Publican:

The silence is usually quite deafening when I raise this point, so it's good to know that I'm not completely deluded (or should I say, not alone in my delusions, heheheh?).

What I'm not clear on is whether the "withdrawal" that the American public favors (based on the polls Glenn quotes from) is "withdrawal" as you and I would use the term...or not. My "withdrawal" does not include tens of thousands of US troops in Iraq, but I'm uncertain about the American public-at-large.

Your point appears to be that the U.S. public is accepting of an ongoing military occupation. But I guess I'm still holding out hope that the U.S. public conceptualizes "withdrawal" in the same manner that I do, but is being tricked into believing that only one of the two main candidates sees things differently. I would like to see the same type of pressure put on both candidates regarding Iraq and Afghanistan as is currently being put on Obama re FISA. One or the other might be pressured into promising (for what that may be worth) an actual withdrawal of military forces from one or both countries.

adnoto:

It may be worth emphasizing that it is very difficult for me to view these as "political" or "party" issues. While I'm inclined to believe that some Americans may be surprised by the reality that underlies Obama's deceptive language, the collective exploding of heads to which you refer are metaphors only. My interest (as a non-American) lies strictly with the very real exploding of heads in Afghanistan and Iraq (and avoiding same in Iran).

Unfortunately, it seems that both candidates share much the same views when it comes to the continuation of the violence in the middle east - a shared view that has always seemed to me to be largely independent of political orientation.

Point taken, although I did not write "commander in chief of the American people."

-- Foodle

You wrote "the American people would prefer their commander and chief..."

You're going to quibble about that now, too?

Yes.

These assholes and their ancestors have been killing/wanting to kill each other for over a thousand years. The difference at this point is that our military people are standing in their way. Like a guy in a bar that tries to break up a fight and gets bloodied for his efforts. We should emulate the British decision in the 1920's to pull out and let Sunnis and Shia have at it, since their so damned determined to do so, and get our troops out of the way.

Oh, wait. Actually I wouldn't mind if we left our mercenaries (oh, right, I mean contractors) there to get slaughtered. In the end there would be a lot less of all parties, all around.

Fuck 'em.

...You do realize you have used Fox "News" as an example, don't you?

This is like listening to Rush Limbaugh and then writing an emotional article about how Rush has convinced millions of white people they are constantly victimized by pampered minorities. Meaning we would be left asking: "And?"

In other words, using Fox an an example of devious media tactics invokes as much original ponderance as John McCain does giving a speech in front of a green back-drop.

Otherwise, point taken.

Foodle will be disputing the type of font Glenn uses.

AP: "Barack Obama will accept the Democratic presidential nomination at the 76,000-seat Invesco Mile High Stadium..."

Flashback: the Beatles playing at Shea. Yeah, yeah, yeah...

Note perhaps the most common consequence of any status quo-supporting comment, hedge, or neocon-comforting statement made by or position taken by an NPR newhost-pundit: it gets repeated by other pundits in the commerical mass media (I refuse to call it "mainstream", or to use the acronym "MSM"), particularly neocon supporters, to create the illusion of broad-based support for a given idea.

Given that the stance of NPR is widely held as the absolute limit of liberal or progessive opinion worth any notice at all by the merch media or the minions of the Beltway Establishment, their voicing or echoing approval of any position favored by Bush Republicans, particularly on foreign policy matters, is typically used as evidence of near-ironclad unity across the political spectrum on the real bottom line in such issues. And the audience is given the same impression, particularly if they're suggestible to having their own private impressions overruled by those who supposedly hold more expertise, and who "speak for the majority of the American people."

Thus, even though someone may keep a view favoring withdrawal, they may still be led to believe that they're part of a fringe minority- and thus discouraged from holding their favored candidates or elected officials to account, or to become more vociferous in their opposition to the Beltway status quo.

Parenthetically- note that when such politicians and pundits pretend to speak for "the American people", they typically refrain from even adding such qualifiers as "the majority", preferring to imply that the particular view they're expounding is simply held by all Americans- all the "real" ones, anyway.

By the way, none of their aid to "media consensus manufacture" on issues like the Iraq war allows the slightest pass for NPR in the larger context- Bush Republicans and neocons still feel free to hold it up to scorn and ridicule as an example of the "the Liberal-Left fringe"- or even such canards as "the anti-Semitic Liberal-Left Fringe", "the Baby Boomer Liberal Left", or the "Tree-Hugging Hippie Liberal Left, etc."- whenever a report on an NPR broadcast contains material or views that displease them ( in the more usual case, on a domestic issue.)

"These assholes and their ancestors have been killing/wanting to kill each other for over a thousand years. The difference at this point is that our military people are standing in their way. "

the gop moron tratiors have made us teh cause either way. maight as well save our brothers and sisters, if we are going to get blamed anyway. We stay we are the cause. We leave and they continue what they have always done, and we get blame for the genocide. either way we lose, due to these oil profiting nazi's. Let's bring our boys home. re-camp and re-build for the future. What a waste. all to line certain people's pockets. bush and his criminal court sould be in prison right now. Making money off the blood of our soldiers. It's all about oil. always has been. when bush took over gas was 1.50. that's quite a turnaround. Any business would be proud to up their products cost times 4 in eight years. Only this time it's on the backs of our young people.

jail the criminals. Shut down their conflict of interest propoganda. They are going to whine and cry anyway. Maight as well give them something to cry about. And before the gop talks about free speech, tell that to the dixie chicks. Tell that to rosie. Tell that to ward churchhill (the univ of colorado professor fired by bill o'reilly for saying 9/11 was an inside job). tell that to phleger 9the preist removed from the catholic chuch because of o'reilly). and the list goes on. If they are going to silence others. If they are going to whine and cry either way. Let's give them a reason .Jail the monarchy cults criminal leaders. Shut down their propgoanda. The gop dies a quick death. Only then will they save their own party. Only then do we get a two party governmetn again. :)