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]

It's okay, Seashell. Mr. Woodson and I seem to be like cats and dogs.

Boy Howdy!

That's it, in a nutshell ...

~OGD~

~

Please avail yourselves to Exhibit A for a good reason to steer clear of one's own keyboard after attending the 19th hole happy hour at the local links...

~OGD~

ps: Can someone decipher this one: "Propaganda barrages on either side of this partisan split-personality state that America has become would not be commenced if it was not expected that they would benefit the partisans lobbing them."

pss: Yikes!

Thanks, Valdron. I guess I need to remember that people find their truths wherever they find them; in a wisp of fog surrounding a streetlight or in the office of the OVP. Nobody ever said truths should come from an array of reliable sources or experts. What was I thinking?

Linus, my dog, finds his truths by sniffing the tailpipes of cars in the parking lot. I suspect the OVP uses this same source.

Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods. Einstein

This post will part answer your other lengthy post. More later. 

The truth is what the truth is. It isn't always the marquis d' sade, either, as you project above.

There is one truth with many dimensions. There is good and evil and the shadowy shades they cast. There is the truth you face, and the one you are part of making happen.

Those who see the truth as all awful and predestined are not leaders. Our leaders have to steal opportunity from the truth and make it a better truth by contribution, and that is what I have been talking about.

You have twisted what I've said into the conversation you have been having with yourself about the Iraq war for some time. I say in many ways on different days, uh yeah Valdron, yeah Seashell, I know they misled the public. I know that. I know that. OK yeah, uh I know that. I know there wasn't yellow cake uranium; that there was a forged letter passed on by the Sismi; I know all that; yes, that's how we got here. I know you grasped that fact and have mastered saying it a hundred different ways.

NOW, Can we get on to the present tense?

Troops are on the ground and you're not calling the shots for them. GW Bush is. He and his administration are adrift and won't come up with a clear-cut, well-defined objective within the military's capability and control by which orderly and secure withdrawal is possible, and with the best possible results given all of that bad news you like to repeat to yourself like a catatonic. Sure its bad: now what to do about it?

Bush Admin remains codependent on Iraqi behavior -- a surefire way to abdicate the force, freedom and purpose of the Armed Forces to becoming long term guerilla targets. I've said this, I've written it, etc. etc. But you either don't know it, or you don't hear me.

I talk about finding the best way out, with best results for all concerned. I want to hear people's ideas on how. And in doing that, you suggest that I am claiming that the media "lost the war" and then try to camp me with Neocons. That is false.

I am saying the constant reportage of casualties of US and Iraqi personnel and civilians without more balancing context is bad for troop morale while they are in theatre; when unbalanced *either way* (sugar coated or gloom/doom) it is not serving the troops well.

That which is accomplished every day in Iraq by the troops on the ground, big or small, DESPITE the short-sighted COMMANDER IN CHIEF et al.. I don't care what your very safe criticisms are from your armchair: you ought to care about encouraging the right thing for the current reality that the troops are stuck in rather than pretend that the constant barrage of half-truth is helping. Telling only the bad is not only untruthful, it is a sickness. Tell only the bad, but balance it with what boosts troop morale. And pose good ideas. That is what I'm saying, and it's not being done NOW. I realize at the outset of the invasion the press was playing action hero participant -- but that is not the point NOW.

Criticizing McCain is yet another manifestation of having no specific plan yourself and then spending yet more time and energy criticizing him. If he's no real political threat, why spend so much time vilifying him? Get on with the real task at hand for a foreign policy website: come up with good ideas. What's your plan?

Don't dare confuse what I have said with cheerleading for the ill-concieved and deceptive invasion/war of Iraq represented at the top for which the troops ARE NOT responsible. I am saying make the distinction and the differentiation, and get going with some positive ideas on how best to resolve their short-mid-long term situation. I've forwarded some ideas for that. Where are your solutions apart from your droning on about how we got here. The troops are 'here' already. Now say something useful about how to get the troops out of there without a Tet offensive scenario during a withdrawal, and without leaving as traitors to all of the people who will suffer a blood letting when we're gone. How do you propose to set an objective before the troops to minimize the civil war clashes expected when they leave?

What of Joe Biden's plan? Have you seen his planning for getting out of Iraq and leaving it stable? At least he's trying. What's your plan? Report all the bad news all the time and everything will just turn out alright?

You see Neo, he's not going to respond to that, and neither will anyone else. It is an "inconvenient truth" that the partisan press does have an affect on troops' morale, especially now that they can go back to their desert barracks and pull up internet news with the latest body-count listing.

I point this out and some think I'm trying to blame the ill-conceived neocon invasion thing on the press --- no, I'm saying the real situation on the ground now requires a differentiation between the troops and their CINC and the energy otherwise used for partisan fact massage invested in a clear cut definition of what achievable victory is that is in the troops' control, so they can get it done and get out.

I don't see the alternate plans to get the troops out and the Iraqis in the safest possible state, but I see lots of criticism of John McCain, which is irrelevant if he is really not a threat anymore as many say.

On April 4, 2007 - 3:01am Mike7Woodson said:

We're in a new phase. Now the troops are stuck there, as Mr. Reid said, in a "quagmire," and their morale is hurting. HOW do we salvage them, and push for a clear-cut objective they can achieve, and come home.

What destroys troop morale is the constant redeployments and extensions of tours, and what must seem to them an open ended war. Picture this; you're with the 3rd ID, you've seen your friends get blown to pieces by roadside bombs or RPGs, or maybe a sniper got your best friend. You finally get rotated back home only to discover its a temporary rotation, and you're going back. Imagine your enlistment being up but the stop loss kicks in and you're stuck for another 6 months or so.

The troops can see this is a quagmire, they can see how "insurgents" pull out as soon as the they arrive to clear an area only to have the insurgents return when they leave.
Imagine clearing Fallujah (sic>, losing 5 friends as you do, then pulling out and watching the 'insurgents' return. Maybe some GI might ask himself; "why did we clear it and lose 5 guys.....will we have to clear it again?" Good for morale?

Not finding WMD wasn't exactly a morale booster.

Getting rid of Saddam and staying in IRAQ wasn't exactly a morale booster either.

I won't get into the Walter Reed scandal and what that might do to morale.

Congress and the President arguing has no effect on troop morale unless they see one or the other wanting to keep the war going.

If you want a clear cut objective, if you want to boost troop morale....start pulling them out. Stop worrying about what will happen to Sunnis, Shia and Kurds if we leave and start worrying about what is happening to our guys.

I'd be willing to bet the most often asked question by the GIs and Marines is, "What the f**k are we doing here?"

You Sir, are a waste of my time.

Alias?

If you go to Canada and then take a turn to the Province of New Brunswick, heading due north until you come to Restigouche county, on the shores of Bay Chaleur facing Gaspe Quebec, you will find an Acadian family line by the name of Valdron. We trace our roots back seven generations, to the age of sail when we were shipbuilders and sailors and privateers. I can show you graveyards where my people lay. In the town of Dalhousie, in the center of restigouche, behind the town library there is a cenotaph where the names of Valdrons who died in foreign wars and rest in foreign graves lie. I saw it every day as I walked to school.

There are perhaps two hundred and fifty of us in the world, many still in restigouche but mostly in the Maritime provinces of Canada. It is a small line, but respected. We are known for paying our own way, looking after those around us, and never backing down. It is a good and honourable thing to be a Valdron.

We were, each of us, born to the places and ways of our ancestors. Tradition was not a word but a way of life. I was born within a thousand paces of the spot where my great grandfather was born. This too I see as a good and honourable thing, a sign of roots that go deep and values as unchanging and as profound as the ancient rock faces that we grew up among. The world changed around us like the winds and tides, but we remained true to our ways and our natures, changeless and steady as the rocks around which the world might swirl.

