December 26, 2006

Tuesday 061226

Rest Day


Enlarge image

Elbows high and outside - "The Burgener Warm-up", CrossFit Journal, January 2007

"The Peace Party vs. the Power Party", Matthew Continetti, The Weekly Standard.

Post thoughts to comments.

Posted by lauren at December 26, 2006 5:11 PM

Rest, who needs rest!

Comment #1 - Posted by: Grant Lloyd at December 25, 2006 5:25 PM

can't stop now... got karate and USAF PT WOD tomorrow.

Must drink Kool-Aid or will perish...

Comment #2 - Posted by: karen douglas at December 25, 2006 6:00 PM

I found article interesting if a little tedious with the generalizations. But I will put this challenge forward. X fit liberals give me some red meat why I can trust your ideas on Foreign Policy.
Now, only the late govenor of florida Lawton Chiles has gotten my vote as a democrat. I don't hate or dislike liberals and democrats but their basic philosophical approach on foreign policy to issues of power freakin scare me as soft and out of touch. Like middle class parents afraid to draw hard lines with their kids. Get over your self. Worse is that a lot of Americans share it. Your in charge man, put on your big boy pants and lead. That is how I feel. I am not alone.
If people are realpolitikers (so is James Baker and Lee Hamilton) I may disagree but okay. If you want to promote freedom, democracy and human rights around the world as your main goal that is fine too. (Many neocons have joined this along with many liberals) But where are liberals in the whole war on terror besides neysayers?
If they are competent warriors "who stand on guard against those who would do violence against us" great. The republicans have not been real competent. But if you believe all the world's problems can be solved by self flagilation and Jimmy Carter feel good kitchy Live Aid exercises I am not following your logic. Coach me up.
I respect the liberals in the xfit community. I respect you guys/gals speaking out v. the right leaning posts. Hey, I am a potential convert. Explain too me how liberals are going to solve the terrorism/ security problem. Was 9/11 an isolated incident? How should we keep the world safe?
Hey, it is rest day. Please give more than some clever snide comment that reveals nothing. I think you people have a lot of potential converts if you have ideas!

Comment #3 - Posted by: AkronPowderhorn at December 25, 2006 7:06 PM

I beleive the gauntlet has been thrown and the gloves are coming off. It has been awhile.

Comment #4 - Posted by: willski52 at December 25, 2006 7:21 PM

Gawd, I love rest days!!!

Comment #5 - Posted by: CCTJOEY at December 25, 2006 7:46 PM

Si vis pacem, para bellum.

Comment #6 - Posted by: treelizard at December 25, 2006 8:17 PM

So, Republicans and Democrats have different beliefs and attitudes? Wow! Who woulda thunk it?

Comment #7 - Posted by: Lewis Dunn at December 25, 2006 8:25 PM


Comment #8 - Posted by: Dan Silver at December 25, 2006 8:34 PM

R.I.P. Bryan Tuvera.

Very sorry for your loss, Dan.


Comment #9 - Posted by: treelizard at December 25, 2006 9:22 PM

uggg, whats the saying about politics and religion?? why cant you keep your politics at home - i am here for my physical fitness, thanks

Comment #10 - Posted by: oopu at December 25, 2006 9:59 PM

I believe the basic difference between the two foreign policy camps is "where does the authority to use force come from?" That authority rests with our elected officials and ultimately, with the people of the US. It does not, and cannot, rest with the United Nations or the international community.

From my Christian perspective, Romans 13 outlines the principle that God has delegated the right to use force to the governments of countries. Scripture does NOT recognize an unelected international body with authority to make law, use force, OK foreign policy decisions, or try citizens of countries.
This is not to say we should always act unilaterally - simply that we must reserve the right to decide where, when and how to address threats to our national security.
When members of either party appeal to the UN as an authority, they demonstrate a misunderstanding of where the authority lies and are derelict in their duty as leaders. They were elected to make the hard decisions and, as AkronPowederhorn said above, put on their big boy pants and lead.

Comment #11 - Posted by: MurphIZ at December 25, 2006 11:57 PM

There you go oopu - politics and religion along with your fitness!

Comment #12 - Posted by: MurphIZ at December 25, 2006 11:59 PM

Should religion influence political decicion making? Do they go hand-in-hand?

Comment #13 - Posted by: Jason W. at December 26, 2006 2:23 AM

Dan, sorry for your loss...Bryan looks so young. I have lost 2 from my academy class, spent those nights looking at pictures and video. Carry on, be strong.

Comment #14 - Posted by: Larry L. at December 26, 2006 4:03 AM

Anyone who thinks this is a rest day has never been shopping for deals on Boxing Day. I'm looking for a PR today: in and out of Future Shop in under 20 minutes.

Dan - sorry for your loss. RIP Bryan.


Comment #15 - Posted by: Sam_M at December 26, 2006 4:34 AM

First: I don´t see why coach, or whoever it is, wants crossfitters to focus so much on american politics? Agree with oopu on that one. Let alone american foreign politics which is a disgrace to all americans, and a greater threat to world peace than Al Queda.

Second: Hey, MurphIZ, so you want to use your bible to support us governments use of force out there in the world? So that´s the intention and purpose with the bible you think? Is the bible meant to be a recipe on how we humans should rule over each other with the use of force?

Third: Let´s discuss diferent articles on training on rest days instead of conflict issues like politics and religion.

Comment #16 - Posted by: muffe at December 26, 2006 5:30 AM

from my christian perspective--so here you are MurphIZ interpreting the bible to legitimize handing out "force" mmm, kinda sick from my christian perspective -- my point is there are PLENTY of blogs for this kinda stuff - take it there! This is a PHYSICAL FITNESS site, i would like to connect to people on that level-- join together in our SHARED INTERESTS rather than have this side bar running commentary and posts about our DIFFERENCES - and these days our difference are hardly tolerated or appreciated, as in "you are either with us or against us," villify the other because of their differences---take it a couple of steps further and shazam! its much easier to hand out "force" in a biblical sense through quoting scripture, ah yea////!!! i thought God can only play God, not you! Merry Christmas EVERYONE!

Comment #17 - Posted by: oopu at December 26, 2006 5:41 AM

# 16,

"American foreign politics . . . is a greater threat to world peace than Al Queda."

Do you believe this is literally true?

Comment #18 - Posted by: Hari at December 26, 2006 5:44 AM

It is my pleasure to say that there is no difference between the modern day political parties. On paper, yes, there are basic tenants that make one dem. or rep. but in todays political arena they have all been bought and payed for by the military industrial complex.

Remember daddy Bush's speech about a new world odor, well it is here ladies and gentlemen. No longer on the way. As the gap between the poor and elite increases, it is the middle class that is going to suffer.
As we engage in more wars abroad and pass more laws at home it will be your sons and daughters that are drafted to fight and die in foreign meat grinders to protect corporate interests. Oh yes, the draft is on the way even if it is called "national service" it is still a draft.

The dems want to end the war but first they have to build them up? Come on, we will be there for the next 50 years. It is a scam.

Nancy pelosi has stated that the dems would not investigate the current regime, that they would work together. That should tell you something right there.

Bush says he is happy that the dems won the House and Senate because now the blanket amnesty will pass. Thanks dems. You think the economy is a bitch now wait until corporations can ship foreign assests in openly.

Toll roads, REAL ID, Animal ID, Electronic voting machines, The North American Union (which was signed onto in March of last year, So we are no longer a sovereign nation), the PATRIOT ACTs I & II, Etc... I could go on and on with the crimes against the american way of life.

You think that Bret Favre becoming the all time passing leader is history, what about the fact that we have officially entered the NAU? That seems more like a historical event. Did you no that the capitol of the North American Union is Atlanta.

I think that as a nation America has its priorities all messed up.

Next time I will talk about False flag terrorism but I am sure that you know what that is already.

Wake up America, the left right paradigm is a control mechanism and a lie.

Comment #19 - Posted by: Ron Fielder at December 26, 2006 6:15 AM

I´m with YOU, oopu,...again:) ...and I´m a believer too, God, and a doubter in man. Let God be God! Well spoken.

Hari...since you asked,...originally Al Queda represented a threat to the USA only, not to the world in general. It is becoming a threat to the world because USA force allies to join in on this war on terror. As a result many countries are now under the threat of terror. History tells us that Al Queda is in fact a product of american foreign politics. USA provokes, USA gets enemies, USA gets attacked.

But I´m not going to discuss this topic any further, because I want us crossfitters to focus on the things that unite us, not the things that causes division between us. So for me it ends here. Have a blessed christmas everyone :)

Comment #20 - Posted by: muffe at December 26, 2006 6:27 AM

Muffe, Oopu.... Crossfit might not be for you.

Perhaps a refund is in order.

Comment #21 - Posted by: CCTJOEY at December 26, 2006 6:42 AM


You could not be more wrong!

Are saying this in jest?


Comment #22 - Posted by: Kevin Rogers at December 26, 2006 7:32 AM

39, 200

"burpee challenge"

4 round of the following:

400 meter sprint
12 burpees
24 pushup
36 body weight squats

time 16:21

Comment #23 - Posted by: Juan Epstein at December 26, 2006 7:33 AM

There is a stronger division among the parties than ever before? Is that why the non-partisan ISG recommended a strategic course change in Irag? Is that why Bush replaced Rumsfeld with a member of the ISG?

No, I think it is because both parties are running away from the administration's original positions.

Comment #24 - Posted by: Neil Lindsey at December 26, 2006 8:12 AM

Dan Silver-Sorry for the loss of your classmate, and especially at this time of year. Your tribute is a fitting reminder of the fact that Bryan was a real person, with family and friends, and not some forgotten headline on a SF newspaper. May God rest his soul and comfort his family and friends during this time.

Murph #11-Well said. Muffe and Oopu-Of course the Bible speaks to using force. It speaks to everything else in our lives too.

Comment #25 - Posted by: Denver Sheepdog at December 26, 2006 8:23 AM

Oh yes, CCTJOEY, crossfit is great, crossfit is for me, and I am for crossfit :) I thought crossfit was about working out, was I wrong? I didn´t know we all had to have the same opinion in everything,, huh,...a cult.

Comment #26 - Posted by: muffe at December 26, 2006 9:17 AM

Muffe and Oopu;

Welcome to Crossfit! The physical work-out program is 3 days on-one day off. The mental work-out is one day on-three days off! On the Rest Day the founder of Crossfit, Greg Glassman, posts an article, link, thought, picture, etc. and asks for comments. What usually results is a spirited conversation on the subject addressed, often illuminating and almost always entertaining, even to those of us who only rarely opine. What is requested is our thoughts more than our feelings, and those thoughts are always more helpful if backed by supporting information. What is discouraged are ad hominem attacks, attacks on character, etc. It is not madatory that all share the same opinion, but rather it is desirable that all be courteous and congenial while disagreeing.

The pattern is iron-clad, as witnessed by the fact that there was a Christmas WOD rather than a Rest Day. It is therefore rather simple to avoid non-fitness related Rest Day topics by simply noting where one is on the 3-1 schedule and not logging on for that day (although one risks missing the occasional fitness discussions, each of which is equally illuminating and passionate).

Welcome aboard. Rest up...tomorrow brings another WOD!


