The Game-Changer

Don't ask me, ask former Bush communications director Dan Bartlett:

“Time will tell, but the al-Maliki comments about a timetable is very close to a game-changing event," Bartlett told my colleague Daniel Libit in an interview. "That was incredibly damaging [to McCain], because it neutralized one of [Obama’s] biggest liabilities."

Meanwhile as Joe Klein says the right's response to Maliki has helped highlight "the bright line of the Iraq debate" between those who want to stay forever and those of us who don't see the point in trying to station U.S. forces where they're not wanted.

Comments

It's certainly pulled the sheets off the imperialists.

So much for those purple fingers, eh?
.

Posted by Grand Moff Texan | July 25, 2008 12:01 PM

Yup, because now Obama can say:

"The American people want it. I want it. And EVEN the Iraqis want us to leave. Only John McCain and George W. Bush want to stay."

McCain seems like a dolt now in goading Obama to go to Iraq and trying to paint him as naive. What, did the Prime Minister of Iraq not visit Iraq enough?

http://strategy08.wordpress.com

Posted by Dan | July 25, 2008 12:01 PM

Bartlett better not say that in Mixner's presence.

Which is probably good advice no matter what "that" refers to.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | July 25, 2008 12:10 PM

Cheetos must be brain food, because Matt seems to have gotten this exactly right.

It's surprising, in retrospect, that people didn't anticipate this happening. I mean, when you're a democracy engaged in imperialism, you might expect a little push-back from your client/subject state.

Posted by Ted | July 25, 2008 12:14 PM

it is fascinating that bartlett regarded obama's position on iraq - merely the majority opinion, after all - as a "liability."

Posted by howard | July 25, 2008 12:15 PM

If you want to say the game is changed, you have to point either to a specific rule of the game that is now different than it was before or to an actual feature of game play that is now, de facto, different than it was before.

And to do that you have to provide a comprehensive, explicit, documented list of all the rules of the game, before and after, and/or of all actual moves made in the game, before and after.

You have to do this because I say so. Otherwise, I win!

Posted by mixxner | July 25, 2008 12:16 PM

I think hearing this from this source backs up my theory about where the conservatives want to go with Iraq.

For a sum-up of my long-time view on the WH's Iran policy, check out my blog today.

Posted by Swan | July 25, 2008 12:42 PM

Minxer won't actually endorse McCain's plan or say that he favors McCain's plan, only that Obama's plan is folly and anyone who favors it over McCain's is simply an Obamabot regardless of whatever argument you make. You favor Obama? You are an idiot Obamaphile! You lose I win! See how easy this is?

Posted by Minxer | July 25, 2008 12:42 PM

Even I remember the OCD dude Mixner keep coming back here and sniping "WHUR'S YER GAME-CHANGER NOW DOOD" just because I saw it so much. But I guess you can always so "NO FER HE IZ FORMR NOT COUNT NOW", so, whatever.

Posted by El Cid | July 25, 2008 12:44 PM

Yup, because now Obama can say:
"The American people want it. I want it. And EVEN the Iraqis want us to leave. Only John McCain and George W. Bush want to stay."

I agree. Now, if only he'd actually do that. I'm continually let-down by Democrats who can't take advantage of the most basic mistakes of their opponents.

It's not a low road or impolite to point this stuff out. It's a straight-up policy difference between the two candidates.

It should be a ubiquitous national ad campaign.

Posted by Joe | July 25, 2008 12:48 PM

Bartlett may be a Right Wing partisan but he certainly isn't stupid. He knows politics and knows that the palpable shift on Iraq will tip the scales heavily in Obama's favor. It's common sense.

http://www.political-buzz.com/
http://www.myoovooday.com/political

Posted by matt | July 25, 2008 1:01 PM

Matthew writes,

Don't ask me, ask former Bush communications director Dan Bartlett:

Ah, right. If Dan Bartlett had said the opposite, you would of course be dismissing his comment as just another message from the Republican Noise Machine. But when he says something you want to believe is true, he miraculously transforms, if only for an instant, into an honest and accurate political commentator.

Meanwhile, actual evidence to support your "devastating game-changer" claim continues to be conspicuously absent.

Meanwhile as Joe Klein says the right's response to Maliki has helped highlight "the bright line of the Iraq debate" between those who want to stay forever and those of us who don't see the point in trying to station U.S. forces where they're not wanted.

Who said they "want to stay forever?" Quote them saying that.

