"... surely all I'm saying is I've yet to hear any liberal currently parading before cameras to congratulate themselves on opposing the war give an adequate description of what the Middle East would look like right now had we not gone into Iraq. To wit, Saddam would still be in power and probably free of the sanctions which had ostensibly contained him, Iran would still be pursuing nukes, Afghanistan, which we would occupy in much the same way we occupy Iraq now, would still be an onerous problem and Osama and his minions would still safely be ensconced across the border in Pakistan. I mean, aside from listing the obvious downsides of war, no matter how just or unjust the cause, would we really be any better off, vis a vis the Middle East, had we not gone into Iraq? Certainly, it's hardly an insult to common sense to argue that, for all the extant problems, by virtue of going into Iraq while the oppurtunity presented itself, we are in fact in a better position to manage the complexities of the region. But, even if in your irrational hatred for all things Bush you deny me that perfectly reasonable contention, still, it is incumbent upon your precious Obama to answer a few simple questions simply if he hopes me to take his claim of better judgement regarding the war seriously. Did he consider Saddam to be a problem that needed to be taken care of? If he answers 'yes' that puts him in agreement with every serious thinker on the subject prior to 9/11; if he answers 'no', he has some explaining to do. Assuming he answers yes, he needs then to address issue of sanctions being viable in this regard. Assuming then he comes to the conclusion, in keeping with most experts on the subject, that the sanctions were no longer viable he'll need next to address the question: what the fuck then do you do? Because bascially at that point there are only two options: let the sanctions expire or threaten war. Now I suppose Obama could, if he were an idiot, argue that letting the sanctions slide is better than war, but assuming again he decides rightly that the threat of war is the only real option... well, you see... he can't answers these questions, can he? I mean, of course he can and would argue that after 9/11 free nations were suddenly more willing to confront rogue states, but still, that requires the legitimate threat of force, which is exactly what Obama did not support in opposing the AUF. So, there ya go, the man's a fraud, his position on the war illogical if not incoherent, and the press is letting him get away with it to the point of making it sound like he and not McCain is more right about the war because Maliki has come out and endorsed - sort of - Obama's timetable for withdrawal, conveniently ignoring the fact that Maliki's intentions and true meanings are vague at best and entirely disingenuous or an outright lie at worst..."

A smart guy, writing on the emergence of the new world from out of the old, illustrates why conservatives tend to think they understand the reality of things a lot better than liberals do:

This kind of attempt to reconstruct the "logic of peasant economies" is explicitly presented by Wickham as a practice of "model-building." The "peasant mode of production" emerges as an answer to the question about what would have happened if peasants did not have to give a surplus to aristocrats because aristocracies had so weakened in the general "involution and abatement of the Roman Empire" (as Wickham might rephrase Gibbon's famous title). His answer, spun out over dozens of pages, is that in the absence of external coercion, people would work less, production would decline, technological innovation would be stifled, and family size would shrink to accommodate lowered food resources. And, of course, in the absence of demand, the quality of goods produced would also sink. This theoretical model, Wickham reports, is exactly what we find in the ground.

"... if we hadn't gone into Iraq would it have made it more likely that we go into Iran as regards its nuclear ambitions - and not only go into Iran, which, as you know, I think is inevitable anyway, but commit to such a course with much less of an understanding of our vulnerabilities, vulnerabilities exposed by our misadventure in Iraq? I mean, you liberals love to go on and on and on about how wrong it was to go into Iraq, but actions have consequences not all of which are obvious, can be known, or will relent or adhere to a logic that one may wish upon them. Which is not to argue that all actions are ultimately forgivable because one can never know what good may come of them... well, maybe it is to argue that... but only in the sense I imagine that sometimes you're never so wrong as when you're right - and vice versa..."

What's his name of something or other makes point that Obama's great gift is that, even though his slight political history suggests he's pretty liberal, he actually sounds like a centrist when he speaks. This similar to what I've been saying, except I'm more accurate. Obama's secret is that he comes across as so pleasingly reasonable - this appeals to lefty activists because it makes them think he's an intellectual just like them; appeals to youth because they want to feel rather than think and he lets them believe that it really is a Facebook world, with everyone just so nice and clever and doing such fun stuff; and it appeals to independents because they're just so worn out with Bush worry - they want to be soothed.

Related - sort of I guess - I read they're trying to gussy up McCain's speechifying. I think this is a mistake: possibly not feasible to jettison speech making altogether, but he's never going to get good at it and any attempts to pretend otherwise just accentuate Obama's advantage here. Best to try and turn that advantage around: Obama revels in the grandiose speech - he sees himself in those terms - but is not so comfortable in the humbler settings McCain seems to excel at. If you're smart you can turn this disparity into a question of character and not just a simple matter of style, which is why I wouldn't try to emulate Obama in any way whatsoever - not that McCain is specifically trying to emulate Obama, but how can you turn his speech giving advantage on it's head if you're trying to get better at speech giving yourself? You have to go anti-speech.

