I think the room for "play" (that they believe exists regardless of whether it actually does) has something to do with the fact that the status quo, conventional wisdom even, is to withdraw and they can imply that one isn't doing any kind of independent or original thinking in order to go along with it.

Thus it doesn't show principles or seriousness, because it is too accepted and understood and well, self evidently sensible to possibly be motivated by an individuals own inner components of "seriousness", morality, and common sense.
glenstein | Homepage | 01.07.07 - 9:38 am | #

McCain is suffering from an overdose of Kool-Aid™.

SadButTrue | Homepage | 01.07.07 - 9:53 am | #

He is gambling that the militant wingnut base is a stronger foundation than cross-over Dems, moderate Reps, or the mushy middle combined.

He is taking a stand against 70% of the population. By 2008, this number will be even greater.

Is this courage? I tend to think he has psychological problems. There is no way he will win in 2008.

As for Hiatt, people like Dean were not "serious" in 2002-2003 and all of their predictions have come true in Iraq. When the realities of the non-"serious" come home to roost again when a pullout is finally deemed the best option, then we can move to the next "serious" position on Iran.
Chris | 01.07.07 - 10:02 am | #

Court politics of WashDC of which
WaPo partakes require lots of bowing
and curtsying amongst those who see
themselves as being "at court".
McCain has backers as does his pal
Joey Lies who are gaming the who's
up and who's down of WashDC. McCain
with visions of being the GOP's 2008
candidate pick for President is in
full player mode. Likely enough Joey
Lies sees himself as the miracle VP
candidate on GOP ticket. Just like
Hilary's presidential quest there is
lots of finger to the wind testing
going on with McCain. Honesty and
truth telling have not ever been
part of the Iraq War.Just ask G.W.
Bush. WMDs?Central front of GWOT?
American Militarism is the monster
that needs to be taken down.Expect to
see a series of cogent and pertinent
articles in WaPo about why less USA
global militarism is not being talked
about rather than more? Well...that
would be silly and off point would it
not? The assumptions going in distort
WashDC thinking...WaPo could be so
much better and useful. Sadly is not.
R.Ashen | 01.07.07 - 10:41 am | #

I think McCain would win the Republican nomination, and maybe even the Presidency, if he came out against the Iraq war. The ability to 'admit a mistake', show contrition, ask for forgiveness, would appeal to a lot of people who are feeling betrayed by Bush and the rubber-stamp Republican Congress. Add in some intellectual sounding hand-waving about 'how mistakes were made' and a lot of the "both parties are the same" people would think he is noble, bi-partisan, and 'open-minded'. But, as you say, such a move would require courage...unlike sticking with the same memetic structures (and people) that have screwed things up so bad.
Christopher Gwyn | 01.07.07 - 10:48 am | #

Nothing courageous here: Since McCain is asking for a sustained escallation of 18 months duration involving 20-30K troops, he has an out if anything less than that is invested. He knows full well that the military cannot stand another three Freidmans with that many troops.
Hedlay Lamarr | 01.07.07 - 10:48 am | #

There is nothing "courageous" about John McCain's Iraq position. In fact, it's the most politically opportunistic position he can take -- it's really the only politically viable position he could have. That doesn't mean he's advocating it disingenuously. But given McCain's presidential ambitions, advocating escalation uniquely serves his political interests.

I disagree about his disingenuousness. He has to scope out a position for 2008 that he can run on with the GOP nutball wing, and some flavor of "the Democrats lost the War On Terra" is it. Now, he was an early advocate of escalation when it became clear late last year that things in Iraq were falling apart; then when Bush and the Amen Chorus of the Neocon Talking Points Club actually took him up on his nutjobbery, McCain had to double down. Now it's the obviously-speechwritten-for-him "substantial and sustained" escalation.

In other words, he has to be seen as (a) different from the President, and (b) pursuing the same path in an even stupider order of magnitude. McCain cynically attempts to position himself for the 2008 election, stepping on body bags as he goes. No wonder military support for Republicans has slipped to below-majority status.
Rob McMillin | Homepage | 01.07.07 - 10:57 am | #

Oh, Fred Haight had a say:
So, the WA/Po bids another Hiatt's type can say 'ilk' like that, but if a 'dirty' "hippie" blogger tries with a less well groomed, unkempt, beard tries to 'flap' and clean up a few cobwebs in the White House, a Rt-winger (i hate words like winger) can swoop down on critics of Congress...haul to jail, and Oh, my O day, don't dare call 'um blood-soaked-sponges for corporate crony-piglets.

To counter the escalating "surge" of non-sense, dare think we may end up in sin-faults of transmission and experience rendition's? ( the 14,000 jail story has me sighing) And dare remain silent or ask "What in hell's name are these hell-bent Haight's trying to do? They speak so hateful-cruel (i not a hippi) they ought to be branded with a hot-poker brand-tool-stooge or...Something...for manufacturing more chaos-cruel-surge of bewildering thought.

What do they really desire?

A bright lit torch to shine some light upon a very shadowy net-work of crime-syndication connection's, is a very good idea, I'd think? Day after day the 'left-wing' fervently sighs, but, provides hope...never falters, and of course, none are paragons of always being righthere/elsewhere...all-the-time, but I think "hippies" earn their daily bread if they work honestly.

This day will pass, but, if we do not withstand the Surge of non-sense, a war will worsen, the economy too etc., and who knows how many more lives will be 'spent' vainly-sacrificed upon neo-con, forced-fed to us, batches of more lies?

A free soul will dare speak the truth or truth/person's will vanish/die.

The W.H has become a pig-sty. This is what must pass.
That is the day of stop O-Hail the Lie. Bush/McCain are another rotten peas in same pods. The 'war' was lost previous to the "surge" like a choo-choo train run amok forward. Withdrawel and we can shout yea, Alleluia.

The shameful secrets of this shadowy maladministration need the bed-linen aired in public. No real rocks need to be thrown, but a torch, more than a dim flicker...Justice...as in same-same analogy...of if a rotting hulk or a rotting Haight editorial...is out there.. a Republic sinks. There is still a responsibility toward civil truth and honesty. Search out and keep up a belief in...'We are People.'
clownsense | 01.07.07 - 11:10 am | #

I'm afraid I keep running into Democratic voters that say they would support McCain over Clinton. I don't get any real coherent answer when I ask why, but it seems as a liberal I am supposed to embrace McCain simply because he is less obviously insane than George W. Bush.

Maybe 2 years of Democratic congress will change things. I hope so.
Alan | 01.07.07 - 11:11 am | #

it is also politically opportunistic of chief republican loom mccain to set-up that no matter what happens, i.e., no matter what bush and the Congress ultimately do, it will not meet mccain's high standards (set by mccain and adjusted at-will by mccain according to political conditions) so that when it fails to acheive "victory" (as defined by mccain) then mccain will claim that victory would have been acheived if only everyone had listened to him and his wisdom.

In other words, the ball is mccain's and the rules are made-up by mccain as we go along. Only mccain can win the game.
.
pluege | 01.07.07 - 11:16 am | #

Political courage for McCain would involve advocating a tax increase to pay for the war in which, according to Republicans, "victory" is essential for our national security.

George W. Bush and the neo-cons have had, literally, a free ride for nearly 4 years now. They get to wave the flag and act macho -- and it costs the average American nothing. The money is all borrowed, and my understanding is that all those "supplemental" appropriations are not even counted in calculations of the deficit. Just the other day, Dubya, the surging decider, was bragging about bringing down the deficit.

So political courage, for McCain (and Lindsey Graham and Joe Lieberman not to mention the President), would start with honest accounting, move on to a tax increase, and -- if "losing" is unthinkable and "victory" truly the only alternative -- end up with talk of a draft.
CMc | 01.07.07 - 11:16 am | #

I know it's tempting to say something along the lines of, "Oh, we're screwed. He's going to win." I just want to say that we shouldn't treat McCain's weaknesses as strengths, even though the media will spin it that way. He'll get the wingnut vote (they'll go for anyone who wants to use state violence). Making fatalistic proclamations this early shows a lack of confidence. We have to point out how foolish McCain is to anyone who will listen. We vote. We have the ability to talk to other voters. The media is McCain's greatest constituency.
steve_e | 01.07.07 - 11:18 am | #

Without a surge, Mr. McCain and Mr. Lieberman warn, the war will be lost. This is a serious argument, and the two senators have been principled and even courageous in making it.

The war is already lost. How is sending more meat to the grinder supposed to be some sort of "principled and courageous" argument?

Courageous, to me, would be admiting the mistakes and paying reparations, along with giving Bush a fair trial and execution for his war crimes and crimes against humanity. That would be courageous.

Not dragging the war out for two more years so they can blame the loss on the Democrats. Which is what this is all about. Saving the reputations of Bush and the Repubican party.
Moses | 01.07.07 - 11:20 am | #

I don't think McCain has a chance to win in 2008. This debacle is only going to get more unpopular.

McCain does have a chance to help the president waste more lives in a lost cause, unfortunately.