Comment #27 - Posted by: bingo at December 26, 2006 9:52 AM


I have a new group of people joining crossfit for the New Year. We are slowly but surely gaining a beachhead here in Richmond Va. As opposed to people looking at me like I am some sort of mutant when I am box jumping and speed squatting they are now asking questions and getting involved. Results speak for themselves. Again my thanks and loyalty to such a smart program.

I also hope my family will become more involved in crossfit. I would love to see my nephews lean out and get stronger. They are carrying the typical 15lbs of baggage due to crappy food and x-box etc.

As for the article I hope we can all see or just consider that party affiliation and blind loyalty is becoming an anchor around our collective American necks. The current polarization of thought and action based on party affiliation leads to a suspension of thought (why think when the party has laid out my thoughts for me) and especially pragmatic thought. We are becoming a country that values the sound bite over the science. Shame on us!

The solutions for our future will come from new nonpolitical thinking. The best of all of our ideas…a little creative, honest thought! The Neo-cons as well as the Liberals have boxed themselves into a corner of mantra like thinking and behavior. Knee-jerk reactions, trite speaking points and party line press releases blaming the others ideology are our constant response to a complex and evolving geopolitical landscape. We are smarter and better than this.

Aren’t we tired of the same “solutions” offered by the same hacks? This party loyalty reminds me of cold war Russia....what happened to those guys any way?


Comment #28 - Posted by: Ricky at December 26, 2006 9:56 AM

I am under the persuasion that the United States has no business fighting the wars of the world, and as such, has no business funding charity througout the world. If the citizens feel like sending money, then do so, but our government has far too many domestic issues to try to play world babysitter. I suppose this means I hold an ideology foreign to both parties.

Comment #29 - Posted by: Aaron Jacob at December 26, 2006 10:05 AM

Comment #28 - Ricky

Finally a voice of thought and reason! I agree! All too often those of us who consider ourselves "liberal", just as our fellow americans who consider themselves "conservative", paint themselves into a corner by their own ideologies. I have done the same in the past, missed the forrest for the trees because it did not fit into my preconceived notions of how the world should work.
I hope to be more opened minded from here on in.

On a different note, a (belated) very Merry Christmas to all X fitters.

George -

Comment #30 - Posted by: GeorgeP at December 26, 2006 10:19 AM

Shoulder Press
3 x 130 x 3
3 x 140 x 2
3 x 150 x 1

3 rounds
Row 500
10 dumbbell snatches X 60# (5L/5R)


Comment #31 - Posted by: Jeff at December 26, 2006 10:31 AM

Muffe...yes you are wrong...this is becoming a common theme with you.

It appears "baby steps" are in order for you, and "kid gloves" for me.

Essentially if you are not getting what you paid for..ask for a refund. If you want, add something to the discussion or if not...don't.

Besides the fact that you are purposely trying to deeply offend some members of this board with your religion/Christianity bashing...that is not my point. My point is about your failure to understand the point of rest day and your position that we must discuss "working out" issues even on rest days. I don't know why you want to discuss those issues when you have not seriously thought through much bigger issues.

Coach and Lauren post these things for a reason...Crossfit is not just about working out. Crossfit is the 800lb, knuckle-dragging Silver-Back Guirrila in a room full of monkeys. That does not come without consequence. You want the bull, you get the horns as well. You simply might not be up for it without trying your best to stab people for their most deeply held beliefs. Not suprising, since you appear, based on your above posts, to be an Al Quaida sympathizer at worst or amazingly ignorant/gulable at best.

MurphIZ offers his opinion...noted with Christian perspective...yet somehow he is the ignorant one in your view and needing of some scorn... Ironic since you posted your Al Qaeda love/sympathy note as a fact based on the perspective of ignorance. I find that humorous, especially when you posted such garbage with such certainty. I am sure you have secured your own vote for the "Smartest Guy in the Room Award".

If you want to talk religion or any other belief system that people base their life around (positive or negative) do so in a manner befitting the forum in a way you would to a person's face. Since I doubt you would walk into a Mosque and tell the congrigation there, that there belief system is a cult...when your personal safety would be on the line...perhaps the same level of civility would be suitable for an internet forum as well..especially given the context of MurphIZ's post.

I am waiting to hear what specifically the USA did to provoke either of the World Trade Center terror acts, the USS Cole, or any other attacks. That is a pretty bold stance you seem to have taken in the presence of the professionals who frequent Crossfit. You have my undivided attention...I would love to hear more.

Comment #32 - Posted by: CCTJOEY at December 26, 2006 10:33 AM

#30 George,

Thank you....perhaps we can get a third party going. We could call it the American Party, or Those Who Attempt Reason or the Pragmatic Party.

We could... Hold On .....Im thinking crazy here....Im losing it.....find modern solutions for modern problems by using logic and reason.

I am checking myself in.


Comment #33 - Posted by: Ricky at December 26, 2006 10:35 AM

Muffe #20

"originally Al Queda represented a threat to the USA only, not to the world in general."

Back when Al Queda was a threat to the USA only, what do you think we should have done differently?

When Hitler was a threat only to Europe only, do you think we make a mistake by getting involved?

I realize you find this topic distressing, but any insight you could offer into your thinking would be greatly appreciated.

Comment #34 - Posted by: Hari at December 26, 2006 10:36 AM

Score: 18..../19/19/20/20/20/20/20 Tabata air squat

Comment #35 - Posted by: Hugo at December 26, 2006 11:01 AM

CCTjoey, please give me a well supported argument for wanting me out of crossfit. Quite an unfriendly response you had there I must say.

You know, to me crossfit is about working out, period! Please enlighten me if Crossfit is about something else. Crossfit is not my church, Glassman is not my spiritual leader and the crossfit journal is not my bible. Am I mistaken? I respect the crossfit founder and the coaches for what they are for my training, and that´s it. I haven´t had the chance to get to know them as anything else.

From now on I´ll post my comments on the workout days only. After all that is what is interesting about crossfit, not everyones opinion about everything.

Crossfit is for me! Oh yes it is! There´s nothing CCTjoey, or anyone else can do to stop me from training crossfit. Posting comments on rest days, on the other hand, is not for me as I understand. Let those with the same minds post comments on rest days.

Comment #36 - Posted by: muffe at December 26, 2006 11:03 AM

Muffe # 36,

I hope you will both stay and argue your point. I for one, am quite interested in understanding your perspective.

Comment #37 - Posted by: Hari at December 26, 2006 11:08 AM

Re: #27 - Posted by bingo, thanks Bingo for graciously explaining what is going on here - OK, the rest day time for some mind exercises, i get it, coo-- it is so very 2006 if you ask me tho - i mean blogging and a running debate online by default usually turns into a shouting match by the extemists of both sides who need to get a life, turning everyone off in the process and yea, just reinforces the divisions and sides taken// iam thinking the fall elections rejected this Rovian notion of rule by vilification of the other side, people were so tired of the hate machine in power pitting their follow americans against each other to retain power -- well thats why they lost the house and senate, rule by fear and hate and hyprocracy and u cant fool everyone all of the time// time to unite!
RE: Comment #21 - Posted by CCTJOEY -- DOOODE cross fit IS for me, and my entire point of all this is why NOT this be a place where everyone is welcome?? I like that song by theivery corporation - "marching the hate machine into the sun - its goona feel GOOD!" yea! rove is history!

Comment #38 - Posted by: oopu at December 26, 2006 11:22 AM

Ha, ha! I´ve trigged you my friend, haven´t I? Funny! Crossfit may not be the place for people with different views, but the world sure is. I accept your opinion, will you accept mine? Is it possible for us to train, play and laugh together and disagree about these things? I think it is :)

I regret sharing my opinion if it hurts you, or any other in this forum. This is the reason why I feel that conflict issues like politics and religion should not be brought up in this forum. As long as crossfit is accessable to people outside america, we should discuss things that unite us, - not things that devide us.

Peace, brother!

Comment #39 - Posted by: muffe at December 26, 2006 11:30 AM

What if radical Islamist terrorists are reading the website and doing the WODs? Is Crossfit making the enemy more fit?

Comment #40 - Posted by: AndrewN at December 26, 2006 11:32 AM

Megan Mitchell.... you're awesome!

Comment #41 - Posted by: rob miller at December 26, 2006 11:51 AM

Megan Mitchell.... you're awesome!

Comment #42 - Posted by: rob miller at December 26, 2006 11:52 AM

Missed the 5K and had an unplanned rest day ystd, so did make-up work today.

5K: ran, trotted, jogged, walked, crawled, and dragged my way through in 31:00.

Tabatta Squat experiment:
22 each segment. May have gotten 23 on a couple, but surely would have fallen short on last two segments. So Coach, 20 on my last Tabatta squats with :10 rest, 22 today with :30.

Comment #43 - Posted by: bingo at December 26, 2006 12:00 PM

From "Politics in America: Fifth Edition" (Text book.)

You're Conservative if:
-Free-market competition is better at protecting the public than government protection.
-Taxes should be kept low as possible.
-Gov't. welfare programs destroy incentives to work. (Socialism.)
-Governments should stop coddling criminals. More police and more prisons!
-Gov't. should restrict abortions and not use taxpayer money for abortions.
-Gov't. should not grant any favor based on sex or race.
-Gov't. should allow prayers and religious observances in schools and public places.
-Gov't. should pursue the "national interest" of the United States.
-Military spending should reflect need.

*If opposing any of this, you are liberal.

I only post this becuase I want to make sure you are truly what you say you are. I find too many times that people don't even know why they lean the way they do.

I need to ask again, though.

Can we actually allow religion dictate foreign policy? Think about that.

Comment #44 - Posted by: Jason W. at December 26, 2006 12:54 PM

Missed Elizabeth, so I did her today


Cleans #135 21,15,9
Dips 63,45,27

Time: 10:15

The lack of rings really slowed me down. It's easier to force yourself through 21 ring dips than 63 bar dips. Physically the sub is fair, but mentally its a killer.

Comment #45 - Posted by: jon mac at December 26, 2006 1:02 PM

Missed Elizabeth, so I did her today


Cleans #135 21,15,9
Dips 63,45,27

Time: 10:15

The lack of rings really slowed me down. It's easier to force yourself through 21 ring dips than 63 bar dips. Physically the sub is fair, but mentally its a killer.

Comment #46 - Posted by: jon mac at December 26, 2006 1:02 PM

Hi all,
{RDL 60x30, 100x20, 140x10, 170x5 (w/straps on final set) and Press 25x30, 40x20, 50x10, 61x5} Bdw. 84kg...

Comment #47 - Posted by: Jonathan Jensen at December 26, 2006 1:17 PM

I have no problem with people who see war in a religious or spiritual context, as a battle between good and evil, between civilization and chaos, between freedom and slavery.

Comment #48 - Posted by: treelizard at December 26, 2006 1:25 PM

200m run x 200m jog x 10
400 m run
100m becks burpee
500m run

Total 5km

Comment #49 - Posted by: DavidE at December 26, 2006 1:26 PM

This idea that the US has the ability to shape world politics is hopelessly unrealistic and old-fashioned. In case you people haven't noticed, the United States is nearly defunct by every possible measure of national strength and that includes the ridiculously overpriced and bug-ridden high technology military, designed more by corporate and political interests than strategic or tactical planning. There was a time when we called China a "paper tiger," well guess who's the paper tiger now, a great big pile of bureaucratic pr and deceitful propaganda paper produced by the government. I give it twenty years on the high end before this place is completely gone by either external annihilation or internal implosion. And the biggest threat to our security is not going to be another 9/11 or some nuke blast in a container ship in a big harbor. It's going to be some biological agent, something very destructive, undetectable, and self-replicating. It could be a plant virus that wipes out your staple food supplies, it could be a slow-acting, easily transmitted virus that gives you all cancer in 5-10 years ( like the one we introduced into the population ourselves that is responsible for the NHL epidemic), or some other thing. It doesn't take any huge high tech infrastructure to produce these things, just knowledge, and since the US is also famous for a record high number of traitors in positions of trust, our days are numbered.

