God, who voted for this old codger. I will say this for Mccain, he is the only one of the republicans who has consistently opposed waterboarding and any torture tactics. The man gets points there. Damn, I just gave a complement to a republican, now i have to go and take a shower.

Hi Mr. Arkin !

First, I want to say "Code Names" is a very good book !
J. Mac Cain is a Honest and Simple candidate. A good man with good morality and who know the cost of life and death...
But his hawkish vision on terrorism and Islam in general is his big problem...
Obama the Arms control wonker and Mac Cain the Hero are the best candidates : the vision and the experience.

Tristan, from France.

I like McCain's simplicity but regret his inflammatory rhetoric. It LACKS a "transcendent" message. Studies show that humanity is a great opponent of terrorism . Normal Muslims abhor terrorism but have not yet spoken loudly against it. McCain's talk is polarizing and could undermine the natural tendency of 1.3 billion Muslims in the world to denounce the minority of terrorists who defame the name of Islam. An eye for an eye only leaves a blind world.

Correct. That was my whole point. To differentiate between perception and reality. I guess now that you see that, you can see that I was having to use perception ro show the reality.
V.Good...

Look, Plainfacto, you are not an expert on Wahabism or Islamic theology, not that a laymen can't get an adequate understanding for purposes of discussion. But, your claims are simply not supported by Wahabists or anyone else. Certain elements read the Koran differently, as certain groups in America read the bible differently. But your broad brushing statements do not comport with the facts. When you clarified and specified your answers in response to my statements, they became a lot less offensive, read the paragraph I quoted, and realize that you used loose rhetoric and overgeneralization. In your paragraph you mention Wahabism once and then talk about Muslims in general. i am not expert on Islamic theology, but no strain of Islam that I am aware of Wahabist or other says that Christians and jews should be either killed or converted. And trust me I am no big fan of the Muslim religion. I would rather not have to defend any religion, because I prefer to denounce them all. However, I don't take to misinformation, and the way you wrote that paragraph is very vague and speculative.

//WHOM WHERE IN THE KORAN HAVE YOU FOUND A CALL TO KILL AND ATTACK THE WESTERN WORLD AS BEING KHAFIR?//

Gee, I wish you would quit screaming, Farzad. Bold-face type is harder to read and harder on the eyes. Nobody ever made their arguement better or stronger by using bold-type. They make a better arguement without being a spin doctor. And you are not one of them; are you?

Back to the point I raised: some Muslim extremists do look at a country that is non-secular (because our leadership isn't strictly religious, like it is in Turkey - as an example) and consider it as being 'khafir'. Wahabeists consider the US as khifir because it allows more than one belief or no beliefs to run the country; that is - a 'non-secular state'.

I will say this again - just for you - that not ALL Muslims see it with this perspective. After all, the US has some thirty million Muslims living here and maintain their own identity as Muslims and US citizens.

It is the more bloodthirsty of people (and all countries have this behavior - regardless of religious affiliation) that can become utilized and express what they repress thru any extremist group - regardless of country, race, or religion.
Peace to you...

Listen Farzad, you are the one that has made the mistake. But I will clear it all up once again just for you. I said, that these beliefs of killing khafirs is NOT held by the majority of Muslims. What I said, and it bears being repeated because it is such a good point, is that terrorist cells require/need a peaceful/quiet Mosque to carry out terrorism. If, in fact, they have gotten into that particular Mosque at all. Not ALL Mosque's have been infiltrated.

What did we see happen in London on 7/7? British SO-13 determined that the individuals that were involved in that bombing originated from a Mosque there. Furthermore, it had been determined that the source of origin was from our ever-lovin frinds in PAKISTAN!

What did we see happen in Chicago with a street gang turned Muslim? In order to create the appearance of becoming 'changed people' and legitimate? And was it not Mohomar Khadaffi that aquired them as paid assets to carry out terrorist acts when asked to do so? Was is not the FBI that busted them and uncovered their use of that Chicago Mosque as a cover?

I apologize for the fact that you misunderstood me. I hope you can see my point more clearly now.

Those who believe (in the Qur'an), and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians and the Sabians,- any who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve. KORAN 002.062

YUSUFALI: Except those who join a group between whom and you there is a treaty (of peace), or those who approach you with hearts restraining them from fighting you as well as fighting their own people. If Allah had pleased, He could have given them power over you, and they would have fought you: Therefore if they withdraw from you but fight you not, and (instead) send you (Guarantees of) peace, then Allah Hath opened no way for you (to war against them). 004.090 KORAN

WHOM WHERE IN THE KORAN HAVE YOU FOUND A CALL TO KILL AND ATTACK THE WESTERN WORLD AS BEING KHAFIR? PLEASE RETRACT YOUR BOLD FACED SMEAR, THAT I WILL GIVE YOU THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT, THAT YOU DID THROUGH IGNORANCE AND A MISTAKEN BELIEF. NOW THAT I HAVE PROVIDED YOU WITH THE FACTS I EXPECT A RETRACTION. OR YOU WILL LOSE WHAT CREDIBILITY YOU HAVE WITH ME AND WITH OTHER FAIRMINDED PEOPLE. NO MORE SPIN, COME OUT AND SAY YOU MADE A MISTAKE AND THAT YOU HAVE NO CLUE OF WHAT YOU TALK ABOUT.

Terrorist and terrorism have been attacking us abroad - and now at home. We do not go out our way to make them attack us; they do it for Muslim beliefs. At least, some of them feel that it is for their beliefs. If you are a Wahabeist Muslim and your look at the Western world - your are referred to as 'khafir'. That is a non-Muslim that will not accept the Muslim faith. This is part of their belief system; it is also the reason they feel justified in killing you.)plainfacto

YOU ARE WRONG PLAINFACTO, YOU HAVE REPEATED THIS BOLD FACED LIE THAT SOME NEOCON FOOL FED YOU. ONE OF THE THE TENETS OF ISLAM IS THAT ISLAM VIEWS ALL CHRISITANS AND JEWS AS PEOPLE OF THE BOOK. AND IN THE KORAN IT SAYS THAT ONLY DEFENSIVE ACTIONS ARE JUSTIFIED AGAINST THE PEOPLE OF THE BOOK, MOHAMMED HAD A GREAT RESPECT FOR THE WORLD'S OTHER MONOTHEISTIC RELIGONS. UNDER ISLAMIC LAW JEWS AND CHRISTIANS ARE PROTECTED MINORITIES, AND UNDER ISLAMIC THEOLOGY GOOD CHRISTIANS AND JEWS CAN GO TO HEAVEN JUST LIKE GOOD MUSLIMS.

THE TERM KHAFIR, IS DIRECTED AT POLYTHEISTS AND IDOL WORSHIPERS. ISLAM DOES VIEW THESE PEOPLE AS INHERENTLY EVIL. SO THEREFORE YOUR ANALYSIS OF KHAFIR IS BOTH INCORRECT AND AND INCOMPLETE. BUT DON'T LET THAT STOP YOU FROM REPEATING WHAT YOU HEARD ON FOX NEWS.

Rollens writes: and money is the root of all evil.

well no, the "love" of money is the root of all evil. Paying the rent with "money" is not evil in any sense.

