kind of like the captain of the Titanic screeching for a course change after hitting the iceberg.

We're being governed by idiots.
toM | 10.20.06 - 1:20 pm | #

From shooter242 at 1:14pm:

That's worse than what we have now.

Unquestionably. What a pity that's likely what will happen anyway thanks to your crowd's actions.

Make no mistake, shooter: your lot did this.

I'd advise you to make peace with whatever conscience you have, but I doubt you can.
yankeependragon | 10.20.06 - 1:20 pm | #

El Cid:

I would think that we could stabilize the Iraqi situation if we could have a 2:1 troop to Iraqi ratio, so perhaps Senator McCain would begin recommending that we increase US forces to about 50 million or so.

Or, alternatively, we could just kill all but 65,000 or so of them. We're well on the way to victory.....

Cheers,
Arne Langsetmo | Homepage | 10.20.06 - 1:20 pm | #

"Since British troops left Amarah in August, residents say the militia has been involved in a series of killings, including slayings of merchants suspected of selling alcohol and women alleged to have engaged in behavior deemed immoral by militiamen."

Sounds like these "killers" are really focused on making a spectacle solely for U.S. consumption. There couldn't possibly be anything else motivating such violence.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/ ...artner=homepage
Griff | 10.20.06 - 1:22 pm | #

Does anyone think the Vietcong cared who won the 1968 U.S. election? That our enemies in Vietnam hoped that the Tet Offensive would have the effect of removing Johnson from office? George Bush, on the possible comparison of the current level of violence in Baghdad with the Tet Offensive of Vietnam:

"...there's certainly a stepped up level of violence and we're heading into an election."
Rufus | Homepage | 10.20.06 - 1:22 pm | #

"His name is Mark Halperin, and he writes ABC's The Note. Halperin is himself obsessed with Karl Rove, and therefore assumes that anyone with serious Whitehouse ambitions would logically adopt his strategies as well."

I highly recommend Bob Somerby's analysis of Halperin's book @ http://dailyhowler.com/index.shtml
Lawstsoul | 10.20.06 - 1:24 pm | #

And while we're discussing Iraq:

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,2...73- 1702,00.html
Rip | Homepage | 10.20.06 - 1:25 pm | #

I'm glad you brought that up, how about Kim backing down before the Chinese?
I'd say that cements the concept that Bush's 6-party talks worked while the Clinton bribery scheme didn't.

This friends, is how diplomacy is supposed to work.
shooter242 | 10.20.06 - 12:03 pm | #

Uh, shooter - I'd say you are a fool if you accept that as some sort of 'win' for us. North Korea probably only has enough material for a handful of bombs. If they are smart, they use all the same design, and so the last piece of the puzzle they needed was to test one of that design to see if the design was viable. He did it, so now they can make identical bombs to their hearts conent, as well as sitting on those they've completed, secure in the knowledge that they work properly. He needs no more tests. He got what he wanted. And he knows Bush is too big of a pussy to do anything but accept his 'apology' and declare 'victory' on an aircraft carrier and go home. Meanwhile, North Korea has nuclear weapons and nothing was done to stop it.

And if you accept this as some great victory, then it sets a very bad precedent of:

1) Bush declares we absolutely will not let North Korea get nuclear weapons
2) North Korea gets nuclear weapons
3) North Korea tests one of them to make sure they all work
4) North Korea says 'oh, so sorry!'
5) Bush declares victory and continues doing the same b.s. he did before.

Now, what is the incentive for them not to just do this again when the class II bomb is ready to be tested? They know they can just ignore Bush, test their bomb on their timetable, and then, just say 'oh, so sorry!' when they're done and the west will see that as a 'victory'.
Disgusted Beyond Belief | 10.20.06 - 1:26 pm | #

There is one source of troops that isn't being talked about:

Foreign soldiers interested in either money or citizenship. Could the US get 200,000 troups from 3rd world volunteers? I think probably.
edwin | 10.20.06 - 1:27 pm | #

AJ
So secret we found out about them almost right away.

No. NK started their secret uranium processing in 1996 and Iran had a program for 20 some years before admitting to it.

Ok Mr. 20/20, what do we do now. Pick your poison.

Stay the course.
shooter242 | 10.20.06 - 1:29 pm | #

Shooter:

That NIE report regarding NK was the same one that said Saddam was enriching uranium as well. We know Saddam wasn't, and the North Koreans still deny doing so to this very day. Of course, the administration could prove it by letting us know what kind of nuke they tested last week. Why haven't they?

Try again.
Rip | Homepage | 10.20.06 - 1:34 pm | #

'Stay the course.'

'Stay the course.'

'Stay the course.'

It's like that 'Head On' commercial.

But guess what shooter, even they've decided to 'change course' with a new commercial.

I bey you'd call them 'Cut and Runners' too?!!

Wow.
willyjsimmons | 10.20.06 - 1:35 pm | #

http://www.truthdig.com/report/i..._pats_birthday/
Rip | Homepage | 10.20.06 - 1:38 pm | #

Shooter,

Let's be clear here. You want to stay the course and keep troop strength at current levels?

And that is going to help Iraq form a democracy how?

====

North Korea halted its plutonium production until 2002, when the Bush administration abandoned the pact.

You do get the difference between uranium and plutonium right?
AJ | 10.20.06 - 1:42 pm | #

Mark Halperin is the figurehead atop the "Gang of 500," the elite DC clan of journalists and pundits who shape political news coverage.

Sadly, the tenor of Halperin's preferred style of political news coverage is one in which savvy pundits appraise the relative effectiveness, or failure, of politicians to shape public opinion, advocate policy, or compete for political office, while simultaneously evading any consideration of the merits or factual basis underlying these policies, stances, positions, etc. It's really sad.
bravenewworld | 10.20.06 - 1:43 pm | #

Shooter,

Just because Iran didn't admit they had a program doesn't mean we didn't have a clue.

C'mon.
AJ | 10.20.06 - 1:44 pm | #

From shooter242 at 1:29pm:

Stay the course.

So, more needless death and destruction? Not that you've actually demonstrated either the resolve nor courage to do more than carry another's water, mind.

Who's next on your hit list?
yankeependragon | 10.20.06 - 1:44 pm | #

As always, hindsight is indeed 20-20.
shooter242 | 10.20.06 - 12:48 pm

Not hindsight, but foresight. Just because the people saying that Iraq would be a mistake were hippies/anti-war/Clinton-era doesn't mean you and the neocons get a free pass. You all were warned and made bad and immoral choices.

And of course if you had listened to the former special envoy to N. Korea you would know why Clinton-era diplomacy worked and Bush's actions (actually inaction) have failed.
Lune | 10.20.06 - 1:46 pm | #

John Yoo's editorial is "chilling"
Scott Horton commented:
http://balkin.blogspot.com/2006/10/john-yoo-on- court-stripping.html

As I noted in my post on Monday night, Carl Schmitt's program for the expansion of Executive power following the promulgation of the Enabling Act had a very clear first step: silencing the autonomous judiciary. He was convinced that they presented the sole serious challenge to the new notion of Executive authority, and they had to be dealt with quickly through a variety of techniques. Once more, John Yoo's Journal piece travels down Carl Schmitt's well charted path. And it reminds of several other Schmittian elements in the process, such as the plan to assure that the detention facilities created in the wake of the act were beyond the reach of courts and lawyers. The parallels are amazing. And chilling.
by Scott Horton : 10:43 AM

-- Scott Horton, Friday, October 20, 2006
sysprog | 10.20.06 - 1:51 pm | #

shooter just wanted to prove that McCain doesn't have a monopoly on incoherent public statements about the situation Iraq.
Rufus | Homepage | 10.20.06 - 1:53 pm | #

sectarian violence is escalating in hopes of scaring out Dems

Yea, those Iraqi Republicans are at it again. (Maybe that's why they called them the Republican Guard)

Shiite's kill Sunni's and vice versa in hopes of scaring Democrats.

Delusional but nevertheless entertaining. And not a speck of reality to sunder the plotline.
Paul Dirks | Homepage | 10.20.06 - 1:58 pm | #

Looking at the declassified docs it doesn't appear that much of what NK was doing after 1994 was a secret to us at all.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSA...AEBB87/ nk18.pdf

But it does look like Bush's decision to abandon the 1994 framework gave NK just the impetus it needed to rid itself of any remaining inhibitions in the nuclear area. Good going that.
AJ | 10.20.06 - 2:14 pm | #

I'm glad whenever anyone points out that John McCain is not what his image makes him out to be. He would be a terrible President.

[b]He is not a moderate.[/b] He might be better than Bush, but only in the way that being shot in the head is a better way of dying than being tortured to death.

I used to drink the McCain kool-aid. No more.
Dan D | 10.20.06 - 2:17 pm | #

Shooter why are you ducking the question???

Even if one is too old to join our nation's military and shoulder a weapon in the great and glorious clash of civilizations, shouldn't those that know how serious the threat is be participating in some real way? Shouldn't Bart and "the Dog" be over in Iraq volunteering to teach monarchial law at an Iraqi law school? Shouldn't shooter242 be over there lending his great insight in some way? And what about Daleyrocks? How old are you daleyrocks? Don't you have anything, any skill you could be using to aide our great warriors that are dying to save our civilization? Surely all of these great thinkers realize the peril we are in and are willing to drop everything to go to Iraq and, in some way, fight the greatest enemy we have ever known! After all none of us will have our stock portfolios if we are dead and is there any doubt that, if the enemy is not engaged and destroyed, we will not all be dead?

We need your help Bart, Dog, Shooter and Daleyrocks! We need you to save us. Won't you answer the call?

Why are you not going over to Iraq to help with the war effort? Answer the god-damned question you coward.

.
... | 10.20.06 - 2:18 pm | #

Shooter has answered that question many times.

And it is sort of beside the point. I am against the war. Why am I not lying down in front of a tank in Iraq?

I want shooter to explain how "staying the course" is going to produce anything else but "more of the same."
AJ | 10.20.06 - 2:28 pm | #

Disgusted Beyond Belief | 10.20.06 - 1:26 pm
Now, what is the incentive for them not to just do this again when the class II bomb is ready to be tested? They know they can just ignore Bush, test their bomb on their timetable, and then, just say 'oh, so sorry!' when they're done and the west will see that as a 'victory'.

I'm curious, how do you know they didn't have nukes in 1993?
How do you know the Pakistanis didn't give them the plutonium?
How do you know they weren't processing plutonium during the '90's?
How do you know exactly what got set off and what they have in reserve?

Because they said so and promised to tell the truth? Because Clinton believed in bribery and Kim said he'd be good? LOL.
If you want to blame Bush for insisting that agreements be verifiable, leading to NK declaring that an act of war, and breaking the IAEA sels, be my guest.

Here we have two styles of diplomacy. The Clinton style which relies on backroom deals, bribery, and little oversight, and the Bush style which requires sunshine be let in to see if Kim has changed his ways and is actually telling the truth.

Do you prefer sleazy and secretive or open and honest? Either way we have no leverage like that of China. They are the big stick that Kim is afraid of, and they have the werewithal to know what is, and what isn't going on in there.
Aside from all that, where is the lefty desire to have coalitions deal with problems like this. How arrogant is it to insist that the US be the sole representative for that part of the world.

Don't be disgusted, be happy. The US is using diplomacy just like the left wanted and it's working. (Sigh) Liberals are constitutionally unable to be happy it seems.

PS. About the difference between uranium and plutonium? It seems there were seperate secret programs for both.
shooter242 | 10.20.06 - 2:29 pm | #

Of course, the administration could prove it by letting us know what kind of nuke they tested last week. Why haven't they?
Try again.
Rip | Homepage | 10.20.06 - 1:34 pm | #

How about.... because they don't know?
shooter242 | 10.20.06 - 2:31 pm | #

I want shooter to explain how "staying the course" is going to produce anything else but "more of the same."
AJ | 10.20.06 - 2:28 pm

It probably won't.

Because leaving will produce worse consequences than staying.
shooter242 | 10.20.06 - 2:36 pm | #

About the difference between uranium and plutonium? It seems there were seperate secret programs for both.

And it looks like we knew about them. So not so secret.
AJ | 10.20.06 - 2:36 pm | #

From shooter242 at 2:31pm:

How about.... because they don't know?

Odd that, given some of the stories I've heard are reporting this last 'test' was dud.

Hardly worth getting worked up about then, isn't it?

Incidentially, shooter, as we know you've neither the courage nor resolve to actually do anything in the real sense, perhaps you could try answering the questin posed as 2:28pm by AJ? Surely that shouldn't be too hard for you?
yankeependragon | 10.20.06 - 2:37 pm | #

yankee pendragon, what we did to deserve this was be apathetic and ignorant(I'm talking about the average American here). Look at polls that show that a majority of Americans can't name a single Supreme Court justice. A poll taken in July found that 50% of those polled believe that Iraq had WMD. How many people know more about the trials and tribulations of Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie than know the name of their Congressional representatives. Americans managed to elect a President as vacuous and incurious as they are.
Gus | 10.20.06 - 2:38 pm | #

How about.... because they don't know?

Huh?

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/1...sia& oref=slogin
Paul Dirks | Homepage | 10.20.06 - 2:38 pm | #

From shooter242 at 2:36pm:

It probably won't.

Because leaving will produce worse consequences than staying.

Such a comfort to the thousands upon thousands of Iraq and American families forever destroyed by this fiasco your crowd got us into, never mind the thousands upon thousands more forever scarred, maimed, broken, and otherwise damaged beyond repair.

A real Hallmark card sentiment.

Exactly how much did you sell your soul for again? Pocket change?
yankeependragon | 10.20.06 - 2:40 pm | #

SHOOTER242

Since you wont answer the question than how about you at least read this then you loathsome, filthy coward.

You really should shut that god-damed shithole you call a mouth. One of these days it is gonna cost you more than ridicule.

