Comments on Informed Comment: Dean v. Bush: "Winning" in Iraq Or Winning Smart?...

BTW, I like the term "Winning Smart." The strateg...

2005-12-10T23:49:00.000-05:00

BTW, I like the term "Winning Smart." The strategy is a hell of a lot better than Bush's losing dumb plan.

The longer we stay in Iraq, the higher the likelih...

2005-12-10T23:48:00.000-05:00

The longer we stay in Iraq, the higher the likelihood of an all out civil war. Currently, those who join the police or Iraqi military are viewed as collaborators, not only by the Sunnis and pro Saddam forces, but by many Shia as well.

By redploying, the old gaurd loses a big piece of propaganda, and will be faced with fighting a civil war against better equiped and overwhelming forces.

That said, there's going to be ethnic and religious score settling whether we're there or not. It won't go away anytime soon.

I am inclined to agree with the characterization o...

2005-12-08T11:44:00.000-05:00

I am inclined to agree with the characterization of Alexander Cockburn's comments about Juan's ideas on how to mitigate the disastrous situation in Iraq as being looney. I not have read any specific references in the comments here that suggest that those who are insulted by the "looney left" label have read Cockburn's comments. I wonder.... How many regular readers of Informed comment would agree with Cockburn's critique?
A sample (from http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn11262005.html );
"What Cole is recommending is very similar to what the British did in Iraq after the rebellion of 1920. They relied on airpower and "Bomber Harris", the man in charge of the RAF effort made no effort to conceal that he was going after civilians and their villages."
Cockburn is assuming (probably correctly) that whichever Iraq policy is pursued by the Bush administration will kill many more innocent Iraqi civilians, and be more misguided and counterproductive than many liberals would expect.
Unfortunately, Cockburn has no viable plan for averting the massive disruption and civil and/or regional war that will likely come after a rapid pullout, while we are stuck with the knuckleheads who "conceived" this debacle setting Iraq policy for another three years.
We must work diligently to wrest power from the Bush administration and to fight for policies that will mitigate the damage caused by them!

As I am decidedly not "a man of the Left", loony o...

2005-12-08T09:04:00.000-05:00

As I am decidedly not "a man of the Left", loony or otherwise, I'll pass bemusedly on that squabble (although I'm not sure any Trostkyites remain on the left, I thought they were all at AEI and the Weekly Standard).

Regarding Dean's comments, which seems to pattern Murtha's, my only critique is that war policy does not really seem an area in which an unelected party bureaucrat ought to be speaking and outshining the elected Democrats. I suppose it's because of Dean's role as a catalyst for antiwar feeling in the Democratic Party in 04, but since he won't be running for office any time soon, I'd think it would be wiser for the Dems to leave those critiques to the officeholders.

I also think it's unwise for war opponents to concede the notion that a US withdrawal will lead to chaos or civil war. Our continued occupation of Iraq permits a "low-intensity" civil conflict to be carried out by all parties (although it sure seems pretty high intensity given the bodies piling up) without fear of the consequences of provoking a wider, more devastating conflict. In other words, the talk of an inevitable civil war is, to me, unproven speculation. It is just as reasonable to assume that the parties would be deterred from such a suicidal conflict and instead work out a distasteful, if acceptable, pragmatic solution. None of the parties are insane or stupid. They are quite reasonably using the cover of the American occupation to pursue their personal interests. Since the US is there to keep the lid on the powder keg, the parties feel free to provoke if they believe it serves their interests.

We need to withdraw, at least to Kuwait and Qatar, in order to remove the artifical conditions that prevent the application of mutual deterrence to the parties in Iraq. Far from provoking a civil war, I believe a prompt, orderly withdrawal will force them to make the hard pragmatic choices to avoid a destructive conflict in which they all know they'd lose.

Of course, this really just goes to the issue of "what to do now that we're in this mess." That the Iraq war was a stupid, unnecessary, unconstitutional, strategic blunder that has compromised the security of country, both financially and militarily, goes without saying.

It seems to me you and Dean's idea of "winning sma...

2005-12-08T03:31:00.000-05:00

It seems to me you and Dean's idea of "winning smart" is just Vietnamisation by another name:

1) withdraw substantially from the country
2) Build up indigenous forces
3) rely on airpower and special forces to support (2)

I sincerily doubt it will prevent civil war (actually, it seems to have already begun) and the US when using airpower or special forces has never been that concerned about civilian casualties.

