... I disagree with much that you have to say these days [invading Iraq biggest American foreign policy mistake ever? To paraphrase Stephen Daedalus, great powers don't make mistakes, their errors are portals of discovery, all that matters is being on the right side of history [good luck with that][but that's absurd, you're saying that ultimately nothing can be wrong][well, there's some truth to that... but that's not what I'm saying... point is if you adopt an extreme point of view, especially one politically motivated, that forces out the subtlety of an objective, devil's advocation analysis, you miss the wider, more informed, more illustrative context of events... if you want to characterize Iraq as the worst blunder ever that only has value to a person whose agenda predisposes them to agree with such an assessment... fact is, new elements have been introduced into the Mideast dynamic which may eventually work to the US advantage or at least engender more manageable scenarios than existed before Saddam went bye bye [but of course the opposite could be true][yes, but that's my exact point]... at the very least the US military now has a much more thorough understanding of asymmetric threats and COIN, extremely valuable lessons that can only be learned through misfortune [but you're a COIN sceptic!][true, but without demonstrable evidence scepticism is just posturing, therefore COIN paradoxically requires implementation in order to understand why it's so difficult to implement][or think of it this way: you needed Vietnam in order to understand the flaws Vietnam laid bare][what, so they can then be ignored in Afghanistan?][when it comes to war people, out of fear I guess, look for perfection, expect a flawless expertise... but it's really more often than not a trial and error thing]... that may not be pretty, but empires aren't meant to be pretty, they're meant to be useful... hopefully]: and history is literally overflowing with examples of great powers committing what seem to the short view 'mistakes', but in the long view are full of immanent value] but it's entirely beyond the pale for you to confess being a 'fan' of Sullivan - the man is a blithering idiot. You do your reputation no favours by making declarations like that...

America, Europe, IR theory and the problems of a 'common good' gone bad:

"... dependency in an area of need [I assume you agree defense is a need] leads to a decline in related skills and possibly of more significance a rise in attempts to justify or rationalize this deficiency or weakness. There was a void in the West after WW2 that America was happy to fill and has done well accordingly - but you're suggesting if that commitment has become too burdensome that America simply pull away and let the EU take up the slack. How, if it lacks the skills and the will to do so? More likely the EU resorts to bureaucratic muddling and rationalization - leaving America where? It will still have vital interests that involve Europe and Europe's support. Seems to me you're left with two choices then: embrace going it alone, a Reagan-like solution; or you solicit, admonish, beg for, hope for cooperation, which sounds a lot like Obama. You're dumping on Gates but, one, there's not a ton of choices here and, two, look at the president he's serving..."

"... I think you miss the salient point here Tom - all generals expressing equanimity re gays in the military do so based on their experiences under 'don't ask, don't tell' - in other words, everyone knows there are gays serving now, most soldiers I have dealings with say you basically know who the gay guys are [let's state truth here, we're talking about gay men only - lesbians don't factor in] but because of 'don't ask don't tell' it's all kept beneath the fold, under the carpet, you go about your business - ie the issue remains beyond the clutches of a political agenda. Take away the controlling dynamic of 'don't ask, don't tell' and possibly what is now tolerable starts to be annoying - personally, I think the chances that will happen not particularly high, but it's possible - and what will cause such a degradation will be gay activists sticking their noses in the military's business, attempting to impose a marginal political agenda on an institution that has more important things to concern itself with. I compare it to feminism: woman are allowed to serve but they are not treated equally when it comes to combat - if feminists wanted to make an issue of that what happens then? In todays political environment gay rights activists are much more aggressive than feminists.

I find that most left leaning military analysts, like yourself, who enthusiastically support repealing 'don't ask, don't tell'  as if there's no greater threat facing the republic [a bit of hyperbole, but still] don't really know much about the extreme ideology that motivates the gay rights movement and therefore are not that well positioned to understand possible negative consequences. Accordingly, I look forward to your vehement support of the transgender community when they lobby for the right to serve openly, indeterminate privates proudly on display...."