Oh yeah and "AJ" - it's besides the point eh? Not from where this former Marine stands. As far as I am concerned you can get fucked too. The fact that you are not out in the streets here at home protesting the war and demanding the heads of the war criminals makes you no better than shooter. All talk. Armchair philosophers and cowards.

.
... | 10.20.06 - 2:40 pm | #

Shooter,

So staying will produce more of the same but leaving is worse.

So you are proposing an open-ended stay until when?

What will have to happen for you to say it's time for us to go?
AJ | 10.20.06 - 2:40 pm | #

shooter sez:

(Sigh) Liberals are constitutionally unable to be happy it seems.

I respond:

First, how do you know I'm a liberal? I've noted in discussions in many places, one common thing neocons and their ilk like to do is label anyone who disagrees with them a 'liberal' and then they pretty much use 'liberal' as a swear word.

So I'd ask you kindly not to label me, especially when it is an incorrect label. If you want to use a one-dimensional label in the future, the one that is probably closest to correct would be conservative libertarian. You know, the sorts of people that were for limited government who have now been totally abandoned by the GOP.

You seem to have missed the central point of my post - which was to point out that North Korea saying 'I'm sorry' means absolutely nothing, so your harping on it like it was some great Bush success was rather ridiculous. They got what they wanted. They did their nuclear test. They know their bombs work now. The 'I'm sorry' is totally meaningless and is not a sign of success for anyone in the wake of the mushroom cloud they just created.
Disgusted Beyond Belief | 10.20.06 - 2:41 pm | #

yeah -- well big guy ...., I am a veteran too.

So spare me your more valiant-than-thou lectures.

As far as I can tell, you aren't laying down in front of a tank either. You're here. With us.

Working to elect people who will hold this administration accountable and get us out of this mess.
AJ | 10.20.06 - 2:44 pm | #

For those defending John McCain or saying that my description of his plan is unfair:

My principal point about McCain is that he's always incoherent when he talks about Iraq. He tries to pretend that he is criticizing the President and offering an alternative plan but it never is clear.

As I said, I described what he was saying as best as I understood it. Matthews understood it the same way. He wants 100,000 troops more in the military, and more troops in Iraq.

Where are those 100,000 troops going to come from? He DOES say that people are going to volunteer once they realize how improtant it is. When will that happen? How many more are needed in Iraq? What are they going to do there? He never says.

So if you think that what I described as his plan isn't really his plan, then you have the obligation to say what he is saying. What specifically is his plan for more troops and for winning in Iraq?
Glenn Greenwald | 10.20.06 - 2:52 pm | #

We could always redeploy our troops from South Korea......
Paul Dirks | Homepage | 10.20.06 - 2:54 pm | #

McCain is not only incoherent on Iraq. He is incoherent on a whole range of subjects as he walks that tightrope between Dobson and Kristol.
AJ | 10.20.06 - 2:54 pm | #

Three dots, is there any point to all this abuse of shooter and AJ, or do you just like reading people off? Telling people who disagree with you to go fuck themselves doesn't exactly qualify as effective political action, you know.

If you want to do everyone a favor, try playing the bagpipe on a lonely hilltop. It would make just as much noise, but you wouldn't have to annoy anyone except the occasional passerby.

Meanwhile, the political discussion here would probably get along very well without you.
William Timberman | 10.20.06 - 2:58 pm | #

Jeremy, I, too, read Glenn's post and had a feeling that Glenn was mis-representing McCain's intent. On first read, it didn't seem that he was saying the 100,000 new troops were all going to Iraq, or that he had no idea how to gain the 100,000 troops. Surely McCain has some intelligent position, he just got tongue-tied in that interview. Maybe he just had a bad day.

So I checked out McCain's website. The relevant press release is at
http://mccain.senate.gov/ index.c...Content_id=2463

McCain "believe[s] we must increase troop strength if we are to win this war." By this he means Iraq, as he references Iraq and Iraq only three times previously in that paragraph.

The end of the press release reads "We must begin now to increase substantially the troop strength of the Army and Marine Corps by at least 100,000."

Can one of his constituents write to him please, and point out that he has to tell us how 100,000 more soldiers are to be recruited, trained, and deployed, without instituting a draft? and how many of that "at least 100,000" should go to Iraq?

If he thinks it's someone else's job to figure out the details, he should tell us who that person is.

I suspected that since Glenn didn't provide hundreds of links to back up his argument, as he usually does, that maybe we weren't getting the whole story. But just a simple glance at McCain's own website convinced me we were.

Thanks, Glenn! Great post!
sfHeath | 10.20.06 - 3:05 pm | #

Disgusted...
You seem to have missed the central point of my post - which was to point out that North Korea saying 'I'm sorry' means absolutely nothing,

Come now, where is your sense of nuance? We are talking about a meglomaniac that regularly threatens war at the drop of a hat. Has he ever, and I mean ever, been contrite about anything? You may not think this kind of humiliation is a big deal, but I think time will prove me right.

That said, you all have worn me out. Time for a nap....
Yes, there IS rest for the wicked .
Anonymous | 10.20.06 - 3:06 pm | #

William Timberman | 10.20.06 - 2:58 pm |

From what I have seen you are potentially the worst of the lot. Thinking that "political discussion" is what actually matters at this stage.

If you don't like what I have to say why don't you ignore me and carry on with loving the sight of your own writing.

Fuck you too.

.
... | 10.20.06 - 3:12 pm | #

Nothing short of armed rebellion I guess.....
Paul Dirks | Homepage | 10.20.06 - 3:14 pm | #

Glenn is right about the absurdity of McClain's position, but McClain is by no means alone.

As many knowledgeable people have pointed out from the beginning of this mess, including some here, once GWB decided on war in Iraq, he was in effect giving hostages to fortune on a scale no one in the U.S. government had attempted since our imbroglio in Vietnam.

He went ahead, and as Billmon very eloquently put it, shoved his arm into the garbage disposal up to the elbow and flipped the switch.

No one who knew anything worth knowing about military operations, the history of Iraq, or of the geopolitical forces arrayed against us ever thought that we could conduct a successful long term occupation of Iraq without a substantially larger investment in materiel and manpower than was either available, or likely to be available given the administration's domestic policies, i.e. no additional tax revenue, and no draft.

This makes McCain's interview wistful at best, and stunningly moronic at best. If he wants to rally people around the flag, he should start in the White House.
William Timberman | 10.20.06 - 3:17 pm | #

Could someone please tell me how we as a nation screwed up so badly we actually deserve this?

I believe it was called "Decision 2000" followed by the shocking sequel "Decision 2004".
ckelly | 10.20.06 - 3:18 pm | #

Shooter:

Our intelligence agencies collected samples in the air and confirmed that NK had indeed tested a nuclear weapon. They know. They aren't saying. If it is uranium, Bush was right, if it was plutonium, he was wrong. It really is just that simple.

So far, there is no evidence that has been presented that NK had any program to enrich uranium and their plutonium was under IAEA seal until they (quite lawfully, I might add) withdrew from the NPT and openly began enriching it again. They did not do this in secret.
RAC | 10.20.06 - 3:19 pm | #

McCain's solution to 100grand plus troops and 250 bills a day is to double it to 250 troops and 500billion a day, cost plus so it cycles upwards.

Without paying for it.

Oy.
Mr.Murder | 10.20.06 - 3:20 pm | #

That should have read stunningly moronic at worst, but grammar aside, it actually works well enough even with the error, I think.
William Timberman | 10.20.06 - 3:20 pm | #

don't even know what these guys mean by "win" and "victory"....

That's OK, neither do they.
ckelly | 10.20.06 - 3:21 pm | #

uh oh

wittle ... has his panties in a twist.
AJ | 10.20.06 - 3:21 pm | #

. Its most likely that the publisher of this blog will ban you when he has a chance to catch up on the remarks.
In the meantime, why don'y you look for your lithium chewing gum and catch up on your medication.
brainfaht | 10.20.06 - 3:24 pm | #

As always, hindsight is indeed 20-20.
shooter242 | 10.20.06 - 12:48 pm | #

To shooter and his ilk, hindsight is peering out between the cheeks of his ass.
ThePoetsRoundHere | 10.20.06 - 3:24 pm | #

And none of it addresses North Korea.
Todd | 10.20.06 - 11:58 am | #

I'm glad you brought that up, how about Kim backing down before the Chinese?
I'd say that cements the concept that Bush's 6-party talks worked while the Clinton bribery scheme didn't.

This friends, is how diplomacy is supposed to work.
shooter242

Yes! It is masterful display of statecraft that world see North Koreans defy us while cowering before Red Chinese! Shooter will be execute!

Jagshemash!
Borat | Homepage | 10.20.06 - 3:25 pm | #

McCain is not only incoherent on Iraq. He is incoherent on a whole range of subjects as he walks that tightrope between Dobson and Kristol.
AJ

Are you the AJ from that "other blog"? If so, you are a great addition over there and I'm glad they finally put up a little bio about you on the side with all they other contributors. I kept asking them to do that.
Haloscan ate my name | Homepage | 10.20.06 - 3:34 pm | #

... You sound like a Mooron. Do you ever think for yourself or just regurgitate?

People like you give the left a bad name and that's tough to do.
daleyrocks | 10.20.06 - 3:37 pm | #

McCain has been running on fumes for a long long time. He figures he can simply coast down the Hill and into the White House on an empty tank. Dodging c-ment barricades in his rickety old Maverick and grinning out the window like a tangle-tongued ninny the whole way down.

*
the farmer | 10.20.06 - 3:37 pm | #

Nope -- not that AJ and no clue what other blog you are talking about.
AJ | 10.20.06 - 3:41 pm | #

Shooter writes:

The usual response is that there WERE no WMD's, to which I reply "how VX gas, which Hussian supposedly had did you find that out"? At this point, rather than admitting the simple logic of having to go look for ourselves, most will tangent off into "inspections not being allowed to work" or incompetent intelligence.

This is a typical argument based on pure dumb ignorance. Despite what you saw on McGyver, the production of WMDs takes a large industrial base. It was well known and established that Saddam did not have the industrial base post Gulf War 1.

Despite the right-wing MYTH, not supported by intelligence, that he did.

But what about stocks? The Wingnuts frequently talk about the existence of stocks.

What was constantly avoided during the run-up, though SOME in the press tried to talk about it in the early days, is that poison gas has a half-life once made and it has to be used fairly quickly or stabilized in a manner that the Iraqi's never learned. The 40,000 liters of unstabilized VX gas, would have been manufactured in the 1980's and had a half-life of less than 6 months.

In short, even if he had some pre-GWI stock-piles, they'd not even be as dangerous as pesticides. For xample, if you set the strength of VX to "1" and run the half-life's at 6 months in length, the resultant strength by the time of invasion would be 0.0000000037253...

In short, if you managed to re-distil the 40,000 liters of VX gas into actual VX gas you'd have 39,999.99 liters of decomposed VX gas that was useless and about a cubic centimeter of VX gas.

Because, like it nor in Wingnutlandia, chemistry and physics work without regard to political affilation and national policy.

Anyway, that's part of why the whole "we had to go" argument on WMDs was a load of crap. You have to have an INDUSTRY capable of making the products. The stupid and silly crap you see on TV is MAKE BELIEVE. In the REAL WORLD it takes FACTORIES.
Moses | 10.20.06 - 3:42 pm | #

Borat, whether or not you are the one and only Borat, I can't help thinking -- when I can stop laughing long enough to think -- that you make more sense in two sentences than our present government can manage in a month.

I read somewhere recently that your home country has invited you back for consultations; I hope that goes well for you....
William Timberman | 10.20.06 - 3:44 pm | #

The time to admit it will be in late November, when the corporate media can start amplifying the new message that the "Democrats lost Iraq." As long as the Republicans who are not in tight races continue to deny the blindingly obvious fact that there no possible way to win right now, they preserve the possibility of shifting blame later.

This is it exactly. I think the Bush administration understands very well that the war in Iraq is lost. They are just trying to hold on for the next two years so the actual failure will happen on the next President's watch and(s)he can be blamed. If the Democrats do take Congress there will be another scapegoat beginning early next year.

Either way, we would have won this war if we hadn't been stabbed in the back by those treacherous Democrats (snark).
Enlightened Layperson | Homepage | 10.20.06 - 3:48 pm | #

an emey that has stated that their goal is to - y'know - eliminate us from the face of the earth

Oooooo! Do they want a pony too?

The point is to frighten people. The Republicans don't just think you're stupid, they think you're a pussy.
.
Grand Moff Texan | Homepage | 10.20.06 - 3:50 pm | #

Right, you're talking about the same people that had NK and Iran develop secret nuclear programs under their noses.

Shooter,

It has been conclusively estabished by the fallout samples that the bomb detonated was a PLUTONIUM bomb. During Clinton's time NOT ONE GRAM of plutonium was unaccounted for at all time and the North Korean's were UNABLE to re-processed in to bomb-grade plutonium as it was under constant monitoring and inspection.

Bush, acting the fool, let this get out of hand. 100% BushII. No Clinton. No Bush I. No Reagan. Pure, unadulterated BUSH II.

With Iran, their weapon's program is still more PR and hype than anything else. They don't have the ability to process Uranium, DESPITE TRYING TO DO SO SINCE 1979.

Is there nothing, for which you know nothing, on which you won't blioviate?
Moses | 10.20.06 - 3:53 pm | #

On Wendell's comment way up the line:

"In reality, he has become a complete candyass in the last 6 years, voting with Bush 90% of the time, never talking his lips off the RR's ass."

Same thing happened to Dole back in '96. He was okay in his run for the WH in '88, and used his experience and trauma from the war, but realized the only way to get any clout in the GOP after that was to bow down before the Christian Coalition and be the "morality" candidate.
roondog | 10.20.06 - 3:55 pm | #

I'd say that cements the concept that Bush's 6-party talks worked while the Clinton bribery scheme didn't.

Cemented? Yes. In the trailer park.

Meanwhile, people who think for a living can tell that a policy that resulted in no refinement and no bomb is a success.

