Beetle in a Box

So John McCain said the surge led to the Anbar Awakening even though the Awakening, in fact, happened before the surge began. So he's ignorant. Or maybe dishonest. But now we learn he's also rather stubborn:

McCain asserted he knew that and didn't commit a gaffe. "A surge is really a counterinsurgency made up of a number of components. ... I'm not sure people understand that 'surge' is part of a counterinsurgency."

Shawn Brimley tries to bring common sense to bear on this: "The word "surge" has always been used to as shorthand referring to President Bush's decision to deploy about 30,000 additional U.S. troops to Iraq in early 2007, the first of which did not arrive in Iraq until later in the spring." McCain is arguing, I guess, that "the surge" doesn't refer to the manpower boost more formally termed the "surge of forces" by the military. Instead, "surge" is, perhaps, short for "counterinsurgency."

The main problems here would be that nobody uses "surge" that way (indeed, John McCain has a long history of using the term "surge" the same way as everyone else) and also that the short form of counterinsurgency the abbreviation-mad military uses is "COIN." But of course maybe McCain will say that he has a private language in which "surge" means "counterinsurgency" and it's therefore wrong to bother him about this. In which case, I suppose it's hard for anyone to ever prove that he's wrong. But on the other hand if that's what he means, then it's hard to make sense of the claim that McCain was "right about the surge" whereas Obama was "wrong" since if "the surge" is just a generic term for the use of counterinsurgency tactics the I don't think McCain and Obama ever really disagreed.

Comments

Is the military abbreviation pronounced COIN like money or COÏN (two syllables, according to the New Yorker sytle guide)?

Posted by SP | July 24, 2008 9:35 AM

Wittgenstein FTW.

Posted by Sam TH | July 24, 2008 9:38 AM

Boy is McCain blowing it on this one.

If he just dropped the Awakening claim and argued something more generic like, "Yes, some important things happened before the surge started, but the surge was necessary to get us to where we are today, and I was right on the surge and Obama was wrong," he would be fine.

But by insisting he got the Awakening issue right, he is just drawing more and more attention to precisely what was already going on before the surge. And the more people know about that, the more they will realize that in fact the surge was indeed just one part of a much larger set of developments. And that just diminishes the importance of being right or wrong on the surge itself.

So his stubborn insistance on being right on this one matter is making his overall argument much weaker. But I can't say I mind his self-destructive tendencies.

Posted by DTM | July 24, 2008 9:40 AM

Ah, but there's more Matt. Not only does he not know the facts of the surge, but he now claims to know the secret to peace in the Middle East! (seriously):

http://strategy08.wordpress.com/2008/07/23/abc-interview-with-mccain-reveals-fundamantal-fatal-flaw/

Posted by Dan | July 24, 2008 9:41 AM

McCain did a similar thing only a month or so ago, arguing that something he said wasn't a gaffe because [insert lame excuse]. Does anyone remember what that was? The Internet has made me dumb. Something about Al-Qaeda in Iraq not being in Iraw?

Posted by Jason | July 24, 2008 9:42 AM

McCain also explained that he uses up as an abbreviation for down.

Seriously, you can't use "surge" to mean "counterinsurgency" for the same reason you can't use "clockwise" as a short version of "counterclockwise."

Posted by old guy | July 24, 2008 9:42 AM

"But of course maybe McCain will say that he has a private language in which "surge" means "counterinsurgency" and it's therefore wrong to bother him about this. In which case, I suppose it's hard for anyone to ever prove that he's wrong."

Er, I would say that using words from a private language when speaking for a national audience is, if not "wrong," at the very least not particularly reassuring.

Posted by Leo | July 24, 2008 9:43 AM

I believe the fall of the Soviet Union was also a part of the Surge. As was the defeat of Nazi Germany. And also that awesome battle scene in the second Lord of the Rings.

Posted by Brent | July 24, 2008 9:50 AM

Boy is McCain blowing it on this one.

No, he is not blowing it. He is (correctly) relying upon the fact that the average American is much less informed about world politically than your average Amazonian tribesman.