Comment #50 - Posted by: RobertP at December 26, 2006 1:39 PM

Muffe...I hope Crossfit is for point is... if you don't like the articles posted on the website and the comments posted in relation to those...ask for your money back. Coach has made it abundently clear several times that he posts them for a reason.

It is not the topics that are is your callous attitude and little to no regard with how you bag on someone's religion with the intent to u. As for me, your words about Christianity do not offend me on any personal level...however, the smugness that you offer them deserves response. You want tolerance for yourself but you were the first to stomp on another's beliefs for no good reason. So post away stud. You were the one bitching about posting topics other than fitness, then went in with the "CULT" comment.

Now if you would like to start the topic: Is Christianity a Cult? That would be great...even better to offer why you believe or know it is.

Just to give you heads up I am not a Christian.

You write "Peace, Brother" yet you backhand slap with your comments.


Who said you shouldn't be here?? Again, I only pointed out the obvious. I have not even identified to you what my beliefs are yet you act like I am trying to oppress/supress you. My point is that if you don't want to talk about the article...then don't. Otherwise, you are just trying to supress the others.

Where is Rove going? What are we to "unite" about?

Both of you are not what you pretended to be at the top of the page...just guys who only wanted to talk about fitness...instead you are haters trying to hide behind the "lets all get along" mantra while you make snide remarks about both politics and religion which you said you did not want to talk about.

So let's hesr it...what is your take on #3 AkronPowderhorn's post?

I am on the edge of my seat.

Comment #51 - Posted by: CCTJOEY at December 26, 2006 1:45 PM

$50 that Muffie and Oopa are the same kid.

Comment #52 - Posted by: treelizard at December 26, 2006 1:57 PM

Matthew Continetti's misuse of statistics is as depressing as it is transparent. The Democrats are the Peace Party only if you ignore FDR, Truman, Kennedy, LBJ and Clinton (who successfully used military power in Bosnia), and the overwhelming Democratic support for attacks on the Taliban after 9/11. (Or Democratic support for the Iraq war, but don't hold that against us; everyone makes mistakes.)

Republicans are the Power Party if you ignore the way they accused Clinton of "wagging the dog" when he tried to use military power while they were impeaching him.

About 70% of the American public thinks the way military power was used in Iraq was a mistake, so that opinion obviously crosses party lines. The disapproval rating, according to some polls, is even higher among members of the the armed forces. This week the NY Times made a very strong call for a larger standing army ... hardly what one would suspect if the NY Times was simply a rag of the "peace" party, as The Weekly Standard might have you assume. The CIA has concluded that the war in Iraq is making us less safe, not more. The ISG was hardly a mouthpiece for the Democratic Party, but it basically said that the Iraq War is an unmitigated catastrophe and essentially endorsed the Murtha approach.

I think I speak for many Americans, Democrats and sensible Republicans alike, when I say that military force is sometimes needed (duh!) ... But one needs to fight the actual enemy, and not an imaginary one. One needs to actually solve problems and not create new ones that we can't control. Which is what Bush has accomplished.

Maybe we could say that Democrats are the "competence and planning" party; Republicans are the "tilt at windmills and refuse to admit error" party.

If anyone is not clear on how "peace" and "power" are not the only two choices in the struggle against Islamic terrorism, you may want to check out David Galula's, "Counterinsurgency Warfare: Theory and Practice." Or the recently released Army Field Manual for counterinsurgency which states that the use of military force should be only a very small component of the overall effort.

very large .pdf at

Or, for a look at the same issues without the simple-minded, divisive rhetoric of Continetti's essay, I would urge everyone to check out this excellent article:

Can social scientists redefine the “war on terror”?
Issue of 2006-12-18

Comment #53 - Posted by: mc at December 26, 2006 2:08 PM

The people will have to lead America away from the desolation of empire, because the leaders refuse to, regardless (because of?) the letter next to their name.

- Josh

Comment #54 - Posted by: Wild Pegasus at December 26, 2006 2:09 PM

# 19, Ron Fielder,

All are good points but slightly diluted in my opinion:-) The US is an unsalvageable mess, sold down the drain by the corporate elites. They have destroyed our manufacturing base, destroyed our research laboratories, poisoned our environment, murdered hundreds of millions of Americans with bad food, dangerous food additives, and carcinogenic waste, and they have made our educational system impotent. And to top off the *slaughter*-lol- we have had in place for the past ten years a policy of "diversity" immigration which has invited these middle eastern Muslim *vermin* to settle in this country. Islam is NOT a religion, it is an ideology that mandates total domination of every aspect of society: religious, economic, social and political.

Comment #55 - Posted by: RobertP at December 26, 2006 2:15 PM

Hello to all my crossfitting brothers and sisters. I had to take the last three days off from working out so I combined the three WODs that I missed into one excellent workout. Since I'm the new guy here, I have some questions.

I started with Saturday's WOD which was to do as many rounds as you could of pull ups, HSPU, rope climb and ring dips in 20 min.

I did Ok with one exception, I cannot do ONE handstand push up. That's weak sauce. I have now incorporated the puppy version of HSPU into my CFWU until I can do ten at a shot. I will also lose some weight and do more military presses. Does anyone else have advice on getting better at HSPU?

By the way, Malaysian Army guys do a handstand at the end of their daily workouts. I always thought that was cool, now I wish that I put that in my toolbox years ago.

The next workout was run 5k which I saved until last. It hurt after the squats and my time was too poor to print.

The last workout was the 8 squat intervals tabata style with the longer rest interval. I got a really nice burn after really pushing the last two intervals


Crossfit is the best


Also, My wife got our family all of the fixin's to make a really great pull up bar from Home Depot. I will put it up this weekend :>)

Comment #56 - Posted by: Billy at December 26, 2006 2:35 PM


His point is that the "peace" activists have made a solid stand inside the Demcratic party and are influencing the party to a large degree...TODAY.

Though 70% of the population does not like what has happened in Iraq...half that number think we have not done enough...a point missed conveniently by the Democratic Majority and will bite us all in the ass when we bail on Iraq...many will sit and wonder what happened..."why did we not win?"....not as most on the left characterize as "Why did we even go there or why didn't we leave sooner?"

The CIA has never said we were "LESS SAFE" because of Iraq. ISG did not say it was an unmidigated disaster or support Murtha's position.

I am curious how the democratic party is the party of compatance and planning if we are still the former Yugoslavia to this day.

The difference was not President Clinton...the difference was Europe accepting responsibility. The other difference is that the "peace" crowd is always strangely silent when a Democrat is in office bombing foreigners from 15,000 feet. No such luck for Republicans.

Also the army field manual you mention, is not as you ry to make it a point of contention with the Bush Admin. The manual is being followed...that is why their is such a CA presence there...unfortunately do to the selective application of "peace"...the Europeans do not feel any need to get involved in a major way when they can use our stagnation as a boon for themselves finacially and politically. If this conflict made it's way into Turkey...I guarantee you they would get involved. If a leftist wins the American presidential election they will find the will to offer atleast some more help.

Comment #57 - Posted by: CCTJOEY at December 26, 2006 2:36 PM

I just took my brother on his first WOD, using an old one from a MJ article. Haha, we're twins so we've been competing all our lives and this was no exception. Of course I beat him, I've been doing crossfit for about a month now. He admits he's way outta shape, as I did after my first WOD.

Thanks for everything. Happy Holidays to all.

Comment #58 - Posted by: Vince at December 26, 2006 2:45 PM

"originally Al Queda represented a threat to the USA only, not to the world in general."

I would think that the non-American families that lost people in the (insert Al-Qaeda attack here) such as in Narobi may disagree with you on this one.

Comment #59 - Posted by: rpo at December 26, 2006 2:59 PM

Dan, I am saddened to hear of your loss. Over the last 22 years I have lost several good friends and brothers in arms. It's funny that when I find myself thinking about each one of them on different occasions, I am always thinking about the situations when they made our whole team laugh. Those memories make me smile and allow me to think that as long I tell their stories, they live on.


Comment #60 - Posted by: Billy at December 26, 2006 2:59 PM

Comment #58, I have to break my vow that I would never get involved in these discussions but Al Qaeda's charter has very little to do with the United States and has everything to do with extinguishing the non orthodox muslim world.

Look it up for yourself.


Comment #61 - Posted by: Billy at December 26, 2006 3:08 PM

Hari -
Here´s my perspective on the matter:

The United States has made serious mistakes in the conduct of its foreign affairs, which have had unfortunate repercussions long after the decisions were taken. Unqualified support of the Shah of Iran led directly to the Islamic revolution of 1979. Then the United States chose to arm and finance the [Islamic] mujahedin in Afghanistan instead of supporting and encouraging the moderate wing of the government of Afghanistan. That is what led to the Taliban in Afghanistan. But the most catastrophic action of the United States was to sabotage the decision that was painstakingly stitched together by the United Nations regarding the withdrawal of the Soviet Union from Afghanistan. If you look at those matters, you will come to the conclusion that the attitude of the United States of America is a threat to world peace. Because what [America] is saying is that if you are afraid of a veto in the Security Council, you can go outside and take action and violate the sovereignty of other countries. That is the message they are sending to the world. That must be condemned in the strongest terms. And you will notice that France, Germany Russia, China are against this decision. It is clearly a decision that is motivated by George W. Bush’s desire to please the arms and oil industries in the United States of America.

When it comes to you CCTJOEY,........oh, never mind!

Comment #62 - Posted by: muffe at December 26, 2006 3:22 PM

Muffe #61,

Are you suggesting that but for our support of the Shah, there would not have been an Islamic revolution in Iran? But for our decision to support those fighting against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, there would have been no Taliban? And that we went into Iraq simply to increase the price of oil and our level of defense spending?

Comment #63 - Posted by: Hari at December 26, 2006 3:46 PM

ran 5.5 K with little bro around Wabush, -16 deg Celcius, no wind, beauty...

Comment #64 - Posted by: OPT at December 26, 2006 3:52 PM

another SFPD officer was murdered by a thug who should have been in jail.where will this maddness end. our prayers go out to bryans family,his new bride Salina and all of his classmates and friends. I am so glad I have crossfit to keep my mind off of these tragedies. Bryan you lost your life defending our city and its residents you are a true HERO in every sense of the word. god bless you.

Comment #65 - Posted by: kevin&christine at December 26, 2006 4:06 PM

3 rounds for fun: rope climb 5,3,1; ring dips 21,15,9; row 500m each round; walking lunges 30each round

Comment #66 - Posted by: peterh at December 26, 2006 4:16 PM

I don't have time to fool with this too much, but this article is good:,1518,455165,00.html

Note that Der Spiegel is German. People often read criticisms of us from other nations, and forget that they have the same loudmouths we do.

