McCain is looking out the window at a monsoon and telling the public how dry it is betweeen the raindrops.

That is one of the most concise and artful comments I've read in a while. Good one.

LJ, I agree that photo-ops and political junkets are wrongful BS.

At the same time, I do not interpret McCain the way you do. You're focusing on McCain's statement in the immediate context, and not in the context that he must see himself in.

As you have admitted: the situation is dire. That is the reality now.

Now if you were trying to become CINC to change that, and believed you could, would you fantasize that the troops were not already there, engaged and in need of a way out that minimizes loss of life and redemption of the achievable objective on that exit? McCain and everyone else must deal with the 2y more of Bush in control. That must be factored in.

How detached would a McCain candidacy look which didn't visit Iraq? And, why would someone seeking a route of egress out of Iraq for the troops not believe that a surge might be the security that a successful withdrawal needs? Withdrawals can be dangerous situations when your forces are oceans away. Should McCain lob morale breaking headlines at the troops telling them how sorry their outlook is for the next two years under a president who is not going to withdraw? How's he going to get the nomination, much less assist with a salvage-operation success by doing that? Maybe he is dealing with reality more than you are willing to give him credit because of his party affiliation.

If McCain believes he can hammer out a specific, achievable objective for US troops, and he sees the surge as doubly useful for it, it could be that he is trying to make statements that create a reality of expected success rather than those that create an expectation of failure with respect to the orders the troops are carrying out right now on the ground, and which neither yours or his or anyone else's protestations are able to stop because none of us are the CINC.

He's got to operate from the situation on the ground from the time of his current candidacy to the time he believes he could be voted into office.

I just don't see McCain as a blind idiot who may be analogized to non-combat experienced people who have gotten us into this Iraq situation to begin with. I see him as someone who is trying to extricate the troops from that situation. If he is not, and he is a closet Neocon as you imply, then I will be corrected. However, if your voice and that of a busily partisan press is able to paint McCain in a light that doesn't represent his true intentions, I object.

As to the Surge: I think a surge is not a bad idea to better secure a withdrawal. I don't think it is a good idea in the context of neocon fantasy.

One thing McCain is familiar with: what the US press does CAN and DOES affect the troops' morale while they fight in foreign lands. I do not think that this fact in any way means that anyone has to censor themselves, however, I do think it recommends more specific offerings of practical ways to get out of Iraq with the best possible result, and that, regularly advocated until it is done. You have more cyber-realty than most people with which to contribute that. Saying McCain is crazy is not very useful, and I don't think it is true.

I don't see McCain as a blind idiot either. I see him as someone who wants to be President so badly that he sold his soul years ago. I see him as someone who supports the Bush "strategy" because he believes that the GOP powers that be will tap him as the nominee because he is the only one who stayed the course. More evidence of his dilusion -- the GOP has finished with George. Now they are in damage control.

I honestly don't think his loyalty is to the troops/ he just wants to be the Commander In Chief and he will do ANYTHING to get that.

Beyond that he has lost his gravitas; he talks as though he is medicated, and his inability to answer simple non-military questions is pathetic.

I don't think he is crazy; he is past his prime, and his judgement is terrible. He is done (thank heavens).

OK, on to Fred Thompson! I heard Buchanan saying he was really tough because of his role in "Hunt for Red October." This may get traction with the mentally challenged, but I hope we are ready for it:

Those of you who want a strong leader like the one Fred Thompson played in "Hunt for Red October" should go and get you appendix out by Marcus Welby a couple of days before the election!

John, how can you be so silly? Sean Connery is not an American citizen, so he can't be our president. But maybe Bruce Willis is available -- he really kicks ass!

Oh, or how about Harrison Ford? He actually played President, and he defeated a plane-load of terrorists! I don't know about you, but that is enough to get MY vote!

See how fun it is when you stoop to idiotic absurdities? I want Brad Pitt and Angelina to be my new parents -- they seem so nice, and that is real life! What say you?

Jan Knaus

You don't mean as a momma, do you?

OK, I'd take Jonny Depp even as a brother!

But you can have Sophia, sure -- why not?

WE better stop here!

Jan Knaus

SeeDee

Mike7Woodson...what fanciful, lengthy b/s...the 'surge' was in no way intended to facilitate withdrawal...it was to try to stem the Shi'a/Sunni violence IN BAGHDAD (primarily) to enable the lackey American-dominated Shi'ite PM to negotiate the 30-year give-away of Iraqi oil resources to Exxon-Mobil, BP, Halliburton, Shell, et al.

