McCain defends his tech smarts in S.F.
He says he's using computer more each day Carla Marinucci, SF Chronicle Political Writer
Tuesday, July 29, 2008 GOP presidential candidate John McCain, fundraising in the San Francisco Bay Area, one of the nation's technology capitals, acknowledged Monday that he isn't a "tech freak" or entirely comfortable with the Internet, BlackBerrys or e-mail. But he strongly disputed criticism that he is "out of the loop" as unfair... "Am I a tech freak? No," he said in an interview Monday with The Chronicle...He added, "But I am forcing myself ... let me put it this way, I am using the computer more and more every day."

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/131...0&out=00:02:00

Yes, my friend, reports of my computer illiteracy (and that I'm in a coma) have been greatly exaggerated. I had a thingamabob removed from my face yesterday, but I'm fine. Cancer free, dementia free.

"Am I a tech freak? No," he said in an interview Monday with The Chronicle...He added, "But I am forcing myself ... let me put it this way, I am using the computer more and more every day."

Yes, I am getting my tech freak on. It's not so bad forcing myself. It's like kissing a man on the mouth. It feels creepy at first, but you force yourself, you work hard at it in the American way, and it ends up being as good as with a girl. Not that I've been unfaithful to my wife. Never. Not even with that lobbyist. She was just a friend and we only cuddled. Go Navy and God bless America, my friend.-- John

uncle eb: I recommend adding one more second to the out time. At least for me, the key word was truncated.

Done, thanx. ~(GO12 salute)

Wading through Samantha Power's "The Democrats & National Security", I realized she had eaten too much of the Beltway apple, and could no longer think like a professor. Party hacks need solons like her to help them look at the forest and stay out of the tall grass. She's a bug waiting to get thwacked with the iron. Disclaimer: I'm no Barnett fan. Anyone can wade through my Barnett paper here. But, in The Pentagon's New Map, he did get one thing right neither party can seemingly pull off. Barnett called for a post-Berlin Wall, post-9/11 grand strategy. It's just that I didn't like his thwack at it. Power, and both Scoblic and Yglesias to a certain extent (at least as Power represents them), I'm grateful, does have historical sweep, but foreign policy, is still a matter of discreet episodes, states, and buzzwords, like globalization, and concepts, like international law. The mess doesn't quite cohere into a simple vision encapsulated into a message, based on a conviction, voters can evaluate after two or four years. One result (or maybe a cause) is the sandbox where factions, like realists and neocons, battle for control of the agenda in both parties. And then, each faction crumbles into families around

This is too good a story of delusional thinking at the highest levels of power to leave buried deep in the S. Power article:

In 2003...when the reporter Jeffrey Goldberg told Douglas Feith, undersecretary of defense, that US troops in Iraq had not been greeted with flowers, Feith said that the Iraqis had been too spooked by the presence of Saddam supporters to show their true emotions. "But," he said, "they had flowers in their minds."

As for Power herself, I'm very worried about her Weltanschaung. I think if we really figure out where she's coming from we will have cracked the Obama Code on foreign policy. Samantha Power is a very persuasive, Pulitzer-prize-winning global interventionist, and she's a hard-core Obama loyalist. In the name of intervening in "failed states" and preventing genocide, she espouses a politics that's a bit too promiscuously militaristic for my taste. Of course, I realize she also troubles rightwingers, for very different reasons. In the article she takes Republicans to task for decades of blunders, but it ends up sounding like what it is: a testimonial to the forthcoming (military) glories of the Obama administration.

...a testimonial to the forthcoming (military) glories of the Obama administration.

That's one reason why I haven't jumped to buy Yglesias' book, which is trying to be the lib hawk manifesto. Even more worrying is Pakistan (which looks to be Obama's Iraq) and its new PM and how he's still hugging the ISI.

MARGARET WARNER: For a long time, U.S. officials have said that within the Pakistani intelligence services, your ISI, there are figures who are either sympathetic to the Taliban or actually see them as an important asset against Afghanistan or against India, and that that hampers your ability to fight terrorism. How big a problem does that remain?