How long does Obama intend to maintain his "residual force" of U.S. soldiers in Iraq? How many troops will this "residual force" consist of?

Posted by Mixner | July 25, 2008 1:14 PM

Obama has alienated a lot of his potential voters with this European Tour fiasco.

Posted by E1 Cid | July 25, 2008 1:18 PM

It's certainly pulled the sheets off the imperialists.

So much for those purple fingers, eh?

See, I don't get this. If this was during the Cold War, the CIA would assassinate the guy since we couldn't let the country go Communist. Not now. Imperialism lite?

But you would rather have a homicidal dictator than "purple fingers." You'd rather have the minority Sunnis lording over the majority Shia.

I was glad to see that Obama acknowledged the mistakes America made in his Berlin speech. I thought the speech was a homerun.

Posted by Peter K. | July 25, 2008 1:18 PM

O no! Now tha peeplz who iz afrayd of Yurp wont vote Obama! I promis they wuz gon to b4!

Posted by El Cid | July 25, 2008 1:22 PM

Obama has really overstepped himself this time.

Posted by Grand Moff Texxan | July 25, 2008 1:22 PM

Obama has alienated a lot of his potential voters with this European Tour fiasco.

Posted by E1 Cid

Voters in your trailer-park, phony El Cid?
.

Posted by Grand Moff Texan | July 25, 2008 1:25 PM

But you would rather have a homicidal dictator than "purple fingers." You'd rather have the minority Sunnis lording over the majority Shia.

No, I'd rather you'd pay attention.

"So much for those purple fingers" was directed at those on the right who now ignore democracy in Iraq because it's not telling them what they want to hear. They're dissing the purple fingers, not me.

As for what I'd prefer, I'd prefer that six figures worth of human beings live under a rather common type of terrestrial government than die screaming in a war that was never justified. So let's not pretend that there was even a humanitarian rationale for the invasion and occupation.
.

Posted by Grand Moff Texan | July 25, 2008 1:31 PM

Obama has really overstepped himself this time.

Posted by Grand Moff Texxan

Poor troll! Was it really that bad, being my bitch?
.

Posted by Grand Moff Texan | July 25, 2008 1:32 PM

WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA! Guys, quit it!

Posted by Mixner | July 25, 2008 1:45 PM

Someone is stealing my handle.

Posted by Grand Moff Texan | July 25, 2008 1:53 PM

"As for what I'd prefer, I'd prefer that six figures worth of human beings live under a rather common type of terrestrial government than die screaming in a war that was never justified. So let's not pretend that there was even a humanitarian rationale for the invasion and occupation."

Like I said you'd rather the Iraqis lived under a homicidal dictator than have sovereign nation which can say no to the Hyperpower. Snark all you want.

The US shouldn't mess with other countries. Then Karadzic should still be running around, don't you agree? Russia believes it was an "internal affair."

Posted by Peter K. | July 25, 2008 1:54 PM

Ah, right. If Dan Bartlett had said the opposite, you would of course be dismissing his comment as just another message from the Republican Noise Machine. But when he says something you want to believe is true, he miraculously transforms, if only for an instant, into an honest and accurate political commentator.

Mixner provides the strangest definition ever of a phenomenon others might call an admission against interest.

Posted by Instant Karma | July 25, 2008 1:56 PM

Grand Moff Texan,

Mine too.

Posted by Mixner | July 25, 2008 1:57 PM

Grand Moff Texan,

So let's not pretend that there was even a humanitarian rationale for the invasion and occupation.

Right. Because a continuation of genocidal sanctions and a genocidal dictator would have been so much more humanitarian than the war.

Posted by Mixner | July 25, 2008 2:00 PM

Tell me, Mixner, do you think people who sell guns and bullets are guilty of the homicides that people commit with them? Or are consequences from a sanction the only derivative evil that people suffer guilt for?

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | July 25, 2008 2:22 PM

You fellas sure have a lot of fun hangin' around here. Just a little interruption: In the same week that al-Maliki & Barack put their heads together and took OurJohn's biggest issue away, T Boone Pickens and Al Gore put their heads together and took away his other one.

At least John had a better week than Bob Novak.

Posted by JohnMcC | July 25, 2008 2:27 PM

Tell me, Mixner, do you think people who sell guns and bullets are guilty of the homicides that people commit with them?