A policy that gave a madman a bomb is a failure.

But the Republicans have failed in the real world so badly that they have to redefine failure as success and vice versa, and then hire people to say it over and over.

Whatever.

Let me know when you're ready to deal with the real world.
.
Grand Moff Texan | Homepage | 10.20.06 - 4:00 pm | #

John McCain’s call for more troops sounds tuff, that’s why he says it although he can’t back it up – in U.S. politics sounding tuff and macho is all that matters, perception trumps reality.

How many journalists are going to call McCain on his real lack of a plan like Glenn did? McCain dominates the Sunday yak-fest, but will he be asked such a simple question? I’m not holding my breath.

McCain’s position is the neo-cons position, it Bill Kristol’s talking point and, if they’re able to contrast a “strong” sounding talking point versus a weak one (“cut and run”) then they think they’ll be able to pull out election victories with non-answers and non-existent policies. It’s worked for them up until now.

Look at the latest polls in CT. Holy Joe is taking the neo-con position and he’s 17 points ahead of ‘cut and run appeaser to the terrorists’ Lamont. As long as talking tough works better than facing reality, and the media doesn’t call them on their mendacity, they’ll try to get away with such nonsense – it’s much easier than coming up with a real plan.

I think we’re about to see that change in many places, but until this sort of nonsensical macho posturing stops winning elections they’ll keep doing it.
enough said | 10.20.06 - 4:04 pm | #

The Shiite militia run by the anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr seized control of a southern Iraqi city on Friday in one of the boldest acts of defiance yet by the country's powerful, unofficial armies, witnesses and police said.

Mahdi Army fighters stormed three main police stations Friday morning, residents said, planting explosives that flattened the buildings in Amarah, a city just 30 miles from the Iranian border that was under British command until August, when it was returned to Iraqi government control.

Ironic coming on the heels of this comment and the idiot appologists. Like we realized in Vietnam after the Tet Offensive, we're not going to win the war. We've lost and it was the right wing that screwed the pooch: not enough troops to secure the peace and no post-war plan. A collosal failure at every level.
Anonymous | 10.20.06 - 4:04 pm | #

Well the poll internals are weighted far past proportional comparison in the survey showing ned trailing...
Mr.Murder | 10.20.06 - 4:07 pm | #

Re Winning The War

I've yet to find a measurable definition of what winning means and probably never will. I once thought that all the bushy-man ("the boogie-man" has been updated as of this post) had to do was simply declare victory but we all know how that went. Will those with a realizable definition please stand up? I've spent some portion of my career as a project manager and as such I learned that without a robust definition of the "end state" you could never define when the project is over. Death by scope creep was inevitable without such.

In the meantime I submit this from the St. Petersburg Times...

Re: War in Iraq
Submitted by Letters to the ... on Mon, 2006-03-27 09:30. Letters

What is "victory in Iraq''? The only credible definition has three linked objectives: stability, prosperity, and democracy. Our "report card'' on these objectives after three years is not promising. On stability, we get an F: the country is wracked by violence and sliding towards civil war. On prosperity, we also get an F; Iraqi citizens in Baghdad and many other key parts of the country are no better off materially than they were when the war began. On democracy, we can claim to have earned a B so far; the elections had strong participation and widespread perception of legitimacy. But how long do we expect democracy to stand without stability and prosperity? A Haitian-style democracy is hardly what we had in mind.

In short, we clearly are not winning the war so far, and we have far less prospect of doing so now than we did three years ago. Whether or not we call this "losing the war,'' the fact of the matter is, we desperately need to redefine our objectives and engage in the art of the possible, the best outcome of a bad hand. No matter what we choose, the outcome is not likely to be pretty for the people of Iraq, but the sooner we acknowledge this, the sooner we can realistically pursue strategies that at least mitigate the damage and the suffering. The worst possible choice, for them and for us, is to simply "stay the course'' with a blanket of empty rhetoric about "victory in Iraq.'' Unfortunately, the Bush administration shows little sign of knowing how to do anything else.

Andrew Chittick, St. Petersburg
sparafucilli | 10.20.06 - 4:09 pm | #

Oh yeah and "AJ" - it's besides the point eh? Not from where this former Marine stands. As far as I am concerned you can get fucked too. The fact that you are not out in the streets here at home protesting the war and demanding the heads of the war criminals makes you no better than shooter. All talk. Armchair philosophers and cowards.

.
...

Ah, a pissed-off former Marine. Well, I understand. Marines don't talk, they act. I respect that. I can only guess it's frustrating to find yourself at a keyboard when you'd like to be bashing heads.

I feel the same way sometimes. But I hope you can learn that rhetoric and sophistry don't need to be the same thing, and that many of us are here to actually try to get something of value from the discussion here. And that means reading and posting, discussing and thinking. Not just blowing off.
Baldie McEagle | 10.20.06 - 4:15 pm | #

shooter, my question remains unanswered: if you want to stay the course, why don't you want to succeed at staying the course (by putting in more troops)?

You've acknowledged that staying the course (with current troop levels) won't accomplish much, but (in your opinion) leaving is worse. You then willfully ignore the third and obvious option- increase the troop presence. Why?

If you truly believe that staying is preferable to leaving, and if you truly believe staying with the same # troops won't accomplish much, then why are you unwilling to advocate for a policy that might accomplish more?

Personally, I find this shameful. Your fellow Americans are dying in Iraq, and you refuse to either save them (by pulling them out), or help them (by putting in more troops). How much are they paying you to say these things?
cfaller96 | Homepage | 10.20.06 - 4:16 pm | #

The point is to frighten people. The Republicans don't just think you're stupid, they think you're a pussy.
.
Grand Moff Texan

And they think we want ponies.
Baldie McEagle | 10.20.06 - 4:17 pm | #

Let's take Moses' chemistry and physics argument about weapons from Iraq to Iran. The neocons say that the Iranians are making weapons grade plutonium simply because they have over a hundred centrifuges and the will to own weapons.

However, chemistry and physics proves that they would need fifty times as many centrifuges to make "weapons grade" plutonium because "weapons grade" isn't simply some stamp of approval by the USDA as neocons believe, but an exponentially higher level of purity required for weapons to produce atomic reactions. Whether it's Saddam or Ahmadinejad, you can have all the will in the world, but a desert of sand isn't a glass palace.
Colin Lee | 10.20.06 - 4:19 pm | #

What was constantly avoided during the run-up, though SOME in the press tried to talk about it in the early days, is that poison gas has a half-life once made and it has to be used fairly quickly or stabilized in a manner that the Iraqi's never learned.

It's worse than that. Even the components for their sarin binaries break down over time, which is why that US-made M687 they found cannibalized as an IED didn't even kill two guys at point-blank range.

That and the crusty residue of mustard gas on a bunch of shells didn't even make the Duelfer Report.

Pathetic, weak, and sad. To think all those people died for nothing.
.
Grand Moff Texan | Homepage | 10.20.06 - 4:20 pm | #

Moses - Why did Ray McGovern, head of the VIPs and super spy extraordinaire write to Bush a week or so before the Iraq invasion to express his concern about chemical and biological weapons being used on the troops during the invasion if people like you and the others on this site all knew Saddam didn't have anything dangerous. Being all tapped into his intelligence sources and everything, did Ray miss the memo saying it was all bullshit?
daleyrocks | 10.20.06 - 4:21 pm | #

From Moses at 3:53pm:

It has been conclusively estabished by the fallout samples that the bomb detonated was a PLUTONIUM bomb. During Clinton's time NOT ONE GRAM of plutonium was unaccounted for at all time and the North Korean's were UNABLE to re-processed in to bomb-grade plutonium as it was under constant monitoring and inspection.

Without detracting from Moses original point, I will only point out that I have not yet heard it determined that this test actually yielded a sustained fission chain reaction (the energy released by which is what makes a nuke so destructive).

Until I hear such, I'm significantly less worried about North Korea's program than I am the thousands of virtually unguarded nukes and materials lying about Russia.

Is there nothing, for which you know nothing, on which you won't blioviate?

His inability to quit venting methane through his backside, perhaps, but I doubt shooter's lack of standards will keep that particular urge at bay for much longer.
yankeependragon | 10.20.06 - 4:21 pm | #

Please understand I am not accusing anyone of being unpatriotic or not loving their country, but I honestly don't understand this logic. I am more free when I am dead?
Paul | 10.20.06 - 11:45 am | #

Give me Liberty or give me Death!
- Patrick Henry, March 23, 1775
(He's one of our "founding fathers" by the way)

I think Patrick Henry might accuse you of being unpatriotic or not loving your country, since you don't seem to support the millions who have died defending our civil liberties.

I think you misunderstand what patriotism is. Please open a History book and learn something about the country you claim to love.
Capt Obvious | 10.20.06 - 4:22 pm | #

Army need?

Ladies and Gentlemen, may I present the largest and oldest political youth organization in the United States, with 50 member federations on over 1000 campuses.
The College Republicans.

Anything else you need me to fix?
Robert | 10.20.06 - 4:23 pm | #

"When pro-war advocates talk about Iraq these days".

Who, in your opinion, is a pro-war advocate? The opening sentence makes anything that follows suspect.

You make an important point though (Yes I did read it to see if there was anything supported by evidence):

". . .but there are also plainly no viable options to change what is occurring -- so all he does is babble incoherently about it."

I agree, but the idea that this phenomena is limited to "pro-war advocates" is either blind or dishonest. I hear incessant babbling from every corner. I haven't heard one reasonable 'Democrat' solution to the present situation.

". . . (a) it is achieving nothing positive and (b) there are no viable and realistic options for achieving anything positive,"

More arguments presented as facts but not supported by evidence.

You seem to have let the incessant stupid babbling by all sides of this issue push you into the Neverland. In this Neverland there is no hope of anything positive, so any time spent thinking about options is really time wasted.

The number of IED's that exploded today, this week, or this month, etc. may be an indicator of the security situation in Iraq. The security situation in Iraq is connected to the Iraqi governments ability to govern. This is where we need to do a better job. That is all the insurgency should mean to us.

Too many people are listening to the babbling, watching the leftist and extremist propoganda, and coming away with cause and affect arguments that are illogical.

I'm not an attorney or published author, but I'm sharp enough to know what bullshit smells like. If James Baker and company can come up with a better plan to get us the hell out of there I'll welcome it. Nobody is going to come up with such a plan if they're spending all of their time trying to find flaws in someone elses. That isn't leadership.
David Reed | Homepage | 10.20.06 - 4:25 pm | #

Why did Ray McGovern, head of the VIPs and super spy extraordinaire write to Bush a week or so before the Iraq invasion to express his concern about chemical and biological weapons being used on the troops during the invasion

Why did the Brits' Ministry of Defense admit that they didn't go into Iraq equipped for bioogicl and chemical weapons?

Because their military planners knew that all the talk of 'WMD' was purely for domestic consumption by idiots like you.

if people like you and the others on this site all knew Saddam didn't have anything dangerous.

I knew it was all bullshit when Bush pulled the weapons inspectors out. They were finding nothing.

I knew when they continued to insist on information they knew to be wrong, like the yellow-cake lie and the blue tubes.

If they'd had anything, their media campaign would have had to have used it instead of the weak shit that people like me had already seen through.

What? Are you proud of being dumber than me?
.
Grand Moff Texan | Homepage | 10.20.06 - 4:25 pm | #

ThePoetsRoundHere | 10.20.06 - 3:24 pm |

*zing*

.
Echo | 10.20.06 - 4:26 pm | #

For that matter, daleyrocks, why did Colin Powell say publically that Iraq had lost its wmd capability and wasn't even a conventional weapons threat to its neighbors any more?

Of course, that was overseas, right before 9/11. It was very easy to write the new version, since they can rely on loyal little soviets like you to repeat it, and even believe it.
.
Grand Moff Texan | Homepage | 10.20.06 - 4:28 pm | #

Looked briefly at David Reed's webpage and it's apparent he's a Bush apologist.

Another uninformed Faux News junkie. You know they watch that bullshit and then regurgitate it endlessly.

Wimps and cowards, the lot of them.
toM | 10.20.06 - 4:29 pm | #

It actually is possible to increase the number of troops by 100,000 without a draft, but it would be hideously expensive. The laws of economics apply here -- raise the salary, benefits, and signing bonuses enough and you will get those 100,000 people. You will also incur billions of dollars of increased debt. So the question to ask of McCain: if this is your solution, how are you proposing to pay for this?
PaulB | 10.20.06 - 4:30 pm | #

Thanks for the follow-up Paul. The cost of making the Army capable of maintaining present objectives is the real 'Elephant in the Room...'
Mr.Murder | 10.20.06 - 4:33 pm | #

Grand Muff - Congratulations, you're a hindsight hero just like Arne. Arne claims to have the website postings backdated now to prove his foresight. How about you? Or are you just retroactively proclaiming your semi-pro intellectual genius. I liked the Haloscan disguise better.
daleyrocks | 10.20.06 - 4:35 pm | #

McCain takes a lesson from Vietnam. Unreconstructed Hawks always said that we could have won that one if we had only tried, by putting in many more soldiers. McCain is simply talking about a plan that we all know will never happen.
Jim Hudson | Homepage | 10.20.06 - 4:36 pm | #

Grand Muff - Congratulations, you're a hindsight hero just like Arne.

Congratulations, you're a coward who pretends not to be able to read. I've just told you exactly what I've been saying since before the invasion.

You, on the other hand, are just somebody else's bitch and you're afraid to admit it.

You got used. I didn't. That's because you're inferior.
.
Grand Moff Texan | Homepage | 10.20.06 - 4:38 pm | #

Nope -- not that AJ and no clue what other blog you are talking about.
AJ

Okey-dokey.

A.J. @ http://americablog.blogspot.com/
Haloscan ate my name | Homepage | 10.20.06 - 4:47 pm | #

Grand Muff - Ray McGovern works closely with Broadway Joe Wilson and Larry Johnson. If Ray was worried could it mean they were all worried and then shifted positions when it became politically opportune to do so.