Bill, if you think McCain's so great on national security, can you at least describe one issue you think he's right on? When I listen to him I just hear a Joe Lieberman clone, though perhaps with fewer Likudnik sentiments.

//The con here is that your ilk degrade,condemn and label the whole Muslim faith as evil because of your ignornce to their beliefs and the extremism of a few.//

Not so. If you had bother to read most of my posts, you would have seen that that I said that not Muslims hold this view. But the ones that attack us and our allies use the 'peaceful' Mosques as a means to act out terrorism. In fact, here is one excerpt:
"Don't believe me? Go find out for yourself; the Muslim Clerics in this country are going out of their minds worrying if there is a jihadist in their midst that can ruin the reputation of that Mosque.

Here's an example - this is a factual case. Have you ever heard of a Chicago street gang called the 'Black P Stones'? Their leader of this powerful gang decided to make his gang legitimate by making members Muslims. Mohomar Khadaffi found out aboout this street gang turned Muslim and contracted them to commit terrorist acts when he asked them for it. He paid them quite well - too.

It is a fact found in recent history - go look it up for yourself. What is the lesson? Khadaffi took advantage of their savage nature and their willingness to do it all in the name of Allah. Needless to say, the FBI busted them - sent a few of them to prison for conspiracy and sedicious acts. Ever since then, ANY street gang have been watched by law enforcement and the FBI because they may be solicited for more terrorist acts."

Theplain facto is that you can't stand and are terrified that there are other bullies on the worlds playground that are getting in the way of what you want.
If killing us was a real Muslim belief and not a twisted interpetation ( as are common in all religions) you'd know it.
Billions of people of the Muslim faith believing this would be quite apparent and not just manifested in a few suicide bombings.
The con here is that your ilk degrade,condemn and label the whole Muslim faith as evil because of your ignornce to their beliefs and the extremism of a few. If you can scare everyone into believing that this is a "war of civilizations"and that they are all the monsters in suicide vests,you will acheive your goal of aiding the industrial war complex in perpetual war and the profits that represents to them.
Your palpable fear causes you to side with the belifs of your corporate masters
who are controlling your reality and beliefs to their advantage.
Let you in on something here Plainfacto.
These corporate huckters don't give a S#@t about you and could care less what happens to you after you have served their propaganda purposes. If the terrorists were where the profits could be made they would be representing their agenda at the blink of an eye.There is a sucker born every minute and money is the root of all evil.

If these organizations have come up with the info that led us to the point that we are, I would certainly accept their findings over your mode of non-reasoning.

If they have brought us to this point and it has become a 'never-ending' situation; then it is because we have not fully taken the fight to them as we probably should have. I know you don't like the answer, but you really do not have a legitimate arguement - other than 'nut-job right-winger'. Gee; you sound just like Dimitry - what are the chances of that?

It sounds to me that you are under the effects of the Democrats that cannot understand the world the way it is. Are you one of those Dems that believe that you have actually evolved above all this? You have my deepest sympathies.

The Heritage Foundation? Rand Corp? some of the most conservative right wing nut job,millitaristic "non-think" tanks of this century? That is what you regard as non-biased, independant organizations? Please. They are the ones responsible for the decisions that got us into this never ending nightmare.Do a little research on their donors and it makes this picture quite clear. Insurance Co's,Drug Companies,Blackwater,and the petroleum industry top the list.Proponants of perpetual wars. Gee, No influence there.

//The question Is indeed morality and the fight for it.//

No. The question is defence and that is why there is a fight. If some gang-banger looking for something to steal for drug money who is willing to kill you to get it - should break into your home when you and your family are sleeping - is it morality that takes the gun out of the night stand? Or is it your immediate need to secure your family and your home?

Terrorist and terrorism have been attacking us abroad - and now at home. We do not go out our way to make them attack us; they do it for Muslim beliefs. At least, some of them feel that it is for their beliefs. If you are a Wahabeist Muslim and your look at the Western world - your are referred to as 'khafir'. That is a non-Muslim that will not accept the Muslim faith. This is part of their belief system; it is also the reason they feel justified in killing you. Muhommed proclaimed that Allah said so. And as far as they are concerned, your arguments and reasoning does not fall within their guideline.

Oh yea; what were you saying about this being a moral dilemma? Well - I hope that you can see - that we are talking about two completely different sets of values. It is not exactly the meeting grounds that you had hoped for.

Brent R. is right, we all want to see this country, our country succeed. Now it is a question of means, resorting to violence and warfare is usually a short term fix, the current war set the stage for the next war. World War I, set the conditions for WWII, so and so on. Our policies created this hatred, our support for violent racist Zionism, our crushing of democratic elements in the middle east in the cold war, and our numerous shock and awe campaigns there dating back to way before 9-11. Just because the average American is ignorant about the criminal treatement of the Palestinians, the destruction of Iranian democracy in 1953, and our numerous bombing missions in the middle east, doesn't mean that it doesn't impact what is happening today. Americans only care about their own narrative, well other people have their narrative too. Other people have grievances, and history didn't start with 9-11. Most of the times in life you lay in the bed that you made.

The specific point is this, IMAO says the world needs policing, well when your the world's policeman and you happen to be corrupt policeman bought off by big oil and the Israel lobby, well then people are going to resent you. The idea that America is the rightful ruler of the world because we have the biggest war machine is not a popular one. And if we continue to path of warfare and dictating to the weak, well then you get blowback. PATRIOTISM IS NOT A SYNONYM WITH WAR LOVING AND MILITARISM. IN FACT, THE VERY WARS THAT YOU THINK MAKE US STRONG ARE JUST ONE MORE NAIL IN THE COFFIN OF THE AMERICAN EMPIRE. Can someone tell me what it is we have gotten out of this ridiculous war of choice, what strategic advantage have we gained. Since Bush launched his war our position in the world is significantly weaker and I can bring about dozens of examples. Russia is resurgent, our European alliances frayed, iran is ascendant, and our military is hopelessly tied down. IF YOU PEOPLE WANT AMERICA TO BE STRONG THEN YOU SHOULD JUST LOOK AT THE FACTS. BUSH'S WAR OF CHOICE IN IRAQ HAS WEAKENED US STRATEGICALLY NOT MADE US STRONGER.

//The Neandertal thinking we have employed up to this point has only fanned the fires of terrorism not extinquished it.//

There is absolutely nothing Neandertal about the US method of warfare, despite your own perceptions. The US employs several study groups - many of which are independant of the US government before any decision is made on any conflict. Each report contains a plethera of considerations and factors, more than I could list in the space given here. I think you would be quite surprised if you looked into it yourself. Knock yourself out...

To name but a few: the Heritage Foundation, Rand Corp - and many others. These institutions submit their wide-scope independant findings/reports to the National Intelligence Council - and a consensus is formed before advising various government agencies. It is quite sophisticated; war is the solution when there are no more options to avoid it. Tell me; just how Neandertal is that?

If you cannot identify the factors that create a terrorist and eliminate those factors. Like the other laughable ,and perpetual "Wars on_____(fill in the blanK}"
We will never win and it will become another bottomless blackhole to toss our country's treasure and lives down, without any sign of progress to show for it.
The Neandertal thinking we have employed up to this point has only fanned the fires of terrorism not extinquished it. Maybe its time to try using our real advantages-
intelligence ,superior technology,infiltration and a grasp of other cultures. "Know thy enemy"has never been so prescient.