My birth certificate reads, Denis George Arthur Valdron. George Holmes and Arthur Valdron (both deceased) were my grandfathers, and thus I honour them and carry them on within my name.

Denis of course, is french Acadian. The Acadians are an honourable people with our own history. Growing up in a bilingual area, it was written in both the french, Denis, and the english, Dennis, forms. It was common in that area for people to go by both the French and English forms of their name.

Den, was of course, an obvious contraction of Denis or Dennis. I honestly don't know when it came into use, perhaps elementary school. So far as I know, I've always gone by it, in the way that a Joseph will go by Joe, or a Robert will go by Rob. The name appears on my cards and stationary and in my signature.

Of course, since you've taken the trouble to attack me in this way, you'll know this.

You might also know that the name appears on the rolls of the Law Society of Manitoba as a member of that bar in good standing for the last eighteen years. In that capacity, I have practiced Aboriginal and Poverty law in pursuit of social justice and equity.

Alias? Not at all.

It is a name. It is a good name. It is an honourable name. It is a name to be proud of. It is a respectable name.

I do not know why you have done this. Perhaps you felt that you would invite trolls to harass me. Perhaps you intended to intimidate me, as if a thing like you could manage that. Perhaps it was some childish game to show you could invade my privacy. Possibly you were such a fool as to think me ashamed of my own name, a thing I suspect to be common in your family. Perhaps you had some juvenile notion of mockery, like a child who urinates on the living room carpet at a gathering of his elders, and then grins with pride at his accomplishment. Whatever the reason, I find that I am not interested.

I don't think you have any grasp of the magnitude of insult you have delivered up.

Upon reflection, I don't see that you are worth the attention that such an offense would normally earn. There is such a thing as being beneath contempt, and you are well beneath.

But nevertheless, I will say this to you:

You have no name.

You have no face.

Neoboho:

The incident that you have described is quite interesting and enlightening. Can you tell us what your official standing orders of the day were on that particular day? How about the orders you were operating under for the week previous to that day, or the week after that day?

And this is a serious inquiry.

~OGD~

Except, of course, for the alternative. As awful as the truth is, its better to have it than lies.

There is only one truth.

Valdron, there may only be one truth on a subject, but many truths are usually offered. Aside from the endlessly fascinating relativity questions, now what? When people disagree on the truth, does the truth usually prevail or a compromise of the truth or the truth (or lie) that gets the best public relations from it's supporters?

Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods. Einstein

Good point, Seashell, but I think its a matter of perspective.

Someone once said that God finds in the universe the same kind of infinite diversity and fine gradations that a lawyer finds in the truth.

Engaged in the practice of law, I can find the humour and a bit of truth in that. But the law at its best is, like science and philosophy, engaged in a search for the truth. The methods are different, but the ultimate goal remains.

And yet, I cannot agree to the notion of ambiguities in truth or competing truths, I can't see relativity in truth.

A philosopher can ask what is truth, and can argue that real truth, ultimate truth, does not exist. I've met philosophers. I know I'm not one of them.

What I am is someone from the working class of a very poor region.

Let me give you an example from my youth, a graphic example. Back when I was young, people went out and cut wood with chain saws. They hauled down and hauled out trees with chains and pulleys. It wasn't terribly sophisticated. You should see the forestry machines that they have now.

Anyway, it was hard damned work cutting wood. You'd take it to the sawmills, you'd get paid by the cord. There were a dozen ways that the foreman could cheat you on your loads, and that sort of cheating was a way of life. But people were poor, and there weren't a lot of choices around, so you'd argue, but you'd have to take it. I remember they went on strike once, when the sawmills dropped their rates and started shipping in wood from Quebec. The sawmills responded by sending in cops like they were hired thugs, and setting dogs on families protesting peacefully on the sidewalk. The sight of a little girl in a threadbare dress screaming in terror as some goon sets a snarling dog on her is not something you forget.

I suppose we were comparatively well off in my family, we were papermakers at the mill and my Dad ran a garage. But I knew families where the houses had dirt floors and the kids wore homemade canvas shoes. We fixed a lot of broken down cars for people who had to pay us later, or wound up never being able to pay us at all. They weren't deadbeats, they tried their best.

Anyway, I went out cutting wood a few times in my youth. Mostly it was a seasonal thing. I wasn't working for the sawmills, but cutting firewood. But it was the same crews.

The thing is, you can't always tell. Sometimes a chain saw blade will snap and whip around faster than the eye can see. Sometimes you hit a knot in the wood where you weren't expecting and the saw bounces back out of your hands.... and people get hurt. A chain saw wound is messy, it chews up flesh like you couldn't believe. But it smells sweet, like spruce or fir.

You want to know what truth is? Truth is the red raw chewed up bloody flesh of a chain saw wound, smelling sweetly of pine.

A case like that, I'd rather have a bandage than a philosopher any day.

Rambling oblique stories, by the way, are part of my cultural tradition, so bear with me.

The point is that for me, through my upbringing, truth is not an abstract value, its not a philosophical concept. It's a real thing. There's no relativity to truth for me, there's no degrees of truthiness. Truth is not a matter of opinion, and opinions are not as good as truth.

Don't get me wrong. I recognize the ambiguities inherent in the human condition. I recognize the people bring different perspectives to their situations. I accept that there are subjective viewpoints. I certainly accept that there are differences of opinion, and that two different opinions can be valid.

And yet, I maintain my belief in the concept of truth, in the immutability of reality.

When someone looks you in the eye, and tells you that they love you. Well, that's usually a good truth, a happy truth. People have no trouble swallowing the happy truths.

The problem is always the hard truths. They're not pleasant. It can be easier and more tempting to swallow the happy lies, the comforting lies. It can be so much more desirable to trade belief for truth, to retreat from things unpleasant and believe in other things and wish hard that they'll be real instead.

You know what a woman once said to me? She said "He didn't mean to hit me, he was just drunk."

It wasn't true, of course. But the truth for her was something awful and despairing and she did not think she had the strength to face it. It was so much easier for her, so much more convenient for her and for everyone else to believe the sacharine illusion. To believe and hope and wish and act as if reality conformed to that cherished illusion. Because if it was true, then of course, everything would have been so much better. She tried. Oh fuck but she tried, if force of belief, if faith, if simple desperate earnestness counted for anything it would have been true and her life would not have been a hellish pit.

But it wasn't. He hit her again. And she lied. He hit her again, and she made excuses. He it her again... And she was in hell, with no way out, trapped by him, trapped by herself, trapped in her own webs of desperation and deceit.

And then he threw her down the stairs and broke her collarbone and forearm. And you know what she said to me? "Maybe we could just say it was a car accident."

The truth when she finally came to it, when she finally embraced it was ugly and painful and soul destroying. But it was not as destructive to her as the pretty lies she'd embraced. The lies that had never shielded her from a single blow.

The world is full of awful and unpleasant truths, and if avoiding them worked, then I'd be the first to say 'run away.' But that just doesn't work. The truth doesn't care whether you believe in it or not. The ugly old world just sits there and has its way, and you can deal with it and perhaps have a chance.

Or you can stick your head in the sand, you can dispute it, you can deny it, you can negotiate with it, you can take it back to the store and ask for a new one, you can check your warranty, you can complain that its too negative and ask for a more balanced version, you can whine about the effect on morale, and charge reality with a well known liberal bias. Doesn't make a goddammed difference. Gaming it just makes it worse.

