Personally, I will never understand the fascination with Al Gore. I know that many so-called progressives revere him as some sort of political savior - good God! I just can't, for the life of me, understand why. I mean, its not like there are no great leaders out there!

No, I know that there are more realistic options than cutting and running. Unfortunately, many on the left (present company excepted, of course) are not open to such nuance...

On another completely unrelated note... How long do you think it will be before Al Gore declares that the Beichuan, China earthquake was the direct result of Human Caused Global Warming?? I give it 24 hours, max.... :D

Michale.....

You know what...don't answer that...at least not until you have a nice relaxing drink...after your last post, I'm thinking you need to take a break!

:-)

If Al Qaeda really wanted to destroy the US, it would be so easy...

Initiate a plot against Obama, leaving evidence that implicates the Hillary campaign and the GOP...

This country would rip itself apart..

I hate it when things like this pop into my head unbidden... :(

Michale.....

Michale.....

I am simply stating that you can't get there from here.. The MILITARY situation needs to be resolved before ANY political/diplomatic solution can even be mentioned...

Things were going good for a bit.. Now there has been setbacks. Such is the nature of combat..

But Americans were spoiled by the quick and easy "victory" of the first Gulf War... And it would have been a COMPLETE victory, had it been allowed to continue to it's logical conclusion. But, by cutting things short, it basically gave us Gulf War Part II...

There hadn't been a better example of NOT letting politics interfere in the prosecution of a war since Vietnam...

But the very FIRST rule when you find yourself in a hole is.... STOP DIGGING...

By cutting and running, the US would not only be making a BIGGER hole, but we would be adding a trench that would lead straight back to our own coasts...

Michale.....

If you are waiting for US forces to resolve the civil war in Iraq, then you will be waiting for a length of time that doesn't hold a candle to McCain's 100 years! Indeed, there are not now, nor will there be, enough US forces to achieve such an outcome.

Seriously, only a political accommodation between the warring Iraqi factions will improve the security environment in Iraq, given where we are at this stage of the game. The bottom line is that the military will NOT end the civil war in Iraq, no matter how brilliant their COIN strategy and execution may be. If you listen carefully, this is what the commanders and troops on the ground are telling us.

How long are you prepared to stay on this failing course that keeps US soldiers in harms way only to protect the status quo?

I do agree, however, that it will be politics... or more accurately, diplomacy... that will solve the problem..

But for politics/diplomacy to have a chance, the security situation must be addressed and resolved.

And THAT is a military problem..

It's kinda like the LOST IN SPACE remake.. Professor Robinson represents the political solution. But, in a military situation, Major West is in charge...

We are not yet into a political/diplomatic situation in Iraq. And we probably never WILL be until the politicians and "public opinion" back home butt out and let the military do it's job...

This is Vietnam all over again. You would think this country would have learned it's lesson back then. But I guess it's a lesson that has to be taught, re-taught and taught again before it will sink in..

Let the military do it's job...

If this obvious axiom was adhered to in '91, we would not be having this discussion...

Michale.....

What we have now in Iraq is a political problem that is in desperate need of a political solution. There is no military solution to the vicious civil war that continues with no end in sight. And, I would suggest that most troops in Iraq, and their generals, would not disagree with that assessment.

Fortunately, we have a political solution on the table that has already received the support of an overwhelming and unprecedented majority of Republicans and Democrats in the Senate (by a vote margin of 75-23, no less!) and in the House. The five permanent members of the UN Security Council have also endorsed it, albeit unofficially. Most importantly, however, most of Iraq's sectarian leaders are also on board with the essential elements of the Biden strategy. (Les Gelb, by the way, no longer gets attribution from me as he has been MIA on this issue for too long and has failed to publically support Senator Biden when it counted most!)

Unfortunately, the Bush administration has other plans and the electorate, alas, has spoken.

But, simply put...absent a political solution and the mother of all diplomatic surges (actually, at this point, I'd settle for a modicum of diplomacy), there is no reason whatsoever to keep ANY US forces in Iraq for any length of time...of course, all US civilians would have to leave, too and we can say good-bye to that monstrosity known as the US embassy in Baghdad.

Would there be serious and long-term consequences for such a withdrawal? Absolutely, positively, unequivocally!

If you are willing to concede that a US SOFA presence in Iraq for "100 years" is not any big deal, I am willing to concede that the issue of how we get there from here is a legitimate concern..

I put forth to you however that, "how we get there from here" should be left (at least in THIS phase where combat is still going on) to the generals and troops in the field, not to the politicians...

