For instance, nearly everyone here thought invading Iran was a done deal.

Except no-one did. Oh, it looked like it was moving in that direction a year ago, and the Administration's record for reckless and counter-productive action gave us no confidence that cooler heads would prevail.

Fortunately, it didn't come to military action.

They were wrong. What should the penalty for that be?

Except they weren't wrong. Thus no penalty needed.

Most people were on board for invading Afghanistan and it's not looking so good these days.

And whose fault is that? Certainly not ours.

Does that counter the support of invading Iraq? How does one condone invading one country, while considering the invasion of another anathema?

Is this supposed to be a serious question? I mean, how many different ways can it be explained to you?

More importantly, where are the predictions for what happens if/when we pull out?

I believe this has been dealt with repeatedly. It will be messy, regardless of whether the US stays in or leaves.

Personally I think...

I don't think you actually think. Rather disqualifies you from offering further opinion.

The doers (often conservatives) think simple plans and get to work implementing them,

Yes, that's worked so well in the case of Iraq, hasn't it. Simple plans to deal with complex problems invariably result in nothing but absolute and costly failure.

while the thinkers (often progressives) think up elaborate plans and whisper them to close personal friends who congratulate them and do nothing about it.

Glib generalizations like that will only get you into trouble. And as far as implementing such plans, its more a matter of getting office-holders to listen and get behind them. Given your evident preference for brute simplicity, reduction to the lowest common denominator and so on, its little wonder you can't comprehend the original point.

Regarding your comment on facing reality: which reality are you referring to – the memory of the past or observation of our current progress into the future?

The reality that we live in a complex world that requires considerably more understanding than dichotomous reasoning.

Your sadness about the past or your hope for the future?

My hope for the future is tempered with the realization that I and my family are prey to misfortune and disaster not of our making, as are the rest of us.

Including you, Martin.

“Simple plans to deal with complex problems invariably result in nothing but absolute and costly failure.” I agree. But I’d almost say that simple plans are better than no plans because simple plans fail and that hurts and that SHOULD wake up those who can make better plans.

And what if those who composed and implemented the plans which failed have no incentive to either learn from that failure OR to listen to those who propose more comprehensive alternatives?

I believe Glenn and many of us here already discussed this issue at length in a prior thread.

"A spiritual guide" v. "HIS spiritual guide": What's the difference? A lot...

David Corn and Glenn Greenwald are deliberately falsifying McCain's words, in order to imply some equivalence between McCain & Obama.

Depends upon one's POV, I suppose. You evidentially wish to presume McCain has no actual philosophical or moral beliefs, hence his utilitarian use of these men's 'endorsements'.

If there is no guilt-by-association for McCain, why should there be any with Obama?

Similarly you wish to paint Wright as "a hatred-ridden anti-American freak" (your own words), when in fact the full text of the sermon in question belies such a description.

I don't actually expect you answer to any of the above points, but feel free to surprise us.

It's not isolated. Most black people I know don't see anything that wrong with Wright's comments, and polls show that over 40% of blacks believe that the government gave us AIDS.

And a sizable number of Americans still believe Saddam Hussein was involved somehow with the 9/11 attacks. Does this automatically make the 2003 invasion of Iraq justified?

Ultimately, people are going to believe the strangest things even in the face of evidence to the contrary. This doesn't automatically mean everyone who belongs to that particular ethnic group holds those same beliefs or arranges their lives around them. Certainly my wife, who's black, doesn't accept Wright's odd statements as the gospel truth.

Put another way, if Obama is indeed irredeemably soiled by Rev. Wright, is not McCain similarly unworthy of office due to his association with Hagee?

Intstapundit did NOT link to the Obama story. He linked only to the post on Easter thoughts. Your attack on Reynolds is lame.

Reynolds himself is quite lame, so what's your point?

Your great leap of guilt by a disconnected association is laughable considering that you give Obama a pass on his 20 years association with his pastor.

Considering Rev. Wright is significantly less controversial than Hagee and company, with a far shorter list of inflammatory lines and statements?

Here's an easier one for you:

If there is no reason to associate either Reynolds and his poster-links or McCain to those who endorse him, where do you get off hammering Obama about Wright especially in light of how the Senator already quite directly disavowed and refuted Wright's views (something neither Reynolds nor McCain appear inclined to do)?

I realize you likely lack the piles to answer, but please feel free to surprise us.

Ron Paul has also been called on to repudiate people like David Duke who offered him support, and Mitt Romney was called upon to answer for the racist history of his church, both cases of guilt by association, so drop the baseless idea that this is one way.

The problem with this? Neither of those individuals are actual candidates for anything anymore, nor do I recall either of those upstanding gentlemen actually disavowing, repudiating, or otherwise rejecting those elements.

Obama did.

Accept it and move on.