YOUSUF RAZA GILANI: Actually, ISI is a great institution. It is always used for external or internal threat for Pakistan.

But as far as this is concerned, there are somebody -- some of them, they are sympathetic to the militants, this is not believable. So we would never expect our ISI, which is a very competent, so that there is anybody who's a sympathizer, we will not allow that, because the ISI is directly working under the prime minister.

MARGARET WARNER: Bottom line, Mr. Prime Minister, what could the U.S. expect to see, let's say in six months, as a benchmark, as evidence that your

Dose of reality on Afghanistan v Iraq from Hitchens: "So, the question for Sen. Barack Obama and his glib supporters is this: Would they solve this problem by removing the American forces from Iraq and putting the thereby-enhanced contingent there to patrol a frontier where one of our main "allies" is continually engaged in stabbing them in the back? (At one point last year, Obama himself appeared to accept the illogic of his own position and spoke hotly of the possibility of following the Taliban onto Pakistani soil. We haven't heard much of that lately.)"

It is very unclear as to what Obama would be trying to achieve by increasing American troops in occupied Afg. However, if the objective is the breakup, reassembly and denuclearization of Pakistan, then increased American military activity in Afg/Pakistan would be good for the safety of the world. -Steve

I haven't engaged with this diavlog sufficiently to comment with great confidence, but my provocation index was definitely raised by Jacob's speculation about the USA ceding sovereignty to Europe. I know there was levity about, but still, the concept is breath-taking. We're still trying to absorb INBEV's absorption of Budweiser here in the heartland. Let me cite the ultimate bogeyman in terms of civilized discourse. Jacob, you'll be prying the last American dollar out of Lou Dobb's cold dead hand in some nightmare end-of-history last man scenario if you persist with these truly subversive thoughts.

I wouldn't worry about the US applying for EU membership, but the Euro is waiting to replace the US dollar as the world's reserve currency. I'm sure that's the feather Jacob is trying to tickle Lou Dobbs with.

Realist memo to the Clinton administration, link?

When Jacob asked whether the war in Iraq was worth it, Henry responded by with a rambling response about Iran. Henry, the question was about Iraq!

Wow, I think Henry just set a new world record for most "um, sort ofs" in 15 seconds.

Why do they keep saying that the war in Iraq is an unmitigated disaster, right at the point when things there are getting better and better?

Quoting phaedrus: Why do they keep saying that the war in Iraq is an unmitigated disaster, right at the point when things there are getting better and better?

Because it's a disaster. If someday we extricate ourselves and the country somehow hasn't devolve into anarchy, and hasn't become a de facto Iranian ally, it will still have been a disaster. When you start a war for no good reason, kill a hundred thousand or more civilians, and in every measurable way damage your own strategic positioning in the world: even after the killing stops, it will not have stopped being a first-rate disaster. And objectively, why should anyone believe that things are getting better? The situation has had its ups ad downs all along. House organs like Weekly Standard have never deviated from the position that "we're winning!" from day one regardless of the facts. Just because there's another round of back patting occurring at the moment is not sufficient cause for celebration in this regard. We've heard it all before.

Good answer, AemJeff. I'd add that really the only thing that can be confidently said to be getting better is the decrease in violence, and that's only in comparison to the time when it was at its worst. To that end, this (via) is worth a look. It's an anecdote, to be sure, but one wonders how widespread this attitude is. One also wonders how much "success" can be claimed from a program of bribing people not to fight, especially when part of the payments are in the form of weapons. It's like paying the Mob for "protection" to keep them from burning down your store, and supplementing the envelopes full of cash with cans of gasoline. It's also worth keeping in mind that we're not exactly getting an objective report on the overall situation, as I have noted elsewhere. And even worse than the fact that we're getting basically all of our assessments from the military, it's worth keeping in mind the amount of commander churn that has been going on over there. How many top officers have "retired" after speaking in terms that didn't match the Bush Administration's message of

Jacob doesn't understand what Josef Joffe wrote. Joffe was thinking long-term, not short-term. Joffe gets it entirely right. America, under Obama, will still be the world's hegemon and Europe's foreign policy simply won't comport any better with Barack Obama than it has with George W. Bush. Relations will be good. Europeans will love Obama. The political paradigm between Europe and the U.S., however, won't be any different. European heads of State are also going to have a really hard time criticizing Obama because he's black. Yelling and screaming at black people in Europe just doesn't go down well thanks to Europe's massive colonialism guilt complex.