Michale.....

“Again, I have to use the illustration of US Forces in Germany and Japan.. It was those forces that broke the back (and the economy) of the Soviet Union and allowed the US to declare victory in the Cold War. It's entirely likely that US SOFA forces in Iraq (and Iran??) and other areas of the Middle East will allow us to claim victory in the war against terrorism…” ...Michale

I’m not so sure that we can be so presumptuous to think that the situation in Iraq will unfold in a similar fashion to what happened in Germany and Japan after WWII, vis-a-vis US military presence. Likewise, I don’t think we can really compare the successes of the Cold War with how we may prevail in the war against extremism, as far as US forces are concerned.

But getting back to how best to counter McCain and his approach to Iraq...the “100 years” issue does deserve scrutiny for what Senator McCain actually meant. He fails to explain exactly how he expects to get from where we are now in Iraq - in the crossfire of a vicious civil war between and among the various Iraqi factions - to a place where the conditions are such that his “100 years” scenario can play out.

But, there is something far more important that the “100 years” and even worthy of its own talking point! Senator McCain does not understand the first thing about what will be required to end the civil war in Iraq. He still operates under the same fundamentally and fatally flawed premise that a strong central government in Baghdad will materialize in the lifetime of anyone reading this blog!

There are simply no reasonable prospects for that to occur. Why? Because there is no trust within the various groups that make up the government and no trust in the government by the Iraqi people themselves. This government has also clearly demonstrated that it does not have the capacity, or even the inclination, to deliver services or security throughout the country. This near total dysfunction is not so much related to the people and personalities that comprise the government as it is directly related to the fundamental structure of the government.

What John McCain and the Bush administration, and most others, have failed to understand is that the only hope there is for ending Iraq’s civil war is through a political accommodation that is based on federalism and a decentralization of power as outlined in Iraq’s constitution.

I'm sure that our pal, Chris, can come up with a talking point that will make people understand that 100 years won’t be nearly enough if we follow the failed strategy that is John McCain’s approach to US policy in Iraq.

At least CW stayed away from tying McCain to the "Keating 5".

While it may be a legitimate issue, it's one that would tarnish the Dems a LOT more than McCain...

Michale.....

It would be more accurate to say that "Check out how many people still believe Saddam had WMDs that were a threat to the United States"....

. But as for "the truth" of the ad, well he did say it, so it is "the truth."

A lie by omission is still a lie... Give you an example...

Hillary said, "If Iran were to attack Israel, then I would order Iran obliterated."

Now, is it the "truth" to scream in the headlines, "HILLARY CLINTON WOULD OBLITERATE IRAN IF ELECTED PRESIDENT". Technically, it IS true, because Hillary did say it. But, without the context, it becomes something pretty close to a lie..

But I would like to get people's opinions on not so much what McCain said, but what McCain MEANT...

Would anyone have a problem with troops in Iraq and the Middle East for 100 years, if it was in the context of troops in Germany and Japan? Keeping in mind that it was those troops that effectively won the Cold War and it is likely that the same effectiveness of troops in the Middle East could help us win the war against terrorism..

Under those conditions, I can't see ANY reason why anyone would have a problem with it..

Michale.....

I am constrained to point out that this is another example (in a long line of examples) of the Democratic Party stepping on their wee-wees..

Rather than recognizing the effectiveness of the "Talking Point" and adopting it for their own use, the Dems tried to vilify the Talking Point. When that didn't work, they (the Dems) adopted the "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em" philosophy and just succeeded in making themselves look like hypocrites..

Present company excepted, of course.. :D

As for a woman president. I have no qualms about that.. :D Just for the love of all that is good and holy and right, not THAT woman!! :D heheheehehehehe

Michale.....

I think I'm agreeing with ya! Talking points, whether I like them or not, are effective.

However, I would hasten to add, John Kerry is no Joe Biden and neither is Al Gore - not by a long shot!

Elizabeth, you're not alone in your opinion that talking points are crass and insult the intelligence. Believe me, I've heard that a few times since starting this series.

But I beg to differ, for a few reasons.

In the world of campaign slogans and soundbite news reporting, the only clip they're going to run is the short, sharp schlock (apologies to British readers for that). Long-winded policy discussions are not going to make it on the evening news. Which means you are not getting your message out.

For instance, while everyone hates it, who is actively "against" advertising? Ads pay for whatever medium they are run in, and ads are the purest example of manipulating your customers to think what you want them to think. Sure, slogans are idiotic and repeated until you can't stand it anymore -- but they work. This is why "HeadOn" repeated its stupid line three times. Because there's a rule of thumb in advertising that says "if you hear it three times, you are much more likely to remember it." Next time you hear an ad on the radio, count how many times they read you their phone number or web address if you don't believe me.

