er, David Broder is always lost.

So I don't think this really works.

Just come out and say it, Kevin. You want to "lose" David Broder literally so you can take over his spot.

Will the rest of centrist Washington follow?

Kevin, shouldn't centrist be in quotation marks?

Kevin, shouldn't centrist be in quotation marks?

When liberals say "Centrists", they actually mean liberals. David Border is dean of the liberal controlled media. Why should conservatives or moderates care what liberals like David Broder say?

Shhh! Al, they actually think Cronkite was a conservative too.

Shhh! Al, they actually think Cronkite was a conservative too.

Conservative, liberal or centrist, Cronkite was not a dumbass. I don't think the same can be said for Broder. Oh, and he's ugly!

"What's the modern day equivalent of 'losing Walter Cronkite'? Perhaps losing David Broder?"

Who's David Broder ????

I fail to see any similarity between the gravity and pull of Cronkite and David Broder. I only just about know what he looks like and never considered his word any better than some others.

Al! If this guy isn't a centrist type of guy then I guess you have to be a card carrying member of National Socialism or the Stasi to be in your party.

How many of you are there?

"Who's David Broder ????"

The guy who looks like Peewee's dad on the Meet The Press "roundtable"...also has a print column read by a handful of Beltway obsessives and hacks.

(It's okay...fewer than 1% of the population could answer this question.)

David Broder is not a journalist or even a columnist.

He fancies himself as a Washingtonian opinion maker, but for the past few years he has been a lapdog of the liars who control our government.

Read the damned article, people! Our host linked it for a reason.

In both cases, the leaders of government failed to make the kind of commitment that could have produced a lasting victory.

Now they are reduced to saying that they cannot accept defeat. That is a terrible turn.

He's acknowledging, in other words, that our belligerent leaders have led us into an impasse. They can't offer us any way out. He's not apologising for having cheered their valiant leadership; he's like Wile E. Coyote at the point when he realizes that he's been running on air out over a canyon:

Can we think about the costs of carrying on, without an end in sight, against Hezbollah and the insurgents in Iraq?

He just looked down and said "Uh-oh".

Nope.

David Broder is not in Walter's position. No one is, and no one will ever be again.

Everyone knew who Cronkite was. Only us wonks know who Broder is.

Who was Walter Cronkite? What was CBS? How is Vietnam? Why is Lebanon? Where is blogs?

I can still remember Cronkite in 68 -- when Johnson admitted he was SOL. I have little clue, who Broder is now, and doubt my children will remember him in 2050. Cheney Administration will not shed a tear over Broder, what he says or who thinks he's important. BTW - I'm a democrat, sorta.

This reminds me of something that Lloyd Bentsen said in a debate with Dan Quayle. OK, David Broder may not be Walter Cronkite, but if you doubt his importance, just Google "Broder dean" without the quotes. Almost half a million hits. It's not for nothing that he's considered to be dean of the Washington press corps. Thanks for pointing this out, Kevin. I think you have spotted usurper Bush's Cronkite moment. Oh, and I'd go further than you. I don't think Broder is within kissing distance. I think Broder has circumspectly embraced the position that it's time to for the U.S. get the sexual intercourse out of Iraq.

Coitus interruptus is nobody's ideal of intercourse, of course, and only a pervert could propose it.

The administration has too deeply taken to heart the bankers' threat:

Severe penalty for early withdrawal

So whom are you accusing of being a pervert: me, Mr. Broder, or the Bush administration?

The problem, of course, is that no one finds the current situation desirable. No one proclaims "I meant to do that!", not even the ones who connived at bringing it about.

Early withdrawal (retreat, soft off) is unattractive for both the American and Israeli administrations because it makes them appear weak, and because their audiences demand prompt penetration of all and any threats.

This is getting sticky.

From Broder's column:
____________

In both cases [Iraq and Lebanon], the argument is not that continuing on the present course will necessarily or probably yield a positive result. On the contrary, it is basically a claim that it is unacceptable to change -- because the other side will claim a victory.
____________

It seems to have become conventional wisdom that the US strategy in Iraq and (to a lesser degree) that of Israel in Lebanon is to simply do the same things through lack of iminagination about what else to do. Moreover, the argument continues that nothing good can come from either effort and that both governments somehow know this.

Both governments deny this, of course. The problem is, that is exactly what one would expect them to say, whether true or not.

To be fair, the US effort in Iraq is far from static. The US military has shown a genuine (and mostly unreported) flexibility of methods, a willingness to learn, and is highly motivated to get the hell out of there. The operable opinion is that our departure is dependent on the agonizingly slow progress of the Iraqi government's ability to defend itself. Reckoning that the alternatives would be no less awful, they soldier on, their successes and progress largely unnoticed in the cacaphony of car bombs and IEDs. They know they can fail - nothing is guaranteed in war - but they also know their duty. The Administration is counting on their success.

In the case of Israel, the argument that they're just doing the same old, same old is harder to make. They aren't trying to reshape the Middle East, they simply want Hezbollah removed from the border. If they can pacify an adequate buffer zone and hand it over to a robust international force, then they can return to their border and go back to implementing the two-state solution with the Palestinians. In military terms, this operation is intended to clear a vulnerable flank.

Broder might be correct in his larger historical view that eventually none of it matters. Former enemies become partners, new enemies arise, history continues. But that doesn't relieve current leaders from their obligation to act in the present. Even when they are wrong.

Almost nobody in the US has heard of David Broder. In the 1960s, everyone in the US knew of Walter Cronkite, even if not all of them watched his newscasts.

Kevin, you can't compare the two cases, because losing Cronkite and losing Broder are two different things.

Cronkite was not a remarkably keen supporter of the Vietnam War, just an averagely keen supporter of it. The significance of losing Cronkite wasn't that he was an indication of how even the war's keenest supporters were deserting it, but that everyone in America watched Cronkite and would pick up his disillusionment. Nobody else in America knows who Broder is, so his disillusionment has no consequence. Instead, it's an indication of how far the disillusionment has spread, if it's even spread to Broder.

In short, when Johnson lost Cronkite, he knew he would lose the rest of America shortly after. When Bush loses Broder, he must already have lost the rest of America long before.

Kevin,
Broder makes a solid, logical point -- if the goal was justified, why so short on tactics and strategy?

But, the point that we have been trying to drive home is -- Was the goal justified? Or primarily, what was the goal?

If it has not dawned on people by now, the US is terrible at preventing war, picking wars, deciding the objectives of war, actually making war (and especially counterinsurgency war) and getting out of war.

I came across a quote in my current read, "Dereliction of Duty, Lyndon Johnson, Robert McNamara, The Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Lies that Led to Viet Nam" by H.R. McMaster. This is from Hans Morgenthau, April 3, 1965 from a New Republic article:

"The Constitution assigns to Congress the right to declare war. How can Congress discharge this function if its members and the citizens who have elected them are precluded from discussing the merits of the issues that might lead to war? The Constitution implies that Congress has a choice in the matter of war. How can it make that choice if neither it nor the people it represents have the right to debate the issues? To say that the most momentous issues a nation must face cannot be openly and critically discussed is really tantamount to saying that democratic debate and decision do not apply to the questions of life and death and that, as far as they are concerned, the people have given carte blanche to one man. Not only is this position at odds with the principles of democracy, but it also removes a very important corrective for governmental misjudgement." p.243

Broder is right of course, but about 4 years too late.

Just keep lovin' the plausible denialism of the Al's
of Deep Netherworld.

Just because WingNut Nation has taken the 50 yard-line and moved it to the 30, the conscious
members of society are under no obligation to think
the David Broders are, in any freakin' sense of the
word, Liberally Biased. Please.

Isn't the crux of the matter all Bush has to do is drag Iraq out until a successor takes over? If the new guy fails he'll be the one remembered as losing Iraq. If he prevails or somehow improves the current situation the Right will claim Bush set the table for his success. Arbusto........Spectrum7......Harken......Bush gets people to buy into a pending fiasco, arranges a handsome profit for himself regardless of the disaster, then bails early and leaves the ruins for others to deal with. It's his standard M.O. and those forgetting that just don't get it.

I've never considered Broder to be another Cronkite. For one thing Cronkite was in NYC while Broder is in DC, add to that the present day intolerance of critical journalists by politicians and the effect this has on "access journalism" - Broder is much more tame/docile than Cronkite ever was.

If the News Hour were to take a stand against the war in Iraq, which isn't their style at all, I'd say that Lehrer is today's Cronkite.

Re: Bush dragging things on until he is replaced.

Logically, one has to ask what difference this makes. Isn't that a fact of life in our Republic? It certainly played out that way in our previous conflicts, most especially the Cold War. If it is Bush's MO, it's likewise the MO for all Presidents. So, what else is new?

Which leads us right back to where we already are, trying to determine the best way to proceed.

BTW, I've always considered Broder to be a Republican.

机票|北京机票|北京飞机票|北京打折机票|北京特价机票|北京航班查询|北京学生机票|北京国际机票|航空公司

酒店
北京五星级酒店
北京四星级酒店
北京三星级酒店
北京酒店
如家快捷酒店
200元以下酒店
可上网酒店

Trashhauler, so Lincoln was just biding his time, unconcerned and halfheartedly fighting his war, hoping to pass it off to the next guy? Truman dropped nukes hoping it would get him back on the front porch in '52, leaving others to finally defeat Japan later? Clinton really didn't want the mess in a crumbling, splintered Yugoslavia fixed, only desiring to pass it off to Gore in 2000? And of course Carter's fevered attempts to bring peace to the Middle East was all a stalling action designed to stick future generations with the mess we have now. Yeah, past presidents were all a bunch of scheming, cowardly, inept procrastinators with one eye on the door and book contracts and speaking tours. Bush apologists are worse than black-eyed battered wives that lie to the police rather than risk the increased wrath of their tormentor. Bunch of goddamned quisling enablers.

Comparing Broder to Conkrite is like comparing the shrub to Truman.

Not at all, Steve. The point I was making was that the Civil War was followed by the problems of Reconstruction, WWII was followed by the Cold War, we are still deployed in the Yugoslavian mess, and President Carter was under no illusion that the work of Middle East peace would be done in his time in office.

Animus towards the current President notwithstanding, the Iraq situation, as well as the problem of radical Islamic fundamentalism in general, will exist, were always going to exist, long after his Administration left.

Would you please put that centrist description in quotes. They are NOT centrists. They are the "establishment" and their use of the Centrist/Left frame is bullshit.

The inevitability and chronic nature of a problem would seem to dictate all the more care be taken in dealing with it. Saying "Well yes, Bush may be making a hash of matters. However, if it wasn't him it'd be whomever else was in office, flailing about with answers eluding him so let's cut Bush some slack......" I've yet to read anyone assert Bush is capable of a breakthrough in thought, a radical diplomatic coup, the initiation of an act of brilliant political jujitsu. The man wouldn't have been trusted even holding the quill when Madison, Adams, Monroe and the rest were setting thought to paper. World shaping problems require giants, towering people of uncommon foresight, intellect and wisdom to wrestle with them. Bush sadly doesn't register on the meter in those regards.

Animus towards the current President notwithstanding, the Iraq situation, as well as the problem of radical Islamic fundamentalism in general, will exist, were always going to exist, long after his Administration left.

And Bush chooses to do nothing; better that hundreds of U.S. soldiers and Marines die over the next two years than Bush lose face by pulling out of Iraq.

If Bush won't pull out, then the Congress must force his hand. And it's up to us to make this point clear to the Congress between now and November.

Walter Cronkite was a REPORTER. David Broder, Jim Lehrer, Tim Russert and all their ilk are pundits. I wouldn't trust them to cover a three-car wreck accurately. Johnson knew he'd lost the country when he lost Cronkite NOT because Cronkite just announced his doubt about the war, but because Cronkite went to Vietnam as a reporter, treked through the jungle, talked to the grunts in the field, gathered the facts and came to logical conclusions based on the evidence of his very own eyes and ears. THAT'S what he reported to the nation, THAT'S why the nation believed him, and THAT'S why Johnson knew he was fucked. If I were a shrubbie, I'd shrug off Broder like a dying fly - what the fuck does he know?

Shouldn't Broder suggest a bipartisan, Sunni-Shia solution?

In short, when Johnson lost Cronkite, he knew he would lose the rest of America shortly after. When Bush loses Broder, he must already have lost the rest of America long before.

That is the real point, yes.

It's also worth noting there is no equivalent to Walter Cronkite today. I recently tried to explain what it was like watching television when I was his age. 3 channels. Off the air after the late show. The Wizard of Oz was shown once a year, and everybody watched it.

Broder says:

Today, virtually no one argues that we should have continued fighting ...the Viet Cong and the North Vietnamese.

Apparently, he's never been to the wingnut blogosphere.

Today, virtually no one argues that we should have continued fighting ...the Viet Cong and the North Vietnamese.

Apparently, he's never been to the wingnut blogosphere.

Tell it to John Kerry. He was still trying to "report for duty" a couple of years ago after having skipped out early from his first tour.

Jay, I also remember during Nam the daily casualties being flashed in the bottom corner of the news screen. One of the networks had an "explosion/fire" type graphic with that day's dead in white numbers superimposed over it. There was no running and hiding from the realities of the war as we have now. Sure, it's covered, but the coverage is inane, ratings driven and divorced from rational discourse about what is happening and why. I feel like I'm listening to William S. Burroughs describe it all after a 3 day Mexican heroin bender.

I thought it was 'losing Walter Lippmann'

Tell it to John Kerry. He was still trying to "report for duty" a couple of years ago after having skipped out early from his first tour.

Oh good. Now we get hours of watching 10 people painstakingly taking Slow Study Mike through every unsubstantiated and disproved charge made by the Swift Boaters while Mikey puts his fingers in his ears and goes "la la la la la." How many times?! You are just not rational on this topic, SSM.

He was still trying to "report for duty" a couple of years ago after having skipped out early from his first tour.

Good ol' Mike, always ready to perpetuate dishonest smears of Kerry's honorable service, while giving Bush a free pass for >actually skipping out. Shame on you, Mike.

Oh good. Now we get hours of watching 10 people painstakingly taking Slow Study Mike through every unsubstantiated and disproved charge made by the Swift Boaters while Mikey puts his fingers in his ears and goes "la la la la la." How many times?! You are just not rational on this topic, SSM.
Posted by: Thomas

Heh. Like taking candy from a baby. Bringing up the backstabber-in-chief *never* fails to "energize the base" here.