Quoting phaedrus: Why do they keep saying that the war in Iraq is an unmitigated disaster, right at the point when things there are getting better and better?

If anything the lull in violent activity attributed to the "surge" is evidence of how badly the whole operation has been bungled by the esteemed Con-man-in-Chief and his Vice-Profiteer from the outset. Sorry, can't use their real names anymore and I think calling most people a b*** or a ch###$* would be a worse insult.

Let's see, putting more troops on the ground. Wasn't that the pentagon's strategy from as far back as pre-invasion? Before B***/ch###$% barged in there and set up the brilliant, capable,and oh-so-aptly named "office of special plans", staffed by civilian yes-men? Paying and arming Sunnis to police their own people? Isn't that a description of the police and army that were already in place when we went in and made the "special" plan to dismantle, and disperse both entities? The only thing I can think when I hear you guys insisting that things are turning around in Iraq because of a new strategy is: whats' been going on for the last five years? And how

Iraq would be a disaster if the U.S. hadn't of ever invaded though. Saddam Hussein and his family would still be control of Iraq and that's not exactly progressive or wonderful... especially for the Iraqi people.

Quoting Lyle: Iraq would be a disaster if the U.S. hadn't of ever invaded though. Saddam Hussein and his family would still be control of Iraq and that's not exactly progressive or wonderful... especially for the Iraqi people.

Hey man! Don't you go praising Chimpy Bushitler MacHalliburton's Smirky Rodeo Ride Through History (tm)! Oh, and please start dealing with facts the way Stoller does.

Saddam Hussein wouldn't still be ruling Iraq? He wouldn't still be brutalizing the Iraqi people? The great irony is that Bush won't go down in history as such a bad guy... because he did invade Iraq. Despite the horror and abomination of war, and what has taken place, there is also something very beautiful about it... freedom. Sorry... just realized you were being facetious.

Quoting Lyle: Iraq would be a disaster if the U.S. hadn't of ever invaded though. Saddam Hussein and his family would still be control of Iraq and that's not exactly progressive or wonderful... especially for the Iraqi people.

Lyle, what's your point? Everybody knows what the conditions in the the country were pre-U.S. invasion. The argument is that despite the takedown of a despot (and far from the worst on the planet - see North Korea and Zimbabwe for example, should we invade them too?) the operation has been a huge net bad for everybody, Iraq, the U.S. the world generally. The only winners I can see are Muqtada al-Sadr, and the Iranians.

Yep it's the generals telling us that Analysis: US now winning Iraq war that seemed lost. But then again I don't believe I've seen much of this story in the MSM.

As a member of the liberal media, I feel I have a responsibility to the public to ask you the tough questions: Is it true that you are considered by many, to be the cuddliest candidate of a long line of outstanding, and handsome Republicans to proudly serve their country, by running for our highest office? How big of a mistake has it been in the past, to even consider a Democrat for that most demanding position, considering how critical to our safety the wrong choice might be? Have you discovered any solid evidence of the other guys alleged alliance with the prince of darkness, or his plans to undermine the American way of life? Thank you Pres.. sorry, tee hee Sen. M...