I defended Cheney on torture - not really, but it's being interpreted that way by lefties - bend low and you are necessarily fallen, that is the law of ideological absolutes - I merely wanted to spin Cheney around for a different view - not a venial sin, apparently - who's naive, they chide, enhanced techniques do not work, ya duped fool - well, I don't know if they do or not since I've never interrogated a terrorist - I do know that life is messy and that people make assumptions based on needs and inclinations that have very little to do with the issues at hand - but the point was, and still is as far as I know it, that America can afford to flirt with being seen as unjust and unfair - and even cruel - in fact it may serve its purposes to occasionally be seen as intemperate along these general lines - the go to big ticket example of this is Honest Abe rescinding habeas corpus - there are others - point being, America can look unjust and easily recover from that misstep - its fluidity and creative dynamism and overall guiding animus of freedom and individual rights and responsibilities make it extremely adaptable to unpleasant contingencies - but what it most assuredly cannot afford is to be seen as weak. When I defend Cheney I do so believing that that is the true motive behind his sometimes impolitic musings [and let's understand, that's all I defend Cheney on - most of the flaws that initially undermined the war in Iraq I lay at the feet of Cheney and Rumsfeld].

"... on Rome, lots of doom sayers like to go there, but Halpern's point is not wrong in broad sense that Roman military's focus for various reasons became too narrow which led to significant strategic mistakes, most notably allowing Vandals free reign in North Africa - so if you allow Halpern his point that canceling the F-22 demonstrates a short sighted and too narrow strategic focus, then the Roman analogy not entirely out of bounds.

But of course it's hard to say what canceling the F-22 says about our long term strategic posture because it will be 20 years before we know how truly relevant the technology is - by that time Russia and China will have their own 5th generation long range fighters and we may sorrily regret not staying ahead of the R&D curve - then again any potential strategic void may be filled by stealthy  supersonic and possibly even hypersonic drones capable of much improved ceilings and speeds and operational windows when measured against the F-22 and therefore possibly better options against denial of access technologies, making investment in the F-35 short range tactical fighter seem like a wise choice.

Whatever the case, I think it's arrogant to scoff at F-22 alarmists - anytime America is seen to be walking away from cutting edge technology it has pioneered it's important that decisions like that be vigorously second guessed because if we do come to regret the decision it will be way too late to do anything about it. Staying ahead of the defense R&D curve is a vital long term strategy for the US, indeed, an imperative - I doubt if anyone writing on this blog can truly manage an informed opinion on how canceling the F-22 will ultimately impact that strategy. After all, Gates also canceled the airborne laser saying it was unworkable but an ABL was just successfully tested - although, granted, there are many questions to be answered regarding the actual significance of that test. Still, similar to the F-22, is it really technology we wanna walk away from? Of course lines have to be drawn between programs that are boondoggles or simply not feasible within reasonable limits and programs that show promise of practical application in the future - but when budget constraints conjoin with a left wing ideology that frowns on military expenditures do the lines drawn between programs then express logical necessity or a political bias?..."

Der Spiegel shares my belief that, contrary to prevailing opinion, the more successful the 2.0 version of Chinese autocratic capitalism becomes the less likely it is to embrace democratic change - forces will favour the status quo of a ruling minority even if a majority of citizens are not well served by it - the powers that be will be highly motivated to entrench and secure their gains, not expose them to the uncertainties, the demands of freedom [does anyone believe that the corruption that the Chinese bureaucracy encourages is not rife with waste and inefficiency? - imagine how much shit would hit how many fans should that bureaucracy be exposed to the expectations of free markets and the whims of pissed off voters]. If the Germans agree with me, how can I be wrong?

The apparent decision or near decision or toying with the 'decision' of rewriting the health care bill so that it can be pushed through the senate without benefit of republican or moderate democrat votes - doesn't this support my theory that Obama wants to be a one term president who leaves office a hero of the left wing who can then demonise the right by blaming them and the rotten system they epitomize for his early exit thusly amping up his glorious progressive refulgence which will then be translated with attendant choir of weeping angels onto the world stage where Obama will then either sit back and rake in the millions like any run of the mill televangelist or actually seek to subvert as an international voice the prevailing capitalist, free market model in favour of a new enlightenment that sheepishly waits to be fleshed out by an eager team of academics in a proto-post-revolutionary Shangri-La? I think it does.

Dogs of war - the Chinese eat dog, not just the predominate poor and peasant classes, but a large swath of a not so poor middling class eat dog too - the preferred way to kill dog so that the meat supposedly remains tender is to hang the cur by its hind legs and beat it to death - apparently one can walk down back alleys in any number of Chinese cities and hear the cries and whelps of dogs being beaten to death. I'm guessing there's some or much truth to that after seeing the effort China put into curbing the practice during the Olympics - see for example the infamous mass round up of 'strays' necessitated ostensibly by a rabies scare.