Probably!
daleyrocks | 10.20.06 - 4:50 pm | #

If Ray was worried could it mean they were all worried

Non sequitur. Your arguments get weaker all the time.
.
Grand Moff Texan | Homepage | 10.20.06 - 4:51 pm | #

I agree with several others here. I think Glenn misunderstood and thus misrepresented what McCain actually said.

The McCain quote:

"I don‘t think we need to think of the draft again because I don‘t think it makes sense in a whole variety of ways. But I guarantee you, if these young people felt that this nation was in a crisis and we asked them to serve, virtually every one of them would stand up because I have the greatest confidence in the young people of America."

Glenn's take:

" As best I can tell, his position is that we need 100,000 more troops to win, and that young Americans one day are going to realize this and there will be a spontaneous and massive wave of volunteers eager to go to Iraq and fight in combat there because they will realize -- like McCain and the President do -- just how Very Important it is that we win."

The part I think you got wrong is whether McCain was in any way referring to Iraq when he said "if these young people felt that this nation was in a crisis and we asked them to serve". There is no mention of Iraq in this statement at all. He did not say that suddenly thousands of young people would suddenly realize anything about Iraq. His reply was in response to a question about whether the draft needed to be reinstated.

Do I think McCain has a plan to get those extra 100,000? No, or at least if he does he certainly didn't state it in this exchange. But he also didn't say what Glenn attributes to him.
Scott | 10.20.06 - 4:52 pm | #

I think I understand where dots is coming from. He just needs to get his FoF sorted out because he's just spraying and praying in all directions.
Haloscan ate my name | Homepage | 10.20.06 - 3:36 pm |

No. I know exactly where I am aiming. "Spraying and Praying" never gets it done. You forget, or perhaps you never knew, "one shot, one kill" is a Marine Corps motto. Though I admit, the more I visit sites like this and read the comments of the friendlies, my FoF does expand a bit.

I appreciate the fact that you may think you know where I am coming from but given that description it is obvious you do not. You may be willing to give the "friendlies" and their incessant bullshit a pass, all in the name of "civil discourse," but I no longer am. Their decisions, concerning how they choose to spend their time, affects us more than the shooters and daleyrocks of this world. It is their impotence that will be our downfall, not shooter and daleyrock's soul-destroying cowardice and stupidity.

Having said that I know that we will now be, once again, subjected to WT expounding on his revolutionary bona fides and his excuses for not revisiting those actions, and I will have to endure the inevitable accusations of "well aren't you the pot calling the kettle black? Here talking to us... aren't you engaging in the very thing you despise?!?" (even though none of you know what I have been doing and if I were to go off on my own and personally do some damage or simply acts of civil disobedience then I would be labeled a nutcase or a loon.) It is a quandary I will grant you that but is it really necessary to point any of this out? No, it wouldn't be except for the impotent and perpetually defensive "friendlies".

What none of them are willing to admit is that they are as cowardly as the shooters and daleyrocks of this world. It is safer for them to meet their foe here in the ether. It gives them a false sense of accomplishing something even though they know and have been shown time after time that folks like shooter and daleyrocks can not be reasoned with and are indeed evil in the most basic sense of the word.

I have asked this question before and no one will answer it - What would it take, what event or reality would people like WT and AJ have to suffer before they are willing to do the least amount of direct action to put a stop to all of this?

It is my belief that they do not have an answer because those events have already happened and they chose to do nothing. Those terrible events have passed them by. They made their choice long ago so they are still here loving the sight of their own arguments with the likes of shooter. If, to their mind, those events have not yet occurred then I am not sure what there is left to say.

What's that you say? You are waiting for the election? You are waiting for the election to save us?

Ok, whatever. What happens when that doesn't work?

As much as WT and AJ would rather not suffer me and what I have to say - well, let's just say the feeling is more than mutual.

Glenn will have no need to ban me.

.
... | 10.20.06 - 4:52 pm | #

I read somewhere recently that your home country has invited you back for consultations; I hope that goes well for you....
William Timberman

Is not safe for me to return until movie here is big JagsheSMASH!

Jagshemash!
Borat | Homepage | 10.20.06 - 4:52 pm | #

David - You haven't read any reasonable Democrat solutions because none have been presented.
daleyrocks | 10.20.06 - 4:52 pm | #

I liked the Haloscan disguise better.

What does this mean?
.
Grand Moff Texan | Homepage | 10.20.06 - 4:53 pm | #

Actually McGovern's concern was enough to cast doubt over the initial WMD claims. Troops were staged in central stations, proof we feared no WMD first stike in theatre.

Rational people concluded as much and opposed the war...
Mr.Murder | 10.20.06 - 4:53 pm | #

DeWitt Grey | 10.20.06 - 12:22 pm | #

You completely 100% nailed it. Congress is supposed to be much more involved in this war. So far all they've done is write up theft appropriations bills and left the rest to the "decider in chief."

We need to pay soldiers much more as it is. So yeah, McCain can have his 100,000 troops if they double the pay rate and benefits.

But I think we're also forgetting about the toll on Iraq if we send 100,000-200,000 more troops over there. What are they going to do? Crush everyone? Martial Law over the whole country?
Jake | Homepage | 10.20.06 - 4:56 pm | #

I recently attended a showing of Iraq for Sale, which had some interesting anecdotal details about the contracting out of support, logistics and what looked to me like MP/paramilitary functions, to a number of corporations such as Haliburton/KBR, Blackwater and CACI.

Interesting because, while Rumsfeld seems to look upon them as force multipliers, Bush and Cheney have used them as political patronage.

As a result, we appear to have spent an obscenely large amount of money on substandard logistical support, set loose a bunch of trigger-happy thugs without any rules of engagement, and padded the pockets of most of Cheney's friends and acquaintances.

Maybe we could just outsource the whole miserable war, but I doubt it'd wind up being any cheaper than, say, Operation Overlord, not once Cheney, at al. got their snouts in the trough.
William Timberman | 10.20.06 - 4:56 pm | #

Army need? ... Ladies and Gentlemen, may I present the largest and oldest political youth organization in the United States, with 50 member federations on over 1000 campuses.
The College Republicans.

Go down to every NASCAR track in America on a Saturday and "press-gang" all the men.

That should do it.
George | 10.20.06 - 4:57 pm | #

dots... You forget, or perhaps you never knew, "one shot, one kill" is a Marine Corps motto

There are lots of "mottoes" for all the varied elite units in every branch. That one in particular is usually reserved for scout/snipers.
Haloscan ate my name | Homepage | 10.20.06 - 4:59 pm | #

My favorite is:

USMC - When it absolutely, positively has to be blown up overnight.
Haloscan ate my name | Homepage | 10.20.06 - 5:01 pm | #

I liked the Haloscan disguise better.

What does this mean?
.
Grand Moff Texan

He thinks you are me, but I'm really Borat. He's so confused.
Haloscan ate my name | Homepage | 10.20.06 - 5:03 pm | #

There are lots of "mottoes" for all the varied elite units in every branch.

Maybe the 101st Fighting Keyboarders on this thread could tell us what there's is?
.
Grand Moff Texan | Homepage | 10.20.06 - 5:04 pm | #

dots... You forget, or perhaps you never knew, "one shot, one kill" is a Marine Corps motto

There are lots of "mottoes" for all the varied elite units in every branch. That one in particular is usually reserved for scout/snipers.
Haloscan ate my name | Homepage | 10.20.06 - 4:59 pm |

Jeebus. After everything I said this is what you focused on? Listen bozo I know precisely who uses the motto - from experience.

Miss the point much?

.
... | 10.20.06 - 5:04 pm | #

Why did Ray McGovern, head of the VIPs and super spy extraordinaire write to Bush a week or so before the Iraq invasion to express his concern about chemical and biological weapons being used on the troops during the invasion

Because McGovern and the others who signed that memorandum were responding to allegations people like Powell, Rumsfeld, some in the intelligence community etc... were making at the time. They were also questioning scenarios (if what you say is true, what then scenarios) and contradictions being advanced by the administration at the time - for instance: if the invasion would be a "cakewalk" as the Bushies characterized it... do Bush's war planners truely believe that a ground invasion which involves chemical weapons can really be characterized as a "cakewalk". The VIPS letter was attempting to reconcile some of those contradictions and discussed the possible consequences of actions taken in a worst case scenario cause and effect situation.

====
(bold emphasis below is mine)

[SNIP]

Terrorism

Your intelligence agencies see it differently. On the same day you spoke in Cincinnati, a letter from the CIA to the Senate Intelligence Committee asserted that the probability is low that Iraq would initiate an attack with such weapons or give them to terrorists… UNLESS:

"Should Saddam conclude that a US-led attack could no longer be deterred, he probably would become much less constrained in adopting terrorist actions."

For now, continued the CIA letter, "Baghdad appears to be drawing a line short of conducting terrorist attacks with conventional or chemical/biological warfare against the United States." With his back against the wall, however, "Saddam might decide that the extreme step of assisting Islamist terrorists in conducting a weapons-of-mass-destruction attack against the United States would be his last chance to exact vengeance by taking a large number of victims with him."

Your Pentagon advisers draw a connection between war with Iraq and terrorism, but for the wrong reasons. The connection takes on much more reality in a post-US invasion scenario. …

Chemical Weapons

With respect to possible Iraqi use of chemical weapons, it has been the judgment of the US intelligence community for over 12 years that the likelihood of such use would greatly increase during an offensive aimed at getting rid of Saddam Hussein.

Listing the indictment particulars, Secretary Powell said, in an oh-by-the-way tone, that sources had reported that Saddam Hussein recently authorized his field commanders to use such weapons. We find this truly alarming. We do not share the Defense Department’s optimism that radio broadcasts and leaflets would induce Iraqi commanders not to obey orders to use such weapons, or that Iraqi generals would remove Saddam Hussein as soon as the first US soldier sets foot in Iraq. Clearly, an invasion would be no cakewalk for American troops, ill equipped as they are to operate in a chemical environment.

[SNIP]

Above VIPS memorandum excerpt from:

Friday, February 7, 2003 - MEMORANDUM FOR: The President
FROM: Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity

Richard Beske, San Diego
Kathleen McGrath Christison, Santa Fe
William Christison, Santa Fe
Patrick Eddington, Alexandria
Raymond McGovern, Arlington

Steering Group
Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity

*
the farmer | 10.20.06 - 5:04 pm | #

He thinks you are me, but I'm really Borat. He's so confused.
Haloscan ate my name

Uh, no. The only other handle I've used in the last two years was "DeLay Should Have Been a Blow-Job."

Oh, and I was once "The Dr. Smiths," but that was a parody-troll thingy that would take too long to explain.
.
Grand Moff Texan | Homepage | 10.20.06 - 5:06 pm | #

Three dots, you're really just full of it, that's all. I don't know why you're so pissed, and I don't really care. The truth is, it's pathological to come here and berate people because you don't like their tone, especially when you yourself manifestly don't meet the standards you measure others by. Oddly enough, many of us actually do.

You wanna go bash somebody, please just do it. Meanwhile, I'm not about to play the wimp in your onanistic revenge fantasy. As far as I'm concerned, you're just another enraged nutcase looking for a fight -- and here, of all places. Wouldn't a biker bar be more appropriate?
William Timberman | 10.20.06 - 5:12 pm | #

There are lots of "mottoes" for all the varied elite units in every branch.

Maybe the 101st Fighting Keyboarders on this thread could tell us what there's is?
.
Grand Moff Texan

I regret that I only have one median nerve to give to my country.
Haloscan ate my name | Homepage | 10.20.06 - 5:12 pm | #

101st Fighting Keyboarders - Keeping America safe from Terrorists, one Cheeto at a time.
Rufus | Homepage | 10.20.06 - 5:15 pm | #

Wouldn't a biker bar be more appropriate?

No, there he'd actually have to do something about it.

After al these years on the internets, why don't people get it that "keyboard cowards" don't frighten anyone?

Oh, that's right: they're stupid.
.
Grand Moff Texan | Homepage | 10.20.06 - 5:18 pm | #

Jeebus. After everything I said this is what you focused on? Listen bozo I know precisely who uses the motto - from experience.

Miss the point much?

.
...

First of all, I would be wary of talking like that in public, or even on line these days. I can tell you I have observed similar dissatisfaction from other very conservative and formerly pro-Bush military and ex-military.

Pat Lang has a post up you should read, bro.

People are asking me uninformed and fantasy laden questions.

1- Will the military be willing to continue along the present path? Hell yes, they will. What do you think this is, Paraguay getting ready for a coup against "El Jefe?" As long as they receive legal orders, the military will obey. That is the essence of being a soldier and they all understand that. In addition, they do not want to run this country and they know that ultimately this would be their fate if they stopped fulfilling their constitutional function. General Caldwell's unhappiness in Baghdad? Understandable, but not something that will be tolerated for long.

2- Congress? They authorized the war. Will they vote to un-authorize it? I think not. Their only real lever against a really intransigent president in a war situation is to cut off the money. Do you really think they are going to do that? I think not.

3- The Bush 41 people? What are they going to tell him, that he is naughty? They should start thinking (with the Congress) of what kind of statement they are going to make to the press in the West Wing driveway after he shows them the door.

The president can not be re-elected. Whatever is going to happen in the mid-term is going to happen. It appears to me that they have precious little leverage to use against him. (GStK)

I will begin to take seriously the current rumors of great things a coming when Bush or Tony start to "crack" in public. I have not seen it yet.

Pat Lang

http://turcopolier.typepad.com/ s...s_on_the_p.html
Haloscan ate my name | Homepage | 10.20.06 - 5:20 pm | #

Could someone please tell me how we as a nation screwed up so badly we actually deserve this?

Well, Jerry Falwell told me it's because we aren't mean enough to homosexuals, don't shut our feminists up, and we don't protect these little clumps of cells that Jerry's too stupid to tell from human beings.