Now, one might assume that the media would call him on it, but given that media (a) uses the excuse of "objectivity" and "balance" to keep them from pointing out when a politician is just making shit up, and (b) they love them some maverick McCain, that assumption would, in this case, be false.

But we can certainly hope that the senile genocidal madman suffers a massive and immediately fatal coronary, the sooner the better.

Posted by voice of reason | July 24, 2008 9:53 AM

voice of reason,

But that is just my point. Ordinarily McCain can get away with a lot of nonsense because the public doesn't know better and the press won't help inform them. But in this case, McCain's stubborness is causing the press to actually do some reporting on the issue, which means some people in the public are likely becoming better informed.

And this AP article is a good example. McCain made his original statement on Tuesday. It is now Thursday, and people are still writing articles containing facts such as "the rebellion of U.S.-backed Sunni sheiks against al-Qaida terrorists in Iraq's Anbar province was under way well before Bush announced in January 2007 his decision to send 30,000 additional U.S. troops to Iraq." That is a fact McCain would likely prefer people didn't know, but by continuing to make an issue out his statement, such facts are being repeated again and again in the media.

Posted by DTM | July 24, 2008 10:12 AM

This is probably being too generous to pacifism, but...

I always took the Anbar Awakening of what happens when the US gets out of the political equation and lets Iraqis decide what kid of country they want.

As long as we're occupying, the biggest aspect of the Iraqi vision for Iraq will be "a free country that isn't occupied by an imperial army".

Also, am I wrong in thinking that the surge redeployed Americans out of Anbar and into Baghdad?

Posted by Luke | July 24, 2008 10:14 AM

This is probably being too generous to pacifism, but...

I always took the Anbar Awakening of what happens when the US gets out of the political equation and lets Iraqis decide what kid of country they want.

As long as we're occupying, the biggest aspect of the Iraqi vision for Iraq will be "a free country that isn't occupied by an imperial army".

Also, am I wrong in thinking that the surge redeployed Americans out of Anbar and into Baghdad?

Posted by Luke | July 24, 2008 10:18 AM

I believe the fall of the Soviet Union was also a part of the Surge. As was the defeat of Nazi Germany. And also that awesome battle scene in the second Lord of the Rings.
Posted by Brent | July 24, 2008 9:50 AM

And Obama voted against all three.

Posted by Aleks | July 24, 2008 10:20 AM

Oh, I'm wrong. 4000 extra marines to Anbar province.

When Yglesias leaves the Atlantic, is he going to take the shitty server with him?

Posted by Luke | July 24, 2008 10:22 AM

Matt, it's very common to randomly take some letters in the middle of a word to use as an abbreviation and cCai has exploited this fact. Sometimes, the letters don't even have to be from the word; for example, when cCai says that the Afghanistan/Pakistan border region is the central front in the war on terror, he often abbreviates this region as "Iraq."

Posted by Mike | July 24, 2008 11:07 AM

I suppose it's hard for anyone to ever prove that he's wrong.

Now you're getting it! He's honorable straight-talkin' war hero John "Barbecque" McCain, and he's always right! Just ask his base, the mainstream media.

Posted by Notorious P.A.T. | July 24, 2008 11:11 AM

/But of course maybe McCain will say that he has a private language in which "surge" means "counterinsurgency" and it's therefore wrong to bother him about this. '

It makes perfect sense. Just as "incontinent" is the opposite of "continent", "insurgency" is the opposite of "surgency". Then, "counterinsurgency" can be seen to be a double negative - "anti-anti-surgency" - or surgency. Voila!

Now Rocky, watch me pull a rabbit outta my hat!

Posted by Njorl | July 24, 2008 11:12 AM

Luke,

The thing is, the relevant Iraqis in Anbar are Sunni tribes ruled by sheikhs. So I think one can see the Anbar Awakening as move toward an Iraq not dominated by a foreign army. But I think it is less clear it represents a move toward a "free country", since at least by my definitions a country ruled by tribal sheikhs is not particularly free.

Posted by DTM | July 24, 2008 11:21 AM

The facts are that the US military instigated the "Anbar Awakening" which is something the Democrats simply don't want to admit. And amid all the Dems twisting and artful dodging remains the fact that McCain did keep insisting that more US troops would do the job, which finally proved to be the case.

