Scheunemann Watch
From today's WP:
Randy Scheunemann, the McCain campaign's top foreign policy aide, noted that Biden championed the idea of dividing Iraq into three semi-autonomous regions: Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish. "If we had followed Senator Biden's ill-informed advice to split Iraq into three pieces, we would have seen wide-scale civil war," he said.
Well! In that case, looks like we--and the Iraqis--certainly dodged a bullet.
Advertisement
Comments (8)
Yeah. That sure would have burned Iran's investment and all the hard work they have dedicated to annexing Iraq once we're gone. That would have fucked everything up for them. Good thing Washington had their back on this one.
July 15, 2008 11:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Randy Scheunemann is as clueless as Phil Gramm. I guess you have to be a fact free true believer in some right wing ideology or other to be a McCain adviser.
Why is it the media never seems to notice that neo-cons are totally free of the normal constraints of reality?
Hiring Scheunemann demonstrates poor judgment. In a rational world the mere fact that Randy Scheunemann is a primary McCain adviser should disqualify McCain.
July 15, 2008 11:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
ronbyers,
Because neocons are mostly conservative Repulbicans, and liberal Democrats are the larger threat to the trend toward deregulation-privatization of industries, including communications media.
July 15, 2008 11:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Interethnic conflict, resistance to foreign occupation, and criminal gang violence do not a "civil war" make.
The issues to be resolved are 1) whether Scheunemann is correct and, and if we conclude he is, 2) whether a "civil war" would have been worse than what we got.
July 15, 2008 2:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ellen,
Don't get me wrong, I like a lot of your posts. But I have to ask...
What is the significance of the weird word order in the phrase "... does not a make."
I see people using it pretty frequently, but what does putting the verb at the end signify versus the more conventional word order? Is it just some antiquated bit of phrasing that somehow made it to the modern age, kind of a linguistic Coelacanth?
Thanks
July 16, 2008 3:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Intriguing question.
See, here and for the source(?) here.
July 16, 2008 2:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think Scheunemann uses "civil war" in terms of ethnic cleansing- tribal fighting, expulsions and segregation. But he is right. What happened wasn't a "civil war;" it was a "Surge." Now it's over and we won!
July 15, 2008 10:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Pay each and every Sunni male a monthly bribe and squelch "sectarian conflict"?
Or is it truly a civil war when factions inside a sovereign country take up arms against one another?
I hear Ellen say no but what does constitute civil war then?
July 16, 2008 1:20 PM | Reply | Permalink