Mugabe in Zimbabwe is not as bad as Saddam Hussein. Saddam Hussein killed a couple hundred thousand of his own people. He committed genocide. Mugabe is quite awful, but not nearly as awful as Hussein. Mugabe also has never had WMD, nor used any.... unlike Saddam. North Korea is probably the worse country in the world, but the South Koreans, Japanese, and Chinese don't want a war with North Korea. They're either content with the status quo or hopeful that N. Korea dies a slow death and comes a part much like the Iron Curtain came a part, i.e., without any major violence. People also forget the U.S. was already at war with Iraq. The No-Fly zone was a combat area every day of the week for the 13 years after the first Gulf War. Either that was going to go on for years, along with the economic embargo, or Saddam Hussein was going to have to be overthrown. Thanks to where Iraq is, it is simply much more important than either Zimbabwe or North Korea.

John M: Did the Comment Nanny change your username?

Quoting piscivorous: Yep it's the generals telling us that Analysis: US now winning Iraq war that seemed lost. But then again I don't believe I've seen much of this story in the MSM.

Soooo tell 'em what they've won, Don Pardo...

Quoting bjkeefe: John M:

Did the Comment Nanny change your username?

You mean that's not really him? Damn you liberals!

Quoting piscivorous: Yep it's the generals telling us that Analysis: US now winning Iraq war that seemed lost. But then again I don't believe I've seen much of this story in the MSM.

Thanks for admitting the bias in the perspective. I do think you're wrong about the lack of coverage. From what I see and hear, the MSM's latest narrative on this topic is "the war is going better." Are they eagerly pimping this to the extent that Fox and the rest of the rightwing noise machine are? No. But they're buying into a lot of the falsity; i.e., they're happy to talk only about comparison to the worst points in time.

Quoting Lyle: Mugabe in Zimbabwe is not as bad as Saddam Hussein. Saddam Hussein killed a couple hundred thousand of his own people. He even committed genocide. Mugabe is quite awful, but not nearly as awful as Hussein. Mugabe also has never had WMD, nor used any.... unlike Saddam.

North Korea is probably the worse country in the world, but the South Koreans, Japanese, and Chinese don't want a war with North Korea. They're either content with the status quo or hopeful that N. Korea dies a slow death and comes a part much like the Iron Curtain came a part, i.e., without any major violence.

People also forget the U.S. was already at war with Iraq. The No-Fly zone was a combat area every day of the week for the 13 years after the first Gulf War. Either that was going to go on for years, along with the economic embargo, or Saddam Hussein was going to have to be overthrown.

Thanks to where Iraq is, it is simply much more important than either Zimbabwe or North Korea.

Your assertion about Mugabe is plain wrong. Take a look at what he's done economically, what he's done to the

Quoting bjkeefe: John M:

Did the Comment Nanny change your username?

It was the Nanny.

Mugabe IS awful, be he hasn't killed as many people as Saddam Hussein. He hasn't committed genocide. He doesn't, nor has he ever owned WMD. These are the facts.

Quoting Lyle: Mugabe IS awful, be he hasn't killed as many people as Saddam Hussein. He hasn't committed genocide. He doesn't, nor has he ever owned WMD.

These are the facts.

Ok. Fine by me.

Quite possibly the freedom of 24-25 million human beings. Quite possibly the establishment of a representative form of governance in a part of the world that is sorely lacking in such concepts. Who knows enough of this and we may get a real shot at Wonderment's utopia in a couple of generations. Who knows with freedom all things are possible.

Quoting piscivorous: Quite possibly the freedom of 24-25 million human beings. Quite possibly the establishment of a representative form of governance in a part of the world that is sorely lacking in such concepts. Who knows enough of this and we may get a real shot at Wonderment's utopia in a couple of generations. Who knows with freedom all things are possible.

We'll have to bookmark this post, for referring back to the next time you mock Obama supporters for having hope.

Quoting piscivorous: Quite possibly the freedom of 24-25 million human beings. Quite possibly the establishment of a representative form of governance in a part of the world that is sorely lacking in such concepts. Who knows enough of this and we may get a real shot at Wonderment's utopia in a couple of generations. Who knows with freedom all things are possible.