I couldn't get the main article to open for some reason. I tried about 10 times. I'll read it tomorrow, hopefully.

Comment #67 - Posted by: Barry Cooper at December 26, 2006 4:28 PM

Thanks for the kind words, everybody. May 2007 suck less than 2006.


Comment #68 - Posted by: Dan Silver at December 26, 2006 4:45 PM

Danced with Diane, for personal best: 4:37.
This made up for my mediocre reunion with Cindy, a personal-*worst*- 20 rounds (plus 5/5) yesterday...
Travelling is so much fun!

Comment #69 - Posted by: DaGunk! at December 26, 2006 4:54 PM

#52 t-liz: Nope, muffey and oopie aren't the same. But muffie is (was) the ever insulting tore, tt, hjs, and a couple of other foul Norwegians. We'll miss him/them...

Comment #70 - Posted by: Lynne Pitts at December 26, 2006 4:57 PM

Couldn't rest today. Ate too much junk food.
Burpees and Double-Unders (50,40,30,20,10)@ approx 30min...

Comment #71 - Posted by: von-paul at December 26, 2006 5:26 PM

Lynne, does that mean I owe you $50? How about a fifty-dollar smile instead? ;D

Comment #72 - Posted by: treelizard at December 26, 2006 5:46 PM

Did yesterdays WOD today,
leggs were "jello" when I finished but then went on to play a game of racquet ball loved the workout it was awesome cardio!!!And D.J your wished a very HAPPY NEW YEAR!!!May it bring all your hearts desires.MOM

Comment #73 - Posted by: gale at December 26, 2006 6:06 PM

We did the rest day on Monday with Christmas so today we took on a Crossfit Variation.

5 Rounds for Time of

50 Squats
50 Sit Ups

Completed in 20:34

Charlene and Jessica did great and our legs were smoked when we finished up.

Comment #74 - Posted by: Bill Cattley at December 26, 2006 7:50 PM

I apoligize for coming to this discussion a day late. 2nd rest in a row our net access has been blacked out while casualty notifications are being made.
The recuring theme I find here is someone on the left crying, "lets keep this board neutal". This is met with measured rational response and we move on for another day. Akron chose to twist a few tails and sit back and watch the carnage. I'm entertained as usual but a tad dismayed as well. I'm amazed that otherwise savvy adults are so easily baited. Agent provocatuer Akron, lol.
What I read between the lines is this. Liberals have controlled our media access for a generation. The norm and status quo is for the country at large to hear only what we're allowed. They're presented with a juxtaposition of incongruaties (sp?)when they find something they want/like inseperably attached to something they can't stand and have never had to tolerate. Free speech. Originating from the opposing viewpoint no less. What nerve! What to do? I know, we'll "keep it neutral". Hence the appeal, followed by the rational response, which invariably leads to the demogougery (working definition is : an appeal to emotion and prejudice) and the whole host of logical fallicies. I would whole heartedly encourage all to google that last and spend a few minutes learning how to construct a cogent argument. Most notably, skip the ad hominen attacks and arguments that assume facts not in evidence. (your desire for it to be so does not make it so. Grow the f---k up!)And for the record, we're not going to go away or surrender control of the conversation. Non carbarundum illigitimate! K-

Comment #75 - Posted by: Kman at December 26, 2006 8:09 PM

I'm in a different time zone, so pardon the late reply.
Ooopu & Muffe, I think you missed the point of my comments.
1. I never said the Bible authorizes Christians to "play God." It authorizes the leaders of countries (Christian or not) to make decisions to protect their countries;

This does not always mean those decisions will be right and that God will not hold national leaders accountable for the decisions they make - but it's still up to the legitimate governments of countries to decide where and when to defend themselves, not an unelected, unaccountable body such as the UN.

Again, I offered that as my perspective - doesn't have to be yours.

2 - Should Christianity influence foreign policy? Yes. Domestic too. Otherwise there is no fixed standard of right and wrong.
- "but you can't legislate morality" yes you can - pirating CDs and sex with children are immoral, and we legislate against those.

Those who want a society free of God are invited to look at North Korea, the Soviet Union, and France after its revolution. All based right and wrong on human reason, and it didn't work out too well.

Comment #76 - Posted by: MurphIZ at December 26, 2006 10:31 PM

After some rest, time to dive back into Xfit. Catching up with yesterday's topic here are my comments with respect to the article :

Some wise guy said once - "People deserve the goverment they get". If you fail to revolt, you get a dictator. If the country is divided over an issue, no surprise that it will reflect in politics.

A second point is that when there is no visible common enemy, man will always find some fault in their neighbour and start a fight with them. Once again as the Nazi/Stalinist regimes crumbled and Americans started to feel safe and prosperus, they started to look for an enemy within and soon found their differences in opinion.

A corollary to this that when globaliziation and trade around the world is accelerating at a dizzying pace due to improved telecommunications and transport infrastructure, you can no longer ignore what is happening on the other side of the world. But until there is a threat from outer space, mankind will always find a casus belli with a difference religion, race, social status, etc...

Finally, on people who complain about political/religious topics on Tough luck fellas, Mr Glassman controls this media channel, not you. See if anyone cares if you complain to Fox News about their political bias. Media is not about democracy and unless you are Rupert Murdoch (or someone similar), you do not control the content on these media channels. Go and establish your own fitness site, build a brand and establish a regular following. Then on rest days you can discuss whatever you want...

Comment #77 - Posted by: Tamas at December 27, 2006 2:27 AM

we're not going to go away or surrender control of the conversation!

Comment #78 - Posted by: oopu at December 27, 2006 3:08 AM

Comment #50-55,
I get it, you hate this great nation, and we are the enemy. But please tell me you have this same hatred boiling for the ISLAMIC terrorist who have killed thousands of innocent people, and are planning for the day they will kill YOU and your family? I'm sure you do I was just hoping to hear some of it. Along the same lines, do you have any plan for saving this "unsalvageable mess" the US is in? I'm interested.

Comment #79 - Posted by: BB at December 27, 2006 4:04 AM

I have to say, I'm 93% sure that polls are a terrible way of addressing matters of national security. 22% of the people out there have full rectal cranial inversions, and another 50% partial inversions. 72% of statistics are made up on the spot, and only 5% of the time are they right. I'm 99% sure that opinion polls had a major effect on ending the Vietnam War prematurely, and 100% sure that opinion polls themselves affect opinion polls. It is propaganda that is very subtle.

Putting a number to things only proves that you are capable of adding up numbers. You are not counting pork bellies, so the quality of the opinions matters more than the content. Once in office, leaders do what they think best. If their electorate doesn't like it, they vote them out. Simple as that.

Remember, Mint Juleps should never be made by novices, Yankees, or statisticians.

Comment #80 - Posted by: Barry Cooper at December 27, 2006 4:52 AM

OOPU...surrendering is what comes natural to the left without a "Revolution" by a blood thirsty despot at the helm. As far as the conversation is conserned, you might try contributing...the only reason you are even involved is curiousity by a couple of us.

I am still waiting to hear where Rove is going and what are we going to "Unite" over.

Comment #81 - Posted by: CCTJOEY at December 27, 2006 5:17 AM

MC...upon further reflection I would like some answers to your assertions...

FDR and Truman... who brought the world Stalin through compromise and appeasement.

Kennedy? Like the Bay of Pigs where he left 130,000 Cuba refugees flapping in the wind or did you mean Vietnam?? Great policy success in both of those places.

LBJ...Vietnem again...only worse...more US soldiers dead in a month than all of the 3 Years in Iraq.

You guys do a great job of re-writing history with kids and hippies...not so much with the educated...for us you need PC to get your agenda done.

I am always thankful for the internet and the "new" media for the ability to stop the re-write at the waters edge.

There is enough incompetence to go around...however for the last 65 years the set backs we have suffered or lossed we endured can rest squarely on leftist policy or Republican copitulation to "popular" opinion brought to America by the left as a method to undermine a Republican...Much like Ted Kennedy traveling to Moscow to Convince the Kremlin not to meet with Reagan. "Great Americans" who undermine their own country to bring down the other side of the isle through undyeing love and adoration for despots the world over.

Comment #82 - Posted by: CCTJOEY at December 27, 2006 5:32 AM

(#78) I'm glad our liberal-leaning friends are not going away, but I refer you back to comment #3 where Akronpowderhorn issed a challenge to present a cogent philosophy on foreign policy. Still waiting to hear it.

Comment #83 - Posted by: MurphIZ at December 27, 2006 6:15 AM

I've been pondering what a leftist foreign policy would look like. Currently, it is defined primarily as "something other than that of George 'Double Dunce' Bush". Now, a negative can only be enacted in reaction to an affirmative. That begs the question, if Democrats were to take over the White House in 2008, upon what principles would their policies be based?

Self evidently, there are bad people, bad nations, and bad weapons out there. All three have the potential to combine in open aggression against the United States. The question, then, is "what is the best way of stopping that aggression", since we clearly do not want to start worrying AFTER somebody sets off a nuke in Times Square.

We are told that concensus building, and negotiations are the best tools for avoiding violence. The question logically arises though, is THIS the end result desired, or is it the avoidance of violence? If the latter, shouldn't negotiations and concensus building be seen on a continuum that ranges from doing nothing to launching a preemptive nuclear attack? On that continuum, wouldn't there logically be a point where negotiations and consensus building are deemphasized, if not abandoned altogether?

If you could talk bad people out of doing things that were contrary to their own interest, would our prisons still be full? I don't think so. After the first arrest, we could just sit people down, and say "Now, Johnny, let's make a little list of all the people you hurt with your impulsive behavior. Now, don't you feel bad? Of course you do. Now, we're going to let you go, and we just KNOW you will behave yourself, right?" Johnny nods vigorously.

This is placing compassion ahead of justice, and it is a recipe for social disintegration.

Ultimately, it seems to me that the criteria should be policies that work, not policies that conform to principles that may or may not be efficacious for the maintenance of peace. It seems to me that history is full of examples of "if you want peace, prepare for war", and also full of examples of "if you want to be invaded, neglect your defenses, and rely on negotiation". Compassion should rarely or never enter into calculations concerning national defense.

If you look at the history of regimes that attempted to implement leftist ideals, they very frequently, after a period of chaos, consolidate in totalitarian regimes that are aggressively expansionist.

The ideals of the French philosophes were liberty, egalitarianism, and fraternity. Liberty was scuttled quickly in wave after wave of violence, culminating in the Napoleonic dictatorship, and its' aggressive expansionism. Egalitarianism was approached through "hammer, axe and saw", as Neil Pert put it. Fraternity become conflated with patriotism, and was used as a rationale for invading other nations, and trying to "Frenchify" them.

Communism: if you're not equal, we'll kill you. If you're not yet our brother/comrade, we will kill you. If you don't think we have liberated you, we will kill you. Pretty straightforward application of fraternite/egalite/liberte, non?

If you think about it, Hitler had his own version of fraternity and egalitarianism, which was a unified German people, equal one to another, liberated from the yoke of the Semites. This is pretty darn close to how the whole thing was sold.

In reaction to these totalizing narratives, we see postmodernism, deconstructing, at least in theory, the certainties that led to these disasters. They want to complicate all stories, and in an effort to model what they preach, they write these books that they themselves probably don't understand.