Ultimately, truth is as intangible and as immutable as gravity. It may be difficult to acquire. Sometimes it may be impossible to find. There may be multiple perspectives, there may be infinite degrees and gradations of detail. But that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. And it doesn't mean that it is subjective or open to negotiation. Rather, truth is something to be sought, to be striven for, a goal always, a prize occasionally, an ideal eternally.

Truth is a gaping flesh wound smelling of spruce or the haunted eyes of a battered woman. I've acknowledged differences of opinion and the nature of ambiguity and subjectivity. But I find when it gets to that level, there is no ambiguity, no subjectivity, that it is not a matter of opinion. It simply is - concrete, insouciant reality, mocking our abstract pretensions.

Perhaps if I was from a wealthier and more sheltered class I would have a different viewpoint. I can imagine that if I grew up sheltered from the realities of other peoples lives and the from any responsibility for the consequences of my actions, I would see truth differently. If I grew up with my urges and impulses constantly gratified, with no accountability for my failures, with no requirement to ever deal with anyone but sycophants or those in utter agreement with me, I might have a more nuanced view of truth. If I only absorbed the simple notion that I could reshape reality by a simple force of will and act, then perhaps you might find me more flexible.

But that's not me. I am the product of an archaic and isolated society which is far closer to the turn of the previous century era of Norman Rockwell's idyllic paintings than anyone else you'll ever meet.

I suppose that makes me unsophisticated and backwards. So be it.

I have left the place of my people. I have walked in your worlds, I have read your books, argued with your philosophers, I have listened and studied, lived and worked.

I remain what I am.

So, if press reportage affects morale, do you have a suggestion for what should get into (and by contrast what should be excluded from...) the media? To me, it seems like maybe they should just plain report the truth. Trying to figure out what way to spin things is like trying to figure out which door the tiger is behind; if you have to just guess you might guess wrong, so maybe they should just give truth a chance.

The other part of that is having a healthy and honest skepticism about what they are being told. A highlight for me was last week when the new press secretary quoted a transcript to clarify something that Gonzales had said. A reporter pointed out that this is an example of why the Democrats want to have testimony given by Karl and Harriet to be on the record. The press secretary was completely flummoxed by this simple and completely uncharacteristic line of questioning.

Or do you have another idea?

Jan Knaus

Please show me the last shopping trip by a Congressional delegation that required 100 armed US soldiers and five helicopters. Has not happened you ass clown.

After all the other 1500 words of jargon and bullshit, this little tidbit cut to the core...

Interesting question, and crucial, in my non-expert and overly bold opinion about avoiding extremes.

~OGD~

If you would read his post more clearly, the writer is considering McCain and his bees as the mooks, not anyone in the armed services which I am assuming were a part of. Johnson was using mook as a derogatory term insulting McCain as being one of a gang of fools. I did not question his use of this term; I agree that this photo-op was an abuse of his position.
What I did question was Johnson's insinuation that they are expendable. Expendable, as being disposable or unworthy or our concern if they were killed. It is this type of flippant response, even if it was made as some kind of sick joke, that brings our discussions to immature and irresponsible levels. Sarcasm that infers physical harm or death is disgusting and cheapens the debate about something so important. It is an insult to the service men and women who risk their lives when people out of harms way uses the troops either as a political pawn or the set up to a bad joke.

If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle. - Sun Tzu

From the moment that President Bush declared a "war on terrorism" and then led the country to war in Iraq, the United States has utterly failed to fulfill the timeless admonition to "know your enemy." This failure helps explain why we are so far from winning in Iraq or more broadly against al-Qaeda and its allies. [...] Military tactics are doomed to failure when they are applied without a sophisticated knowledge of the enemy being pursued -- of how that enemy thinks, and therefore how he is likely to respond or adapt to the tactics being used against him. [...] ...We need to be able to exploit networks, the constellations of individual relationships that define terrorism and insurgency today, with the ease and facility that our enemies routinely do. We must master "soft" skills such as negotiations, psychology, social and cultural anthropology, foreign area studies, complexity theory and systems management. All are essential to operating effectively in the ambiguous and dynamic environment in which irregular adversaries circulate. - Bruce Hoffman, U.S. Military Academy's Combating Terrorism Center, 3/25/07

The US sent it's military to a hardware store and expected it to come back with bread.

Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods. Einstein

Here we go again...

Lit said:

If you would read his post more clearly, the writer is considering McCain and his bees as the mooks, not anyone in the armed services which I am assuming were a part of. Johnson was using mook as a derogatory term insulting McCain as being one of a gang of fools.

Let's go through this... Johnson's first sentence:

While John McCain was excoriating the press in Baghdad yesterday for not presenting the "full story" about how swell things are in Iraq he neglected to mention the pre-visit security sweep that made that neighborhood stroll so safe.

I am sure you have already heard about the 100 soldiers, the three Blackhawk helicopters and two Apache gunships that accompanied his entourage, but did you hear about the soldiers who swept the area before the American legislators and their security team showed up? Who cares about those mooks? They are expendable.

Johnson was talking there in that second section about; 100 soldiers --- three Blackhawk helicopters and two Apache gunships -- and soldiers who swept the area, before the American legislators and their security team showed up.

Johnson even goes on to explain in the first section of the second paragraph:

John McCain and Lindsey Graham put American soldiers' lives at risk just so they could have a photo op. That's the bottomline.

And search as I may I have yet to find where Johnson referred to, "McCain as being one of a gang of fools." Although Johnson clearly stated, "John McCain is completely full of shit." And being ex-military, and by using and thereby putting that much manpower at risk for a photo-op, I fully agree that McCain is full of shit.

Sheesh...

~OGD~

Valdron, I wasn't trying to make a point. I was asking a question, based on some reading I have been doing, and I think you have answered what has been confusing me for a long time now. Let me run it by you quickly.

According to some political psychologist types, events such as 9/11 may cause some people to become fearful and develop (or extend) a "Dangerous World" worldview. People with such an outlook are probably more likely to approve of Bush's ambushes on civil liberties and the GWOT, including the war in Iraq. Protection and security becomes their truth, and it vastly outweighs any concerns for democracy or human rights.

The rest of us seldom think about, much less worry about, dying in a terrorist attack and we don't believe that protection trumps civil rights.

I have a step-brother who honestly believes that Islamofascism is upon our doorstep, that it is the most threatening and horrifying possibility that Americans are facing and that we will lose if we don't kill every one of 'them' quickly. He does not consider this an opinion. This is his truth. Needless to say, mine is vastly different.

For the most part, I have lived my life contentedly believing that everyone has their own truths and they are welcome to them. For one person, dieting is the only way to lose weight. For another, screw the diet, it will only happen with exercise. My attitude is, "whatever works for ya". Furthermore, my own truths have seldom been static. New facts or information can change them into new (hopefully improved) truths.

You can probably see why I've had to struggle with the relativity issue. Yet, that didn't seem right, either.

Back to the Dangerous World, or not, and truth. I think what I now understand after reading your post, is that there IS a truth, it is THE truth and it is NOT relative. Events may cause a certain perception that the known actual facts and certainties do not support, but it is a mistake to call that perception the truth when (or especially when?) the believer is unaware of the known certainties that belie the perception.

All of a sudden this seems so easy to grasp, that I'm worried I either have it wrong or I've been a downright simpleton for the last several years. As it won't be my first time for being wrong or thick-headed about something, I'm going to post this comment, anyway.

I have left the place of my people. I have walked in your worlds, I have read your books, argued with your philosophers, I have listened and studied, lived and worked.

But we are connected. Isn't this conversation that is taking place in the ether proof?

I remain what I am.

Please do. And thank you.

Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods. Einstein

I'm not sure about veneration, but consultation at least would be nice. Your point is well taken on when your selected quotation could have, or may have been realized. As for concluding all other inquiry to be chaff, I obviously don't agree with that. I'd be interested to know your reasons for thinking we ought not apply these principles to the situation on the ground right now.

It appears to me, and correct me if I'm wrong, that you are saying that because the US blew it by invading Iraq in the first place, that there is no way to change, improve, reform, adapt and overcome given the situation we are in today, and from within its middle. The present tense, with a belief that such a change is possible, is what I'd hoped we could talk about.

Save recriminations for whatever impeachment trials there may be, or, if crimes were committed, those.

That's a sadly relevant emphasis.

The loose lips that sink ships are so small and unnoticed until large numbers of people and major plans are completely destroyed by them; including plans and people who may have saved many more lives and cut short a guerilla war.

This is a guerilla war and guerillas above all depend on information and patience to outlast a large, invading force. It puts the burden on that force to heed counter-insurgency wisdom from the past, and to apply it continually, especially when the enemy uses classic tactics from the past.

Guerillas love a large force that is beset with scandals, investigations, political division at home, and the rest of the things that do not heed the lessons of keeping wars short or not entering into them at all. I just don't think most of us can appreciate how divisiveness and ill-confidence caused by squabbling over the command leaves troops charged with fighting stranded in many ways. And the loose lips betray them. 

Valdron,

I think that you know me well enough that when I ask questions about Canadian politics, this isn't an attack, but an attempt to see through other eyes.

Well, without the recourse to facts and logic, what you do is repeat it a lot more, you yell it, you say it louder, you demonstrate that sincerity with emotional force.

What! Must every little language have its own country?"

America is the only nation in history which miraculously has gone directly from barbarism to degeneration without the usual interval of civilization.

It is against the grain of modern education to teach children to program. What fun is there in making plans, acquiring discipline in organizing thoughts, devoting attention to detail, and learning to be self-critical?

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

A lot of people voting for Pat Buchanan say they are doing so to send a message. Apparently that message is, "Hey, look at me, I'm an idiot." [Dennis Miller]

...that there is no way to change, improve, reform, adapt and overcome given the situation we are in today, and from within its middle.

Correct. Swoop gives us a hint of the rationale and the game plan:

“The plan,” the official said, “is for General Petraeus, the US commander in Iraq, to report sufficient progress so that we can freeze and then reduce our force levels.” We hear from Pentagon contacts that Defense Secretary Gates agrees with this approach. Military analysts regard an improved security situation as improbable in the light of the failures of the Iraqi government to establish its authority. Ideas are under consideration for a smaller “stay behind” force to uphold a minimum of law and order.

Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods. Einstein

It's about winning the argument.

That exemplifies the prime partisan directive. I'm not about to sit here and let you lie, mischaracterize, mis-quote, quote out of context, and foist your oversimplified anti-US propaganda on the rest of us. Are these kinds of dirty tricks in posting why you got banned from TPMCafe before? There's no way I'm going to let you hijack this discussion with fraudulent mis-portrayals.

I frankly don't have any real expectation of convincing you that the sun rises in the morning and sets in the evening, you're just that sort of person.

The sun doesn't rise and set. The earth turns, moron. The sun merely appears to rise and set. Why do you do this to yourself out of target fixation (like OldenGoldenDecoy's) on minutiae that you take out of context and absolutize to serve your desire of winning the argument?

If it is only about winning the argument, so much for a substantive search for the truth.

But there are people who read this, and people who can be persuaded to one viewpoint or another.

Code for pandering to the popularity of the prevailing party perception of words it is not accustomed to.

You suppose that I've been trying to justify the invasion and war by blaming its misfortunes on the press. Not true at all...

Hmmm. Let's take a look at what you actually said:

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.

Now, I think I'm being fair to you in including your passive aggressive tail end clause.

Yes, that was fair in that it is one instance where you have included some relevant context, and I appreciate it. Remember also that I wrote that imbalance over at Fox News is no less a problem. It's too bad you've made this about me and not about the merits, otherwise you'd include all the context and carry on with a more objective discussion. But thanks for some of the context today. It is an improvement. The same cannot usually be said for my other self-appointed nemesis, OldenGoldenDecoy who is the serial-killer of contextual truth when his emotions are set-off by certain phrases or words I've written that he's taken out of context and run with. Like you, he's after a person and not a discussion.

But let's take a look...

'The division of the public did not and has not helped the efforts in Iraq. It has hurt them...' Did you say that? Do you stand by those words?

Yes. Neither did it help the troops in Vietnam. This doesn't say that censorship or brainwashed compliance with McNamara et al is my prescription. Instead, adding lots of information in mainstream media reports about the work of men like John Paul Vann:

Most USAID personnel in Vietnam, including State FSOs, labored in obscurity. Here are some of their stories. . .

A few USAID people -- most notably John Paul Vann, who was a development officer from 1965 to 1967 and a CORDS adviser from 1968 to 1971 -- gained notoriety during their tours of duty in Vietnam for their outspoken criticism of U.S. policy. Others, such as current U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Richard Holbrooke, who was a USAID province adviser in Vietnam in 1963-64, achieved prominence well after the war.

Now if you're a US troop, a commander, a politician, a US citizen or whomever, and the headlines (which is mostly what people read) predominantly and most often read: "X number of troops killed in Iraq today" but regularly omit the less exciting, less morbid news of other things happening there on that same day, I'd say that is unbalanced and therefore misleading as half-truth. It would also be imbalanced and misleading not to include the reports of killed or captured troops. Now did you hear that?

'The uneven media emphasis has not helped. About that, McCain is correct to some degree...' Did you say that? Do you stand by those words?

It certainly sounds to me like you're attributing a share (not all, but a share) of blame to the press and lack of public support. Am I misreading things here? Have I misunderstood?

Remember it is about context: the information gulf or disparity between the entire reality on the ground in Iraq and what reaches media end-users.

Anything taken out of context to play partisan politics, rightward or leftward, does a disservice to the truth, and to human lives.

Let's look over here:

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 . . . A partisan press doesn't help

Right: if you're going to spin (meaning you can't report it all, all the time) then spin with balance and equilibrium, aiming at always improving accuracy, insight, representative selection, equal placement and contextual out-sight. Your above quote, for example, is out of context, selected for your attack purposes, not for truth. In two places we see the triple dots . . . between phrases, which indicate a lumping of words taken out of context. At least you included the dots. Your selections should include the text that includes the entire thinking from your source. Yours don't.

If you're going to fly with a report, fly with both wings and the tail, use both engines and the flaps. And please, please don't empty the airplane restroom tank (unproductive partisan acrimony for advantage) over the troops whoever you are. That's my point. From "partisanship" supplanting honesty in cooperation, skewed reports to the negative or positive is what you'll get, and partisans who only watch Fox or only watch PBS will remain as they are. It is up to Fox and PBS and BBC and ABC and CBS et al to round out their coverages. And I'll say PBS seems to have a better record, whereas Fox plays more and more like a WWF, but then you might see these extremes playing against each other in Alexander Cockburn's parody and analysis of McNeil-Lehrer, exploring the pitfalls of a show the style and multiple point format of which I otherwise appreciate, however, which itself had/has problems that Cockburn points out with some humor.

It sounds to me like you're putting a heavy burden on the press to get into line and support the war. In your view, it seems that the truth is like a Chinese menu, take one from column A, a couple from column B, and assemble for pleasing effect.

Not really. I think you're inaccurately reading that into what I wrote, and again, out of context. See my above comment and the Cockburn link at his Cyrano's Journal Online for a fuller discussion of what you bring up here. I am definitely for improvement on the status quo.

I'm glad that you agree with me that many of the travails in Iraq are self inflicted.