And advertising sticks. I can still reel off TV ads from when I was a kid. "Two all beef patties special sauce lettuce cheese pickles onions on a sesame seed bun." That was from like 30 years ago, and I still know it by heart.

In other words, it's crass and simplistic, but it works.

Second point -- you have to reach as MANY voters as you can. The intelligent, politics-following public is only a certain percentage of the general public. And EVERYBODY gets to vote. For instance, I just saw a stat that said that a quarter of DEMOCRATIC voters still believe Obama is a Muslim. Check out how many people still believe Saddam had WMD or had something to do with 9/11 to prove this point as well.

What I'm saying is there is a certain slice of the public who doesn't pay a whole lot of attention, and may decide how to vote from one stupid ad. And ads can either be effective or not.

Effective ads are remembered, and may change people's minds. Non-effective ads do not.

So we can argue whether the "100 years" ad is effective or not, which is indeed an argument to be made against it. But as for "the truth" of the ad, well he did say it, so it is "the truth." Does the ad simplify what he was saying beyond all recognition? Possibly, but that's not the point. This is politics, and politics gets a little muddy sometimes.

As for the content of the ad, sure McCain went on to say something like "as long as American troops aren't dying." And sure, he meant like we still have troops in South Korea and Germany. But this raises more questions than it answers. How do we get from where we are to "as long as American troops aren't dying"? What do we do if American troops still ARE dying? Do we still stay 100 years? If we never got to that point, would McCain just keep all the troops there anyway?

These are nuances the ad (intentionally) leaves out, but McCain has also left these nuances out -- his plan is the same as Bush's, and he won't say what he would do if it doesn't work -- same as Bush.

But I still see it as a winning issue. Just look at the polls -- 70% of Americans want us out of Iraq. And of that 70%, there are a lot of people who aren't paying attention to the political scene. If they see an ad where John McCain says "100 years" in Iraq is "just fine" will they be MORE LIKELY or LESS LIKELY to vote for him?

That is the measure of the ad's effectiveness.

Sure, it's political hardball. But you know what? I'm tired of the Democrats being the Washington Generals, who always politely put up a game against the Harlem Globetrotters, and LOSE. Remember what they say about nice guys and where they finish.

Al Gore's a nice guy. So is John Kerry. John Kerry tried nuance, and the Republicans ran "I voted for the war before I voted against it" over and over and over. And we have President Bush as a result.

And that is my point.

-CW

So should women be allowed to run for president?

Heh heh. Couldn't resist.

-CW

"Whoa, daddy! I guess I just explained why talking points are so effective. If I talk long enough, I can disprove anything I say."

This struck a memory with me. I was in 5th grade and we were doing a play about Susan B Anthony (No, not the one of PRISON BREAK fame :D) I was the "prosecuting attorney" and was advocating why women should not be allowed to vote. Halfway thru my "prosecution" (it was all "ad-lib" based on our studying of the event in question) I made a very persuasive argument why women SHOULD be allowed to vote... I sat down real quick.. :D

Sorry, but Elizabeth's mention there, reminded me. :D

"For example, he should try explaining to the troops and vets of the war in Iraq - and Afghanistan, for that matter - how exactly he expects to keep US forces in Iraq at the numbers he suggested for 100 years given that the army and marine corps are currently at the breaking point and the mission in Afghanistan is circling the drain? And, that’s just for starters."

Again, I have to use the illustration of US Forces in Germany and Japan.. It was those forces that broke the back (and the economy) of the Soviet Union and allowed the US to declare victory in the Cold War.

It's entirely likely that US SOFA forces in Iraq (and Iran??) and other areas of the Middle East will allow us to claim victory in the war against terrorism...

Michale.....

You know, the reason I have a hard time with “talking points”, in general, is that the term implies - to me, at least - playing loose with the truth which is the typical MO of most politicians...spinning the truth to suit their own purposes. The way I see it, any politician worth his salt and in possession of an intimate understanding of the issue at hand doesn’t need talking points and to suggest that he does is an insult to his intelligence and to that of the audience on the receiving end of the talking points. Whoa, daddy! I guess I just explained why talking points are so effective. If I talk long enough, I can disprove anything I say.

