Could anyone tell the ten white men in suits apart?

Another episode of TPMCafe Theater.

I smell "Regular Feature." 

Our obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code. -- SCOTUS that was...

J. McCutchen

"Hanoi John" McCain's testosterone-induced PTSD was raging last night. He claims that the troops don't think the war is lost. Well the British troops do and I suspect ours do to - polls suggest it. They're not idiots but that's what the Republicans continue to play us for.

Let's Kill a Few Iraqis for Old Gory

Long Deployments Affect Morale, Mental Health
DoD Releases Mental Health Survey of Troops in Iraq

Martin Van Creveld

The third and most important reason why I think Vietnam is relevant to the situation in Iraq is because the Americans found themselves in the unfortunate position where they were beating down on the weak. To quote Dayan: “any comparison between the two armies… was astonishing. On the one hand there was the American Army, complete with helicopters, an air force, armor, electronic communications, artillery, and mind-boggling riches; to say nothing of ammunition, fuel, spare parts, and equipment of all kinds. On the other there were the [North Vietnamese troops] who had been walking on foot for four months, carrying some artillery rounds on their backs and using a tin spoon to eat a little ground rice from a tin plate."

That, of course, was precisely the problem. In private life, an adult who keeps beating down on a five year old—even such a one as originally attacked him with a knife—will be perceived as committing a crime; therefore he will lose the support of bystanders and end up by being arrested, tried and convicted. In international life, an armed force that keeps beating down on a weaker opponent will be seen as committing a series of crimes; therefore it will end up by losing the support of its allies, its own people, and its own troops. Depending on the quality of the forces—whether they are draftees or professionals, the effectiveness of the propaganda machine, the nature of the political process, and so on—things may happen quickly or take a long time to mature. However, the outcome is always the same. He (or she) who does not understand this does not understand anything about war; or, indeed, human nature.

In other words, he who fights against the weak — and the rag-tag Iraqi militias are very weak indeed — and loses, loses. He who fights against the weak and wins also loses. To kill an opponent who is much weaker than yourself is unnecessary and therefore cruel; to let that opponent kill you is unnecessary and therefore foolish. As Vietnam and countless other cases prove, no armed force however rich, however powerful, however, advanced, and however well motivated is immune to this dilemma. The end result is always disintegration and defeat; if U.S. troops in Iraq have not yet started fragging their officers, the suicide rate among them is already exceptionally high. That is why the present adventure will almost certainly end as the previous one did. Namely, with the last US troops fleeing the country while hanging on to their helicopters’ skids.

""We've got to fight those who want to destroy Western Civilization"

Which is why I oppose Bush, who is in the process of trying to destroy Eastern, Western, Northern, and Southern Civilization.

Tom

I watched both primary debates on msnbc's website, and I'm curious to know what the network intro to the Democratic debate was like on TV.

The online version of the Dem debate doesn't have any intro at all, while the Republican debate has this extreme Reagan hagiography, it's actually kinda funny, going on about how his library is "outdoorsy, western, and debonair, like the 40th president himself," etc., all backed by soaring music.

After the Reagan stuff, you get these zoom shots of each candidate, kinda like what you might get in Olympic coverage hyping the contest between "legends of the sport."

Then there's digital confetti, and the music changes, as the camera enters the hall, to something reminiscent of the music at the end of Star Wars when the heroes are presented with medals.

Very weird.

Two debates, two Moderators from MSNBC:

Democrat debate;

Brian Williams: (from The Daily Howler)

"Senator Clinton, your party's leader in the United States Senate, Harry Reid, recently said the war in Iraq is lost. A letter to today's USA Today calls his comments "treasonous" and says if General Patton were alive today, Patton would wipe his boots with Senator Reid. Do you agree with the position of your leader in the Senate?" (note second sentence)

Republican debate;

Chris Matthews: (from Media Matters)

"Let me ask you about something else that might be a negative in the upcoming campaign. Seriously. Would it be good for America to have Bill Clinton back living in the White House?

Later, when he reiterated the question, Matthews asked,

"Should the Clintons come back to the White House, especially Big Bill?"

Matthews is asking Republicans if it would be ok if Hillary was President.

"Liberal Media" my ass.

Of course USA today, or anyone in MSM, wouldn't stoop to discussing that if General Patton had rolled into Baghdad in 2003 he would have stomped all over the Loyal Bushies/Bremer plan to de-Ba'ath Iraq, just like:

..his outspoken opposition to post-surrender denazification ...

he may have backed using Saddam's Republican Guard to break up the Mahdi Army. Then the question of a lost war four years later would be irrelevant.