I agree that many are, and I believe that the headline writers and editors and those deciding which lines play at the top and fill the list on major news pages are part of the process of self-inflicted travails via self-inflicted fixation on limited or skewed awarenesses. Those who do a better job of balancing are not included in this critique.

But that doesn't change the fact that you are both utterly wrong and entirely dishonest about the role of the media in this affair, and deluded on the matter of the public having reservations.

False. Here again you've left out context in which public reservations about Iraq are accounted for in my comments, and not eschewed. To the degree that public reservations or enthusiasms about Iraq are misled by the skew portrayals of daily Iraq and its context, I criticize the skew portrayal, not the public reservations.

And so you've projected this dishonesty in ad hominem through your writing, again trying to attack the arguer by falsely representing his real argument.

Now you are running away from your own words. Having painted yourself untenably into a corner, you are claiming 'I never said that.'

Nonsense. And you don't specify the support for this and explain your mis-attribution between apostrophes above.

Sorry, but your post is documentably on the record.

Yes, and thankfully. Otherwise, people may think that your misquotes and quotes out of context were true. They're not.

I'm just a backwoods country lawyer from the north part of a poor province, but frankly, I have to say, you're hung by your own words.

You'd like that sort of thing to be true, and so you confabulate it. And you shouldn't have to tell us you are being frank, unless it is hard to tell when you are, which it is.

And what I am saying is that partisanship is part of the reason we're in Iraq...

Again, I must call bullshit. There's nothing particularly noble about bipartisanship, and there's nothing special about partisanship.

Above, are you announcing what you are about to write? If so, there may be hope for you yet.

Bipartisanship is noble in that is means listening, cooperation, taking each other seriously, dealing with the merits and getting on with solving problems without much concern over who takes the credit or who takes the blame. The idea as I use it is intended in the Washingtonian sense, with some Eisenhower thrown in, with regard to the Defense issues discussed. Both men eschewed partisanship worked into the people paid for by certain special interests who prefer their division so that they may conquer public policy influence.

Washington was concerned about the interloping British empire, and Eisenhower the Defense Industrial Complex. I add to that, to the extent it applies, the profit-motive in tragedy and conflict from partisanship that makes for ratings in the press and motivates its suasion over the body-politic to remain in passionate gridlock.

You're engaged in massaging language in order to avoid assigning responsibility. That's the opposite of truth.

You're engaged in assigning responsibility to avoid taking responsibility. That is another face of partisanship. In my comments, you will see, if you're honest, responsibility assigned to more than any one party or group or convenient scapegoat, without relieving it where it is due. Hey, I feel responsibility in that there must have been something more I could have done to improve matters. We each and all can always do better. And that's the attitude we need to carry into our conferencing about how to fix our problems. It's what people like about Obama.

When Bush announced intentions to enforce UN resolutions by invasion of Iraq, I opposed it and called for exit strategies early on. However, once we were there, an entirely different situation existed and now exists with which we must deal, and deal correctly. Stating blame for getting here doesn't help getting out, but is a distraction. Save the blame and its proofs for trials that come after the priority of getting the troops out of Iraq in the best possible way is achieved.

And indeed, that's not what you actually said. [BULL] Shall we read it back to you?

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.

Oh my. It seems here that you're saying that bipartisanship was the reason America went into Iraq. "Congress voted in support." Wasn't that bipartisan support?

Absolutely not.

Your definition of bipartisanship includes deception and coercion and the cowardice of giving in to it. Mine doesn't. The crack was there for those of us who argued against an invasion. It happened against our will. How did that happen?

The Iraq vote was motivated by partisan threat, false impressions, and coercion and then called bipartisan by those politicians wishing to appear so, which didn't make it so. The old partisan threat: we've put the troops and resources on the line under the CINC power; we've showed the Yankee Doodle Dandy; no one's bleeding yet; Americans are with us in the "Power of Pride"; they love to look at themselves in their heroic young people in uniform; now if you vote against this war, we'll say you don't support the troops, ergo you hate America; you don't support "Proud to Be an American" and you don't support the fight against tyrants owning WMD.

By your argument above, you buy into all of that shinola, the difference with which you don't . . . well, never mind.

Wasn't everyone who mattered on board? Didn't John McCain support the war? Didn't John Kerry and Hillary Clinton support the war resolution? Didn't the Democrats avoid taking a position against the war, or even on the war for years on end?

No. You can't say most were "on board" who were deceived. You can say they were negligent, afraid to investigate, however, but that doesn't vitiate the fraud to which they were subject but mitigates it as the only element of causation. Responsibility follows accordingly. For the knowing cave-in to coercion: responsibility follows. Some Dems and even Republicans did take a position against the war.

Combat seasoned commanders with affiliation in both parties advised against the invasion. I know I took a position against it, and stayed with that position throughout, heeding the advice of combat commanders' past from Iraq elicited in interviews in the run-up to the invasion. I saw the coercion moving through the ranks of those caving to the war, and later, the fishy smell came out in the revelations about the faulty WMD intel. Looking at the press role, I note that some first played Yankee Doodle Dandy on the hawkish side of the partisan pro-war aisle, knowing that Shock and Awe make great ratings; and then they played the other side, knowing that human interest stories, death, mayhem and tragedy make for ratings. All of this just supports the view that partisanship creates markets and markets reinforce partisanship.

Many were fooled, being human. Many wanted to trust, being human. I think some were sinisterly scheming who followed on. Those who were deliberately scheming to deceive and benefit from the war did a lot of damage and should be held accountable at law.

Wasn't every (disrespectful expletive) mistake irrevocably made before the loyal opposition found its backbone?

You'd like that to be true, but no. If you define loyal opposition to be one party or another, then you make mistakes of fact about those who opposed the war from the start, and about those who opposed invasion but thought other measures to be wise. You also discount those who had other motives for wanting to see Saddam taken down, principally those who believed that innocents were suffering so badly under him and the sanctions against him that he ought to be taken out for that reason alone. Anthony Zinni once advised Clinton that it was reason enough that Iraqi AA had fired on US flyovers to go in and take Iraq from Hussein, however, he advised against doing so for reasons which we see at work now, i.e. the inheritance of Babylon's ancient problems.

And so it seems that you favor a condemnation of all Democrats and all Republicans who voted for the war as cowards or criminals, which is another way of playing partisanship against itself in anti-US undertones proven by your simplistic biases and black/white statements of blame.

If that's the case, then where the hell is the partisanship. Is your argument that Democratic sniping or opposition has lead us to this mess? If so, bullshit.

No, I've argued that it has worsened the mess where it has been bereft of better solutions.

Partisanship does not mean the presence of disagreement, V. It means the requirement of disagreement or agreement to belong to a party, keep perks, or to please a pre-existing partisan ideology resident in real and perceived passions within the electorate. It means ponying up to fear of unpopularity for doing something that's in the constituents' and the country's best interests, caving to special interests and failing to tell the truth at the same time.

Otherwise, re partisanship, see my other comments above.

Re Democratic sniping, it depends on the shot taken, whether it includes sound and constructive solutions in the alternative that take into account the extremist enemies of the troops on the ground right now and what they will do with a US retreat, and what that will do to Iraq, and how that affects the region and what that means to the world, and therefore how that should influence decisions on how to exist Iraq, and what to do before leaving it to the Iraqi government. If it hasn't taken into account the realities, the "inconvenient truth" that you waxed on about the other day as being awful, then it isn't very realistic, and its partisanly self-serving at the expense of future US troops' lives who could (if intelligence estimates and the Baker group were correct) have to deal with a larger regional war with Sunnis and Shi'as stepping in to protect their own, and the Turks stepping in to get at the Kurds they've been aiming at for so long. If it reasonably deals with all of those things and is responsible for dealing with what we've left there, then it is not merely partisan, but responsible.

