There are some noteable differences in Obama. But he is not an anti-war candidate, at least in terms of his rhetoric. He has opposed the Iraq conflict, but has run actively on a platform that he will wisely wage our future wars. I have no doubt he will, a la Clinton, and I'm not sure we can hope for better than that at this stage in the game. What I find incredible is that with the Vietnam war THE supreme disaster of the current era, it's legacy has mellowed to the point where John McCain--a man shot down while bombing Vietnam--has an unassailable mantle as hero. That to me, would have been the strangest sort of revisionism imagnineable....before this conflict of course.

I doubt Greenwaldians need to be convinced of the point by this stage, but I must say that this piece was beautifully written. "Discrete issues" "war-crazed" that's just a couple of the things that stood out to me...

Was wondering if anyone caught the butt-waxing New York TImes article yesterday, focus on McCain's Marine son. Half-way through the article, we find out that McCain's son went through his entire tour of duty without seeing any fighting--when the Marines represent a very disproportional number of wounded and dead during this mess. I wonder why Democrats haven't brought this up--I'm sure its a very unstable point, and could blow backwards, but why doesn't anyone ask McCain how his son has avoided combat?

I purportedly read the article, its true.

What's your point. Mine was that McCain's son managed to get an assignment that would exclude him from combat; the fact that he was in Anbar AFTER the fighting there had passed on rather proves my point.

Sometimes I just don't get the tone on this here thing. I imagine most of the people who respond this way are frustrated bullies, who would like to go around in the real world intimidating people with either their physical or mental proportions but just don't have what it takes to get it done in the flesh. My answer: take karate lessons, join a gym and see a therapist about your social anxiety disorder, but stop polluting cyber-space with bullshit.

Sorry, I took you seriously for a minute. Then I read your other posts.

Like any place where there is a conflict, there are relatively safe places, and relatively dangerous ones. This seems obvious, but I'll elucidate it for you. I lived in Ramallah, during the intifada--2000 to 2002. Ramallah was relatively safe--that is there were umpteen missile attacks, but the city was spread out enough, and buildings far enough apart that you could live quite close to a place that had been demolished by a missile, and not feel especially lucky for having survived. In contrast, in refugee camps, not too far away, the density of the population and the buildings jumbled together made anywhere a dangerous place to be when Israeli forces attacked. If you folllow my reasoning--and its perfectly reasonable--I am suggesting that its POSSIBLE, that McCain sort of kind of pulled some strings so that his son would end up in a Ramallah-esque situation, not a refugee camp one. I don't see what's so hard to believe about this, I would imagine its fairly common. You're wrong about the green zone, without looking it up, I can remember only one high profile attack. I am not for sending the troops home because its dangerous--this is one of the safest wars in the history of our country, beside Desert Storm, Grenada and Panama. I am for evacuating now because I don't want to be a party the murder and decimation of the Iraqi people.

What's more, my own bonehead son recently joined the Marines, and I am hoping that he gets a McCain like assignment, myself. Although, not being a political empresario, I'm doubting we have any choice in the matter. Still, the fact that he is participating in this nightmare--enabling our country to spread misery and death in another country-- makes me sick to my stomach.

If your entire argument is resting on the fact that I said exclude, rather than some other word like, "shelter from" or whatever, then your point isn't a very strong one. I don't really see any of your points as worth refuting. My point, that there are relatively safer places to be in a war, than others, and that there are assignments that would literally preclude someone from being in combat, remains. Really, this odd homage to McCain in some progressive circles makes me sick...the guy was shot down while bombing we invaded for no reason, and outside of international law. It was a war that he willingly joined and still laments we didn't win. And this comment...

"The easiest way to repell voters is to start giving the impression that we think the war should end not because it's dangerous to our troops, but that it's dangerous to Iraqis."

...is really sick, really indicative of the brutish exceptionalism that infects this country.

On your way to homage this evening, make sure to pay your regards to wasting my time with bullshit. Seriously, I don't understand what illness takes over the brains of some of the people who post here, who are more interested in disecting word usage than looking for common ground in understanding. My post had plenty of other things in it than the word exclude. As you may or may not have read, I have actually lived in a city subjected to military occupation. I actually know what its like to live in a place that's under threat of violence twenty four hours a day. My son is about to go through the same experience. And all you can do is find fault with my word usage. Nice going, Sherlock, with you at the helm, this war should be over in no time.

Old people, I get. Everyone hates them. There's no excuse for hating little people and women--they are just like us.