~
ifthethunderdontgetya³² | Homepage | 01.07.07 - 11:37 am | #

To quote from Sad-But-True McCain IS suffering from an overdose of Kool-Aid™.
Vigilante | Homepage | 01.07.07 - 11:39 am | #

I would like to bet that members of "the gop nutball wing" aren't the major financial backers of McCain's campaign. Most of them are just useful idiots who are being manipulated to further someone else's agenda.
What that agenda is, I'm not quite sure. But the appointment of Martinez as Mehlman's replacement, and the South Florida ties of many of McCain's staff should be a clue.

Terry Nelson, Mel Martinez and Mark Wallace all worked for Akerman Senterfitt at one point at time. How were those jobs arranged?
undecided | 01.07.07 - 11:40 am | #

Wonkette's description of McCain is much better than Fred Hiatt's: Walnuts!

~
ifthethunderdontgetya³² | Homepage | 01.07.07 - 11:44 am | #

I'm sick as hell of this complete utter defiance of logic and sanity. This whole entire war we've battled endlessly the Right Wing Noise Machine's blowhards who've had the President's ear whisper the most asinine arguments and catch phrases that have kept us in the middle of this quicksand trap. That alone is bad enough to deal with, coupled with the "yes"-men GOP Congress who refuse to disagree with their leader at all costs. And then to top things off, the Beltway pundit twits who continually and steadfastly refuse to backtrack in any honest and/or coherent manner of support for this invasion.

Time and again we see this, despite the continual slipping of public support.

But this time is different - vastly different. Not only do you have a broad majority of Democrats taking a stance, not only is their a growing number of Republicans and steadfast Bush supporters wavering on this issue, not only do you see top military commanders and Joint Chiefs of Staff defying the idea (for damn good tactical reason since they've seen what these "surges" have created in the past), but you see a freakish level of majority public opinion telling the President/McCain/Lieberman how unbelievably outlandish their plan is in the first place. How do you go against so many voices telling you to take that plan and shove it up your collective asses?

Hmmm, I guess God's voice in Bush's head is simply louder than everyone else, perhaps?
MisterOpus1 | 01.07.07 - 11:46 am | #

Glenn, I'm certainly not taking issue with your analysis of why McCain is strongly advocating escalation, but this is what seems so bizarre to me: Almost all sensible people -- including the Joint Chiefs -- oppose it. It won't do anything other than create more American targets and may well increase the violence in Iraq. No one thinks another 20K troops can defeat the militias and insurgents or fix what is wrong with the Iraqi "government."

So if an escalation's almost certain increase in chaos and death is going on during the primary season and in November of '08, on what conceivable basis could McCain believe his position helps his presidential bid? After the American people spoke this past November, I do not grasp how his political calculus makes any sense at all.
Mona | Homepage | 01.07.07 - 12:04 pm | #

Mona-

I agree with your assessment, but I think it's also obvious that McCain is doing his best to feed all sides of the fringe, including the Religious zealots earlier and now the neocon nutbags (to which he's always been a part of). In other words, I think he's doing his part to shore up the crazy GOP base. He's already convinced the dipshit AP and Beltway pundits that he's a "moderate". In their eyes he'll likely remain that way right up to the election. He can continue working on the middle later if he somehow deems it a threat to his vote, but it seems clear to me that he does not consider losing the middle very threatening. So instead, he goes after convincing the fringe for now.

Just my highly uneducated guess.
MisterOpus1 | 01.07.07 - 12:17 pm | #

Friday, McCain and Leiberman shared the stage at AEI (aired on C-Span) to announce the necessity of the surge, a conclusion they reached together after their latest road trip to Bahgdad and ISRAEL. So Leeb and McCain are showing a solid front in their mutual conviction as the only credible solution to the obvious yet unstated indecision exhibited by the pres over the last few months since the Bake/Ham report. In light of the long lingering indecision of Bush, McCain/Leeb actually look like presidential material.Deciders.
And they get to hide behind Bush if the whole thing goes nowhere but worse, and Bush gets cover from the bipartisan tag team when nothing changes. Cozy.
Will McCain actually be running this new strategy or will he too hide behind the 'following the generals on the ground' who follow the DOD who follow the Commander-in Chief, who follows the gen....
Very timely as well considering Israel wants to lobb a couple into Iran's nuke plants, though Olmert denies, seems they have the same problem over there with media leaks.

And the search for a tiny corner to hide in the Oval office continues to frustrate the Leader of the Free World.
Sue | 01.07.07 - 12:24 pm | #

Mona, political calculus may be far too kind a description for what's behind McCain's maneuvering. I suspect that what guides him is the same perverse rationality -- or is it rational perversity -- that got us into the Iraq mess in the first place.

The first thing to remember is that these people are dumb, and that you and Glenn are not. That puts you at a certain disadvantage when analyzing their behavior.

One thing seems obvious; they all have way more ambition than an old slacker like me can understand. If their reach exceeds their grasp, I'm grateful; if not, I'm past looking for a place to hide.
William Timberman | 01.07.07 - 12:25 pm | #

Somebody tell Hiatt the fever has broken, and he can return to Earth.
MD | 01.07.07 - 12:28 pm | #

Well, once Bush and/or Israel decide to try out their tactical nukes against Iran, this discussion will be rather moot, won't it?

I suspect that St. McCain is so fixated on being president that he thinks that carrying WH water is how he is going to get there (or at least win the primary). What he is failing to see through the fog of his own ambition is that supporting Chimpy in escalation leads much, much farther down the total war road than he can even imagine. And total war means no elections, just Chimpy in charge forever. A military guy like St. McC can't even entertain the idea that the normal order of presidential succession would ever be suspended, whereas Chimpy and the Boys see it as the only logical next step in their grand plan. All for the good of the country of course.
Make It Stop | 01.07.07 - 12:30 pm | #

MONA _ So if an escalation's almost certain increase in chaos and death is going on during the primary season and in November of '08, on what conceivable basis could McCain believe his position helps his presidential bid? After the American people spoke this past November, I do not grasp how his political calculus makes any sense at all.

I think for a long time he was counting on the fact (and hoping) that his plan wouldn't be implemented, and that he could therefore claim that the War would have been great if things had been done the way he wanted (even if his plan is followed, I still think he will claim that it happened to late - in fairness to McCain, he's been attacking Rumsfeld for a long time over the failure to send more troops).

But I also think McCain thinks that more troops really will work. If you are a True Believer in the War as he is, you only have two choices - (1) admit that you were dreadfully wrong about the most important matter of the decade (at least), or (2) insist that you were Right but that the failure was due to poor execution.

McCain can't bring himself to embrace (1) yet (and doing so publicly would be political suicide in the GOP), so his only other option is (2), and that leaves arguing for more troops.
Glenn Greenwald | 01.07.07 - 12:30 pm | #

And the kicker is 6 months after he is elected President (if that should pass) he will suddenly announce America's victory and complete withdrawal from Iraq to bases in Kuwait and Jordan.

Mark. My. Words.
Northern Observer | 01.07.07 - 12:41 pm | #

If Glenn is correct, Pelosi may have just inadvertantly helped McCain. She says there will be no funds for a surge or escalation without justification.
Haloscan Ate My Name | 01.07.07 - 12:51 pm | #

The few tens of thousands of dollars that the McCain campaign spent covering bar bills and buying shrimp during thr 2000 campaing may yet obtain the White House for the senator.

It would be the biggest ROI since Peter Minuit bought Manhattan for $24.
Davis X. Machina | Homepage | 01.07.07 - 1:07 pm | #

John McCain is just another agent of the parasites called the Kenites. He works for their interests and not the American peoples interests.

McCain only thinks of himself and how much money he can accumulate while in office.

The word courageous cannot be used in these times as it applies to American politicians.

John McCain is business as usual concerning the Neo-nazis of the bush cheney crime cartel.

McCain is just one more traitor in the long list of traitors that are in power in Washington on both sides of the aisle.

To make peace in the Middle East we must become friends with Iran and Syria and create a state for the Palestinians with self rule for the same.

Then we should put Israel on notice that they will have to start obeying international law and stop their financing of terror organizations all around the world which they do.

Those steps would stop most terrorism in its tracks as almost all terrorism is now being sponsored by established legitimate governments.

The neo-nazis of the bush crime cartel and Israel thrive and prosper on turmoil.

Turmoil brings fear to people and this is the platform of power these bloodsuckers thrive upon.
Gabe Gabriel | 01.07.07 - 1:11 pm | #

The calculus of politics is rather weird. A lot of political computation seems to treat the electorate as a Markov (that is, no memory) system. McCain simply can't be nominated without catering to "the base" (odd how that translates into arabic as "al qaeda") by being as militaristic, religious, and generally right-wing as possible.

Once the nomination is sewn up, he can produce a discontinuity in the derivate and try to convince enough of the rest of us that he's not a complete loon to get that 49 percent required to win the right states. You know, by going on The Daily Show and acting like a real human being, that sort of thing. (Hey, it seems beyond the ability of Hillary Clinton.) Then act like you are talking straight (it's manner more than substance here) while blowing smoke out of every orifice and hope the integral will rapidly follow the derivative back into central territory.