The irony is, in attempting to destroy "narratives", of all sorts, without regard to content, they replicate the totalizing destructiveness of the original French Revolution which, contrary to the urging of Edmund Burke, insisted on a total break with the past, in order to maximize progress, and which instead invented the modern dictator. Napoleon had more power than probably any previous French Monarch, certainly than whatever Louis it was they killed (XVI, I think). Likewise, these ideational memes, which aim to create by destroying, actually are acting to destroy by destroying. Unless meaning and teleological actualities are floating in the air somewhere, we create them. And if we create them, then destroying them without an alternative is just stupid and lazy, which is what Burke accused the French revolutionaries of being. Accurately. Le plus change, le plus la meme chose, n'est pas?

Thus, when you ask a properly trained leftist about what they think, they can give you hundred reasons to do anything. They can talk and talk and talk, but they never reach any conclusions until someone else has reached a conclusion, then their actual opinions can only be inferred as the opposite of what has been done. This is a necessary consequence of their intellectual upbringing. They are taught to be vague, to avoid labelling, to avoid "essentializing". Everyone is everything. Yet, this is manifestly dumb. Most people are approximately something. Most nations are approximately something. And if you have simple principles, such as the importance of international law, you can reach actionable conclusions with little difficulty.

People say we have contempt for international law. I would argue it is the United Nations that has contempt for its' own efforts at the creation of credible international law. Saddam Hussein was a scofflaw. Period. Why then are we the focus? It has been proven that there were and likely are a great many crooks at the UN.

We are the focus because we acted according to an "essentializing narrative", which included notions of good and bad, and which privileged action over talk.

End of rant for now.

Comment #84 - Posted by: barry cooper at December 27, 2006 10:30 AM

(#83) I think the problem with US foreign policy is that it is neither heavy-handed enough nor delicate enough. I'll try to explain.

Military force can mostly be used to just kill people and destroy things but it is normally unsucessful at changing minds. Killing a lot of people can make the survivors too scared to oppose you, but they won't like you.

In conventional warfare killing a lot of people is normally sufficent. That is because both sides have roughly the same goals (normally owning a piece of land), goals that require a significant force to achieve. The invasion of Iraq went well because the US military's goal (posession of Iraq) was the same as the Iraqi military's goal (posession of Iraq). The US military is far better motivated, trained and equipped so it simply destroyed the parts of the Iraqi army that didn't run away. The invasion of Iwo Jima is an extreme example of taking posession of a piece of land through force -- the Marines had to kill just about all of the people on the island before they controlled it.

Unfortunately most of the US's enemies have embraced low-intensity warfare. They hide, attack what they can and are quite indistriminate in what they blow up. They have the flexibility to do that because their goals are much easier to achieve -- they just want to have things "go poorly" for the US and to inflict casualties. Blowing up any one airplane (it doesn't matter which one) is a much easier task than keeping all airplanes from being blown up. The hope is that if things become difficult enough for the US they will leave.

Faced with an enemy like that the US has two major paths to success -- kill them all or change their minds about the US. Killing them all is (obviously) a very appealing option but very hard to achieve without killing a lot of the civilian population. Whenever a major power kills civilians the survivors tend to becomes biased them against the major power, giving support the the enemy. You have to be brutal enough that the survivors will be too intimidated to do anything. (Saddam Hussein is an example of someone who ran Iraq with enough brutality to supress anything resembling the current insurgency).

The other option is to get the enemy to not want to fight you. Having a strong military deterrent is a good start but when dealing with a very motivated enemy (think suicide bombers) a military deterrent isn't that meaningful. Unfortunately trying to change the enemy's mind is labelled as appeasement or surrender.

Comment #85 - Posted by: LB at December 27, 2006 11:21 AM

Well my comment #78 i was quoting kman (#75) - it was just so asinine and ugly i had to repeat it-- i am hardly liberal, i would be tagged as a moderate conservative-- and yes, one can be that and also believe that george bush and his administration will go down as the worst presidency ever - Oh, do i need proof to back up that statement? Is the sky blue? If you don't know by now why, your not paying attention or in denial and we will agree to disagree ad infinitum on that point---and so we will-- ad infinitum

GW is the Great Divider, probably will be his most noted and long lasting legacy---
AND Its all here, all right here! proof! I am here to learn new tricks to stay fit/ got pulled into this conversation thinking, well why do we need politics n religion into our fitness? Its the easy way out - making an enemy is way easier than looking into the mirror-

thats it for me, fitness related posts here on in (hurah!) - you want my answers to the big questions?? lol, probably not, but still inquiring minds want to know! I'ii leave it to the pros to articulate it, iam not 100% with him, but andrew sullivan dot com gets it right most of the time, so go there if you will - peace
MY WOD today, surfing north shore Oahu, its 4-6ft (thats 6-10 foot faces mainland scale) light wind, looks like a 3-4 hour session today, heya!

Comment #86 - Posted by: oopu at December 27, 2006 12:51 PM

LB... good post

I must disagree with your last line.

"Unfortunately trying to change the enemy's mind is labelled as appeasement or surrender."

Trying to change the enemy's mind is labeled diplomacy...unfortunately there are times that diplomacy does not work because one side only "cheats" the agreements.

When the other side keeps copitulating in an effort to avoid bringing the issue to a head at all costs when it is obviously fruitless....that is when it is "appeasement".

When you finally sack up and allow the situation to come to a head, then abandon the very people who need your help the most to a bunch of barbarians, simply to avoid a struggle, which may well lead to one fifth of the world pulling it's collective head out of its ass......that is called "surrender"

Barry...good post...not sure how you write like that...

Comment #87 - Posted by: CCTJOEY at December 27, 2006 12:59 PM

The Democrats became the peace party precisely as and when they were taken over by the left. From Alger Hiss to George McGovern, to Jimmy Carter, to John Murtha and Nancy Pelosi the left have consistently been apologists for the most tyrannical and murderous regimes in history, all while arguing that the USA is the greatest threat to world peace.

Those who advocate the Easter Bunny approach to foreign policy (The bad guys will be nice to us if we are only nice to them) are now back in charge, and woe is us.

Comment #88 - Posted by: Dan MacDougald at December 27, 2006 1:29 PM

Barry Cooper wins my "most cogent and well-written post of the day" award.

Oopu - you win the boobie prize - you get it right before we flush the toilet. I can't stand people who will simply stand back and throw rocks and add ZERO to the conversation. In fact, come to think of it, ZERO would have been better. You actually subtracted from the conversation - very literally. You took from it and gave nothing back and complained the whole time, as if someone had put a gun to your head and forced you to read what people wrote. The sad thing is, you lost in so many ways - (1) you missed an honest chance to convince others through articulating your beliefs, (2) you missed a chance to learn and grow by hearinig the opinions of others, (3) you made an ass of yourself in this community under the guise of wanting to be a "uniter", (4) you wasted space with your GW rants that have become de riguer for trollers like yourself here on a rest day.

Thanks for dropping intellectual "property values" here for this day. (As opposed to "IP" values, for all you patent attorneys).


Comment #89 - Posted by: Dale Saran at December 27, 2006 2:12 PM

Dan #88,
Could not say it better. I read posts and hear sound bites from these "USA is the enemy" creatures, but I have yet to see one face to face. Maybe I have but failed to recognise them.

Comment #90 - Posted by: BB at December 27, 2006 2:16 PM

Barry Cooper,

Interesting post, but I'm struggling to understand what it really has to do with anything, or how it really guides our future actions. Seems like a big switcheroo of topic to me: you are covering up for a failed policy in Iraq by blowing smoke about deconstrucivism, postmodernism and the French Revolution. There is undoubtedly some truth in your narrative of weenies who think too much and do not act, but the exact same charge could be leveled at libertarians who, because of their ideology, deny the right of people to collective action in the face of shared threats such as global warming, pollution, second-hand smoke, abusive labor practices, etc. If it is not a military threat, we supposedly have no right to fight it, according to the right.

On the other hand, I know "leftist" labor activists who fight like hell for their rights and have no problem telling what they think is right or wrong. Some of them are even ex-Marines.

And there are people on the right who can argue for the most absurd positions, such as creationism or that environmentalists caused 93 million malaria deaths, or that the war in Iraq was essential to fight global Islamic fascism. Perhaps, in some sense, you can blame even the irrationality of the right-wing on postmodernism and its assertions that all narratives are equal ... but doesn't irrational group-think predate the 20th century?

You seem to be a bright guy. But your ability to spin logical cobwebs in the face of serious issues is frightening.

Most importantly, I think that grouping everyone who disagrees with the current policy in Iraq as "leftist" (and therefor assuming that they must read Foucault and want to release prisoners from jail after some talk therapy) serves no imaginable purpose except to make you sound smart to those who don't know much. How many people who do not fit your rigid categories would I have to show you for you to retract such garbage?

I liked the Der Spiegel article you linked to. Thanks. It is comforting to see that the army is "learning from its mistakes in Iraq." Can I assume from the fact that you linked to this article that you admit the army made mistakes in Iraq, and that those mistakes involved a lack of knowledge about the enemy? If we can agree on that, does that make you a leftist? Of course not.

Hey, all you warmongers: can you name historical examples, post WW2, in which US foreign policy problems were solved militarily? I'm sure we can think of some if we put our heads together and define the issues broadly enough, but for each success we could also find examples of blowback and unplanned consequences. That doesn't mean the military is never the answer, but the unplanned needs to be planned for.

All of your high-falutin' philosophy would make so much more sense if the war in Iraq was actually working.

AkronPowderhorn, allow me to attempt a response:

1. encourage and facilitate efforts now underway in the military to put a new emphasis on classic counterinsurgency, including knowing more about the enemies we are fighting and an acknowledgment that force is not the answer to every situation.

2. Stop treating what are really many small wars against Islamic fundamentalists of many stripes around the world as one huge global war. To assume that they are all the same plays into al-qaeda's play book: Osama Bin Laden wants to unite our enemies against us; we want to divide them, which means fighting each enemy separately. Some will take a military response, others will take charity (as in post-tsunami Indonesia where we made many friends).

3. Increase the size of the standing army. This means abandoning the Rumsfeld emphasis on high-tech shock and awe and quick strike forces. We need boots on the ground if we want to keep the peace and build nations in the future.

4. In order to achieve 3 we may need to re-institute the draft and raise taxes. I wish it weren't true, but such is the horrible mess we have now been placed in by GW Bush and his enablers.

5. Build consensus among the American people and our allies in Europe and Asia toward a new course of action. We cannot defeat our enemies by antagonizing our friends, either domestically or internationally. Unfortunately, to build consensus in the future will probably mean admitting some horrible mistakes in the last few years. I'll admit mine if you admit yours.

6. The current failure in Iraq is a surprise to people who watched only Fox News and read only the Weekly Standard for the last four years. The rest of us have seen it coming for years now. For that reason, I think more respect and encouragement for the role of an aggressive investigative press is healthy for our democracy.

7. Establish a more sensible declassification process, in order to discourage government secrets that merely cover up embarrassing or illegal policies rather than actually protecting security information. Some information needs to be kept secret, of course, but sensitive information (about how weapons function for example) has been released because it was thought to help the administration politically. It's all upside down.

8. Re-assert our historical support for human rights. 65 years of consistency in this regard did as much to encourage the collapse of the Berlin Wall as military strength did. Disavow torture immediately and prosecute the government officials who have been encouraging it in the last few years. We only strengthen our enemies when we suspend habeus corpus or lock up people without evidence or trial.