Give the man credit.

And stop calling the boy Messiah's hemming & hawing "brilliant."

Posted by daveinboca | July 24, 2008 11:21 AM

Somebody needs to create a page with all the reasons why John McCain is the third term of George W. Reason number 27 (that might be really low), NEVER admit you're wrong. John completely blew the relationship of the Anbar Awakening and the surge (i.e. there is none) in plain English, but he's doubling down on his ignorance.

Posted by LFC | July 24, 2008 11:21 AM

The facts are that the US military instigated the "Anbar Awakening" which is something the Democrats simply don't want to admit. And amid all the Dems twisting and artful dodging remains the fact that McCain did keep insisting that more US troops would do the job, which finally proved to be the case.

Give the man credit.

And stop calling the boy Messiah's hemming & hawing "brilliant."

Posted by daveinboca | July 24, 2008 11:21 AM

The facts are that the US military instigated the "Anbar Awakening" which is something the Democrats simply don't want to admit. And amid all the Dems twisting and artful dodging remains the fact that McCain did keep insisting that more US troops would do the job, which finally proved to be the case.

Give the man credit.

And stop calling the boy Messiah's hemming & hawing "brilliant."

Posted by daveinboca | July 24, 2008 11:21 AM

Run away! Run away!

John McCain isn't just a liar, he's a coward.
.

Posted by Grand Moff Texan | July 24, 2008 11:22 AM

BTW, does anybody remember this little nugget in McCain's CBS blunder?

"Colonel MacFarland was contacted by one of the major Sunni sheiks. Because of the surge we were able to go out and protect that sheik and others. And it began the Anbar awakening."

Or this little beauty the next day?

"If Barack Obama had had his way, the Sheiks who started the Awakening would have been murdered at the hands of al Qaeda."

Well, it turns out that Sheik Abdul Sattar Abu Risha, who was credited with being a driving force of the Anbar Awakening, was was actually assassinated in September 2007, right in the midst of the surge. Good thing we had those extra troops protecting him.

I have a new ad for Obama:

John McCain. Can America really survive another "C" student in the White House?

Posted by LFC | July 24, 2008 11:25 AM

The surge is everything now.

How could McCain say something happened before the surge when everything in Iraq is the surge now, how could the surge create a burrito so big that it could not eat it? It couldn't, it is the surge.

http://thesebastards.blogspot.com/

Posted by Matthew | July 24, 2008 11:26 AM

Common Makki....
Dont talk and Think, Think and Talk.

Posted by Khaja Hameed | July 24, 2008 11:32 AM

daveinboca,

Um, no. The fact is that the local Sunni tribes had their own reasons to want to deal with newcomers operating under the Al Qaeda brand, namely that those newcomers were trying to push those tribes out of their traditional territories. So, those Sunni tribes decided to ban together to deal with their common enemy. And they also decided to try to include the U.S. military in this alliance, and approached the relevant U.S. officers about doing so.

Now if you want to credit the relevant U.S. military officers with accepting that alliance, fine. But it is just silly to insist that somehow the U.S. military was directly responsible for all this--rather, it was something the Sunni tribes came up with in response to their own interests.

Posted by DTM | July 24, 2008 11:34 AM

I have been saying for several days, since this whole thing blew up, that McCain has completely mucked up what the "Surge!" was and that he actually thinks it's an abbreviation. I've been telling everyone that McSame is stupid enough to think that "Surge!" was an abbreviation of "counterinsurgency" because the letters s-u-r-g-e appear in sequence in the word (though they kept saying McCain wouldn't be that stupid). What a tool! He's supposed to be this foreign policy/military genius and he doesn't know that the abbreviation for "counterinsurgency" is COIN? Hell, even I knew that simply from reading newspapers the last several years. WTF?

Glad to see my theory wasn't as nuts as my friends told me.

Posted by geg6 | July 24, 2008 11:42 AM

daveinboca said... The facts are that the US military instigated the "Anbar Awakening" which is something the Democrats simply don't want to admit.