This is interesting because there is a growing middle and upper class dynamic to Chinese society, and these middle and upper classes are increasingly attracted to the luxury of pet owning, especially in the form of Man's best friend [during the cultural revolution pet owning was outlawed as a bourgeois affectation]. Thus you have a fractious divide brewing up through Chinese society based on whether you take the dog for a walk or beat it to death for dinner. Each side uses the diverging approaches to the custom [which for many is a practical necessity] to negatively define, pillory, lampoon, ridicule, demean, insult and curse to Naraka the other.

In the West, where devotion to pets is sometimes so over the top it lends credence to the prohibitions of the cultural revolution, we have seen how 'animal welfare' can take on a potent political animus - people become attached to their pets and imbue them with a personalized emotion that resembles love - this emotion can then easily be translated into a more generalized, albeit still vague, moral imperative.

And so the question of interest becomes: how does an autocracy like China, that may indulge as it sees fit some public opinion, but as an official matter anxiously seeks to limit and control such expressions, how do they adjudicate such an emotional and class conscious problem? The state needs both the dog lovers and dog eaters in order to maintain current economic growth and stability - but any laws wrought to deal with the problem will surely stir raw emotions, class enmity and raise, with implied insults, one group over another. How is comity possible?

Given past behaviour one assumes Chinese officials will suppress info, hide unpleasantness away behind secrecy and lie at will - but one reckons that only works for so long [but who really knows? The Chinese character, if one can even speak of such a thing, remains a mystery, at least in a modern context] - you allow the bourgeois affectation of doggie love hard to then deny its consequent expression. Will the facade of the Middle Kingdom be rent by the dogs of a culture war?

Tom Ricks objects to the phrase 'enhanced interrogation techniques' and I respond:

"... I'm not going to defend Cheney on torture... even though it's clear you paint over the fact that it's a much more complicated issue than your bias allows for... still, it's misleading to dump on him without raising the likelihood that Cheney's support for EIT is more rhetorical than literal... you assume, conveniently, that Cheney is a blood thirsty Inquisitor, whereas the reality is he no doubt believes there is value in the projection of strength, even if at times that strength presents itself in unsavory, even somewhat irrational terms... it's disingenuous on your part not to wonder if that is indeed Cheney's real motive here... but of course it serves your political bias better to act as if he's evil incarnate..."

"... furthermore, Tom, what language do you suggest be used to define interrogation techniques that fall into a grey zone? Are you suggesting there isn't or shouldn't be a grey area? Because that would be pretty naive - you can't entertain the thought that maybe Cheney's engorged rhetoric is a push back against such naive political correctness? Our military employs something of a euphemism when it comes to 'grey areas' - special operations. You have a problem with that as well? SOCOM pushes the boundaries between right and wrong, between appropriate and inappropriate, because that's the nature of war. Are you saying that those charged with interrogating terrorists should not be afforded similar license? It's clear to me Cheney's bluster is not about wanting to waterboard every SOB who passes through Gitmo - it's simply push back against the sentimental logic of the left... a logic which, as seen in the proposed trial of KSM, sounds pleasant in theory but proves a disaster in practice..."

Did speculate several weeks ago that wouldn't surprise me if Obama had already lost interest in being president [if it was all about ego and image, of being lionized as the first black president and the money shot of liberal wet dreams everywhere, why now endure the slings and arrows of actually holding the office in difficult and uncertain times that can only serve to diminish that image?] and possibly contemplating with some relish the idea of either losing in 2012 or making a Johnson-like departure and then blaming his defeat/departure on backward thinking republicans and a political system too flawed and limiting for the great purpose he asked of it, only to be reborn on the world stage as the one thing he has any real interest in being: Cynosure of the left, celebrity incarnation of grand causes, giver of stirring speeches that vaguely promise much while accomplishing very little [but conveniently paying exceedingly well].

Sure enough, in recent interview he suggested he'd have no problem with being only a one term president. Given the sparse amount of info and observation that have fed my Obama conjectures I find myself a little shocked about how well I seem to have nailed him. Must mean I'm quite wrong, oddly gifted - or the failure of the press as a whole to subject the man to a proper regimen of dispassionate scepticism has created the false impression of some complex puzzle in need of explication.