9. Find more Arab speaking specialists to work in the military and intelligence services. This need is so great that we need to allow back some of the gay Arab speakers who were drummed out.

10. We may have missed our chance to ever succeed in Iraq. If we are to establish peace and create a political and civic environment in which democracy can flourish, we will probably need a large build up of feet on the ground fast. To accomplish this troop buildup, who ever is in charge of the American government will need to do everything I suggest above: build consenus, find international allies, raise taxes, hold a draft, find Arab speakers, learn more about the enemy, disavow torture, re-assert support for human rights, be honest about our mistakes...

11. If it is too late to salvage this mess, let's cut our losses and try to do better in the future. Unfortunately, many Americans have already decided there is no hope in continuing this fiasco. If you wish to change their minds, you'll need to use ALL the tools of persuasion, not merely throw insult (such as calling all who disagree with you leftists and communists and postmodernists). When you lump everyon against the war as leftist, you are the ones guilty of the ad hominem attacks and you only hurt your own cause no matter how right it may be.

Comment #91 - Posted by: mc at December 27, 2006 4:03 PM

Response to MC
"1. encourage and facilitate efforts now underway in the military to put a new emphasis on classic counterinsurgency, including knowing more about the enemies we are fighting and an acknowledgment that force is not the answer to every situation."

That has been done since this thing kicked off, unfortunately the tools and organizations that traditionally did these things have faced a dramatic amount of scrutinization and hamstringing, mostly from the political left.

"2. Stop treating what are really many small wars against Islamic fundamentalists of many stripes around the world as one huge global war. To assume that they are all the same plays into al-qaeda's play book: Osama Bin Laden wants to unite our enemies against us; we want to divide them, which means fighting each enemy separately. Some will take a military response, others will take charity (as in post-tsunami Indonesia where we made many friends)."

This again, is already being done. Where is your example of how this is being treated as one huge global war. We try to do business with the Arab/Muslim world...the left cries foul and risk to homeland defense or pandering for the energy companies. Try to aid to countries and the left cries foul that we must do more at home. I like how you use an example of what should be done by successful examples of what has been done.

"3. Increase the size of the standing army. This means abandoning the Rumsfeld emphasis on high-tech shock and awe and quick strike forces. We need boots on the ground if we want to keep the peace and build nations in the future."

Downsizing the Army was not done by Rumsfeld...That would be a particular President in the 90's that is responsible for that. Rumsfeld inherited the Army you describe from Gen. Shinseki and former SECDEF Cohan. Rumsfeld is responsible for the Army transitioning many of the Support troops to combat troops and pushing technical jobs in the Air Force to the Army.

4. In order to achieve 3 we may need to re-institute the draft and raise taxes. I wish it weren't true, but such is the horrible mess we have now been placed in by GW Bush and his enablers.

Perhaps either of those is not and would not be necessary if it was not a common trait of the political left in this country to constantly inbolden the enemy that we will abandon the fight and that our leadership is hated.

"5. Build consensus among the American people and our allies in Europe and Asia toward a new course of action. We cannot defeat our enemies by antagonizing our friends, either domestically or internationally. Unfortunately, to build consensus in the future will probably mean admitting some horrible mistakes in the last few years. I'll admit mine if you admit yours."

What are these horrible mistakes? Not giving open bidding to European countries on rebuilding contracts? What more can you do than ask for help? The simple fact is European leftists were protesting the President BEFORE 9/11. There will be no consensus building with them. They care more about the red-headed woodpecker than seeing this problem solved.

'6. The current failure in Iraq is a surprise to people who watched only Fox News and read only the Weekly Standard for the last four years. The rest of us have seen it coming for years now. For that reason, I think more respect and encouragement for the role of an aggressive investigative press is healthy for our democracy."

I am hoping you can give me some insight to the failure in IRAQ...specifically. Do you mean the Kurdish region? Do you mean the The two major elections or was it three? You mean the interim government? Do you mean the 2 Iraqi divisions that are no longer under US control or the 8 that will be transitioned by mid-summer. Do you mean the 100,000s of people who now have possesion of their family members bodies from Saddam's mass graves? Do you mean how Saddam has been found guilty and failed at the appeals court? Do you mean the failure that the POS Saddam will be hung by the end of JAN? Do you mean Al Zs demise due to the overpressure of a bomb that leveled his hide-out?

No, you probably mean the sectarian violence being propogated by Syria and Iran. Two countries that are feeling ever more emboldened now thanks to the political left's rehtoric. Perhaps you mean the constant drumbeat of Veitnam comparisons of a "Quagmire" that started 2 weeks after the invasion of A-stan and 5 days after theinvasion of Iraq by the political left.

"7. Establish a more sensible declassification process, in order to discourage government secrets that merely cover up embarrassing or illegal policies rather than actually protecting security information. Some information needs to be kept secret, of course, but sensitive information (about how weapons function for example) has been released because it was thought to help the administration politically. It's all upside down."

You got that right...let's start with the New York Times and Democrat members and staff of the Senate intelligence commitee. These people who are doing everything they can to make the administration stumble. How about the political left quit being hypocrits when it came to a Dem President, but spouting lies about the current admin.

"8. Re-assert our historical support for human rights. 65 years of consistency in this regard did as much to encourage the collapse of the Berlin Wall as military strength did. Disavow torture immediately and prosecute the government officials who have been encouraging it in the last few years. We only strengthen our enemies when we suspend habeus corpus or lock up people without evidence or trial."

This is perhaps the stupidest thing you have spouted. Name who encouraged it. Who was it? Hell, why don't you define torture? How about the leftists of the world focus on REGIMES who really do torture and do it to their own people. Because they would disappear, that is why they don't...and that they sympathize with the REGIME due to its Leftist nature.

"9. Find more Arab speaking specialists to work in the military and intelligence services. This need is so great that we need to allow back some of the gay Arab speakers who were drummed out."

What? Are you talking about the military? What is that 2 people?

"10. We may have missed our chance to ever succeed in Iraq. If we are to establish peace and create a political and civic environment in which democracy can flourish, we will probably need a large build up of feet on the ground fast. To accomplish this troop buildup, who ever is in charge of the American government will need to do everything I suggest above: build consenus, find international allies, raise taxes, hold a draft, find Arab speakers, learn more about the enemy, disavow torture, re-assert support for human rights, be honest about our mistakes..."

How can we build up the troops when the press and the political left keep bitching about that possibility. How can you build consensus with the political left that is more interested in bringing down this admin than our troops or winning? When did we ever condone torture? When did we not support human rights? Sounds to me that freeing people from the Taliban and Saddam was a good start. What mistakes are we not being honest about?

"11. If it is too late to salvage this mess, let's cut our losses and try to do better in the future. Unfortunately, many Americans have already decided there is no hope in continuing this fiasco. If you wish to change their minds, you'll need to use ALL the tools of persuasion, not merely throw insult (such as calling all who disagree with you leftists and communists and postmodernists). When you lump everyon against the war as leftist, you are the ones guilty of the ad hominem attacks and you only hurt your own cause no matter how right it may be.

No one is trying to throw insults at the left...only defending from their attacks...check out your local Barns and Noble their is atleast 3 times as many hit books about President Bush than President Clinton. The left has been on a rampage since they failed to steal the election in 2000 by keeping service members absentee ballots from being counted and only wanting recounts in selected counties. write well in format. To bad fact check is not available on your computer.

Comment #92 - Posted by: CCTJOEY at December 27, 2006 6:01 PM

oopu, you affirm Rush Limbaugh, who sincerely states that the more the left makes their opinions known, the less he has to open folks eyes to. BTW, you're not a "moderate conservative". Trust me on that one. You're in what I call "liberal freefall". which is so far to the left that you've gone off the edge of your flat earth and are falling through space. That ought to be a real body rush if you keep on with the Maui wowie. K-
P.S.Please take a look at "ad hominen"

Comment #93 - Posted by: Kman at December 27, 2006 7:43 PM

Why is there so much talk of reinstating the draft? Mandatory military service didn't work in the 1960's and 1970's - are Democrats just trying to make this look more like Vietnam for political gain?

I was a Army basic training commander. Aside from general lack of physical fitness of the average recruit, the largest problem we had was bad attitudes. Some people, even though they were volunteers, were just not ready to follow the rules and be part of a team. I would think that the draft would mean more problem soldiers not only for basic training, but for all units. The last thing we need to do is dilute the quality of our professional soldiers with troops who would rather be out smoking a j.

If we want a bigger military, we have to create an attractive opportunity for those willing to serve. In general, the military does not pay well. The people drawn to becoming professional soldiers are usually (1) predisposed to being soldiers for a myriad of reasons (patriotism, adventurism, etc.) or (2) retained after an initial tour of service because they feel like the military is 'right' for them.

So if we want an effective military, we need to entice quality prospects and retain the best and brightest initial service obligation soldiers. We have to do this by pouring more dollars into military benefits (pay, housing, medical, etc.) at the expense of either other military spending or some social problems (or by raising taxes - usually not a good idea for a plethora of reasons).

Immediate military buildup because of a draft is an assinine idea anyway, as it takes at a bare minimum six months to properly train a soldier. These soldiers are privates or possibly specialists depending on entry skills and education. You could use them to round out units, but officers and NCOs would have to come from somewhere (currently manned units) and both the new and current units would have to train together before deployment.

This, of course, does not include the time needed to pass the legislation to reinstate the draft, the time to all the bureaucratic resurrection of the program, and the bureaucratic processing of recruits and soldiers. The timeline would not allow us to 'surge' soldiers or units brought up by the draft for over a year (giving Democrats more political ammunition for '08).

Comment #94 - Posted by: Rob S at December 28, 2006 3:40 AM


Although I agree with Joey's responses, I will add that you are to be commended because you are attempting to wrestle with solutions, versus childish name-calling. I obviously have responses on the philosophy side--my thinking has actually been augmented in the last 24 hours, which I try to do every 24 hours--but your spirit is really what we need more of in this country. The fundamental frustration--and I think I can speak somewhat generally here--most conservatives have with patterns of thought and political behavior that get labelled liberal, progressive or leftist, is that they don't seem to be oriented around solutions to problems. It is not that both sides are offering coherent plans, with concrete details, to solve the real world problems we face. In my view, conservatives are offering ideas, and liberals are criticizing them. Negotiation is a potential part of a solution. It is not a solution.

We didn't lose the Korean War. We didn't lose the Vietnam War. We quit. And those decisions were in the first case made by a Democratic President (who in most respect was a great President; and BTW, the rationale for the UN defence of So. Korea was to avoid the same fate for the UN that befell the League of Nations when it was unable to develop a coherent policy with respect to another invasion, which I believe was the Japanese invasion of Manchuria), and in the second in a climate of mass leftist hysteria.

You missed my point on the French Revolution. Everything we are criticising here Edmund Burke criticized in his essay. I will pull some quotes out this evening that--if we account for his better use of the English language--would be fully appropo today.