Hmmmm, I guess you don't read the comments on this blog very often. Multiple people are saying that the Anbar Awakening, and the simultaneous arming of the Sunni militias, was helpful but simply wasn't part of the surge. No add'l U.S. troops were needed to do that.

We also credit the completion of ethnic cleansing in Baghdad, as shown by the military's own maps, though Petraeus dishonestly tried to cover that up when he made his presentation about reduced violence. One ethnic cleansing was completed, Petraeus ghettotized the neighborhoods with 17' blast walls. Again, no surge required.

Al Sadr called a ceasefire and kept it in place. I don't know what his reasoning was (and neither does any American), but that was huge.

And stop calling the boy Messiah's hemming & hawing "brilliant."

Uh, but he is brilliant. Just because your boy graduated 894th out of 899 and is of, at best, average intelligence, don't slam the brain power of Obama.

Obama got into Harvard Law (not mean feat if you don't have Daddy's connections like Bush), was editor of the Harvard Law Review within a year, was made its president (i.e. editor-in-chief supervising a staff of 80 editors), and graduated magna cum laude.

By any objective (i.e. non-right-wingnutosphere) measure, that's some serious brain power. You may disagree with his views, but by trying to slam his intellect, it's obvious that you're attempting to project one of McCain's (and Bush's) biggest weaknesses on a guy you just don't like.

Posted by LFC | July 24, 2008 11:46 AM

I have been saying for several days, since this whole thing blew up, that McCain has completely mucked up what the "Surge!" was and that he actually thinks it's an abbreviation. I've been telling everyone that McSame is stupid enough to think that "Surge!" was an abbreviation of "counterinsurgency" because the letters s-u-r-g-e appear in sequence in the word (though they kept saying McCain wouldn't be that stupid). What a tool! He's supposed to be this foreign policy/military genius and he doesn't know that the abbreviation for "counterinsurgency" is COIN? Hell, even I knew that simply from reading newspapers the last several years. WTF?

Glad to see my theory wasn't as nuts as my friends told me.

Posted by geg6 | July 24, 2008 11:47 AM

Matt, for what it's worth, I think McCain is channeling one of your Atlantic colleagues, whose forthcoming book he's blurbed.

Posted by Steve M. | July 24, 2008 11:51 AM

So, according to McCain, he's responsible for pushing the US to begin counterinsurgency efforts in 2006? Didn't the insurgency start in 2003? Why did he wait 3 years to address the situation? Does he want us to lose?

Posted by Martin | July 24, 2008 11:51 AM

I have been saying for several days, since this whole thing blew up, that McCain has completely mucked up what the "Surge!" was and that he actually thinks it's an abbreviation. I've been telling everyone that McSame is stupid enough to think that "Surge!" was an abbreviation of "counterinsurgency" because the letters s-u-r-g-e appear in sequence in the word (though they kept saying McCain wouldn't be that stupid). What a tool! He's supposed to be this foreign policy/military genius and he doesn't know that the abbreviation for "counterinsurgency" is COIN? Hell, even I knew that simply from reading newspapers the last several years. WTF?

Glad to see my theory wasn't as nuts as my friends told me.

Posted by geg6 | July 24, 2008 11:54 AM

The facts are that the US military instigated the "Anbar Awakening" which is something the Democrats simply don't want to admit. And amid all the Dems twisting and artful dodging remains the fact that McCain did keep insisting that more US troops would do the job, which finally proved to be the case.

Give the man credit.

And stop calling the boy Messiah's hemming & hawing "brilliant."

Posted by daveinboca | July 24, 2008 11:55 AM

I have been saying for several days, since this whole thing blew up, that McCain has completely mucked up what the "Surge!" was and that he actually thinks it's an abbreviation. I've been telling everyone that McSame is stupid enough to think that "Surge!" was an abbreviation of "counterinsurgency" because the letters s-u-r-g-e appear in sequence in the word (though they kept saying McCain wouldn't be that stupid). What a tool! He's supposed to be this foreign policy/military genius and he doesn't know that the abbreviation for "counterinsurgency" is COIN? Hell, even I knew that simply from reading newspapers the last several years. WTF?