As I've said, it must have a clear, concrete and achievable objective with a secret deadline to give the Iraqi goverment a snowball's chance in the hell that will follow.

Is your argument that the Republicans in sole pursuit of a covert and dishonest agenda, engineered this war for partisan political purposes in order to screw over Democrats? If so, that's an explanation for the war I've never heard before.

No, it's not, because most Republicans in this country were not manning the White House or sitting in on the Energy meeting with Cheney. But Judicial Watch did try to get the substance of that meeting, which surely had some smoke in it. It was too late, unfortunately.

How exactly is it partisanship when one side settles upon a course of action and the other side either supports that course of action or passively aquiesces? I don't think it is.

And what I am saying is that partisanship is part of the reason we're in Iraq and neither side has a clear plan on what to do. I don't think you're reading my entire posts.

No, the problem is that I read your entire post, and I find nothing but mush...

You're just projecting the mush in your overly-simplistic outlook that makes mush of everything it reads, so bug off with that line.

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.

So, how do we read this? Are you contradicting yourself? You basically just say any old wooly thing that comes into your head without worrying as to whether it makes a likc of sense?

The truth is that the crack of partisanship hidden by deception and coercion and that led to the mammoth manipulation became evident, then it widened. You've got to read the analogies more closely to understand them.

Or are you suggesting that it was 'partisan' from the beginning, though not as 'partisan' as it was later on, and that 'partisanship' is why there's no solution now? Bullshit every step of the way, and everyone who reads this knows it. You're using 'partisanship' as a meaningless massage word for emotional connotation without having to worry about meaningful content. Like I said, bullshit.

Refer you to my comments above helping you to understand what you read, to define partisanship and to track it for you. Always to help you, V. I take the time to dismember your cynical attacks every time V. to set the record straight that Dennis Valdron has obfuscated with what he defends the most: constant and enduring human division and acrimony as regards the United States. It seems to me your chief purpose is to write things which say: "there's no hope for the US" and it is a dictatorship in unquestioning lockstep, and so on and so forth. I'll admit we have problems, but not that you render them rightly, or that you are in good faith with your mis-characterizations.

Or are you suggesting that things were originally pretty bi-partisan, there was a degree of consensus, and it was only after that things became partisan?

No. You are confusing yourself. Reading is fundamental. You must have quit early on out of frustration that what you read wasn't what you wanted to see. Now you're twisting yourself out of shape to make it the way you want it. I'm not going to help you. Why don't you go back to writing sci-fi and stick to your trade.

In which case, bullshit on a practical level. Because the documentary record shows that the fatal mistakes were all made and committed to long before a significant political rift opened up and the Democrats or media began to openly challenge Bush.

Wrong again. You lump all Democrats into a monolith as supporting the invasion, which is a partisan oversimplification, demogoguery really, and call it documented when there are documentary counter-examples are clear for all to read.

Truth: many supported the war because Bush, with the CINC power had already moved troops into harm's way, poised as they were in Kuwait, engaging in pre-invasion special ops, and steaming as they were in the waters where the USS Cole was bombed. And so they were dealing with a CINC's power to first commit troops which makes it near to impossible to stop them from escaping arguing that the troops are in harm's way, with the lie of WMD stacked on top of that (the world is in harm's way) and now you are prosecuting them in hindsight, which has the benefit of intensive investigations in which few Americans would even know where to start if they had the resources to conduct them. The CINC power gives the president and his influencers the initiative to drive events, and usually the game is always catch-up from the Congressional and Judicial side. That's historically so.

You can kevetch with hindsight from Canada all you want, but it is oversimplified nonsense and I've been watching our political scene for as long as you have. (I just haven't spent much time criticizing Canada while focusing on my own backyard, for instance). As I said, I opposed the Iraq invasion and where I was writing and submitting most at the time carried its own editorials counseling containment of Saddam.

As I've said, your writing is mush, so I'm forced to struggle to dissect it, looking for whatever you might have meant.

Whatever. Uh huh.

How do you propose to differentiate between the troops' well being and morale, to boost it, while not cheerleading for the neocon nonsense? That ... the lamentation I've been writing about partisanship.

So your argument, as I read your strangled syntax, is that it is necessary to cheerlead 'neocon nonsense' in order to maintain the troops well being and morale?

No. How do you differentiate between boosting troop morale and well being while they are on the ground in Iraq, and supporting neocon policies?

Is that what you are saying? Because your rhetorical style never makes it entirely clear.

The beholder projects his bad-faith comprehension problem as a rhetorical writing problem. More nonsense from Dennis Valdron.

I frankly dispute your whole premise. Cheerleading, as Neoboho writes elsewhere, hurts troops morale and well being because the troops on the ground see the difference between their reality and rosy fabrications. The troops are the last people who buy the rosy propaganda because they're on the front line.

How do you dispute a premise you say you don't understand? More bad faith arguments, and, a waste of time.

Isn't that what you said, that I was a waste of your time? And yet here you are writing long missives to try to discredit my thinking rather than writing your own posts and doing some original thinking beyond throwing rhetorical jibes around? Where's your original blogs? You are a blogger here aren't you?

Troops are not discouraged by criticism if they can see that criticism is not supported by their own experience. If its going good and that's their experience, they might get pissed off, but it won't affect their morale.

The criticisms I've referred to are blame-setting for how the troops got into Iraq. That, without non-partisan problem solving that engineers a way to get them out in this phase of things, is the discouraging element, although they may not be able to put their finger on how it operates against their morale to have two parties that can't get past their gridlock to come up with a clearcut plan that unites the people and the troops to a specific course of action to wrap it up and do so responsibly and safely so that they will not end up back there fighting a larger war.

You have this notion that American troops are such whining nancy boys that America must avoid or massage its way out of honest debate while they're dodging snipers and IED's so as to avoid depressing the poor deers. I'm sorry, but I think that is dishonest and superficial.

No, I have this notion that American troops are listening to whining nancy boys like yourself who do not offer clear cut objectives, solutions, direction or alternatives that will get them out in such a way that they or their kids won't have to turn around in two years and fight a larger war there.

Well, let me reply in this way: The troops were not well served by 'bipartisanship' inasmuch as a failure to oppose or question or challenge got America into this mess. The troops are not well served now by 'bipartisanship'.

As I explained above: it wasn't "bipartisanship" that flummoxed the Congress to vote a resolution backing the Commander-in-Chief -- it was deception and coercion inherent in the much discussed problem of the imbalance between the Declaration of War power and the CINC's power to define war policy in the absence of a clear, meaningful Declaration and appropriation and investigation power in the Congress working together to keep a Chief from leading them with military action. By definition, that setup will always get everyone into military action, and to oppose it at the early outset, especially with concealed facts underpinning same, is a big hammer held over the heads of the Congress. You won't see and recognize this point because you don't want to, I know.

If you have some idiot notion that the solution is for everyone to go and hold hands with Bush and sing 'Kumbaya' disabuse yourself of it. Bush's solution is to keep the war going until he's no longer President, so that he can blame someone else for losing it. He doesn't have any better ideas. He doesn't have any other ideas.

Not really. Keep your idiot notions to yourself. More misrepresentative ad hominem from Dennis Valdron the sci-fi writer and once-banned provocateur from the TPMCafe.

You figure that 'bipartisanship' is going to fix that. Maybe if we just sit down and talk to a man who doesn't listen, we'll magically come up with what... flubber? A Solution? And what's getting in the way? Partisanship? Fookin' delusional.