Comment #95 - Posted by: barry cooper at December 28, 2006 5:15 AM

MC - I would also add that I agree with your points generally, but Joey has criticized in the specifics. For example, on points 1 and 2, joey doesn't disagree about doing that, he just says it's already being done. On point 3, he doesn't necessarily disagree about a larger standing army, he disagrees with blaming Rumsfeld for it. I'm with both of you on that one. The post-Iraq (I) downsizing was my time and I remember it well. That's on Bill. But Rumsfeld has been a huge fan of "transformation" - and I have noticed we haven't gotten any bigger. As a Marine, tough for me to judge the macro and say we have more grunts now under Rummy than we did under Clinton - I know we have more corporations running our chowhalls and supply functions than we did before.
If you and Joey differ, it may be in degrees.

But you have offered concrete solutions and (for this rest day) are the first person defending a more "liberal" ideology to do so. I applaud you. Seriously. Don't go away.
I am just tired of nothing but the GW bashing from the left - it's like an incessant whine. "Okay, okay, we get it, Bush is evil, or dumb, or both. Now what?" I don't like GW, either (liked his dad, though). My problem is just that the left seems sooo hung up on being anti-GW they're not pro-anything.

I like many of your ideas, in theory. I would guess that joey would, too (though not all), but his focus is on the stubby-pencil work - the details of those theories, which sometime render good intentions moot.

Comment #96 - Posted by: dale saan at December 28, 2006 7:06 AM

Dale...I agree with your assessment of his points and mine. My irritation is with those on the political left who for years did all they could to (in)advertently, cripple the very organizations and leadership that are the ones informing the political leadership on the proper strategy and tactics to employ.

Now, after abandoning those institutions both in act and funds... they have opinions they mean as instructions for some sort of an answer. Yet, it is clear it is being used to bang up the current administration. What they miss, is that they are really slamming the oragnizations. This is not suprising a in a "Fruedian Slip" sort of way.

So not only did they dig at our hides for years, now they essentially call us incompetent (normally inadvertantly) in an effort to undermine the President. It is distastful. Plus they repeat these tag lines in order to make them fact, yet the truth is out there if they would ask the guys on the ground once in a while.

SEN Kerry and REP Murtha can run their sucks all they want but most, and I mean MOST, of the military hold a bitter disdain for these opportunists. Yet, somehow, these guys get credibility with the left and the MSM but not with their "Brothers-in-arms". Ask yourself why? Are such a majority of us that stupid?? To the left and the major media we are...just watch Bill Maher.

Their advice, even if it was relevant, is not wanted. Since it is mostly not relevant and is given in that smug elitest way, it is only given to do do damage.

They did not care about the size and strength of these organizations before. They felt the need to de-rail the budgets and capabilities of these organizations. Why should their advice be given credence? Especially when it is 180 out from reality.

Since 2000 they have done all they could to make members of the military stamps...housing issues... and the like were created by the political left through purposeful action. Since then, they have tried to "welfare state" the military in an effort to buy their votes...hell, they even tried to UNIONIZE the military...which shows their true colors. They want the military to become like the Teachers lock step with the Left for political reasons linked to quality of life issues. Luckily, the most in the military have enough pride to avoid this existance of depenancy that they want us to cling to. Liberals rarely join the military since fighting with honor for the greater good of our nation against people that might harm them is not their style. They like to fight in courtrooms, classrooms, and Newsrooms against their own countrymen to gain political power and push a government tit on to as many as possible to maintain that power. They have shown they would never fix our issues, just like they never fix any issues...they just offer to divide Americans against each other and redistrobute wealth earned by others for votes.

These clowns have convinced over the 30% of the population that some how routing Saddam and the Iraqi military in 3 weeks was a failure. Somehow the Taliban being relegated to the edges of A-stans society was a failure. Yet, they make security decisions hard to impliment from a position of strength to rouge nations by talking crap about this administration in foreign countries and on television...all for shallow political reasons. (CARTER and CLINTON).

The other 30%+ are confused because negativity is all they see and hear...they just want results...unfortunately the left is better at spotlight control with help of thier friends in the Media and leftist organizations like the ACLU and Amnesty International. Those 30+% don't understand the intent of those organizations and could not see how those "Journalists" and "Reporters" would be biased.

They embrace their loony conspiracy nuts and let them spout about "False-Flag" policies...and proceed to make those idiot mindsets a valid discussion at the national table.

MC...Just like Kerry's 10 things he listed need to be done for the GWOT....most were already being done or could not be done because of actions taken by the left trying to undermine the nation's intrests in order to bash the President. Your suggestions are not that at all. They are falsehoods intermixed with current and long-standing policies worded to cast a shadow of incompetence. The rub is the effort by the political left to spread these as facts to a largely ignorant public. The quick eye who has heard similar for so long it becomes institutional thinking or "hive mind". Looks good on paper if you accept the premis (sp)... a little fact checking exposes the ignorance or the ploy.

My only relief in this is that the leftist will EXPOSE THEMSELVES with their inability to hide how they really feel. They will be rejected again soon. Probably not on the basis of Republican competence, however.

Comment #97 - Posted by: CCTJOEY at December 28, 2006 8:18 AM

swam 1500 yards.

Comment #98 - Posted by: charley at December 28, 2006 9:37 AM


You are stuck in a thought loop of paranoia and hatred against "the left." I would say that 'the left' barely exists in this country. Hell, by your definition, Gerald is a leftist. And George Will. And Howard Baker. You label people as leftist and then refuse to listen to them, thereby proving to yourself that they have no ideas. If they come up with ideas, they can't be leftist, in your view, therefor your prejudices remain untouched. If they are against something, it must be good: you are trapped in a reactive fantasy world.

And now let me predict your response: "you leftists are all the same and you are guilty of everything you accuse me of and Gerald Ford didn't say the war was a mistake and if it is it's because of leftists, blah blah blah..."

I believe that before we can find a way forward, we must first analyze what went wrong. And of course we must first agree that something went wrong. Those of you who do not agree that anything went wrong in Iraq are off the team as far as I'm concerned: you will never be part of any solution.

That is why the bookstores are filled with books about the failure of the Iraq War: it's a failure. Figuring out what went wrong is the first step in a solution. Join the struggle and stop complaining about those of us who are trying to move forward. You are four years late in joining this important struggle, but you are welcome to chip in if you have any ideas other than "stay the course."

Dale, I agree that members of the military should be better paid and rewarded in other ways for their work. I'd like to see the GI Bill brought back. It may have been the most effective social program in American (or world) history, giving us a number of Nobel Prize winners and politicians, professors, etc. My dad was a Korean vet who got his PhD thanks to the GI Bill. The catch in any such plan is that it needs to be paid for. We can not build up a larger army through financial incentives for new recruits AND cut taxes to the wealthy at the same time ... unless you think it is right to pass on the bill for an unpopular war to our kids and grandkids. Part of fighting the fight is paying our bills now.

As a way forward in our discussion, let me suggest that everyone first read this:

It's a brief and footnoted summary of why most people in the world (come on, admit it: not just 'leftists') now feel that the overthrow of Saddam was badly handled. You may not agree with everything in it, but at least you'll see that we're not just making this stuff up to be difficult.

Then check out this:

it's one suggested plan forward. Maybe not the most tasteful, but it's an idea.

Comment #99 - Posted by: mc at December 28, 2006 9:42 AM

please excuse three typos (at least) in the post above:

That should be Gerald FORD and JAMES Baker in the first paragraph. And my paragraph about the need for incentives to attract people to the military should have been addressed to Rob S

Comment #100 - Posted by: mc at December 28, 2006 9:55 AM

You say the Iraq War IS a failure. We are saying that, self evidently--i.e. DUH--we hoped things would go better, but considering that movement is the core property of all constituents of the universe, including Iraq, that with steady persistence, and behavioral flexibility, we can turn the tide. There have been countless wars won that looked lost. Hell, 300 is coming out in March.

What do you think about the belief, which is largely supportable with media reports, and in my view incontravertibly supported--for me--by personal reports, that we are actually at war with Iran and to a lesser extent Syria?

Where Leftism comes in to play--and I'm going to assume for now that you are not being disingenuous, although my gut tells me otherwise--is in considering options like bombing Iran. There are a lot of folks who have been saying "we no longer have the force to attack North Korea or Iran", neglecting to mention the obvious fact that they would have opposed it anyway. It's a "false flag" operation, so to speak, which appears to support the troops while actually disliking them--and their proper use by decisive leaders--intensely.

If that is what it takes to win this war, by eliminating the resupply and training Iran is providing to the insurgents, would you support that? By that, I mean sufficient bombing to eliminate their nuclear weapons program, coupled with cross-border incursions to hit whatever targets the guys who actually know what's going on believe will make a difference?

BTW, I started to read that first article whenever it first came out--roughly 3-4 days ago, and quickly decided he was dishonest. He failed to state the case for war accurately, which caused me to slot him into the polemicist category. Simply because some of the leftist apologetics are getting more subtle doesn't make them any less pernicious.

Comment #101 - Posted by: barry cooper at December 28, 2006 10:05 AM

Tax cuts have cut the deficit in half since cuts create income and tax revenue. Everyone got them...not just the rich. Since the rich pay, by far, most of the taxes...makes sense they got "most" of the refunds.

The GI Bill is still here and never left.

I am not off the team...I am on "THE TEAM". That is a bold statement to make to those who do the heavy lifting. I would not want to be on your TEAM since the point of a team is to win. You don't even understand the sport.

Coupled with your GI Bill comment I wonder more and more if you know anything about the military or the other organizations doing work at all actual work.

I am all for changing course if it involves:

1. Giving A-stan and Iraq every effort to get past their troubled times with internal and external thugs trying to rob them of their freedom and world of their stability.
2. Leaving both places better than we found them.
3. Leaving the rest of the world with the distinct impression that we will actually finish what we started.

Which is all "Stay the Course" ever meant in the first place...regardless of how you try to spin it.

Tactics have changed radically over the last 3+ years...What has not changed over the last 6 years is the political left's need to destroy the President.

My point is that if people on the left had not been hell bent to chop down the current adnin. the enemy would not feel so imbolded...which they have admitted they are by the left's words and actions...we would undoubtedly be farther along. Lybia gave up without nukes with out a single shot fired, Iran began to reform for a brief period, Saudi Arabia thought it was a good idea to start a march to Democracy...that is all a wash now that they know we can't keep our country together through a serious time. The political left have caused this.

The way forward does not include leaving desperate people to the ravages of barbarians with guns. That is the path of quitting and will be viewed as surrender. Surrendering to barbarians is even worse than leaving S. VN to be overrun to the Communists. Yet, all labeled as "redeployment" by the Murtha types until they can again confuse the issue and say the President "abandonned" the Iraqi people in a couple of years.

I really don't give two $hits if the overthrow of Saddam is considered badly handled by most of the world...since MOST of the world can't keep there own affairs in order without our help. Since Most of old Europe was knee deep in Saddam's regime and avoided the conflict for finacial reasons not moral ones. They will not help with Iran or N Korea either.

I find it ironic that more Americans have been killed by illegal aliens in the last 5 years than Americans in the the GWOT over the last 5 years.

Comment #102 - Posted by: CCTJOEY at December 28, 2006 10:42 AM

It was Colin Powell who said about two weeks ago that the 'active army is almost broken,' so you can't really pin that one on leftists either. The point is that our existing armed forces are stretched too thin to fight all the real wars we MIGHT need to fight. It is a shame that we have almost broken the army on a war we did not need to fight and that we fought badly after the first month due to lack of proper planning. In my list of next steps above I said that I would like to see the standing army increased. Many other liberals (and the NY Times editors) have made the same call.