See? The Christian right blames America first.
.
Grand Moff Texan | Homepage | 10.20.06 - 5:23 pm | #

You wanna go bash somebody, please just do it. Meanwhile, I'm not about to play the wimp in your onanistic revenge fantasy. As far as I'm concerned, you're just another enraged nutcase looking for a fight -- and here, of all places. Wouldn't a biker bar be more appropriate?
William Timberman

I don't know what dots is, but I know he's paying attention. I know because he's pissed, as we all are, and that's a good thing. If the time comes to do more than get angry, vote, and give the peaceful democratic process a chance, then we can cross that bridge when we come to it. Not before.
Haloscan ate my name | Homepage | 10.20.06 - 5:26 pm | #

Yes, the President and VP have to be residents of different states. So, for a Hilary/Bill ticket to fly one of them would have to change his/her state of residence.
Galloping Goose | 10.20.06 - 12:02 pm

No, that is not what the 12th amendment says. There is no restriction on the residence of the president and vice-president. What the 12th amendment says is that if the president and vice-president are from the same state, then the electors of that state cannot vote for both of them.

"The electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves;"
Frankly, my dear, ... | 10.20.06 - 5:28 pm | #

If the time comes to do more than get angry, vote, and give the peaceful democratic process a chance, then we can cross that bridge when we come to it. Not before.

Indeed. Moving before absolutely necessary will only help the enemy.
.
Grand Moff Texan | Homepage | 10.20.06 - 5:30 pm | #

After the election, Bush should go to Congress -- especially if it is a Democratic Congress -- and seek a substantial increase in the size of the armed forces and a standing authorization to use military force, if the president ultimately determines it is necessary, to prevent North Korea or Iran from obtaining an effective nuclear weapon.

That’s Powerline’s Hindraker lusting after a “substantial” increase in the military and a blank check for Bush. And so it goes.

Again, none of them explain how this substantial increase is going to take place, or how it will be paid for, and just where this increase is going to come from. We already are reduced to accepting neo-Nazis, bigots, and are least desirable elements into the military, and we are sending people from our military’s psychiatric wards who’ve had their guns taken away back into combat. We’re that desperate.

Yet, somehow, without a draft, we are going to come up with massive increases in our troops. We’ve already pulled out the stops, with recruiters crossing the line to get what recruits we have, and the incentives still aren’t working.

Let’s face it, the neo-cons are making big talk with a non-existent “faith-based” military. These guys can’t see reality when it slaps them in the face.

http://jpundit.typepad.com/jci/ 2...owest_comm.html
enough said | 10.20.06 - 5:31 pm | #

It seems to me that the McCain 100,000 troops without recruitment or draft makes perfect sense in the context of Republican strategery. It is, in essence, the military extension of the economic plan that involves decreasing revenues, increasing expenditures and expecting to not have a deficit.

As such, we can extrapolate a solution to the US military personnel shortfall from economic policy.

Borrow troops from the PRC.

In 2000 the estimated troop strength for the PLA was around 2.5 million, and it's unlikely that number has since decreased. So 100,000 would be no more than 1/25th of their troop strength (already trained and equipped!).

Problem solved!
migopod | 10.20.06 - 5:32 pm | #

dots...I have asked this question before and no one will answer it - What would it take, what event or reality would people like WT and AJ have to suffer before they are willing to do the least amount of direct action to put a stop to all of this?

It would be great to see some direct action non-violent civil disobedience like if everyone decided to stop paying their taxes, like Thoreau, or even a mass default on the credit card companies but things just haven't gotten to that point yet. It's difficult to get people marching in the streets when cable TV, beer and pizza keeps you happy at home.
Haloscan ate my name | Homepage | 10.20.06 - 5:34 pm | #

The ugly truth is, like it or not, our evil corporate overlords have us by the short hairs on a short cable. If Bush ordered the internets shut down tomorrow, for national security reasons, that would seal his fate.
Haloscan ate my name | Homepage | 10.20.06 - 5:38 pm | #

It's difficult to get people marching in the streets ...

... when urban streets are forty minutes away through dense traffic.

Suburbs: isolated and contained.
.
Grand Moff Texan | Homepage | 10.20.06 - 5:40 pm | #

Haloscan, GMT:

With all due respect, I've sat through an awful lot of nonsense in my day from Marxist theoreticians looking forward to pre-revolutionary conditions, and explaining at great length how to identify them. Interesting from a purely intellectual perspective, but much ado about nothing in the end.

I find it kind of amazing that the same thing is being bandied about today. The ongoing Republican attempt to get rid of the inconvenient remnants of popular democracy is maddening to have to sit through, I admit, and may bring us yet to an ultimate crisis, but I doubt it.

This is one hell of a big country. Think about that for a bit, and please, for the sake of the rest of us, be careful what you wish for. What I mean is something along the lines of not writing checks with your mouth which your body -- and the bodies of others -- will have to cash later.
William Timberman | 10.20.06 - 5:42 pm | #

Three dots, you really are a piece of work, and that's a fact. Stick around, please....
William Timberman | 10.20.06 - 5:47 pm | #

I added an UPDATE addressing the comments claiming that my description of McCain's comments was inaccurate.
Glenn Greenwald | 10.20.06 - 5:52 pm | #

I disagree with the conclusion that McCain is calling for another 100k troops on the ground in Iraq. Matthews jumps to the conclusion that that's what McCain meant right away, but McCain tries to correct him. Twice, in fact. Matthews didn't let him or listen to him, but that's another story.

McCains press release makes the point even more clearly, stating that he supports Shoomaker's plan

"to keep the current level of soldiers in Iraq through 2010"

but that it is

"imperative to begin immediately to increase the end strength of the Army and Marine Corps"

becase

We are overstretched at a time of widespread and very serious challenges.

and goes on to explain that

“Senior officers from National Guard units and Reserve Centers across the Nation report the signs of strain on National Guardsmen and Reservists as they prepare for additional deployments to Iraq. Soldiers and Marines are reporting for their third tours in Iraq. We must begin now to increase substantially the troop strength of the Army and Marine Corps by at least 100,000.”

And I agree with him, if we are going to keep troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. The repeated deployments are too much already and with no end in sight. Nevermind starting another war.

As for what "plans" he may or may not have, or how he thinks we can simply add another 100k with recruitment numbers barely meeting requirements as it is, I have no idea.
Dave | 10.20.06 - 6:00 pm | #

DAVE - How can you say that McCain supports keeping the current troop levels in Iraq when his own website says this -

"we must increase troop strength if we are to win this war."

How can we "increase troop sttrength" by keeping the same number of troops in Iraq? Just by replacing the tired ones with fresh ones? I don't think that's what he means by "increasing troop strength." And even if it is, where are the fresh troops going to come from to replace the tired ones?

Glenn Greenwald | 10.20.06 - 6:04 pm | #

Wm. T., that's a much more graceful way to say what I've already said.

Since the regime we have to remove is doing so much damage to itself, it would be stupid to take attention away from it.

Violence is not necessary and not justifiable. If I am threatened, however, I'm going to remove that threat in a very permanent way.
.
Grand Moff Texan | Homepage | 10.20.06 - 6:06 pm | #

Glenn, your analysis is spot on. The facts about Iraq have proven recalcitrant, and the idealogues have nowhere to go for the moment. I don't mind watching them wriggle for a while.

We can already hear the creaking and groaning offstage, though, just as we did in 1968. Bye and bye, the weary old deus ex machina will be hauled out and dusted off.

It'll be a sad moment, right enough. On a lighter note, I was hoping that Bart would be here for his cut and run dénouement, and that I'd get to refer to him as six-seat Bart in honor of his failed prescience, but hell, you can't have everything.
William Timberman | 10.20.06 - 6:08 pm | #

Curse me slow-typin' arse! Missed your update.

I don't think he has a plan. What passed for something plan-like in his interview, in my view, was a way to help our military cope with "staying the course" through 2010 without completely falling apart.

Despite the whisperings lately, I don't think anyone has a plan which involves any real changes. Just my hunch.
Dave | 10.20.06 - 6:09 pm | #

GMT: I'm going to remove that threat in a very permanent way.

Apologies if I've mischaracterized your position. I don't disagree with the above quote from your comment in any way, except that I would add, Lord willing at the beginning of it.
William Timberman | 10.20.06 - 6:12 pm | #

Dave,

Your response forced me to look at the video again and after doing so, McCain did say that troop strength needed to be boosted overseas. Good rundown otherwise.
brainfaht | 10.20.06 - 6:14 pm | #

The war against Iraq could have been easily won had we approached it the way we did against Japan in WWII. (The question of whether or not Iraq was a threat to us in the same fashion the Japanese were a threat is a totally different issue.)

But instead of total, all-out war that delivers sufficient death and destruction to destroy the enemy's will to fight and convinces him his alternative is extermination or unconditional surrender, we tried to fight a limited, partial, civilian-friendly war restricted to regime targets and regime infrastructure. No war can be won this way -- imagine trying it against the Japanese or the Germans in WWII.

Bush chose to believe what countless Muslim apologists started telling us by noon on 9/11 -- namely, that Islam is a religion of peace, that the terrorists are a tiny minority that have distorted the religion, that the vast majority of Muslims are tolerant and wish to live in peace with all of us. Believing this, Bush thought that all we had to do was take out Hussein's regime and the peace-loving Muslims would form a free society. Well, Iraq has proven how utterly false all of that is. If Islam is the religion of peace, Islamic countries -- especially one liberated from a monster like Hussein -- should be paradises of peaceful coexistence. But Iraq shows us the true face of Islam -- and of religion in general.

What Bush and the right are desperate to evade -- and what makes them unable to admit that Islam is decidedly not a peaceful ideology -- is one simple fact:

9/11 was a faith-based initiative.

Faith and force are corollaries. To the extent that men embrace faith and abandon reason, force becomes their only means of dealing with one another. This is why the history of every religion, including Christianity, is a history of violent warfare and mass bloodshed.

The notion that the United States is a “Christian Nation” is utterly false. America was a product of the enlightenment, which broke the stranglehold of religion by embracing reason and rejecting faith. Yes, the Founders believed in God, but they were primarily deists, not theists, and they did not believe that any supernatural force controlled man's life. America is the product of reason, not faith.

What the conservatives desperately evade is the fact that one cannot defend freedom based on faith; when you endorse one faith, you endorse them all -- on what basis can one claim that one faith is valid and another is not? -- and thus the faith of the 19 hijackers who killed 3,000 people on 9/11 is every bit as valid as Bush's faith or that of any other conservative. This is the fundamental weakness of the conservatives and the reason why they will never be able confront and protect us against a militant Islam bent on world domination. To deny Islam’s faith-based claim to the right to rule the world, one must first reject faith as a valid basis for any sort of claim -- and the conservatives can never do that.

The solution to Iraq is to inform the Iraqis that we have given them a chance at freedom, we have eliminated the monster that ruled them and as many of his henchman as possible, but it is up to them to learn to coexist. We should leave while making it clear that if any terrorist organization seizes power there, or if we detect any actual threats to the U.S., such as an effort to acquire nuclear weapons, we will return and do the same thing to them that we did to the Japanese and Germans in WWII.
Michael Smith | 10.20.06 - 6:15 pm | #

We need additional troops there, but I think we need to expand the Army and the Marine Corps by 100,000 people.
Anonymous | 10.20.06 - 6:20 pm | #

The CBS Evening News with Katie Couric
Thursday, October 19, 2006
COURIC: Earlier today, I spoke with Senator John McCain and asked him about the situation in Iraq.

[begin video clip]

COURIC: Is a new strategy required here?

McCAIN: I think that, first of all, things are very serious there. And to say otherwise I don't think would be an accurate depiction of events, and this is a very critical time.

COURIC: You have repeatedly urged sending more troops --

McCAIN: Yes.

COURIC: -- to Iraq. Do you really think that that is the answer?

McCAIN: I would increase the size of the Army and Marine Corps by some 100,000 people, and I would send more troops over there ...
************************************
sysprog | 10.20.06 - 6:21 pm | #

Ah...yes, I did read that Re "troop strengh."

Yes, I take that to mean the soundness of the army and marines in total, not refering to ground strenth.
Anonymous | 10.20.06 - 6:28 pm | #

I think it is fairly obvious.

1. McCain thinks we need 100,000 more troops in Iraq.

2. Since we have no more troops available, we have to increase the size of the army and marines.

3. He does not advocate a draft, so it will be done by increased recruitment.

Ergo:

4. It will take several years (probably five if the increase enlistment by 20,000 per year - big if).

5. We will be fighting the Iraq war for at least five more years. (actually seven since McCain would execute that lan if he is President)
michael | 10.20.06 - 6:33 pm | #

A few quotes from Michael Smith followed by my own.

'But Iraq shows us the true face of Islam -- and of religion in general.'

*What on earth are you talking about? Their response is that of a nation that has been attacked and occupied by a foreign invader. There is sectarian strife there but to say this shows the true face of all religions is not substantiated not do I believe it is. This kind of white/black blanket thinking is the same that got us in there. My own personal opinion is that the deist based religions are pure fantasy, but that does not deny the vast good they have done, in addition to the horrors they have perpetuated.

'when you endorse one faith, you endorse them all.'

*Again, what in the hell does that mean? Faith is not something that is easily pigeon holed or categorized. There has been much good that has come from religions as well as evil. This is a human situation indicative of the paradoxical contradictory animals that we are.

'The solution to Iraq is to inform the Iraqis that we have given them a chance at freedom,'

*And how do you suggest we communicate this to them and why on earth should they believe anything we say?

'we have eliminated the monster that ruled them and as many of his henchman as possible, but it is up to them to learn to coexist. '

*We've replaced one monster with a situation that is even worse.

We should leave while making it clear that if any terrorist organization seizes power there, or if we detect any actual threats to the U.S., such as an effort to acquire nuclear weapons, we will return and do the same thing to them that we did to the Japanese and Germans in WWII.

