Handbill Replying to Charges of Infidelity

To the Voters of the Seventh Congressional District.

FELLOW CITIZENS:

A charge having got into circulation in some of the neighborhoods of this District, in substance that I am an open scoffer at Christianity, I have by the advice of some friends concluded to notice the subject in this form. That I am not a member of any Christian Church, is true; but I have never denied the truth of the Scriptures; and I have never spoken with intentional disrespect of religion in general, or any denomination of Christians in particular. It is true that in early life I was inclined to believe in what I understand is called the "Doctrine of Necessity" -- that is, that the human mind is impelled to action, or held in rest by some power, over which the mind itself has no control; and I have sometimes (with one, two or three, but never publicly) tried to maintain this opinion in argument. The habit of arguing thus however, I have, entirely left off for more than five years. And I add here, I have always understood this same opinion to be held by several of the Christian denominations. The foregoing, is the whole truth, briefly stated, in relation to myself, upon this subject.

I do not think I could myself, be brought to support a man for office, whom I knew to be an open enemy of, and scoffer at, religion. Leaving the higher matter of eternal consequences, between him and his Maker, I still do not think any man has the right thus to insult the feelings, and injure the morals, or the community in which he may live. If, then, I was guilty of such conduct, I should blame no man who should condemn me for it; but I do blame those, whoever they may be, who falsely put such a charge in circulation against me.

A. Lincoln

July 31, 1846

I repeat: Do you mean a non-loopy-doopy-dipshit POTUS may have to have a "conflict" with Iran, as in the U.S. going to war with Iran? Yes? No? What do YOU mean by that comment, bromides aside?

Let me run to my study and consult some Time-Life books on the subject while I Google up Wikipedia...

I never claimed to have the powers of a clairvoyant or seer. I can tell you that whirled peas is baby food. Who can say? It does take two to tangle unless one of the players is really motivated, like the Bush admin has been. If you read what I posted previously, and do so carefully and stop doing a poor imitation of omooex, you'll see that I hope for a course of de-escalation and rapprochement with Iran, that I hope Obama will take. I do not see why they would want to come into direct conflict with us at this time. They are just not powerful enough for a head to head confrontation with us and have managed quite well by manipulating the not all too smart Mayberry Machiavellis but what the future will bring, I just cannot say without my crytsal balls. I am just not going to underestimate any of those those cultures, be they Arabs, Persians or Israelis. They all have their own interests and have shown themselves to be quite skilled in manipulating us into betraying our own interests in favor of theirs.

Byzantine

1599, from L. Byzantinus, originally used of art style; later in reference to the complex, devious, and intriguing character of the royal court of Constantinople.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=Byzantine

So our L.W.M., for whom my respect has grown considerably since first tangling with him here, inverts the neo-con dictum (was it Larry DeRita?) that "the path to Tehran lies through Baghdad", to "the path out of Baghdad lies through Tehran." If we are to extricate ourselves from Iraq with a minimum of American or Iraqi blood - "as carefully as we went recklessly in", you might say - that only has to be posited for its truth to be obvious.

The day may yet come, and will certainly come if McCain is elected, when we just plain have to leave, whatever the cost in Iraqi blood. But that hard contingency is still a few years down the road.

If my small brain is encompassing this, L.W.M. envisions this game plan: Barack begins withdrawing combat brigades. In parallel, he begins withdrawing the corresponding support troops. Up to a point, these moves will help stabilize the government, and as confidence measures will grease the very unlubricated wheels of a parallel diplomacy with Tehran.

America's interest and Tehran's both clash (we each want to maximize our respective influence) and coincide (we each want to stabilize the area, and ultimately to retire U.S. forces to her reliable American satrapies). Such is the classic meat of conflict short of war, aka diplomacy.

However, there is a point past which, in the absence of firm political advances, further reduction of US forces will exacerbate instability rather than diminish it. Obama does not envision reducing forces below that level, under present political circs probably a third to a half of the present personnel.

Finally, the notion that "combat" forces can be withdrawn and only "non-combat" forces left behind is fanciful, risible, chimerical, a mere meme to calm the rubes. Just as a half of a planarian, with its head cut off, will grow a new head or die, an army in hostile territory with its combat forces withdrawn will redesignate a big chunk of itself as a combat organ, or perish. It will be far better off if that chunk was already trained and equipped for combat. And that is one of the "facts on the ground" Obama already expects the commanders to convey to him.

A gentleman's C, maestro?

So have the French and the British manipulated us at various times, sometimes for our own good, sometimes not, as we have manipulated them and every other country on the planet, sometimes... etc., etc...

Why is this so difficult for some people to understand? Conflict is ubiquitous and One World Gummint and The New World Odor wouldn't stop that anyway. I don't make the rules. It's Frank Sinatra's world and we all just live in it and have to do it his way.