University

More lame spinning from Randy Scheunemann, who likes to bribe about his ability to subvert US foreign policy for financial gain, about Iraq: "Obama's judgment in Iraq has been universally wrong."

Is this really the take the McCain campaign wants? That Obama's judgment that Saddam Hussein posed no imminent threat to the United States was wrong? That his judgment that the war could prompt a long and costly occupation was wrong? That his judgment that the war could allow the Taliban and al-Qaeda to regroup in Central Asia was wrong? That all seems pretty indisputably right to me.

Comments

brag

Posted by El Cid | July 21, 2008 1:58 PM

Oh yeah? Well do you think the Iraqis are better off with Saddam IN power?

On to Harare to help the poor people in Zimbabwe!

Posted by calipygian | July 21, 2008 2:00 PM

It's all they've got left, really. When the facts don't support your case, make up your own.

Sadly, I predict that the tabloid media will simply print these remarks verbatim, without any critical analysis. Wouldn't want to appear biased, after all.

Posted by Darius | July 21, 2008 2:01 PM

The McCain campaign seems increasingly designed to reach a single demographic: Rigidly partisan Republicans.

Independents, moderates, and all the rest can go suck eggs.

Posted by Herb | July 21, 2008 2:03 PM

Customers Who Bought This Item Also Bought

The Universal Critique of (Obama's) Judgment

by Immanuel Scheunemann-Kant

Posted by lampwick | July 21, 2008 2:04 PM

Maybe he means Obama's judgment in Iraq, i.e. only while he's actually there.

Posted by Bill | July 21, 2008 2:08 PM

Lol perfect example of a freudian slip, Randy probably accepts bribes, but this is an example him BRAGGING not bribing.

Posted by America | July 21, 2008 2:09 PM

More lame spinning from Randy Scheunemann

"Lame spinning?" Oh, the irony. How's that "devastating game-changer" coming along?

Posted by Mixner | July 21, 2008 2:13 PM

Wasn't McCain an early and loud proponent of the surge strategy, which to date has failed?

Wait a minute, check that ... they've declared that the surge is over. Scratch that "to date" ... an early and loud proponent of the failed surge strategy.

Posted by BruceMcF | July 21, 2008 2:16 PM

Randy Scheunemann is a neocon's neocon, isn't he? So he probably does think that "Obama's judgment that Saddam Hussein posed no imminent threat to the United States was wrong"; it fits his apocalyptic world view.

I don't really understand why Neocon John doesn't get hammered more for being a neocon. Is there some pseudo-ideology that has been more discredited in the last seven or eight years?

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | July 21, 2008 2:18 PM

Mixner,

The "game changer" isn't doing so well because the press is so deeply in the tank for McCain that he could go on a psychotic killing spree and the press would bury it on page 12 and discuss how it just proves what a strong leader McCain would be. The fact that the press has such a deep man crush on the psychotic and senile McCain is the only reason Obama, even with his own deep flaws, isn't up by 20 points by now.

The ONLY hope for this nation is the utter destruction of the political and media establishments.

Posted by voice of reason | July 21, 2008 2:22 PM

Oh yeah? Well do you think the Iraqis are better off with Saddam IN power?

Not sure, but I sure as heck know that the people of Afghanistan were left out to dry when we ran off to our shiny and more interesting war. And we know that McCain's judgment on that topic was dead wrong.

"Next stop, Baghdad." --John McCain, January 2002

Posted by LFC | July 21, 2008 2:25 PM

Wasn't McCain an early and loud proponent of the surge strategy, which to date has failed?

Ha ha ha ha ha! Polling data indicates that over the past few months a growing number of Americans think the war in Iraq is going "very well" or "fairly well," that the United States is "making significant progress toward restoring civil order in Iraq," that the United States will "definitely succeed" or "probably succeed" in achieving its goals in Iraq, and that the United States is "winning the war in Iraq."

Posted by Mixner | July 21, 2008 2:31 PM

The Obama/Maliki plan may be bad for the profitability of Mr. Scheunemann's dirty little scheme, which is more more reason to embrace it.
.

Posted by Grand Moff Texan | July 21, 2008 2:35 PM

Wasn't McCain an early and loud proponent of the surge strategy, which to date has failed?

Ha ha ha ha ha! Polling data indicates that over the past few months a growing number of Americans think the war in Iraq is going "very well" or "fairly well,"

Well, if it's polling well, the surge MUST be a success. Onward to November!

The Republican Party: Exploiting global conflict for electoral victory since 2002.

Posted by scythia | July 21, 2008 2:39 PM

"because the press is so deeply in the tank for McCain..."

In defense of the press, their interest is in increasing viewership. They need to maintain the perception of a tight race to keep viewership up. So they help make McCain look better. If Obama were trailing, they'd do their best to help Obama. If the race appears to be the blowout that it is, who will watch?

Posted by fostert | July 21, 2008 2:41 PM

Ha ha ha ha ha! Polling data indicates that ...

... The Surge™'s dead-enders have to resort to argumentum ad populum on an issue that isn't even upper-most on voters' minds.

In sports, we can that an "asterisk."
.