Please. The dirty little fact that you people can't bring yourself to admit is that these terrorists are still human. You try your best to elevate and spin them into mythical,unthinking monsters who have a preordained religious goal to fullfill. Religion is only a means for recruitment not the true reason for the fight. You don't see the terrorists leaders blowing themselves up.The followers become persuaded to do these things because they are without hope and have nothing to live for. They percieve a wrong being done to them just as moraly disgusting as thier chosen retalliation. They see intruders threatening their ways of life and culture because of the resources below their lands .Thier religion is used by it's leaders as a powerful means of brainwashing.Any religion when interpeted as broadly and deviously can be used in this manner and are.Think Christian zealots bombing abortion clinics,founding cults, burning black churches etc...
The question Is indeed morality and the fight for it. For without it we are like our lowly animal friends,fighting for nothing but contol and power . You think torture,once allowed will cease when and if we are involved in a traditional war? Why were the Nazis any more moral and deserving of civilility then terrorists?Because they had uniforms ? Oh I forgot, they were white and Christian.
When terrorists are home grown,white and "Christian" they don't seem so evil and inhuman and our view and treatment of them is much different. Did we torture Timothy McVie? Did we deny him a trial? Did we provide him with a bulletproof jacket when in public and seperate him from the rest of the prison population for his safety? We did, because we are not like him and have a moral compass that we will not throw away out of fear and ignorance of our foes.
Do we not now deal with M. Khadafi even though we know that he was a terroists leader? What has cleared him of his past atrocities? It is all in perception.
You cannot actually believe that there are not more terrorists and suicide bombers now then before the Iraqi and Afganistan "wars".
Judging by your willingness to immorally treat another human if things get tough,I would think you to would resort to such extreme tactics when facing the most powerful nation in the world.
Your resignation and justification of becoming just as devious and inhumane as the enemy is already becoming a reality and I imagine you are proud of that fact.Who knows it may be people like you that that the civilized world will be required to fight next. And you thought you were a human.

McCain is right when he says that Islamic extremism poses a transcendent threat to the world . Saying that it does not pose that big a threat will not make it so.And Arkins thinks that it does not , because Bush has taken every possible measure to protect the US from any acts of terrorism inspite of all the hurdles posed by the human rights groups after 9-11. Look at India which has been suffering under Islamic terrorists' attack for a long time. Weak-kneed approach to terrorism will only make the country even more susceptible. Only the kind of approach adopted by Bush and put forward by McCain can ensure safety of American citizens. Having served in the army and held captive during the vietnam war , McCain is better informed than anybody else to comment on this subject.

///Isn't the reason we are fighting terrorists because we believe in a world of morality? Isn't it us that are claiming that the reasons for our incursion into Iraq was because it's ruler was immoral and planning immoral acts against us?
If we are on the level of the animals we fight we are animals ourselves,no better, no worse and can claim no superioirity to these enemies? If everybody is a bad guy, there are no good guys.We have lost when that becomes our justification for inhumanity. If we lose our humanity what is left to fight for? If we cannot differentiate one killer from the other We become like characters in a Video War Game, each being just as evil as the other,where the only differences between them is color of their battle gear or facial hair.
We've worked a long time to build our civilization ,what makes you think we can keep it if we are no longer civilized?
You may be at that level of maturity or unenlightment, but thank God,most are not like you and your "Brothers of Immorality" the terrorist.///

No, it isn't.
If it was about morality, they wouldn't be doing anything at all. Just ask your local Cleric at your nearest Mosque.

And what is moral about war? There may have been a 'Geneva Convention'; do you think they care or abide by it? There is nothing wrong about being naiive; but there is something wrong with being foolish. Don't be fooled; for whatever a man sows, that is what he shall reap...

Oh, haven't you been told? They are a peaceful religion. When they kill someone - it is because it sends a message of justice; but they still kill anyway. They believe Jesus was only a great prophet; but you can hardly find a bible in a Muslim country. They uphold their Koran; but pay lip service to the principles of the bible. If the Koran has particular rules concerning the killing of non-Muslims - and it does justify it; then how moral is that? You do not yet know - do you?

You cannot bargain with a terrorist. They aren't interested in debate of reasoning. They hate you because you are not a Muslim, and will kill you with indifference. That is, if you believe what Muhommed says.

Some Muslims interpret this point differently than others; but other Muslims don't believe as their Cleric tells them and they hide within that congregation and use it to hide in - waiting.

Don't believe me? Go find out for yourself; the Muslim Clerics in this country are going out of their minds worrying if there is a jihadist in their midst that can ruin the reputation of that Mosque.

Here's an example - this is a factual case. Have you ever heard of a Chicago street gang called the 'Black P Stones'? Their leader of this powerful gang decided to make his gang legitimate by making members Muslims. Mohomar Khadaffi found out aboout this street gang turned Muslim and contracted them to commit terrorist acts when he asked them for it. He paid them quite well - too.

It is a fact found in recent history - go look it up for yourself. What is the lesson? Khadaffi took advantage of their savage nature and their willingness to do it all in the name of Allah. Needless to say, the FBI busted them - sent a few of them to prison for conspiracy and sedicious acts. Ever since then, ANY street gang have been watched by law enforcement and the FBI because they may be solicited for more terrorist acts. Because they will kill you, not bargaining or reasoning, and they will do it without any regard or consideration. Welcome to the twenty-first century, man...

Farzad wrote: "how can one remain "moral" when "immoral" things are happening around him/her?
Isn't the reason we are fighting terrorists because we believe in a world of morality? Isn't it us that are claiming that the reasons for our incursion into Iraq was because it's ruler was immoral and planning immoral acts against us?
If we are on the level of the animals we fight we are animals ourselves,no better, no worse and can claim no superioirity to these enemies? If everybody is a bad guy, there are no good guys.We have lost when that becomes our justification for inhumanity. If we lose our humanity what is left to fight for? If we cannot differentiate one killer from the other We become like characters in a Video War Game, each being just as evil as the other,where the only differences between them is color of their battle gear or facial hair.
We've worked a long time to build our civilization ,what makes you think we can keep it if we are no longer civilized?
You may be at that level of maturity or unenlightment, but thank God,most are not like you and your "Brothers of Immorality" the terrorist.

Ah,yes, keep the war machine humming along so that the "War Caterers" such as Haliburton and Blackwater and any number of Bush's no-bidding buddies can continue sucking every U.S tax dollar out of the country while turning the rest of the world against us.
Everything has worked out so well for everyone involved. We get to babysit a nation at war with itself at a rate of several billion a month while our ports and borders remain open and vulnerable to the thousands of new terrorists recruited and swayed because of this ill-conceived and unplanned war. I don't know but I'd bet that if a another nation invaded the United States, beleiving Mr. Bush was a immenent threat to them" (he is),had WMD,(he does),decided to remove him so that the good people of the U.S. could resume their life under a less agressive,more democratic president every conservatives out there would fight them and maybe even vow to get even because of the mess they made of your country or perhaps the wives,daughters,sons and husbands that became their "collateral, but unintentional" damage?
I really believe guys like senator McCain still clinging to the righteousness of this war, just don't have the brain power to think in such a civilized and evolved way.? Beleive me and all of us "liberals" out here it makes finding answers to tough questions a lot easier and makes one look alot less ignorant and backwards.

farzad....a couple thoughts...