Glad to see my theory wasn't as nuts as my friends told me.

Posted by geg6 | July 24, 2008 12:05 PM

daveinboca:

The Anbar Awakening was not instigated by the US military, though it was certainly helped by them. The Anbar Awakening is called an "awakening" due to the fact that Sunnis decided on their own that they wanted al Qaeda out. The US military, under McFarland, became aware of their change of position and supported their efforts. But it wasn't our idea and it, in fact, came as a huge surprise to many US policy and military leaders.

But then I suppose you find the factless ranting and raving of McCain brilliant and inspiring. So that kinda lets me know I shouldn't expect you to value actual facts.

Posted by geg6 | July 24, 2008 12:14 PM

So, following the logic may I correctly infer:

Our mental recession if a result of a drunken Wall Street whining throughout a hangover because, upon Awakening they felt a surge that lasted more than four hours but couldn't call a doctor due to the Sheiks?

Posted by ricky | July 24, 2008 12:16 PM

"Mission Accomplished," anyone? Oh, but not that mission. Not that accomplished.

Posted by CLH | July 24, 2008 12:22 PM

The facts are that the US military instigated the "Anbar Awakening" which is something the Democrats simply don't want to admit. And amid all the Dems twisting and artful dodging remains the fact that McCain did keep insisting that more US troops would do the job, which finally proved to be the case.

Give the man credit.

And stop calling the boy Messiah's hemming & hawing "brilliant."

Posted by daveinboca | July 24, 2008 12:26 PM

The facts are that the US military instigated the "Anbar Awakening" which is something the Democrats simply don't want to admit
So, the "surge" is the "US military" now. Thanks for proving Matt's point.

Posted by slag | July 24, 2008 12:31 PM

The Anbar Awakening succeeding because the US military instigated it by their very proximity---though moonbats persist in their dialectical delusionism to deny credit where credit is due. The left hates the US military & under an Obamania POTUS regime would geld our national security down to Canadian cringing cowardice levels. [Though they are actually manning up in Afghanistan.]

Why not just invite our Islamist friends to do what they've done to the EU-nuchs? 50-plus million "immigrants" from those wonderful islands of female-mutilation nearby. Ask Theo now if he supports the surge.

Moonbats want to give away the farm. Just like James Earl Carter gave away the Panama Canal, now under Chinese jurisdiction.

Posted by daveinboca | July 24, 2008 12:35 PM

That McCain's claim to have his own definition of 'surge' is perhaps a little far-fetched; the more salient point is that if this is what he means by 'surge' his whole argument was nonsense. Even if McCain is right that the Awakening was caused by a tactical shift, and even if we concede that that is what 'surge' should refer to, he doesn't get to score points, because, by that definition, Obama never opposed the surge. He opposed sending more troops in, not improving our tactics.

Posted by NCS | July 24, 2008 12:51 PM

Oh my god, he posted something else. Pity it's just madness.

What're you going to do if Bush or McCain continue posturing until they attack Iran, which is an entirely different story from attacking Iraq? What're you going to do if your ego leads to our precious military being gutted, rusting on the bottom of the Gulf? Seppuku?

I actually trust the judgement of our actual working military brass better than random internet posters with anger management issues and massive paranoia- and the military is trending Obama in a big way. But who can blame them? Obama is likely to want to listen when they tell him that the situation is lousy, the troops overextended, morale sucks and we're not getting anywhere.

This isn't the movies, honestly. There isn't going to be a big locker-room pep talk and an exciting action montage with all the stylized enemies of America being brutally killed to rousing music. There's just a lot of dead people and an occupying, invading army cooling their heels in a destroyed country which has no reason to be impressed by us or our fancy talk.

Now go on and post your last post 1000 times in the belief that this somehow matters more than that mean, nasty reality... it just ticks me off when you (daveinboca) point at countries with better sense than us, and rave about their cowardice. I'm afraid it's not up to you.