Excellent! so what's next on the freedom agenda, Darfur? all of Northern Africa? Pakistan? kazakhstan? all the stan's? South America? ooops already brought freedom there.. Viet Nam, Laos, Cambodia, Myanmar, the Philippines? How 'bout Tibet, Mexico, Cuba, Central America, North Korea, Many Southern African countries, HOW ABOUT SAUDI F'N ARABIA? HUH? Wasn't the son's of Saudi freedom who flew jets into our WTC??? Jordan, Palestine, Egypt, Yemen, Oman, Syria, Qatar, wait, I know, IRAN! Yea, were on a roll! yeeee haaa! we still got some credit with the Chinese, let's borrow some more money and generate some more good will around the globe! ADDED: oh yea, did you ask most Iraqi Shiites and Kurds how the freedom train rolling through their hoods has enriched their lives?

My journalist friend. Here is some straight talk in response to your questions:

Is it true that you are considered by many, to be the cuddliest candidate of a long line of outstanding, and handsome Republicans to proudly serve their country, by running for our highest office?

You betcha. I have a new McCain t-shirt, in fact, that says, "Free Hugs." Women love that shit, even if you have a bit of a gut. I actually cultivate a natural look, unlike the Great Communicator who dyed his hair and tweezed his eyebrows. Too sissified for me. Look at that Reagan wannabe Romney, for Chrissake. There's a puto if I ever saw one.

How big of a mistake has it been in the past, to even consider a Democrat for that most demanding position, considering how critical to our safety the wrong choice might be?

Look, my friend, not all Democrats are sissies. I wouldn't want to meet up with Hillary Clinton in a dark alley. To tell you the straight truth. She'd clip your balls off with a garden tool without blinking an eye. She wasn't kidding when she told the Iranians she'd annihilate them if they fucked with us. But real governance

And by the way, My Friend, if you were a patriot yourself instead of a liberal troublemaker ,always criticizing great Americans like Ann Althouse and David Frum and my campaign manager Mickey Kaus, you'd be demanding that Democrat Swiftboater Robert Wright reinstate my real name. Go Navy. God bless America.

Don't know if will get past the invasion of Pakistan the Senator Obama proposes, before we take on the rest.

It was the Nanny.

Dear My Friend, Until your identity has been stolen, as mine has been by the BloggingHeads nanny, you can't imagine what it's like. I thought my six years in the Hanoi Hilton was bad, but this is like being raped in Folsom Prison by a gang of ethnically-challenged lifers. I feel naked and violated. Thanks for your support. God Bless America- John MCCAIN

Quoting piscivorous: Who knows with freedom all things are possible.

If by "freedom" you mean capitalism, or economic freedom, then almost all things are possible, but only if you can afford them, or you have to turn to the "tax and spend" bleeding-heart liberals to help you out.

Quoting piscivorous: Don't know if will get past the invasion of Pakistan the Senator Obama proposes, before we take on the rest.

He might do the common-sense thing and find out how it's going to go first, and examine the consequences in detail. See, the last guy wasn't a big reader. Or pay-attentioner, or advice from experts-taker, or good idea figurer-outer.

It just hit me, (really) doesn't the conjecture by many on the right that the surge is working, fly in the face of the theory, also put forth by the right, that Muslims, by nature, are forever bent on our destruction? Or did we de-Muslify them?

Oh contra it's seems to always be the left that want's to abandon the citizens of countries that it would be in our strategic interest to help free themselves in favor of countries that make not on whit of difference to or strategic interest but would make the left feel good.

Quoting piscivorous: Oh contra it's seems to always be the left that want's to abandon the citizens of countries that it would be in our strategic interest to help free themselves in favor of countries that make not on whit of difference to or strategic interest but would make the left feel good.

Pisc, it seems to me that you freely choose between justifications based on U.S. national interest and your suppositions on the interests of the population of the country whose invasion you're advocating, depending on which argument serves you better at a given time.

This is also a notion the left used to justify not going to war, i.e., "the Muslims are crazy and too backwards to get democracy or non-violence... they're little baby children for crying out loud". The neo-conservatives also never argued this... they always believed the Iraqi people could stand up on their own two feet.