The question isn't terribly meaningful. They may be partly responsible for the homicides, depending on the particular circumstances of the sale, but I wouldn't say they are "guilty" in a legal sense.

And your point is.....?

Posted by Mixner | July 25, 2008 2:33 PM

I want Obama to win and maybe it time to pull out of Iraq, but maybe George Packer is right also:

"The plan didn’t survive, because a civil war broke out the next month, and by the end of the year Baghdad had been turned into a nightmarish killing field. By then Donald Rumsfeld, who was the main administration voice for a quick handover, was gone, and even President Bush had to admit that his security plan for the city had failed. Thus the surge was born. I was in Iraq again, in January, 2007, when the new plan was put into effect, and once again the Iraqi government tried to orchestrate things so that American units would leave the city.

Why? Because the Iraqi army and national police—infiltrated or dominated by Shiite militias—had the upper hand in the civil war and wanted to finish the ethnic cleansing of Baghdad. General Petraeus and his commanders had another plan: joint Iraqi-American patrol bases all over the city to secure the population and separate the warring militias. The surge came just in time to salvage a remnant of Sunni presence in Baghdad, which is one major reason why Americans suddenly found new allies among former insurgents who not long before had been blowing up our convoys."

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/georgepacker?xrail

It would be kind of funny if we pulled out and then Maliki just cleansed the rest of the Sunnis. Of course the Peaceniks would just blame it on Bush.

Posted by Peter K. | July 25, 2008 2:37 PM

Well, clearly, if anyone had given the slightest damn about all the civilians dying in Saddam's Iraq due to the George Bush Sr.-imposed and Bill Clinton-sustained sanctions, they would have advocated lifting them.

Obviously, since no major U.S. politician did, the lives of the civilians dying by the hundreds of thousands were completely secondary to other goals.

Posted by El Cid | July 25, 2008 2:41 PM

Mixner,

Do you still believe, as you claimed yesterday, that the Gallup tracking poll is "an ongoing lesson in the state of public opinion"?

Because his lead just went from two points to six points in a single day, which means Thursday must have been a very good day in the polling for Obama:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/109105/Gallup-Daily-Obama-There-Europe-Effect.aspx

Now to be clear, I still think this is likely just a random walk, as I said yesterday. But since you rejected that theory yesterday, what is your explanation for this shift of the state of public opinion in Obama's favor?

Posted by DTM | July 25, 2008 2:42 PM

Mixner,

And while you are at it, please explain the Rasmussen tracking poll as well, since as you say "tracking polls are an ongoing lesson in the state of public opinion."

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/general_election_match_up_history

On Tuesday they were tied (with leaners). On Wednesday it was Obama +2. Thursday it was Obama +3. And today it is Obama +5.

Again, though, I say random walk. But you say what?

Posted by DTM | July 25, 2008 2:48 PM

And your point is.....?

That I figured that you would dodge the issue. you did.

I win.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | July 25, 2008 2:52 PM

peter k, we've had discussions of the war in iraq for 6 years now: when has george packer been right? he is one of a number of people who can't believe that someone as smart as themselves was wrong about iraq, and can't shut up after the fact.

meanwhile, i have no idea what a post-american-occupation iraq will look like. i do know that there is no gain american national security is making commensurate with the costs of our continuing involvement.

Posted by howard | July 25, 2008 2:58 PM

Peter K. and howard

Juan Cole (juancole.com) directly contradicts Packer's claim. He notes that one of the first effects of Petraeus' Baghdad plan was to disarm some Sunni neighborhoods by day, and by night Shiite armed forces would move in and ethnically cleanse. So the "surge" caused an uptick in ethnic cleansing,initially.

Posted by tom f | July 25, 2008 3:48 PM

Juan Cole 7/24

"As best I can piece it together, what actually seems to have happened was that the escalation troops began by disarming the Sunni Arabs in Baghdad. Once these Sunnis were left helpless, the Shiite militias came in at night and ethnically cleansed them. Shaab district near Adhamiya had been a mixed neighborhood. It ended up with almost no Sunnis. Baghdad in the course of 2007 went from 65% Shiite to at least 75% Shiite and maybe more. My thesis would be that the US inadvertently allowed the chasing of hundreds of thousands of Sunni Arabs out of Baghdad (and many of them had to go all the way to Syria for refuge). Rates of violence declined once the ethnic cleansing was far advanced, just because there were fewer mixed neighborhoods."

