Well, there is a part in every war where people(owners of fortune 500 companies and any other companies that sell to the military) make money. Stocks go up, so companies profit from that. As well as whatever they sell to the military to help support, even prolong the war. This goes for all counrties. So if you lose 20 million people in a war. Would that halt what money you would make. Not at all. Those 20 million buyers that you lost, you can easily make up buy extending your reach to other countries. So whats 20 million to them.

There were no stockholders in the munitions industry - in a communist country. Most assuredly some pigs were more equal than others, but no one of any legitimacy was sitting pretty in the USSR in 1943. Stalin was as brutal, psychopathic, and bloodthirsty as Hitler - and his oldest son was killed in Sachsenhausen as a prisoner of war.

I repeat my earlier comment: this has come to be commonly regarded as the most brutal and deadly front of any war in human history. If "war is hell", then this was hell on crack. To dismiss the suffering and death of 20+ million with some vague generalities about war profiteers and stockholders is somewhat inhuman.

This was not about money.

No figure that you come up with will replace 20 MILLION DEAD.

13000 +, per day, for 4 years.

Benefit, my ass.

Paragraph 7:

But in Obama's faith in the average American voter lies one of the greatest weaknesses of his campaign. Tis faith in the ability and willingness of Americans to rise above manipulative political tactics seems

Methinks you meant "his."

While reading and listening to this speech, I couldn't help but juxtapose the fact that the current occupant can't even properly pronounce the word "nuclear."

I was reminded of Kennedy's speech on foreign policy at American University. {Link at sig}

Good on ya, Sen. Obama.

@ Glenn:

This quote is not about the journalistic atrocity you have documented today (and holy shit doesn't it make you want to strangle a lemur or something), but I re-encountered this quote a few weeks ago and wanted to toss it out at you just ... well, you'll see why ...

...The most consistent and ultimately damaging failure of political journalism in America has its roots in the clubby/cocktail personal relationships that inevitably develop between politicians and journalists - in Washington or anywhere else where they meet on a day-to-day basis. When professional antagonists become after-hours drinking buddies, they are not likely to turn each other in ... especially not for "minor infractions" of rules that neither side takes seriously; and on the rare occasions when Minor infractions suddenly become Major, there is panic on both ends."

-Hunter S. Thompson, Author's Note to Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail '72

I know it's OT today (would have been more appropriate during the discussion of Tucker a few days back), but I thought you would appreciate it.

There have been more days, lately, when I really miss HST.

Glenn - wasn't sure if you were aware of the concept of the "Overton Window":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window

The concept refers exactly to the comments you make at the end of this piece about the acceptable range of political commentary. The massive right shift over the last forty five years has made Harry Truman's war time investigation of War Profiteers treasonous by today's standards.

In re: PW - can we bring back Bart? I know he called you a liar and all, Glenn, but he was way more literate, enagaging and even occassionally on topic than the simpletons that have succeeded him. And that is not at all meant to be a compliment to Bart.

Or, in Arne's words:

Better trolls, please.

I unfortunately haven't had time to read the comments for a while now, and I don't have time today. But I wanted to say two things: (A) I have enjoyed Brian Williams as a news anchor, when I have watched him, and will do so no more. This kind of commentary deserves a public shunning. And (2) [sic] I have been hoping that you would comment on that Peggy Noonan column, Glenn. It was, and I realize this is saying quite a bit when compared to the rest of her output, unbelievably vapid, self-serving, and inane.

The Wall Street Journal is the media entity with the largest disconnect between its news department, which is pretty consistently first rate (if focused on areas to which I don't normally pay enough attention), and its editorial department, which is consistently myopic, dogmatic, sanctimonious, and puerile.

A pulitzer? Holy moley.

I haven't commented in quite a while, but ...

for this commentary in particular,

thanks

I am actually a huge fan of Hagel. But he would be a terrible choice as Obama's running mate. Other than opposition to Iraq and a cache of political integrity, Hagel and Obama are polar opposites. They should remain so - and maybe raise the level of discourse across the aisle in so doing.

Hagel is as conservative socially and domestically as any member of the Senate. The idea that he would get offered, or accept, or receive the nomination for the Democratic VP slot is absolutely crazy. For the press to continue to talk up these stories with only the vaguest of assertions that there is some type of "real" interest in this is kind of infuriating.