Call me skeptical, but I suspect that the primary reason our soldiers will continue dying in Iraq for the next two years, in the minds of Karl Rove, and those like him, is that their sacrifice is for the good of the country -- by staving off the return to power of the left. After the 2008 election, if the left has won, it becomes their problem, while if McCain wins, Bush can pull them out with as little fanfare as possible, while McCain expresses his public regret at this decision.

Back to the calculus: Once the kool-aid drinkers have imbibed, they typically can't admit they were wrong (as we've had amply opportunity to observe) -- and besides, where will they go?

Whether the voting public really has an infinitesimally short memory or not is a question still to be settled.
Charles | 01.07.07 - 1:12 pm | #

Moses...The war is already lost.

Which war? And define losing, or victory. It's better to say that we were unable to define and achieve all our objectives. We haven't lost a battle, like in Vietnam. Armies defeat armies. We did that. The GWOT? That's not a real war. It's perhaps better to say the occupation of Iraq by American troops was a bad idea and doomed to fail. If we get out before we are run out, we didn't really lose. Declare victory and leave is the best option. Bush would rather leave a scorched earth at home and abroad.
Haloscan Ate My Name | 01.07.07 - 1:24 pm | #

Glenn: I think for a long time [McCain] was counting on the fact (and hoping) that his plan wouldn't be implemented, and that he could therefore claim that the War would have been great if things had been done the way he wanted…

Moses: [It's not courageous for McCain to drag] the war out for two more years so they can blame the loss on the Democrats. Which is what this is all about. Saving the reputations of Bush and the Repubican party.

2+2.

That makes so much sense. Why would Bush advocate a policy that not only is likely to fail, but which is so universally denigrated that it is very likely to be prevented from being implemented?

It creates some kind of cover for 2008. If the Democrats acquiesce and the plan is implemented and then fails, the Repubs can say, "See? The Dems supported it too!" just like they have been with the 'authorization to use military force' vote. If the Dems successfully block the measure and carnage ensues — a carnage that is inevitable given the horrendous impact the criminal invasion has had on that volatile region regardless of whether we stay, surge, or withdraw completely — the Repubs can claim, "We were so close to turning the corner, but those weak-on-security Dems got in our way! Now look how bad it is. They're weak on terra!"
ballgame | 01.07.07 - 1:25 pm | #

Moses,

Just to clarify, we could occupy and pacify Iraq by being as murderous and brutal as Saddam. We could also turn it into a parking lot.

Col. Lang has an interesting post from Richard Sale on the Negroponte move. He claims an 8.5 to 10 on this "intelligence":

Sale on Negroponte Move

"Contrary to the bland stories in The New York Times and Washington Post of Friday, Negroponte did not go voluntarily to State from his job as director of intelligence. In fact, there was tremendous administration pressure to get him out of his current job. The chief cause of the quarrel involved Negroponte's balking at at request from Vice President Cheney to increase domestic collection by the National Security Agency on U.S. citizens.

Negroponte flatly refused, Cheney bridled, and from then on the pressure built to get rid of him. (The White House did not return phone calls, but there is nothing new is that.)

The Bush people, chiefly Cheney and the president, were already annoyed by the fact that the Negroponte group has been busy producing drafts of reports that predict utter disaster in Iraq and which are utterly opposed to any increase of troops. Cheney and Bush both flared in wrath over this. Of course, intelligence is simply evaluated information. Its purpose is to help inform decisions by policymakers, as Pat as so often pointed out. But this this administration perceives objectivity as a inadequate commitment or as an absence of complete loyalty.

The new national director of intelligence Adm. "Mike" McMConnell, has my sources at NSA tearing their hair out. In the view of some very sharp analysts there he was "among the worst directors this agency ever had," in the words of one...
Haloscan Ate My Name | 01.07.07 - 1:32 pm | #

As I sagely opined in another thread, the surge into Baghdad is largely a feint to divert attention from our main focus. The real surge will involve our naval, air and nuclear forces, which have so far have been woefully under-utilized. Previously our efforts were hampered by overly cautious military leadership, mired in pedestrian tactical minutia. But now President Bush has cleared the decks and replaced it by a bold uninhibited leadership which is worthy of President Bush's grand strategic eschatology. I think even Senators McCain and Lieberman will be surprised by the results. And the democraps and their camp followers will be utterly left behind, shocked and awed and sputtering with impotent rage.
anonymoose | 01.07.07 - 1:41 pm | #

GOP Dead Enders! I love the perfect symmetry of the term.
Common Sense | 01.07.07 - 1:47 pm | #

I am now convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that Anonymoose is a satirist and he's pulling our legs.
SomeNYGuy | 01.07.07 - 1:47 pm | #

The only period during which"objecting to its insufficiently aggressive execution" can be considered a "serious" policy position is during your trip to the induction center.
Otherwise it's BS.
Mooser | Homepage | 01.07.07 - 1:48 pm | #

I am now convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that Anonymoose is a satirist and he's pulling our legs.

As amazing as it is, he is not a satirist. He really believes what he is saying.

He used to post here as Gedaylia. These are some of the things he has predicted on this blog with such certainty over the course of the last ten months:

* The NSA scandal would all be politically resolved before May (of 2006);

* Congress will have legalized the "Terrorist Surveillance Program" long before my (first) book came out, causing my book to be an "embarrassing flop"

* The Republicans will PICK UP seats in both the House and Senate in the 2006 midterm elections and the "liberal losers" will go back to claiming the elections were rigged

* Joe Negron will win Mark Foley's seat in Florida . . .

. . .etc. etc. Nothing he ever says is right. He is one of those people who come and spew statements with a tone of certainty knowing nothing about what they're saying, and they just hope nobody remembers when they are wrong over and over.

It's possible some of what he says is designed to trigger attention for himself without really believing it (such as the link to the article about nuking 100 Muslim cities), but most - and I'd say all - of what he says, he believes. He's the classic case of the weak-man-authoritarian - scared of his own weakness and lack of power and desperately seeking it out in the form of authoritarian political movements - Bush as his Daddy. John Dean described him perfectly.
Glenn Greenwald | 01.07.07 - 1:53 pm | #

"grand strategic eschatology."

That means suicide, if you put it in one word.
Mooser | Homepage | 01.07.07 - 2:02 pm | #

Glenn Greenwald | 01.07.07 - 1:53 pm | #

Glenn, I believe your description is not limited to anonymoose; you have just described Shooter, Daleyrocks and Who'd a Known as well.
Daly | 01.07.07 - 2:11 pm | #

Glenn, Good to see you setting the record straight on the right-wing blogosphere, on the constituion,in pro-war escalation editorials and even in your own blog comments section. You're always a good read. Keep up the good work.
Jeff Spiccoli | 01.07.07 - 2:15 pm | #

Their is no courage in advocating war. Holy Joe has not an ounce of courage in him, his titanic ego leaves no room for that.
Rafael | Homepage | 01.07.07 - 2:16 pm | #

Who has a bigger ego, Joe Leiberman, Joe Biden, or W?
Jeff Spiccoli | 01.07.07 - 2:23 pm | #

Michael Roston :
http://lookingforsomeonetolietome.blogspot.com/ 2007/01/mccain-i-was-for-troop-surge-before- i.html

Saturday, January 06, 2007
McCain: "I was for the troop surge before I was against it"
http://bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087& sid=au2opzCPk3N4

Senator John McCain, a longtime advocate of increased U.S. forces in Iraq, said he would support a troop ``surge'' into Baghdad only if it is ``sufficient and sustained.''

McCain said he would judge any surge proposal based on the assessments of people such as retired Army General Jack Keane, who has called for at least 30,000 additional troops.

``If it's not sufficient in the view of'' experts such as Keane, ``then I cannot support it,'' he said in an interview on ``Political Capital with Al Hunt'' airing this weekend on Bloomberg Television.

So, the word from Senator McCain has changed.

His stated position at one time: "I'll support the policy that will win the Iraq war."

His new position: "I'll support the policy that will distance me from President Bush and help me win the presidency in 2008."

Or, to paraphrase Senator Kerry, "I was for the troop surge before I was against it."
posted by Michael Roston @ 11:01 AM

From anonymoose at 1:41 pm:

And the democraps and their camp followers will be utterly left behind, shocked and awed and sputtering with impotent rage.

Don't you have mass ethnic cleansing campaigns to plan and implement? Or do you simply plan to use Zyclon B and large ovens again?
Iokanaan in the Well | 01.07.07 - 2:36 pm | #

Glenn Greenwald says:
As amazing as it is, he is not a satirist. He really believes what he is saying.

But I can't argue with art, Glenn. Anonymoose's comments are consistently hilarious, so the possibility that it may be unwitting or unintentional becomes moot. If he is not a comic genius, he is an idiot savant -- and that's nothing to sneeze at. With our nation, our world and our very ideals in such a grim state of disrepair, I'll take my laughs where I can get 'em and be grateful for the free entertainment.

I'm mostly kidding, of course, but I do sincerely thank you for this blog, which I visit daily with genuine pleasure.
SomeNYGuy | 01.07.07 - 2:38 pm | #

On Tuesday, there was a leak from an administration official that the "surge" in Iraq might be only three or four additional combat brigades -- "instead of a surge, it is a bump".

