anon said:

Then why did Boxer specifically mention her children and grandchildren?

Because, at Barbara Boxer's age, among her immediate family, it would only be her children and grandchildren that are of military age. Chances are any of her siblings, and her parents (if they're still alive) are too old to consider military service. The temptation to add "duh" here is almost overwhelming.

Suffice it to say, anon, that your determination to pin something on Boxer, in an attempt to shield Rice from the fact that she's an utter failure with absolutely no real commitment to the disastrous decisions she promotes, has robbed you of your ability to understand common sense. The same goes for everyone who read in Boxer's words that only a person who has given birth has a right to hold an opinion about war. She didn't say anything close to that, and your insistence that she did is pathetic. Focus on the real issues: thousands and thousands of people are dying as a direct result of the bad decisions of our elected representatives.

He talks about how terrible it is that we condemn Bush more than we condemn Saddam or Bin Laden. I agree that this is happening, but I don't see it as terrible. In fact, it's a very reasonable response.

Bush has far more power to inflict far more damage (and has done so) than Saddam or Bin Laden could ever have dreamed of. In this way, Bush is a far more dire threat to the western way of life than a relative handful of pissed off Muslims could ever be.

I don't like McCain, but let's not be silly. McCain is clearly reading something in his lap, most likely following the text of the speech. For a reputable media outlet to jump on the "McCain snoozes" bandwagon makes everyone look stupidly partisan.

All of that yummy internationalist support for the U.S. after 9/11? Who wants it? I don't want other nations feeling sorry for the U.S. I want terrorists to fear the U.S.

Chest-beating aside, the point of international support is so that we can be more effective in going after violent extremists. As it is now, our resources are spread too thin to make as great an impact as we could had we not alienated our allies. More effective prosecution of the GWOT translates into more fear of the US by terrorists. See, elephant, everyone wins.

The Taliban resurgence in Afghanistan? It might be because the country is more free than it ever was under the Taliban, and therefore the Taliban-linked drug lords are more active than ever. You want more Taliban-style social order in Afghanistan?

Big oxymoron you've provided there, eh? The Taliban resurgence (and the criminal totalitarianism they bring with them) is a sign of...wait for it...greater freedom! Very interesting theory. Everybody else, including NATO commanders, thinks that it's simply due to an abject lack of security, but what do they know?

As for the 9/11 Commission, let's not forgot that one of their great contributions to American life and the history of New Orleans was lumping FEMA in with the Department of Homeland Security and reshuffling that bureaucracy. We need more 9/11 Commission recommendations like we need another hijacked airliner.

Elephantman, FEMA was integrated into the DHS before the 9/11 Commission report. A little research will do wonders for you.

You want to leave our national security to people like John Conyers, Nancy Pelosi and Russ Feingold? Give me a break.

This seems to imply that the current folks overseeing national security are doing a bang-up job, instead of the piss-poor job that we see here in Reality. Tell me, in your world, has Al Qaeda recruitment not skyrocketed as a direct result of the unnecessary Iraq war? Is the military not spread so thin that it's unable to address our most pressing security concerns (Iran and North Korea)? Are the national debt and deficit not the highest they've ever been in history?

If so, let me know what drugs you're taking, or whatever it is that allows you to occupy this alternate reality. Sounds like a lovely place.

I can certainly see why the soldiers don't stop. If I was a sitting duck for IEDs, you can bet I wouldn't stop either.

But I can also see how this kind of driving doesn't win us many hearts and minds, which is the only way we could ever "win" in Iraq. Imagine if the US were being occupied by a foreign army that crept up behind you on the road and bumped into your car, as opposed to the polite flicking of highbeams they do on the autobahn. Now picture how you would regard those troops, and you'll get a glimpse of how many of the Iraqis must regard us. And for those of you saying this is how everyone drives in the 3rd world: bullshit. I've spent a lot of time in developing countries, and while driving on the wrong side of the road and squirming around cars in gridlock is completely common, bumping bumpers is not.

So what we're faced with is a necessary tactic employed by the troops, that is working in the exact opposite direction to where we need to go in terms of the big picture. This is a theme going throughout this invasion and occupation, and provides as good a snapshot as any in why this mission was doomed from the start.