Case in point, Gregory. He skipped the whole "I'll double-dog-dare you" ratcheting up protocol and went right to the nuclear option, his "Shame on you".

I suggest all you Kerry apologists march yourselves down to the local VFW and practice your nuanced explanations of why in fact Kerry was a Vietnam vet's best friend on them. Report back.

Broder = douchebag. Plain and simple. Always at or near the wrong side of an issue for about the past 10 years.

I've already asked the local VFWers what they think of George W. Bush's service. "Fucking cunt" was the one of their nicest descriptions of our "commander in chief." Looks like your koolaid drinking apologies for Chimpy aren't shared by most of your fellow vets. But there are none so blind as those poking themselves in the eye...

One of the networks had an "explosion/fire" type graphic with that day's dead in white numbers superimposed over it. There was no running and hiding from the realities of the war as we have now. Sure, it's covered, but the coverage is inane, ratings driven and divorced from rational discourse about what is happening and why

Yes, this is very true. That's why there are "no body counts." That's why reporters were embedded. The Pentagon has become much more effective in minimizing what is going on, and the media is transcribing the Pentagon's message.

The contrast between the breathless reporting in Lebanon and the resulting silence on Iraq is really illustrative of the problem.

However, the war is very unpopular, even without coverage that focuses relentlessly on the damage being done. It's unfortunate that the very bad turn it's taken in the last three weeks has been overshadowed by someone else's war, but the facts will eventually penetrate the consciousness of the public.

It's pretty frightening that the neocon response is to escalate throughout the region--and that response is being considered seriously by the administration.

OT: Where are the idiots who said that the IAF was not responsible for the Qana attack?

Heh. Like taking candy from a baby.

Keep enjoying yourself. Your continual hysteria and irrationality about Kerry and the Swift Boaters is a major reason why you have zero credibility here on other issues. Guess the last laugh's ours, huh?

Guess the last laugh's ours, huh?
Posted by: Thomas

Uh, no. Your guy lost, remember? Heh.

I suggest all you Kerry apologists march yourselves down to the local VFW and practice your nuanced explanations of why in fact Kerry was a Vietnam vet's best friend on them. Report back.

I just asked my dad, a West Pointer. Big fan of Kerry. Big fan. George Bush, however, he considers a coward and a danger to the American way of life.

But now back to the main topic: we've lost the Iraq War.

You got us there, SSM. Now if Bush had fucked up in any way, we might have something to say in retort. But your guy has succeeded at every thing he turned his hand to, so...oh, wait.

Bummer about your kids having to live with the consequences of you sucking Bush's little peepee. But the joke's on them! Keep sucking! Heh!

Even a lickspittle like Broder has to occasionally pull his head out of his ass to gulp some air, but rest assured he'll have it wedged tightly back in there very soon. When he gets as mad at Bush as he got at Clinton for "trashing" his place then it might mean something.

Bummer about your kids having to live with the consequences of you sucking Bush's little peepee. But the joke's on them! Keep sucking! Heh!
Posted by: Thomas

Oh, now who's looking hysterical and irrational? Impressive, Thomas. Time to change your anonymous name. That name's credibility is shot, huh?

Presume for a second everything the Swifties said was made up. Since when has "fake but accurate" not been good enough for you?

And of course Stefan had to take the bait. Just...couldn't...must...answer...attack on...Kerry...great american hero...can't...stop...self.

Candy from a baby.

I suggest all you Kerry apologists march yourselves down to the local VFW and practice your nuanced explanations of why in fact Kerry was a Vietnam vet's best friend on them. Report back.

Yes, yes, yes, Mike, we're well aware of the dishonest representation of Kerry's testimony peddled by dishonestRepublicans -- but I repeat myself -- desperate, as always, to deflect criticisim of their own failed policies by hidng behind the honor of those who serve (which honor, of course, they respect only insofar as it serves their purposes, after which it's Smear City). After all, despite having been patiently corrected time and again with Kerry's actual words, you continue to parrot this completely false version.

Unfortunately for Republicans, though, while constant repetition of a lie doubtless affects public perception, it doesn't make it true. And yet you celebrate the effectiveness of the lie (while, of course, giving the genuinely cowardly and AWOL Bush a free pass). You really have no shame, do you?

Ah, I still remember when Cronkite said about President Kennedy: "He came in here and he trashed the place, and it's not his place."

The contrast between the breathless reporting in Lebanon and the resulting silence on Iraq is really illustrative of the problem.

Not only the breathless reporting, but the glaring fact that the reporting from Lebanon shows grisly video of wounded bodies and neighborhoods bombed to rubble -- while in contrast the reporting from Iraq has been sanitized since the beginning to never show the true human costs of war.

I believe that if Americans had had access to those same kinds of photos coming out of Iraq for the past three years so that they could make an informed decision about what's going on there that we'd be on our way out now due to political pressure from every part of the ideological spectrum.

Kevin and WaMo readers,

Speaking about Washington opinion makers, we've got Amy Sullivan debating this week with Xpatriated Texan on abortion, Casey in PA, and religious Dems over at our blog Faith in Public Life.

If anyone has an opinion on politics or religion, you're welcome to join in.

I love pissing matches before I've finished my first cuppa cawfee ...

Woah, look at *Thomas* now -- who I thought everybody had read as a hard right-winger -- jumping into the ring here to defend Kerry.

If this is the same Thomas of the abortion threads -- gotta be pretty conclusive evidence that the guy ain't "Cheney" :)

Bob

It's someone posing as Thomas, Bob. The writing style and syntax isn't at all the same as the Charlie/Cheney/Thomas. Plus no smiley face emoticons.

Yes, yes, yes, Mike, we're well aware of the dishonest representation of Kerry's testimony peddled by dishonestRepublicans

Nice attempt to avoid facing the fact that veterans generally hate Kerry, or attempting to understand why. Not all of them, just most of them. And they were hating him long before Karl Rove came around, or the Swiftboat vet organization for that matter, but of course you ignore that fact too. I guess that makes you ignorant.

Why do you hate veterans, Gregory? Shame on you for hating veterans.

Windhorse:

I have a good Italian friend I'm in touch with regularly, and she is *always* making that point about sanitized Iraq coverage in the American press. There was a big story in the leftist (and well-respected) paper La Repubblica about it ...

Bob

Bob: Woah, look at *Thomas* now -- who I thought everybody had read as a hard right-winger -- jumping into the ring here to defend Kerry.

Just who is this masked man?

We no longer have anyone in the press with the credentials of Cronkite- but Broder is about the closest thing that we have. I think it is more informative to look at the bread basket states for a "feel" on how the administration is viewed by non-winguts on either side. Do some research on the editorials and draw your own conclusions. Frankly, I think it unpardonable to have invaded Iraq before Afghanistan was completed. Regardless of the legitimacy for invading Iraq- it has been handled in incompetently. Finally, I find it disconcerting to hear about the money this was is costing the United States- but who is paying for it? We have higher gasoline prices- but really... where is the money coming from or going to come from?

Presume for a second everything the Swifties said was made up.

Here Mike, of course, engages in the typical dishonesty of conflating those who objected to Kerry's eventual opposition to the war -- who are, of course, entitled to their opinion -- to those lying political operatives who knew that they needed to trash Kerry's impressive service record in order to give said critique traction.

(It's useful to observe at this point that Paul O'Neil didn't dare make these false claims while tasked with defending Richard Nixon, of all people, but cheerfully whored himself out to Karl Rove's lying smear.)

As to the latter, Mike, there's no need to presume -- everything the Swifties said was made up. There's no contemporaneous documentary evidence of their claims at all, and indeed their claims contradicted their earlier statements. And, again, you perpetuate these lies, and celebrate their effectiveness. Shame on you, indeed.

So much for the notion that Republicans support the troops. By their actions -- as someone recently advised us to consider, rather than words -- it's clear that the blood and honor of soldiers is useful to the Republicans only insofar as it serves as window dressing for their "strong on defense" marketing campaign.

It's someone posing as Thomas, Bob.

Ya think?

The writing style and syntax isn't at all the same as the Charlie/Cheney/Thomas. Plus no smiley face emoticons.
Posted by: Stefan

OK, enough trolling for the day. I'll wait for fresher fish, this pond's gone stagnant. :)

You guys really need to get a sense of humor.

Your guy lost, remember?

Uh oh. Somebody didn't get there medicated oatmeal this morning eh RSM? You seem extra trollish and dishonest. Everything alrighty? Or have you realized that the whole country lost in 2004?

And of course Stefan had to take the bait. Just...couldn't...must...answer...attack on...Kerry...great american hero...can't...stop...self.

What an odd claim to make -- Mike is admitting that he's deliberately lying in order in order to incite people who care about the truth. Now in most of society, doing that is called being an asshole, yet he seems to take pride in it.

Ah well, I guess it's better than his former day job of murdering innocent Iraqi civilians, so if his new hobby keeps him out of trouble it's a small price to pay.

Shame on you for hating veterans.

Hmmm. Which party was it that mocked the purple heart at their convention again?

What an odd claim to make -- Mike is admitting that he's deliberately lying in order in order to incite people who care about the truth.

Uh, no. I'm deliberately bringing up an embarassing truth that you liberals just can't keep from trying to play whack-a-mole on.

Ah well, I guess it's better than his former day job of murdering innocent Iraqi civilians...

Why do you hate our military, Stefan?

-- everything the Swifties said was made up.

fraid not!

The Xmas in Cambodia story was laughably inept. It was a story to make only Al Gore proud. Kerry absolutely without question lied about Xmas in Cambodia.

The analogy of Broder and Cronkite just doesn't fit. Cronkite was a world famous network anchor in an era when that we THE dominant form of news. Broder is little known outside of a small circle of Washington political junkies.

But I do want to defend Broder as a reporter. He's always been an excellent reporter - excellent at pulling together facts and explaining an issue.

The tragedy is that he's always been a horrible pundit - he doesn't think through the facts that he learned as a reporter. More or less he just regurgitates the basic spin. His track record is pathetic. Watergate wasn't a big deal, Cheney was an epitome of a wiseman public servant, Bush was responsible and moderate, etc.

But his basic spin regurgitation has been prized by the editorial pages of the Post a lot more than any real look at interpreting facts. That he's considered the "Dean" of DC pundits is a damning indictment of how useless that group are.

Dear me, look who got his panties in a twist at having his murders of civilians brought up. Gulped at that shiny shiny fly like a big fat trout. Someone needs to get a better sense of humor....

Now back to the main topic: we've lost the Iraq War.

Shame on me indeed, Mike -- for ever, even for a moment, considering that you were an honest commentator.

Nice attempt to avoid facing the fact that veterans generally hate Kerry, or attempting to understand why.

Au contraire, Mike -- I acknowledged, and you ignored, the fact that Kerry's testimony has been misrepresented by dishonest Republicans -- but I repeat myself -- desperate to avoid confronting Kerry's criticism of their policies by claiming, falsely, that it's criticism of the troops. I do understand that the Republicans have successfully planted a false perception, Mike. That doesn't make it true, or excuse your embrace of this falsehood.

And they were hating him long before Karl Rove came around, or the Swiftboat vet organization for that matter, but of course you ignore that fact too.

Au contraire, Mike, I noted that the misrepresention of Kerry's testimony was done by Nixon's defenders. But even they didn't dare contest Kerry's documented status as a war hero, which of course gave weight Kerry's opposition to Nixon's policies. It took Karl Rove to sink that low -- and you sink right along with him.

I guess that makes you ignorant.

No, Mike, it makes you dishonest.

Why do you hate veterans, Gregory? Shame on you for hating veterans.

See, here's the thing, Mike...pointing out that political figures smeared an honorable veteran by first distorting his testimony and later by smearing his record does not equate to hating veterans, nor does acknowledging that many veterans were in fact fooled by this false perception. I know that little things like honesty and honor have no value to you, but an accusation like yours really should have some minimal plausibility -- like, say, pointing out that your cheerfully parroting smears that have been shown to you to be false, and in your defense point only to the perception that they're true, speaks more about your own loyalty to veterans being subordinate to the interests of the Republican Party.

My goal this is to make every thread on Washington Monthly for the remainder of this year end up being a thread about john Kerry. So far, 1 down, about 1,000 to go.

Hey, don't get mad at me, I got the idea from Secular Animist. He tries to turn them all into threads on global warming.

Bob, at least you have a sense of humor.

Go get'em rdw!

Cronkite went to Vietnam as a reporter, treked through the jungle, talked to the grunts in the field, gathered the facts and came to logical conclusions based on the evidence of his very own eyes and ears. THAT'S what he reported to the nation, THAT'S why the nation believed him,

He did no such thng. The anchors go where they're told. History has proven Uncle Walt got it all wrong. The Tet offensive was a military disaster for the Viet Cong. Thank's to Walt and the MSM it was a political disaster for the Democratic South Vietnamese. We now know from the records of the North vietnamese they were defeated and it took them 5 years to rebuild.

There will never be another Uncle Walt. He had more influence in 1968 than the entire MSM today. There was no Fox or Rush or Powerline. David Broder is lucky to influence his wife.

Besides how silly is it to argue to get out of Iraq when we're already leaving?

Bob:

And I have a Spanish friend who harps on the same thing. It's embarrassing to have to admit that we have what is essentially "kiddie news" in our country because that's all that Americans want to hear and see. Let nothing disrupt our daily narcotization of shopping and fast food and sitcoms. As long as we don't ever have to think about the sometimes horrible consequences of the actions of our government, we can just cheerfully "stay the course" and masturbate with our ideological blinders.

What I find interesting is that despite the lack of real news, perceptions of the Iraqi occupation are beginning to change among some unexpected demographics. More and more Reaganites are seeing the light and coming out publicly against the war, along with some evangelicals who've had the scales fall off their eyes on the matter. Even the former cabinet and advisors around Bush 41 are said to be uneasy with the current "foreign policy."

They may end up making for some strange political bedfellows with progressives in upcoming elections. And there's nothing I'd like more than to see all the people of clear mind in this country -- of all ideological bents -- come together and encircle the Bush cultists and neocons on the issue of their warmongering.