New age European theorists believed the EU was an expression of a coming post-nation state reality - but the unspoken implication was that they were really talking about a post-democracy world, at least democracy as we have known it. But what if China is a truer expression of a new reality - a truer, more practical, more cunning expression of it? Doesn't the EU then become a laughable after thought, an impotent, unworkable appendage to that reality? And where would that leave America? Isolated and left to either fade in the face of the Chinese threat or to lash out against it on its own? Certainly, the EU's inability to solve Greece's insolvency problem to the satisfaction of its three main players - Britain, France and especially Germany - suggests the EU may not be viable in the long term as an economic powerhouse, and if that's the case, what is it then? It has no heft politically, culturally or militarily - if it's not an economic difference maker, what is it? A quaint idea to amuse the fantasies of irrelevant intellectuals?

"... grumpy? Not nearly grumpy enough relative to the provocation. Given the unimpeachable logic of Friedman's drop a bomb, build a school theory of diplomacy I imagine by the time we defeat radical Islam we'll have engendered a pervasive Bloomsbury aura to float across the Arabian peninsula - we'll know we've won when the editorial board of The New York Times sits down in the shade of a palm with newly enlightened Imams to chew qat and discuss the narrative techniques of Henry James. Maybe Raytheon and General Atomics can sponsor the event..."

The growing peevishness between China and the US - over arms sales to Taiwan, the Google hack and a general lack of respect for intellectual property rights, the artificial valuation of the yuan that stacks trade surpluses and undercuts competitiveness all in China's favour [although China would argue that since a lot of that cash ends up in the American treasury China therefore not the only beneficiary] [though some economists would argue that all that Chinese cash floating around was like gas to the flames of the housing boom and therefore current economic malaise at least in part the fault of the artificially valued yuan] - whatever - many commenting on this sniping between the two giants - some saying it's just typical Chinese grousing in public about things that annoy them - some saying it's China feeling its oats as a rising super power and that they now feel a little arrogance is justified - some say Obama is setting up concessions that eventually can be made in order to secure China's support viz Iranian sanctions [delusional I say if so] - and some saying it's time the US abandon Taiwan and embrace with goodwill the 'new hope' that is today's China.

My opinion? As long as you believe [as I do] that the gigantic state owned corporation that China essentially is will never willingly expose itself to the unpredictable dangers of democracy nor learn to abide the fickle affections of a truly open society and therefore hold that the somewhat loosely defined and at times awkward spirit of cooperation that presently exists between America and China is more likely than not destined because of fundamental differences to wear thin no matter the latter's economic vigour or continuing embrace of a species of capitalism [in fact one would guess exactly because of those two things] -  believing that you as America continue to push back against the inchoate nature of the Middle Kingdom but in ways that are reasonably calibrated and strategically nuanced  - you for sure stand by your allies in the Pacific, absolutely do not telegraph a naive weakness by abandoning Taiwan and never take your foot off the gas as far as military expenditures go. In short, work with China when possible, show them the hand when necessary and don't take anything for granted [as in capitalism naturally leads to democracy].  Simple as that.

Essentially, then, my view on how the US should approach evolving relations with China depends on whether you believe it will transition peacefully into a democracy or resist the democratic imperative and constituent norms and conventions of an open society and entrench itself deeper as an oligarchy fueled by a gov't run capitalism. To imagine a peaceful transition is to engage in wishful thinking as far as I'm concerned - logically I only see two realistic scenarios: grievance by the poor and the young and frictions caused by trying to suppress the freedoms capitalism by its nature seeks out lead to eventual social upheaval that results in the emergence of a proto-democracy that may with help succeed in crawling forward or may prove phony [as in Russia] or too weak to survive, collapsing back into a more severe iteration of a the status quo; or that status quo simply continuing on - except bigger and more powerful and more ambitious and more aggressive, inevitably leading to, because the dynamic of competing interests, complicated by divergent means and expectations, cannot be contained, conflict with India or the US or both. Tailor words and deeds accordingly.

