That song always chokes me up. Now I'll have to listen to it before I go to sleep, damn it.

If my pillow is moistened with tears, I blame Sir Noel -- and you.

First of all, it is by no means clear that there are no links between Iran and AQ.

McCain was traveling around the Middle East with his closest ally, warmonger Joe Lieberman -- who has already explicitly advocated an American military attack on Iran

And yet it was Lieberman who whispered in McCain's ear urging him to downplay Iran's involvement with AQ. Strange way of warmongering!

First of all, it is by no means clear that there are no links between Iran and AQ.

Nothing is for sure but it's pretty well established that Shia Iran really doesn't harbor pangs of love for Sunni based AlQaeda. In fact, Iran actually helped the US in pushing the Sunni Taliban from power in Afghanistan.

And yet it was Lieberman who whispered in McCain's ear urging him to downplay Iran's involvement with AQ. Strange way of warmongering!

Lieberman did no such thing. He corrected what McCain said about AlQaeda going into Iran for training and then returning to Iraq.

I've got cats with more brains than you. Cats!

J'ai perdu mon élan, mon élan d'Amérique aussi.

No, this is not the moose we are looking for. Move along.

What is FM 22- 5?

The old designation for the field manual covering close order drill. Superseded, I think, but I'm from the Garand era myself, and wouldn't know without a Google.

Oh I see. Well, as an Air Force vet, I did some close order drill here and there in the early days; but we didn't use the Army Field Manual naturally, because, uhmm ... we were flyboys!

Lots more glamour, doncha know.

And, there was a fair amount of droll in the Air Force, generally more than what was allowed in the Army.

When I was a kid, I remember that the Air Force drove Buick staff cars, and the Army Chevies. I also remember my Dad's raised eyebrow every time he spotted one. Of course in those days, Curtis -- Peace Is Our Profession -- LeMay got the best of everything.

Which brings us back to Gen. Ripper and his concern about the threat to our "precious bodily fluids."

Aych mentions precious bodily fluids a lot. I assumed that he was just one of us evil ironists, but what if -- omigod -- what if he's actually General Ripper's SOCKPUPPET!?

(Enough with the thespian exertions for this evening. Time to retire. Until the morrow, then -- and flights of angels sing the lot of you wonderful dramatis personae to your rest.)

...All this other squabbling over old rivalries is more worthless than a daytime soap opera, and it probably makes outside observers think we're kind of pathetic.

My thoughts exactly.

Great to see you back on the thread. And profound point about Lieberman, old chap. Except that he was trying (and failing) to keep McCain from looking ridiculous, and not trying to keep him from advocating an attack on Iran. It's not AQ, but rather "Islamic Extremists" that Iran is training and sending back into Iraq. So we can attack them anyway, right Fibber?

I myself socialize with no one but Jews. Zionism is rampant in my household. For fun, I hide Mrs. Snoid's membership cards in The David Horowitz Freedom Center. And I have lots of fun! Anyway, at one such social occasion (a couple had forgotten to get a Jewish wedding in a Temple when they got married 30 years ago, so they were doing so now) a few months ago it was at the height of the Iran, Seymour Hersh, Israel Lobby mania and I took it upon myself to corner the left-leaning head of the Judaic Studies Dept. of a large local university and push him into betting me - my $20 against his $10 - that America would attack Iran before the end of Bush's term (I took yes). The point of the bet was my belief that the Neocons had gotten us into Iraq as a first step in the Transformation Of The Middle East into a More Israel-Friendly Neighborhood. Since they had now destroyed Iraq (good), but empowered Iran (very very bad), these real men (or at least those who did their dirty work) were going to Tehran real soon. Otherwise their whole gambit would have backfired.

Well, the bet's still on. The NIE made the bet look bad (or good, depending on how you look at it), but things are heating up again so who knows. If I lose, that means to me that the power of The Lobby is, indeed, limited. If I win, well, like they say - second only to the gun nuts.

...and still wading through "sock puppet" - related tripe. Don't know how it all plays out in the end, but I've had enough.

It's very disappointing to see some of the more educated readers/commentors on the 'net reduced to 24 pages of "hey! you're using TWO screen names!" and "no, he's not, you big jerk!". Seriously, didn't the subject exhaust itself somehwere around page 20?

Greenwald's one of the best bloggers around. His commentors might be the most informed. Those of us who are casual observers (no pun intended) and infrequent commentors get nothing out of this childish infighting.

Now, please, let's get back to big Dr. P's "It's Iran, Fool!" Exposition.

The surge is a transitory, unsuccessful farce. Now this. I think Petreaus may just be, you know, betraying us.

Forgive an old man whose prostrate (sic) jogs him awake in the middle of the night. The stage is yours. Mind that your comments be both relevant and entertaining. Otherwise, the hook you now profess to wield may prove just as uncompromising in the hands of another.

Regarding the suggestion about Christopher Hitchens voting for McCain, Hitchens said: "Um, I would consider it, yes. I mean, he's a serious man, and a man with a lot of character and actually a lot of charm. The sort of person that I would prefer to say this there should be more of in the senate. I'm not sure that a guy like that is volatile shall we say and should be president of any where."

Jebbie, I see your point. But Hitchens said he would consider it. He said he was serious and charming. He said their should be more like him in the senate. But in the last sentence I missed the word "not".

When I heard him on the TV, he seemed to be saying that McCain could be president of anywhere.

My mistake.

Still, what about the "serious" comment? I supposed it is to be expected from Hitchens who was a vocal Iraq War advocate and remains unrepentant.