It is pretty telling to me when a head GOP'er talks about how our "cost" in Iraq is "nothing much" with little or no reich-wing comment, yet, an ad about a general went political in his uniform brings cries of defense from those same people, as if the "honor" of one general is greater than the 4000 American dead/30,000 wounded and over 1 million Iraqi dead/4 million refugees.

Either it is the "smoking gun" for a slime machine or 'Merikans are pretty stupid.

First: Gen Petraeus was wrong to allow a political hack to hide behind his skirts.

His public appearances should have been limited to governmental functions, testifying before

Congress, etc. He, at least, bent the UCMJ by what he did, betraying the trust to the public.

Second: Congress may make no laws concerning free speech. I know that paraphrased thought is in there, somewhere in some government document. Congress was wrong to say anything about the MoveOn ad.

Three: Fox News is a flashy entertainment setting that loves making themselves" the news". Paying attention to Fox is like watching a temper throwing five year old in a public venue, who gets paid more the more spectators that watch.

Glenn,

Did I not read that the government initiated the entire debacle well before 11 September, 2001? If that is the case, then constant pronouncements about "9-11" are not relevant and should be highlighted as specious.

I am quite willing to believe that Jonah is in a panic over attendance only because everyone potentially in attendance knows that military recruiters will be there, with the potential of having to explain, on video for posterity's sake (as well as their political future sake), why they cannot put into action that which they so easily, exhort others to do, enlist and fight.

I watched the entire summer of 2001, as Ashcroft, among others, decided to take government transport only and the last half of August, airport security loosened up (no longer turning on computers, many magnetometer alerts deliberately ignored and over largely clad individuals - for Aug. - passed through without - as formerly - thorough screening, all documented by me, an airline pilot) I would not be surprised that Bush, et.al. deliberately told security people to back off, and this was before we found out about the stovepiping of information, the lack of security concerns, even to the Bushster telling the intel folks that "they had CYA", and Condi stating that ".... but we didn't know that they would fly aircraft into buildings". You'd think the head of the NSA would have known about the 1994 Air France 767 terrorists tried to fly the plane into the Eiffel Tower.

Looking back, it is so obvious to me that at least they knew something was going to happen. The hard part would have been for them to act surprised and not laugh.

Sol,

I know for a fact that the translations of Irani discourse about Israel are wrong when they mistranslate the Farsi into "eliminating Israel" when a much closer, in context, rendering is that they wish "regime change" in Israel.

As I am not familiar enough with Arabic, especially that spoken in the areas around Israel, I cannot as reliably speak about, but, according to friends who do know the idioms, a similar idea is expressed. After all, Christians, Jews and Muslims are all considered "brothers" in the Koran.

There can be found, generally under rocks, clerics in all countries, the US and not just Arab/etc., who express eliminist tendencies about other peoples. Dubya, in referencing the "Crusades" implied that very thing.

The only group I've seen who speak to scattering Israelites to the four winds are Evangelical in nature, citing that action as a step to fulfilling Revelations.

I believe, if you read the entire NIE, that the context is, "if Iran had a nuclear weapons program, then it was suspended in 2003", with a lot of emphasis on the word, "if".

We know that Israel does have a nuclear weapons program that violates several UN resolutions. Israel deployed and used cluster bombs, a war crime. Maybe we should invade Israel for a little "shock and awe" on the rock.

I can tell you from experience, unfortunately, that you can find people who want to eliminate another people anywhere. There is a broad range of reactionary discourse in Palestine, as there is obviously one here in the good ol' US. Words are cheap, anyway.

Please reference my second to last paragraph. Maybe I was not clear in stating that very issue. Clerics with eliminist rhetoric can be found everywhere. Time to stop that shit.

Don't make us into Saints, just stop killing us.

Past time for the US to level the playing field and stop feeding the beast.

The question asking if Obama is "manly enough" is indeed a two-fer, questioning Obama and by rhetorical trickery, dismissing Clinton. To the drooling right winger, it leaves Sen. Magoo as the only selection.

I am a dyed in the wool conservative, was vocally against invading, much less occupying Iraq and somewhat resent your simple one-dimensional analysis and overly simple categorization of hawks/doves.

I registered Independent when the moron ran, knowing him and his military history could never allow me to help that fruitcake, at all. Disgusting deserter could never fly, either.

So, now you know at least one fiscal conservative activist who, from technical knowledge alone, could not see a way to successfully invade, then disengage from, Iraq, knowing that any occupation would also be a disaster.

There are more where I come from, many in the halls of the Pentagon. Try not to alienate those of us, who, while differing how to get there, still want to be in the same place as you.