As with Vietnam, any prolonged US involvement, of any kind, will make matters worse not better.

Incidently, my experiences with "the loony left" (sic) are that it was them who did draw attention to the massacres under Saddam's regime, from the chemical attacks on Kurds to the slaughter of the Marsh arabs and Shiites after Gulf War I.

(It makes no sense either to smear these people as only being concerned about US atrocities and thus not in Saddam's atrocities, when for the majority of his regime, he was a US puppet! )

As expected, the republican reaction to the "We ca...

2005-12-08T00:20:00.000-05:00

As expected, the republican reaction to the "We can't win" sentence is harsh.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/12/5/234519.shtml?et=y

"Dean should be hung"

Sherm's plan is remarkably similar to William Lind...

2005-12-07T23:46:00.000-05:00

Sherm's plan is remarkably similar to William Lind's

I remember Bill from back in the day when we were both youngsters, he on Sen Robert Taft's staff as Defense LA....brilliant man, very conservative...

There's goes your reputation Sherm..or your political compass

OK. It was a mistake for me to use that phrase "l...

2005-12-07T22:32:00.000-05:00

OK. It was a mistake for me to use that phrase "looney left." I actually really was more or less referring to Trotskyites and the like, but perfectly honorable anti-war folks developed a suspicion I meant them. Sorry. I was focused on the "looney," and readers focused on the "left." Geez. I should hope that *I* am a man of the Left. I wasn't saying *that* is looney.

From the Looney left again.The US needs a simple p...

2005-12-07T21:41:00.000-05:00

From the Looney left again.

The US needs a simple plan coated with a thick layer of gravitas.

Here's a simple plan:

A bargain is reached between the Sunni camp (insurgents and political leaders) and the Shiite/Kurd camp(and its US trained military arm).

The bargain being that the Sunni camp will destroy or expel Al Qaeda in Iraq and the Shiites/Kurd camp will throw the American military out.

While Al Qaeda in Iraq accounts for a small fraction of the military violence, it accounts for 99% of the "Stay the Course" rhetoric. Get rid of it and the baloon deflates quickly. Coat the plan with the gravitas I mentioned earlier and we can leave in dignity - White House
spin applied as required.

Of course the simple plan is classified "Top Secret".

Interesting point about US companies not being int...

2005-12-07T21:29:00.000-05:00

Interesting point about US companies not being interested in failed states. Heritage Oil, the Canadian company with the deal in Kurdistan, specialises in failed states.
It was closely linked in a number of African countries to mercenary outfits that offered their services in return for resource concessions.
http://tinyurl.com/82fq2

Your articles make the most sense of all that I ha...

2005-12-07T20:31:00.000-05:00

Your articles make the most sense of all that I have read on our fiasco in Iraq and surrounding countries. I only wish that posts like this one were required reading for this entire administration, as well as the cable news hosts, such as Chris Matthews, etc. Don't think Faux would be interested, facts being somewhat foreign to them.

Your right about the loonie left. I deal with them...

2005-12-07T20:04:00.000-05:00

Your right about the loonie left. I deal with them every day. They are all around me here in Seattle and don't care anymore about the death and suffering of Iraqis than the loony right does. They will deny it of course, but neither group has the frame of reference to process the concept of a civil war. The right has no empathy beyond the reach of their fingertips, and the left cannot imagine the slaughter of translators, laundry workers, cooks and other collaborators when we leave, followed by fighting at the regional level, breaking down until it reaches the tribal level. Then the Turks, Iranians, Saudis, Syrians will be pulled in at the "request" of their minorities and a CF of biblical proportions begins.

Juan, "Looney Left?" I don't consider myself 'L....