You've got a point. Why do I bother responding to you? You don't listen and misrepresent everything. How can one have a discussion with a contrarian?

We're in a new phase.

Again, I call bullshit. We're not in a new phase. There's no justifiable argument for a 'new phase' in the Iraq war or occupation.

The new phase: figuring out how best to leave Iraq as opposed to assuming we'll be there ten years. It's that simple. New phase: Democrats won the majority in November 2006. Where have you been?

Everything going on now has been going on for a long time. The level of violence has escalated, but it has escalated gradually by measurable increments. The failure of reconstruction is old news. There's been no radical or transformative shift that would justify the phrase 'new phase.' We're in the same hole we've been digging all along.

Reference you to the above, if you'll read and understand it.

The only thing is people are starting to notice how deep it is. The extent that you can justify the term 'new phase' is that the media, the public and the Democratic party have begun to wake up and critically scrutinize the war. And this is a problem for guys like you, apparently...

Look, if you have a need to say that everyone else who has not critically scrutinized the Iraq invasion and subsequent situations even when they have, so that you can be the only one in your own mind, carry on with that fiction story Canadian sci-fi guy Dennis Valdron. Shazam!

The new phase is not the war, its the monitoring.

Now the troops are stuck there, as Mr. Reid said, in a "quagmire," and their morale is hurting.

HOW do we salvage them, and push for a clear-cut objective they can achieve, and come home.

You never answered that substantive question, did you? Why? Because its the acrimony in the criticism that you like, not real solutions. The best you seem to do is managing to be the Typo Critic below.

Gee, I dunno, how do we do that? Hmmmm. Let's take a look at your answer:

(a rhetorical question not an answer at all)

By burying them in bad news without crediting the good things *they* (the troops) do everyday (there's plenty of that missed as reports frequently seem to focus only on body counts), it will do them a disservice.

Once again, your mangled rhetorical style gets in the way, but it seems that we can salvage the troops and help them achieve a clear cut objective by... 'crediting the 'plenty of' good things that they do every day and stop focusing only on body counts and bad things.

Do I have that right? [NO] This is your position? Because that certainly looks like what your position is. Forgive me, but I'm operating with a handicap here. All I have to go on as to what you think is what you write.

The Typo Critic returns. Reporting the balance of the truth of what is happening everyday in Iraq is part of boosting morale. The whole truth boosts morale, not just part. See comments at beginning and in previous posts and comments that told you the answer to your pointless repeat questions. It's just a way of trying to lay a record of false characterization of other poster's writing as punishment for disagreeing with you, Dennis Valdron, sci-fi-writer guy.

So, all we have to do is renounce partisanship, fall into line behind the Bush administration (because they're the ones in charge)

Obviously not. [sigh . . .] Again, the above nonsense was written and conceived by Dennis Valdron.

on the assumption that this will magically enable them to have a plan when they've never had one before, and then rebalance the news at home for a better, happier, cheerier picture so as to uplift the tender sensibilities of those emotionally fragile soldiers in the field, and then...

Written and conceived and confabulated way out there by Dennis Valdron.

I don't know, wish real hard and believe in Christmas, and puppy dogs. Oh, and lets not dwell on body counts, because dead people are so... passe.

Written and conceived and fantasized by Dennis Valdron as a rhetorical experiment in his own self-dialogue.

No. It does the troops a disservice to simply perpetuate the same old tired bullshit that has lead us from 12 attacks a day to 180, that allowed the reconstruction to fail utterly in a sea of corruption.

Dennis, has it ever occurred to you that telling a person who opposed the invasion of Iraq and always has, that he has really been saying that we should censor bad news and report only good, is ridiculous? Of course that wasn't anywhere close to my view. Show me where that is what I said in context instead of what you extracted from it in a very bad or bad-faith reading.

Because what I have argued is that trumpeting the good things that the troops have done with what they were left with in Iraq these past years is as important as reporting the body-counts over and over again. You've got to tell the whole story, or its a half-truth. It seems what you are saying is that the troops have never done anything good in Iraq, and even if they have, never reporting it will not hurt their morale while the plurality of reports is body-counts about their lost comrades.

If the issue was, as you argued, whether we see the US troops as "nancy boys" then your logic would be used to support staying as long as the Commander-in-Chief wants, which is nonsense. So your selection of issues is also in bad-faith. No thanks to your vision.

Body counts are reported and should be. Life stories of the lost are reported and should be. Never said otherwise. Coffin draped coffins should be televised and corruption uncovered. But all of this doesn't change that fact that equal billing should be given to the good things that the troops have done, are doing, and can do, regardless of contractor corruption, political corruption and the like. I know you'll likely cut some part of this paragraph out and use it out of context again, but this will stand in opposition to your abuses in the forum.

Your suggestion is bankrupt and utterly without merit.

Written and conceived and fantasized by Dennis Valdron.

To wrap this up, let's go back and take a look:

You suppose that I've been trying to justify the invasion and war by blaming its misfortunes on the press. Not true at all...

Uh huh, but...

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,

Written and conceived and fantasized out of context by Dennis Valdron. Follow the logic: "efforts in Iraq" refer to the troops efforts to do their best with what little clear, military mission objectives they've been given not only so they may leave, but leave in such a way so as not to cause others to have to come back and fight a larger war. But you won't admit that the troops have emotions or concerns or a need for leadership that gives them such solutions, or clear objectives for getting out of Iraq. You contribute nothing.

Valdron, I sent you a private message.

Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods. Einstein

A thoughtful post, Tom, raising the level of the debate to substance. Interesting study and proverb.

It is my sense that more is at stake than some celebrating and some resenting a US pull-out without certain security objectives met, and the Iraqi leadership given secret notice of the withdrawal date. Perhaps that has secretly already happened.

I believe we should give the current Iraqi government the best chance of surviving after we leave, with notice of a date certain, and then set and achieve specific security objectives for that date, then leave as noticed. Without doing this, it seems that Iraq's government will surely cave, civil war would commence, and the risk is that it will spill into the region. If that happens, what is your sense for whether it would have many more US troops back on the scene fighting a war that costs more lives (at a higher rate) than we've seen lost in Iraq?

You may be saying that the Iraqi government will dissolve anyway, no matter how we leave them in control. I still believe we must give them the best chance to make it after we leave. That could be the key to averting a civil war. Perhaps as you said, it will become a Shi'ite government that will crush the Sunni resistance. I don't know. That would be better than warlords and open, continuous civil war, ethnic cleansing and disintegration.

Howard, is rapidly turning into spaghetti, so I'll try to be brief, and I'll avoid quoting you.

First things first, yes, Doris is in the Cabinet. It's a peculiarity of Canadian politics that we, like you, keep raving lunatics around. Unlike you, we seem to have a penchant for putting them somewhere where they can't cause too much trouble.

Second, in regards to your question as to whether Parliamentary democracies are less emotional and more rational, I can only take it that you have never witnessed a parliamentary question period. Let me assure you Howard, that such a visit would cure any creationist. He would walk away convinced that humans (or at least Parliamentarians, there may be some debate on the subject) are indeed descended (and not very far) from lower life forms. But I think he'd be convinced that our most immediate ancestors were not apes, but particularly obnoxious howler monkeys.

My comments in the above post were not a condemnation of American politics. Rather, they were a condemnation of America, and Canada, Western Europe, Eastern Europe, Russia, Japan, pretty much everything that passes for the modern world, except for County Restigouche in northern New Brunswick on the Bay Chaleur.

Republican and Democratic Congresspersons do not determine security accomodations. If they are briefed in advance on what the accomodations will be area versus area, they're responsible for their knowledge, that's for sure.

They should check. Most may prefer not to know and pork-out on the PR value of the junkets, and that ought to end. If that was McCain's inten, it rightfully backfired.