Posted by jinxtigr | July 24, 2008 1:27 PM

Daveinboca,

Put down whatever you are smoking and move away from Boca. Clearly, all the toxins you've been snorting have made you irredeemably stupid. Go Cheney yourself.

Posted by horatius | July 24, 2008 1:41 PM

Look, the price of gasoline came tumbling down as soon as Bush/McSame agreed to drill offshore; the insurgents clearly started defecating in their pants as soon as Bush announced the surge. So the surge did too cause the Anbar Awakening.

Posted by thaumturgist | July 24, 2008 2:02 PM

Actually, gas is down 15cents/gallon since that Bush announcement & the surge worked in 3 months, even while Reid/Pelosi/MSM were proclaiming the Iraq War "lost."

The minds of the political commissars on this thread are simply impermeable to cold hard facts & keep juking & weaving & bobbing trying out new versions of their lies that the US military & McCain were somehow responsible for our victory over AQ & the Sadr Brigades---Sunni & Shi'ite extremists.

Treason rules this threat as well as the DNC/MSM affiliation brigade, that is for sure. Pelosi is proud of her Bolshie boys on Matt's little disinformation squad.

Posted by daveinboca | July 24, 2008 4:47 PM

Actually, gas is down 15cents/gallon since that Bush announcement & the surge worked in 3 months, even while Reid/Pelosi/MSM were proclaiming the Iraq War "lost."

The minds of the political commissars on this thread are simply impermeable to cold hard facts & keep juking & weaving & bobbing trying out new versions of their lies that the US military & McCain were somehow not responsible for our victory over AQ & the Sadr Brigades---Sunni & Shi'ite extremists.

Treason rules this threat as well as the DNC/MSM affiliation brigade, that is for sure. Pelosi is proud of her Bolshie boys on Matt's little disinformation squad.

Posted by daveinboca | July 24, 2008 4:49 PM

Actually, gas is down 15cents/gallon since that Bush announcement & the surge worked in 3 months, even while Reid/Pelosi/MSM were proclaiming the Iraq War "lost."

The minds of the political commissars on this thread are simply impermeable to cold hard facts & keep juking & weaving & bobbing trying out new versions of their lies that the US military & McCain were somehow not responsible for our victory over AQ & the Sadr Brigades---Sunni & Shi'ite extremists.

Treason rules this threat as well as the DNC/MSM affiliation brigade, that is for sure. Pelosi is proud of her Bolshie boys on Matt's little disinformation squad.

Posted by daveinboca | July 24, 2008 4:49 PM

horatius,

Please, by talking civilly to the monster daveinboca you become complicit in his crimes. The only legitimate response to animals like that is a bullet to the back of the head.

Posted by voice of reason | July 24, 2008 5:02 PM

McCain also wrongly believes the Serge started with "Histoire de Melody Nelson"

Posted by cha cha cha | July 24, 2008 5:06 PM

Actually, gas is down 15cents/gallon since that Bush announcement & the surge worked in 3 months, even while Reid/Pelosi/MSM were proclaiming the Iraq War "lost."

The minds of the political commissars on this thread are simply impermeable to cold hard facts & keep juking & weaving & bobbing trying out new versions of their lies that the US military & McCain were somehow not responsible for our victory over AQ & the Sadr Brigades---Sunni & Shi'ite extremists.

Treason rules this threat as well as the DNC/MSM affiliation brigade, that is for sure. Pelosi is proud of her Bolshie boys on Matt's little disinformation squad.

Posted by daveinboca | July 24, 2008 5:13 PM

vor

I'd love to have a sewer rat like yourself come to the promised land of boca & confront you outside your palace of egouts.

Like a true Goebbels acolyte, you prefer the pistol to facts.

Posted by daveinboca | July 24, 2008 5:16 PM

Ok, no discussion of the surge is complete without the surge song from this:
http://www.ytcracker.com/free-music/

Posted by bago | July 24, 2008 5:20 PM

daveinboca,

You misunderstand me. I'm not arguing over piddling little "facts" like the the success or failure of the surge, wrong as you are. No, I'm disputing you on basic principles.

(1) You support torture, aggressive warfare, and murdering innocent Iraqis, Iranians, etc., etc., etc., in pursuit of American hegemony.

