What amazes me how effectively Bush has changed the subject with the "surge" proposal. After the entire elction cycle being dominated by "stay the course" vs "cut and run", the dichotomy suddenly shifted to surge vs stand pat. One of the downsides for those who actually oppose the war is that this shifts the "reasonable" position from staged withdrawal to stautus quo or IOW "stay the course"

but the way journalism works is you write what you know

And of course you attack with the Army you have, not the one you wish you had!

What both sentences of course leave out is that the speakers in question (Gordon and Rumsfeld) were in fact directly resposible for A: what he knew and B: what Army he had.

Rumsfeld at least has been politely escorted off-stage.

So they are water carriers for an incompetent and corrupt Bush Administration...but why?

For those who are wondering why the NYT might be giving prominent play to pro-war propaganda after they've already had to apologize for doing so in 2003, I have one (admittedly speculative) theory - blackmail.

You may recall that several months ago, there were hints coming from Justice that they wouldn't necessarily rule out prosecuting journalists for Espionage Act violations. I'm thinking that the administration is using the pressure of that possibilty, to influence coverage of the next war d'jour.

Rumsfeld at least has been politely escorted off-stage.

Are you sure about that, Ph.D?

Of course, referring to someone being off-stage doesn'r rule out their acting behind the scenes. In fact I chose the phrase with that in mind

Of course one of the more unfortunate effect of elections (especially when viewed from the outside) is that they make it appear that the entire electorate supports the result. Anyone viewing the US from the outside would conclude that we're a bunch of short-sighted morons who think that the only way to solve any problem is to blow it up.

In light of that, its CERTAINLY appropriate for foriegners to feel they have a stake in our elections. Don't we after all feel that we have a stake in Iranian elections?

If we are to be a country that now sends death squads into nations with whom we are not at war to slaughter civilians -

He's just extrapolating from behavior we're already engaging in. We after all have precident for using Predators to take out terrorist leaders. He's just taken the small leap from "terrorist leader" to "Iranian nuclear scientist".

Most of his readers won't even blink at the distinction.

Southerners have an incestuous mindset whereby they constantly reinforce each others craziness and that is why the craziness persists to this date and from before the Civil War of slavery and southern economics.

All I'd have to do is substitute Muslims for Southerners and that post would be right at home at Free Republic or on Michelle Malkin's site.

There's always a danger in any conflict of becoming your enemy. That's why it used to be important that America at least pretended to claim moral high ground. I suggest that we adapt the same thinking as we fight within America.

The law of war does not allow proclaiming either an individual belonging to the hostile army, or a citizen, or a subject of the hostile government, an outlaw, who may be slain without trial by any captor, any more than the modern law of peace allows such international outlawry; on the contrary, it abhors such outrage. The sternest retaliation should follow the murder committed in consequence of such proclamation, made by whatever authority. Civilized nations look with horror upon offers of rewards for the assassination of enemies as relapses into barbarism.

MC Cool: what we have here is a failure of comprehension. The post clearly points out that we are not at war with Iran. The prohibition against assasination refers to killing prisoners, not enemy combattants in the heat of battle.

Glenn Reynolds is advocating the murder of civilians. If you don't agree that that is inappropriate, then I'm not sure how you justify the expense of police and courts in place to prevent YOU from being murdered.

I understand we are not at war with Iran, but the point of the article was that assassinations are bad.

MC, you managed mistate the point of the article and to cavalierly dismiss the actual point of the article all in one sentence. I'm not sure that makes you a proper judge as to whether one of your fellow readers sound smart or not.

There's a reason that our officeholder swear their fealty to the Constitution of the United States. In the heat of battle, its easy to forget that it's the founding document that defines our country.

In that context, it's those who are attempting to ursurp the Constitution who are committing treason. The fact that they now represent a minority in this country just compounds the severity of the crime.

The money quote:

These people have as much business gaining regular access to the mainstream public discourse as Charlie Manson

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2007_02_01_archive.html#5309167707989782501#5309167707989782501

If we define liberty as freedom from coersion and a neocon as someone who advocates that political direction be determined by firepower, then the assertion follows with no further arguemnet.

to be able to see the long view.....

This is what happens when you deny Aphrodite; you get not Ares, or Athena, but Hades..

The invoking of ancient dieties of course reminds us that the battle between those who use hatred and fear as a tool of control and those who insist on appeals to rational thought has been waged throughout history.

That's what makes its current incarnation so tragic. For anyone with eyes to see, the babbling and sloganeering of war cheerleaders is hauntingly familiar. The result however is depressingly predictable.