Which is also what the left does.

Actually I didn't realize that the two could only be separate and distinct entities with no intertwining or overlap. Do you always see such things in stark black and white or are your eyes discriminative enough to see grays.

Quoting Lyle: Which is also what the left does.

Whoever does it is open to charges to of inconsistency. Attributing it to the "left" doesn't particularly illuminate. Some people make good arguments, some not so good. Who are we talking about in this case, and what do they have to do with the current conversation?

The left is willing to bomb and kill people just as much as the right is when it suits its politics. Bill Clinton killed people in Bosnia, Serbia, Montenegro, Kosovo, Somalia, Sudan, Iraq, and Afghanistan (ok... maybe he just bombed some rocks here) because to him and the left it was good politics. The far left definitely disagreed with Clinton on many of these issues, but the non-far left left did support all this bombing and killing.

Quoting piscivorous: Oh contra it's seems to always be the left that want's to abandon the citizens of countries that it would be in our strategic interest to help free themselves in favor of countries that make not on whit of difference to or strategic interest but would make the left feel good.

Or are you just feigning concern for citizens because "freeing" them is in our self interest? How would you feel if they used the same tactics to "free" you? I find it very hard to believe you are all that concerned about the well being of a bunch non-Christians, or are you saving them ideologically from themselves? And if so, I repeat the earlier question of how would you respond to such a favor? And how do you know strategically they aren't just playing along in order to fool us into leaving, and creating another axis of evil? Why do you trust them so much all the sudden?

Quoting Lyle: The left is willing to bomb and kill people just as much as the right is when it suits its politics.

Bill Clinton killed people in Bosnia, Serbia, Montenegro, Kosovo, Somalia, Sudan, Iraq, and Afghanistan (ok... maybe he just bombed some rocks here) because to him and the left it was good politics. The far left definitely disagreed with Clinton on many of these issues, but the non-far left left did support all this bombing and killing.

I won't get into a left/right tit-for-tat. My beef with the Iraq invasion is that it was stupid. It was bad strategy, bad politics, based on unproven assumptions, overly ambitious, and was mendaciously presented to the American people by an administration that as far as I can tell doesn't give a crap about about transparency, accountability, or power sharing. Clinton's wars, for the most part achieved their strategic goals with almost no loss of American lives and generally low collateral casualty figures. The biggest foreign policy blunder Clinton made was the Engagement in Somalia, and that was initiated by Bush 41. The "lack of support" for the current war, doesn't generally extend to Afghanistan, probably because this really isn't about opposition to Bush for

Quoting Lyle: The left is willing to bomb and kill people just as much as the right is when it suits its politics.

Bill Clinton killed people in Bosnia, Serbia, Montenegro, Kosovo, Somalia, Sudan, Iraq, and Afghanistan (ok... maybe he just bombed some rocks here) because to him and the left it was good politics. The far left definitely disagreed with Clinton on many of these issues, but the non-far left left did support all this bombing and killing.

Clinton was from the center. All the right seemed to care about was him getting a bj. He turned Bush one's trillion dollar deficit into a surplus, a magnificent achievement considering his foreign policy kept us out of those places.
For that, IMHO, he deserves a bj a day for the rest of his days.. from a consenting adult of course... FYI, He bombed a camels ass in Afghanistan, according to your hero..

Where do you even get you assumptions from.

Quoting handle: Or are you just feigning concern for citizens because "freeing" them is in our self interest? How would you feel if they used the same tactics to "free" you?

You and BJkeefe must come from the same school of agricultural argumentation. Since I am currently free and generations of my family have lived free in America, some of which have sacrificed family members to help keep us free and free millions around the world, I would prefer to live no other way. I suppose I could dream up some fantasy world in which I lived in constant fear and couldn't express my opinion with out fearing someone might overhear and I wind up another victim of the regime that there is absolutely no hope of replacing. Please hang this scarecrow on a cross and plant it in the field of alfalfa where it belongs.