So rdw, we won the Viet Nam war but retreated because of gross misrepresentations by the media and resulting public outcry? We had the Viet Cong by the throat, defeated, Tet their Waterloo and slinked home anyway?

RSM: Kerry tour that you claim he "cut short" was actually his second tour. That's right. First tour was aboard the USS Gridley. Didn't see much action (no combat), but the point is he volunteered, served a tour, then volunteered again (when he didn't have to) for the Swift Boat stint.

I really don't think you know much about Kerry.

In another moment of public self-reflection, David Broder says that gas prices are too high, and that it's hard for bald men over sixty to get laid.

Interesting that RSM talks about having a "sense of humor" when reacting to his smears of John Kerry. I know the Republicans considered their Purple Heart Band-Aids -- which, of course, dishonored every recipient of that medal -- as a big larf, but it only goes to show, again, how the GOP views the blood and honor of our service members as of value only insofar as they benefit the Republicans politically.

Really, it's beyond debate, for anyone paying attention and of even minimal intellectual honesty, that the GOP pisses all over our troops, both when serving and afterwards. The military may lean Republican now, but I predict that perception will change, and I suspect that it's happening already. Subjecting the troops to Rush's propaganda can only be a stopgap.

If we're "leaving" Iraq I'm sure it'll be pretty much on the same terms we "left" Nam. Demoralized, fatigued of the whole mess and finally overrun by an insurgent force that's figured out our heart and wallet aren't really in the game.

Sad Sack Mike: Nice attempt to avoid facing the fact that veterans generally hate Kerry

I'm a veteran (and I'll bet you are not).

John Kerry is an honorable man and served with honor and courage.

George W. Bush is a deserter and a coward.

So much for your survey.

nut:

At least with interns ...

Captain Obvious rides again into the steely nite! LOL !

Windhorse:

The most *amazing* ideological transformation is something I've only seen once in Wooten's posts -- but if it's more than a one-shot deal, it's quite telling. Considering he's on the thread right now, this should be most interesting.

The other day he was boasting about how darn *successful* the Iraq war is, by the metric of attacks going down against our soldiers (nothing to do, of course, with our soldiers hunkering down in their bases, of course). The huge rise in sectarian killing is a *centuries-old* problem, you see -- not really to do with us.

It's a matter of that pesky *Arab culture*.

Now ... check this out. Wooten, the great booster of free-market democracy in Iraq -- the guy who sez everything will get better when the Iraqis are too busy *making money just like Americans!* to kill each other ... is now saying that, bless their brown, pointy little turbaned heads, those Arabs have *cultural issues* and just aren't ready for Democracy like us lucky Westerners.

There goes Bush's key remaining rationale for the Iraq war right down the swirly with what's left of Wooten's credibility as a non-racist :(

Bob

Wapiti wrote:
__________
And Bush chooses to do nothing; better that hundreds of U.S. soldiers and Marines die over the next two years than Bush lose face by pulling out of Iraq.

If Bush won't pull out, then the Congress must force his hand.
__________

The military won't thank us much if they get pulled out only to get into a bigger fight somewhere else, or, even worse, have to fight their way back into Iraq.

Saying "Pull out" is easy. Describing how, to where, and what comes next is not so easy.

Has RSM gone silent. I bet he is looking up info related to USS Gridley tour, educating himself for the first time ever about the real world Kerry.

Look at this: http://mediamatters.org/items/200408260006

Hey, Thomas is a common name ... why let an idiot have sole use of my moniker? I knew only a dull pupil would fail to immediately recognize I ain't Charlie.

So Charlie can get a new name. He won't mind. He's used to it.

Or have you realized that the whole country lost in 2004?

Do you think Slow Study Mike is capable of that level of analysis? I don't see it. Has he provided evidence to that effect elsewhere?

Windhorse, Bob,

Wishful thinking isn't analysis. We are the only country with truly balanced news and a vibrant alternative media. Watch CNN Int'l or BBC World and you'll get a taste for how rotten global coverage can be.

As far as Iraq this is the quietest period ever. Israel is pushing it into the background where it will stay for another month at least and we continue to train the Iraqi's and they work to settle their differences. There may be a small scale civil war between the Shia and Sunni if that's the only way to settle their differences and the Sunni will lose. The USA will be gone before it peaks.

The problem you guys have is you think Broder is conservative and speaks to conservatives. Wrong. Try Limbuagh, Hannity, Krautenhammer. Steyn, Hanson, Hume, Kristol, Branes, etc. They speak to the largest and most coherent bloc of voters in the land, conservatives. We'll leave Iraq on our timetable and we'll be writing the Histroy.

You really don't get it. Liberal news coverage isn't driving the wagon and will never drive it again. Just look at Israel. France would have said 'Boo' to Clinton and he'd have been demanding a cease fire. Chirac is a clown. The Germans ignore him now. Thanks to GWB the French can't get the EU to demand an immediate cease fire. You libs might have your hair on fire but the adults are quite calm. You will eventually get your cease fire but Israel will decide when.

Trashhauler:

Have you read the diplomat Peter Galbraith on the subject?

Accept the de-facto partitioning of Iraq (the Iraqi flag is forbidden to be flown in Kurdistan, the Sunnis consider the Shi'ite ISF an invasion when they try to police Anbar, and the Shi'ite south is already a quasi-theocracy backed up by their militias). Reposition the bulk of our forces into friendly Kurdistan. Keep a watch out for any al Qaeda inspired or directed attempts to build and train a terrorist force to export global jihad.

What appears certain is that the American public will not endure long the use of our military as a police force attempting to adjudicate between sectarian conflicts -- as per the new Baghdad operation.

Bob

Bob:

Yep, I saw that too. If you read all of his earlier propaganda the Iraqis are thirsty for democracy and just the terrorists are bad guys. Then in the later propaganda as things get worse just the Sunnis are bad guys -- oh, and they all should be eliminated, by the way. And now that the sectarian violence that people like us predicted before the war has fully emerged -- well, those Arabs, they're all just that way.

It's hard to keep up with his flip-flops.

And now he says we're leaving Iraq? I just read we're activating more troops. More proof that reality doesn't intersect his world of talking points.

rdw:

I love how you keep spelling Charles Krauthammer's name "Krautenhammer." :)

Bob

Irony alert!

Wishful thinking isn't analysis.

Posted by: rdw on August 3, 2006 at 11:42 AM

The USA will be gone before it peaks.

So you agree with the position of many Democrats including Murtha on Iraq.

Excellent. Please spread the word to your fellow dittoheads.

bob,

Calm yourself. I said no such thing. The Iraqi Democracy will remain fully intact throughout the coming distractions. The Sunni-Shite split is more than just centuries old and they will have to come to an accomodation in Iraq. From recent Sunni history this could be quite bloody. The threat isn't to democracy. The threat is too the Sunni minority. We have 20% of Iraqi's in the North quite safe and increasingly prosperous. Much of the South is doing well.

We have severe sectarian differences in the Baghdad region and western provinces. The Iraqi's will decide how they settle these differences. They will either negotiate an end or they will exterminate the insurgents. In any event it will be an Arab decision made ny and enforced by Arabs.

rdw,

That last post was the most hilarious piece of bafflegab from you ever! Hilarious! I love it! Not a word grounded in reality, not a sentence that makes sense.

I especially liked this: ". . . we'll be writing the Histroy." Great neologism. Suitable for a Bush worshiper--a portmanteau of "history" and "destroy."

With every thread, you slip further into incoherence and irrelevance. Keep up the great work.

Heh.

rdw wrote: Besides how silly is it to argue to get out of Iraq when we're already leaving?

More appalling ignorance from a delusional idiot.

But RDW does offer a fascinating insight into the mind of someone who takes Limbaugh and Fox news seriously.

Mike is admitting that he's deliberately lying in order in order to incite people who care about the truth.

Mike also admits that his presence here is "trolling".

Would that all the trolls here were so forthright...Well, actually, it'd be better if they'd just leave, but second best...

But RDW does offer a fascinating insight into the mind of someone who takes Limbaugh and Fox news seriously.

Would you say he's crazy?

Or would insane be a better description?

What about delusional?

"Would you say he's crazy?

Or would insane be a better description?

What about delusional?"

Why not all three? A trifecta of dementia.

Interesting, 4 of the first 5 posts are from rightards. Don't you guys have anything better to do?

Oh Mike, dear Mike, you obviously suffer from VSS, commonly known as Vasocon Sphint Syndrome. This syndrome is found throughout the population among citizens who suffer from LFB, or Lead For Brains. It manifests itself when the sphincter acts as a vasoconstrictor and deprives the brain of oxygen. The chemical process that turns soft grey matter into malleable grey shit is still unknown.

Speaking of news no one in this country wants to hear, what has been going down in Mexico City??

Judging from his columns, Broder isn't very bright. Even when he manages to figure something out, he somehow forgets it by the next column.

And, let's face it, Kerry isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer either. He voted for the war resolution: says of course they he thought Bush would only make use of it if certain conditions were met, but only a fool who could have believed that - it was perfectly obvious that Bush was determined to invade Iraq.

And of course he seems to have believed in the Iraqi Peril as much as the average Senator - which only a person truly ignorant of strategic affairs (i.e. everyone in our governing class) could possibly have swallowed.

I suppose that speaking the truth, saying that Iraq was a Seinfeld War, a war about nothing, wouldn't have flown in 2004. The American people hate admitting that they are complete putzes and that their President is insane.
The truth hurts.

We may have blown a few hundred billion dollars and lost a couple of thousand soldiers, but think what we've learned about ourselves. Might be worth it.

Cronkite went to Vietnam as a reporter, treked through the jungle, talked to the grunts in the field, gathered the facts and came to logical conclusions based on the evidence of his very own eyes and ears. THAT'S what he reported to the nation, THAT'S why the nation believed him,

RDW responds: "He did no such thng. The anchors go where they're told. History has proven Uncle Walt got it all wrong.

Actually, RD, you've got it wrong. Cronkite was sent to Vietnam and talked to Westmoreland. I saw it on PBS the other night. Westmoreland lied his head off. But Cronkite clearly looked up to him in that segment. Then Cronkite was introduced by other reportes to grunts who were fed up with Westmoreland's lies. Cronkite then changed and the rest is history.

His ability to change his public view because he caught on to the lies is what made him a true American. People admire that.

I suggest all you Kerry apologists march yourselves down to the local VFW and practice your nuanced explanations of why in fact Kerry was a Vietnam vet's best friend on them. Report back.

I will see your bet and raise you.

Mike, I respect you and your service, but I get off the bus every damn day ten block from my house, across the flippin street from the national headquarters of the VFW, and the current administration has fallen far out of favor with the vets I run into on a daily basis - many of them young and in wheelchairs, some with horrible burn scars, quite a few of them missing limbs.

I teach science at a community college and have a couple of young disabled vets every semester. They represent a unique challenge to educate after the rigors and terrors of combat. I also deal with them when I pull the occasional shift at the VA.

To believe that one political party has a lock on the loyalties of the troops and anyone who ever served is folly indeed. To take their votes for granted is to take them for granted, and that is criminal in the minds of many of us who have life-long ties to the US military.

Why not all three? A trifecta of dementia.

Personally, I've always thought a paranoid schizophrenic with strong traces of sociopathy, delusional thinking, and mania.

Every veteran I know hates Kerry, and with excellent reason. Bush served honorably; Kerry didn't, and then lied about it. Hence a loss for the dems.

I suppose that speaking the truth, saying that Iraq was a Seinfeld War, a war about nothing, wouldn't have flown in 2004.

Wouldn't it be a Husseinfeld War?

Stefan; every time I look at Bush, I wonder what obscure, recessive-gene, inbred disease he has. His ears are too low, he has a purely simian quality that defies modernity.

Totally OT (again)

There's a link to a blog in today's Salon's Daou Report that troubles me deeply.

The blog linked is called 'The Road to Surfdom'.

Surfdom?

Serf, n, a person in modified slavery, esp, one attached to the soil.

Surf, v.i., to bathe in or ride on surf

Give me a break. And shame on Peter, too.

rdw:

> Calm yourself.

Calm myself? Dude, I'm laughing my *ass* off :):):)

> I said no such thing.

Sure you did. The phrase "it's in their culture" crawled off your
fingers, a mere google seach away for the ambitious among us.

> The Iraqi Democracy will remain fully intact
> throughout the coming distractions.

Like how you capitalize it. Makes it look more "official" that way.

So, uhh, speaking of Iraqi Democracy: Did they ever get back that
woman Sunni MP they kidnapped? *How* many ministers have been
assassinated since the election? Any chance of the duly elected
representatives of the Iraqi people taking a tour outside of the
Green Zone to *press the flesh* with the voters? Oh, and how's that
*constitution* coming along, eh? Any resolution to the federalism
issues on the table? Do they know how they're going to divvy up
the oil? Has everybody *given up* yet on keeping the Kurds from
grabbing all of Kirkuk and making it the capitol of Kurdistan --
or did that happen already? Oh, and how are the *Turks* feeling
about the recent peshmerga invasions into their country to stir
up their Kurds, which the Turks are calling "terrorist attacks"?
They ready to *invade* Kurdistan just yet -- and when they do,
which side with the US military take on *that* one, eh?

The Iraqi Democracy. LMAO !!!

> The Sunni-Shite split is more than just centuries old
> and they will have to come to an accomodation in Iraq.

Funny, the Sunnis and Shia lived in relative harmony in cities like
Baghdad and Mosul under that evil dictator Saddam Hussein ... lots
and lots of mixed marriages prior to the US invasion -- now they're
all engaged in panicked auto-cleansing into homogenous areas.

> From recent Sunni history this could be quite bloody. The threat
> isn't to democracy. The threat is too the Sunni minority.

Ahh, minority rights in majority rule. Funny how it's such an
important concept to Republican states' rightsers but completely
meaningless when a minority in a country we invaded is facing the
possibility of genocide from forces that we're arming and training.

Hey, you genocidal asshole -- a few miscreants aside, the Sunnis
happen to be the most well-educated and secular people in Iraq.
They make up the technocrats and professionals who used to run
the country. They are *Iraqi's best hope* of getting anything
like like a pro-Western free market democracy up and running.

> We have 20% of Iraqi's in the North
> quite safe and increasingly prosperous.