Of course presidents have to give speeches - but - do candidates for president have to give speeches? Not so sure about that. Certainly, the way it looks right now, McCain's gonna have to change some parameters if he wants to beat this guy.

"... and don't you think it's odd that no one brings up possibility that Obama's putting emphasis on Afghanistan is just a ploy? What I mean is, he has to push the getting out of Iraq stuff to keep super liberals content but knows that puts him on tentative ground with independents who don't trust him regarding foreign policy - thus the Afghanistan ruse, which makes him look like he's not shy when it comes to the military but which of course is all just talk, conjecture, since the States really can't do anything about Afghanistan right now - in short, he gets to talk tough for free since nothing's going to come of it. I'm not saying it's not in a sense smart on his part, I'm just curious as to why no one is mentioning or possibly even bothering to notice this very plausible scenario..."

Ahmmn... Obama says it was a mistake to allow his kids to take part in pulp TV portrait of his family [Hollywood Access, for christ sake!]. Essentially, he used his kids to burnish his family man credentials, his down to earth oh god no of course I'm not a detached elitist family man credentials - but doesn't really admit to that, rather making some excuse about how it all seemed harmless but now on reflection not so much. I mean, maybe I'm lost to the ravishes of a cancerous cynicism - but this is all bullshit, right? He clearly was using his kids as a political tool and everything about the show was scripted to that end, including the after the fact heart felt you see I'm such a sensitive, caring, thoughtful guy mea culpa - right?

This guy really disturbs me, and not just because I prefer McCain, which I guess I have to - I mean, McCain's campaign so far is so lackluster and disheveled and wandering that the only reason to prefer him over Obama is that he's not Obama, so it's not like I'm crazy for McCain - but that's not it. There's something at work behind the mask of the Obama campaign that is flat out disturbing: the striking disparity between his lack of relevant experience and his brash ambitions, his seeming narcissism, the blind enthusiasm of his followers that borders on zealotry, the way the press enables him, his heart-on-sleeve religious conversion [how like Bush, no?], his ultra liberal roots hidden behind reasonable sounding rhetoric, his calculated, ruthless equivocations on policy, the ease with which he lies and panders - it's all very fucking disturbing. It's as if I'm seeing the coming to fruition of something truly awful and dangerous that has been brewing in the belly of democracy in this age of superficial mass media and instant gratification for a generation or two now. [that's a little over stated, no?] [we'll see. Remember what Hamlet said to Horatio on the parapet] [well, of course, who could forget that, but... after all, really, he's just borrowing elements from successful Republican campaigns and smartly applying them to a Democratic campaign - not such an awful thing, I think. Should probably give him credit for it] [ah... we'll see]

Of course, democracy by its very nature is a bit of a problem child, a bit unruly, unpredictable, inchoate - difficult - and of course that's why it's so damn workable as well - and we who live with it tend to think, assume, that no matter how fucked up it gets every once in a while, it'll all work out in the end - and of course that too is why it's such an appealing system. But, of course, that's not necessarily true, is it? I mean, it'd be sadly naive to think that it could never happen that at some point some one or some thing is gonna come along and just completely muck the whole deal up, no? [sure, that'd be naive... but still not sure why you saddle Obama with this whole decline of the West thing: seems a bit harsh] [he just bugs me - besides it's not him per se that's the problem, it's what he represents, the fabric he's cut out of, the beast that has disgorged him, that's what we should be worried about] [ah... ok. But, ya know, if you just extrapolate from the quality of the campaigns each has run, kind of looks like Obama would make the better president] [yeah... not really sure what to make of that. Does tend to fuck up my apocalyptic conjecturing. Unless I respond by saying you make the mistake of thinking that being a good politician and being a good leader are the same thing, that most if not all the attributes required by each are interchangeable. They're not - and remember I have advocated that McCain's strategy should be to drive home point that the gap between Obama and McCain's political talents is essentially superfical and hints at issues of character which could cause one to favour McCain - ie I think Obama is arrogant and full of himself and that's why he's so damn good at giving speeches - man loves to hear himself talk].