Quoting handle: I find it very hard to believe you are all that concerned about the well being of a bunch non-Christians, or are you saving them ideologically from themselves? And if so, I repeat the earlier question of how would you

Much of this is true, but Iraq is now free and that isn't something to be ashamed about.

Who's my hero?

Quoting piscivorous: Where do you even get you assumptions from.
You and BJkeefe must come from the same school of agricultural argumentation. Since I am currently free and generations of my family have lived free in America, some of which have sacrificed family members to help keep us free and free millions around the world, I would prefer to live no other way. I suppose I could dream up some fantasy world in which I lived in constant fear and couldn't express my opinion with out fearing someone might overhear and I wind up another victim of the regime that there is absolutely no hope of replacing. Please hang this scarecrow on a cross and plant it in the field of alfalfa where it belongs.

What the hell is agricultural argumentation? Your fantasy world sounds just like the one I think Bush/ Cheney would like to see, judging from their actions but none of it has anything to do with my point: how would you feel if a foreign army marched into Florida, dismissed the police force, and the national guard, crashed the electrical grid (for years) and told you, you were now free, or whatever

Quoting handle: What the hell is agricultural argumentation?

I'm guessing that's a two-bank shot on "bullshit," or as Pisc has it, "bovine excrement."

Quoting Lyle: Who's my hero?

Sorry to assume, you tell me.

Quoting AemJeff: I'm guessing that's a two-bank shot on "bullshit," or as Pisc has it, "bovine excrement."

He otta know..

Nobody, so don't assume.

Quoting Lyle: Nobody, so don't assume.

I said I was sorry, Mr. or Ms. grumpy-pants so who's at the top of your list?

So it's a bullshit phrase meaning "bullshit", interesting. So if you call bullshit using bullshit, is that tantamount to shitting a shitter?

Quoting Lyle: This is also a notion the left used to justify not going to war, i.e., "the Muslims are crazy and too backwards to get democracy or non-violence... they're little baby children for crying out loud".

Now who's assuming? Can you attribute your quote by the "left" to anyone in particular? Or are you paraphrasing something you made up?

No heroes, just great admiration?

Quoting Lyle: The great irony is that Bush won't go down in history as such a bad guy... because he did invade Iraq. Despite the horror and abomination of war, and what has taken place, there is also something very beautiful about it... freedom.

That's what is so lovely about arguing with you guys your case is so strong it always boils down to personal insults guised as humor and then you call yourselves progressives.

Quoting piscivorous: That's what is so lovely about arguing with you guys your case is so strong it always boils down to personal insults guised as humor and then you call yourselves progressives.

I'll take that as a no, and you just insulted me by hanging the "progressive" tag on my toe. What's the matter? Your faux-concern for the Iraqis turned to faux-outrage, (sorry to use a BJism but I reserve the right to steal from anywhere I see fit) because it's faux? That's not it is it? It's more like fox-concern for the Iraqis turned to fox-outrage, because it's on fox news?
Your post seems like a real good way to not respond to my arguments a few comic relief posts ago, so if that was your intention, nice try. I've got some news for you, there still is a political center and the war still looks like a big waste from here. But don't take my word for it, do your own research. I must apologize, I just realized, you really believe it don't you? You are probably the most effective right wing arguer I've seen, but I'm afraid it is due to the fact that

As an after thought, you seem like a reasonable person, doesn't it strike you as interesting and fortuitous timing, that the "victory" comes mere months before a momentous election? Do you see this as nothing more than a coincidence?

Quoting handle: ...

You are probably the most effective right wing arguer I've seen, but I'm afraid it is due to the fact that you actually believe the stuff the right makes up to justify furthering mostly multi-national corporate agendas, and I hate to be the one to break it to you, even most of them know most of it's fertilizer, or what ever you want to call it.

Thanks for the complement. But it seems more the complements of one of my favorite Baseman villains Two Face.

Quoting piscivorous: Thanks for the complement. But it seems more the complements of one of my favorite Baseman villains Two Face.