- the world has always needed leaders AND policing. it's a rather unruly place...always has been. it's how you go about it that makes the difference. inaction spells disaster...as this country has learned time and again when it chose to pursue an isolationist posture. in the age of nuclear weapons.....that is a doubly dangerous course to follow.

- how can one remain "moral" when "immoral" things are happening around him/her? there is, many would argue, an implied imperative to act in universal moral statements/assertions. btw...the torture chambers in Kuwait? they were ghastly.

- don't toss any bravos my way for serving. I volunteered for personal reasons and came to enjoy the activities I engaged in and the people I worked with. The point I was trying to make earlier is that, when framed in the class (or community) perspective liberals love so much, they are non-participants when it comes to the armed forces. in my personal life voyage, I have learned that there really is no substitue for hands on experience. what you see, hear and read are often 180 degree departures from what is happening behind the scenes. moreover, wihtout personal experience, you don't really have a foundation for assessing the validity of second or third party conclusions. in those cases (we can't engage in everything, obviously), it boils down to trust. I was putting in play the notion that there is no more reason to trust the nitwit polemicists from the Post - who, from where I sit and what I know, are more often wrong than right - than there is some Republican financier who owns a car dealership in the deep South lecturing about national security.

Mr. Arkin,

Again you use your blog "Early Warning" to decry the threat posed by Islamic terrorists. Regarding Senator McCain, you write "His stump speech, however, includes a description of the "threat of radical Islamic extremism" as the "transcendent challenge of our time." He's wrong"

I do not understand your position.

Terrorism is widely recognized as the greatest threat the west will face in the 21st century and the specter of nuclear armed terrorists is not a question of if, but when.

The technology to fabricate a nuclear warhead can be mastered by non state actors. The opportunity to acquire a finished nuclear warhead grows as proliferation continues.

To paraphrase Senator Lugar's famous question "What will you say the Day After a clandestine nuclear attack?"

Dimitry, thank you for the USA article on McCain's speech. I think that McCain's heart is in the right place, but I think that as President he would be very susceptible to polls and the opinions of others like the UN. I would hope not. I am not sold on him.
Too, in the 1999 article his first priority it seemed to me would be to adopt a "Realistic" foreign policy. I hope that he still doesn't feel that way. A "Realistic" foreign policy that in the Cold War abandoned the people of Eastern Europe for the false security of "peaceful coexistence," "detente", "containment", etc. A foreign policy practiced by Kissinger and friends. Not again!
It was not until Reagan dscarded "Realistic" thinking and confronted the Soviets were the millions upon millions of people freed from communist bondage. Bondage enforced by military might and subjugation.
I don't think that we are ready for another "long twilight struggle" as McCain defines it.

Bush's approach has worked very well. The next President will have to work very hard and stay true to his own beliefs to keep the good fight going against the Islamo-fascist and to bring peace finally to the Middle East.
The struggle continues.

That's funny, Dimitry.
But did you read what I wrote about where the money is going?

Farzad got a rise out it. It was a point that needed to be said that I have not heard any of the candidates saying...

==I DO care that they make the Iraq war pay for itself==

Excellent idea. I propose that we take the 50,000 Iraqis that we have in prisons there and force them to surf the web, hitting all the American based web sites that rely on advertisments for revenue. The Iraqi prisoners will generate lots of hits, creating a revenue stream for American companies, who then will pay taxes to the federal government, overflowing the treasury and more than paying for the war!

If that doesn't work we can always sell the Iraqi male prisoners into slavery and females into prostitution. Iraqi prison population is a great untapped resource!

I can agree with lmao easily, I can even agree with Farzad on issues, and from time to time, I can even agree with Dimitry. But I cannot agree with Mr. Feeney's claim that there is no threat. Where have you been in the last twenty years? It has been growing to this state that it has become. Do you make it a habit to drive with your eyes closed - too?

In the Vietnam war, guerilla tactics by the enemy was countered by the Special Ops of the Army and Marines. But as Dimitry stated a few weeks ago, we are in a differet kind of warfare. It requires those whose knees do not knock and have a steady hand and have the resolve that it requires to stop those who would threaten this country. Lincoln once said the same thing.

As time had changed; so has our enemies and the way they choose to fight us. If it wasn't for 9/11, then it was for the USS Cole and other attacks that have been swept beneath the rug of time.

Try seeing it all from past administrations of Carter (who refused to do anything of substance), Reagan (who wasted no time dealing with threats), Bush Sr.(who also didn't tarry), Clinton (who waited to the last possible moment to act - but did - albeit ineffectively). Bush Jr. (that spent more money than paid the bills for the war). And now; who will it be? More importantly; what will they do?

I don't care if it is Obama or McCain; I DO care that they make the Iraq war pay for itself. I DO care if they protect the US and its citizens. If we should need to continue it - so that the US and it allies are not being atacked and strafed by a bunch of extremists that are jealous and sour of the accomplishments of the West - then it may need to continue.

Or, should we let them believe that their oil allows them whatever freedom that has ben won by us to be bought back - or be owned by the highest bidder with the biggest bank account?

In particular, I am saying that international oil businesses and the speculators that wish to strangle our country by making it too expensive to defend what is ours. That is a big as threat as terrorists, who also helps speculators raise oil prices - by how well we can hold it together against them.

John McCain may be Bush's "butt-boy" but he ain't no fool. I agree with the author here that the terrorists aren't half the threat their made out to be. McCain probably knows that to but I think he's going to follow Bush's game plan which has served him well. While keeping the idea alive that were all gonna be slaughtered in our sleep by a terrorist keeps the cowardly repugs frightened to death. At one time most Amers shared the fear but finally most Amers stopped falling for the minipulating fear factor. Not repugs though. All you have to do is mention the word terrorist and their knees start knockin, teeth start chattering an run off to their bomb shelters. Only to come out to scream, TAKE ALL MY RIGHTS AWAY, DO WHATEVER YOU HAVE TO TO KEEP ME SAFE.Thats the easiest way to keep repugs in line. Im sure McCain and Bush have discussed bringing back the color-coded Terrorist alert which most people finally started to ignore. I think they noticed it was utilized more often around elections. Thank god most people realized what a sham it was except for 7 out 10 repugs. So I think this was not lost on McCains strategy. A bogeyman still works with repugs. You watch, everytime McCain mentions the word TERRORIST, sales of ADULT PAMPERS goes through the roof.

I think about 95% percent of wars are unjustified and pointless, so no you wouldn't see me out their killing for some political policy. Generally, speaking i am a pacifist, I can count on one hand the moral and just military adventures of this country or any other country, and I would need an encyclopedia to fill out all the immoral and stupid wars. In short, I appreciate your desire to see this country be great, but I have to disagree with you on your methods. And in fact, the rampant militarism and preemptive war doctrines you seem to support will be the downfall of this country that you love. Quite frankly, I wouldn't kill or be killed for any ideology, religion, or politicians war. If America is seriously in danger or had been invaded by Iraq, well that is another situation, but we chose to go to Iraq, Iraq didn't come to us. There are always exceptions to the rule, sometimes you have no choice like in WWII or Korea. The world would be a much better place quite frankly if good people of conscience everywhere refused to kill for states, religions, greed, or ideology. You call it patriotism, I call it short-sighted and counter productive. Your service is appreciated, but America can't treat the rest of the world like we are their self appointed rulers. The more we do, the more the services of people like yourself will be required.

farzad...I did for over 3 decades...funny....I never saw you out there. and I can tell you.....one of my best friends is a lib who I met during my service years. that said, I can count on one...maybe two hands the number of Libs I came across. and that makes sense...they fought hard for the all-volunteer forces...why not take advantage of that in the fashion they intended?

ouch...warmonger! wow. you say that to returning troops?