*Ahh, all heart. Do what we say or we destroy you and kill millions of your citizens. Remember the perception of a threat can be fabricated, look what Bush and his pack of deluded neocons did. They fabricated a reason, the real reasons for this fiasco are still widely debated. Your logic is identical to what the neocons have already done.
toM | 10.20.06 - 6:41 pm | #

McCain isn't specific for the same reason no politician is specific: because he would have to say something people don't want to hear. To increase the number of troops, we'd have to draft. Nobody (except a few "let's kill 'em all, you go on ahead, I'll be right behind you" types and/or those who are safely past draft age) wants that. So he's doing what most politicians do: turning it around on us. If we don't get the recruitment numbers, it's OUR fault. We weren't patriotic enough. We didn't care enough. We're on the side of the terrorists. So the govt's failure to manage a war effort that was entirely their doing is no longer their failure, it's OUR failure, cause we're all in this together, don't ya know. We didn't make the decision together, I don't remember getting to vote on whether we should invade another country and forcibly remove its leader (I would have voted No for a variety of reasons), and yet, now that the war has NOT turned out to be the glorious, freedom-spawning enterprise they made it out to be, I'm just as much at fault as the war's most enthusiastic cheerleaders. I guess I'm supposed to feel all guilty and stuff. And yet, I don't. Thanks, Straight Talker, I have another thing to add to the list of reasons I think you're full of shit. Props to him for all that POW stuff, but he's not in Saigon anymore, plus he seems so desperate to be president, you can smell it. Why he wants the job, I can't imagine. Although, anybody following Bush HAS to look better by comparison, so maybe it's not so crazy.
LL | 10.20.06 - 6:42 pm | #

McCain didn't say he wanted "100,000 more troops in Iraq" but he certainly tried to give the impression that might be his goal.

The very fact that sharp observers are getting frustrated, trying to figure out exactly what McCain meant to say, shows that McCain and his staff have intentionally created a muddled message.

That is, he's not a straight talker.
sysprog | 10.20.06 - 6:43 pm | #

I think McCain meant we would get the 100,000 recruits from the Young Republicans, College Republicans, and the Rush Limbaugh studio audience.
ckelly | 10.20.06 - 6:45 pm | #

Jonah the Doughy Pantload sez:

"Friday, October 20, 2006
... If we had known then what we know now, we would never have gone to war with Iraq ... "

So, where do I write to request the apology this windbag owes me (and millions of others) for slandering me for being goddamned fucking right about the war?
r€nato | Homepage | 10.20.06 - 6:53 pm | #

Bush chose to believe what countless Muslim apologists started telling us by noon on 9/11 -- namely, that Islam is a religion of peace, that the terrorists are a tiny minority that have distorted the religion, that the vast majority of Muslims are tolerant and wish to live in peace with all of us. Believing this, Bush thought that all we had to do was take out Hussein's regime and the peace-loving Muslims would form a free society. Well, Iraq has proven how utterly false all of that is.
Michael Smith

Oh, so THAT'S the latest explanation/excuse for the invasion of Iraq? My god, your brain is seriously fucked up, Michael Smith, if you think that because Islam = peace we had to invade Iraq to save the Muslims from themselves. You're not even trying to make sense.

And btw, Islam is a religion, not an ideology. Get some of your facts straight.

Congrats, you win the award for lying-cunt-of-the-day.
Baldie McEagle | 10.20.06 - 7:04 pm | #

If BS were green, John McCain would be an 18 hole golf course. To demand substance from him - or anyone like him, H. Clinton, for example - is simply naive. McCain's whole being concerns itself only with impressions, not substance. What he wants you to perceive is the serious countenance and the tough talk, the numbers suffice as symbols so as to convince you just how committed he is to "victory". He's 100,000 troops committed to victory, see how purposeful he is. He did the same thing respecting the Geneva Conventions and the MCA. Like most everyone else in government, McCain is a zero.

John Lowell
John Lowell | Homepage | 10.20.06 - 7:04 pm | #

From daleyrocks at 4:52pm:

David - You haven't read any reasonable Democrat solutions because none have been presented.

How about the original proposal by Rep. John Murtha?

Oh, wait. That's just "cutting and running", isn't it?
yankeependragon | 10.20.06 - 7:05 pm | #

From Michael Smith at 6:15pm:

The war against Iraq could have been easily won had we approached it the way we did against Japan in WWII...

But instead of total, all-out war that delivers sufficient death and destruction to destroy the enemy's will to fight and convinces him his alternative is extermination or unconditional surrender, we tried to fight a limited, partial, civilian-friendly war restricted to regime targets and regime infrastructure.

You really have no idea what you're talking about, do you?

Or maybe you do and this just demonstrates what a kill-crazed sociopath you are.
yankeependragon | 10.20.06 - 7:14 pm | #

If Sen. McCain thinks we need 100,000 more troops, whether in Iraq or elsewhere, why isn't he pushing for them? He has authority, people listen to him (sometimes I wonder why...).
This is simply another Republican attempt to weasel out of responsibilty for Iraq; not unlike what the Republicans did over Viet Nam.
Before we ever sent advisors into Viet Nam in the 1950's the Eisenhower Administration should have told the S. Vietnamese government that support was based upon that government reforming itself. No attempt was made to do so (because the S. Vietnamese couldn't handle democracy like Europeans?).
Anyway, without that any effort in South Viet Nam was doomed because there simply wouldn't be enough support for the local government.
In Iraq, the Bush Administration screwed up by not making any contingency plans that didn't fit in with their preconceived ideas. Had any adjustments been made in the first six months of the Iraq war there's a good chance it would not have deteriorated to its present depth. The Bush Administration refused to make any adjustments and are now responsible for this mess and all McCain is trying to do is give himself (and a few others) an "out" (If we had had more troops...).
McCain may be former military, but it is obvious that he never studied military tactics.
Doug | 10.20.06 - 7:22 pm | #

McCain appears to be more or less parroting what Abiziad said back in mid Sept. --- backtrack (IHT/NYTimes):

[SNIP] (bold emphasis mine)

WASHINGTON The top American commander in the Middle East said that more than 140,000 soldiers were likely to be needed in Iraq at least until spring because of continuing sectarian violence and the need to secure Baghdad.

"I think that this level probably will have to be sustained through next spring, and then we'll re-evaluate," the commander, General John Abizaid, said Tuesday.

He called current force levels "prudent," but added: "We'll bring in more forces if we have to. By the way, if we can send more forces out, we'll do that as well." He acknowledged that the military, after five years of war waged in Afghanistan and Iraq, would be hard pressed to come up with more troops.

Iraq force not likely to be cut, officer says
By David S. Cloud The New York Times
Published: September 20, 2006

[SNIP]

Shorter McCain: Go on TV, babble about possible troop level increases - or maybe not - make it sound like you've got a "prudent" grasp of the situation - a pragmatic hold of the game ball - plenty of resolve - get it on the record that you and Gen Abiziad see eye to eye on military planning and troop deployment matters - be a do what it takes kind of guy...etc..etc..etc... move on to next tv talk show and photo op.

*
the farmer | 10.20.06 - 7:41 pm | #

Moses | 10.20.06 - 3:42 pm

Thank you for your analysis of chemical weapons deteriorating. I've been wanting to ask you that every time Bart says that we had to invade because Saddam's half-spent chemical weapons shells on old battle fields were a mortal threat.
Enlightened Layperson | Homepage | 10.20.06 - 8:19 pm | #

The war against Iraq could have been easily won had we approached it the way we did against Japan in WWII...

But instead of total, all-out war that delivers sufficient death and destruction to destroy the enemy's will to fight and convinces him his alternative is extermination or unconditional surrender, we tried to fight a limited, partial, civilian-friendly war restricted to regime targets and regime infrastructure.

Well, yes, that's because the Iraqi people were going to greet us with parades and flowers after we overthrew their hated dictator, remember? The enemy was Saddam Hussein, not the Iraqi people, remember?

The lesson here: if your reason for invading was incoherent, it's likely that your reason for staying will be too.
Mark Field | 10.20.06 - 9:05 pm | #

Look, it would be no problem at all to get 100000, nay 1000000, volunteers to join the military and crush our enemies in Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, North Korea if only we didn't have all this defeatist leftist propaganda conceding victory to al-Qaeda. To win the war without, we must first defeat the internal enemy.
anonymoose | 10.20.06 - 9:08 pm | #

I see the Supreme Court stepped in and ok'd Arizona's voter identification law pending the lower courts ruling which hasn't been made yet.

The law which was passed by voters in 2004 requires photo i.d. or 2 alternate methods of identification like a utility bill or a bank statement.The Supreme Court's decision is for the coming election only and will be superceded by the lower court when it makes its final ruling which then can be ruled on again by the Supreme Court. (glad I didn't vote for those guys)

I think Dems made a huge mistake when they didn't pass a mandatory voting law when they had the chance. Don't get me wrong, I think anyone who votes and is not a citizen should be prosecuted, but the deadheads out there who should be voting but would rather watch Gray's Anatomy or something like it, should be forced off of their Lazy Boys to take the 30 minutes it takes to vote.

Apologies for the thread change.
brainfaht | 10.20.06 - 9:11 pm | #

anonymoose,

Let's get you started! here's a link to civilian jobs in Iraq:

http://www.jobs-in-iraq.info/

drop us a card we are anxious to see how your doing. Halliburton pays the best I hear, and the big plus is you get to bring your own armor and choice of weapons.
brainfaht | 10.20.06 - 9:19 pm | #

Oh my god! Democracy hasn't even formed here "philosophically."

I have never supported the "mission," so how can I possibly support the "troops" that have been sent to carry out the mission I don't support.

I think it time to rescue the troops from Rumsfeld's (et. al's) dementia!

Not one more boot on the ground in Iraq!

Get them out now!
Arkinsaw | 10.20.06 - 9:27 pm | #

daleycrockofshit writes:

Grand Muff - Congratulations, you're a hindsight hero just like Arne. Arne claims to have the website postings backdated now to prove his foresight. How about you? Or are you just retroactively proclaiming your semi-pro intellectual genius. I liked the Haloscan disguise better.

You're a moron and not worth debate, only ridicule for your stupidy and lack of humanity.

It was known, by those who cared, the war was based on lies. Chemistry and physics are not amenable to wingnut lies. They work like they work because they don't care, they're forces and processes, not people.

It was known, by those who cared, that we couldn't hold Iraq. We had the British experience in Iraq. We had the French experience in Algiers. We had our experience in Vietnam. EVERY REVELANT historical precedent said we'd get screwed over in a quagmire.

The only revisionism is your, your kinds', stupid arguments for what we did, why we did it, and how badly it's going. You're a LOSER. You've made our country a country of LOSERS. Congratulations, we're now viewed as a nation dominated and controled by a bunch of petty, scared, facist losers. Congratulations, you've turn make us look like self-centered, cowardly, murderous fools.
Moses | 10.20.06 - 10:18 pm | #

From daleyrocks at 4:52pm:

David - You haven't read any reasonable Democrat solutions because none have been presented.

Don't respond. The troll refuses to acknowledge the responses given to him many, many, many times. Not just the various plans buy people such as Murtha, but even by members of this forum who've responded.

Daleycrockofshit is nothing but a flame-baiting troll and will stick his hands in his ears and go "la la la la..." like he was four or something.
Moses | 10.20.06 - 10:27 pm | #

The troops are exhausted (some have done 2 or 3 tours when they were only supposed to do 1). The equipment is similarly being reused till it just breaks. This army is going to have to be rebuilt after the war is over.

Why are the Republican's the national security party again?
Anonymous | 10.20.06 - 10:32 pm | #

It must suck to not only be wrong, but get hammered on it day after day by the people who were right. No wonder Blockhead is getting angry.
Anonymous | 10.20.06 - 10:40 pm | #

What's another 100,000 tossed into the splatterfest?

"Death needs Time for what it kills to grow in,..... you stupid, vulgar, greedy, Ugly-American Death Sucker!"

Bill Burroughs said it, but it has a certain McCainesque resonance, doesn't it?
FuzzFlash | 10.20.06 - 11:13 pm | #

I don't necessarily think McCaom is pro-War, but he certainly doesn't have an answer for what Bush has got this Country into, I knew it was going to happen back in 2000 when he got into office, don't know why, but knew this country would go into Iraq, he will be his nemesis and downfall
Donna | 10.20.06 - 11:41 pm | #

Mark Kennedy: " adapting to win" sounds like the latest talking point 3 word phrase( Republicans always make up catchy 3 word phrases to substitute for policy).
k | 10.20.06 - 11:58 pm | #

"When pro-war advocates talk about Iraq these days, what they say is not only misguided and false, but almost always incoherent."

Nebraska congressman Lee Terry at yesterday's debate:

"Saddam Hussein and Iraq was the hub of the wheels, of the spokes for the wheel of terrorism, and it is worth fighting over there, to make sure that we aren't fighting here. And I don't, I brag about being able to support our troops and funding them fully, and I'm just appalled at a motto of "stand up and be killed."

Lee was referring to his opponent Jim Esch's comment to the Omaha World Herald that "Stay the course' translates into a continued loss of life; a slogan more apt is 'stand and be killed,'"
Cowpunk | 10.21.06 - 12:16 am | #

From daleyrocks at 4:52pm:

David - You haven't read any reasonable Democrat solutions because none have been presented.

Iraq War Withdrawal and Exit Plans

December 2005

(updated 14 September 2006)

Too many to list here or I will be execute!

I firmly see the threats we face!

GWB

He is native of your country?
Borat | Homepage | 10.21.06 - 2:09 am | #

r€nato,

Justin Raimundo has a related piece at Antiwar.com:

http://antiwar.com/justin/

And as to Jonah, leave 'em alone, he's happy. :-)

John Lowell
John Lowell | Homepage | 10.21.06 - 2:41 am | #

IMHO the Dem's have handled this "War of Terror" all wrong. The Dem's have been, for far too long, on the defense, busy defending themselves from a hungry, offensive Republican machine. Playing defend the defense leaves the Dem's crippled and appearing week.

