The Neo-cons say Free Markets are the solution to everything! Even conducting war! With free markets you get cost-efficiency, innovation and accountability.

What they failed to grasp is that these companies' accountability is only to their bottom line. Which is an incentive to overcharge and mismanage, especially when offered no-bid contracts.

So neo-cons, what do you do now? Leave military operations primarily to the military? This will require increasing the military or decreasing our obligations (or some combination thereof). Do you create structures for accountability and oversight? That's antithetical to your rampant free-market ideology. Or do you stop the no-bid contracts? But then how will you reward your cronies?

Oh, you wacky neo-cons. You're a mass of contradictions. How will you reconcile them?

FYI: this links to a New York Times article, not a Washington Post one.

If Duncan Hunter is right, we don't even have that humorous silver lining. From the Republican Economy Debate in Michigan:

You know, a couple of years ago, when our guys were getting hurt with roadside bombs in Iraq, I tried to find one steel company left in America that could still make high-grade armor steel plate to put on the sides of our Humvees to protect against roadside bombs.

-

I found one company left that could still do that.

And as you go down through the array of military systems that we need for our security we find that more and more of those have gone offshore.

http://www.cfr.org/publication/14459/republican_debate_transcript_detroit_michigan.html

Anonymous 6:49AM: your clarification isn't making me feel any better about no-bid contracts. Especially if "bid" contracts contain such narrow restrictions as to make them no-bid. And I don't consider "full restitution" and bankruptcy sufficient punishment and accountability for war contractors. The stakes are too high. But seeing as you're for accountability also, you may agree with me on this.

Those all sound like excellent arguments for not conducting wars this way.

So I'll stick with God if the two are in conflict.

Please, please say there was a follow-up question!

Governor Huckabee, suppose U.N. weapons inspectors and our own intelligence on the ground showed unequivocably that Iran did not have functioning nuclear weapons and could not possible have them within 5 years minimum, but you prayed on it and God told you that Iran did have them and was an imminent threat.

Would you side with God?

can we refer to them collectively as "Chuckabee?"

But to lump Huckabee in with Bush supposedly listening to direction from God on war isn't fighting fair.

Can you explain why this isn't a fair query?

For what it's worth, I think this forum too often brings out intolerance towards people of faith. But if Huckabee says he'll side with God over science when they conflict, I believe he should absolutely explain what he means by this. Because a reasonable interpretation of this statement can lump him in with Bush's beliefs.

Technically, God doesn't change (as God is known by most Christians). Our interpretation of God changes. Our personal experiences with God change. Our understanding of God changes.

For all intents and purposes (faith as applied in political life), I think this means God does change. What else is God in this context other than our understanding of him? No one has the monopoly on the the "correct" interpretation of God.

That goes back to my previous posting in which I stated the following options: "Leave military operations primarily to the military? This will require increasing the military or decreasing our obligations (or some combination thereof)."

How old are they? I bet Hillary Clinton has cooties, too.

Please don't apologize for the rambling. There was a lot to think about in there. One point I hadn't really thought about before "I have no doubt that a right-wing nutjob steeped in all that hatred for her will attempt to assassinate her pretty quickly."

Wow. After fomenting such hatred of Hillary Clinton, what will Republicans do if she becomes president? Will they tell people to put aside their hatred for the good of the country? Will they feel at all responsible for stoking the hatred of a potential madman assassin?

What's weird is that Romney starts by saying Osama and then "corrects" himself to say Barack Obama. Twice. It appears that the slip of the tongue was him saying Osama not Obama. It sounds like he just got the citation wrong, that he really believed Barack Obama said those words.

These are Bush's comments to the National Defense University, "the pre-eminent institution for education, research, and outreach in national and international security." Its mission is to prepare leaders "to evaluate national and international security challenges through multi-disciplinary educational and research programs, professional exchanges, and outreach." http://www.ndu.edu/info/mission.cfm

Yet our President and Commander-in-Chief speaks to them as though they have the intellectual sophistication of a group of five year-olds. He closes his speech by telling them "You're courageous folks."

Oh, and Clinton's answer was in response to a Guardian reporter. Foreign reporters are known for asking our elected leaders much more rigorous questions than the American press does. Which I suppose echoes Reality-based Liberal's comment about us setting the bar pretty low here.