As for the absolutely dirty underhanded idea of putting troops at risk to stage this b/s, it is almost beyond maddening...especially when one's grandson is in the middle of the ongoing Bush miserable mission.

Hark back to Braggart Bush's sudden appearance in the Thanksgiving-day mess-hall in '03 toting the rubber turkey as indicative of his 'bravery' and concern for 'his' troops.

Makes one want to puke!

SeeDee

Yes, Mike7woodson...if the other 'visitors' required the same preparatory sweeps, the same level of protection, the same press coverage...you are damned right...I would be just as critical.

Of course, the lie to your entire argument in this case is the fact that the 'other' visitors were not actively engaged in an ANNOUNCED campaign for the Presidency.

I assume you can add 2 plus 2 and come up with 4 as an answer...No?

Jan,

Think nothing of it ...

I actually always thought Wavy Gravy would make a fine president ... A true Saint in clown suit!

He is in fact running as Nobody's Fool on the Nobody for President '08 ticket ...

ahem...

~OGD~

Fortunately, John McCain has no chance of becoming our next President, IMHO.

Tom

SeeDee

Appreciate your post, jackrussell, for the main reason that it adds to the case that is building in my mind over the past decade; The DOD, and especially the top echelon of brass, have ceased to realize that they are an instrument of this great Democracy... instead, they have gradually come to represent a class that yearns for riches through the 'revolving door' method, political clout for the massaging of monumental sized egos, a sense of belonging to a 'country-club' atmosphere reserved for the higher ranks...in short, the top brass have become syncophantic brown-nosers (the natural structure of ANY military) and substitute personal advancement for patriotism..

This, and the number of employed who depend on the maintenance of sometimes un-needed 'bases' throughout the world seem to be what guides our military today.

Whether REALLY needed or not, think how unpopular a candidate for office would be to advance such desirable reforms as closing superflous bases.

I think the American people are getting badly cheated by the sums spent to maintain and humor the top layer of the military from the C-I-C down through the top five rankings among the brass, and those 'contractors' who rake in the Trillions spent over the last few years for 'the military'.

He's got to operate from the situation on the ground from the time of his current candidacy to the time he believes he could be voted into office.

Mike, that was the situation in the photo op, not the situation on the ground. Larry is correct and McCain should have gone on a real "ride along," not a phony, pretense one.

The soldiers in Iraq know the difference between a photo op and the situation on the ground. What McCain staged does nothing for their morale, but a whole lot for the morale of the surge boosters and those likely to vote for one.

War does not determine who is right - only who is left. Bertrand Russell

You misunderstand me. That was my view of what the surge should be used for, and, I am not entirely sure that would not be going through McCain's mind, especially considering Tet.

I'm sorry you have a grandson at risk -- may he come home safely and soon.

What clear, specific, measurable objective could find it's way into the vacuum of the current foreign fallacy to get that done?

I'll take George Clooney.

War does not determine who is right - only who is left. Bertrand Russell

McCain was a great man, once. When he was held as a POW, he was offered a chance to go home. But he knew that the Viet Cong wanted some propaganda out of it (McCain's father was a Navy admiral in charge of the theatre at that time), so he refused and remained a POW.

After the war, McCain went back and visited Vietnam. He made peace with the Vietnamese people and he found some kind of redemption in his own heart.

In Congress, he was a conservative, but a genuine one. He fought pork barrel spending in his own party as much as with the opposition. He fought for the tobacco settlement, he fought against the Telecommunications Act of 1996. He fought against media mergers and for campaign finance reform.

He ran a fair and honest campaign in 2000 and got slimed by Bush in the crookedest primary campaign in history: phone calls in S. Carolina accusing him of having an out of wedlock black baby, phone calls in New York accusing him of opposing breast cancer research, and Bush sat and listened while some old geezer got behind a lecturn and said the McCain had been brainwashed by the Vietnamese.

The person now occupying John McCain's body is someone I don't recognize. He is either completely dishonest or completely delusional, as Larry has pointed out. He has betrayed most of his nobler impulses and pandered to the intolerant in hope of their support. He has become what he hated most. I don't know why.