Kurdistan is also becoming full of itself and is attacking the
Turkish border regions -- and Turkey is threatening to respond
with an invasion of their own into Kurdistan. Who will the US
support -- our longtime allies the Turks, or Our Friends the Kurds?

Decisions, decisions ...

> Much of the South is doing well.

Tell that to the women who live there. While it *started out*
as one of the safest cities in Iraq in the first year or so after
the invasion, Basra has devolved into a de-facto Iran-supported
theocracy replete with AK-toting religious police, and who are
increasingly harrassing the British, who lost another handful of
troops there two days ago. A thugocracy replete with the implicit
blessing of Sestani, SCIRI, DAWA and, oh, Our Friends the Iranians.

Nice work justifying *that*, you reality-denying fuck.

> We have severe sectarian differences in the Baghdad
> region and western provinces. The Iraqi's will
> decide how they settle these differences.

Gee whiz, Wooten, then why is the new military plan to mass our
forces in Baghdad now? Could it be that a large part of it is
to defend the Sunnis from increasing harrassment by Shi'ite
militias who hide under the cover of government uniforms? Could
it be that the capitol city of a would-be democracy which has
been made thoroughly unlivable by scores of deaths each day renders
democracy impossible until some semblance of security is restored?

> They will either negotiate an end or they will
> exterminate the insurgents.

Wooten, I adore seeing the word "exterminate" crawl off your
fingers. I think I'm going to call you Colonel Kurtz. You *meant*
"exterminate the Sunnis" like you have said previously, but since
I *called you on it* you're just looking for a nice euphemism.

It's a shame, isn't it, that The Final Solution has already been used.

> In any event it will be an Arab
> decision made ny and enforced by Arabs.

And backed up by the equippage and training of the US military.

You can't wash your hands of this, Genocide Boy.

Bob

I mentioned that Kerry isn't too sharp - which is hardly a secret. While we're at it, what ahout Hillary? I haven't checked her stance in the last few days, but the last I noticed, she was hot for our staying in Iraq until the Army mutinies, comes home & sacks Washington. Now there's a case for that strategy - the worse, the better, right? - but since the ultimate outcome would not necessarily be to her advantage, what is she smoking? And while we're asking questions, can't she read the polls?

Has anyone noticed that when a thread starts out, the responses are succint and to the point, but as the number of responses increases, so does the length of the post?

Stefan; every time I look at Bush, I wonder what obscure, recessive-gene, inbred disease he has. His ears are too low, he has a purely simian quality that defies modernity.

Yeah, he's the kind of bullying asshole that, if his family had stayed in Connecticut where he was born, he'd now be holding up the bar in the clubhouse at Winged Foot and losing fights to the husbands of women he's drunkenly insulted.

Walter Cronkite! Oh please, comparing David Broder to Cronkite is like comparing a monkey to a man.

Broder pulled a Peter Beinhart, but then, now that I think about it, both Kevin and Marshall pulled a Beinhart too.

NOw it didn't take Kevin or Marshall quite as long as it took Beinhart and as I recall it was only when the rest of the world's opposition reared it's ugly head, that's the only time Kevin and Josh re-evaluated their so called centrist minds. What is centrist isn't buying into what Bush on sometimes basis. Bush is never right in world of conservaitive or liberal viewpoints.

That fact that Broder took so long to re-evaluated all the truly illogical "Bush speak" only shows how truly retarded that WP columnist really is. Broder is just another fried-bain man, a true Friedman in flesh.

To rdw: Broder is no one's idea of a conservative, but a liberal? Perhaps in your black-white either-or vision, but no. Broder represents the "establishment," plain and simple. Noam Chomsky he ain't.

And for those too young to remember '60s network news (I can recall Peter Jennings' first go-round as ABC anchor -- and he started with a 15-minute newscast!), another reminder that the broadcast landscape then was far different. No cable news networks, no talk radio of national influence (and the talk radio that did exist at the time wasn't purely ideological). The network evening newscasts had relatively high ratings, and the audience was more across-the-board demographically. Contrast that to current network newscasts, where the primary sponsors are drug companies peddling prescription wares for the AARP crowd. It's like comparing Life magazine in its heyday to the niche mag market of today.

I once respected David Broder...and I'm saddened by all this.

Then there's this crap:

“I’d be hard-pressed to say we’re not addressing the issues that mean something to the average hard-working taxpayer out there today.” – Majority Leader Bill Frist, Senate Floor, 8/1/06

BTW: I can oppose Slow Study Mike AND be against abortion at the same time.

"Tom Harkin could be George Bush's wost nightmare."

David Broder, Very early in 1992

The man has bee clueless for nearly 15 years.

Is Broder trying to avoid the issue, or is he referencing the past to remind ourselves of lesson hard-learned yet obscured?

Everyone seems to be critical of Broder. Granted he's no Cronkite, but neither are you...But that's not to say that Broder has a point. We have reached an impasse with the current situation in the Mid-East, and history has proven that failures manifest themselves gradually, unfortunately at the cost of human lives. When do we say enough is enough?

http://delightfultact.wordpress.com

The only genuine centrist position is "Clowns to the left of me; jokers to the right."

Meanwhile, liberals are achieving a tour de force of irrelevance. If modern liberalism means anything more than hating Bush it must stand for economic and social justice. Working Americans deserve to have their living standards protected. Mexican migrants deserve to be treated as human beings. Allowing people into this country illegally assures that neither objective will be attained as business ruthlessly exploits one group to dispossess the other." David Podvin
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/article.php?sid=25804&mode=nested

David Border is dean of the liberal controlled media.

Of the wha...? OK, if we're playing by those rules, I'm the Grand Pooh-Bah of Clitoristan.
.

Bob wrote:
__________

Accept the de-facto partitioning of Iraq (the Iraqi flag is forbidden to be flown in Kurdistan, the Sunnis consider the Shi'ite ISF an invasion when they try to police Anbar, and the Shi'ite south is already a quasi-theocracy backed up by their militias). Reposition the bulk of our forces into friendly Kurdistan. Keep a watch out for any al Qaeda inspired or directed attempts to build and train a terrorist force to export global jihad.
____________

I'm not certain the de facto partitioning of Iraq is as complete as all that. But, even if it is, it is not yet a de jure partitioning. Being a diplomat, Mr. Galbraith understands the unlikelihood of the as yet standing government of Iraq giving us permission to internally redeploy to only one segment of the country. Or should we just declare Kurdistan independent and set up another government we'd be accused of controlling?

Redeploying to Kurdistan would present its own problems, of course. No seaport, few airports, and a land line of communication through a not-disinterested Turkey. No telling what Turkey would allow or if they would continue to permit us to support troops through Incirlik AB. It's likely that a large deployment to Kurdistan would be unsustainable in military terms.

But, assuming it was and we did, where would that get us? If, as everyone says, the rest of Iraq erupts into an open, tripartite civil war, then what do we do when the legally constituted government asks for our assistance? What if the Sunnis need rescuing from genocide? Would we support the Kurds in their desire to control the oil fields around Kirkuk? It's those next steps that go unanswered by Mr. Galbraith.

And where does that leave us with regard to the region as a whole? We still owe Kuwait and the smaller gulf states protection. We pulled out of Saudi Arabia because they wouldn't support our Afghanistan effort and because our presence there was supposedly a primary source of radicalism. What happens if the Persians intervene "on behalf of their co-religionists" despite not having been asked? Do we just watch it happen from Kurdistan?

Redeployment to Kurdistan has a certain appeal of clarity in a very complicated situation, but it's not a place from which anything much can be influenced elsewhere in the region. It sure wouldn't do much to stop the next big brouhaha.

Some of the lib blogs are suggesting that the admin is trying to prepare the country for a cut-and-run in the fall (before elections.) For people like broder and certain conservatives to publically acknowledge certain truths finally, makes me think the lib blogs are correct. We are being slowly and manipulatively prepared.

Ann, that, at least, I can confirm will not happen. There are no such plans and it would take more time than is left, even if we simply abandon everything and cut and run.

I doubt if there are any such plans, but we have plenty of time for a sove-ki-poo before November. Leaving takes no more time than invasion.

mhr, I'll say it again: paragraphs are your friend.

My eyes glaze over when I see your posts because they are almost unreadable. If you want to post your idiotic wingnut talking points, at least do so in a format that's digestible.

Of the wha...? OK, if we're playing by those rules, I'm the Grand Pooh-Bah of Clitoristan.
.

Posted by: Grand Moff Texan

Way cool. Do house calls?

Brooks only speaks to other journalists--those in power haven't listened to him--or anyone else who used to be the purveyors of "conventional wisdom"--for years. This administration certainly doesn't give a shit what he says. It's weird that these people hate bloggers and new media--they really should be directing their anger (and columns) at those who have shoved them aside--the Administration and friends.

This is the first time I have ever posted in a thread on this website. When I came back to look at all of the posts concerning broder, I found that someone named Mike had hijacked the whole thread. Do you regular posters always allow and encourage this sort of thing? Reading all of the posts down to this point, looking for responses to the OP, I realized that you all have been manipulated right off topic. Now I know why I am not a regular visitor to the Washington Monthly. Good grief.

Ann: as a longtime (semi-) regular poster, all I can say is it never ceases to amaze me. We still have people here who respond to "Al" as if he's posting seriously, and a few others who still say, "Wow, is Al for real?"

No wonder we can't win elections. :)

His ability to change his public view because he caught on to the lies is what made him a true American. People admire that

Uncle Walt is a distant memory the libs enjoy because he was on their side. That's desperation. He retired 30 years ago. CBS is now Dan Rathers old station a distant #3 in the ratings watched by a samll fraction of the population versus the 1968 salad days.

It says everything that midddle-aged libs trying to 'celebrate' the glory days of the networks had to go back 50 years to Joe McCarthy and STILL had to exaggerate their role. Clooney gave it the old college try but spoke only to the choir and rather a small segment of it at that.

Joe Who? Wasn't he correct all along? anyway

Reading all of the posts down to this point, looking for responses to the OP, I realized that you all have been manipulated right off topic. Now I know why I am not a regular visitor to the Washington Monthly. Good grief.
Posted by: ann

I hate it too. The whole place gets stunk up by Al, GOP, and Jay and their various sock puppets. It's so easy: stop feeding them.

Homonym alert: Yesterday the LA Times ran a pic with a caption stating that the buildings downtown were 'peaking' through the smog.

Oh please.

"Surfdom"

Kurdistan is also becoming full of itself and is attacking the
Turkish border regions -- and Turkey is threatening to respond
with an invasion of their own into Kurdistan. Who will the US
support -- our longtime allies the Turks, or Our Friends the Kurds?

Kurdistan is feeling good about itself and why not? It's the safest and most prosperous part of Iraq. They have no beef with Turkey and will control the PKKK. The Turks and Kurds have many mutually prosperous business deals ahead and thus many more reasons to com to an accomodation. There are on the order of 18M Kurds in the region. About 4.5M live in Kurdistan and many more moving in every day. They have the room and the economy.

Kurdistan will never rival Turkey or Iran in size but they have a very defensible region and a cohesive population familiar with open markets and enjoying freedom. The USA will be their guardian angel. The Kurds will remain free.

Broder is no one's idea of a conservative, but a liberal? Perhaps in your black-white either-or vision, but no. Broder represents the "establishment," plain and simple. Noam Chomsky he ain't.

Let's be rational. Noam is to the left of Fidel. He's softer than Carter. Broder is a pre-68 lib on the order of Joe Leiberman. He knows to snicker when the Europeans act as if they perfected diplomacy and were the driving factors in the defeat of socialism. Broder also understands the GWOT and unlike so many libs recognizes that some people cannot be trusted and cannot be negotiated with.

My main point was that Broder isn't influencial. In just the last 6 years readership at the major newspapers and networks is down over 20% and of those who still read them many fewer trust what they're reading. There was a day when the top reporters of the New York Times and Washington Post were the widest read. Those days are long gone.

Kevins post was an example of hope outpacing reason.

Some of the lib blogs are suggesting that the admin is trying to prepare the country for a cut-and-run in the fall (before elections.) For people like broder and certain conservatives to publically acknowledge certain truths finally, makes me think the lib blogs are correct. We are being slowly and manipulatively prepared.

Sure we are. Not for a cut-and-run, because Bush has no intention of getting out, but for the nebulous "plan"--repeated so many times that the lie becomes truth to the ever-credible Bush voters--that we'll be withdrawing fairly soon. The GOP boys figure that will get them through the election, and they're probably right.

There's a simple rule of thumb: If rdw is saying it, it's an official talking point of his masters. He simply doesn't ever post anything else.

Wooten, I adore seeing the word "exterminate" crawl off your
fingers. I think I'm going to call you Colonel Kurtz. You *meant*
"exterminate the Sunnis" like you have said previously, but since
I *called you on it* you're just looking for a nice euphemism.

It's a shame, isn't it, that The Final Solution has already been used.

Bob, call me anything you like. The insurgency in Iraq will end only when the insurgents are killed. The only people in a position to do that effectively are those in the region. The USA is pursuing the same solution today it was pursuing 4 years ago. We've helped them create a democracy including a military to defend it. And that's what they'll do. To the extend there are enemies of the elected government committing mass murder of innocents there's little choice but to exterminate them.

The good news is the army is very close to full strength and well trained and they are fighting.

So exactly what is it you'v called me on? My support for killing trrorists? Well, you got me! I plead guilty. No denying you're a lib. Was that too rude for you?

Yeah, he's the kind of bullying asshole that, if his family had stayed in Connecticut where he was born, he'd now be holding up the bar in the clubhouse at Winged Foot and losing fights to the husbands of women he's drunkenly insulted.

That's the ticket. Too bad they didn't stay in Connecticut. Maybe the libs could win an election.

And backed up by the equippage and training of the US military.

You can't wash your hands of this, Genocide Boy.

No one is suggesting a genocide. Just an effective counter-insurgency targeted at the insurgent butchers. Of course it's backed up by US equipment and training. It's the least was could do to support Democracy in the region.

Joe Who? Wasn't he correct all along? anyway

I've always suspected you to be an idiot, rdw, but every time you open your browser, you further confirm it.

"Tom Harkin could be George Bush's worst nightmare."

Harkin was, in his own words, "taking a hammer to GWHB's feet of clay" while everybody--EVERYBODY--was kissing them.

