HAYES: We don't negotiate somebody who's denying the holocaust, with somebody who's killing our soldiers.

MATTHEWS: What do you do with them?

HAYES: I think you confront them. I think you confront them in a stronger way.

One thing that I've never understood about geopolitics which I'd be happy if someone would explain it to me. How is it that we can speak of "confronting" Ahmadinejad when what we really mean is killing soldiers who are operating on his behalf (and any inconveniently located civilians)? God knows GW Bush feels no pain whatsoever when soldiers die on his behalf so it would be odd to assume that it would affect Ahmadinejad either.

While thinking of a leader as personifying his country can be a convenient shorthand for discussion, it nevertheless leads to serious misunderstanding if taken too literally.

Operates by taking exceedingly limited sensory data and fleshing it out with imagery constructed from verbal information colored with emotional content. If the emotional content is too far removed from the sensory data, the result is an Islamofascist under every bed.

Out troll is indeed insane.

Do North Koreans or women in the ME have those rights? Of course not.

If they didn't have rights then there would be no basis for complaint as to how they are being treated. Rights don't go away when they're denied. That used to be where the moral superiority of the USA came from. All the more reason to continue to assert our rights here.

Joe Klein nods in approval......

http://time-blog.com/swampland/2007/07/whats_missing_in_this_column.html

You're sort of missing the point. By NOT being a knee-jerk war cheerleader, he's providing credibilty and cover for people who are. This is what makes it worse.

Glenn's first update makes this clear.

Attention: journalists and news producers: they have these new things now called "computers" that record what people say and write and keep all of that stored. So if someone claims to be a "war critic" or "war opponent," you can actually look and find out whether that is true.

But they also have these not-quite-so-new things called TeeVee's which cater to and encourage short attention spans. In other words, much of the damage is indeed done. I'm especially disheartened by e-fives news that the local Chicago "eyewitness news" is helping spread this crapola. Only those of us who care enough to spend time on the internets are getting the news about these clowns. Keep plugging!

The surge has clearly worked, and trying to ignore that rather obvious fact is no longer possible.

-- Seaberry

for a nice photo-op at a fruit market

When I feel as safe in Baghdad as I do in Chicago, then you can say "the surge worked". Until then, I will continue to assert that we're presiding over a disaster and no spin whatsoever will come into play. To deny the disaster is to shamelessly lie. But then you already knew that.

Do you understand what happens if America loses the battlefront in Iraq, in this GWOT? Do you actually want to surrender to our Enemies?!

Who are our enemies in Iraq? Last time I checked we were there to liberate the Iraqi's and Saddam was our enemy. So who are our enemies now. How will we recognize victory or defeat. What end state are we attemprting to acheive. At least shooter seems to acknowlege that the desired end result is our permanent occupation of a client state in the ME.

The other troll on the other hand seems to beleive in fairy dust and goblins.

"That's the kind of pro-war Democrat that we ought to be: the war that we fight wisely, the ones that we engage in wisely."

Now I've seen everything. I can understand how someone might feel that war is unfortunate but necessary. I can even understand how someone might think that it's important to maintain an aggressive stance lest our enemies think us weak. But anyone who can use the phrase "pro-war" in a sentence and have it refer to anything that's NOT bad is certifiably insane. One might as well declare oneself to be pro-evil or pro-death or pro-murder. Am I missing something? Why is there anyone on the planet who REALLY thinks that war is a good thing?

but doesn't give a rats ass about actual policy or strategy or what might happen to be good for America.

Presumably since Pakistan is rules by an "allied" government any operations would indeed be with either the permission or tacit approval of the host government. It would also be directed at the people who actually bear some responsibilty for the attacks on American soil. As WT notes, there are plenty of good reasons to oppose such a move but the fact remains that it would certainly be more morally justified than the attack on Iraq.

Shooter, as noted before, like his friend Karl Rove, really doesn't give a rat's ass about what's good for America if it interferes with his sticking it to his fellow Americans who happen to be Democrats.

If you think about it for more than 5 seconds, you realize that pretty much defines treasonous behavior.

Why does shooter hate America?

You didn't think the possibility of another 9/11 or worse was motivation for Iraq?

No.

next?

Anyone delusional enough to beleive in a liberal media at this stage of the game is not worth arguing any other point with.

remember:

WAR IS PEACE

FREEDOM IS SLAVERY

IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

NYT IS LIBERAL.....

Once a lying sack of it, always a lying sack of it.

When reality is THIS maleable, all argument is a waste of time.