2005-12-07T19:49:00.001-05:00

Juan,

"Looney Left?" I don't consider myself 'L.L.' but I don't think saying "Bring them home now" qualifies me as such either. Are you saying that anyone who thinks thusly is in fact "looney." I'll admit to being further Left than you but I don't think you can draw the line indicating where "looney" begins. Plenty of folks to the Right of you would draw the line in such a place as to leave you among the loonies. You also appear to have decided that everyone in the BTHN camp hates the U.S.. Youo really believe that?
I'm not about to attack you for your position and I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you're referring directly to those who are attacking you.
However, if we now have to take responsibility for the mess we've made in Iraq with the invasion why should it stop there? Don't we have a responsibility to undo the damage we've done throughout the world over a longer time period? That's not to say that we've ONLY done bad things but the list of them is long and stretches way back. Also, is the perpetrator of horrible acts really the best candidate for fixing things? It seems the "fixer" would require the credibility we've long since lost.
Also, the "looney left" didn't say anything about the disasters in Afghanistan or successes in the Balkans? This reminds me of Republicans who ask, "where were you when Clinton did this or that?" For one, some of us didn't have access to computers or the internet (if it even existed at the time) and I think qualifies as a 'straw man' argument.' Blogs certainly weren't plentiful. And is this statement the result of a Lexis Nexis search or is it because you didn't read any such criticism yourself? It seems that some who use such arguments feel that if they weren't exposed to these statements they must not have happened.
I also think it's debatable whether or not the Kosovo intervention was a success in light of the acceleration of 'ethnic cleansing' and massive civilian casualties among Serbians as well as infrastructure damage caused by the bombing campaign. This isn't to say that some form of intervention was necessary but the triumphalism regarding this particular NATO action seems to ignore the belated nature and imperfect execution. The obsession with not taking friendly casualties probably led to greater levels of civilian deaths and eventually the failed policy in Iraq of using too few troops. Demonization of entire nations and their populations makes such things easier to swallow and is a big reason there isn't much sympathy for Iraqi victims of the war. The silence of the Right in the face of similar destruction in the Reagan years and onward is no reason to let the Left off the hook but was certainly as 'deafening.'
I really appreciate you adding a comments section and I hope this qualifies as entering the debate as opposed to attacking you. You're the one person I read every day if I can. I can understand if you feel I should leave such comments for my own blog (which I only just created since one needs to be 'signed up' to participate in the comments) and will respect your wishes whatever they may be.
It must be frustrating to be under attack from all sides and I greatly admire you for taking such a public position regarding your beliefs.

Professor Cole:During my participation in another ...

2005-12-07T19:49:00.000-05:00

Professor Cole:

During my participation in another forum (not related to politics in anyway) somebody brought up AE Van Vogt's "Right Man Theory." It goes something like this:

"He (the Right Man) is a man driven by a manic need for self-esteem — to feel that he is a ‘somebody.’ He is obsessed by the question of ‘losing face,’ so he will never, under any circumstances, admit that he might be in the wrong. . . . the Right Man is an ‘idealist’ — that is, he lives in his own mental world and does his best to ignore aspects of reality that conflict with it. Like the Communists’ rewriting of history, reality can always be ‘adjusted’ later to fit his glorified picture of himself. . . . The Right Man hates losing face; if he suspects that his threats are not being taken seriously, he is capable of carrying them out, purely for the sake of appearances. . . . the central characteristic of the Right Man is the decision to be out of control, in some particular area."

This seems to describe the neocons prefectly especially Bush as well as Cheney and others in the current administration.

I'm hoping none of my readership considers itself ...

2005-12-07T19:46:00.000-05:00

I'm hoping none of my readership considers itself on the looney left, so I can't see how any of them could be insulted by the language. I'm referring to a discourse that always thinks anything the US or the US military does is always evil and always worse than anything anyone else could do. When Saddam massacred the Shiites and put them in mass graves, none of these observers on the far left said anything at all about it.

You seem to set up a straw man argument here. If I remember correctly, the left was very much against what Saddam did. The Nation ran editorials against the US support of Iraq. Likewise, what faction of the left thinks that what the US does is worse than what anyone else does? I don't hear anyone making that argment. I think the argument is that we should be more concerned about what the US does because we are US citizens and have a duty to change abuses.

Really, the term "loony left" is in itself loony because, as vague and insulting as it is, it doesn't help your argument.

Dr. Cole --Perhaps rather than "looney left" some ...

2005-12-07T19:08:00.000-05:00

Dr. Cole --

Perhaps rather than "looney left" some other term could have been used. Off the top of my head, I can't think of one, though :-/.

There is a lot of frustration on the part of those who didn't want to invade Iraq to begin with. I know part of me (the purely political animal part) wants Bush to be stuck, like velcro, with the mess he made. Unfortunately, there are lots of lives at stake, so the more practical and dare I say, idealistic part of me thinks the position that Dr. Dean and Rep. Murtha, for example, have staked out makes a great deal of sense (though we're still left with the problem of U.S. military in the middle east as an irritant).