In 1992, it took untold months to change the meme from "how does anyone run against George 90% Walker Bush?"

How invaluable was that? For my money, Harken did his part.

How invaluable was that? For my money, Harken did his part.

As well as any other lib.

I've always suspected you to be an idiot

Have a sense of humor. Admit it, Clooney had to dig pretty far back to find a network hero. It's not for nothing he chose someone noone would remember.

shortstop wrote: If rdw is saying it, it's an official talking point of his masters. He simply doesn't ever post anything else.

rdw is a nutcase. I mean it: he's not so much a right-winger, he's a crazy person. A crank. The only thing he ever posts is blithering, incoherent bullshit full of delusional fantasies that have no relation to reality whatsoever (and rarely have anything to do with the actual topic of the thread he's posting on -- just whatever happens to pop into his head when he sits down at the computer).

As it happens, his particular craziness revolves around corporate-sponsored, scripted, programmed, right-wing Republican-triumphalist drivel, but that's really just incidental. Such a person might just as easily be raving about Martian invaders planting a subspace transceiver in his brain. He's just plain nuts.

OK, done with 6 hour drive. Let's see who's responded...

Global Citizen
"I suggest all you Kerry apologists march yourselves down to the local VFW and practice your nuanced explanations of why in fact Kerry was a Vietnam vet's best friend on them. Report back."

I will see your bet and raise you.

Mike, I respect you and your service, but I get off the bus every damn day ten block from my house, across the flippin street from the national headquarters of the VFW, and the current administration has fallen far out of favor with the vets I run into on a daily basis - many of them young and in wheelchairs, some with horrible burn scars, quite a few of them missing limbs.

OK, so what does that have to do with how vets view Kerry? Unhappiness with Bush does not imply love of Kerry.

I teach science at a community college and have a couple of young disabled vets every semester. They represent a unique challenge to educate after the rigors and terrors of combat. I also deal with them when I pull the occasional shift at the VA.

You are answering a different question.

To believe that one political party has a lock on the loyalties of the troops and anyone who ever served is folly indeed.

Indeed, indeed. But here's where it appears you (and some others on this thread) seem to be making a logical jump that is not supported by the facts.

The vets that hate Kerry don't hate him because he's a Democrat. They hate him because they saw him as an apostate.

SecAn: He's just plain nuts.

Well, yeah; we all know that by now. But his script is still a handy reference tool for gauging the current GOP damage control spin.

So you agree with the position of many Democrats including Murtha on Iraq.

Excellent. Please spread the word to your fellow dittoheads.

Not a dittohead. Rush is a great man and without question the most influencial media person but I don't get to listen to him often.

Murtha is as dumb as a rock. The simple bastard suggested moving out troops our over the horizon to Okinawa. If the fool had a clue he's know Okinawa wasn't just over the horizon and that GWB has been significantly downsizing the US presence in Japan at the request of the Japanese.

The plan has been well articulated over several years and it being carried out effectively. As the Iraqi's take over we leave. As we can all see they're taking over. It's either this month or next the Iraqi military reaches full strength and the training has broadened out with more special force and counter-insurgency units.

It's also true the Iraqi Govt wants to have control and they want the USA to leave at the right time. This will all work out.

cmdicely
Mike also admits that his presence here is "trolling".

I admit it when I do it.

The typical response to Kerry shots reminds me of the joke about the guy that walks into a bar carrying a big handful of dog crap, and tells everyone, "Hey, look what I almost stepped in!" You just can't let yourselves walk by.

nutcase rdw wrote: Rush is a great man ...

Rush Limbaugh is a tool of the ultra-rich neo-fascist corporate-feudalist owners of the Republican Party, a paid professional liar and hate-monger who has gotten rich by preaching to weak-minded ignorant fools like yourself that all their problems are because they are victims of "liberals" who control the government -- despite the executive and legislative branches, and most of the judiciary, being in the firm control of right-wing corporate-statist Republicans.

I realize that you are mentally disturbed, and as such your comments cannot be taken seriously, but your constant bootlicking worship of liars, thieves, gangsters, thugs and mass murderers is nonetheless nauseating.

Many of Hitler's brownshirt supporters in 1930s Germany were doubtless similarly mentally disturbed, but that's no excuse for them, nor is it one for you.

Red State Mike wrote: The typical response to Kerry shots reminds me of the joke about the guy that walks into a bar carrying a big handful of dog crap, and tells everyone, "Hey, look what I almost stepped in!" You just can't let yourselves walk by.

Your regurgitation of corporate-sponsored, scripted, programmed, bogus right-wing slanders against John Kerry reminds me of a guy who walks into a bar and commences loudly telling one tired, stale, stupid joke after another while everyone groans.

Kevin, Broder has never lead anything. He's what commodity traders call a TRAILING INDICATOR.

The vets that hate Kerry don't hate him because he's a Democrat. They hate him because they saw him as an apostate.
Posted by: Red State Mike

Yeah? Gee, the VVA guys (and others) I knew revered him.

Keep enjoying yourself. Your continual hysteria and irrationality about Kerry and the Swift Boaters is a major reason why you have zero credibility here on other issues. Guess the last laugh's ours, huh?
Posted by: Thomas

that ... and his multiple references to arabs as ragheads. there's no depth to rsm ... he's everything his name leads me to think he is.

SA,

You need some anger management and while you're at it see if you can pick up new lines. The brownshirt stuff is very old and you are very repetitive. It gets boring.

Rush isn't a tool of the ultra-rich. He's one of them. These talk radio types make a fortune and that's not counting the speaking circuit and the book circuit.

You must give the conservatives their due when it comes too money. The know how to make it, raise it and spend it efficiently.

rdw wrote: You need some anger management and while you're at it see if you can pick up new lines. The brownshirt stuff is very old and you are very repetitive. It gets boring.

Some things never change. The existence of weak-minded ignorant delusional idolators of brutality and gangsterism, e.g. "brownshirts" like yourself, is one of them.

People like you will always be with us; you are an inherent defect of the human species. There is no need to come up with "new lines" to describe you, because there is nothing new about you. Any brain-dead propaganda-spewing mental slave of Hitler or Mussolini or Stalin or Mao would recognize you instantly as his spiritual brother in a timeless cult of power-worship.

You must give the conservatives their due when it comes too money. The know how to make it, raise it and spend it efficiently.

Rush Limbaugh is a drug-addled buffoon who has to take Viagra because he can't even get his pee pee hard anymore. Theresa Heinz Kerry could buy and sell his pansy ass, and I hear that George Soros sometimes hires him to wax his car when he's feeling charitable.

Only the weak and girly would spend time listening to a chubby Nancy boy who can't get it up.

Did rdw just accuse someone else of being boringly repetitive?

For rdw, with love and rockets:

#U.S. Generals See Growing Threat of Civil War in Iraq

By DAVID STOUT
Published: August 3, 2006

WASHINGTON, Aug. 3 Two senior American military commanders said today
that the wave of sectarian bloodshed in Iraq has heightened the danger
that the country will slide into all-out civil war.

Gen. John Abizaid, Commander of United States forces in the Middle
East, right, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, center, and
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Peter Pace, left, respond to
questions during a hearing about the Iraq war on Capitol Hill.

I believe that the sectarian violence is probably as bad as Ive seen
it, in Baghdad in particular, and that if not stopped, it is possible
that Iraq could move towards civil war, Gen. John Abizaid, the
commander of United States forces in the Middle East, told the Senate
Armed Services Committee.

A similarly sobering assessment was offered by Gen. Peter Pace, the
chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who said he can envision the
present situation devolving to a civil war.

[...]

But the tone of the hearing, coinciding as it did with the continuing
carnage in Iraq and the Israeli conflict with the Hezbollah militia in
Lebanon, was not one of optimism. Nothing in the testimony of the
commanders, or in that of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld,
pointed to an early withdrawal of United States forces.

[...]

But the committee chairman, Senator John W. Warner, Republican of
Virginia, signaled that political support for the conflict could be
fraying. I think we have to examine very carefully what Congress
authorized the president to do in the context of a situation if were
faced with all-out civil war and whether we have to come back to the
Congress to get further indication of support, Mr. Warner said.

[...]

And Senator John S. McCain, Republican of Arizona, who is a firm
supporter of the campaign in Iraq, voiced concern about the effects of
shifting of United States troops into Baghdad, thereby lessening troop
strength elsewhere. What I worry about is, were playing a game of
whack-a-mole here, the senator said.

Mr. McCain had pointed exchanges with both generals, who conceded that
events had taken them by surprise.

General Pace, the senator said, you said theres a possibility of the
situation in Iraq evolving into civil war. Is that correct?

I did say that, yes, sir, the general replied.

Did you anticipate this situation a year ago?

No, sir.

Did you, General Abizaid?

I believe that a year ago it was clear to see that sectarian tensions
were increasing, General Abizaid said. That they would be this high,
no.

[...]

The typical response to Kerry shots reminds me of the joke ...

You knowingly spew long-debunked lies, Mike, and typically, people who are tired of an honorable man being slandered by liars like you swat down your lies again. That you consider your lies amusing is even more revolting, Mike. Shame on you.

Yeah? Gee, the VVA guys (and others) I knew revered him.
Posted by: CFShep

OK, take the test. Head down to the VFW and see what percentage like him, and what percentage don't.

Gregory
You knowingly spew long-debunked lies, Mike

Oh really? Are you saying he was in Cambodia during Christmas after all? Did he not actually give the Winter Soldier testimony before congress? Did Medal of Honor winner Bud Day and a whole slew of other POWs not say that his words were used against them? That he gave the North Vietnamese freely the information they were being tortured for, admissions of war crimes? Those are facts. And on those I base my opinion of him.

You're the intellectually dishonest one. You sit there and lecture me on vets. You know nothing. Next you'll be lecturing Global Citizen on the pain of childbirth.

You say I subordinate my loyalty to vets for the repub party. I differ far more from the repubs than you do from the democrats. I disagree on health, energy, and McCain should have been president. I've never in the year I've been hanging out here seen you split from the Dems. Either you lack the capacity for independent thought or you lack the courage to go against your peers here. Either way...you lack. Your just a blue version of a dittohead.

Blue version of a dittohead?

Oooh, dem's fightin' words ...

Bob

RSM:

Bottom line, Kerry served in Vietnam. Regardless of what he did afterwards, I'm not about to take that away from him.

WASHINGTON, Aug. 3 Two senior American military commanders said today
that the wave of sectarian bloodshed in Iraq has heightened the danger
that the country will slide into all-out civil war.

Exactly as we've been talking about for months. There are enemies of Democracy in Iraq and the Iraqi's are going to have to kill them. We're training them to defend Iraq and that training is almost complete. It may be the goal for total troops might be increased but we're not doing basic training any longer. Our role now is specialized training and strategic support.

A majority of the Vietnam vets I've met admired Kerry, and voted for him.

But that's because I'm in Vietnam, so obviously the vets I meet tend to be those who've made their peace with the war, rather than those who are still psychotically worked up and vengeful over having lost the war.

Exactly as we've been talking about for months. There are enemies of Democracy in Iraq and the Iraqi's are going to have to kill them.

You will still be explaining why your strategy of kicking as hard as possible is the only rational and assured way to get out of quicksand, even as your head goes under.

Bottom line, Kerry served in Vietnam. Regardless of what he did afterwards, I'm not about to take that away from him.

It will remain baffling why he felt he had to embellish his experiences and make them so important to his candidacy. Liberals are afraid they are so weak on defense they need to nominate soldiers and then obsess on that service. It's nonsense on both counts.

Kerry lost because he turned himself into Al Gore with his stream of exaggerations.

You will still be explaining why your strategy of kicking as hard as possible is the only rational and assured way to get out of quicksand, even as your head goes under.

It's not 'my' strategy. It's not American strategy. It's Iraqi's strategy. This isn't Americans fighting Arabs. This is Arabs fighting Arabs. We are not in quicksand and our way out is the same it's always been. They have their democracy complete with elections and laws. We are training their security offices and helping patrol until they get fully trained and we are near the end of that process.

rdw: Exactly as we've been talking about for months.

Um, no, if you'll recall "your side" predicted that Iraq would be a "cakewalk" and that we'd be out in six months with flowers and candy, etc, etc.

Our side was the one with the brains to predict the sectarian violence prior to the war -- which, by the way, is not the same thing as aninsurgency...you stupid fucking moron.

Shi'ites -- you know the guys we supposedly liberated? -- are pulling people off of buses and shooting them in the head JUST BECAUSE THEY'RE SUNNI -- not because they're terrorists, you inbred mental midget.

That's a CIVIL WAR, NOT an insurgency. That means everbody's a bad guy. Meanwhile, back at the Kurdish ranch, Turkey is massing troops on the border to invade to fight the Kurdish "terrorists."

Yes, it's all going so swimmingly.

And as we "train the Iraqi forces to defend themselves" THE VIOLENCE JUST GETS WORSE -- BECAUSE THE IRAQI TROOPS' FIRST LOYALTY IS TO THEIR OWN CLANS AND RELIGIOUS SECT -- NOT to the government.

Oh, and by the way -- how will the ragtag Iraqi Army defend themselves against (the alleged terrorist threat that is really sectarian violence) when the greatest fighting force on the face of the planet hasn't been able to defend them?!?

Also, the Shi'ite PRESIDENT of Iraq and the entire fucking parliament IS ON THE SIDE OF HEZBOLLAH -- you utter fucking dipshit.

Oh, and they're good buds with Iran too. So much so that pro-Iranian populace in Basra has turned against the British troops there, when formerly they were friendly with them.

Speaking of Turkey, I've known farm-raised turkeys who could outthink your sorry ass, and who sure as shit have a better handle on the Iraq situation than you do.

brooksfoe
But that's because I'm in Vietnam

Now? Live there?

why rsm ... are you going to call her a gook? you seem fairly comfortable with "raghead."

nads
that ... and his multiple references to arabs as ragheads.

Liar

To be fair, RSM only called Hezbollah "raghead terrorists."

Our side was the one with the brains to predict the sectarian violence prior to the war -- which, by the way, is not the same thing as aninsurgency...you stupid fucking moron.

So that's why the Democrats in both houses of Congress gave GWB overwhelming support for both Afghanistan and IrAQ.