Thank you, Farzad, for your support.
I thought that my idea of getting Congress to release the patents on energy alternatives - that the oil giants hold - was the best idea.

But between these two ideas, and compliance from our government, these problems we still face can be put to rest and become part of the past.

To be honest, it should have been done thirty years ago, but the international oil giants were aggresivly active to ensure a monopoly could exist.

I support Plainfacto, on his idea to tax the oil companies domestic and international. A big fat tariff for foreign energy and a big fat tax for Exxon, ARCO and company. That is the best suggestion you have ever made. Last year Exxon mobil had a profit line of 40 billion. Not revenues, profits, who has been the prime beneficiary of these adventures. They beat their own record profits from they year before; Exxon two years running has had the biggest profit line of any business in the history of global capitalism, and they will do it a third year running as well. In WWII, we investigated war profiteers, we expected sacrifice from the common man and the big capitalist. Not in George Bush's brave new world, in that world we all foot the bill for big oils record profits. And the bill isn't paid for just in treasure, the largest part is collected in blood.

///what does "foreswear the trappings of civilization to fight it" mean? Oh...I get it...it's codespeak for the libs who are not part the fight, have no idea what is going on in the field and in the war rooms, and actually hate their own government worse than the threat....that they find waterboarding that does no permananet damage and saves lives a contemptible act...that they oppose incarceration of folks captured on the battlefield...that they oppose not extending our Constitutional rights to non-US citizens...that they fantasize wiretaps on every phone and every TCP port....in short...it's whatever they happen not to like///

Now, you see - he is right! They 'hate their own government more than the threat'; I couldn't agree with lmao more! He is right because most codespeak libs try to take exception to the economic side of warfare.

In essence, they have separated the concept of war as one made of merely ammuition and soldiers. But war, in its entire scale, necissarily includes the economic aspects. To think that we are going to allow ourselves to lose due to one aspect that we cannot control is mindless. We have included that concept as well.

Furthermore, I would like to make a point here. In the days of ther Roman conquests, the spoils of a conquered nation would be paraded in front of the Roman Emperor and the people that paid their tax dollars to that end.

We have not taken the oil from Iraq to pay for this war; would it be wrong to make the American people pay with their blood and not be recompensed with the conquered treasure? Maybe the war in Iraq should be paid directly back to the American people for investing their principals, their blood, and their tax money!

Is it fair that they should be forced to pay for this shtick - and someone else is reaping the profits? No, it is not fair. And this government should be paying the people back for their investment of blood. Make the oil companies pay for it; we provided the means for them to get it without being killed.

"At a recent Republican presidential debate in Michigan, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney was asked what he thought was the biggest long-term threat to the U.S. economy.

"Our sense of optimism," he replied. "America has to be optimistic and recognize that there's nothing we can't overcome."

Forget the trade deficit, the collapsing real estate market or the lack of credit. Forget that during the Bush years the federal debt has increased by half, from $6 trillion to $9 trillion - about $30,000 for every man, woman and child in the country. Apparently, none of these deficits matters as much as the "optimism deficit."

...

That Mr. Romney, despite such empty rhetoric, currently leads the Republican presidential field in New Hampshire, and, until very recently, Iowa, should surprise nobody. The great legacy of modern conservatism - its defining principle, in fact - is the triumph of platitudes over policies. It is a movement of slogans, not solutions."

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/bal-op.schaller05dec05,0,2657260.column?coll=bal_news_opinion_util

Libs who aren't part of the fight? how many of the warmongers who come in here talking tough we need to be and how we need to extend this war into other countries and fight indefinetly, how many of these conservatives are part of the fight? The scumbag rightwing would rather bankrupt the country and cut taxes while they spend on this war, how is the right wing part of this fight. Oh, I forgot they went to the mall and shopped like Bush told them, I am sure Patrick Henry would be proud.

They aren't even willing to pay for the war, let alone actually fight in it. I am part of fight, my fight is against idiots who equate killing people and damaging our economy and treasury with made up wars of choice, as being patriots. Patriotism isn't about waving the flag and pinning ribbons on your chest while we bankrupt ourselves through an illegal occupation. The neocons know that this war is a failure, but they are willing to wager the deaths and limbs of thousands of Americans so that they can be right. So that they can maintain their so called national security credentials. When the conservatives volunteer some of their money to actually fight this war as opposed to throwing the debt on to our grandchildren and children then come in here and talk about how libs aren't part of the fight.

The fight I am interested in is the fight against this brand of ignorance and undeserved sense of moral superiority. I am a proud leftwing liberal, and I take offense to your silly rant. A rant which has no basis in fact, because right now you Conservatives have had absolute power for six years, and the vast majority of people have realized that your policies have damaged our nation, possibly irreparably.

Patriotism doesn't equal blind support for a known liar and his administration of known liars. Especially, when said administration is destroying America's standing in the world and crippling a generation of Americans. I wonder are all your little ribbons going to grow back one of the eyes, ears, fingers, noses, balls, arms, or legs of our soldiers blown off on Bush's bogus search for WMDS. Is your supposed tough talking post going to bring back any of the dead who went onto this goose chase of a war. You can take your knee-jerk warmongering disguised as patriotism and stick in George Bush's better half, the half he sits on.

once AGAIN....Post writers like Arkin are laughable in the strawman arguments they set up:

- Yes....Mr Arkin knows that John McCain's messages influence the mindset of terrorists and "those attracted to terrorism" in a manner that convinces them "they have a bigger impact than they actually do".

what kind of *rappy, dogmatic analysis is that? it's stupid beyond belief. has he polled these people? what in the heck is someone "attracted to terrorism"? hey...is the Post practicing some kind of profiling? I object! this is an egregious violation of personal rights!