Bet you that the moment they were restricted from one area or another, however, that a Senator or Rep so disposed may accuse the President or Pentagon of some kind of cover-up of conditions in Iraq, especially if other politicians had been given disparate access at some point.

It's not worth troops lives if it risks them more than would be the daily case, or those in the field because covering or backup resources were engaged over the VIP. Another argument may be that those resources were in the air and might respond more quickly. It's more complicated than the initial impression, it seems.

An alias isn't an attack on a name, it's a variation of your name that you use. I'm sorry you took that as an insult.

The point is, you've been nasty as can be to me and to other posters here, and were banned once for the same thing as I understand it. You called someone's mother a whore, and I've found quite a few references to others on this forum which are abusive. It's not appreciated by anyone except perhaps OGD.

Your apology is as dishonest and insincere as the rest of your posts.

No face.

No name.

Only the sound of cats fucking.

Don't know why you think I'd question your patriotism. That's not my way of doing things.

I'm in agreement about the moral law and the commander issues from the CINC level if they were still a source of help for the troops. They're not. Bush is obviously not an experienced military commander and it is not him I'm expecting a solution from.

The moral law behind an ethical, tactical withdrawal solution needs to come from the people, the Congress, and the commanders in the field. I mentioned Petraus. Bush often says he listens to his commanders, so Petraus has an opening and will likely use it. If Gates sides with him, the neocon grip might be broken once and for all. That is my pitch for an improved chance at leaving best.

In a guerilla war the prosecution of tactics of counter-insurgency are what determine what sort of chance for success the Iraqi government will have to keep order and protect innocent Iraqi lives after US forces pull out. As I said, a secret date certain needs to be set, closely guarded, and US troops and the public only know that one has been set. At that point, the troops can be given concrete geographic objectives, and the Iraqis their notice that things are coming to an end for US boots on their soil.

This seems the best way to leave. As it is, Mr. Reid is talking about a 2008 date. I'm not so sure what I'm talking about couldn't be achieved sooner than that. Arbitrary dates that give notice to guerilla-terrorists aren't a very good idea, in any case, any more than Bush's telegraphed invasion into a waiting guerilla trap.

The only thing missing from the photographs of Senator John McCain’s “stroll” through the Shorja market in Baghdad was a banner overhead declaring “Mission Accomplished.”

Martin E. Cobern

Cheshire, Conn., April 3, 2007

Yes it is.

Now you're getting Canadian politics.

~

I think I've kept it civil for the most part.

Are you referring to the Hanoi Hilton?

That was the part that didn't fit into "for the most part."

OGD, let's bury the hatchet. I self-justified above, and sometimes that is my way of getting to the point of admitting where I'm wrong.

As to him, to you. All is forgiven here.

Forgive me also, if you will.

I am in regular contact with soldiers in Iraq, soldiers who have served there, and soldiers that are scheduled to return, and I simply don't hear what you describe as division or lack of confidence. Most are career: regular, Guard, or Reserve. Most military sociologists and historians that comment on motivation, including Morris Janowitz, Samuel Huntington, Ken Grossman, Dan Bolger and, to the extent you take him seriously, SLA Marshall, observe that the primary motivation for people in combat is unit cohesion.

In general, I would say that soldiers were far more concerned about political questions during the Civil War as opposed to wars of the 20th or 21st century. They are concerned when they see no clear objective and also a lack of commitment by a host nation, as in Vietnam.

Now, the soldiers I know will happily confront terrorists. A fair number of them are very serious historians, and they do not necessarily see a clear association between Iraq and terrorism affecting the US. That being said, they will fight professionally, and the NCOs and officers among them want to protect their people.

Loose lips are quite another matter.

I am rather dubious, given the nature of this war, that the average guerilla thinks of US politics. Yes, propagandists among movements may exploit that, but I see anti-imperialist/nationalist feelings, religious fervor, and opportunism for power as far more significant. What al-Qaeda may tape and send to al-Jazeera does not necessarily represent the thoughts of the routine fighter.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

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

You attempted to distort the Dhao for your own uses. I tried twice to steer you away from your folly, the first time lightly, the second with more force. You still question why. I tell you again, under terms you posit, it will never be. Do you not understand why they resist, and just who they perceive as their ultimate enemy? If it were America, and a foreign occupier had taken our land under false pretenses, where would you be? I have read through this thread, and I cannot begin to express my emotions. I understand why it is difficult accepting what could rightfully be called fate. What I spoke of in regards to Sun Tzu has nothing to do with individual officers. Each and everyone one of them possess or does not possess their own inner moral law. I will you and your son Godspeed, sir.

Regardless of what you may believe, I will you no evil. My fortune is not to be a master, propriety dictates my present path be traversed alone. If you live in a large community, you have access to persons more in tune with the Dhao than I.  Look amongst local martial arts masters, but not the showiest; instead the ones who eyes speak loudly of their confidence, but their gait does not exude pride. Ask them if my Dhao has been pure, but tell them I don't not claim the faith. I still have confidence in the purity of my message.

I am finished on this thread, look here for an answer.

"This fella's train has left the station... and he's standing on the platform watchin' it pull away."

...and he doesn't realize it!

Tom

~

Mr. Woodson:

Although I appreciate the thought, I see no need for you to offer forgiveness for any of my actions or words.

As for your request for me to forgive you? To forgive a person for their past indiscretions is to observe that individual's future actions of not repeating that action and/or the associated negative indiscretions which are being requested to be forgiven. With that in mind, I shall delay any action of acceptance of, or granting of forgiveness until further notice.

I'm quite sure that such an individual as you can fully understand and appreciate this.

So as of now there are only 999 atta-boys to go ....

~OGD~

Justifying what happens in wars, even if the decision to go to war in the first place were vetted, verified and legally correct in the world's eyes, is not automatic or easy.

And so I'd modify my answer to your questions above to make clear that I'm not saying the reasons why the U.S. could be moved to join a later ME or extra-ME war would necessarily justify all that could happen in a war, even if the objective of the war is a laudable defense of life.

There are almost always unintended consequences. How is it determined that their risk would be worthwhile?

Bravo, brotha Larry,
It is the nuance of experience that shows you care for the men and women on the ground over bs policies and bureaucratic spin. Cap a dome and get in there if you believe in it boys. I have a habit of calling congressional office of the chickenhawks on the floor. Its amazing how defensive their turd staffers can be when you ask, "I'm sorry, I was checking over the congressman's bio and I didn't see which service he served in, could you help me?"

Try it some days when C-Span becomes ad nauseum with bleeting coward Republicans who almost don't even terrorize you anymore. You've gotten smarter as a people America. Keep it up. The Democrat need to find their fulcrum and flip these bastards while they can.

If they don't, the people should.

Thanks again brother Larry. Keep up the good writing.

Keep an eye out on the new Senate Intel Report. Feel free to call and ask when it will be published. Don't forget to call the Oversight committee while you are at it, and stay on the Josh Bolton and Michael Hayden responses. over.

Don't need your atta-boys at all, and wouldn't put credence in them. Your behavior doesn't fit your represented background. You're an unstable guy in my opinion, but forgiven anyway.

As before, OGD keeps the basis of his personal attacks squarely out of context, otherwise they wouldn't work as a cheap shot personal attack.

A careful review of OGD's assertions in his attacks and what he glosses over and calls verbose or b.s. because he doesn't want to deal with it, will reveal that he is all about dodging substantive points made, taking quotes out of context, attacking those, and then calling the rest verbose or vaporous. Abra-cadabra, I can't deal with the merits, so I deem my opponent's points "vaporous!" That is fantastical thinking.