[hows does the the apparent rejection by Chinese movie goers of much promoted [mandated] biopic of Confucius, which endorses submission to authority, in favour of Avatar, which glorifies rebellion in the service of individual rights, alter my thinking here? It doesn't - I only contend that there's no necessary connection between capitalism and the emergence of democracy and an open society - never mind a viable democracy - and my main point is that regardless of what the people want the vast, omnipresent bureaucracy that runs China will be the big loser should democracy emerge and therefore why on earth would they embrace it? They'll fight it tooth and nail - therefore, you either get social upheaval or propagation of the status quo held together by various controlling mechanisms, one of which may turn out to be citizens themselves who balk at the changes, some unpleasant and disquieting, that democracy forces on the individual]

Gays in the military - Jesus, is this conversation really necessary? When I scanned MSNBC's home page this morning why was a story about a highly placed US security official declaring the certainty of a large scale al Qaida attack sometime in the next six months placed below a story about gays in the military? Why? The political arm of the gay mafia [oh, c'mon - that's scurrilous] has done a very good job, an exceptional job of making supposed injustices committed by brutish heterosexuals against enlightened homosexuals the most important civil rights cause - hell, human rights cause of the last fifty years. Kudos to them: I am now considered beneath contempt for entertaining the thought that although the idea of spousal privileges for gay couples makes adequate sense, the notion of gay marriage, that pretends that there is no practical, cultural, historical, sociological or epistemological differences dividing homosexual vows from heterosexual ones, is a logical absurdity. If there's no difference between gay and straight marriages then what you're really saying is that marriage is about love - in which case, why should the gov't be involved at all? But of course the gov't is involved and that's because marriage in its heterosexual manifestation isn't about love but has always been about social stability and the making of babies [making you understand - not adopting or creating in a test tube but a seminal, random, unique and often inexplicable rutting between male and female, full of existential mystery and dread and ignorance and implied but barely noticed burdens, that ends with a fertilized egg].

I'm straying - my point is that it is that very political skill and acumen and zeal that gay rights activists have displayed that worries me as far as gays in the military goes - the military is about winning wars, not promoting limited or marginal political or social agendas - it's about optimal performance in extremely stressful circumstances in order to secure vital and far reaching strategic concerns - if the adept political operatives of the gay rights movement try to impose a largely irrelevant agenda on an organization that is extremely relevant, then that would be a bad thing. What I'm saying is, gays in the military per se? Sort of but don't really have a problem with that. Gay political activism and a representative agenda thereof either operating in or encroaching on the military? Big problem. [example: feminism - women are allowed in the military but kept by and large from combat, from fighting on the front lines - what if feminists were outside military bases protesting this de facto discrimination? The military would be forced to indulge an agenda that had nothing at all to do with its central function and promised nothing that would enhance the effectiveness of combat operations, in fact would most likely have the opposite effect. I think most reasonable people can understand how that would be a bad thing. Now, feminists, for various reasons, some quite obvious, have never taken up this challenge - but would gay activists be likewise inclined should the military piss them off or enact procedures and practices they don't agree with? I don't think anyone knows the answer to that. Sure, it's easy to exaggerate the concern, but that doesn't mean it's not justified - male bonding in combat situations adheres to fairly ritualized norms - I'm pretty sure the word 'faggot' and other inappropriate epithets and actions and insinuations are a regular and popular feature of this ritual - what happens when the now openly gay guy in the company complains, possibly to an outside agency? This is hardly an outrageous scenario - and when the politically correct, who have never even been in a football locker room never mind on a battlefield, involve themselves and suggest soldiers shouldn't be behaving this way? Well, then you got yourself a problem - and for what? To promote the dubious cause of gay rights - a cause which, even if one chooses to view it favourably or as noble, when considered objectively doesn't really need to be fucking with the military in order get what it wants - unless of course what it wants is for homosexuality to be seen as no different from heterosexuality - an existential absurdity as far as I'm concerned - but if the case brings me back to original point: it's the aggressive zeal of gay activists that concerns one].

Again, again - Blair, in testifying before British witch hunt re Iraq war and how the hell did you get us into this mess you bad bad man etc etc say you're sorry, beg our forgiveness etc etc - in testimony Blair states that Iran presents a similar situation and the West should remain open to a military intervention - and of course everybody goes nuts crying you loathsome, war mongering bastard! Just how vile a beast are you that you can even think such a thing?!

Ok, I'm gonna say this just one more time [a silly rhetorical invocation since no one is reading this]: there are scenarios, chains of events that can unfold if you use a military strike to interdict Iran's nuclear ambitions that are bad; likewise, there are scenarios, chains of events that can unfold if you choose not to use a military strike to interdict Iran's nuclear ambitions that are bad. There's a lot of bad here no matter which way you look - an objective and rational observer must conclude that if you close your mind to the military option you're allowing fear or an ideological predetermination to cloud your judgment and that could come back to haunt just as surely as being too open to the visceral satisfaction of simply pulling the trigger.

