Maybe you should have read what I wrote on July 17:

“What this article and almost all others fail to mention is the goal of the Shiites well before the invasion. Once they learned that aligning with our government as they did in the Bush 41 confrontation with the Iraqi Sunnis and subsequent slaughter of Shiites by Saddam, their goal was to support an invasion, let us destroy the Bathists, let a civil war ensue and then finally control and run Iraq. The al-Maliki or any Shiite driven administration is only interested in pretending to install a secular Iraq while waiting for us to become impotent and leave. Prolonging our stay or getting involved in a civil war where the enemy of my enemy is my enemy is only killing and wounding more of our military.

If we had any realistic foresight, which our political and many military leaders certainly did not, on what the goal would be for a post Saddam Iraq, it would have had to be partition. Realizing that, realistic leaders would have concluded not to invade and empower al-Qaeda and create millions of refugees and deaths. Realism and humanity have certainly not been part of the equation.”

I am heartened to see that you admit that there are only glimmers of hope left. What would history and our world be like if your side had even a glimmer of foresight on the tragedy you glibly embarked on? The prospects of positive events is down to slim and none. I care deeply about the humanity of millions of people whose lives have been destroyed by this continuing callousness. There are no easy answers. Partition implemented by us rather than the end of the civil war seems to me to be the best of the worst even though it decimates secular Iraq. How is your approach an answer when the end was inevitable from the outset and your approach is only continuing to delay the inevitable?

I tried to get you think humanely and you responded with an inane response repeated ad infinitum, so like so many others, consider yourself ignored.

It should have read, "so, like so man others,"

I agree, although somehow he or she gets under someone’s skin and off we go. Trying to have a discussion with shooter and his ilk reminds me of a discussion I tried to have with two high school senior girls in Montgomery, Alabama in 1968. They said that Montgomery was the best city in the world, so I asked them what cities they had traveled to. They said they had never been more than 50 miles from their beloved city. I spent two hours trying to convince them that they had no basis in knowledge or facts to back up their claim. It was a wasted debate, but a very instructive two hours for me because I found out how some people could be living in a completely different America than I was.

"our best media interviewer seems to be a comedian"

He's also host of our best news show, although Countdown is a close second.

I only try to remind people about the human cost of war. You breathe it for us and are far more eloquent. You keep the intellectual in us grounded. Thanks

Jim Montague

“Don't sit back and get too comfortable about Democrats winning in 2008. Everyone who has fought these battles in the past understands that you cannot take elections for granted. Republicans are smart enough and have the facilities to do serious damage to anyone who drops their guard.”

casual_observer

“I agree about the dearth of democrats who can communicate well to the people. I'd add Pelosi to the list of those who can't. She's Horrible. Perhaps Obama best in the field in this regard, and I've heard a couple of Biden speeches on CSPAN that were done well (my impression, anyway) in terms of communicating.”

William Timberman

“Meditate on bebop-o's sermons to the compassionate. Anything, anything but more of this nonsense....”

Since I started blogging a few months ago, and I started with this site, I have tried mostly to remind us about the human cost of war. Bebop-o does much more, he breathes it for us and is far more eloquent. He keeps the intellectual in us grounded. And that is where any Democratic candidate in the general election can be the most effective. Revealing the horrors of the war story and all the other RWA indecencies at the human, personal level, which is why the Rovians have been successful in too many elections. Look what happened to the great benefit of our wounded veterans when their mistreatment was humanized through Walter Reed victims.

Obama’s remark on hitting al-Qaeda in Pakistan was a political move to counter the message that he is soft on terrorism. He talked about a lot of other things in his remarks, but the MSM was only interested in stirring up conflict between him and Hillary. He has to operate in the “primaries” political playground that he didn’t build and with playmate reporters who only want to tell when he supposedly slips. The GOP clearly believes that he would be a tougher opponent than Hillary and have for some time been doing what they can to get Billary to attack and pull together their base.

To me, Obama represents the best humanizer, communicator and message that will defeat our enemy. That could be the first step in reversing some of the things we are rightfully railing against.

As an aside, I hope Glenn posts just a little bit each day while he is in Chicago so that we can all still get together and improve our knowledge and resolve.