I've known farm-raised turkeys who could outthink your sorry ass

What must it be like to get up each morning and realize ny guy is your President. My guy is the Senate majority leader. My guy is the speaker of the house and two of my guys have just been appointed to lifelong terms on the Supreme court?

Maybe turkeys can outthink my ass. As long as GWB continues to outsmart yours I am OK with that.

What must it be like to get up each morning and...[wank wank, jerk jerk]

I'll take your weak attempts at diversion as acknowledgment that the facts I presented about the situation in Iraq are self-evident, and that you and I are both in agreement that you don't have the first fucking clue of what you're talking about.

You're just a mouthpiece, not an analyst. And to the extent that fancy yourself an analyst -- you suck at it.

Bush didn't fool me, and he didn't outsmart me and he didn't really outsmart his Democratic opponents. He was just able to manipulate the flow of information about the war from the Pentagon and State Department, mischaracterizing the reality of facts on the ground (we call that lying), and playing on the fears of Americans.

Which is pretty much what all dictators and petty tyrants do to stay in power, so he's in excellent company. It's what the Soviet Union did, it's what Castro does, it's what the governments in Eastern Europe did.

And it's what Bush does.

And people have finally seen through it, which is why his approval numbers are so abysmal and even Republicans are running from him when the cameras are on.

Trashhauler:

>> Accept the de-facto partitioning of Iraq (the Iraqi
>> flag is forbidden to be flown in Kurdistan, the Sunnis
>> consider the Shi'ite ISF an invasion when they try to
>> police Anbar, and the Shi'ite south is already a quasi-
>> theocracy backed up by their militias). Reposition the
>> bulk of our forces into friendly Kurdistan. Keep a watch
>> out for any al Qaeda inspired or directed attempts to
>> build and train a terrorist force to export global jihad.

> I'm not certain the de facto partitioning of Iraq is as complete
> as all that. But, even if it is, it is not yet a de jure
> partitioning. Being a diplomat, Mr. Galbraith understands
> the unlikelihood of the as yet standing government of Iraq
> giving us permission to internally redeploy to only one segment
> of the country. Or should we just declare Kurdistan independent
> and set up another government we'd be accused of controlling?

Well first, understand that I'm not saying this with any degree of
relish; I've argued against fellow antiwarriors who've advocated the
partitioning of Iraq as a facile solution. It would mean giving up
on the dream of federated Iraqi democracy. Galbraith, however, is not
an armchair observer; he's a diplomat with on-the-ground experience in
Croatia and Kurdistan. He is talking about "facts on the ground" that
most US observers don't see. Sadly enough, Kurdistan already *is*
partitioned. There is no continuing dialogue on the constitution,
Kirkuk has already been substantially counter-cleansed of the Arabs
Saddam induced/forced to settle there. That they don't allow the Iraqi
flag, that there is a deep (and in many ways justifed) hatred of Arabs
among the Kurds, should be enough to clue us into their independence.

> Redeploying to Kurdistan would present its own problems, of course.
> No seaport, few airports, and a land line of communication through
> a not-disinterested Turkey. No telling what Turkey would allow
> or if they would continue to permit us to support troops through
> Incirlik AB. It's likely that a large deployment to Kurdistan
> would be unsustainable in military terms.

Well, there's already a substantial logistical challenge hauling
our gear from the southern port up through the Shi'ite areas and
the Triangle of Death to Baghdad (that's why we rely so much on
airlifts to the Baghdad Airport) -- a logistical challenge that
could get much worse if Moktada and other Shi'ite militias decide
to go mental on us for our support of Israel in the destruction
of Shi'ite Lebanon. As for Turkey -- I think they could be
pitched to welcome it. The Turks are already having problems with
Kurdish incursions into their country that the Turks are calling
terrorist actions. We could be an arbiter between the sovereign
nation of Turkey and Kurdistan much more effectively than we are
right now between the Shia and the Sunnis in a single country.
We share all kinds of intelligence with and provide military aid
to the Turks, having been staunch allies through the Cold War.

It would be a quarrel between two strong allies, both with reasons
to trust the US much more strongly than the Shia and Sunnis.

> But, assuming it was and we did, where would that
> get us? If, as everyone says, the rest of Iraq
> erupts into an open, tripartite civil war,

Not tripartite; Kurds want nothing to do with the rest of Iraq.

> then what do we do when the legally constituted government
> asks for our assistance? What if the Sunnis need rescuing
> from genocide? Would we support the Kurds in their desire
> to control the oil fields around Kirkuk?

This would, of course, be preconditioned on recognizing that Kirkuk
is already in Kurdish control. While an oil deal to share the wealth
might be brokered in exchange for something -- it would be likely
that they would essentially claim the oil rights by force majeur.

> It's those next steps that go unanswered by Mr. Galbraith.

Well, it entails recognizing a tragic situation and, to a great
extent, abandoning the government we tried to foster in the name
of putting our national security first. Did you catch any of the
hearings on Capitol Hill today with Abizaid, Pace and Rumsfeld?
None of these guys are optimistic, and all say that sectarian
tensions especially in Baghdad are at an all-time high. Right
now, we're trying a massive police action in Baghdad to try to
defuse the situation. If that prangs -- if our soldiers begin
dying in larger numbers, if it turns out that McCain is right and
we've only played "whack-a-mole" as the instigators move elsewhre
and the sectarian killings continue at the same ungodly rate in
different locations -- then we may have to contemplate this choice.

The security operation in Bagdhad with a greatly enhanced US troop
presence on the streets is really the last hope to calm this ...

And, given past experience, the odds of it working aren't great.

> And where does that leave us with regard to the region as a whole?
> We still owe Kuwait and the smaller gulf states protection.

We still have a humungous air and naval in Qatar, as you'll recall,
as well as the base in Kuwait which serves as an Iraq staging area.

> We pulled out of Saudi Arabia because they wouldn't support our
> Afghanistan effort and because our presence there was supposedly
> a primary source of radicalism.

I don't believe GWB did that as a response to bin Laden at
all, but rather as per request of the Saudis themselves.

> What happens if the Persians intervene "on behalf of their
> co-religionists" despite not having been asked? Do we just
> watch it happen from Kurdistan?

Persians are not Arabs, and the religious alliance only has so
much counterweight on the historical emnity between these two
countries. It's much more likely that the Sunnis would need an
intervention on their behalf if the Shia continue to attempt to
cleanse and massacre them. We can certainly provide support to
them with rapid reaction forces and air support from Kurdistan;
it's not like our presence throughout the country is keeping the
Sunnis from being victims of horrendous death squad killings as
it is. Much more important is keeping an eye out for terrorist
agitation and the creation of cells dedicated to revenge against
us and our coalition partners. That we can do from Kurdistan,
with intelligence and contacts we've cultivated throughout Iraq.

> Redeployment to Kurdistan has a certain appeal of clarity
> in a very complicated situation, but it's not a place from
> which anything much can be influenced elsewhere in the region.
> It sure wouldn't do much to stop the next big brouhaha.

Well, I'd have to disagree with this. It's predicated, first and
foremonst, on the realization that the Kurds, Shia and Sunnis all
have radically different visions for how they'd like to be governed,
and an understanding that we can't inculcate pluralist and democratic
values at the point of a gun. It will be tragic for humanity and
civiliation if place like Baghdad and Mosul, which have lived with
mixed populations for generations, have to give up the secuarized
tolerance that Saddam's iron fist ironically enough helped them to
cultivate. But it may be that the conservative religious forces
of both Shia and Sunni are more passionate -- and their religious
law traditions cannot be merged. Iraq was an artificial creation
to begin with, and it may be that the Western forces that created
it with the stroke of a pen after WW1 are simply not capable of
keeping it from its tribal, sectarian and regionalist aspirations.

As for our own national security -- that's why I'm not advocating
a pullout, but rather a redeployment. It's hard indeed to argue
that having so many of our forces hunkered down Iraqi bunkers does
much to prevent "the next big brouhaha" in that configuration.

Kurdistan gives us breathing room among a pro-US population.
We can concentrate more on intelligence than force protection.

Bob

What is it about Iraq and terrorism that makes Kevin stupid? Maybe 1% of America have some vague knowledge of who Broder is. How does that compare in any way to the noteriety of Cronkite?

By the way, regardless of whether Cronkite was right or wrong on his judgment about getting out of Vietnam (I think objectively he was clearly wrong about the result of the Tet offensive), wasn't it a ridiculous moment in history for a news reader (concealing his liberal politics) being in a position to have such an effect on America?

Thankfully, it could never happen today. I just don't think Katie Couric's opinon is going to influence America regarding the war on terror.

brian:

*Your* opinion on the so-called GWoT is influenced by NewsMax and NRO.

I think history will take Cronkite over the utterly partisan and immorally bloodthirsty crew you take your cues from.

Bob

Bob,

NRO does not conceal its politics. It openly debates ideas. I don't even know who NewsMax is.

Cronkite concealed his politics, reported "facts", and took advantage of his alleged objectivity to exercise influence. You and I probably agree that he was sincere and well intentioned.

But at this point it matters little if you think Cronkite was right or even great. My point is that we are long past the point of a Cronkite exercising such influence and we are better for it.

RDW: We are training their security offices and helping patrol until they get fully trained and we are near the end of that process.

"We?" Have you enlisted, do you have a tapeworm, or do you merely consider yourself royalty?

How much has it cost the US taxpayers for each of the "trainees" who have been nearing the end of the process for three years now?

How much has it cost the US taxpayers for each of the "trainees" who have been nearing the end of the process for three years now?

They're not nearing the end of their training yet:

WASHINGTON -- The Pentagon has stopped releasing its assessment of the number of Iraqi army units deemed capable of battling insurgents without U.S. military help.

U.S. officials had been releasing a tally every three months of Iraqi military units that were sufficiently trained to operate by themselves, without the aid of U.S. firepower, logistics or transportation.

The decision to stop making the information public came after reports showed a steady decline in the number of qualified Iraqi units.That number now is classified, said Air Force Lt. Gen. Victor Renuart, director of strategic plans and policy for the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

The fielding of independent Iraqi units, which will eventually take over from the 130,000 or so U.S. service members in Iraq, is a critical indicator of when U.S. forces can begin to pull out. President George W. Bush has said that U.S. forces will hand off increasing responsibility to the Iraqis "as more capable Iraqi police and soldiers come online."

Last June, the Pentagon said three Iraqi battalions were ready to fight by themselves. By last fall, that number had dropped to one. By February, that number had fallen to zero, meaning there were no Iraqi units capable of taking on the insurgency without help.

brian:

You're wrong.

We are decidedly not better for it.

Bob

china bronze statues - china bronze statues, China Market Research - China Market Research, China Marketing Research - China Marketing Research, CS视频 - CS视频, Google排名 - Google排名, GPS - GPS, GPS - GPS, LED灯 - LED灯, Pacs系统 - Pacs系统, PANTONE色卡 - PANTONE色卡, VI设计 - VI设计, WOW gold - WOW gold, 安徽企业名录 - 安徽企业名录, 安捷伦 - 安捷伦, 安利 - 安利, 安利 - 安利, 白小姐 - 白小姐, 白小姐 - 白小姐, 白小姐 - 白小姐, 搬场 - 搬场, 搬场 - 搬场, 搬场 - 搬场, 搬场 - 搬场, 搬场 - 搬场, 搬场 - 搬场, 搬场 - 搬场, 搬场 - 搬场, 搬场公司 - 搬场公司, 搬场公司 - 搬场公司, 搬场公司 - 搬场公司, 搬家 - 搬家, 搬家 - 搬家, 搬家 - 搬家, 搬家 - 搬家, 搬家 - 搬家, 办公用品 - 办公用品, 办公用品 - 办公用品, 包装设计 - 包装设计, 包装设计 - 包装设计, 保险箱 - 保险箱, 北京企业名录 - 北京企业名录, 笔记本租赁 - 笔记本租赁, 变压器 - 变压器, 标记机/打标机 - 标记机/打标机, 标签打印机 - 标签打印机, 标签打印机 - 标签打印机, 标签机 - 标签机, 标志设计 - 标志设计, 标准件/紧固件 - 标准件/紧固件, 波纹管 - 波纹管, 玻璃钢餐桌椅 - 玻璃钢餐桌椅, 玻璃瓶厂 - 玻璃瓶厂, 不锈钢水箱 - 不锈钢水箱, 不锈钢台面 - 不锈钢台面, 不锈箱水箱 - 不锈箱水箱, 步进电机 - 步进电机, 彩钢板 - 彩钢板, 彩票 - 彩票, 餐饮管理系统 - 餐饮管理系统, 餐饮管理系统 - 餐饮管理系统, 餐饮管理系统 - 餐饮管理系统, 餐饮管理系统 - 餐饮管理系统, 餐饮软件 - 餐饮软件, 餐饮软件 - 餐饮软件, 餐饮软件 - 餐饮软件, 餐饮软件 - 餐饮软件, 藏獒 - 藏獒, 叉车 - 叉车, 差压开关/差压表/差压变送器 - 差压开关/差压表/差压变送器, 缠绕机/包装机械 - 缠绕机/包装机械, 肠衣 - 肠衣, 肠衣 - 肠衣, 厂房 - 厂房, 厂房 - 厂房, 超高压泵/气动液压泵/气体增压器 - 超高压泵/气动液压泵/气体增压器, 超声波 - 超声波, 超声波清洗机 - 超声波清洗机, 陈安之 - 陈安之, 陈安之 - 陈安之, 成功学 - 成功学, 成功学 - 成功学, 冲压件/拉伸件 - 冲压件/拉伸件, 抽脂 - 抽脂, 出境旅游 - 出境旅游, 除尘带 - 除尘带, 除湿机 - 除湿机, 除铁器/金属探测仪 - 除铁器/金属探测仪, 除皱 - 除皱, 触点 - 触点, 传动机械 - 传动机械, 传奇私服 - 传奇私服, 传奇私服网 - 传奇私服网, 磁力泵 - 磁力泵, 磁力泵 - 磁力泵, 磁力钻 - 磁力钻, 打包带 - 打包带, 打折机票 - 打折机票, 打折机票 - 打折机票, 打折机票 - 打折机票, 打折机票 - 打折机票,

To be fair, RSM only called Hezbollah "raghead terrorists."

