Of course I don't do any of the above, and never have done.

Not that you're necessarily professionally pathological like, say, Keith Olbermann, who makes Ann Coulter seem to flirt (almost) with being dignified and refined.

This is absurd.

Of course it was.

Only one of the original goals of the invasion was realized. Everything after that was mission creep, and the new goals that Bush et al. made up in service of that mission creep were not realized, either.

That's very much just for starters.

The Neo-Cons were, like liberals, naive and idealistic as well as elitist and conceited. “Benevolent Global Hegemony” really doesn't diverge much from many a liberal's dream of government command and control of the economy here in the USA and other developed nations if not the rest of the world. After all, much new regulation and other interventionism would have to be backed up with force if people declined to submit.

The war in Iraq was not only meant to remove a threat, in the neo-cons' view, but would also be the means to transform the entire Middle East — some nations may spontaneously free themselves when we go into Iraq, or after we transform it into the _modern_day_ Garden of Eden (with a Starbucks, KFC, and McDonald's on as many street corners as franchises can be obtained). And if need be, we could go on a new crusade as a catalyst for all this wondrousness, to punish those heathens, put 'em in their place.

That's not what happened. There have been successes in Iraq, and failures as well as embarrassment and disgrace in the case of abu Ghraib (no excuse for hyping this; it is a blip in the bigger picture, as is Guantanamo). The Middle East didn't rush to support and even adopt us. The public had enough and was tired of the setbacks that have always been reported more than the successes (if it bleeds, it leads, and a US effort led by Republicans will gladly have its failures reported by the liberal media). The public voted thumbs down on the results of this effort (and on the GOP for acting like Dems at home) in 2006, and the Evil, Sinister Neo-Cons slunk away about the same time (when not before) Rumsfeld was made the big public sacrifice. And they lived unhappily ever after. The End.

It's just coincidental that they've been among those sniping at Obama, that's all. They needn't and they shouldn't be hyped any more than the Religious Right (the two objects of hatred for many on the Left, including Fulminant, Florid Mikey here on this site).

As someone else said already, it wasn't, of course. But at least this wasn't accompanied by Bush-and-Cheney-blood-for-oil-bashing in addition to a few swipes at the neo-cons.

Nor was Vietnam as bad as so many opponents of that war then or now say.

(It would be easy to name something like welfare programs, or the growth of entitlements as a fraction not only of GDP but more importantly of all federal expenditures as more accurate and worse failures, but that would be too easy.)

What's happening here (with Obama and Iran) is just the latest exchange of political barbs and the latest volley of cheap shots at Obama by a still-defensive-and-dysfunctional GOP, another example of the celeb culture that perversely has grown and “vulgarized” in the same manner as appearances by politicians and commentators on television or radio where they interrupt each other and shout in the case of some shows like dogs barking and jostling for positions closest to one or more food bowls.

Woof!

Actually, I do that, be it briefly sometimes (where appropriate) or by more elaborate ways, or while including related material at other times. I do admit to error if I wrongly presume everyone can read it.

* * *

” DLS usually takes the right-wing position, but not always.”

A more accurate statement would be “a conservative position” is good enough. “The right position” reads better still, but is overreaching, of course. Sometimes. [grin] I'm a moderate (typical center-right like most of the public overall), standard traditional libertarian guy who outgrew his youthful liberalism and idealism, like so many others. (Now I'm not about to be a Mushy Moderate, much less a liberal that hides behind the “moderate” name or uses it outright in a dishonest or euphemism-evasion manner.)

Kathy, regarding the spotlight and where it falls, I would check your vision or your sense of direction. I am never going to be surprised if you blame “right-wingers” for the common cold or raining out some outdoor event you had planned to attend, then follow that gripe by saying how bad such people are. Not that you're necessarily professionally pathological like, say, Keith Olbermann, who makes Ann Coulter seem to flirt (almost) with being dignified and refined.

The fact that you frame my writing this way sheds no light on my writing at all, but it shines a glaringly bright spotlight on your thought processes.

That is exactly what the people I quoted said. That's the point. I have no idea why DaveinBoca thinks I ignored this point. This WAS my point (one of them).

I hope you are able to tolerate things that follow, Kathy, because I suspect it's going to get worse. (Among other things, these guys are going to be emboldened in thinking they have more latitude to criticize Obama than they had before.)

This (by DLS) is also something jwest would never, ever, ever write. It's important to give credit where credit is due. DLS usually takes the right-wing position, but not always.

Nice work, you've been reported to the Dept of Redundancy Dept.

except, of course, that it wasn't. I understand that some folks think so, but the reasons they have offered have never been too persuasive.

No mention, strangely, of the anonymous NYT op-ed article from an Iranian named “Sean” saying more or less the same thing as Wolfowitz and Krauthammer. That would be fair and balanced, two adjectives rarely used in any of KK's raving rants on this faux-moderate blog.

Obama is a deer in the headlights, period, and is still sucking his thumb on Iran while the brave French speak for democracy and liberty.

Let there be no doubt that I broadly disagree with the double use of the word broadly, just as much as I disagree broadly with the administration's broad economic policy. Still, to broadly paint in broad brush strokes does, at times, lead to broadly recognized grammatical errors.

First, let me apologize for agreeing with you. No offense intended.

If we do not tell our neighbors how to arrange the furniture in their house, by what arrogant presumption do we, or some of us, ordain to tell other nations how to arrange the political furniture in theirs? It is the egocentric insufferability of American “superiority” that has lead to general international disdain for our government. Obama, to his credit, has made some attempt to unwind that impression, and we should applaud that effort. Nor should this be a partisan issue. Those of us who broadly disagree broadly with administration economic policy, have a duty to recognize the administration's correct moves and speak in their favor.

That there was but one dissenting vote in today's House resolution is to our shame. Thinking Democrats and Republicans alike owed it to America to understand the value of eschewing the political opportunism that comes with telling, however circumspectly, other cultures what to do. This will be used as evidence of American meddling, and those who protest in the streets and on the rooftops of Iranian cities will now have to justify their actions in light of that perception. Though no great fan of Ron Paul, I acknowledge his courage in being the sole voice of dissent today.

Jwest is worse.I can't imagine Jwest ever writing anything even mildly critical of Ann Coulter.

This was wrong. “Left-like squawkers on the Right” is correct (they're taking cheap shots and acting out of rare “indignation” the way the Left expresses such silly indignation or “outrage” so often). Just let 'em squawk; there is no need to overreact, especially when lefties have routinely been this way or much worse and lacking in substantive arguments. The regurgitation of any neo-con phrases or clauses by the neo-cons is also no cause for major alarm. These guys are just trying to regain the moral high ground they believe Obama is forfeiting by not being tough enough on the Iranian government and interfering in the post-election strife. Obama is smart in handling this gently or deftly. (For Christ's sake, he just got through telling Muslims that it's not our intention to go into other nations and tell them how to run them!)

I hope you are able to tolerate things that follow, Kathy, because I suspect it's going to get worse. (Among other things, these guys are going to be emboldened in thinking they have more latitude to criticize Obama than they had before.)