(2) I don't.

No "facts" are at issue there, and it is because of your principles, not your version of the facts, that you deserve a bullet to the back of the head.

And as for the Goebbels comment, that's pretty amusing, I'm a libertarian. You're the one who is supporting a police state bent on world domination. Pot kettle.

Though I admit feeling unclean even conversing with you, you sub human animal.

Posted by voice of reason | July 24, 2008 5:25 PM

vor

I'd love to have a sewer rat like yourself come to the promised land of boca & confront you outside your palace of egouts.

Like a true Goebbels acolyte, you prefer the pistol to facts.

Posted by daveinboca | July 24, 2008 5:54 PM

I don't misunderstand a lying misfit like vor or resent his stupendously silly list of things I "support." Typical of a mendacious pistol-waving political commissar to lie incessantly about principles when the liar in this case is a Ron Paul supporter, probably a misfit under a different name whose style is reminiscent---calling posters animals & misspelling the term at the same time sums up this imbecile.

Goebbels or Beria, your principles don't exist and your brain-fart posts are beneath contempt.

Posted by daveinboca | July 24, 2008 5:59 PM

I wonder why fruitcake vor doesn't give us a link to see a list of his "principles" so we all can judge how far outside the pale of reason he dwells, roaming "les egouts de Paris" and other underground excrement caverns.

Unclean, interesting to discover whether he uses it in a halal and haram context.

From his livid firearms-waving commissar style, I'd say he isn't talking about kosher & its reverse. This guy is anti-democratic.

Gotta be an Islamofascist, so sewer rat is a compliment in comparison.

Posted by daveinboca | July 24, 2008 6:15 PM

daveinboca,

Your laughably wrong flailing is SO revealing of the mindset of the war lovers.

Anyway, for a statement of my principles, you can start with George Washington's farewell address. Not a very radical document - or, at least, not perceived as such. Maybe it should be - in a good way, of course. How sadly have we strayed from it.

Ron Paul? He isn't exactly my flavor of libertarian, but he is one of the few politicians at the national level speaking sanely on foriegn policy. Some of his views may be a bit ... out there. But not nearly as much as the views of the hegemonic consensus, comfortable with torture and wars of conquest.

Posted by voice of reason | July 24, 2008 8:05 PM

John McCain puts me in mind of Humpty Dumpty in "Alice through the Looking-Glass":

'"When *I* use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less."

"The question is," said Alice, "whether you *can* make words mean so many different things."

"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master - that's all."

Alice was much too puzzled to say anything; so after a minute Humpty Dumpty began again. "They've a temper, some of them - particularly verbs: they're the proudest - adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs - however, *I* can manage the whole lot of them! Impenetrability! That's what *I* say!"

"Would you tell me, please," said Alice, "what that means?"

"Now you talk like a reasonable child," said Humpty Dumpty, looking very much pleased. "I meant by 'impenetrability' that we've had enough of that subject, and it would be just as well if you'd mention what you mean to do next, as I suppose you don't mean to stop here all the rest of your life."'

Posted by JakobFabian01 | July 25, 2008 9:46 AM

John McCain puts me in mind of Humpty Dumpty in "Alice through the Looking-Glass":

'"When *I* use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less."

"The question is," said Alice, "whether you *can* make words mean so many different things."

"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master - that's all."

Alice was much too puzzled to say anything; so after a minute Humpty Dumpty began again. "They've a temper, some of them - particularly verbs: they're the proudest - adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs - however, *I* can manage the whole lot of them! Impenetrability! That's what *I* say!"

"Would you tell me, please," said Alice, "what that means?"

"Now you talk like a reasonable child," said Humpty Dumpty, looking very much pleased. "I meant by 'impenetrability' that we've had enough of that subject, and it would be just as well if you'd mention what you mean to do next, as I suppose you don't mean to stop here all the rest of your life."'

Posted by JakobFabian01 | July 25, 2008 9:47 AM

damn, how dumb are you guys anyway?

counterinSURGEncy

what part don't you get?

geez

Posted by mario | July 25, 2008 2:08 PM