Not Photoshopped.
Rather, an extreme example of McCain's "tongue jut."
Like Nate Silver, I'd really like to play poker with him. Not only does he do the tongue jut thing when he's very pleased with himself, if you throw him off his game, McCain freezes completely. (That last link is to a video where McCain was gobsmacked for 19 full seconds last night. That was the decisive moment in the debate, as far as I'm concerned.)
...and that previous post shows why I can never really be a copyeditor or proofreader.
I've passed this along to scaps' friends at USSMariner.com. I hope he has a full recovery.
"The predictable reaction of the Repubs... has been Clinton Did It Too."
And my predictable reaction is, "So? If Clinton were to jump off the Empire State Building would you jump off the Empire State Building?"
You'd think these people never had mothers. Sheesh.
We've gotten sidetracked from my original question, which was, "What's Baker's next move when he insists Bush try to talk to them, and Bush does, and they loudly and publicly tell him to go screw?"
Leave aside how likely that may or may not be (clearly opinions differ) -- What's Plan C?
This isn't purely a speculative exercise. I heard Robert Siegel interview Robert Haass of the Council on Foreign Relations on NPR, and Siegel made similar points to what I have, and Haass made similar points to Ursula's. Whereupon Haass said something along the lines of, "I think it's worth a try."
What I heard in that was (and I could well be wrong), "Look, it's taken us 4 years to come up with a Plan B. We're too exhausted from that fight to come up with a Plan C."
And my point is, the best laid plans of mice and men, etc.
So, what would Plan C look like?
"What's in it for them is, hopefully, stability in a large nation on their border. Prolonged chaos in Iraq is apt to eventually spill over onto them, and would be almost as bad as having a US controlled puppet government in the region."
Again, that sounds like a list of why we would want them to cooperate.
I'm not sure either Damascus or Tehran would agree with the domino theory -- indeed, they might well think Iraq is their domino, about to tip (Iran especially).
Example: Say Iraq is cut into three, one of the parts being a Kurdistan. It's usually presented by the Western press that an independent Kurdish state is anathema not only to Iraq, but also to Turkey and Iran, who have large Kurdish populations. But a Kurdish state carved out of Iraq -- that is, not Iran -- gives the Iranians a place to exercise some ethnic cleansing, and exile the Kurds they have.
That may or may not work -- but I can easily see some among the mullahs who think it might. The US does not have a monopoly on Rumsfeldian over-optimistic folly.
Or, to put it another way: Chaos that humiliates the US (and ties down our blood and treasure) is preferable to many players in the region to stability that doesn't.
There's also the minor problem of, How can either the Sryian or the Iranian goverments do anything with us without being perceived internally to their own countries as "a US controlled puppet government"? If one's goal is stability, is fomenting regime changes that would be even more hostile to cooperation with the US -- for such would be the probable result -- be useful?
"Bush has for some time now been refusing to communicate with Syria and Iran... Baker will almost certainly insist that we do so..."
Here's my problem with that:
What's in it for them?
In other words, I can see why we would want Syria and/or Iran to bail us out of this mess, if possible. Trouble is, I don't see any gain on their part to do so. In fact, all of their incentives are against helping us at all.
What's Baker's next move when he insists Bush try to talk to them, and Bush does, and they loudly and publicly tell him to go screw?
"On the first page of its founding manifesto, the massively funded Department of Homeland Security intones, “Today’s terrorists can strike at any place, at any time, and with virtually any weapon.”"
This reminds me of what my friend Gordon Robison posted recently:
"I spent a couple of days trying to puzzle out the logic President Bush used on Saturday to tie the London airplane plot to Hezbollah. And then it hit me:
The Bush administration is not fighting Al-Qaeda. Apparently, it is fighting SPECTRE."
He elaborates later:
"On the basis of President Bush’s Saturday radio address all this seems a pretty fair summary of what the administration believes is arrayed against it.
“America is fighting a tough war against an enemy whose ruthlessness is clear for all to see,” he said. “The terrorists attempt to bring down airplanes full of innocent men, women and children. They kill civilians and American servicemen in Iraq and Afghanistan, and they deliberately hide behind civilians in Lebanon. They are seeking to spread their totalitarian ideology. They’re seeking to take over countries like Afghanistan and Iraq so they can establish safe havens from which to attack free nations.”
Does the President really think Al-Qaeda is behind all these things? If an hierarchical Al-Qaeda still exists (which is debatable), it may well be behind the alleged London plot. Its involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan, however, has waned partly because of American military action and partly because those conflicts are increasingly local and sectarian or tribal in nature. The idea of operational ties between the Shia Muslim militants of Hezbollah and the stridently anti-Shia Sunni Muslims who run Al-Qaeda borders on the absurd."
Gordon's been in the field in the Middle East as a reporter (for Fox, CNN, ABC, others) for about 20 years. He's about as reality-based as it gets over there.
* The first article is not a bad example of why only one Senator has been elected President in the last 100 years, while four of our last five Presidents have been Governors. I don't care which party -- to be a Senator who thinks they have a realistic chance at the Presidency, you have to be at least mildly delusional. Clinton, Biden, McCain, Frist... It hardly matters (insert your own Bentsen paraphrase here). Which means, of course, that by far our most likely next President will come from the pools of either Democratic governors, or Republican governors. Now, who in the pools will climb the stairs, I have no idea -- I'm just saying it's the bet the odds overwhelmingly favor.
* The Rolling Stone article is yet another of what I call "Don't worry your pretty little head," pieces. As in, "Aw, honey, polly-tics is full of nuthin' but filth and corruption -- don't worry your pretty little head about that." And, like the sub-species of spouse who would resort to such rhetoric, it's the kind of thing mostly driven by fear that Someone is going to wake up one day.
* OTOH, I loved the Frank Rich piece when it came out, and still do.
Heresiarch:
The city, Tacoma, is named for the mountain Tacoma or Tahoma (think of the H as being like that in "l'chaim!") -- which is also known as Mt. Rainier. Rainier's height is 14,410 feet above sea level -- which is where Tacoma is, only 44 miles away -- or 4393 meters. The distance from downtown Tacoma to the edge of development is about 23 miles.
In other words, Mt. Tacoma is plenty wild, and Tacoma the city ain't that far from said wilderness.
(Not that I would ever buy an SUV, as I'm both secure in my sexuality and in my driving ability. But hey.)
Re a Texas-Massachusetts Series, and hack writing: Hey, the Old Guy always uses hack writing. Have looked over this Bible thing?
But after the Sox --and Kerry -- win, I won't care much.
Re the overall situation: Folks, you don't understand. This is the 21st Century. The Yankees have yet to win a Series this century, and have choked in every single post-season this century. They will continue to do so, especially since they've picked up a new curse: The Curse of A-Rod. As I said when he left Seattle, "What profiteth a man if he signs a $25 million a year contract, but never gets to wear a World Series ring?"
A-Rod will never wear that ring. Bank on it.
| Year | Number of comments posted |
|---|---|
| 2008 | 4 |
| 2007 | 1 |
| 2006 | 4 |
| 2005 | 2 |
| 2004 | 1 |
Total: 12 comments. View all these comments on a single page.
The most recent 20 comments posted to Making Light by Hal O'Brien:
Show all comments by Hal O'Brien.