Disingenuous to an extreme. I had a nuanced and well thought out argument. When Republicans were in power they took many of the same positions that Democrats now take--not because it was good or bad, but because it was expedient. Its not that strange to consider that Democrats might be doing it too--not because its right or wrong, but because it is politically expedient. There was much more to my argument, in any case.

This part goes out to everyone here. You underestimate and degrade yourself when you create a strawman to counter arguments. Argue with on the issues as they've been presented, the entirety of it and in context; amplify our discourse rather than withering it away. That seems a difficult concept for many people herein.

Here ya' go. Take this one out of context:

I voted for Obama in the primaries. I will vote for him in the general. These are the reasons:

There are many reasons. The fact that he is non-white, and that he was not involved with the current cowardly batch of democrats who not only greenlighted but set the stage for the Iraq war marks a symbolic break with the horrifying administration of the last eight years; this is one reason. If you had not noticed there are currently only three eligible people running for president. One of them bombed civilians in Vietnam, is called a hero, and insists that we continue an insane global policy,laughs about the bombing of Iran and the death of Castro. Guess what; I'm not voting for him. The other is a barnacled political hack who, like our previous ol' Democrat front-runner, Kerry, has basically given Bush everything that he wants while pretending to be in opposition. Please let me know what the qualifications are of the imaginary candidates that you are backing in the imaginary land in which you are voting.

Pedinska, I seriously grieve for your loss. That sounds horrifying.

At the same time, I took a look at some of your posts and you have a habit of taking one thing out of the writings of others, magnifying, and releasing a self-righteous attack based on it. The poster with the red ribbon, for example. She made a legitimate point of how symbols often overtake what they are symbolizing and become a litmus test. Someone could easily have used similar reasoning as you to say that it was ok to condemn most symbols, but not the american flag. People have died for that too, you know. Just suggesting, to you and to many here, advice that I would also do well to take: count to ten, and take a step back. Does the point I'm making add to the discourse? Or am I simply trying to feel better about myself at someone else's expense.

And with that, I am seriously taking a freakin break from posting here. Sheesh, this crap can get way out of hand too quickly.

McCain was on the aircraft carrier Forrestal, assigned to the Rolling Thunder bombing campaign. The stated aim of that campaign was to destroy the civilian infrastructure of Vietnam. Conservative estimates of that campaign place the dead at tens of thousands. Some at hundreds of thousands. You can wiki it if you like below. I found several independent websites that corroborated the wiki link.

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

Click the Rolling Thunder link.

Thank you.

I'll tell you what we know. The Rolling Thunder campaign killed tens of thousands of people. I'll tell you what I don't know. How many of those were killed by John McCain. I would say that proposing that John McCain's bombings somehow caused no civilian deaths especially since they had to go back and bomb again and again, as you noted, requires a willing suspension of disbelief.

To review. We invaded Vietnam. We had no justification, we were as wrong as the Nazis were in killing jews. Our military killed one million people there. Anyone who chose to participate in that conflict, shows no remorse and is going to accept the title of war hero now for it, is a murderer.

I wholeheartedly agree with you about the narrow range of discourse surrounding Israel in the US, as opposed to Israel proper. One need only look at last night's sickening display by Tim Russert, where he neatly tied opposition to anti-semitism with blind support of Israel.

However, I do take issue with one point made in Obama's speech. While you didn't necessarily agree, it is important to note that there the differences between Likud and Labor are mostly cosmetic. I lived and worked in Palestine from 2000 to 2002 and I can tell you that Labor is not a viable alternative to Likud; in some ways the party is worse. Likud (and Kadima, to a lesser extent) seem to get most of the approbrium from the left here, while Labor is viewed as somehow more pro-peace.

Likud is obviously more extreme in rhetoric, but I would draw your attention to the Oslo years--invented and stewarded by Labor. Settlement population during those years, when Israel was supposedly preparing to return land to Palestinians, doubled from 1992-2000, and settlement building increased at a furious pace. Movement restrictions created by checkpoints and cantonization created by Israel-only roads decimated the already feeble Palestinian economy. In short, Labor's 'peace' strategies and negotiations are usually smokescreens to continue placing Israeli populations in the West Bank, consolidate current settlements, and institutionalize the apartheid structure of the territories. There is no reason to single-out Likud and no reason to take Labor at its word when it claims to want "negotiations".

I can tell you from experience, unfortunately, that you can find people who want to eliminate another people anywhere. There is a broad range of reactionary discourse in Palestine, as there is obviously one here in the good ol' US. Words are cheap, anyway.

Don't make us into Saints, just stop killing us.