The other thing here that might be different from the situation in Afghanistan you cite in your diary is that there was no overt neocon agenda at the time, no Project for a New American Century, etc. It may be just as (more?) important in the big picture to defeat the neocons through showing the bankruptcy of their policies of empire through a "defeat" in Iraq, as to stay there, especially given the neocons are still in power dictating policy.

Dispensing with the straw man of the late-arriving...

2005-12-07T18:57:00.000-05:00

Dispensing with the straw man of the late-arriving definition of a loonie as "a discourse that always thinks anything the US or the US military does is always evil and always worse than anything anyone else could do," I wonder what Mr. Cole makes of the words of Harold Pinter in his Nobel Prize lecture:

Pinter said that since World War II the US government "supported and in many cases engendered every right-wing military dictatorship in the world."

"I refer to Indonesia, Greece, Uruguay, Brazil, Paraguay, Haiti, Turkey, the Philippines, Guatemala, El Salvador and, of course, Chile."

He added: "You have to hand it to America. It has exercised a quite clinical manipulation of power worldwide while masquerading as a force for universal good."

Contemporary proponents of American military interventionalism ignore this history and too easily dismiss reluctance or refusal to employ military force. Military solutions have a duplicitous past in American history. In particular, the military "voice" of the Iraq war has been utterly mendacious or worse--Tillman, civilian deaths, Lynch, the exceptional Englund, WMD sites, Gen. Sanchez, Gen. Miller, Gen. Frank, Gen. Myers, etc.

Us "loonies," definition aside, should be cut some slack. We've good and historical reasons to be suspicious of continued military occupation of Iraq to ostensibly protect the inhabitants of the land we illegally and unjustly invaded. Under these circumstances, shrill characterizations of those who oppose your proposal cheapen the discourse, and history.

While, hypothetically speaking, U.S. use of force ...

2005-12-07T17:38:00.000-05:00

While, hypothetically speaking, U.S. use of force does not have to be evil. It is generally not used for altruistic purposes, but is couched in such terms as, "killing terrorists", "pacifying", "stopping the spread of communism", "stopping terrorism", "liberating" somebody, etc.
In truth, most of the wars and use of force in the past 60 years have been acts of imperialism or, at best, poorly thought out military actions. Invariably, the government paints a much rosier picture of these actions than reality would allow.
So considering the U.S. track record of lies, incompetence poor planning and ulterior motives, it would seem to me that the "loony left" is doing what the press and Congress no longer bother to do, which is challenge the Government's attempts at military intervention at every turn. Everyone else is in "this time they're telling us the truth" mode.
Just because someone might be able to conjure up a scenario in which the use of force could be beneficial, it doesn't mean that a similar situation in reality would benefit from the actual "use of force". Wars fought on paper are a lot different than reality. Compound that with the fact that the the justifications for these wars, in reality, are little more than propaganda and you have a tough time convincing me that I should ever listen to any call for military action or the use of force. So consider me to be member of the "loony left."

I'm one of the ones that was insulted because of y...

2005-12-07T16:57:00.000-05:00

I'm one of the ones that was insulted because of your use of the words "loony left." I think someone like me, who has worked in very practical ways to build the infrastructure of an antiwar movement in this country, looks loony from where you sit because we are engaged in quite different projects.

You are trying to raise the abysmal level of understanding in the US of the society we've so wantonly torn apart and to develop policy prescriptions based in the realities of that place. I'm trying to influence the behavior of my country because, as a believer in democracy, I think all of us here are implicated in its crimes and foolishness.

For my purpose of moving policy from within this country, subtlety and nuance are pretty much counter productive. The job of the antiwar movement all along has been to enunciate a counter position to those forces who took 9/11 as an opportunity to trash the rule of law and to advance of US world domination. To do that, one advocates "out now" and encourages all forces that herd people toward one's pole. The real limits of US power do the rest. And we need to be grateful to those, like yourself, who attempt to turn the twists and turns of that movement into policy prescriptions.

update...On "Winning" in IraqDean's statements /2/...

2005-12-07T15:53:00.000-05:00

update...

On "Winning" in Iraq

Dean's statements /2/ make lots of sense. A few remarks.

-- Semantic games aside, there can be no victory for the US in Iraq. Troops need to go, National Guard and Reserves first.