Most liberals I know supported the overthrow of the Taliban and intervention in Bosnia. They would also have supported intervention in Rwanda and Darfur.

If it were incontrovertible that we are at war with Iran and Syria, then I might also support fighting that war. But I'm not convinced that your assertion is incontrovertible or that a regional war is the answer to any of our long term problems.

The catch-22 in your hypothetical is in your use of the word "proper" ... of course I would support "proper use of force" (DUH!) and I have supported it in the past. But the Iraq War was not proper. Many of us simply do not trust the GW Bush Administration to properly execute any war, having sunk us in a catastrophe that may take decades to get out of. The American people will ask for proof of a plan before we let this "decisive leader" run off half-cocked again.

I would like to see your non-polemical account of the case for the war. I was here too and saw and heard the case for the war with my own eyes and ears. You tell me how I saw it wrong.

Read the rest of the article, then we can talk.

Comment #103 - Posted by: mc at December 28, 2006 10:50 AM

I've given my account multiple times. The bottom line is Saddam was an SOB with a documented record of both aggression and the pursuit and use of WMD's, who refused, until we massed 100,000 or more troops in the region, to fully abide by the agreements he signed at the end of the first war.

Osama Bin Laden has stated that our multiple retreats from foreign engagements showed our cowardice, and the potential for large results from small attacks.

Both factors mitigated in favor of stopping our retreats from barking poodles. Hell, if I was a foreign leader with no resources and no army, I could figure out multiple ways to scare Americans off. You just kill someone or someones somewhere, make it spectacular, make sure the media covers it well, and then maybe put a couple press agents in New York City. Easy.

Many of us here believe that leftists, by both encouraging retreat from difficulty, and by consistently undermining ANY hard line in foreign policy, work consistently to INCREASE violence. Bin Laden believed that the 9/11 attacks alone would suffice to get us out of the Arabian peninsula. We lost, what, 30 men in Somalia, turned tail, and ran, right? Whatever it was, it was an unmitigated horror for their families, but it was an also an unmitigated horror for the families of the 3,000 or so people who died in the World Trade Center attacks, and for every soldier who has died in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere.

My children asked me today what deterrance is, as I had used the word in another context. I told them that if a would-be mugger sees a holstered .45 in my belt, they probably won't mug me. It really is that simple. It doesn't take a degree in foreign policy to figure that out. It does take a graduate degree in foreign policy to forget that.

MC, I asked you a point blank question, and you equivocated. Don't you understand that that is what I expect, and the reason I hold people like you in contempt? You don't have the courage of principles. Your whole being is oriented around irony. Nothing is sacred.

Here is a quote from Burke I find interesting:
"Your legislators seem to have taken their opinion of all professions, ranks, and offices, from the declamations and buffooneries of satirists; who would themselves be astonished if they were held to the letter of their own descriptions. By listening only to these, your leaders regard all things only on the side of their vices and faults, and view those vices and faults under every color of exaggeration. It is undoubtedly true, though it may seem paradoxical; but in general , those who are habitually employed in finding and displaying faults, are unqualified for the work of reformation; because their minds are not only unfurnished with the patterns of the fair and good, but by habit they come to take no delight in the contemplation of those things. By hating vices too much, they come to love men too little."

Think of that quote in the context of the "Duhbya Speak" Calendars. How many of his critics can articulate the contents of the "Bush Doctrine"? They aren't trying to fix anything. You talk about "wars we might fight" as if you would do anything but whine and complain about anything but the defense of an invasion of the Continental United States. This is disingenuous.

There is more, but I have things to do.

Comment #104 - Posted by: Barry Cooper at December 28, 2006 5:02 PM


You don't know what you are talking about, and yet that does not stop you from blowing smoke. You engage in quite a bit of irony and equivocatoin. I asked several point blank questions that you did not answer. And I did not equivocate. I gave you an honest answer. But you have your own little stock set of responses to "liberals" that you dish out no matter what. That is why I hold you and your ilk in contempt. You obfuscate and call yourself a moralist and yet you know nothing about me. Nothing.

I think this will be my last Rest Day Post. You all just go ahead and talk to yourselves.

Comment #105 - Posted by: mc at December 28, 2006 5:12 PM

MC...I don't want you to go.

I don't know if you are a leftist or not....don't care.

I just want you to back up your words with facts not talking points.

You write well and have some valid points when you know what you are talking about.

I don't recall anyone calling anyone moralists.

Comment #106 - Posted by: CCTJOEY at December 28, 2006 5:46 PM

65/85/105/125/145 (fail on 3rd rep)

Comment #107 - Posted by: Jeff R at December 28, 2006 8:14 PM


It seems that my last post was deleted after a brief appearance on the site. I don’t know why that would happen, but it does not increase my desire to further engage in these Rest Day conversations. However, since you respectfully asked for references, I would like to give them to you.

I’m not sure all of the things you want citations for. I offered links to articles and government documents above, some of which are footnoted. They back up many of my assertions.

Here are some others:

*** For information on the rising government debt, see:

09/29/2006 $8,506,973,899,215.23
09/30/2005 $7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32
09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62
09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16
09/28/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06
09/29/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86

*** for information on the CIA / intelligence reports saying that the Iraq war has increased the threat of terrorism, see:
Iraq New Terror Breeding Ground
War Created Haven, CIA Advisers Report

By Dana Priest
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, January 14, 2005;

*** And,,1880275,00.html

Campaign in Iraq has increased terrorism threat, says American intelligence report
· Views of 16 government agencies pooled
· Study contradicting Bush was not made public
Dan Glaister in Los Angeles
Monday September 25, 2006

*** for Colin Powell says “standing army is about broken”, see:

Dec 18, 2006
WASHINGTON - Former Secretary of State Colin Powell is casting doubt on a plan under consideration by President Bush that would increase troops in Iraq, calling the U.S. Army overextended and "about broken."

*** and, this article by Pat Buchanan, just to show that all people who are against the Iraq War are not “leftists”

*** for Rumsfeld’s desire for a small high-tech army, see:

Secretary Rumsfeld is an advocate of military "transformation" — the use of advanced technologies (smart bombs, night vision, surveillance drones, etc.) to achieve victory without the need for large numbers of ground troops. Afghanistan, with its laser targeting, and minimal American troop commitments, was a showcase of military transformation. But transformation is expensive, and with an already strained defense budget and weak economy, transformation can only be paid for by cutting into funding for the new generation of conventional weaponry (helicopters, assault vehicles, refueling planes, and general infrastructure) that the military depends upon to perform its most basic functions.

The transformation debate is the subtext of the battle between Secretary Rumsfeld and the Pentagon brass over how many troops to commit to Iraq. By capping the number of troops in our invasion force at a relatively low level, Secretary Rumsfeld hoped to show that a transformed military could dispense with some of the more cautious traditional views of the brass about, say, the need to protect exposed supply lines with major troop deployments. Unfortunately, what worked in Afghanistan has not worked in Iraq.

*** for the Iraq Study Group says the Iraq War was an unmitigated disaster, I guess that is my (and others’) interpretation. But check it out for yourself and see if you can paint it in another way:

sample quotes:

“No one can guarantee that any course of action in Iraq at this point will stop sectarian warfare, growing violence, or a slide toward chaos. If current trends continue, the potential consequences are severe.”

“The challenges in Iraq are complex. Violence is increasing in scope and lethality. It is fed by a Sunni Arab insurgency, Shiite militias and death squads, al Qaeda, and widespread criminality. Sectarian conflict is the principal challenge to stability. The Iraqi people have a democratically elected government, yet it is not adequately advancing national reconciliation, providing basic security, or delivering essential services. Pessimism is pervasive. If the situation continues to deteriorate, the consequences could be severe. A slide toward chaos could trigger the collapse of Iraq’s government and a humanitarian catastrophe. Neighboring countries could intervene. Sunni-Shia clashes could spread. Al Qaeda could win a propaganda victory and expand its base of operations. The global standing of the United States could be diminished. Americans could become more polarized.”

So another way to put it could be: the catastrophe needs to mitigated, but it may not be possible.

Hasta La Vista

Comment #108 - Posted by: mc at December 28, 2006 9:54 PM

First off, I will apologize for using the word contempt. That was too strong for this forum, and inappropriate. I'm sorry.

I read the article. Like most scholars and reporters, he is quite good at dissecting past mistakes. I myself am not entirely incompetent at figuring out what my football team should have done, after they lose. Maybe they blitzed too much. Maybe too little. That article took me about 30 minutes to read. The part where he offered concrete solutions took less than a minute. In fact, I missed it entirely. Perhaps that is the reason you felt the need to post a second link with at least one solution.

My net take-away from that piece is that we rushed things. We tried to take a 6 year process and compress it to 2-3 years, and it didnt' work.

It is my considered view that our public dialogue, and the decisions that issue from and in reaction to it, is dysfunctional. Why would the Bush Administration feel the need to rush things, other than sheer incompetence and hubris? Why would they distrust the UN? Those are valid questions.

I view wisdom as something like clear water. It takes time to let the mud of confusion settle. If we have people whose only purpose in life it to constantly stir the mud--to start with the intention to criticize, and only secondarily come up with a rationale for it--how can we expect ANY leader or organization to consistently deliver wise decisions? If we can't wait for things to take as long as they take, how can we expect good results?

Everything he said is likely valid. However, it is in our collective interest to learn from this experience, make new decisions, and get this thing right.

Comment #109 - Posted by: Barry Cooper at December 29, 2006 4:32 AM

I thought about it, and it occurred to me he has the solution in his description of the problem. The only way Iraq is going to be a viable state--with or without partition, as I view partition as a recipe for war between nations, versus civil war--is with a credible army, and respected government. If it is the case we muffed both of those, we need to go back to the fork in the road where we went off, and do it right.

In the governmental sphere, I'm not sure how that would play out, but with respect to the army, the obvious solution is to go back and retrain the Army properly, to take a year per recruit, or whatever it is. That will in many respects be a much better solution than instituting a draft here. All the Dem's seem to want to give us is six months to a year, so as a stopgap if we can't negotiate anything better, we could use that period to get the Army off properly, and get the trainers properly trained. Even if at some point we do move troops back, there's no reason our SF and support guys can't stay there.

He said that proper nation building takes 3-6 years. Given how screwed up things are, let's assume in advance it will take 6 years of sustained effort to get where we are going.

Dem's: can we have that time? How about if we pull in your beloved UN?

Comment #110 - Posted by: Barry Cooper at December 29, 2006 5:29 AM

one of my last two posts was deleted after a brief appearance and the other (a response to CCTJOEY'S request for citations) was never posted.

Comment #111 - Posted by: mc at December 29, 2006 9:13 AM

I responded to MC via email about his post before it made it to the site. If he wants to post my response he can and I would appreatiate it.

I am not going to rewrite it.

Comment #112 - Posted by: CCTJOEY at December 30, 2006 4:14 AM


Apology accepted and please accept mine. Interstingly enough, I essentially agree with your further thoughts in your posts #109 and 110.

Joey, I will post your response next.

Comment #113 - Posted by: mc at December 30, 2006 6:00 PM

MC...thank you for posting my response to your if I would slow down to spell check..... Looks like a 6th grader wrote that!!

Comment #114 - Posted by: CCTJOEY at December 30, 2006 9:11 PM
Post a comment

Remember personal info?