War is the life blood of great powers - any great power that becomes detached from this reality or allows this reality to be compromised by forces that do not respect or understand it or in any other way sees this life blood significantly diminished will cease to be a great power. Both the right and left in America indulge factions which are a threat to the imperative of American military might - and by far Obama is more closely related to so described inimical factions on the left than McCain is to inimical factions on the right. I imagine or it seems reasonable to think that there are times in a great power's existence when an ebb in the ethos of war is tolerable - but with America mired in two difficult to resolve conflicts and with Israel set to exacerbate the situation in the extreme by bombing Iranian nuclear facilities, my guess is now probably ain't one of those times. America will rue the day it was foolish enough to elect a community activist as its commander in chief.

"... so, he was delivering some rather clever indictments of modern culture, strictly from an aesthetes point of view you understand, but humourous all the same, and then ruins it all by going off on a rant about capitalist war machines bombing the poor and ignorant for profits gain etc etc. I proffered the opinion that he shouldn't exclude the possibility that the world may be better served by an increase in the bombing of the poor and ignorant and, well, the festivities just went sour after that..."

Ah - Iranians are expecting delivery of latest in Russian anti-aircraft defense systems, not sure when, but seemingly within the year or possibly next few months. An Israeli attack, if not a certainty before, now is: the stances and threatening actions they have taken obligate them to intercede. Only two things can stop it now: a deal that inhibits nuclear intentions; or Iran backing down. Neither seems even remotely possible at this point, if only because Iran views itself as winning no matter the outcome: if nothing happens they have the bomb; if Israel attacks they have lethal propaganda to exploit - and probably a nuke program delayed only, not derailed.

So the key questions become when? and then what? I've speculated that Israel does not welcome an Obama presidency and therefore might move before the election - but the political calculations behind such a move would be pretty transparent and potentially quite damaging, especially if Obama were to win regardless. So assuming they wait til after the election, two scenarios come into play: a McCain victory leaves them free to wait and see how the Iranians respond to such an outcome - until of course they feel they can wait no longer; an Obama victory on the other hand forces them to act before the swearing in - assuming of course I'm right in thinking Obama worries them.

But then what? A wider war? A barrage of heated rhetoric seasoned with skirmishes here and there? Or a series of Hezbollah sponsored terrorist attacks on Jewish targets everywhere, especially in Europe and North America? My guess would be the latter, reactions to which may lead to events spinning out of control, most worrisomely in Iraq where Iranian proxies could easily convert anger against Jews to anger against Americans.

Still, it is conceivable, after initial volleys of spite, that the result will be more whimper and less bang. Conceivable it is, likely probably not - it will all depend on how the Iranians weigh the pros and cons of retaliation and how they judge what best serves their long term interests. But certainly, if we see Party of God terror attacks on American soil, that could get out of hand quickly.

My letter to Phil Carter, whose insights I used to admire, but now is lost to the Obama:

"All this linking of Mullens remarks with Obama in liberal leaning media is gratuitous and conveniently glosses over fact Obama's policy iterations re Iraq have all been dependent on electoral calculations. In state legislature he was fervently anti-war in keeping with his stridently liberal constituency; moving to the senate he moderates his anti-war sentiments considerably, often times making somewhat contradictory statements re the war depending on his perception of what electorate wanted to hear and his fear of doing anything too dramatic, ie politically risky; during presidential primary he again touted his anti-war bona fides in order to woo the ultra left wing of the party without whom he couldn't win the nomination; and now with general election in sights he tacks to the safe center again , not because it makes sense policy wise, but because it makes sense politically.

How Phil you jump from this mash of political expediency for the sake of personal ambition to suggesting that some well reasoned strategic integrity has brought Obama to this sublime point of consonance with military thinkers is - well, this is Obama propaganda, pure and simple, and quite frankly beneath you.

Obama's one chance, during his precipitous and fundementally superficial rise to the top, to exhibit true leadership and courage and insight was lost when he opposed the surge, virtually the only intelligent policy enacted during the six long years of war. So you're giving him credit for what exactly? Stating the obvious that Iraq is improving and Afghanistan getting worse? We're just getting rid of a president who cynically exploited the low expectations of a gullible public - you're really that intent on electing another one?"

"... what strikes me is how the left wing acts as if the only worthwhile candidate is Obama, as if a President McCain would just be an utter tragedy for the country. Now, you'd of course expect liberals to think this way, except that a mere year or two ago McCain was the left wing's favourite conservative. I remember when he was on The Daily Show not too long ago and Stewart, who now seems literally in love with Obama, gushed about how McCain was the last great hope for the country, the wise voice of bipartisan reason that would pull us out of the mire. Now he's just some senescent and possibly senile Bush redux - and, whisper whisper, possibly even more dangerous than Dubbya. Distinct lack of scruples for people who like to imagine themselves as being so exquisitely scrupled..."