Athough this can be twisted against McCain, and undermines his previous pronouncements that such a fast schedule was unfeasible, hey, when conditions and facts change, policy can (and often should) change as well.

It's not clear to me the war is over. The stabilization of Iraq seems almost irreversible. Almost.

But barring any major (and sustained) renewal of terrorist violence, there's not really a particularly compelling reason to keep more troops in Iraq than are necessary.

The key word there is "necessary." McCain suggest that, if troops are no longer necessary, a sixteen month (or, more likely, two year) withdrawal will be good policy. The gym rat opposing him wants to bug out whether or not we're leaving a stable Iraq behind, with a military capable of handling all internal (and most external) threats, and would, if he had his druthers, expedite the process to make certain we left behind a disintegrating Iraq.

Will we need troops in Iraq in sixteen months? I have no idea and I doubt people who actually know what they're talking about know, either. But I do think it's not unrealistic, or over-optimistic, to imagine an Iraq which is more or less free of substantial violence or threats to government control within, who knows, a scant six months.

Bear in mind, Obama has been proposing withdrawal -- surrender -- since 2005. He was most energetic about pushing his withdrawal plans when it was most likely to result in an Al Qaeda victory. He only mentions it almost apologetically now, now that victory is nearly at hand.

McCain (and all conservatives) have always wanted out of Iraq as soon as possible... after victory was achieved. Which is the goal in any war.

Well, victory is nearly achieved. Six months from now, who knows, it may be officially declared, and not in the Democrats "declare a catastrophic failure a victory and go home sense" either. No, our troops, and the growing Iraqi forces, might just have this particular coonskin nailed to the wall in six months.

Or even three months.

And given that very real possibility, who can discount a 16-month withdrawal of most combat troops? Difficult to manage, I'm sure, but our troops will be presumably 1) coming home in victory, not harassed by serious enemy gunfire as they disembark and 2) are probably pretty motivated to get home as quickly as possible.

I don't think 16 months is terribly realistic or likely. But that basic timeframe -- 16 months, 18 months, two years -- sure seems a lot more likely than it did at any point during the war.

Posted by: Ace at 04:55 PM | Comments (26)
Post contains 442 words, total size 3 kb.

Drool Britannia.

Scientists have decided that redesigning streets to make them more user-friendly for drunks could help reduce conflict and violence.

After using computer simulations based on the Welsh to mimic the movements of people staggering home after a good night out, researchers came to the staggering realisation that drunk people trip over things.

Scientists went on to the streets of Cardiff to get information about drunken behaviour they could feed into their computer model,. breathalysing locals and studying their behaviour.

A quarter of the individuals encountered were found to be so drunk they were staggering.

Simulations were then run showing crowds in various states of inebriation trying to pass through a narrow alleyway to three different destinations.

...

When a fifth of the people were staggering, progress was reduced by 9%, while a whole crowd of drunks led to a 38% reduction in movement.

The scientists believe their findings have a direct association with the all too common phenomenon of fights breaking out at "chucking out time".

"Drunks become irritants because they slow people's progress towards their goal," said study leader Simon Moore, from the University of Cardiff, who presented the findings last week at the International Crime Science Conference in London. "They may then become targets of violence."

Scientists have proposed programming street-lamps to respond to drunks' slurrings of "I love you, man" with "No, dude, I love you," in the hopes that series of such encouragements can lead the drunks home, or at least into the safety of a drainage ditch.

Only the last paragraph is fake.

Thanks to MattM.

Posted by: Ace at 04:34 PM | Comments (26)
Post contains 281 words, total size 2 kb.

I never heard of him, but apparently many did. His video (and bestselling book) inspired a lot of people.

more...

Posted by: Ace at 03:59 PM | Comments (21)
Post contains 43 words, total size 1 kb.

32 kilograms? Wow. The guy's a veritable Ubermensch, as our Nazi friends lie to say.

I can almost feel her cheeks turning bright red.

As thousands waited at the Sieges Saule monument in Berlin to hear Obama’s sensational speech, a BILD reporter met Barack all alone – in the gym! Here's the incredible account of Judith Bonesky’s meeting…

It's 16:02pm and I’ve been training in the gym of the Ritz Carlton hotel in Berlin. A man in a suit approaches me and says: "Barack Obama is about to come and train ...“ Shortly after half past four and he actually arrives! Barack Obama is wearing a grey t-shirt, black tracksuit bottoms – and a great smile!

"Hi, how’s it going?“ asks Obama in his deep voice. My heart beats. "Very good, and you?" I say. Obama replies: "Very good, thank you!"

...

He goes and picks up a pair of 16 kilo weights and starts curling them with his left and right arms, 30 repetitions on each side. Then, amazingly, he picks up the 32 kilo weights! Very slowly he lifts them, first 10 curls with his right, then 10 with his left. He breathes deeply in and out and takes a sip of water from his 0,5 litre Evian bottle.

He then wiped his sweat from his gleaming mocha brow and a droplet of the precious liquid alighted on my cheek. For the first time in my life, I experienced orgasm. And something akin to a connection with God. A dirty, sweaty sexy connection.

I added the last bit as parody, but honestly, was it really necessary?