In the end, it will do him no good. Conservatives learned to not like him and they are incapable of changing their minds (witness the fact that 33% still consider Bush a great President). Meanwhile, the Bush family is throwing it's support and corporate money behind Mitt Romney. Wasn't it interesting that he led the Republican field in fundraising?

Each day that remains in his life, McCain will have to look at hiself in the mirror. He kept his honor as a POW, but he has lost it somewhere now. How sad.

What's tragic for McCain is that if he had really embodied the straight talk express independent maverick, he would probably walk away with this election.

As an Arizonan, I am profoundly ashamed that this guy represents me in the Senate.

I hope he has the smarts to hang it up after his current term expires in 2010.

Fuck McCain. The sanctimonious prick voted to impeach President Clinton. McCain is just another GOP scumbag who thought it was a fucking hilarious idea to have Senator Alphonse D'Amato, one of the most crooked senators in American history, investigate the president for six fucking years.

That fucking little weasel, Louie Freeh, knew D'Amato was a silent partner in one of Carl Lizza's companies but Freeh covered it up.

Everyone on Long Island knew about D'Amato's rigged stock trades with Stratton Oakmont because Newsday told them about it.
But the Washington press corps didn't give a flying fuck about D'Amato's illegal trading. It would have spoiled everyone's fun if the press had pointed out the GOP's hypocrisy.

McCain and the rest of the GOP scum thought the Clinton investigation was one big fucking hilarious joke but the rest of us outside of the Beltway didn't and the Washington press corps never understood that.

J. McCutchen

McCain's PTSD Can Be Hazardous to Your Health

(Cole)

Remember that Baghdad market visited on Sunday by Senator John McCain to show how calm things are? James Hider of the London Times writes, , "21 Shia market workers were ambushed, bound and shot dead north of the capital. The victims came from the Baghdad market [Shurja] visited the previous day by John McCain, the US presidential candidate, who said that an American security plan in the capital was starting to show signs of progress."

McCain gave in to the presidential aspirations monkey on his back in 2004.  In March he was clamoring for an Independent Investigation on the Administration's use/misuse of pre war Iraq intelligence, replete with subpoena power. Bush picked him to sit on the Silberman/Robb Investigation Commission, and the talk of subpoena power magically disappeared.  Just after the 2004 presidential election, McCain was applauding the DeGossing political purge of pro Kerry veteran CIA employees. 

He even weaseled on his own anti-torture amendment with his support for the 2006 Military Commissions Act, and the Congressional assent to the Bush Administration's theft of habeas corpus. 

Still, y'all ought to think carefully about any crazy Vietnam vet referencing, as it can and will be used against your Party at many unspecified dates in the future. Why do you stumble into their clutches for nothing more than a tawdry bit of humour?

Re Your point on McCain's flip flopping: flip-flopping seems to be a specialty of most politicians.

GW Bush was big on not flip-flopping and used that fact to beat and rebeat Kerry. Now you have a president who really sticks to the guns and seldom flip-flops, for the most part.

Apparent human errors in debate flip-flopping might conceal a hidden or deeper unity of thought that the debate and soundbyte format don't allow one to explain, causing the appearance of addle-mindedness or flip-flopping.

Or, flip-flopping could be a sign of someone able to change their mind. On the other hand, they may just be nervous, or couldn't sleep the night before because of debate nervousness and forgot something.

The worst charge: not thinking it through. OTOH, the flip flop might show a sudden thinking-through, but the candidate would do well to muster the courage to explain that they changed their mind and why.

The rest of the criticisms may artificially stage-discredit a good person as a parlor trick.

Re: the kissing-up factor among politicians who need money to campaign. Is that exclusive to McCain?

Mike, you obiously like and admire McCain. Although I can't see why, actually, it is your right and privilege. The things that bother me most about him are several:

1 - his embrace of Bush after the shoddy way Bush treated him and his family -- he insulted his wife and child -- yes all politicians suck up, but this level indicates a weak ego to me.

2 - After saying some very truthful things about Falwell et al, he did a 180 which involved more sucking up. He didn't say that "On reflection, I realize that I had made some rash statements, and I believe now that I didn't know these people as well as I now do." He just went over as though he had never repudiated them and dared anyone to notice.

3 - His acceptance of Bush's many signing statements, but especially the one about torture. That was the action of a coward who would do ANYTHING to get to be prez and is under the delusion that the GOP will reward his "loyalty" by making him their heir apparent.