Not much of a compliment, actually. I'm implying you are sincerely defending the political leanings of the insincere.
I'm not mean enough to attack you on the contrast between fiction and reality, oops I just did... not sorry, however. That said, I'm Spiderman, fish-breath.

Well the data show that it seems to be for real. The lack of headlines seems to portend that there is considerably less violence. The Iraqis seem to have taken the lead in confronting the Shiite militias. The Iraqi politicians are strutting their stuff in front of the Iraqi people and presenting themselves as legitimate actors able to enforce security, down playing their need for a considerable amount of or services and aid, prior to what will be a very important election cycle. So if it is some grand conspiracy it must be one of biblical proportion to hide all the bad from the media that is more than happy to publish bad news and less receptive to the mundane events of progress.

Yes and you should have realized that no true right winger could ever have a favorite villain after all we believe in truth justice and the American way.

No... just a truthful assessment. Getting rid of Saddam Hussein just isn't a terrible thing.

Quoting Lyle: No... just a truthful assessment. Getting rid of Saddam Hussein just isn't a terrible thing.

The open question, of course, is: is the cure any better than than disease?

Ok, I disagree with the notion that American exceptionalism is dead. The US economy is in a slump right now and people tend not to support international adventures when their perceptions of their own economy are that the economy is bad. When the economy stabilizes or picks up or the perception improves people will happily support the US bombing the crap out of some brown people again. In my opinion saying that the era of american exceptionalism is dead is to say that the US's ego is critically wounded or that people in the US have grown up and realized that we should pursue a more Picard-esque foreign policy than a Captain Kirk style. I don't think the latter is likely yet and the former is only temporary. It will take a little while to recover but no, it isn't dead. You'll know it's dead when a US citizen gets frog marched into the ICC in Den Haag (The Hague)

Quoting AemJeff: The open question, of course, is: is the cure any better than than disease?

And the costs? I want a refund, and I hope it's enough to get us out of hock with the Chinese.

Quoting piscivorous: Yes and you should have realized that no true right winger could ever have a favorite villain after all we believe in truth justice and the American way.

I my America, when "justice" and "truth" comes in the form of bank breaking imperialism, just to take one small country, with no end to your design to spread "freedom", is an "American way" that sounds more like The failed British, Dutch, Spanish, German, French, Soviet, Japanese (etc.) empires of the past. You Keep this up and history shows that you will bring about the demise of all the things you are so proud of. And the world will once again descend into political chaos, and this ain't no comic book my friend. IMHO:
The lofty ambitions of the right, whether motivated by corporate greed or high minded ideology, have already cost too many lives, resources, and too many billions of dollars, to justify any more freedom-spreading.
Not to mention the vulnerability created by committing a large percentage of our security forces abroad. An outlook, oddly enough, that was shared by many of those on the right, just a few long and nightmarish years ago, when Clinton wanted to intervene in world affairs. But the

You must be right, so let's borrow another trillion dollars from the Chinese, so we can find out for sure.

Vent vent; take a deep breath, hold it,hold it; exhale, hold it, hold it repeat until sunrise and I'm sure you will get your physical status back into proper chemical balance.

Quoting piscivorous: Vent vent; take a deep breath, hold it,hold it; exhale, hold it, hold it repeat until sunrise and I'm sure you will get your physical status back into proper chemical balance.

Very funny, the rabid imperialist is telling me to chill.

Wait, maybe you are referring to this?:

Quoting handle: PS I am not a leftist, my glass is neither half full nor is it half empty, the probable contents of my glass are most likely approximately 50% H2O and various impurities, such as chlorine, etc., plus gaseous components consisting of nitrogen (~39%) and oxygen (~10.5%) argon (~0.465%), carbon dioxide (~0.015%) and other trace gases (~0.0015%). Water vapor (water in its gaseous state) is also present in varying amounts.

It's my metaphorical realist answer to the metaphorical optimist seeing the glass of water as half full as opposed to ... well you get it.