On Thursday, there was a leak from another administration official that the "bump" might be even smaller -- only two combat brigades -- because the military may not be in a position to do more than that.

On Friday, at the AEI, McCain said that a surge of fewer than six additional brigades would be worse than no surge at all :

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16484446
“The worst of all worlds would be a small, short surge of US forces. We’ve tried small surges in the past and they’ve been ineffective.”

There no longer is a leg to uphold the insanity from DC.

If you subscribe to the lie that a failed Iraqi state is an unnacceptable outcome, that our society and safety itself is at stake then where is the obvious only solution of a draft? Pour 1,000,000 men and women in to win. Lordy lord the rape-public-cans will not do it. Cannot have it both way retards.

20K troops is putting a bandaid on a cancer, utter stupidity and a dangerous delusion.

Well Neocons and fake American warhawks, ready for a huge tax increase? Send your child? No, then shut the F*ck up, it is no longer viable.

END OF ARGUEMENT
Your Conscience | 01.07.07 - 2:41 pm | #

Moose droppings :

The real surge will involve our ...nuclear forces, which have so far have been woefully under-utilized.
anonymoose | 01.07.07 - 1:41 pm

Nothing he ever says is right.
Glenn Greenwald | 01.07.07 - 1:53 pm

As for Lieberman's "principles", let's never forget that he is numero uno shill for Israeli/Zionist/neocon agressiveness. Not that you would ever know that from the U.S. media. Heavens forbid. Anti-smemitism and all that, ya know.
DonS | 01.07.07 - 3:08 pm | #

Glenn,

As Mr. Spock might have said, fascinating. Raised Vulcan eyebrow(s) aside, however, this bit of information about the Moose unfortunately leads us back into the swamp of psychoanalysis.

Men of action are common enough -- I've known many people who've had -- and have -- large appetites for the world within their reach, and were -- are -- total strangers to introspection. Although I've always preferred Hamlet to Henry V, and Eisenhower to Patton, I've never doubted that as a species, we have need of such directly-coupled folks.

Pretenders to the title of swashbuckler are another matter, though. No one would trust the Moose with his own future, or that of his chidren.

These are the bosses who're hated, the second lieutenants who get fragged, and the political theorists -- like William Kristol -- who come to prominence only in times of great upheaval, and usually wind up shortly afterwards either dangling from a lamppost, or preaching to horny toads miles from any outpost of civilization.

Moose has a questionable psyche, certainly, but God help anyone who thinks to provide answers to those questions. I'd be happy just to do whatever I can to hasten the approach of his inevitable Nemesis.
William Timberman | 01.07.07 - 3:27 pm | #

WT - Although I've always preferred Hamlet to Henry V, and Eisenhower to Patton, I've never doubted that as a species, we have need of such directly-coupled folks.

All true. The problem with the authortarian Bush followers isn't that they're powerful, fearless warriors. The problem is that they are the opposite -- weak, fearful and confused -- but they know they are that and hence are so desperate to prove their strength by adopting the warrior pose, always by putting other people at risk.

That's why their appetite for war and bloodshed is insatiable. They bear none of the risks normally associated with the warrior, but they allow themselves the psychological benefits of vicariously feeling powerful and triumphant. It's really more like a drug than anything else - a new fix is needed every day.
Glenn Greenwald | 01.07.07 - 3:32 pm | #

Please, let's hear more about this "grand strategic eschatology."
Peeperkorn | 01.07.07 - 3:35 pm | #

It's really more like a drug than anything else - a new fix is needed every day.

And a new bag of Cheetos™...it's important to keep the 101st Fighting Keyboarders properly supplied.

~
ifthethunderdontgetya³² | Homepage | 01.07.07 - 3:40 pm | #

How do you create indented quotations in comments... what are the html codes?
Jeff Spiccoli | 01.07.07 - 4:16 pm | #

McCain advocating more war, "It's the only choice he has". Yes. It's probably a losing position (I say) in the Republican nominating process or the general election, if Iraq continues to spiral downwards. It is a much stronger position if "we" are in the middle of another conflict, imminently anticipating one, or are reeling from a "terror attack" or the increased fear of one.

Now will the Decider choose to reinforce the McCain strategy, implicitly or explicitly? St. John will play junior like a harp, and they're already in something of a lovefest. As for Liberman (VP candidate on the other team this time?), junior already loves him bestest.
DonS | 01.07.07 - 4:40 pm | #

What a day of duluge of three instructive post & comment.

I'm not one, I hope, to crave acceptance by sweet-talkin' and smoochin'-up. Who can sit here on the 'couch' and assimilate all this potential healing-advise in one lifetime?
But often a consise statement 'hits' as powerful as any natural thunder-bolt. At 3:32 Glenn did 'divine' a description of human nature, imo, I consider needs delicate and lighhearted focus. It's not to destroy macho-nacho-ego-man, but for mandatory observation and analysis for good.

So much goes beyond my blog-understanding, personal experience, and a comment from any one can reveal our foolish total-ignorance and ungrasp of the issues, setting our self up for ridicule. The vast issue affecting all of us are important. We fork forth and either jab-hurt another, or we feed a tidbit of nourishment for our cud-to-slowly-chew?

Believe it or not, (i can hardly imagine it myself) one of my 'gigs' in life was a 'counselor,' unraveling the best I knew how, layer upon layer, brimful full, and hearing of lives experiencing major trajic upheavels of existing inner chaos.

The more pathetic and weak, male/female, childhood trauma, war-trauma, spousal relations turned trajic with no hope of a reconciliation...A Tragic postponement...Failure...Enmity...But more than less, all approaching the Trajic.

The weakest scenario's of trajic lives went something like this: (not always a rule, of course)

A 'victim,' a real-sufferer would ask, (Analogy: is bush/me etc., a victim?) Expressed: "I've been 'sinned against more than sinned, attitude?" (?)
A Plea:
I hope others' ask nothing more of me, and all I ask is to be left alone in this sad isolated alienation from other's that I'm ensnared in...I myself participated in the ensnarement of myself...The description of 'my-life' is a failure. I have been complicit in my/other ruin and I want my life unobserved. I can't live unassisted, and I distrust all those surrounding me. I could say, wishing, I'll have no correspondence or honest communication, I'm unable... Those who surround me have participated in their ruin, by use/abuse of me.

Paraphrased, 'My life is too painful to further examine me (you or myself) and that hope for a ending of my life in tranquility, calm, and peace has already been forsaken in my hope for me. If I could wither away, avoid, and arrange matters at leisure, I would, but torment awaits to greet me each day. At the end of days I hope someone has arranged a few comments, stripped away of everything harsh, and leaves me alone...and I die. I've listened to pathetic trajic lives ask, 'When will it end?' It's pathetic and history does archive many-many illustrations of trajic ends. I'm not sure, but this thought, thinking about people who've said something similiar or came scavenging with delusions and hope a white-powder dust was not a pice of lint, but dope...with a hope...lost...and this thought was going 'round my weary head.

We have not evolved very far from days when stoning was in vogue. People who hurt, do lash out to aim and hurt others'. How to lob a thunder-bolt that awakens, is not easy. Try to not hurt in thought, word, and deed...and watch all hell's fury break-forth. I'm never completely, positively, sure. Each post, thought, and comment shared is a risk. We must stick out our heads, and try to help? risk?
clownsense | 01.07.07 - 4:52 pm | #

According to US News “Washington Whispers” the only person McCain is worried about for the nomination of the Republican Party is Newt Gingrich.

All of the candidates are moving farther to the right to get the nomination, Gingrich is “already there” - so it’s a mad race to see who can bombard the base with the most bellicose bluster and bravado.

All this talk about political calculus assumes that these people are still connected to reality.

Such is not the case. They’ve come to believe their own propaganda.
~ ~
zack | 01.07.07 - 5:27 pm | #

clownsense | 01.07.07 - 4:52 pm:

Amen.
William Timberman | 01.07.07 - 5:27 pm | #

Et tu, Utah?

Utahns break from Bush on Iraq
The Salt Lake Tribune 01/07/2007

President Bush has lost majority support on Iraq from residents of the reddest state in the nation.

A Salt Lake Tribune poll conducted last week shows Utah's support for Bush's handling of the war in Iraq has taken a substantial plunge in the past few months. Just 41 percent of Utahns say they support Bush on Iraq - marking the first time a Tribune poll has found fewer than half of Utahns in the president's war camp.
http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_4966131

Conservative columnists Kevin McCullough tells us “Why John McCain is finished"

“Why does John McCain hate the GOP?
Furthermore how does he expect to win their support for 2008?
Complaints are many from those of us who might be inclined to support him. He sought to author the end of political free speech with his unconstitutional campaign finance reform efforts. He seems clueless when it comes to one of the issues that his base voters care about – the protection of marriage. And he seems to be forgetting that an energized base is what he will need to win the GOP primaries much less the actual general election for President in the next go around.
In this month’s Vanity Fair John McCain seems to have further twice insulted those he seeks the support of. The ten-page tediously detailed profile delves into the Senator’s inconsistencies on the protection of marriage, his feelings on the war on terror, and his near hostility towards protecting the border.”