4 - His repeated statements that we only hear the bad news about Iraq. Hello? What we hear from Iraq is what the journalists can get to without being blown up. This is a former soldier who supports the administration's ban on showing so much as a flag-draped coffin. Why would that be? Maybe to keep us from noting the level of bad news that gets buried 6 feet under every single week.

Sorry Mike, but you are backing a loser.

Jan Knaus

Big-time loser.

Anyone who says with a straight face that Baghdad is currently safe is either lacking judgment or lying.

McCain talks the same talk as Bush, Cheney and Lieberman. Terrible, terrible company. 

Dissent Protects Democracy.

Our troops not dying or getting maimed will be the only change? Not so.

More than that would change. Those who have worked with our troops, for the governing authority, and for the Iraqi government will become the people with their faces on playing cards. The blood letting will intensify. The Shi'a and Sunnis will fight tooth and nail for control, perceiving it as the only safety. The Kurds will defend themselves. What we will have done is uncap three genies of death Saddam the terrible kept repressed with one genie of systematic ruthlessness, and let it go until it fulfills another dictator's three wishes who can dominate the rest. Outside powers will move to protect their interests, and terror and crime groups will try to take advantage of disorderly Iraq so they may have a presence that suits their illegal ways.

No doubt that is one way of doing things. Is it the best way in your opinion? Do you see no other alternatives? Joe Biden has articulated a plan for withdrawing and leaving an orderly Iraq. Do you believe that is possible? If so, how? If not, why not? Or do you believe our absence will lead to peace in Iraq (i.e. we are the chief cause of enmity)?

Is this satire?

GW Bush was big on not flip-flopping and used that fact to beat and rebeat Kerry. Now you have a president who really sticks to the guns and seldom flip-flops, for the most part.

Kerry didn't 'flip-flop' , his tendency to expound with verbosity was abused by Machiavellian BusHandlers, who yanked out of context sound bytes from the speeches and laid a dishonest analysis track over as background.

Mr. Bush has on innumerable occasions flip-flopped, in fact he has often flipped before he flops down his lies to the public. Mr. Bush claims principled support for Democratic processes as Saudi Princes slip him the tongue, he slept in the bed of the butcher Karimov, and then loudly proclaimed the righteousness of the dictator Musharraf.

In the forward to Amnesty International's 2005 Human Rights Report, their then  Secretary General, Irene Khan, wrote:

"...the US government has gone to great lengths to restrict the application of the Geneva Conventions and to 're-define' torture. It has sought to justify the use of coercive interrogation techniques, the practice of holding 'ghost detainees' (people in unacknowledged incommunicado detention) and the 'rendering' or handing over of prisoners to third countries known to practise torture. The detention facility at Guantánamo Bay has become the gulag of our times, entrenching the practice of arbitrary and indefinite detention in violation of international law. Trials by military commissions have made a mockery of justice and due process.

The USA, as the unrivalled political, military and economic hyper-power, sets the tone for governmental behaviour worldwide. When the most powerful country in the world thumbs its nose at the rule of law and human rights, it grants a licence to others to commit abuse with impunity and audacity. From Israel to Uzbekistan, Egypt to Nepal, governments have openly defied human rights and international humanitarian law in the name of national security and 'counter-terrorism'." 

When asked at a May 31, 2005 press conference his thought of this, Mr. Bush flopped out a mendacious reply: 

"...I'm aware of the Amnesty International report, and it's absurd. It's an absurd allegation. The United States is a country that is -- promotes freedom around the world. When there's accusations made about certain actions by our people, they're fully investigated in a transparent way. It's just an absurd allegation.

In terms of the detainees, we've had thousands of people detained. We've investigated every single complaint against the detainees. It seemed like to me they based some of their decisions on the word of -- and the allegations -- by people who were held in detention, people who hate America, people that had been trained in some instances to disassemble -- that means not tell the truth. And so it was an absurd report. It just is. And, you know -- yes, sir."

 Yeah, Mr. Bush's statements are often diassemblance to the truth...

That's what it seems like, but it goes beyond John McCain.

I am defending against a partisan process of Americans destroying Americans. Political parties are not required by the Constitution for political participation. Yet we are told we have to accept parties and partisans.