Posted by tom f | July 25, 2008 3:51 PM

DTM,

Do you still believe, as you claimed yesterday, that the Gallup tracking poll is "an ongoing lesson in the state of public opinion"?

Yes. Do you believe it is not? If so, why do you believe that?

Because his lead just went from two points to six points in a single day,

After having shrunk from four points to two points on the previous day. As Gallup points out:

To signify a real difference in the support patterns of voters in the U.S., the data would either need to show a sustained 6-point plus lead for Obama over a number of days, or conversely, a sustained pattern by which John McCain moves into the lead (something he has not done since early June) and sustains that lead.

Meanwhile, other polls show the race closing in key states.

Quinnipiac University Poll: Obama, McCain Poised Evenly In The Battleground States

The presidential race is closing in the three major battleground states, with Republican John McCain holding an advantage among white male voters and Democrat Barack Obama keeping his lead among the youngest voters, according to a new Quinnipiac University poll.

Of course, it's still far too early to make any kind of confident prediction about the winner in November (although that doesn't stop fools like you). Most Americans just aren't paying attention to the election yet, and three months is an eternity in American electoral politics. But as things stand now, I think the most plausible outcome is a modest win for Obama. Followed by 4 years of growing disenchantment at him by the left. A rerun of the Clinton years.

Posted by Mixner | July 25, 2008 5:48 PM

Mixner,

I believe the sampling variation in tracking polls randomly causes small variations back and forth in the poll numbers. So does Gallup, which is why they note only a sustained change over several days is likely to "signify a real difference in the support patterns of voters in the U.S."

That's the theory you rejected yesterday. But now you embrace it when the same polls turn against your preferred narrative. As I knew you would.

Posted by DTM | July 25, 2008 9:27 PM

DTM,

I believe the sampling variation in tracking polls randomly causes small variations back and forth in the poll numbers.

So do I. That obviously doesn't mean tracking polls do not provide an "ongoing lesson in the state of public opinion." It merely means their accuracy is subject to some uncertainty over short periods of time.

That's the theory you rejected yesterday.

No it isn't. The "theory" I rejected yesterday, and continue to reject today, is your absurd claim that tracking polls do not provide information on the state of public opinion at all but are merely a "random walk."

Still waiting for evidence to support Matthew's claim that the Maliki malarkey is a "devastating game-changer" in the 2008 presidential race.

Posted by Mixner | July 25, 2008 9:37 PM

Mixner,

I never said tracking polls provide no information about public opinion. I just said the particular variations we have been seeing in the Gallup and Rasmussen polls recently are most likely just random variation. Notably, with respect to Gallup's polls specifically, the recent Gallup tracking polls have never met their conditions for "a real difference in the support patterns of voters in the U.S." So, Gallup agrees with me.

And that specific claim--that the recent variation in the tracking polls was likely just random variation--is what you said "no" to yesterday. See here:

http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/07/four_way.php#comment-2522206

But today when the Gallup tracking poll turns against your preferred narrative, you changeyour answer to "yes".

Imagine my surprise.

Posted by DTM | July 25, 2008 10:05 PM

LETTER FROM A 23 year vet of
more than one branch of the military
The Cagle Post

MY MEETING (ALMOST) WITH OBAMA
I had a first hand view of Barrack Obama’s “fact finding” mission, when he passed through this base.
While I can’t name it, it’s one of the largest air bases in the region, with up to 8000 troops (depending on influxes and transients in mobilization/demobilization status), mostly Airmen and Soldiers, but some Marines, Sailors, Koreans, Japanese, Aussies, Brits, US Civil Service, contractors including KBR, Blackwater and Halliburton, among others in the news. The overwhelming majority of all of these are professional, courteous and disciplined. Problems are rare.
…I will try to present the facts as I saw them. I wasn’t able to see much, which makes a point all by itself.

When his plane arrived (also containing Senators Reed and Hagel, but the news has hardly mentioned them), there was a “ramp freeze.” This means if you are on the flight line, and not directly involved with the event in question, you stay where you are and don’t move. For a combat flight arriving or departing, this takes about ten minutes, and involves the active runway and crossing taxiways only. For Obama’s flight, this took 90 minutes, during which time a variety of military missions came grinding to a halt. Obviously, this visit was important, right?