The discussion should have been scripted, from the very get go as:
(R) Republican: We need to stay the course.
(D) Democrat: And what IS that course.
(R): You know, stay until the job is done and the mission is accomplished.
(D): And what exactly IS the mission, because that will define what the job really is?
(R): (2003)Find WMD's; (2004)quell the insurgency; (2005)fight al-Qaeda in Iraq; (2006)take the fight to them so we don't fight them here. [each year was followed with a reference to either the establishment of or the securing of a Democratic government.]
(D): (2003, 2004, 2005, 2006)So what exactly IS the plan to accomplish this and what steps are needed next?
(R): (2004, 2005, 2006)The Dem's have no plan.
(D): The Republican party, being the majority party, no matter what the Dem's say or do, will out vote and over power the Democrats on issues that the Republicans choose to control. So with that said, being the majority party, what IS the plan?
(R): (2005, 2006)The Dem's are weak on security. "cut and runners."
(D): No, the Dem's are out voted by the Republicans. And as the Majority party the Republicans should be well qualified to shape their vision well enough. So, what is the vision and HOW do the Republicans propose to get us there? The Dem's propose a redeployment.
(R): The Dem's have no vision, are weak for America's security and are cut and runners, making America losers in the eyes of the enemy.
(D): The Republicans have made America's future less safe. The Republican's plan is one of "stay the course in Iraq," emboldening the enemy with a long term occupation. The "mission" they talk of has changed year to year and obviously none of the Republican's in Congress can clearly articulate exactly what this "mission" actually is about. America should accept no less than "victory" but how can we depend on what it takes to achieve that "victory" when the Republicans keep changing the "mission"? And since the Republicans have demonstrated that they lack continuity on a clear vision and can only talk in bullet points, and not details, I would suggest that it is clear that the Republicans step aside and let a new majority take control of the decision making process, so that a clear vision with an exact mission can be developed so as to actuate a real success in this war and that America may be made safe once again. But if the Republican's oppose, then America need only ask, "What's the mission?"
MAX-1 | 10.21.06 - 3:05 am | #

Kevin Tillamn (Pat Tillman's brother):

[excerpt] Somehow the more soldiers that die, the more legitimate the illegal invasion becomes.

Somehow American leadership, whose only credit is lying to its people and illegally invading a nation, has been allowed to steal the courage, virtue and honor of its soldiers on the ground.

Somehow those afraid to fight an illegal invasion decades ago are allowed to send soldiers to die for an illegal invasion they started.

[...]

Somehow the same incompetent, narcissistic, virtueless, vacuous, malicious criminals are still in charge of this country.

Somehow this is tolerated.

Somehow nobody is accountable for this.

In a democracy, the policy of the leaders is the policy of the people. So don’t be shocked when our grandkids bury much of this generation as traitors to the nation, to the world and to humanity. Most likely, they will come to know that “somehow” was nurtured by fear, insecurity and indifference, leaving the country vulnerable to unchecked, unchallenged parasites. [/excerpt]

Much more... Go read the whole letter. After Pat's Birthday

*
the farmer | 10.21.06 - 3:08 am | #

MAX-1,

There is problem with that. Many of the peoples who advocate the sensibles positions is conservatives Republicans from long time before.

How come they not execute!
Borat | Homepage | 10.21.06 - 6:02 am | #

check out this mccain trash video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M...h? v=MXwPec2stfw

!!!
jordicruise | Homepage | 10.21.06 - 7:37 am | #

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M...h? v=MXwPec2stfw

SORRY correct link here
jordicruise | Homepage | 10.21.06 - 7:37 am | #

dots said:
I have asked this question before and no one will answer it - What would it take, what event or reality would people like WT and AJ have to suffer before they are willing to do the least amount of direct action to put a stop to all of this?

I think I speak for a lot of people when I say we're getting very, very close. For me personally, it would have to be some sort of financial action taken against Americans. An emergency confiscation of "suspicious" funds, or something like that. (yes, I know this is already done with drug arrests, but I refer to something more massive and widespread than that.)

So much else has been taken away, there's very little left. When it all has been taken away, then I will have nothing to lose. Then it will be time.
cfaller96 | Homepage | 10.21.06 - 8:56 am | #

MAX-1:

(D): The Republicans have made America's future less safe. [...] But if the Republican's oppose, then America need only ask, "What's the mission?"

(R): To say "Boo!" and scare everyone, so as to continue to stay in power and finish the looting and trashing of the country....

Cheers,
Arne Langsetmo | Homepage | 10.21.06 - 9:26 am | #

Mark Kennedy: " adapting to win" sounds like the latest talking point 3 word phrase( Republicans always make up catchy 3 word phrases to substitute for policy).
k | 10.20.06 - 11:58 pm | #

Advertising gurus have infested politics. The "KISS"/repetition approach works (I once asked why the morons ran the same damn ad a couple times in a row, and was told that it's not redundant and wasteful, but actually shown more effective by studies; maybe reinforcement?). And marketing folks will also tell you that the "X and Y" formulation sells too; it creates an association between the two words. And three words is just about right: "war and piece", "like a rock", "shock and awe", "cut and run", "adapting to win", "lock and load", "peace through strength", "stay the course", "we shall overcome", "remember the Maine", anonanonanonanon....

Burger King was stretching it with "Have It Your Way". "Don't Tread On Me" was for an earlier time when we had longer attention spans.

This all has been 'focus group tested', and they're playing us for rubes and marks.

Cheers,
Arne Langsetmo | Homepage | 10.21.06 - 9:43 am | #

Mr. Greenwald:

The following comments, made in response to my last post, are the types of comments that Peggy Noonan was referring to in her article that was the subject of one of your recent post.

"My god, your brain is seriously fucked up, Michael Smith.."

"Congrats, you win the award for lying-cunt-of-the-day."

"Or maybe you do and this just demonstrates what a kill-crazed sociopath you are."

"I am Borat! That is Barto! He will be execute!"

Now Mr. Greenwald, if, in response to this type of venom, I make the comment that these people need to be on medication, or if I complain that these are not appropriate responses, you cannot then lump me with them and declare that I am just as "intolerant of dissent" as they are -- which is basically what you did in that post about Peggy Noonan's article.

Since I am neither a leftist nor a rightist, I have sampled both, and I can tell you that yes, there is some of this on the right -- but the great preponderance of it is on the left.

The issue is not “tolerance of dissent”. The issue is, can we express our dissent in civilized terms? Can we have an exchange of views based on reason instead of an exchange of blows based on emotional outbursts, name-calling, insults and threats?
Michael Smith | 10.21.06 - 9:51 am | #

"daleyrocks":

Grand Muff - Congratulations, you're a hindsight hero just like Arne. Arne claims to have the website postings backdated now to prove his foresight.

Unless I own Google (which, unfortunately, I don't), that would be a good trick. They put the datestamp on displays of Usenet postings (and Usenet itself has multiple archives with this information). IOW, "daleyrocks" is a clueless berk.

The good news is not only can I demonstrate that folks like myself were perspicacious and insightful, and in the end correct, but I can also show that the RW foamers and the maladministration and their flacks were full'o'sh*te and completely wrong. The unarguable conclusion is that the information was available to come to the right conclusion, but that the maladministration and their sycophantic coterie just didn't see it (or want to see it). A proper 9/11 investigation (which, hopefully, we'll have with a Democratic Congress) will bear this out.

Cheers,
Arne Langsetmo | Homepage | 10.21.06 - 9:52 am | #

When you endorse one faith you endorse them all.

*Again, what in the hell does that mean?

It means that if you claim that your positions are valid because of your faith in them, you have no basis for disagreeing with any other faith-based claim. It means that if reason is rejected in favor of faith, there is then no basis for claiming that one faith-based belief is right or valid and another is not. It all becomes arbitrary.
Michael Smith | 10.21.06 - 9:57 am | #

Michael Smith:

The issue is not “tolerance of dissent”. The issue is, can we express our dissent in civilized terms? Can we have an exchange of views based on reason instead of an exchange of blows based on emotional outbursts, name-calling, insults and threats?

This is the WWW, Michael. There's plenty of "reason" here, and if you can't pick out the "reason" from amidst the scatological words, you might think of moving to More's Utopia. This is a country where the vice president [intentional] hails a senator with a hearty "GFY". This is a country where a preznit mocks a convict on death rows with a "Plllleeeeaaaassseeee don't killllll meeeeee."

And if you can't get a chuckle (or at least a raised eyebrow) out of "Borat", you really need to get out more often (or just freakin' read some more)....

Cheers,
Arne Langsetmo | Homepage | 10.21.06 - 10:00 am | #

“Oh, so THAT'S the latest explanation/excuse for the invasion of Iraq? My god, your brain is seriously fucked up, Michael Smith, if you think that because Islam = peace we had to invade Iraq to save the Muslims from themselves. You're not even trying to make sense.”

No, that isn’t what I said. I didn’t say that the alleged nature of Islam as a peaceful religion had anything to do with the rationale for going to war. I am saying it had something to do with how we chose to wage the war, not why we chose to do it.

What I said was that the presumption that the Iraqis would peacefully form a free society -- after the war -- was based largely on the notion that Muslims simply want to live in freedom and peace like we do. But the fact of the matter is that freedom and a free society are completely inimical to Islam -- and events since the invasion have illustrated that quite clearly.

Events all over Europe, where large Muslim populations exist inside relatively free societies, illustrate the same point: Islam will not adapt to a free society, it will never tolerate freedom of expression and freedom of dissent. Islam does not tolerate disagreement or seek to persuade non-believers -- it simply beheads them.
Michael Smith | 10.21.06 - 10:08 am | #

“Ahh, all heart. Do what we say or we destroy you and kill millions of your citizens.”

No, leave us alone and we will leave you alone. But if you adopt the goal of annihilating us or imposing your religious law on us by force, we will respond by destroying you and however many of your civilians is required to get them to give up.
Michael Smith | 10.21.06 - 10:17 am | #

Michael Smith brilliantly explains the history of the world, like how the Jews were enslaved by the moslems in Spain until the Jews in Spain were liberated by the reconquista.

But seriously, Michael Smith has proven that he comments here for only one purpose, to display his ignorance.
sysprog | 10.21.06 - 10:17 am | #

Arne, you seem to have missed my point. Yes, I can identify the reasonable responses versus the venom. The point is you cannot lump me with them as being "equally intolerant of dissent" just because I point out the venom.
Michael Smith | 10.21.06 - 10:26 am | #

Grand Muff - Congratulations, you're a hindsight hero just like Arne. Arne claims to have the website postings ackdated now to prove his foresight. How about you? Or are you just retroactively proclaiming your semi-pro intellectual genius. I liked the Haloscan disguise better.

If you were reading antiwar.com before we invaded Iraq you would have known that most of the "reasons" for going in were specious. You can go to their website now and check the archives -- it's all there.

(Incidentally, antiwar.com was founded in opposition to Clinton's Kosovo war. So don't give me any guff about how it's just a liberal site, blah, blah, blah.)

They are also documenting the lies coming out of our regime's mouthpieces in the run-up to war with Iran, as well. Read it, weep, then vote the bums out.
Svensker | 10.21.06 - 10:28 am | #

Michael Smith:

Arne, you seem to have missed my point. Yes, I can identify the reasonable responses versus the venom. The point is you cannot lump me with them as being "equally intolerant of dissent" just because I point out the venom.

No, sorry, that wasn't your point (or at the very least, if that was your intended point, you did a rather poor job of conveying it). Here's your sentence, and my response:

[Michael Smith]: The issue is not “tolerance of dissent”. The issue is, can we express our dissent in civilized terms? Can we have an exchange of views based on reason instead of an exchange of blows based on emotional outbursts, name-calling, insults and threats?

[Arne]: This is the WWW, Michael. There's plenty of "reason" here, and if you can't pick out the "reason" from amidst the scatological words, you might think of moving to More's Utopia. This is a country where the vice president [intentional] hails a senator with a hearty "GFY". This is a country where a preznit mocks a convict on death rows with a "Plllleeeeaaaassseeee don't killllll meeeeee."

[Arne]: And if you can't get a chuckle (or at least a raised eyebrow) out of "Borat", you really need to get out more often (or just freakin' read some more)....

The rest of the post I was responding to didn't depart from the meaning of that sentence of yours that I quoted there. You were complaining about "civility" (or lack thereof) and trotted out a list (including "Borat", strangely enough) of the comments you found uncivil. You also added the further not-so-gratuitous (and IMNSHO false) observation that the grand preponderance of uncivility was on the left (echoing Peggy Noonan's smears). That, in my book, is "complaining".

That should be pretty clear.

If you had a different point, maybe you should phrase it in a different way? And while you're at it, do some actual stats to back up your claims.

Cheers,
Arne Langsetmo | Homepage | 10.21.06 - 10:44 am | #

"Michael Smith brilliantly explains the history of the world, like how the Jews were enslaved by the moslems in Spain until the Jews in Spain were liberated by the reconquista."

??? Where have I attempted to explain "the history of the world"?

"But seriously, Michael Smith has proven that he comments here for only one purpose, to display his ignorance."

If you can refute or correct something I have said, or if you have a superior idea to offer, please do so. But simply asserting that I am ignorant, without any supporting evidence, proves nothing.

If I am ignorant, enlighten me with facts. Unsupported accusations add nothing.
Michael Smith | 10.21.06 - 10:52 am | #

Michael Smith commented, on Thursday:

Mr. Greenwald: ... your statement that the President can unilaterally imprison anyone without that person having any appeal to the courts is simply false.

the DTA ... provisions effectively give every detainee the equivalent of Habeas Corpus.