The truth is that the troops are in between the fighting parties, and are variously used by each party as weapons against the other. Even the world scene is used as a proving ground for the varying international theories of the partisans running this superpower. 

I oppose the partisan conclusion about reality and one of the ways I am doing it here is to take an advocacy position for a human being, John McCain, caught up in a process in which another man, his fellow American Larry Johnson, wraps himself in the flag of protecting the troops while criticizing McCain's motives as if McCain could have no other motive than securing his own political future on dead troops. I just think that is false about McCain, regardless of whether he should be president. Was Clinton destroying innocents to protect himself by bombing the aspirin factory, or sending troops into Somalia? Some rock-ribbed Repubs said Clinton "hated" the troops and so implied that he was trying to get at them by cavalierly misusing them. Is that really true?

I just don't agree that is what McCain stands for, no matter who the partisan system makes him suck up to, or what his apparently failing strategies are portrayed to mean. If you lose as a Maverick, then what do you do? Why does he run? For self-glory? And subject himself to all of the vituperative poison that has been thrown at everyone running for office? I doubt it.

The partisan status quo is to portray people worse than they are, thereby causing people to become worse in their responses, and perhaps even driving men like McCain into the arms of those you find disagreeable. I look at Dick Cheney, who many say is a totally different man than he used to be. I don't know if that is so, but it seems plausible that the same bizarre partisan hatred that infected Nixon also infected Cheney. And that didn't happen in a vacuum -- both parties engage in the politics of personal destruction, and divide the nation more than it would ever otherwise be divided. Divisive leadership leads to divided peoples leads to less resolution of problems that plague the people.

I object to this whole process -- this process of mischaracterization and hate -- in which it seems the system is caught up and on which billions per decade is spent.

A little off topic, but your mention of "Mission Accomplished" reminded me of a thought I've been noodling about. If the CinC publicly declared that the mission was accomplished why the hell won't congress take him at his word and notify him that the authorization for war is no longer viable? I guess its too late for anything like that at this late point, but maybe there's a few sharp legal minds that could find something usable in this idea.

I disagree. Mission Accomplished was about rank miscalculation. He believed it, foolishly. The lack of post-invasion and regime toppling planning proves it.

You must admit that after the invasion, the divide over the Iraq attack widened to a rift and then a chasm. The Congress voted in support. Then things went downhill. The division of the public did not and has not helped the efforts in Iraq. It has hurt them. The uneven media emphasis has not helped. About that, McCain is correct to some degree, but it is not a worthy scapegoat for lack of progress.

Lack of progress is due to PP post-invasion planning, lack of taking the need for counter-insurgency warfare seriously, and no specific, achievable military objective within the control of our troops. Iraqi behavior has been the criteria, and that is a black hole of uncertainty and drift that dooms any progress. You can't progress if you have no idea how or when or whether your vague and inadequate standard for success is or can be met.

The greatest accomplishment in Iraq other than deposing a torturing dictator, was focusing on a specific election date and securing the Iraqi vote. That was a firm objective that our troops could control, and they did an excellent job. Similar firm dates and objectives should have followed at a constant, predictable pace to lead the Iraqis to responsibility and the troops out of Iraq.

It may take offering 6 months, whatever the carnage, to get enough Republicans to make a funds cutoff veto-proof. It may take offering 6 months to get a national consensus that impeachment may be supportable, although some smoking guns may come out of an increasingly broad range of hearings (beginning with Waxman and now in Judiciary).
--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

Just in case he is right, I'm gonna be sure not to visit any market places in Indiana!

Jan Knaus

No, no, Jan. It's OK to visit nuclear facilities in Indiana. GWB has agreed to transfer technology to them, since he knows Pakistan already has it.

Where you should be careful is around the markets and nuclear facilities in Iowa. Is there that much difference between four-letter places starting with I? The mullahs in Des Moines need to be looking over their shoulders.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

It's 6 more months after a new Congress gets itself organized.

In WWII, the US JCS pushed, at first, for a cross-channel invasion in 1943, with a backup plan for 1942 if Germany weakened.

A wide range of factors, ranging from landing craft production, to gaining more amphibious experience, to turning the lessons from Dieppe into a specific method (MULBERRY) to avoid attacking a port, to strategic deception, all made mid-1944 the first practical time. "Practical" meant British buy-in, much as some Republican buy-in will be needed for troop withdrawal, impeachment and removal, etc.