Would he have called the Stern Gang "kike terrorists"? Would he have called the Black Panthers "nigger terrorists"? Would he have called the Red Brigades "dago terrorists"? Would he have called the VC "gook terrorists"? The "raghead" was clearly Red State Mike's slur on their ethnicity/religion and nothing else. Unless you believe that phrases like those I wrote above are acceptable (and if you do, well....) then you must also accept that the use of "raghead" to describe Muslim Arabs, no matter what else they may be, is merely the mark of a small ignorant bigot.

Or Mel Gibson. Same thing, really.

What must it be like to get up each morning and realize ny guy is your President. My guy is the Senate majority leader. My guy is the speaker of the house and two of my guys have just been appointed to lifelong terms on the Supreme court? Maybe turkeys can outthink my ass. As long as GWB continues to outsmart yours I am OK with that.

What must it be like to get up each morning and realize ny guy is your Fuehrer. My guy Himmler is the Reichsfuehrer-SS. My guy Goebbels is the Minister of Propaganda and my guy Goering is the Reichsmarschall? Maybe turkeys can outthink my ass. As long as Adolf Hitler continues to outsmart yours I am OK with that.

The names change, but the cheap cowardly bully-boys who grovel before power stay the same....

Bof,

I don't see how you cannot agree that we are better off without a single newsreader, pretending to be objective, exercising such influence. The free flow of ideas and argument in the media is much better for us.

Unless you believe that phrases like those I wrote above are acceptable (and if you do, well....) then you must also accept that the use of "raghead" to describe Muslim Arabs, no matter what else they may be, is merely the mark of a small ignorant bigot.
Or Mel Gibson. Same thing, really.
Posted by: Stefan

It also negates any real sort of discourse with him ... he clearly isn't worth it. Would you debate with the people at stormfront? rsm has defined himself with his own words ... we don't owe him the civility of debate.

brian:

I've been over this with you before in a long series of threads.

You're not pushing diversity of opinion -- you're pushing the radical relativist assumption that there's no such thing as objective truth.

Our political culture was a helluva lot healthier in the mid-60s -- on that there is no dispute. There was likewise a strong left and a strong right -- but there was also a healthy center in both parties. The traditions of citizenship were a lot stronger by a whole slew of measures. There was a popular movement to end racial segregation organized at the grassroots that permanently changed American culture for the good.

I'll take that time frame with three networks and Uncle Walter (combined with a higher literacy level) than the poisoned partisan discourse that passes for "diversity of opinion" today.

Bob

The free flow of ideas and argument in the media is much better for us.
Posted by: brian

which is why ignorant dipshits watching Fox continue to believe, 3 yrs after the fact, that saddam had wmds and that we found them.

this worship of "free flow of ideas" implies equal worth to these ideas ... this isn't true. the truth, that is to say verifiable data supported by evidence, especially in recent history, has a clearly "liberal" bias.

It is more worthy that people have these actual facts than listen to some supposedly nuanced and "equal" propaganda. It is in conservatives' interest to keep the public this misinformed and ignorant. It works for you. Thinking people, given all the facts, would abhor you and your policies.

Nads:

Just in the interest of fairness, Red State Mike is in no way like the anti-semitic trolls who've been infesting this site lately.

Yeah, "ragheads" is egregious even when directed "strictly" at "terrorists" -- but Mike's no StormWatchTrooper, either.

We already have *real* StormWatchTroopers poisoning our threads. Truthfully, I wouldn't even describe RSM as much of a troll.

I've always managed to have civil convos with him, and often enough, wind up finding points of agreement with him.

That doesn't excuse the "raghead" rhetoric, of course. I only aim to put it in context.

Bob

rmck1 ... to be fair, I am being (admittedly) a little pissy about this. casual racism does that to me.

what have we come to that we find ourselves debating the merits of torture, extraordinary rendition, and justifying pre-emptive war and genocide? is this really what red-state values have come to represent?

a significant basis for these policies stems from exactly this sort of soft, casual, everyday racism. many other dipshits like rsm grew up using words like "raghead" and "nigger" until they learned that it was only acceptable in certain company. unfortunately, 9/11 was seen as an excuse to return to this level of conversation in more public discourse.

how else to explain the proliferation of malkins, coulters, and savages?

I don't accept it when my conservative friends and acquaintances that I've known for 10 yrs let shit like this slip ... what makes rsm special?

that's my context.

Nads:

I fully respect that.

The demonization of Muslims (and -- shit -- Sikhs, just beacuse they, you know, wear turbans) official and otherwise depresses me to no end.

I used to know an Iranian guy -- we met during a local political campaign -- who was studying at the Institute of Urban Planning at the state university in my area. A really cool guy (Canadian citizen, studying the influence of early think tanks on the Progressive movement at the turn of last century). He turned me on to Ben Barber, he used to rant at what a sellout Fouad Adjami is. We spent hours together sitting outside the local Starbucks chewing the fat over politics, Mideast and otherwise.

I haven't seen him in three years. Out of the clear blue sky, in the middle of his program -- he vanished.

Well, shit -- an ethnic Iranian in Urban Planning -- what do you expect?

Just like Mohammed Atta.

Fucking assholes run this country.

Bob

A format that's digestible now thats interesting.

Back on the thread's initial topic, guys: never mind losing David Broder. Today, the administration lost Tom Friedman.

Would he have called the Stern Gang "kike terrorists"? Would he have called the Black Panthers "nigger terrorists"? Would he have called the Red Brigades "dago terrorists"? Would he have called the VC "gook terrorists"?

No. None of those have entered the lexicon.

The "raghead" was clearly Red State Mike's slur on their ethnicity/religion and nothing else.

No

Unless you believe that phrases like those I wrote above are acceptable (and if you do, well....)

False dilemma. Last I checked, Blacks, Jews, Italians, and VC don't have a many, many year image of terrorism that has been ingrained into our psyche through scenes like Munich Olympics or as a caricature in the stand-in bad guys in Hollywood action movies.

then you must also accept that the use of "raghead" to describe Muslim Arabs, no matter what else they may be, is merely the mark of a small ignorant bigot.

You think I'm a bigot? Ask me, I'll tell you if I am. Do not presume to know that which you cannot see.

Here's what I wrote to start this kerfuffle. Illl interpret it so you aren't blinded by the glare of "raghead terrorist". Either Hezbollah is a state actor with all the responsibilities that that entails, or they are just living down the image that the phrase "raghead terrorist" puts into your head. That was my intent, it was what I did, and for you to continue to say otherwise should be beneath you.

Either Hezbollah is a state actor, in which case I guess if Lebanon was at war with Israel and Hezbollah was an arm of the Lebanese military you could call it capture, in which case Israel can take the war to all of Lebanon. Or Hezbollah is just a bunch of raghead terrorists who want Israel destroyed and act in manner to bring it about, in which case it is "kidnap" and I hope the perps all die a painful death.

Stefan, I'm not done. Let me ask you a question. If I had been called a nigger or a kike or a polack (which I am) or a gook, etc., on this forum, would you have taken offense? I assume by your sensitivity to my use of "raghead terrorist" you would have.

Would you have?

I ask, because I've been called far, far worse on this blog. I've been called baby killer too many times to count. Called Headchopper Mike repeatedly. Accused over and over of crimes against humanity. Really, too many horrific dehumanizing ad hominems to count.

My take it on it? It comes with the turf. This is how people behave on this blog, from before I showed up until after I'm gone. There are no rules here. Want to accuse Mike of purposely killing women and children? Have it at. Pile on.

And you for you just stand by and watch and not say a thing against that (hell, you accused me of casually killing civilians in a thread yesterday) and then pretend to get all upset over "raghead terrorist" makes you a big fucking hypocrite in my book.

Mike, this isn't difficult. Stay with us.

Your use of the term "raghead" was entirely gratuitous and intended only as a slur. You could have made your point by simply calling them "terrorists," which focuses on what they do, not on what their religious/ethnic background is.

And the difference between what people do and their race, religion or ethnicity is what makes your analogy completely false. You've taken some serious insults on this blog, for sure, but all of them have been related to some people's perceptions of the actions you chose--not of your accidents of birth.

See the difference? If you want to call people out of line for some of these barbs you've taken, go to town; you've got solid ground to stand on, in my opinion. But don't bother us with the false equivalencies.

Had you been called a nigger, kike, or anything else related to your race, ethnicity or religion, do you have any reason to think we wouldn't have jumped in to cry foul on that stuff, just as we have when it's happened to anyone else here? I haven't seen any of that crap go unchallenged...why don't you show us the instances in which it has been?

You would do far better to simply acknowledge that you lost your temper and used a slur--and that it was wrong. Your continued attempts to justify it through increasingly farfetched explanations and finger pointing just make you look like more of a bigot than you probably are.

No. None of those have entered the lexicon.

The lexicon? What lexicon is that, the lexicon of acceptable ethnic slurs?

No

Yes. You called them "ragheads" to refer to their race (Arab) and their religion (Muslim). Do you use that term to refer to anyone other than Muslim Arabs?

False dilemma.

False dilemma? What?

Last I checked, Blacks, Jews, Italians, and VC don't have a many, many year image of terrorism that has been ingrained into our psyche through scenes like Munich Olympics or as a caricature in the stand-in bad guys in Hollywood action movies.

Ah, so the defense is that precisely because Arabs have been the victim of brutal stereotyping in American culture as terrorists that it's therefore Ok to refer to them as ragheads. If you don't like the above analogies, we also have a many, many year image in America of Italians as Mafia gangsters, of African-Americans as violent criminals, and of Jews as greedy misers -- so it it ok to use terms like, say "guinea gangsters" or "nigger gangbangers" or "kike shylocks"?

You think I'm a bigot? Ask me, I'll tell you if I am. Do not presume to know that which you cannot see.

I don't need to ask. Your words stand for themselves. I can see your words quite plainly.

Bush didn't fool me, and he didn't outsmart me and he didn't really outsmart his Democratic opponents.

GWB wasn't paying ay attention to you. He absolutely outsmarted his Democratic opponents in 2000 and 2004 and for most of his politial career. Look at Roberts and Alito. They don't get more conservative than those two.

Stefan, I'm not done. Let me ask you a question. If I had been called a nigger or a kike or a polack (which I am) or a gook, etc., on this forum, would you have taken offense? I assume by your sensitivity to my use of "raghead terrorist" you would have. Would you have?

Absolutely, and I've done it before when others have been treated so.

I ask, because I've been called far, far worse on this blog. I've been called baby killer too many times to count. Called Headchopper Mike repeatedly. Accused over and over of crimes against humanity. Really, too many horrific dehumanizing ad hominems to count.

And you for you just stand by and watch and not say a thing against that (hell, you accused me of casually killing civilians in a thread yesterday) and then pretend to get all upset over "raghead terrorist" makes you a big fucking hypocrite in my book.

What, you don't enjoy malicious slanders? Don't think they're funny? Don't think you need to get "a better sense of humor" about being called a murderer, as you yourself demanded we get a better sense of humor above? You seemed to get quite a girlish glee out of baseless libels when you made them against John Kerry. Which, in my book, makes you a big fucking hypocrite.

And you for you just stand by and watch and not say a thing against that (hell, you accused me of casually killing civilians in a thread yesterday) and then pretend to get all upset over "raghead terrorist" makes you a big fucking hypocrite in my book.

You've been called names based on what you do and the things you say -- that is, the actions you yourself undertake and for which you have control of and responsibility for. Those terms are addressed to you as an individual.

"Raghead," on the other hand, is purely a term of ethnic and religious abuse -- it dehumanizes those you are caling so, as all such slurs to. It's not criticizing Hezbollah for what they do -- terrorism -- but for what they are -- Muslim Arabs. For their identity given to them by their group, for the accident of their birth.

I'll take that time frame with three networks and Uncle Walter (combined with a higher literacy level) than the poisoned partisan discourse that passes for "diversity of opinion" today.

Too bad because you'll never see it again. That era will be remembered as being the start of TV and little else. Chronkite will be a historical non-entity. As the self-absorbed generation of Vietnam Vets dies off that war simply won't be remembered any more than the Korean War which most Vietnam Era citizens are only vaguely aware of. The only reason Cronkite is remembered today is his false call on the Tet offensive AND the JFK assassination.

We are infinitely better off with Fox and Rush and the rest and it's incredible you'd suggest otherwise. You're one of those liberals who would insist book burning is a horrible crime of censorship except when Ann Coulter writes a book. News that fits you views is good. The rest is 'dangerous' and should be censored

I never tire of hearing libs bitch about Fox and Rush. It's music.

GWB wasn't paying ay attention to you. He absolutely outsmarted his Democratic opponents in 2000 and 2004 and for most of his politial career. Look at Roberts and Alito. They don't get more conservative than those two.

Adolf Hitler wasn't paying ay attention to you. He absolutely outsmarted his Social Democrat opponents in 1933 and for most of his political career. Look at Himmler and Goebbels. They don't get more conservative than those two.

It will be tragic for humanity and
civiliation if place like Baghdad and Mosul, which have lived with
mixed populations for generations, have to give up the secuarized
tolerance that Saddam's iron fist ironically enough helped them to
cultivate.

No denying you're a lib.

So what if he tortured and butchered millions. So what if the two boys were sadistic homicidal maniac's.

Bob, You've said some dumb things. Promoting Saddams 'secularized tolerance' is the dumbest. It's just one reason why Clooney needs to restore the term 'liberal'.

And people have finally seen through it, which is why his approval numbers are so abysmal and even Republicans are running from him when the cameras are on.

yup,

No denying you're a lib.

Find youself almost always a day late and a dollar short? Think you'll beat GWB in his next election? Go for it!!! You have him where you want him.

BTW: They're not running as far as you think. GWB and Cheney have raised more money for candidates already than in 2002 and 2004. The GOP has 4x's as much cash on hand as Dean and GWB is hardly breaking a sweat. Dean, Emanuel and Schummer are in the middle of a pissing contest wanting to know where the money went. Go Howard!

We are infinitely better off with Fox and Rush and the rest and it's incredible you'd suggest otherwise. You're one of those liberals who would insist book burning is a horrible crime of censorship except when Ann Coulter writes a book. News that fits you views is good. The rest is 'dangerous' and should be censored. I never tire of hearing libs bitch about Fox and Rush. It's music.