So Why have you failed to mention these provisions?
Michael Smith | 10.19.06 - 1:55 pm

These comments were both ignorant and uncivil.
sysprog | 10.21.06 - 11:00 am | #

Michael Smith commented:

But Iraq shows us the true face of Islam -- and of religion in general. What Bush and the right are desperate to evade -- and what makes them unable to admit that Islam is decidedly not a peaceful ideology

These comments were both ignorant and uncivil.I'm often ignorant and/or uncivil, myself, so I'm not going to clutch my pearls and faint like Peggy Noonan. If you're looking for calm discourse in these comment pages, you're in the wrong place.
sysprog | 10.21.06 - 11:09 am | #

Arne, you are still missing the point. Yes, I am complaining. But the point I am trying to make (evidently not doing so very well, either) is that one cannot equate a complaint about uncivil behavior with the uncivil behavior and declare that both are examples of "intolerance of dissent".

Perhaps we can simplify this discussion with a question. Do you consider my complaint about the incivility of the responses I quoted to be “intolerant of dissent” in the same way that calling me a lying cunt is “intolerant of dissent”? Do you equate the two things?

If I say, "Please stop with the insults", am I in the same category with the person issuing the insults? Mr. Greenwald seems to think that I am, and that is what I am disagreeing with.

As far as the use of statistics is concerned, I accept your criticism, I don’t have anything except my own experience to offer in evidence. But there is no point in trying to identify which side is more guilty of the offense if we don’t first agree on what constitutes the offence in question.
Michael Smith | 10.21.06 - 11:13 am | #

"These comments were both ignorant and uncivil."

I will ask you the same question I asked Arne. In your mind, are my comments on the same intellectual level with calling me a lying cunt? I am just curious as to your standards.

"If you're looking for calm discourse in these comment pages, you're in the wrong place."

Thank you for clarifying that, sysprog. It will save me a lot of time.
Michael Smith | 10.21.06 - 11:20 am | #

Michael Smith, you insult every religion on earth (especially Islam, which you see as having only a single "true" face) and then you plead for tolerance. You seem to have a mixed message swirling around in your head. Maybe you're confused and disturbed about all this stuff. Maybe some therapy, from a nice atheistic shrink, would do you some good.
sysprog | 10.21.06 - 11:24 am | #

Michael, if I may weigh for a moment, your civility masks quite a vicious ignorance of the nature of Islam, and your insistence on repeating it here in the face of considerable historical evidence to the contrary is offensive; how offensive you may not know, but you can't expect anyone to endure the offense quietly.

I wouldn't call you a lying cunt myself, but neither do I think that your pose of wounded innocence bears much scrutiny.
William Timberman | 10.21.06 - 11:43 am | #

"Michael Smith, you insult every religion on earth (especially Islam, which you see as having only a single "true" face) and then you plead for tolerance."

In the first place, I am not “pleading for tolerance“. I am simply saying that insult alone is not argument and that objecting to insult cannot be equated with the insult itself. They are not both examples of “equally intolerant” attitudes, as I believe Mr. Greenwald thinks they are.

Thus, if I am guilty of insulting religion, it would be ridiculous for me to criticize you as being “intolerant” for pointing that out.

But more important, why is it an insult to state the truth about religion? The history of all the major religions is on record and is clear: it is (for the most part) a history of bloody conflicts and mass murders, whether it’s Protestants killing Catholics or Muslims killing Jews or Hindus being killed by Muslims or -- you name it. Granted, there have been periods of relative calm between the killings, but those occurred in spite of the nature of religion, not because or it.

Religion gave us the dark ages -- eight centuries of horror when men were essentially forbidden from thinking and all human progress was crushed out -- is it an insult to point that out?

Is it an insult to point out that even today, even decades after the Reformation, even under the civilizing influence of western civilization, Christians still want to use government force to make you conform to their morality? If the Christian right had its way, abortion would be a death-penalty crime, homosexuality would be a crime, sodomy would be punishable by prison sentence, gay marriage would be prohibited, birth control would be restricted, children would be forced to pray in schools, creationism would be taught in schools instead of evolution, books that deal with prohibited subjects like witchcraft or magic (like the Potter stories) would be banned, immigration would be restricted to Christians -- and so forth. Christians are advocating and working for laws to enforce every one of those goals. Is it an insult to point this out?

Muslims are engaging in mass murder in the name of Islam all over the globe on virtually a daily basis. Muslims clerics issue death-fatwas against writers who criticize Islam. The president of the Islamic Republic of Iran calls for the extermination of Israel. Muslims riot and slaughter over the slightest perceived offense. Is it an insult to point out that the "Religion of Peace" is completely and utterly intolerant of anyone who disagrees?

The point that I made earlier remains: faith and force are corollaries. When men abandon reason and embrace faith, they then have no means of dealing with one another, of settling disputes, except to resort to the use of force. And that inescapable fact is why so many religions ultimately resort to the use of force to achieve their goals, just as today's Christians are seeking to force their morality on us via the force of law and today’s Muslims are seeking to force sharia on us through murderous jihad.

No, I am not saying that every religious person is evil. But I am saying that the extent to which one rejects reason, one rejects man’s only tool for dealing with reality and for dealing with other people peacefully, by voluntary association and persuasion.

Yes, you can identify some good things that were achieved by religion -- but you will find that they only achieved these things by resorting -- temporarily -- to reason.

No, I am not advocating any sort of government ban on religion -- people should be free to believe as they wish. But they should not be free to force their beliefs on others, either through outright initiation of force as the jihadists do or through the use of the law as the Christians seek to do.

I am not “pleading for tolerance” as much as I am pleading for reason. The conservatives have largely abandoned reason in favor of faith -- and look what they are doing to us.

By the way, why didn’t you answer my question?
Michael Smith | 10.21.06 - 1:27 pm | #

"Michael, if I may weigh for a moment, your civility masks quite a vicious ignorance of the nature of Islam, and your insistence on repeating it here in the face of considerable historical evidence to the contrary is offensive; how offensive you may not know, but you can't expect anyone to endure the offense quietly."

Please explain what it is about the nature of Islam that I am ignorant of, and why this ignorance is vicious.
Michael Smith | 10.21.06 - 1:37 pm | #

Michael: Please explain what it is about the nature of Islam that I am ignorant of, and why this ignorance is vicious.

Okay, let's have a bash, shall we? Fortunately, your last post makes your position clearer, and has changed my view of it as well.

It may help to state at the outset that I'm no more a friend of religion than you are, for some of the same reasons as you've now given. Still, the ignorance I've referred to comes in admitting to only one aspect of how religious impulses are expressed. Further, I would say that the behaviour which you rightly decry, while often justified in religious terms, is not a result of being religious, but of being human. We've had some pretty horrific examples of the excesses of atheism in recent history also, Stalin being only one of them.

What you're missing, I think, is Islam's great appeal to freedom, akin to that of Protestantism in some ways: that all men are equal before God -- never mind for the moment whether or not there is such a thing as God. More to the point, all men means exactly that, all nations and races, regardless of age or station in life, all equal in their submission to a single creed.

Have you ever seen films of the march around the Ka'aba during the Hajj? It's one of the most impressive religious ceremonies we have; thousands of people, of every race and nationality, clad in the same simple robes, united in a single act of worship. Is that a horrible, predatory impulse of mankind at its worst that we're watching? At the moment it is taking place, no.

Michael, I submit to you that such an image lies as much at the heart of Islam as any image you might have of holy warriors putting whole nations to the sword. Which is true? Both, it would seem; that you prefer to focus on the one rather than the other says more about you, I think, than about Islam.

So at the end of it, maybe you aren't ignorant; maybe its just that for you, the vision of evil outweighs any alternative vision of the good. Only you can tell us.

As for my calling what I took to be your ingnorance vicious, I can only say that ascribing a unique criminality to a single religion, or to all religions, seemed to me to be an egregious falsehood. To reduce all the dark impulses of human consciousness to the evil influence of religion is to justify yet more butchery in the name of a rational impulse which isn't one at all. In short, my appeal to you would be, physician heal thyself.
William Timberman | 10.21.06 - 3:08 pm | #

Islam does not tolerate disagreement or seek to persuade non-believers -- it simply beheads them.

You seem to feel the same way about Christians and Jews, so I guess this statement is not so much racist as ignorant. Would you equate the Christianity of Pat Robertson, who believes that homosexuals caused Katrina, with the Christianity of Mother Teresa? Or with the Christianity of Tom the Quaker, who was martyred while trying to heal the grief stricken in Iraq?

I would hope not.

Nor should you equate crazed Muslim fundamentalists with the average peaceful Muslims, or with the imams who have condemned terrorism (look at Juancole.com for a list of those). And you ignore the history of Islam and its great respect for learning and tolerance, in contrast to the Christian Middle Ages.

Basing a foreign policy on silly generalizations is a dangerous thing to do. And plays right into the neo-cons' hands, those who are doing their very good best to demonize all Muslims. It reminds me very much of what was going in Germany in the early 30s vis a vis the Jews. And similarly scares me -- those concentration camps the Dear Leader has built for "other programs" have to be meant for somebody.
Svensker | 10.21.06 - 5:03 pm | #

As I said, I described what he was saying as best as I understood it. Matthews understood it the same way. He wants 100,000 troops more in the military, and more troops in Iraq.

Where are those 100,000 troops going to come from? He DOES say that people are going to volunteer once they realize how improtant it is. When will that happen? How many more are needed in Iraq? What are they going to do there? He never says.

McCain's plan can be criticized for its lack of clarity on where the troops come from.. although it's a level of implementation vagueness I would describe as bipartisanly typical.

Skepticism about the availability of the troops is also reasonable, or the facility of raising them, is also reasonable.

But I don't think it's an objective and honest look to say that the US is certainly, clearly incapable of raising another 100,000 troops. The 30% of the country that supports this war is a lot of people. They're not getting the troops right now because they're not asking for them. But who knows what would happen in the midst of an announced expansion and an all-out recruitment push in conservative media?

It's an open question, so I don't think the plan is an obvious fake plan. It may or may not be feasible. It's probably not wise. That's as far as I'll go in defending John McCain.
glasnost | 10.22.06 - 12:18 am | #

glasnost:
But who knows what would happen in the midst of an announced expansion and an all-out recruitment push in conservative media?

Judging by the reponse to Matthew's informal audience poll, I would imagine that such an all out push wouldn't result in much more than a cricket chorus.
tiddlewinks | 10.23.06 - 11:49 am | #

RE advertising: it's called "reach and frequency." Reach is the number of people who see an ad, frequency is the number of times they see it (if I'm recalling correctly; I'm not in media, I'm in the creative side of advertising). You want both numbers to be high. The goal is "unaided recall," meaning that if you ask someone if they've seen one of your ads, can they repeat it back to you (the gist) without prompting? People are more likely to recall something they've seen many times versus just once or twice. That's why Republicans (or any smart politician) opt for short, simple messages (easy recall) repeated many, many times (frequency). They do it because it works. If the American public doesn't want to be seen as simple-minded and easily manipulated, they might try being less simple-minded and easy to manipulate. The Republicans are just taking well-documented advertising principles and applying them to politics. It's also why they cultivate TV talk show hosts. Every time Limbaugh or one of those other idiots yaps out some RNC talking point, it's free advertising for the RNC.
LL | 10.23.06 - 1:16 pm | #

Um. So. Where's Glenn?
John of Roquetaillade | 10.27.06 - 4:15 pm | #

I really think McCain is toast regarding 2008: He morphed from a 'Straight Talking' moderate independent, to a Jerry Falwell, intelligent design supporting right winger seemingly overnight. And he wants Americans to "Just trust me" regarding sending tens of thousands of extra troops into Iraq? Maybe the 1999 John McCain, not version 2.0...

www.minor-ripper.blogspot.com
MinorRipper | Homepage | 11.14.06 - 12:40 pm | #

I think McCain is caught in a sticky situation. I don't agree with him on all issues but I'm still making up my mind of whether or not I agree with him on this one. I think the crux of the matter, one that should have been considered before rushing into a war with the explicitly stated objective (one of many) of bringing democracy to Iraq, is can one nation foster civil society in another during occupation. Civil society is a necessary precursor to any form of democracy. No one seems to be debating this issue and it really is the deciding factor, in my mind, in the debate over what to do in Iraq.

A lot of the comments here are very insightful but the pretext for the war is now history and that seems to be the subject of much of people's debate. Regardless of what has happened, America is now occupying Iraq. Some blame it on a spineless Congress, some on abuse of Executive power, but ultimately it is the citizens of America who by tacit consent or by advocacy, have waged a war on the nation of Iraq and it is our responsibility to deal effectively with the situation at hand. I was an opponent of the War in Iraq. I was arrested before the invasion in February of 2003 in NYC as part of the world wide protest. Now, however, I realize that I can't be an opponent of the War in Iraq, for opponents exist only in the past. I can only be an opponent, or proponent, of what to do in Iraq.

McCain has a plan, however unarticulated. It is to send more troops in hopes of stabilizing the region. Security, I believe, is the first step to nurturing civil society. Once security is achieved, can civil society be fostered? McCain cites no authority on the question. In fact, he doesn't even touch it nor is he asked to by Matthews who too overlooks the central issue. If I believed it could be done, I would join the Army tomorrow, but I just don't know. I am, however, deeply emerged in a review of the relevant literature on the issue which is surprisingly lengthy. It's too bad so few people read it.

Also, I am not so audacious as the author of this blurb as to attack McCain's devotion to his country. It is very poor form to suggest that a POWs political motives weigh greater in their mind than the best interest of their country.

As for the magical surgence of military recruits, here is one. And its not about blind patriotism, its about informed patriotism. It's about duty to one's country, despite the elected leader. It's about upholding a promise that was made, however ill considered, because you allowed it to be made. You didn't fight hard enough in 2003. You didn't do all that you could. And so now you must.
Adam Martin | 11.23.06 - 1:50 am | #

This person completely misinterprets everything he disagrees with and manipulates it into a form that fits with his agenda. You democrats make me sick. I wish I could send you all to France and not have to listen to this garbage anymore.
Cameron S. | 02.28.08 - 11:15 am | #

Commenting by HaloScan