In WWII, there were peripheral operations before the cross-channel invasion, including the North African and Italian campaigns and the strategic bombing offensive. In our political war, we can be taking the peripheral hearings, such as the outing of Valerie Plame Wilson, the US Attorney firings, the warrantless surveillance, and building an ever-stronger case.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

That's a fair critique and well-written, Jan. It misses the point of my advocacy for McCain in this context.

Consider that I am not "backing McCain," but defending a human being who is part of the partisan process of perpetual internecine attack and counter-attack. It is a culture of attack, that attacks others for not attacking and attacks others for attacking. I see him stuck in the process too, however, I see all of those gravitating around his political corpse to also be stuck in it. I also see a bankruptcy of hypocrisy across the board, with some possible exceptions who probably won't get elected because of it. They're not nasty enough. 

I object to the entire partisan system through my defense of McCain to make the point not that he should be president per se, but that most of what passes for critique is not possessory of non-hypocritical alternatives. 

The division of the public did not and has not helped the efforts in Iraq. It has hurt them. The uneven media emphasis has not helped.

This seems to me to be a recapitulation of the 'stabbed in the back' meme promoted by apologists for the war.

The notion is that the media's failure to report all the good things somehow hindered the war effort.

To which I call bullshit.

The suggestion is also made that a divided public with reservations about the war somehow hintered the war effort.

Again, I call bullshit.

First, the evidence is that both public support and media coverage consistently lagged behind evidence of problems. The public remained highly supportive even while things were going into the toilet. Media continued to place a positive spin despite accumulating evidence of incompetence and blundering.

If anything, the failure of the media was not being critical enough. It was in not watching the occupation and the administration closely enough. It was in not holding their feet to the fire and demanding more and better accountability while it was happening.

Instead, we learn about it after the fact, even years after the fact in books like "Fiasco" and "Life in the Emerald City."

The truth is that the media and the public gave the Bush administration and its policies a free ride, without substantive criticism, and with an unquestioning acceptance of lies and spin for far too long.

Even Woodson, in his own way, acknowledges that the true roots of failure are not the media's criticism or lack of public support, but rather:

Lack of progress is due to PP post-invasion planning, lack of taking the need for counter-insurgency warfare seriously, and no specific, achievable military objective within the control of our troops.

That sounds like a pretty spectacular recipe for failure, no matter how the media might have cheerlead, and no matter how many magnetic yellow ribbon stickers people put on their hummers.

The greatest accomplishment in Iraq .... was focusing on a specific election date and securing the Iraqi vote. That was a firm objective that our troops could control, and they did an excellent job.

Unfortunately, it appears that this wasn't actually an objective of the occupation, but rather, something forced upon Bremer and the occupation authorities by Ayatollah Sistani.

The record is that the Bremer occupation originally contemplated running the country for several years, that it reversed the results of municipal election, opposed elections and tried to delay elections.

Similar firm dates and objectives should have followed at a constant, predictable pace to lead the Iraqis to responsibility and the troops out of Iraq.

Considering that firm election dates were not planned for, and that the occupation was dragged kicking and screaming into it, the lack of planning and pacing here is perhaps not surprising.

It is quite clear that on this front, not only was there no planning, but the Administration and the Occupation was entirely reactive and in an ad hoc mode.

Aside from your usual unnecessary ad hominem, you mischaracterize. I can't have a dialogue with a person who twists everything into an attack.

If media didn't influence, no one would advertise. News is advertised as fact. But it can be reported in selective ways that make a false picture overall. You know that.

Also, why the propaganda movies designed to give people in the US courage and resolve to support the war effort in WWII? How you spin things matters. The truth should never be a casualty of a balanced view which recognizes that people are emotional and can be turned to despair by that which is skewed to the negative . . . and both partisan aspects of the media do it when their folks aren't in the White House.

A partisan press doesn't help. A partisan like Valdron doesn't see it because he's part of it. It's tragic that ideologies capture the minds of people and sap the country of strength and unity for egoistic power seeking on both sides. It is a tragedy. Rare are the persons who rise above it and make it into office.

Ah yes. Caught my typo, and now you having me wanting to convert the blasted word to opium, of which there is plenty in Southeast Asia.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past may have had too many personal experiences in better living through chemistry. One can hope they had a good time, even if they don't remember it." [Possibly Uncle Duke, but I forget]