"I think the fence is least effective. But I'll build the goddamned fence if they want it."

What he seems to like least about McCain is that he swears like a blogger.
Enslaved | 01.07.07 - 5:44 pm | #

He sought to author the end of political free speech with his unconstitutional campaign finance reform efforts.

Precious -- the kind of stuff you just can't make up. People disappeared off the streets all over the world, American citizens held for years without access to a court, and he considers this the significant threat to political free speech?

Oy!
William Timberman | 01.07.07 - 5:54 pm | #

WT: and note the money-as-speech angle. No "free speech zones" for these givers. That would undermine our rights and probably destroy the country.
Peeperkorn | 01.07.07 - 6:02 pm | #

Not with you so much on this one, Glenn. I think you're playing your "serious" vs "un-serious" game a little too, well, unseriously.

For one, go the AEI website and watch the entire webcast of Friday's Kagan/Keene/McCain/Lieberman rollout of the "Victory" plan. I think you're focusing a leeettle too much on the pundits labeling, and not enough to the fact that they did present a very serious arguement for more troops. You may not agree, you may think only 'serious' people talk about leaving Iraq, but it is a dead serious plan.
Chasm | Homepage | 01.07.07 - 6:03 pm | #

I see Hiatt and the rest of the "Sober, Serious" self deluding and fully discredited pundit class as a variant of the "Field of Dreams" mentality.

Just as Kevin Costner builds his field listening to a voice that keeps telling him "If You Build it, They Will Come," so too do the sober and serious pundit class continue to follow the "If You Repeat It, It Will Become True."

Only this isn't a Hollywood movie. Simply repeating the way they wish reality to be over and over won't change anything. Kevin Costner found Shoeless Joe Jackson's ghost. These morons will simply plow under their own field and stare into the emptiness convinced they're seeing something that isn't there.
JM | 01.07.07 - 6:11 pm | #

John McCain is just another agent of the parasites called the Kenites. He works for their interests and not the American peoples interests.

McCain only thinks of himself and how much money he can accumulate while in office.

The word courageous cannot be used in these times as it applies to American politicians.

John McCain is business as usual concerning the Neo-nazis of the bush cheney crime cartel.

McCain is just one more traitor in the long list of traitors that are in power in Washington on both sides of the aisle.

To make peace in the Middle East we must become friends with Iran and Syria and create a state for the Palestinians with self rule for the same.

Then we should put Israel on notice that they will have to start obeying international law and stop their financing of terror organizations all around the world which they do.

Those steps would stop most terrorism in its tracks as almost all terrorism is now being sponsored by established legitimate governments.

The neo-nazis of the bush crime cartel and Israel thrive and prosper on turmoil.

Turmoil brings fear to people and this is the platform of power these bloodsuckers thrive upon.
Gabe Gabriel | 01.07.07 - 1:11 pm

Anti-Semite!

(kidding)
Baldie McEagle | 01.07.07 - 6:16 pm | #

SomeNYGuy | 01.07.07 - 1:47 pm | #


I am now convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that Anonymoose is a satirist and he's pulling our legs.



You know, yesterday I came to the conclusion that he was a parody troll. Like "The Major," whom we haven't seen for some time.
Moses | 01.07.07 - 6:18 pm | #

Making McCain's endorsement of "The Surge" look even dumber:

George Will and David Brooks Join Critics of the 'Surge'

By E&P Staff

Published: January 07, 2007 8:35 AM ET

NEW YORK Among the many newspaper columnists questioning President Bush's plan to send 20,000 or more fresh troops to Iraq are quite a few conservatives breaking with the White House on this.

Oliver North, for example, attacked the idea in his syndicated column on Friday and today, in the Washington Post, George Will comments that the "surge" idea is basically too little and too late, and will only lead to a "protracted" U.S. struggle. The column is titled, "Surge, or Power Failure?"

I'm not sure even anyone but the most hard-core nutjobs in "the base" believes "The Surge" is a good idea.
Moses | 01.07.07 - 6:26 pm | #

Just above a picture of Demi Moore's limber legs, the words on the cover of the February, 2007 issue of Vanity Fair ask, "Will John McCain's Temper Derail Him?"

Todd Purdum's article looks at that question and many others. It's neither a hatchet job nor a puff piece.

It's an interesting portrait of a larger-than-life character who might have been president, if only George Bush and Karl Rove had been less eager to embrace racism in South Carolina in 2000.

And might he be president in 2008? I can't see the GOP nominating him, but stranger (and worse) things have happened.

Here's the link:
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/ 02/mccain200702
sysprog | 01.07.07 - 6:34 pm | #

Serious is the label people attach to themselves when others discover what a joke the serious truly are. The more absurd the scenario, the more serious its advocates will be.
The Heretik | Homepage | 01.07.07 - 6:45 pm | #

Another germane quote from the Vanity Fair piece:

Finally, a questioner lays it all on the line: "The war's the big issue," [McCain] says, adding, "Some kind of disengagement—it's going to have to happen. It's a big issue for you, for our party, in 24 months. It's not that long a time." McCain replies, "I do believe this issue isn't going to be around in 2008. I think it's going to either tip into civil war... " He breaks off, as if not wanting to rehearse the handful of other unattractive possibilities. "Listen," he says, "I believe in prayer. I pray every night." And that's where he leaves his discussion of the war this morning: at the kneeling rail.

On the way to our next stop, McCain tells me, "It's just so hard for me to contemplate failure that I can't make the next step."
Vast Left | Homepage | 01.07.07 - 7:03 pm | #

Chasm, the troops for the McCain-Lieberman-neocon escalation are not available.

Therefore, the plan is not serious.

~
ifthethunderdontgetya³² | Homepage | 01.07.07 - 7:19 pm | #

What's seriousness? A wrinkled brow, and the absence of a smile? A condition that might kill you?

Well then, you could say the crowd at AEI on Friday were "serious."

But sometimes seriousness means dealing with reality.
sysprog | 01.07.07 - 7:39 pm | #

...they allow themselves the psychological benefits of vicariously feeling powerful and triumphant. It's really more like a drug than anything else - a new fix is needed every day.
Glenn Greenwald | 01.07.07 - 3:32 pm | #

For some it is a drug fix, for others, it is the child with an envious wish to be like an adult, but always falling short and blaming others for their position in life. Pathetic, vindictive, and dangerous small-minded people.
~
nuf said | 01.07.07 - 7:40 pm | #

there's no courage in making the statement (as purported by) McCain and Lieberman that without troop increase the Iraq war will be lost!

If and when the war is lost they will find something else to blame it on. They both shy from hard choices...
milo | 01.07.07 - 7:48 pm | #

Clownsense - Expanding on your 4:52. Progressives see themselves as victims and the conservatives as the source of all their woes. They have not yet reached the point of enlightenment to realize they are as much perpetrator as victim and share blame for their lot in life. The finger cannot always be pointed elsewhere. Responsibility must be accepted.
daleyrocks | 01.07.07 - 8:17 pm | #

Glenn, on the off chance you are reading this thread, I have to ask you: after looking at Who'd a Known's myriad posts here, WHY still allow him to post here? It's painfully obvious that he is only posting here to disrupt, and has FAR crossed the line that have seen lesser commenters banned from your thread. Almost every single comment here has been pointed at him, and he has done almost nothing but call the other commenters (and you, yesterday) a lair.
Daly | 01.07.07 - 8:23 pm | #

Glenn - Congratulations on joining the Keith Overdone/Ted Rall/Jon Kari/Charlie Rangel troop bashing corps today. I'm virtually certain that the families and friends of those who have lost a loved one fighting in Iraq who support the President and what we are doing there will be thrilled to learn that you view those lost lives as being "squandered."

Yesiree, not even a pretense of supporting the troops in that word.
daleyrocks | 01.07.07 - 8:24 pm | #

troop bashing corps

Syllogism:

I disagree with the war and how it's been waged.

It would be wrong to escalate the war because it will only 'squander' more life and treasure.

Therefore, I don't support the troops.


Is that a fair assessment of your comment?
Politically Lost | 01.07.07 - 8:32 pm | #

PL - My comment addresses Glenn's post. Why not address your question to him? He is the one who chose to use the word squander. I do note, however, that he used it in the past tense. My comment did not mention the future so your attempted assessment of mine was unfair on its face.
daleyrocks | 01.07.07 - 8:37 pm | #

PL - I suggest you knock on the door of one of those nice patriotic families who have lost a son or daughter in Iraq who still support what we are doing over there. When the door is answered, please explain your syllogism, yours, not mine, and that you think that individual's life was "squandered", to use Glenn's term of the day. Please report back on the reaction you get.
daleyrocks | 01.07.07 - 8:44 pm | #

From daleyrocks at 8:37 pm:

He is the one who chose to use the word squander.