We are infinitely better off with Der Stuermer and Propaganda Minister Goebbels and the rest and it's incredible you'd suggest otherwise. You're one of those liberals who would insist book burning is a horrible crime of censorship except when Julius Streicher writes a book. News that fits you views is good. The rest is 'dangerous' and should be censored

I never tire of hearing libs bitch about Der Stuermer and Dr. Goebbels. It's music.

how else to explain the proliferation of malkins, coulters, and savages?

I don't accept it when my conservative friends and acquaintances that I've known for 10 yrs let shit like this slip

I fully respect that.

NADS, Bob

You are priceless. You are the perfect libs. Pat yourselves on the back for me for being so pure. Pat yourselves two more times for the preening condescension that makes you so valuable during elections, for Republicans. Americans just love people so full of themselves.

Hey, Don't get me wrong. I'm not blaming you for getting big egos. It's only human. You see all of these rascally republicans around you and your moral superiority is so clearly evident how could you not be condescending?

George Clooney wants to restore the term 'liberal' to it's former respectful status. He can't stand that even serious liberals are calling themselves progressives as a way of differenciating themselves from clowns like you two.

Shortstop
And the difference between what people do and their race, religion or ethnicity is what makes your analogy completely false. You've taken some serious insults on this blog, for sure, but all of them have been related to some people's perceptions of the actions you chose--not of your accidents of birth.

Stefan
You've been called names based on what you do and the things you say --

I've been called a babykiller and a headchopper and someone who casually kills civilians (including by you, Stefan) because of who I am (a member of the US military) not because I do any of them or have ever said I did any of them. Lord only knows the things I've been called because I lean conservative. Conservatard, anyone?

You're splitting hairs in your choice of which ad hominems are OK and which are verboten, and who gets to insult whom.

Absolutely, and I've done it before when others have been treated so.

I can't imagine anything anybody would ever say about me on this site that would ever cause me to believe you'd rise to my defense. Ever. Suggesting that I casually kill women and children is about as bad as it could possibly get. I'm amazed you don't get that. Must be your bigoted understanding of your military. Those accusations are right up there with accusing someone of being a pedophile. Is that an analogy you can understand?

The other day Jay flippantly suggested he would kill you. Joke or not, I thought he crossed a line and said so.

I don't need to ask. Your words stand for themselves. I can see your words quite plainly.

The corrollary to that is you obviously do hate the US military, with your casual references to war crimes and suggesting I casually kill civilians, and your defense of those who make those accusations of me and my fellow military members. Your words are windows into your soul. As you put it, uour words stand for themselves. I can see your words quite plainly.

stefan,

The Nazi think doesn't work aside from highlighting your limited capacity. This is 2006 and GWB is in control after winning two elections over Democrats for the White House and increasing control of Congress.

This is why he's calling the shots in the Middle East and the appeasment movement has been stopped. His influence has been so wide not even the EU can agree to condemn Israel and demand an immediate cease fire. Jacques is alone. Gerhard is gone. Martin is gone. The Germans, Italians, Poles and Chechs wrote the last EU press release.

Liberals columnists are in heat and it doesn't matter even a little bit. No one in power, or near power listens to Broder or anyone else at the Washington Post or to Freidman or anyone at the New York Times. GWB was elected in 2000 after making sure the world knew he considered them assholes. Since then their readership has dropped 20%.

These guys don't matter.

Mike, you still don't get it. I know you're having trouble distinguishing between things we choose (careers in the military, Republicanism, molesting kids or defending child molesters) and things we're born to (ethnicity, race and [at least temporarily] religion). But you're not getting anywhere with your argument by continuing to conflate the two, as I pointed out and Stefan echoed.

This discussion isn't a general exploration of when it's acceptable to insult someone and who's being meaner, although you're frantically moving the goalposts to make it so. This discussion is about whether or not the term you used to describe Arab Muslims is bigoted. You claim it's not and hold up Hollywood stereotypes as "proof." You further claim that people were meaner to you than you ever were to Arab Muslims, as further "proof" that your words aren't reflective of prejudice. (Huh?) And you provide, in case anyone's still in doubt, the assurance that you'd let us know if you really were a bigot.

I'll say it again: If you want to make a case that some people's perceptions of your military service are unfair, go to it. I think you have grounds. But that's a separate conversation on a separate issue that has no bearing on the fact that you used an ethnic/racial slur and are trying nine different ways to get out of taking responsibility for it. Dude, just acknowledge it and apologize already. These contortions aren't fooling anyone but you--and again, they're reinforcing, not contesting, everyone's perceptions of your entrenched bigotry.

The demented brownshirt rdw wrote: GWB is in control after winning two elections over Democrats for the White House

George W. Bush is not in control of anything. George W. Bush is Dick Cheney's sock puppet. George W. Bush can barely control his own mouth to read scripts from a teleprompter.

George W. Bush became president in 2000, and retained the presidency in 2004, because the Republican Party stole the elections through deliberate fraud and the deliberate disenfranchisement of millions of voters.

The only way Republicans can win national elections is by lying, cheating and stealing.

You worship gangsters, thieves, liars and war criminals. That's what the Republican Party of today consists of.

You are a weak-minded, ignorant dupe, a brain-dead bootlicking brownshirt idolator of corruption and brutality.

shortstop
Mike, you still don't get it. I know you're having trouble distinguishing between things we choose (careers in the military, Republicanism, molesting kids or defending child molesters) and things we're born to (ethnicity, race and [at least temporarily] religion).

You're splitting hairs. The idea that someone can call me a babykiller here and it's OK, but call me a polack and it not be...you're right. I don't get it. That I would choose to serve in the military entitles me to be labeled a babykiller. I genuinely don't get it.

This discussion is about whether or not the term you used to describe Arab Muslims is bigoted.

Actually, no. It's more subtle than that. It's about whether my use of the term indicates that I am a bigot.

Dude, just acknowledge it and apologize already.

I did, in the same thread I said it. I'm still waiting for Stefan to apologize for suggesting I kill civilians casually, now that he knows how offensive it is to members of the military.

You're splitting hairs in your choice of which ad hominems are OK and which are verboten, and who gets to insult whom.

Yes, I am distinguishing between the two. Insults based on what a person does or says, OK on the basis that that person can defend his own words. Insults based on someone's ethnicity, not OK. It's fairly simple.

I can't imagine anything anybody would ever say about me on this site that would ever cause me to believe you'd rise to my defense. Ever.

Actually, this may be my memory at play but I believe I have risen to your defense before, arguing with others that you weren't a troll and claiming that your purpose here was not just to disrupt.

Suggesting that I casually kill women and children is about as bad as it could possibly get. I'm amazed you don't get that. Must be your bigoted understanding of your military. Those accusations are right up there with accusing someone of being a pedophile. Is that an analogy you can understand?

I'll just repost what I wrote above: What, you don't enjoy malicious slanders? Don't think they're funny? Don't think you need to get "a better sense of humor" about being called a murderer, as you yourself demanded we get a better sense of humor above? You seemed to get quite a girlish glee out of baseless libels when you made them against John Kerry. Which, in my book, makes you a big fucking hypocrite.

The other day Jay flippantly suggested he would kill you. Joke or not, I thought he crossed a line and said so.

Thanks very much. I appreciate that.

As to the rest of it, I'll just echo shortstop above, who put it better than I could.

I'm still waiting for Stefan to apologize for suggesting I kill civilians casually, now that he knows how offensive it is to members of the military.

And I'm still waiting for you to apologize for deliberately lying about Senator Kerry's service record, now that you know how offensive such accusations are to members of the military. We'll both have a long wait.

Stefan
Actually, this may be my memory at play but I believe I have risen to your defense before, arguing with others that you weren't a troll and claiming that your purpose here was not just to disrupt.

If you did (as have others), thanks.

I'll just repost what I wrote above: What, you don't enjoy malicious slanders?

Sure. Just let me know the ground rules. I'll repeat what I wrote above your post...

"My take it on it? It comes with the turf. This is how people behave on this blog, from before I showed up until after I'm gone. There are no rules here. Want to accuse Mike of purposely killing women and children? Have it at. Pile on."

In short, when in Rome...

It just seems kind of ludicrious to me that someone would acccuse me of being a pedophilic headchopping infant raping estate tax avoiding hummer driving scum sucking polack, and you would respond in my defense by saying, "Hey, watch it with the 'polack' insults".

The Nazi think doesn't work aside from highlighting your limited capacity. This is 2006 and GWB is in control after winning two elections over Democrats for the White House and increasing control of Congress. This is why he's calling the shots in the Middle East and the appeasment movement has been stopped. His influence has been so wide not even the EU can agree to condemn Israel and demand an immediate cease fire. Jacques is alone. Gerhard is gone. Martin is gone. The Germans, Italians, Poles and Chechs wrote the last EU press release.

The Nazi think doesn't work aside from highlighting your limited capacity. This is 1941 and Adolf Hitler is in control after winning an election over Social Democrats for the Chancellery and increasing control of the Reichstag.

This is why he's calling the shots in Europe and the liberalism movement has been stopped. His influence has been so wide not even America can agree to condemn Germany and demand an immediate cease fire. Winston is alone. Leon Blum is gone. Marshal Pilsudksi is gone. The Germans, Italians, and Vichy French wrote the last press release.

Stefan
And I'm still waiting for you to apologize for deliberately lying about Senator Kerry's service record, now that you know how offensive such accusations are to members of the military.

I am going to make a pledge. This will be my last post about John Kerry ever on this blog. Here's what I base my opinion of Kerry on...

1. His Winter Soldier testimony
2. The opinions of my peers in the military who fought in Vietnam. Not all of them feel so strongly, I've met plenty who voted for him, but the majority do have strong nagative opinions.
3. The opinions of the POWs who felt Kerry gave the North Vietnamese freely that which they were tortured for.
4. His "Christmas in Cambodia" lie

If there is any other accusation I have ever made outside these facts, I apologize right now here and forever for them, amd I won't make them again (unless I get accused of babykilling, in which case I'll be trolling with a #9 titanium hook with live bait).

(practicing) pedophilic = choice
headchopping = choice
infant raping = choice
estate tax avoiding = choice
hummer driving = choice
scum sucking = choice

polack = total accident of birth

Other than trying that one last time, I give up on you, Mike. You don't understand because you don't want to. Your need to avoid an unqualified, not-followed-by-rationalizing apology is greater than your desire for everyone to believe you're not a racial/ethnic bigot.

And that's a choice, too. Live with it.

It just seems kind of ludicrious to me that someone would acccuse me of being a pedophilic headchopping infant raping estate tax avoiding hummer driving scum sucking polack, and you would respond in my defense by saying, "Hey, watch it with the 'polack' insults".

I'll assume, perhaps incorrectly, that you're probably not a big fan of, say, the Reverend Al Sharpton. Think he's a con man and a crook. If someone accused Al Shartpon of being a hustling crooked con man nigger, wouldn't you say, "hey, watch it with the 'nigger' insults"?

You know, it's frighteningly easy to translate rdw's posts into the sort of diseased triumphalist crowing by Nazis who thought that they would always triumph that I've read in hundreds of histories of WWII Germany. Just goes to show how this sort of evil stays with us throughout time.

George W. Bush is not in control of anything

He IS in control of everything. George picked Cheney, Roberts, Alito, Bolton, Rummy, Rove, Rice, Powell, Snow, Snow and all of the Joint Chiefs.

He IS the guy who has been a prolific fund-raiser for Congressional elections thereby leading the GOP to it's strongest position in 80 years.

He IS the man.

Keep an eye on Stevens and Ginsburg. Both are in their last years and may not make it to the next President. If they don't look for another Roberts to be appointed and a conservtive lock for 35 years.

stefan,

Hundreds of histories? Ever occur to you this obsession is what leads you to believe every one who disagrees with you is a Nazi?

You need help. In the meantime remain where you are. You are an asset to the GOP.

Adolf Hitler IS in control of everything. Adolf picked Himmler, Goebbels, Goering, Heydrich, Speer, Bormann, Hans Frank, Ribbentrop, Frick, Kaltenbrunner, Rosenberg, Schirach, Streicher, and all of the General Staff.

Adolf Hitler IS the guy who has been a strong leader for Germany thereby leading the Nazi Party to it's strongest position in 20 years.

Adolf Hitler IS the man.

rdw, Ginsburg is 73, you idiot. Aren't you about the same age yourself?

Don't be so jelly of Stefan for having read hundreds of books on a single topic. That one book you read last year--Why Europe is Finito, and By the Way We're Closing Our Bases--was a fine start. Maybe this year you can read two books! Baby steps!

Don't be so jelly of Stefan for having read hundreds of books on a single topic.

I'm sure the very thought of reading books must make him more than a little uncomfortable.

shortstop
Other than trying that one last time, I give up on you, Mike.

I'll apologize for the use of the word "raghead".

Thanks, Mike. I'll apologize for use of the word "murderer" to describe you.

The demented Bush-bootlicking brownshirt rdw wrote: He IS in control of everything. George picked Cheney, Roberts, Alito, Bolton, Rummy, Rove, Rice, Powell, Snow, Snow and all of the Joint Chiefs.

Bush didn't "pick" any of those people, you weak-minded ignorant dupe.

Cheney's job in the Bush 2000 campaign was to pick a vice-presidential candidate. He picked himself. He then picked all the other people on that list.

The Republican Party loves ignorant fools like you. The term used is "useful idiot". That comes from Stalinist Russia. It is perfectly applicable to people like you today.

Thanks, Mike. Cheers.

rdw, Ginsburg is 73, you idiot. Aren't you about the same age yourself?

No kidding. Ruth has also had two bouts with cancer and has grown increasingly frail. She's been known to doze off during hearings and in the last term laid her head on the bench. I believe the last bout was colon cancer requiring heavy duty chemo at age 71. Ruth also has family considerations and was not expected to serve until incapacitated.

The Republican Party loves ignorant fools like you. The term used is "useful idiot". That comes from Stalinist Russia

The term comes from Lenin who was describing American liberals.

Yes, my party loves people like me. We vote. That's why we win.

Bush didn't "pick" any of those people, you weak-minded ignorant dupe.

Actually he picked all of them but it's not all that important. What is important is that they are there. What is important is they are running things. What is important is the adults are in charge.

Amen!