-- The problem is, the no-win situation is still mostly beyond the scope of political discussion in the US. IMO, this explains "strategic redeployment" thing :- ( To begin with, this leaves Iraqi oil resources unattended. How neocons are going to tolerate this?

-- First problem with "Arab redeployed" forces is their number. Remembering Saudi situation in the 1990-ies, we can say for sure that any significant number of troops will cause ugly tensions in the host country.

-- Next, simple question: with whom in Iraq these externally located forces are going to cooperate? Anything close to Iraqi Karzai or Abbas is really hard to imagine. The most likely result of withdrawal will be fast annihilation of these types. The remaining Iraqi factions are likely to take any cooperation with US troops as violation of national sovereignty - with all consequences that follow.

-- As far as Afghanistan is concerned, to begin with, no number of troops will resolve the opium problem. Once national economy is based on opium production, there is no simple fix for this. Opium blocks meaningful reconstruction not less effectively than guerilla war. Also, any significant troops increase usually means drawback for economic reconstruction!

-- In fact, Simon Jenkins has already made a lot to clarify the situation with "Afghani welcome" /3/. Basically, Khalilzad knows all too well that his rule in Afghanistan was not more successful than that of Bremer in Iraq. So, perfectly knowing what trouble he has left in Afghanistan, neocons do their best to shift the burden to the UK and NATO.

-- There is a simple economic explanation why Karzai and Abbas are not overthrown by the radicals. Both Afghanistan and WBG are burned out and don’t have any valuable resources. In this situation, controlling the country does not provide much material benefits. So, radical factions have plenty of time to wait until foreigners will get tired and go away. But with Iraq, it is not true because of the oil. Lust for oil revenues is likely to incite radicals even when the last urban block is destroyed.

Finally, "smart winning" in Iraq looks a lot like compromise with rightist dems /4/. It can look great politically, but not on the ground.

In 2002, I was perplexed by the magic of Daschle's maneuvering, but still assumed that he knows something very important about high political strategy that I miss. However, 2002 elections proved that it was not case, Daschle's magic did not help dems.

In 2004, I was perplexed by the horrible Moore's movie. It looks more like a video blog than a documentary, some sort of "born again" cinematography. Its content makes no sense whatsoever. The Cannes prize did not fool me, but still I kept my mouth shut - maybe there is something about modern American soul that I fail to understand? However, in 2004, Kerry lost and Daschle was gone. Thanks God - we don't hear much about Michael Moore.

Nevertheless, rightist dems and loonie screamers are still here with their stories full of the sound and the fury, signifying nothing :-(

1. Juan Cole. Dean v. Bush: "Winning" in Iraq Or Winning Smart?

2. Jim Forsyth. Dean: US Won't Win in Iraq
Saying the "idea that we're going to win the war in Iraq is an idea which is just plain wrong," Democratic National Chairman Howard Dean predicted today that the Democratic Party will come together on a proposal to withdraw National Guard and Reserve troops immediately, and all US forces within two years.
"I think we need a strategic redeployment over a period of two years," Dean said. "Bring the 80,000 National Guard and Reserve troops home immediately. They don't belong in a conflict like this anyway. We ought to have a redeployment to Afghanistan of 20,000 troops, we don't have enough troops to do the job there and its a place where we are welcome. And we need a force in the Middle East, not in Iraq but in a friendly neighboring country to fight (terrorist leader Musab) Zarqawi, who came to Iraq after this invasion. We've got to get the target off the backs of American troops.

3. GU. Simon Jenkins. Blair should stop playing fall guy in Rumsfeld's war games
America is shrewdly retreating from Afghanistan, knowing that the place is heading for trouble. Britain is the fall guy.

4. Jim VandeHei, Shalaigh Murray. Democrats Fear Backlash at Polls for Antiwar Remarks

5. Wiki on Daschle

6. Fahrenheit 9/11

Juan,Are you familiar with the song "Stuck in the...

2005-12-07T15:34:00.000-05:00

Juan,

Are you familiar with the song "Stuck in the Middle With You"

Clowns to the left of me
Jokers to the right???

Well, the looney left is least of your worries.

Democrats Fear Anti-War Backlash

Bush pep rallies have em running scared..Pelosi and Dean in the caucus crossfires

As a yellow dog it pains me to note how very excreable a bunch of cowards dare call themselves Democratic party "leaders"

Their cowardice got us in the mess and it will, I fear, keep us there

McCutchen

People have not only attacked Doctor Cole for advo...