- what does "foreswear the trappings of civilization to fight it" mean? Oh...I get it...it's codespeak for the libs who are not part the fight, have no idea what is going on in the field and in the war rooms, and actually hate their own government worse than the threat....that they find waterboarding that does no permananet damage and saves lives a contemptible act...that they oppose incarceration of folks captured on the battlefield...that they oppose not extending our Constitutional rights to non-US citizens...that they fantasize wiretaps on every phone and every TCP port....in short...it's whatever they happen not to like.

or, maybe, it's whatever they happen to believe is "right" and "acceptable"....while of course, as noted, they remain unengaged. what a group of fulsome cowards. rather like post-9/11. the lib crowd was basically silenced for a while.....but not really engaged. one suspects they were secretly thrilled: anything to undermine the evil head of the emerging global system; the figurehead for corporate greed and supra-national oil oligopolies; whatever other bogeymen are on the scene. death at home, however unpleasnat, serves its larger purpose....right Libs?

where are you people? you aren't part of the fight. yet you fancy yourselves watchdogs. well guess what...when Arkin et al use phrases like "the American people" and what they think they "want"...they are dead wrong. there's a huge undertow folks....it just needs a spark to reach critical mass.....there are lots of folks who have been doing the heavy lifting who generally ignore the political ebb and flow that surrounds the voluntary efforts they execute every day...who have been astonished and angered by what we have seen from the Reids, Pelosi's and Murtha's of the world. it's not just Bush who inspires contempt....you may have missed that subtle point. there is going to be a backlash....it's already started...the only issue is how overt it will be and whether it finds expression in a political voice. The Left thinks it has a unifying cause but doesn't realize the high water mark has passed and they blew it.....they never had an idea, a vision to substitute for the sprint and drift policies we have in place now. all they have are platitudes and moralisms - all the while arguing that all morality is relative.

the fight has just started. wait and watch. see what happens when the first "we must unify" spills from Hillary's or Barak's mouth. many of us have now seen the standard you all set in a time of war. fine.

FIGHTS ON.

a175....ummmmm....how do you know that long-standing and new "relationships" haven't been sustained all along? do you have insight into how the back-channels work? better still.....do you have insight into relationships on both sides of the foreign policy fence?

or do you rely on the Washington Post, NYT, BBC, et al, who themselves, when not busy mouthing polemics, are most often clueless?

I think Arkin is right this time - and I'll go a bit farther: isn't it remarkable how NO ONE is discussing US-Isreali relations in the presidential campaign?

Even Bush has put out a timid plea to Olmert not to renege on Sharon's pledge to dismantle west bank settlements. Discussion in the media, and the (center-left) blogs I read: zero.

Uh...am I missing something, or is a coherent leadership by the US in the middle east relevant to national security, terrorism, and forging alliances with other countries to combat terrorism?

Instead of rationality, what we get is 'trancendant' messianic blather from the republicans, and something close to silence from most dems.

Wierd.

I was quoting the scene from 'The Wizard of Oz'; don't tell me that you were deprived of this classic as a child?

I have a beard; it's cold outside.

I help to get people busted that deal with self-medicating powder. I've done my own undecover shtick inside one of these groups; that is why I sleep with a weapon. I'd be allowing them to murder if I didn't keep it close.

Gang-bangers use a kick-back system of drug sales (crack, meth, heroin, ecstasy - mostly) that supports the upper eshelons of gangs. Real creeps - I can assure you...

==They're melting..melting..oh, who would think that a guy like McCain could destroy their beautiful hopes to win the White House..melting... ==

Your have got to get off the hard stuff. Take a powder, grow a beard and get some sleep with your Glock.

"basically unhinged."

Punchdrunk, as it were, from fighting that war which "gives us meaning" (pace, chris hedges...)

Hence, a certain faded grandeur, (The male equivalent of Kate H. as Mad Woman of Chaillot.)

I think the biggest frauds are these people who come in here and start repeating phrases like caliphate. You people have no clue of what you speak about, how is the Islamic world which was a defacto colony of Europe 50 years ago and whose nations have tiny economies and no technical base going to try to establish a global empire? The people in the middle east can barely stop killing each other how are they going to unite under the banner of Islam to conquer nations with nuclear weapons and space age technologies? Stupid must just grow on trees in some parts.

The only people who have stated they want to dominate the globe in fact are the American neocons, (See Project for A New American Century) nobody else is that deluded and absorbed with a false sense of moral superiority. Nobody wants to hear it but the reason America was attacked is because of our militarist policies and our attempts to control the people in the middle east for fifty years. When America tries to establish hegemony and ownership of the globe, then certain groups aren't going to accept that and some are going to fight us with whatever means necessary. You can turn your mind off to inconvenient facts for only so long, eventually reality catches up with neocon fairy tales.

Mr A you are right about the misuse of the word, transcendent.

Thanks also for pointing out the hysteria of the Government's "wars" on everything bad. Ron Paul has done the whole nation a favor for raising just this issue in his stump speeches, interviews and the debates.

The electorate in general seems to be moving on from the politics of fear, but there remains a hard core in the Republican party who are actually afraid or are very cynical in their use if fear to garner support. My opinion is that it is time to quit telling one another horror stories about what might happen and get down to being mature neighbors in the modern world.

Oh, I can see why this article was posted by Arkin. The Dems need to make McCain their 'whipping boy' because they fear him in the next primary.

I guess the Dems need a place - like here - to have so they can focus on their next propaganda strategy. How did the strategy gained here work out for Silly Hilly's trip to Iowa? She flunked, man; she flunked.

SO, the 'sour grapes' crew are here to revile McCain and his long list of supporters made up primarily of high-ranking retired military people; which is is death to the Dem's campaign - like so much water on the wicked witch of the East:

They're melting..melting..oh, who would think that a guy like McCain could destroy their beautiful hopes to win the White House..melting...

I will give kudos to Barak. Now here's a guy with a lot to prove. The American people - as a whole - like the idea that when a guy gets in the White House - he won't skate along until the next election. He will have to come up with the right things the first time; he has to maintain a reputation - to be creative and inspire.

I can see nothing but good come out of his nomination. And he may go far as a president - IF he does not cross the line with the Republicans. So, unless he does right by them, he will be nothing more than a lame-duck president - in the final analysis...

Rush Limbaugh thought Barak is a great candidate, because he believes that the Republicans can cut him to ribbons in the Presidential debate. He may very well be right. After all, the American people may not like the Iraq war; but they have not and will not forget 9/11. If they do, McCain will use this nugget - like so many artillery rounds - to bring it all back into focus.

Unless Barak admits that he may have to continue to support the military and to protect this country's pre-emption style, then he will never pull enough votes to his corner for the big win.. Bottom line? Barak had better listen and respect what Republicans are saying - or else his term will have been in vain. If - in fact - he makes it that far...

At least Mccain is honest. So many candidates build their positions on public opinion that are designed only to win. Most of those canidates wont lower taxes or increase health care. Mccain is candid and I respect that. He's said many things I don't agree with. Yet I still support him, because he explains himself. I would love to live in a world without war and poverty, but that's not the case. His concerns over national security are real. He's the only one that can maintain our securiy and actually end the war. We may not like what he has to say, but he speaks the truth. If anyone out there thinks we are going to find another candidate who is going to initiate a full troop withdraw in 2009, keep dreaming. I wish it could happen, but it wont.

Regardless of his choice of words, McCain is absolutely correct in his assessment of radical Islamic extremism and what must be done to stop it. Arkin misses the point in comparing them to the Nazis and the Soviets and picking on McCain's use of the dictionary.

Think these guys don't have a plan for global domination? The radical Islamists repeatedly speak about the wide-area Islamic Caliphate that they have in mind for all of us.

Hey, you don't want to convert to our religion?? - Maybe we'll let you pay a special tax created just for your kind....Oh, you don't want to pay our selective tax???? OK we'll just kill ya....Sounds a lot like the Nazis to me....

The radical Islamists see this as the continuation of the clash of civilizations that they started around 700 AD on the Arabian Peninsula and they frequently invoke the Crusades in their Internet speeches and in the grisly videos while they are lopping some poor Infidel's head off with a big knife.