Anyway, back to Senator McCain...anyone who actually believes that McCain was talking about 100 years of combat in Iraq is part of the problem, as they say. Worse than that, though, is the fact that people who know better will make use of such arguments knowing that they will be taken up - hook, line and sinker - by no small swath of the electorate.

Isn’t it high time that we start speaking the truth about Iraq and not inventing our own facts. We need an honest debate about America’s security and Iraq’s future and where we go from here. Besides, there is more than enough that can be said about John McCain’s ill-informed and misguided approach to Iraq and to the national security of the United States without having to resort to twisting one quote into something that it was never intended to be.

Having said that, what John McCain actually said AND meant deserves a great deal of scrutiny. For example, he should try explaining to the troops and vets of the war in Iraq - and Afghanistan, for that matter - how exactly he expects to keep US forces in Iraq at the numbers he suggested for 100 years given that the army and marine corps are currently at the breaking point and the mission in Afghanistan is circling the drain? And, that’s just for starters.

Which is exactly what the context of McCain's statement was..

Michale.....

peterg76
"The Republicans can whine about quotes out of context all they want - the McCain quote is *in* context. (That's what makes it so powerful.)"

Obviously peterg76 hasn't really read or heard the ad. It's completely out of context. It's a small snippet of a larger comment. The DNC intentionally left out the part that really states the context of the entire statement. It's why FactCheck.org states that what "the DNC ad conveys is the opposite of what McCain said."

Michale.....

Yea, that's why I have been absent of late. I have no problem with going bald.....

http://xboxman.us/temp/mikebet1sm.jpg

.... but I am trying to convince my lovely wife to don an aluminum foil bikini and a silver wig.. :D

I'll work up some nifty quotes for ya as well..

Michale.....

Nah, that's too easy. I was really looking forward to that photo!

Provide me Star Trek quotes from the ORIGINAL SERIES ONLY... that'll make it a lot harder.

OK, I'll be merciful. You can also use the movies, up until "Generations." How's that?

Heh heh.

-CW

You're back! OK, I have one thing to say to you:

I'm still waiting for my photo!

Heh heh. Couldn't resist.

OK, I lost all my quatloos too, as Hillary hasn't realized she's toast yet. I predicted she would, on Wednesday morning. I was wrong. I gave her too much credit, it appears.

So I tell you what... provide me a Star Trek quote for your response to every talking point this week (either pro or con, your choice) -- and THEN and ONLY THEN will I deign to answer you.

Heh heh.

:-)

-CW

I'll check the link out. Do you have a more specific one, or is it on their front page?

For everyone -

I learned with my previous website that publishing my email address on the web leads to bucketloads of spam in the inbox every single day, so I do not do that here. However, there is a tiny link (I really should make it more prominent, because this filter has successfully stopped all spam) at the bottom of every page of this website called "Email Chris." Click on it, and I will receive your message. If I decide you're worth replying to (this includes 99% of the emails I get, I should mention), then I'll send you an email and you can write me back via email from that point on.

-CW

Sorry to use your comments to pass a message, but I lost your email addy... anyway...

Nevertheless, families of the shooting victims “are suing Blackwater under a wrongful death claim in civil court.” Furthermore, federal prosecutors in North Carolina are “investigating whether Blackwater played a role in a weapons smuggling case linked to the Kurdish militant group PKK, a U.S.-designated terrorist organization.”

http://thinkprogress.org/

This is in reference to a conversation we had a while ago...

1. http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/dnc_vs_mccain.html

The DNC is mis-representing the intent here, pure and simple. And, while it's a valid point that the GOP has been doing it for years, it still doesn't change the fact that it's wrong. The Democratic Party is nothing but GOP-Lite with this...

2. Fun maybe, but eventually tiresome... :D

3. Good point. Good for the goose, gander, etc etc..

4. Playing the Age card is about as bad as playing the Race card. I hope Obama doesn't go there, as it will belie his "new politics" stance...

5. Careful what you ask... The response might be, "yes, considering there could have been many more thousands of terrorist causalities here in the US..."

6. War time tends to do that... One might also point out what gas prices were in 2006 compared to what they are now...

$1.49 in Jan 2000 to $2.34 in Jan 2006. That's about a what?? 60% increase?? (Math was my worst subject)

$2.34 in Jan 2006 to $3.60 in May 2008. That's about a 50% increase...

Hmmmmmm So, with the GOP in control, gas prices jumped 60% in 6 years... With the Dems in control, gas prices jumped 50% in 2 years, 5 months..

Hmmmmmm Are you sure you want to use that talking point?? :D

7. I am just gaberflasted on this one...

Michale.....