95% of base wanted nothing to do with him. I have met three troops who support him, and literally hundreds who regard him as a buffoon, a charlatan, a hindrance to their mission or a flat out enemy of progress. Even when the rumors were publicly admitted, almost no one left their duty sections to try to see him, unless they were officers whose presence was officially required.
Mister Obama’s motorcade drove up from the flight line and entered the dining hall toward the end of lunch time. Diners were chased out and told to make other arrangements for food, in the middle of the duty day.
Now, there are close to 8000 troops on the base and its nearby satellites. No one came up from the Army side (except perhaps a few ranking officers). The airbase resumed operation, once he cleared the flightline, as if nothing had happened. The dining hall holds about 300 people and was not full. The troops did not want to meet him and the feeling was apparently mutual. In attendance, besides the Official Entourage, were the base’s senior officers, some support personnel, and a very few carefully vetted supporters who’d made special arrangements. No photos were allowed. No question and answer with the troops. No real acknowledgment that the troops existed.

Obama left around 1530, …less than three hours… 90% of the troops I know, even those opposed to the war, say that is the way to win. Victory comes from winning, not from “change.” In fact, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs is on record as opposing Obama’s strategic theory.

Since he obviously knew in advance that’s what they’d tell him, and since he didn’t care to talk to the troops and find out how they feel, and was barely in country long enough to need a shower and a change of clothes, we can only call this for what it is.

A disgraceful PR stunt, using the troops as a platform for his ego and campaign.

In comparison, I’ve seen four star generals and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on this base. They each held an all ranks call, met with and briefed the personnel, and took questions on every subject from tour length to uniform design to rules of engagement to weapon choice to long term policy, from the newest airmen to the senior NCO with TEN 120-180 day tours since Sep 11. It’s very clear they want to know what the troops think, and to keep them informed of events. It’s equally clear Obama does not.

Posted by Karlene | July 25, 2008 10:42 PM

Feel free to wait, Mixner.

My guess is when McCain craters in November you can find a whole host of reasons why. I'm sure you will as a matter of fact, I'm kind of praying you decide he wasn't belicose and fiscally disciplined enough.

Posted by Ed Marshall | July 25, 2008 10:44 PM

DTM,

I never said tracking polls provide no information about public opinion.

Yes you did. You said:

Tracking polls are an ongoing object lesson in random walks.

That's an exact quote. So you now think that a "random walk" is information, do you?

And you just asked me:

Do you still believe, as you claimed yesterday, that the Gallup tracking poll is "an ongoing lesson in the state of public opinion"?

Why did you ask me this if you now agree with me that the Gallup tracking poll does in fact provide information about public opinion?

Or are you saying that you think tracking polls provide only information about public opinion at one and only one point in time, and not "ongoing" information about public opinion over a period of time? Or what?

You seem to be very confused.

Posted by Mixner | July 25, 2008 11:28 PM

Mixner,

You got your object lesson in random walks when I called your attention to the latest numbers, and you were forced to fall back on Gallup's disclaimer.

So, I rest my case: you are yet another person who got an object lesson in random walks from these tracking polls.

And by the way, if you think a series experiencing a random walk can't convey information, you are the one who is confused. Or perhaps just ignorant.

Posted by DTM | July 25, 2008 11:38 PM

Karlene, I've seen this bullshit every election since I was paying attention and that's been awhile.

I saw the beta version of this out of Afghanistan today and the asshole that wrote it sort of implied he was around but he wasn't and got all sorts of shit wrong. He was stupid enough to put his name on it and issued a mea culpa.

I'll lay any amount of money that you have right now that on purely factual matters this thing is provably false and cover you. I'll do it 10 to 1.

Posted by Ed Marshall | July 25, 2008 11:46 PM

And here I thought the post title "Game Changer" was a reference to episode one of season two of "Terminator"!

Summer Glau said it was a game changer!

Meanwhile, this statement is bullshit:

"The surge came just in time to salvage a remnant of Sunni presence in Baghdad, which is one major reason why Americans suddenly found new allies among former insurgents who not long before had been blowing up our convoys."

The reality is that it became apparent to the Sunnis that they couldn't fight both the Shia and the US at the same time in 2006. It was US scorched tactics against the Sunni in Fallujah and elsewhere in 2004 and 2005 that sent the Sunni refugees into mostly-Shia Baghdad, aggravating the sectarian tensions building up. So describing the Sunni "Awakening" groups as "allies" is disingenuous in the extreme.