So the radical Islamists have actually been at it a lot longer than the Nazis and the Soviets, and the facts wouldn't say they are much nicer....

And dozens of sources corroborate the Islamist's attempts to get their hands on real WMD weapons and components and use them against the United States at the first opportunity. You can start with FBI Director Mueller, former CIA Directors Tenent and Goss, two Homeland Security Secretaries, two Secretaries of Defense, former Senator Sam Nunn, both former leaders of the 9/11 Commission, various current and retired CIA officals that have spoken in public about the threat, and most importantly, bin Laden, al Zawahiri, and their cohorts.

While it is true that they cannot flatten or kill the whole country in one swoop as the Soviets might have been able at one time, if undeterred, they are going to make one Hell of a Mess and change life in this country as we know it.

The radical Islamists must be stopped at all costs before they ignite a true global war, which is what they really want.

I'd shudder to read Arkin's article the day after the Bad Guys are ever successful in their next U.S. attack, because they have repeated over and over since 9/11 that Washington DC is at the top of the list of their next primary targets. Maybe by then Arkin and the Washington Post will get the idea.

McCain is correct and is the only person running for President who has the knowledge and experience to deal with this very serious threat to our National Security.

One thing that we can be assured of is this:

If Senator McCain were to become President of the United States of America,
WWIV would likely begin a month or so after his inauguration - he and his team would see to that.

Senator McCain reminds me of a Little Napoleon, and a throwback to a military period in United States history that has passed us by (which Bush has tried to ressurect), some of us do not wish to return that period.

I respect his forthrightness, however, I suspect that he would be a greater divider and more stubborn than President Bush, Napoleon III - if that were possible!

The man cannott spell the word compromise, and how will that play out with other world leaders, citizens of America and the majority of citizens in the rest of the larger world!

McMain means: Eight more years of political, foreign and domestic stagnation and a likely world war.

"First, it communicates to terrorists and those attracted to terrorism that they have a bigger impact than they actually do."

It's a shame that the thousands of Americans who perished as a result of terrorism no longer have a voice to refute this nonsense. They, their families, and their friends have a much different view on the "impact" that terrorism has had on their lives.

I hope that you never have to feel the true "impact" of terrorism, but don't correlate you lack of personal experience with the absence of a threat.

I agree with the above post. The last thing we need is another cowardly bull headed jerk that thinks he knows what is best for America. Remember in 2000 when Dubya attacked McCain's family? McCain did not defend his own integrity and family. Do you honestly believe that the flip flopper McCain could defend our country. He lacks integrity.

My problem with McCain is not so much what views he holds today but what he might profess to believe next week and next year. Over the past eight years, it's become increasingly difficult to predict where he'll come down or whether he'll stay put on any particular issue.

I would vote for the McCain of "Faith of Our Fathers." I'm not sure about the one running today.

"Al-Qaeda and other Islamic terrorists can't destroy or defeat the West in the same way that Nazism or communism during the nuclear arms race could have."

Of course, not in the "same" way. (Your misuse of "same" is worse that McClain's supposed word misuse.) But suppose the Pakistani Al-Queda murderers get ahold of that country's nuclear bombs, put them on small boats and putter up the Potomac and Hudson rivers. During the State of the Union would be a "good" detonation time. Not the "same" (identical) way, but damn effective.

McCain is one of the few 'honest' men left who can speak about everything but solves nothing.

The last thing America needs right now is another bull-headed jerk who thinks he knows better than the majority of the American people what's best for America. McCain isn't fit to be president because--like his pal Bush--he doesn't understand that the president is a public servant and not the Boss.

A pathetically narrow article whining about a narrow interpretation of a single word to denigrate a candidate who's more plain speaking than his competitors.

William M. Arkin is simply wrong.If he has followed information from Daniel Pipes, a Middle East expert and from MEMRI, he would realize the unique problem within Islam which poses a threat not just to Islam but the entire western world

"the odds-on favorite of the American military and national security establishment"?? Maybe, maybe not. I think that the mil/ ns establishment has been taken for a ride by the Republicans and will never give the Rep. Party its unquestioned support again. Bush has managed, once and for all to destroy the myth that the Republicans are solid on trhe military, defence and foriegn policy.

As for McCain...he can't get elected. When Rove was able to hold the so called conservative coalition together, the best he could do was 50%, enough to steal the election. The moderates will never vote for a southern baptist minister, especially after the last 7 years. The evangelicals will never vote for Romney, and McCain won't get the support of the anti-immigrant mob. If 5% stay home, it'll be a 'Goldwater' landslide for the Dems.

Republicans who blame everything on liberals are absolutely passé. Where are you living anyway; only a totally liberal society would allow the rot (and awful spelling and grammar) that comes out of conservatives, full of swiss cheese logic and slight-of-hand [always better to mock and attack others rather than logically support your ideas ...].

Yes communism was this and that, buts ome think it was Gorbachev lightening up with his various approaches which eroded thats tate, and these came about when Reagan lightened up his rhetoric and his official actions, though his idolators hardly even give this or any other subtleties credit. Unlike, let's say I, who disliked Clinton for his wishy washy sell-outism, conservatives have a hard time opposing anything their leaders do or say. This is why we had a complacent Congress for 6 years and why the block everything now with their filibuster-less filibusters. The Democrats tried that once and got slammed as un-American but Republicans do it almost daily

It is funny to hear Republicans still going after the same nonsesne, don't they have a brain to think up anything new?

If the readers will check around, they'll see that McCain does NOT have the majority support of the American military. That title goes to RON PAUL.

Now it's true that the military-industrial complex has a lot to PROFIT from McCain, but that's where his support comes from.

Ron Paul is more financially supported by our brave men&women than the other candidates. That tells you something, doesn't it?

"Here is a man who will be honest with the American public." Who are you trying to kid? Over the last year he's has been very busy transforming the Straight Talk Express into the Forked Tongue Special. Honest, my eye!

McCain just said 100 more years in Iraq...He's loony tunes to the max.

This is a appropriately titled article, but the early warning is not about McCain, rather it is about the mode of attack that the left has planned for him should he succeed in gaining the nomination.

It is hard to understand why Arkin would think that McCain would be using "transcendent" in its religious or philosophical sense rather than the secular sense. The dictionary entry he cited provides an example of Laurence Tribe using the word much the same way McCain uses it. It also provides "surpassing" as a synonym.

As well as failing to see to the bottom of the dictionary entry he referenced, Arkin also fails to see to the bottom of the terrorist threat.

Arkin says the threat of terrorism is small as compared to earlier threats of Naziism or of global communism. But back in the days of Naziism, the left (e.g. the Oxford Union) similarly dismissed that threat. Later, the left dismissed the threat of global communism, and laughed at Reagan for suggesting it could be defeated, even for suggesting that it ought to be defeated. The current apathy of the left to the human suffering engendered by tyranny, and to its threat, is nothing new.

Reagan saw the USSR as more than a threat; it was evil. The evil of tyranny is not only in the threat it poses to us, but also in the suffering of the people who must live under it. Bush has also repeatedly made the case that political freedom is a universal human value. And as Dimitry points out, McCain is "unhinged" enough to also believe in this.