2005-12-07T15:15:00.000-05:00

People have not only attacked Doctor Cole for advocating some sort of quick reaction force, they have distorted some of his statements.

This is the same technique used on the right. Twist the argument into a paridy of what it was and then show the absurdity of a parody.

IMO honorable and informed individuals have held a wide variety of positions on this situation. It is complex and there are no certain answers.

Elements of both left and right have tried to simplify the situation into an either/or and do make one's position a matter of decency and intelligence.

But again I feel it is a matter of specifics.

I believe the president set forth an important element of his policy today when he mentioned economic progress as a tool for calming the country. And as with his admission that the insurgency was primarily Iraqi, todays note that economic progress was uneven was a welcome statement of at least some nuance.

The facts as I know them are the economy is mixed.

The IMF reported over 40% growth in 2003 and 2004. This was impressive.

Growth was down to 4 or 5% now. While this looks good for western economies, it is much less tha the potential for an economy as repressed as Iraq's had been. So it isn't completely shambles.

Oil production is down by 500,000 barrels per day I believe. However prices are sweet.

Electric production capacity is up some, but actual production roughly that of Saddam. However flows purchased from Iran are helping the south.

Corruption is high and unbalanced. By this I mean under Saddam things like food rations were used to buy loyalty, now for many people they are missing key items. IMO those currently involved in the flows see less need to buy off potentially dangerous groups.

This occurs at a time whern if the economy is to be healthy it needs a certain degree of "creative destruction" which means it also needs a workable "safety net."

So straiughtening out this issue would be something.

Cortruption is so bad that even the new military does not get supplies, many soldiers exist only on payrolls. This needs to be aggressively addressed.

And yes by us. As the CSM points out today US soldieras are now speaking out against the brutality in the Iraqi police and prision system. The brass seems supportive though guarded. the administration needs to get on this. Just as the Brits are trying to cleanse parts of the Basra force and to send in a chief constable to oversee it.

Even if we are leaving within months we must IMO make these gestures. Even if they are taken as admissions that this has not been the best of all possible occupations.

Trying to keep professionals from fleeing, finding out what economic efforts have worked and trying to recreate them. Probably reducing the role of contractors and bringing in a modern auditing and accounting system...

These have been real priorities since the beginning, they've been treated as secondary. Indeed only in the last few months have we started to deploy large (60 +) provincial civlian teams. So many basics have been ignored.

I don't think we can go back to the periods of lost opportunity, but we must IMO do all in our power to give honorable Iraqis useful bits and pieces to rebuild their country.

And getting back on topic, Dr Cole's conception of a rapid reaction force which can and will respond if certain situations get out of control seems a reasonable proposal.

One thing that has made this worse than it had to be is that we didn't pay much attention to the details. We stried to implement these big grand visions without dealing with all the fine points and problems.

I hope this changes whether we decide to stay or leave. And I hope we can have the courtesy of at least pretending that those who disagree with us may be decent and intelligent people.

Sloganeering is, whether we like it or not, a corn...

2005-12-07T14:43:00.000-05:00

Sloganeering is, whether we like it or not, a cornerstone of our political process. We can ignore this only at our peril. Developing soundbite explainations of our position is the only way it will get across to a great many Americans because, quite frankly, they either a) don't care enough or b) lack the time one is required to invest in order learn the matter in-depth. As hard as it is for the average American family to make it in today's economy, I think it is unfair to expect those people who are not so fortunate as those of us who have the time and wherewithal to educate ourselves more fully.

I, for my own part, think Dr. Cole's phrase is a good one, and one I would hope gets picked up by my party. We need to get over our loathing of bumper-sticker politics as "cheapening the debate" and accept that it has been, is, and will always be de riguer for American politics. From "Tippicanoe and Taylor, Too" to "It's the Economy, Stupid," the body politic always seems to favor those with the pithier catch-phrase.

I, for one, am happy to see you use such a term. ...

2005-12-07T14:27:00.000-05:00

I, for one, am happy to see you use such a term. Loony is a good word for the extremes at both ends of the political divide, and always has been. Ludicrous would work too...

Juan, do you have any thoughts on General Clark's ...

2005-12-07T13:45:00.000-05:00

Juan, do you have any thoughts on General Clark's OpEd in the Times yesterday?

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/06/opinion/06clark.html?pagewanted=1