Tom F above quoting Juan Cole has that right. It was the US tactics against the Sunni insurgency and against the Sadr movement that aggravated the sectarian civil war in the first place. The "surge" did nothing but provide a band-aid (the walled "ghettos" in Baghdad - a truly stupid tactic) and cover for the resulting sectarian cleansing.

Another reason the Sunnis joined the Awakening groups is that the US promised them that the Iraqi government would integrate them into it. That didn't happen because the Shia don't want any more Sunnis in the government. This has nearly led to several revolts by Awakening groups who believe the US lied to them - which no doubt the US did.

None of these tactics has any longevity attached to them. They cannot be sustained. They were predicated on the notion of "reconciliation" which didn't happen and cannot happen as long as the Shia-based government has the support of the occupying US (and Iran.)

The consequences of these tactics will come to a head in the fall and next year in the provincial and parliamentary elections, where the nationalists on the Sunni side and the Sadr movement are expected to make huge gains, altering the composition of the Iraqi government. Maliki's actions in demanding the US adhere to a withdrawal timetable are a result of both his seeing the writing on the wall from the elections and orders from Iran to bring this thing to an end on terms favorable to Iran.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | July 26, 2008 12:45 AM

Pay Ed Marshall. Pay him his money.

Army officials refute claim of Barack Obama snub in Afghanistan

By James Gordon Meek
DAILY NEWS WASHINGTON BUREAU

Updated Friday, July 25th 2008, 10:05 AM

WASHINGTON - The latest chain e-mail smear against Barack Obama: He "blew off" troops at an Afghan base to shoot hoops for a publicity photo.

The letter was apparently written by a Utah Army National Guard intelligence officer in a linguist unit at Bagram Airfield who claimed the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee was rude to G.I.s.

"As the soldiers where [sic] lined up to shake his hand he blew them off," wrote the Task Force Wasatch "battle captain."

But angry Army brass debunked the Obama-bashing soldier's allegations, which went viral Thursday over the Web and on military blogs such as Blackfive.

The e-mail claims Obama repeatedly shunned soldiers on his way to the Clamshell - a recreation tent - to "take his publicity pictures playing basketball."

"These comments are inappropriate and factually incorrect," said Bagram spokeswoman Army Lt. Col. Rumi Nielson-Green, who added that such political commentary is barred for uniformed personnel.

Obama didn't play basketball at Bagram or visit the Clamshell, she said. Home-state troops were invited to meet him, but his arrival was kept secret for security reasons.

"We were a bit delayed ... as he took time to shake hands, speak to troops and pose for photographs," Nielson-Green said.

E-mails to the officer who made the charges and a call to his wife were not returned.

See also.

And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.

Posted by southpaw | July 26, 2008 2:10 AM

Thought you might like to know from the newspapers in Berlin - found this interesting article. Apparently BO rented the space for his speech from the city and paid an extra amount to not allow any protest signs. Yep, it’s always about the money and stifling freedom of speech isn’t it BO?

the media didn’t bother to mention that there were paid bands that offered a free concert and that is the ONLY reason there were so many people in attendance for his failed speech.

The most important numbers from Rasmussen are the favorable numbers. Last week McCain overtook Obama in Favorability ratings for the first time since February. Obama’s favorable ratings have fallen by 14 points, while McCains have increased by 12 points off his low. Huge shift.

Posted by Karlene | July 26, 2008 3:34 AM

http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/blog/blog.aspx?id=2492

Berlin speech — Crowd size - Locals said 20,000 not 200,000.

Posted by Karlene | July 26, 2008 4:57 AM

Bartlett's comments are too reality-based. Too many Americans are unable to think logically, too ready to buy into arguments about Obama's unAmericanness.

Posted by bob h | July 26, 2008 7:05 AM

Like I said you'd rather the Iraqis lived under a homicidal dictator than have sovereign nation which can say no to the Hyperpower. Snark all you want.

Wrong again, dipshit. I'm perfectly happy that the democracy is telling the US to go stuff it.

The US shouldn't mess with other countries.

Were you going to make that argument, or are straw men all you can handle today?
.

Posted by Grand Moff Texan | July 26, 2008 2:29 PM

Right. Because a continuation of genocidal sanctions and a genocidal dictator would have been so much more humanitarian than the war.

In terms of actual body count? No shit.

Unless you're still living in a fantasy world where Tony Blair's pronouncements of mass grave finds weren't, you know, a complete lie.
.

Posted by Grand Moff Texan | July 26, 2008 2:31 PM