In short, there is no obviously right answer when it comes to Iran yet people all across the political spectrum [although predominantly on the left] are consistently declaiming as if there is. To me, that spells trouble. If that's the point Blair was trying to make I entirely agree with him.

I was struck by Obama going before republicans at GOP get together and engaging in an open forum with them - and not for the reasons most are commenting on, how it was a cunning move on Obama's part etc etc - I mean, it was that, yes, but I'm struck by republicans not seeming to realise or being slow to realise that Obama was doing this precisely because he felt strongly the advantage would be his - they played into his hands - did none of them note that he just brought the man who guided his slick campaign back into the fold to help burnish his dulling image? The republicans treated this as if it were just some respectful give and take but the reality was Obama was getting back to the one thing he's really good at: selling an image - which I'd label as suave intelligence that telegraphs to the average voter reasonable moderation with a hint of affability. It's all bullshit, of course - but they bought it, or at least, that's the impression one is left with. Yes, power is daunting and demands respect - no one wants to be seen berating or bad mouthing or even simply arguing with the president - but of course that's the dynamic Obama is exploiting in order to sell the image!

Possibly I'm over-estimating the one and under-estimating the other - but when Obama claimed, in a very personable and reasonable way, that he's no ideologue if you're in that audience you have to immediately understand you're being played because given his record he either is an ideologue or he has no coherent control over his agenda and has allowed ideologues to co-opt it - certainly independent voters are of the growing opinion that he is or they fear he is an ideologue. Once he says something like that he's thrown you a challenge that if not immediately contested beats you down - and sure enough the one sound bite you heard over and over again on the news was reasonable Obama declaring that he's no ideologue. He wins, you lose. The thing to do would have been to ask if he's no ideologue why then is there a growing sense among independents that he is? The only way for him to answer that question is to either interpret the polls in a very narrow way and you can then attack him on that, or to blame republicans for painting a false picture of him - in other words, to defend himself against charges of being a left wing ideologue by ascribing the smear to right wing ideologues, a circuitous argument that gets you nowhere - unless of course it goes uncontested. You get into a game of presumed reasonableness with Obama and he's gonna win - that's how he beat Hillary, she needed to get tough with him and was at her best when getting tough but because she feared [with good reason] alienating the ultra left wing of the party who adored Obama she had to reel it in and play nice - she's not good at nice, but even if she were you're still being forced to play to Obama's strength and simply by conceding that ground you lose - the whole allure of Obama was this persona of smooth and reasonable intelligence matched to a naive idealism conjured up by his race. Agree to a game of softball with him and you're not gonna win. [oddly enough, say what you will about her, but Sarah Palin seemed to understand this and wanted badly to play hardball with Obama, something the McCain camp adamantly refused to do - which makes me wonder if Sarah indeed does possess some rather keen political instincts] [understand this is not an endorsement of Sarah - her continuing cavort through the playhouse of American politics does fascinate, but in the end still stirs up more fear than anything else]

Axelrod, speaking of the president, tells the Washington Post: "This is someone who in law school worked with [Harvard professor] Larry Tribe on a paper on the legal implications of Einstein's theory of relativity." That's got to be a joke, but the message is clear: President Obama and his men are a lot smarter than the average voter.

That little epiphany regarding the prevailing zeitgeist of the administration from Taranto at the WSJ in amusing article about the rising number of frustrated liberal elitists stepping up to peevishly hurl insults at the American electorate for displaying such ignorance in their rejection of the Obama agenda a mere year after that very same intelligentsia sang choruses of praise to that very same electorate for having the wisdom and insight and greatness of spirit to apparently sign off on and utterly give themselves up to the deification of the cherished Obama.

This is the very thing I found fault with when Obama was first championed by the uber left, after the 2004 keynote address, as their chosen one - a religiously themed put down of Obama that has definitely grown stale but still gets the point across, ie that the devotion to this man was utterly delusional, based more on the idealistic and indeed emotional needs of the believers than on any empirical reality belonging to the thing so fervently believed in - and this pathology presented itself in over emphasizing Obama's putative intelligence - so clearly an irrational and fantastical reaction against Bush and so clearly lacking in any realistic or coherent or nuanced or thoughtful or practical conception of what it means to lead something as complex and unwieldy and strategically vital as the United States of America - Cicero has his place, but god forbid you allow yourself to believe he can adequately play at being a Caesar.