Incidentally, this would seem to be the very Presidential-looking workout Obama chose in favor of visiting wounded troops. The difference? The press was allowed, and it's more fun to talk to sexually-giddy hausfraus than wounded heroes. Wounded heroes are such downers, man.

Posted by: Ace at 03:40 PM | Comments (72)
Post contains 350 words, total size 2 kb.

... on the other hand, if the press isn't allowed, I have better things to do. Like practicing my presidential jump-shot.

The man is nothing but ego wrapped around hubris and ambition, cloaking a gnawing void of narcissism at his core.

He isn't even shameless enough to bother pretending he cares about the troops.

The men he would presume to send into harm's way as Commander in Chief. It's breathtaking.

Posted by: Ace at 02:43 PM | Comments (20)
Post contains 98 words, total size 1 kb.

Wow. Both barrels.

Senator Obama and I also faced a decision, which amounted to a real-time test for a future commander-in-chief. America passed that test. I believe my judgment passed that test. And I believe Senator Obama's failed.

We both knew the politically safe choice was to support some form of retreat. All the polls said the "surge" was unpopular. Many pundits, experts and policymakers opposed it and advocated withdrawing our troops and accepting the consequences. I chose to support the new counterinsurgency strategy backed by additional troops -- which I had advocated since 2003, after my first trip to Iraq. Many observers said my position would end my hopes of becoming president. I said I would rather lose a campaign than see America lose a war. My choice was not smart politics. It didn't test well in focus groups. It ignored all the polls. It also didn't matter. The country I love had one final chance to succeed in Iraq. The new strategy was it. So I supported it. Today, the effects of the new strategy are obvious. The surge has succeeded, and we are, at long last, finally winning this war.

Senator Obama made a different choice. He not only opposed the new strategy, but actually tried to prevent us from implementing it. He didn't just advocate defeat, he tried to legislate it. When his efforts failed, he continued to predict the failure of our troops. As our soldiers and Marines prepared to move into Baghdad neighborhoods and Anbari villages, Senator Obama predicted that their efforts would make the sectarian violence in Iraq worse, not better.

And as our troops took the fight to the enemy, Senator Obama tried to cut off funding for them. He was one of only 14 senators to vote against the emergency funding in May 2007 that supported our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. ...

Three weeks after Senator Obama voted to deny funding for our troops in the field, General Ray Odierno launched the first major combat operations of the surge. Senator Obama declared defeat one month later: "My assessment is that the surge has not worked and we will not see a different report eight weeks from now." His assessment was popular at the time. But it couldn't have been more wrong.

More...
more...

Posted by: Ace at 02:19 PM | Comments (46)
Post contains 861 words, total size 5 kb.

What?

So, so smart. So nuanced.

Posted by: Ace at 01:58 PM | Comments (44)
Post contains 50 words, total size 1 kb.

A lot of people scoffed when Obama floated the idea a few weeks ago of a Nuremberg style trial. McCain's own blog pointed out an international trial meant it would be unlikely that bin Laden would face a death sentence.

Today however, McCain embraced the idea.

We have various options. The Nuremberg Trials are certainly an example of the kind of tribunal that we could move forward with. I don't think we'd have any difficulty in devising an international -- internationally supported mechanism that would mete out justice. There's no problem there.

An international trial for bin Laden is a lousy idea. He attacked us and he says he is at war with us. Fine, after 9/11 we got in the game and have been taking the fight to him and his followers. If he's still alive and we capture him, we deal with him our way.

Why in the world would McCain want to bring our 'allies' in to that trial? These are the same allies who for the most part won't provide enough troops in Afghanistan and limit the actions of the ones they do send. Yet McCain thinks they will be willing to deal with bin Laden as harshly as we will? Does he buy into the idea that only an "internationally supported mechanism" would be legitimate?

Obama's Arrogance World Tour had just about pushed me to the point of sucking it up and voting for McCain instead of sitting it out or voting some third party nut job. But Maverick can't leave well enough alone, can he?

Posted by: DrewM at 01:35 PM | Comments (54)
Post contains 287 words, total size 2 kb.

The only mention of the words "Democrat" or "Democratic" comes in a very late paragraph, obliquely mentioning Kilpatrick's lawyers are seeking permission to attend the Democratic National Convention.

Oh, yeah, I'm sure Barack Obama will want him there, what with that subterranean twinge of racism that's gripping the whole country.

I'm not saying he looks like a pimp.
I'm just saying that, you know, remember
you pay the girls, not him.
Or he'll break your face with a golf club.

Posted by: Ace at 12:37 PM | Comments (30)
Post contains 128 words, total size 1 kb.

JeffD just sent me this, presumably from Salon:

Glenn Greenwald

Friday July 25, 2008 14:15 EDT

Debut of Salon Radio with Glenn Greenwald: An interview with Dan Ellsberg

Ellsberg? Sounds... familiar.

I Know, I Know: People are pointing out this is a real guy, Daniel Ellsberg, the dude who leaked the Pentagon Papers.

I know. I didn't really think he was interviewing one of his sock-puppets.

I just thought it was funny to have an "Ells-" name come up in connection with Greenwald, given his sock-puppet names of "Thomas Ellers," "Rick Ellensberg," and "Ellison."

Posted by: Ace at 12:28 PM | Comments (9)
Post contains 108 words, total size 1 kb.