Posted by Grand Moff Texan | July 21, 2008 2:42 PM

that the United States will "definitely succeed" or "probably succeed" in achieving its goals in Iraq,

And which goals are those? Finding WMD's? Setting up permanent bases in that part of the Middle East? Reducing the influence of Iran in the region? The hot, steaming pile of benchmarks that Bush has done his best to ignore (other than a lame, unbacked statement of supposed adequate progress on most, disputed by the GAO)?

We attacked a nation that was no threat to us. Our goal now seems to leave behind a nation that is, WHOA!, of not threat to us. VICTORY!

Posted by LFC | July 21, 2008 2:43 PM

Oh, the irony. How's that "devastating game-changer" coming along?

Just fine, actually.

Does someone need to look up the word "irony"?

More fun with dead-enders here.
.

Posted by Grand Moff Texan | July 21, 2008 2:47 PM

Look, you guys shouldn't even argue with vile scum like Mixner (yes, I realize that I fall into the trap myself at times, including above). Anyone who, at this point, still defends our hideous aggression against the people of Iraq is irredeemably evil and can't be reasoned with. Hopefully Mixner will be hit by a car today and instantly killed, so we will no longer be subject to his sickening presence.

Posted by voice of reason | July 21, 2008 2:48 PM

And which goals are those? Finding WMD's? Setting up permanent bases in that part of the Middle East? Reducing the influence of Iran in the region?

Ensuring corporate hegemony over oil production in the Middle East.

Our goal now seems to leave behind a nation that is, WHOA!, of not threat to us. VICTORY!

Aside from the ever-present revenge terrorism threat from disgruntled Iraqis, there is no way that an independent Iraq doesn't attempt to nationalize their oil industry in the next 20 years. Bank it.

Posted by scythia | July 21, 2008 2:49 PM

you guys shouldn't even argue with vile scum like Mixner

There's a difference between substantive debate and a quick smack to the head.

Mixner's a fool, but he's an eloquent fool, and can mislead the casual reader into thinking he has a valid arguments. Concise rebuttals are for the benefit of the community.

I agree, though, any prolonged debate with Mixner will involve shifting standards of evidence; totally unsubstantiated claims based solely in his own imagination; cherry-picking minutae while ignoring the larger, substantive point; and quickly devolve into "I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I" ad hominem attacks and sockpuppetry.

The man (?) has a profound fear of admitting he's wrong. I've never once seen him concede a point, even when he's proved to be objectively incorrect on a point of fact.

Posted by scythia | July 21, 2008 2:56 PM

Mixner's a fool, but he's an eloquent fool

Sure, for someone only halfway through the ESL tapes.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | July 21, 2008 3:11 PM

the neo cons really believe the crap they spout. They're all still suffering PTSD from 9/11. Which clouds judgment and rationality.

Posted by jane | July 21, 2008 3:22 PM

the neo cons really believe the crap they spout

I am, my more intemperate comments on this and other blogs notwithstanding, more than willing, initially, at least, to give people who disagree with me politically the benefit of assuming that they do indeed believe what they claim to believe, facial absurdity of said beliefs notwithstanding.

The professed beliefs of the neocons and their fellow travelers put that assumption to the test. I'm willing to believe that most neocons believe some of the crap that they spout, and that a few of them believe substantially all of it, but at this point it's abundantly clear that most of what most of them say is pure propaganda, not believed for the moment by those saying it.

Keep in mind int his context, though it's scarcely necessary to go there given the manifest absurdity of various pro war claims, that the chief intellectual inspiration of the neocons was an enthusiastic advocate of the people running the country keeping the "real" reasons for their policies hidden from the rubes, and actively misleading them in order to obtain support for said policies.

Posted by LarryM | July 21, 2008 3:55 PM

Polling data indicates that over the past few months a growing number of Americans think the war in Iraq is going "very well" or "fairly well," that the United States is "making significant progress toward restoring civil order in Iraq," that the United States will "definitely succeed" or "probably succeed" in achieving its goals in Iraq, and that the United States is "winning the war in Iraq." --Posted by Mixner

I wonder why that ... oh yeah:

A study by the Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism found that in all of 2007, the topic of the Iraq war occupied an average of 15.5 percent of the “newshole” in the media; in the last quarter it fell to nine percent, and then to 3.9 percent in the first quarter of 2008. According to the Agence France-Presse, “even the perils of troubled pop star Britney Spears overshadowed the war since late last year, graphs of news mentions on Google’s Trends Labs show.”

That explains it.

Posted by Mark D | July 21, 2008 4:26 PM

You will only come to understand Randy Scheunemann once you've come to understand that he is a comedian specializing in post-modern performance art. He's like a political Andy Kaufman.

Posted by Nordy | July 21, 2008 6:52 PM

Moff Texan,

Just fine, actually.

Another knee-slapper. The piece you link to quotes al-Dabbagh as saying "We are hoping that in 2010 that combat troops will withdraw from Iraq."

Hoping? The Iraqi government "hopes" that the troops will be out by 2010? This is your "devastating game-changer," is it? Where, exactly, is the devastation? Where has the "game" "changed?" Do you have even the vaguest indication that Mr Average American Voter could give a flying fuck what al-AliBaba thinks?

Posted by Mixner | July 21, 2008 9:20 PM