And what would you call the 3,000+ American KIAs, tens of thousands American WIAs, and likely hundreds of thousands of Iraqis dead within Iraq since April 2003? "A cheap price"?
Iokanaan in the Well | 01.07.07 - 8:46 pm | #

IW - Try to stay on topic for a change.
daleyrocks | 01.07.07 - 8:48 pm | #

From daleyrocks at 8:44 pm:

I suggest you knock on the door of one of those nice patriotic families who have lost a son or daughter in Iraq who still support what we are doing over there.

And in exchange will you knock on the door of one of those nice patriotic families who have lost a son or daughter or father or mother or brother or daughter in Iraq who NO LONGER support this deployment and try to defend it to them?

I somehow doubt you have the courage to do so.
Iokanaan in the Well | 01.07.07 - 8:48 pm | #

From daleyrocks at 8:48 pm:

IW - Try to stay on topic for a change.

This is "the topic". Not my fault you can't face the consequences of what you advocate.

But that takes courage.
Iokanaan in the Well | 01.07.07 - 8:50 pm | #

daleyrocks | 01.07.07 - 8:24 pm | #

Glenn - Congratulations on joining the Keith Overdone/Ted Rall/Jon Kari/Charlie Rangel troop bashing corps today. I'm virtually certain that the families and friends of those who have lost a loved one fighting in Iraq who support the President and what we are doing there will be thrilled to learn that you view those lost lives as being "squandered."

Yesiree, not even a pretense of supporting the troops in that word.

Ah, one of the logical fallacy trolls is with us today. Today's logical fallacy is the false dilemma.

Today's is "supporting the war = supporting the troops." Thus, if you don't support the war (bash the war), you must not be supporting the troops (bashing the troops).

The false dilemna makes an artifical position where the two positions are linked in a line of reasoning that goes like this:

1. Either claim X is true or claim Y is true (when X and Y could both be false).
2. Claim Y is false.
3. Therefore claim X is true.

The false dilemma is set because it artificially limits the line of reasoning to two positions. For example, here is a classic false dilemma that wingnut christians use to try to get their way:

Bill: "Jill and I both support having prayer in public schools."
Jill: "Hey, I never said that!"
Bill: "You're not an atheist are you Jill?"

Now, if the universe does truly have just two positions, then you don't have a false diliemna. For example:

1. Bill is dead or he is alive.
2. Bill is not dead.
3. Therefore Bill is alive.

In that example, there are only two possiblities. But that is not true for "supporting the troops." In fact, the correllary is that "supporting the war" is not proof of "supporting the troops." And, as most of us know, the Republican Congress did precious little to support the troops, such as drafting replacements, raising taxes to pay for proper equipment, suchas as body armor, armoring-up vehicles, properly supplying and in-general equipping them, though they made a lot of earmarks for pork projects...

However, in the attack made on Glenn by one of our resident trolls, there are, in fact, multiple positions. For example, like many of the people on this board I am opposed to the illegal war in Iraq. HOWEVER, I support the troops. And, in fact, as a VETERAN (something out troll is not) I believe that due to my experiences, I'm even more supportive of getting the troops out of the hell-hole that is Iraq because I've seen the indirect & aftermath human cost of war.
Moses | 01.07.07 - 8:58 pm | #

IW - No, as usual you are redefining the topic to suit yourself. The military is an all volunteer force. If anti-war types believe people serving are potentially squandering their lives by doing so, feel free to tell the families. That is not my view.
daleyrocks | 01.07.07 - 9:00 pm | #

Lindsey Graham's playing the same card McCain's playing. He's not about to back way from supporting the war, but he's so intent on distancing himself from its failures that he went so far as to say (on today's Meet the Press) "Shinseki was right" about needing more troops at the outset of the war.

Suddenly Shinseki was right, we've never had enough troops in Iraq; and Casey and Abizaid, the generals "on the ground" to whom Bush has claimed to listen and defer on issues of troop strength -- are now wrong in saying more troops won't significantly improve the situation in Iraq. So we're getting more troops in Iraq -- and, of course, new generals to run the show over there.

Up is down. Black is white. Etcetera is etcetera.

And the New Plan is literally more of the same.
BackInTheRed | Homepage | 01.07.07 - 9:01 pm | #

Daleyrocks: "The military is an all volunteer force. If anti-war types believe people serving are potentially squandering their lives by doing so, feel free to tell the families."

Some military families do in fact believe their loved ones' lives were squandered in this war.

Am I going to tell a soldier's family their son/husband/father/daugher/wife/mother died in vain? No. No one with a shred of compassion would do that.

Then again, no one with a shred of compassion would watch 3,000 U.S. soldiers die in an unnecessary war, then stand up and boldly tell them the new plan to end the war and bring the troops home was to send tens of thousands more troops over there.
BackInTheRed | Homepage | 01.07.07 - 9:05 pm | #

I do note, however, that he used it in the past tense. My comment did not mention the future so your attempted assessment of mine was unfair on its face.

OK, the use of tense of 'squander' vs. 'squandered' is unfair because the comparison changes the meaning, the syllogism fails to be clear because it dealt with lives lost in the past and not the lives that will surely be lost in the immediate future if there is an escalation.

Addressing the real issue of the syllogism without the use of tense:

If one does not support the war does that by definition make one NOT support the troops?

I don't think by any fair assessment that conclusion can be reached.

If one thinks that this was an unnecessary war of choice and that the lives of our soldiers have been squandered by our actions does that somehow make one unsupportive of the troops?

Again, I don't think that is a fair assessment of anyone's position.
Politically Lost | 01.07.07 - 9:09 pm | #

BITR - You assume that people agree with your assessment of the potential outcome the military campaign. Not everyone does.
daleyrocks | 01.07.07 - 9:10 pm | #

BITR - You assume that people agree with your assessment of the potential outcome the military campaign. Not everyone does.

No one's assessment of the potential outcome matters. The actual outcome is the only criterion on which to judge and yes, if we escalate the conflict we will be squandering lives. Deal with it.
Paul Dirks | Homepage | 01.07.07 - 9:16 pm | #

Moses:

I know now that I should have taken that logic class over the linguistics class that my college offered.

Live and learn.
Politically Lost | 01.07.07 - 9:16 pm | #

PL - I think the word squander is a very pejorative way to refer to casualties from this war, whether you support it or not. The left and it's public spokepeople do it no favors when they make such references.
daleyrocks | 01.07.07 - 9:18 pm | #

Paul - One life is too many for you even if we achieve our objectives?
daleyrocks | 01.07.07 - 9:20 pm | #

Paul - One life is too many for you even if we achieve our objectives?
daleyrocks | 01.07.07 - 9:20 pm | #

This should be amended to read: "One life is too many for you even if they achieve my objectives?

Just to be clear.
Jassalasca Jape | Homepage | 01.07.07 - 9:26 pm | #

Here's your opportunity to imagine what "objective" can possibly be acheived by 180,000 guys in Humvee's with guns. Kill more Iraqi's? Kill fewer Iraqi's? Prop up a government beholden to Iran? Destroy the militia that's loyal to the Mullah who's the most powerful force there?

What is it you actually have in mind and what "successful outcome" can you possibly imagine coming out of our current situation?

Lives are being squandered. Deal with it.
Paul Dirks | Homepage | 01.07.07 - 9:27 pm | #

Squander = to spend foolishly or wastefully. By my lights, spending 3000 lives to install a shia despotism (if not actual theocracy) in Iraq was foolish and wasteful. We could have simply given weapons to Iran and they would have done it, costing us no lives (and a lot less money). They would almost certainly have been willing to make the Kurds autonomous, although that would have been a little harder to sell.

I find Glenn's use of the word perfectly appropriate. I'm not going to point this out to a family -- they have enough grief to deal with, and I also am perfectly happy to let others view the loss of their loved ones however they choose. If they believe it was a life well-spent, more power to them. Doesn't mean I agree with them -- and I suspect, over the course of time, I suspect they may come to agree with me.
Charles | 01.07.07 - 9:27 pm | #

It's only pejorative if that's the way it is taken.

To say that I think it's a waste to have my friend leave his family for another tour and that his life would be squandered (in the future) or if he were to have died in the last tour I don't think it somehow diminishes him or his service or the sacrifice that his family has made.

The squandering has been done by the administration and no one else.
Politically Lost | 01.07.07 - 9:29 pm | #

Daley,

How many lives are too many if we never achieve our objective? How many stated objectives have already been flushed down the memory hole?

Reality's not working for you, so you reduce your arguments to the most base abstract questions.

After all, it's not like supporting the troops should involve actually considering the lives of the troops. Hell no. There's always another 'objective' to pretend was the goal all along.
Bullsmith | 01.07.07 - 9:30 pm | #

I am now convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that Anonymoose is a satirist and he's pulling our legs.
SomeNYGuy | 01.07.07 - 1:47 pm

I have to agree. "Grand strategic eschatology" is just too perfect.
Baldie McEagle | 01.07.07 - 9:45 pm | #

I'm virtually certain that the families and friends of those who have lost a loved one fighting in Iraq who support the President and what we are doing there will be thrilled to learn that you view those lost lives as being "squandered."

daleyrocks | 01.07.07

Hey daily, do you support the dead troops or the live troops? Just asking.
Baldie McEagle | 01.07.07 - 9:48 pm | #

If Daleycrock and assholes like him and the other 101st Fighting Keyboarders died in Iraq, or anyplace, it would all be worth it for me. But that kind of asshole doesn't "volunteer" to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. He lies to those who do so they will die doing the exact opposite.
Haloscan Ate My Name | 01.07.07 - 9:55 pm | #

Reality's not working for you, so you reduce your arguments to the most base abstract questions.