Freedom has made the US prosperous. The people of the US didn't become prosperous because of any innate superiority, far from it. We are wealthy not because we are better people, but because we are freer people. Conversely, threats to the US arise where freedom is threatened.

We are prosperous because we are free, and we are free because we are strong. As we used to say back when one of the great American symbols was the rattlesnake, "Don't Tread on Me".

The threat from terrorism only seems small because we have been so successful at containing it. Although the costs have been great, the average American doesn't directly experience those costs and thus does not believe in the threat. McCain knows that the public doesn't see the threat, but he also knows why. The other Senators know what McCain knows, but it is much safer to ride public opinion in a campaign than to depend upon turning that opinion around. It is very hard to fight a meme.

Hey, if you'd been beaten by a bamboo stick that many times you'd be a little whacko to!

Jay Grodner is Arkin...look him up...they are the same guy in how they look at teh military, probably about the same age...baby boomer leftists with a hate the military sticker on their bathroom mirror...

"he needs to extend his pragmatic regard for the rule of law to the war on terrorism. Otherwise, he is just another dangerous demagogue."

You mean like prohibiting torture, deemphasizing kinetic actions, etc., as McCain consistently advocated. We have two issues here. One is how we choose what conflicts we engage in. The other is how we conduct ourselves in those conflicts we have chosen.

It is unfortunate that the most identifiable figure advocating an expansive view for conflict selection has also been a force for an equally expansive view in pushing, bending and breaking the limits in conduct of those conflicts. That does not mean that one necessarily leads to the other, and McCain is an example of that. If the facts of the current administration make you blind to that, perhaps it is you who is the demagogue.

John MCcain's vocabulary sometimes may be construed has a neo-word Nazi. I agree, on the coined phrase of "word police break." Perhaps, MCcain should lay off the German history and embrace American history.

Mccain is a nutjob who only appears sane when compared to the other criminally insane candidates in the Republican primary. I mean who sings a song parody about bombing another country, in light of the fact that we are supposedly trying to fight a hearts and mind campaign in the middle east? That is what the mainstream media deems as foreign policy credentials?

As Dimitry has noted, Mccains' belligerent foreign policy stances after 8 years of Bush would assure our further isolation. In the worst case scenario, Mccain would launch another bloody war that will further damage this country and the world. The mainstream media is kicking themselves because their annointed warmongering/zionist candidates Hillary, Rudy, and Mccain are getting trounced by the voters. Who is going to nuke Iran for Israel if media anointed Hillary and Rudy don't get elected? The electorate is continually more peace-loving than both the media and the politicians.

Here is the speech I heard. It was a while back (1999), maybe he has become saner since:

-------------------------------------------
...
Russia

We should all hope and work for a day when Russia is peaceful, prosperous and free. But such a Russia does not yet exist and denying that will not make it come true nor does it make for an adequate defense of the vital interests involved in our relations. Dreamy romanticism has a long history in Russian literary tradition, but it cannot be made a compass for the direction of our bilateral relationship. The Russian people are now being told by many of their leaders that democracy and free markets have caused Russia's descent into chaos. Nothing could be further from the truth. At fault in Russia is not the failure of free market and democratic principles, but rather their corruption by weak leaders, militant nationals, and greedy profiteers.

For too long, we have indulged systemic dishonesty in Russian politics and in our relationship in the false hope that time is all that's needed for Russian leaders to change their country's destiny. It is past time for a new policy for Russia based on four principles.

1) Realism: policies based on Russian actions not personalities. We can only dimly perceive the vagaries of Kremlin politics and, in truth, there is not a lot we can do to influence them. Deluding ourselves that we can serves neither Russians nor us well.

Realism means that we recognize the harsh truths of Russian misrule.

Realism requires an understanding that militant Russian nationalism is on the rise. Realism requires we acknowledge Moscow's involvement in assassination attempts on the life of President Shevardnadze in Georgia and in coup attempts against President Aliyev in Azerbaijan. I have met with these leaders. They know the real cause of unrest in the region.

They want our help. And a realistic American policy for the region would give their concerns much more weight than is currently reflected in our current policy.

2) Reform: We need to express clearly to Moscow that the United States only intends to support real reform in Russia, and real reform means a democratic culture, genuine rule of law and free market capitalism. It does not mean robber barons and kleptocrats manipulating insider privatization, filling their offshore accounts by turning private enterprise into a criminal activity. Expecting corrupt oligarchs to serve as the agents of real reform only encourages continued lawlessness.

3) Reciprocity: Reciprocity is a true partnership on issues of mutual concern. It does not require us to turn a blind eye while Moscow supports proto-fascist agents of ethnic cleansing and regional instability in Serbia and Belarus. It does not require tolerating inaction on proliferation to rogue states. And reciprocity certainly does not mean we again allow Russian extremists to escape the consequences of the carnage they cause in Chechnya. If we do, those same extremists will not stop with the annihilation of the Chechens. They might employ the same means in new attempts at imperial restoration, attempts that will have profoundly destabilizing effects in the former Soviet Union and beyond. We must make abundantly clear to Moscow that civilized nations do not undertake wonton slaughter in the name of order, and if they want our assistance they will have to cease these atrocities now. As long as Russian bombs rain down on Chechen villages, we should provide no aid, no credits. Not one ruble.

4) Resolve: We should feel no reluctance to stand up to Russian leaders when they challenge our interests and values. We should demand action on START II. We should denounce corruption. We should reject Russian demands to dictate the size or mission of NATO. And we should brook no interference at all in the means we use to defend our allies security and ours.

In the near future, we could face a fundamentally new strategic threat: a rogue state with the ability in a time of crisis to use nuclear blackmail against an American president.

We must act immediately with our allies in Asia and Europe to prepare to defend against this emerging threat. As President, I would emphasize to friend and foe alike that that both theater and strategic missile defense is now a national priority, not just another Pentagon program.

As President, I would be prepared to discuss with Russia whether the treaty can be modified to permit both our countries to respond to a rogue state missile threat. But I want to be candid with you, if these talks failed, as they very well might, I would abrogate the ABM Treaty the moment it became clear it cannot and will not be altered to address present danger. I will not hesitate for a moment to do what I believe is necessary to protect American lives and the lives of all those peoples who have put their trust in our leadership.

But let me also add that if the past is any guide, when Russian leaders encounter an American president who is unwavering in his resolve an honest reexamination of whether Russia's own security is protected or undermined by the treaty might begin.
-------------------------------------------
http://www.fas.org/news/usa/1999/12/991201-mccain.htm
-------------------------------------------

Maybe a few of years ago I heard McCain's speech in which he heatedly suggested that the US should support the "Chechen Indpendence" with words and deeds. He sounded like he was supporting even a military confrontation with Russia in order to boost what is essentially a AQ-aligned terrorist group. This speech was scary and convinced me that McCain is basically unhinged.

I am always surprised that the MSM treats McCain as a level-headed senior statesman, when his comments are mostly that of an impulsive hothead with propensity for violence.

Give the guy a word-police break. In some ways the terrorist threat does exceed known limits, detached as it is from the nation-state and combined nevertheless with the possibility of using WMD that previously could only be developed by a nation's resources.

Of course these differences make it less of a mortal threat. They can hurt us badly and obviously alter our way of life, but never destroy us or force us to submit to their rule.