True enough. And yet he never fails to elicit responses to his wacknut posts.
Today I couldn't figure out what the hell "pejorative" meaning he found in the fact that lives are being "squandered" in Iraq, until he finally let on that he was trying to imply that Glenn meant the soldiers themselves had "squandered" their own lives--something no rational person would read into Glenn's statement of the obvious fact that Bush and his henchmen have squandered the lives of our valiant and sincerely patriotic young people with this insane adventure into nation-building.

But that's the way it always is with the rightwing wacknut faction. They are dwindling fast, so their lame-ass attempts to fool people into thinking somebody meant something other than what they did are becoming less relevant all the time. But daleyrots still does his best to copy Rush and Hannity as they twist the words of their opponents in whatever fashion allows them to pretend someone's said something outrageous. It always requires a reading of their opponents' words that completely twists their meaning, and it used to work on the rubes. That is until Bush and the republican fringe-freaks took power, and the whole world got to witness the complete and utter failure of the rightwing agenda. Their incompetence has become so obvious and undeniable that people like daley are having to reach further every day to find ways to pervert the meanings of their opponenet's words.

Today's example is a new low even for a dimwit like daleyrocks, even if he's too fatuous to realize it.
armagednoutahere | Homepage | 01.07.07 - 9:57 pm | #

JJ - Do you live in another country?
daleyrocks | 01.07.07 - 10:02 pm | #

JJ - Do you live in another country?
daleyrocks

Everyone lives in "another country" from you.

About Anonymoose:

Glenn says he is not a satire and that he used to post here as Gedaylia.



Gedalia

That might explain something. He sounds like a total wingnut and that is indistinguishable from satire or parody.
Haloscan Ate My Name | 01.07.07 - 10:08 pm | #

JJ - Do you live in another country?

Here's where, if we were dealing with someone honest, we would point out that we live in a republic where our sworn loyalty is to the constitution, in contrast to a banana-republic where ones sworn loyalty is to the CIC.

But I happen to know that it would be a waste of time here.
Paul Dirks | Homepage | 01.07.07 - 10:09 pm | #

Man from GLAD - Yeah, I guess it's not like any of the troops are reenlisting or anything with the full knowledge of what is going on and the likelihood that they will have to serve another tour or two in Iraq or Afghanistan. According to the liberals, they're all to dumb to think they are signing up for squandering when they reup. Morons here again today.
daleyrocks | 01.07.07 - 10:10 pm | #

We are all waiting for you to enlist.
Haloscan Ate My Name | 01.07.07 - 10:15 pm | #

It's only pejorative if that's the way it is taken.

The squandering has been done by the administration and no one else.
Politically Lost

Exactly. When daley goes into his Rush Limbaugh impression he tries to sound as pompous as possible, adopting the belligerent arrogance that rightwingers find so persuasive, so people tend to assume he's smarter than he really is. His actual simple-mindedness forces you to sometimes take a minute to realize what ridiculous thing he's actually trying to foist on you. When it simks in how absurd he's being, the reality of his dimness becomes obvious.
armagednoutahere | Homepage | 01.07.07 - 10:17 pm | #

Paul - I thought the country had foreign policy objectives which are set by the president. I know we have democrat weasels going around him and negotiating against those policies, otherwise, the country has one set of objectives. What else is JJ talking about. Also, I thought Democrats were all for preventing Iran from getting nukes, solving the Israeli/Palestine crisis, and successfully getting us out of Iraq. So what the fuck would JJ be talking about?
daleyrocks | 01.07.07 - 10:18 pm | #

Here are my predictions regarding the Bold and Courageous John McCain:

1) Iraq will be a total disaster both at the time of the primaries and at the time of the election. No spin will be able to hide this fact from voters.

2) Point 1 will guarantee that John McCain is not elected President.

3) If McCain were not blatantly contradicting statements he made in 2000 as he attempts to woo 'the Base', I might indeed see his bizarre pro-esalation stance as "Courageous." Instead I now see it as "politicaly suicidal." He gave up on being courageous when he hugged Bush and kissed Falwell's ass.

In 02 being anti-war was politically suicidal. In 04 being anti-war as a major negative, requiring extreme bravery and almost guaranteeing the media would crucify you (see Dean, Howard). In 06 being anti-war was the single best way to get elected, period. (See Lieberman, "Bring the Troops Home nudgenudgewinkwink- justjoking" Joe).

What historical parallel can anyone provide that would indicate that being anti-war is going to work in 08? [McGovern doesn't work because the McGovern candidates won, overwhelmingly, in 06.]

The SOLE exemption is a former democrat who ran as Al Gore's VP AGAINST Bush and Cheney. No "serious" person can interpret that as Conneticut voting for Bush.
Bullsmith | 01.07.07 - 10:19 pm | #

armagednoutahere - Excuse me. Who are you calling pompous?
daleyrocks | 01.07.07 - 10:19 pm | #

they're all to dumb to think they are signing up for squandering when they reup. Morons here again today.

Again, the leap.

So, if they think it's worthwhile everyone has to support it?

And, what of the one's that don't? The ones that re-enlist SOLELY to help their friends?

I support them, I don't want them there, I think the war is squandering their lives, if they agree with me or not. That doesn't translate into thinking their dumb.
Politically Lost | 01.07.07 - 10:20 pm | #

I thought it was Specter who went to Syria.
Jim Montague | Homepage | 01.07.07 - 10:22 pm | #

Gedaliya (aka anonymoose)
Haloscan Ate My Name | 01.07.07 - 10:25 pm | #

"But McCain suffers no harm from advocating increased troops. It is the only chance he has for preventing this horrendous war from dooming his presidential campaign before it even begins."

I agree with Greenwald's portrayal of McCain, including his empahsis at the end of his post that McCain is not yet proven wrong in his argument about troop increase.

The "surge" can be described as a tactical escalation (increasing only two specific areas in iraq), coupled with a leadership change. If all the leaks are right, they're going to load the new troops only into Bagdad and al Anbar. Presumably, one targets the shia muscle, the other the sunni.

Probably more important than the increase in troops is the reintroduction of David Petraeus, who apparently had some success running a counter-insurgency effort in Mosul.

While it seems like an incredibly long shot, it's actually possible that Petraeus might be able to quiet down Bagdad. If that can be done, and if the Iraqi parliment can be reassembled with Sadrists, Badrists, and the rest of the merry group, it is not impossible that a year from now things could look better than they do now--that true political discussion among Iraqis can progress, and that rebuilding can be accomplished that won't be immediately blown up.

In which case, McCain's political stock indeed looks better, but so does Iraq in general, and arguably so do US interests. I also think that McCain actually believes this.

While I personally feel that a more rapid withdrawl might produce better results faster, I don't believe McCain can be accused of throwing away the lives of american soldiers for his own political ends, yet.
casual observer | 01.07.07 - 10:27 pm | #

According to the liberals, they're all to(sic) dumb to think they are signing up for squandering when they reup. Morons here again today.
daleyrocks

Like Pavlov's dog.

No liberal ever said anything remotely like this. To pretend otherwise requires a level of absurd dishonesty that only rightwing authoritarians would fall for.
armagednoutahere | Homepage | 01.07.07 - 10:28 pm | #

They are re-enlisting, the few who do, for the large bonuses. $15,000 to $150,000.

The mission: Sell soldiers in Iraq on re-enlisting

If it wasn't for you, Shooter, Whooda and the Dog, there would be no morons here at all.
Haloscan Ate My Name | 01.07.07 - 10:30 pm | #

Oh, yeah... And the Fugly American.
Haloscan Ate My Name | 01.07.07 - 10:32 pm | #

Daley exposes the logic of the Right:

If you don't support the war, you should abandon the U.S. Military altogether. Hence everyone who is or was a part of the military supports the Iraq war, otherwise they wouldn't join up.

Of course, by this logic,Republican
officials in Washington are prima-facae overwhelmingly opposed to the war in Iraq. Bush and Cheney, since they avoided service in Vietnam by choice, must hate the troops.

Wait a second, that's the identical logic thrown at Shooter to go sign up if he loves the war. Daley, are you suddenly a lefty now?
Bullsmith | 01.07.07 - 10:35 pm | #

daleyrocks: Paul - One life is too many for you even if we achieve our objectives?

JJ: This should be amended to read: "One life is too many for you even if they achieve my objectives?"

daleyrocks: JJ - Do you live in another country?

The point is that the people doing the achieving are putting their lives on the line. That category of persons does not include you. So the people whose lives are at risk in this are they, not we. The same would be true if I were speaking.
Jassalasca Jape | Homepage | 01.07.07 - 10:46 pm | #

Oh, and daleyrocks, that is what the fuck I was talking about.
Jassalasca Jape | Homepage | 01.07.07 - 11:11 pm | #

I agree that McCain is a political opportunist but I do not agree that the article totally supports McCain's position. I think the article writer recognizes the widespread dissatisfaction with the war and for that reason labels McCain's escalation position as "courageous" and serious. It is not clear that he agrees with the position.

I think the only practical solution is to impeach Bush and Cheney. Stupid people everywhere need to see someone pay for a big mistake. Time in jail seems like the only thing. It's a pretty big mistake.
Interested | Homepage | 01.07.07 - 11:14 pm | #

I never cease to be amazed at the ability of those on the left to construct self-serving paranoid delusions. The Republicans may be delusional -- they are, in fact, living in a world of make-believe -- but compared to you Greenwald fans, they are the epitome of rationality.
Michael Smith | 01.07.07 - 11:32 pm | #

Michael Smith: I never cease to be amazed at the ability of those on the left to construct self-serving paranoid delusions. The Republicans may be delusional -- they are, in fact, living in a world of make-believe -- but compared to you Greenwald fans, they are the epitome of rationality.

Good to know that the Republic is safe, then.
Jassalasca Jape | Homepage | 01.07.07 - 11:49 pm | #

Michael Smith: I never cease to be amazed at the ability of those on the left to construct self-serving paranoid delusions.

As opposed to self-serving murderous delusions, I suppose. And lest you think that an exaggeration, or a straw man, you might check out one of anonymoose's earlier contributions -- specifically the Wille zur Macht one.

Compared to some of the conspiracy theories expressed here involving a supposed Rovian ratfucking of Dan Rather, I fail to see how that particular contribution could be considered the epitome of rationality by comparison.

I mean, Rove is a fairly devious bastard when all is said and done, even though Dan Rather does also seem to be a venal prima donna who might very well have rushed to judgment for the sake of his own ego gratification.
William Timberman | 01.08.07 - 12:01 am | #

From Kagan's "Choosing Victory":

The president must request a substantial increase in ground forces end strength. This increase is vital to sustaining the morale of the combat forces by ensuring that relief is on the way. The president must issue a personal call for young Americans to volunteer to fight in the decisive conflict of this generation.

dr, this is the call Bush will make for you. Will you answer it? Either that or explain why you can't/won't.
michelle | Homepage | 01.08.07 - 12:22 am | #

JJ, I think Mikey missed the Friday post from Glenn.
michelle | Homepage | 01.08.07 - 12:24 am | #

Bullsmith - Was that supposed to be Republican logic? I couldn't even recognize it adter you put all that lefty spin and distortion on it. Not even remotely close to anything I said or implied, but you're welcome to continue thinking it is if it flips your minnow.
daleyrocks | 01.08.07 - 12:36 am | #

Michael Smith: I never cease to be amazed at the ability of those on the left to construct self-serving paranoid delusions.

The "drone" planes boss!, the "drone" planes! The "drone" planes will be here in 45 minutes!!!!!

[snip]
"We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical and biological weapons across broad areas," Bush said in preparation for a congressional vote authorizing the use of force against Iraq. "We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVs for missions targeting the United States." ~
George W. Bush / Cincinnati, Ohio, Oct 2002 as reported by Fox New

*
the farmer | 01.08.07 - 1:36 am | #

I wonder where it is written that pulling our military out of Iraq means "abandoning" Iraq. Seems to me the least we can do is pay for cleaning up the mess we made -- I mean, pay cash money. Reparations, or whatever you want to call it. We don't need 20,000 more soldiers to do that, just some electronic funds transfers. Even if we would still be funding the same murderous Shiite militias we're supporting now, how could it be worse?
Tehanu | 01.08.07 - 1:48 am | #

Even if we would still be funding the same murderous Shiite militias we're supporting now, how could it be worse?

they would spend the money on Dixie Chick CD's and surplus Desert Shield Condoms!

And that would be the end of not only Western civilization but that other civilization too (whatever that is).

*
the farmer | 01.08.07 - 2:15 am | #

THE STRAIGHT TALK EXPRESS
John McCain * Verbatim

9/24/02 * “I believe that the success will be fairly easy.”

1/22/03 * “We will win it easily.”

1/04/07 * “When I voted to support this war, I knew it was probably going to be long and hard and tough, and those that voted for it and thought that somehow it was going to be some kind of an easy task, then I’m sorry they were mistaken. Maybe they didn’t know what they were voting for.”

Why is there all this noise and concern about leaving Iraq suddenly? Bush and his caroling crescendo never cared when we recently abandoned Afghanistan --- FOR THE SECOND TIME...
Leslie Pool | 01.08.07 - 2:31 am | #

thanks to farmer at 2:15 am. I've had three children, and my youngest son still lives at home. A 'rubber' was found in the washing-machine, guess who my son tried to put the blame on at a morning 'interrogation' with his mother?
He's more hardened than I am...

thanks to daleyrock at 8:17pm. Words these days are drained of meaning.

Rapacious versus Quivering could have been tossed in my comment. Or, the sneezer vs. snorer, duck vs. chicken, donkey, mule, hippo vs hippi, dead-dog or gentle lion...

Outlaw Labels. We should exchange bussines cards here on the inter-Net. All cards should provide Only One pen name. Human!

Then, whatever our hobbie, noisey gangs at nascar Vs. quivering linsey on meet-the-press...
and each blog-eater-reader can enjoy eating some humus for humility? These are interesting times. There are so many comments I'd love to respond to...
We should all get together on Sunday eve at your place and have a pot-luck time of good community memership or the future may be Commie vs. Community?
The damnable is when vice-versa vs versa-vice...or versa vs vice gets nasty. Let come what may.
We anticipate another day & wait to see what the cat brings in, I guess.
clownsense | 01.08.07 - 4:06 am | #

D-Rocks:

Morons here again today.

Well it's about time you admitted that to yourself. Hey, the first step is admitting you have a problem, or in this case, are a moron. Because you couldn't be talking about anyone else besides yourself and your idiotic buddies (especially with your lack of any writing skills; go back and read your post, idiot).

And I believe he was calling you pompous. Which is being extremely generous.
Anonymous | 01.08.07 - 9:11 am | #

From daleyrocks at 9:00 pm:

IW - No, as usual you are redefining the topic to suit yourself. The military is an all volunteer force. If anti-war types believe people serving are potentially squandering their lives by doing so, feel free to tell the families. That is not my view.

I see. So human life, particularly those who have volunteered to serve their country, are merely an expendable resource with no real value save what it can purchase you politically.

How very enlightened. How very noble.

Small wonder you're crowd is ready to embrace mass ethnic cleansing as a strategy.
Iokanaan in the Well | 01.08.07 - 9:47 am | #

Glenn --

You might entertain the possibility that McCain is a neoconservative true believer, and not a mere opportunist. His affiliation with them goes way back; William Kristol was an important figure in his 2000 campaign. Likewise, he has a prior record of urging escalation: besides Vietnam, he was also a very vocal (and compelling) advocate of sending ground troops to Macedonia to at least threaten the Serbs with a ground invasion (an argument that had merit at the time).

I don't know what's in his head, and I don't want to go there, but I think he is more dangerous than being a mere opportunist.
brendan | 01.08.07 - 12:39 pm | #

Tehanu:

It's called a false dichotomy. Along with the straw man, the smear and the non-sequitur, it is one of the favored rhetorical tools of warmongers.
brendan | 01.08.07 - 12:44 pm | #

And if the people on the ground believe in this, and are willing to go back, why does the Defense Department have to send out letters to 5000 retired officers (including 75 deceased and 200 out due to injuries) asking them to come back? Wouldn't they have just stayed in (if they could)?
Fraud Guy | 01.08.07 - 2:56 pm | #

And if the people on the ground believe in this, and are willing to go back, why does the Defense Department have to send out letters to 5000 retired officers (including 75 deceased and 200 out due to injuries) asking them to come back? Wouldn't they have just stayed in (if they could)?
Fraud Guy | 01.08.07 - 2:56 pm | #

Recap-
An unelected President starts an unnecessary and ill-advised war, based upon cherry picked intelligence, using a questionable plan opposed by the Army CoS, with a marginal coalition, paid for with money borrowed from outside our economy, contracted out to supporters and other insiders on no-bid contracts, headed by yes-men appointed over others more qualified, spun heavily by a cabal of people who have never served in peace or war for political effect. All this with minimal oversight, accountability or any end in sight.

Two months ago the US voters sent a clear message that they want a cap put in the bottle- an end to the open ended commitment. The White House uses a study group as nothing more than a refuge for political cover and lets the clock run. After 2 more months and additional sacrifice of blood and treasure, their answer is more of the same.

What we are witnessing is nothing less than the death of American democracy. It's obvious that the NeoCons in the White House do not care what the voters/taxpayers/citizens want. It's also that the Democratic Party is more interested in holding on to power than blunting the laundry list of offenses birthed by the Bush Administration. Even more startling is the almost complete abdication by the majority of our media to do serious reporting, investigating and editorializing on everything from the assault on our civil liberties to the complete mismanagement of the war & occupation.

McCain and his supporters are not courageous- they are delusional.
DAG | 01.08.07 - 3:39 pm | #