Despite your misgivings, you did the right thing in posting about the Orson Scott Card essay.

One every year or two, I read an essay or editorial that fundamentally changes my thinking on an issue. The Card essay did that. I already early-voted -- R for Senate (safe R seat) and R for the House (for a seat that is somewhere between 30 and 50 on the watch list of seats that will Congress. So it wouldn't have changed the way I voted.

But I've been doubting that Bush Administration war strategy in Iraq. I've started to fear that it is another Viet Nam. Not for the reasons that the Left claims. But I was fearing that we were asking our troops to fight this war with both hands tied behind their backs -- like we did in Viet Nam -- and that the demonization of our troops was progressing -- just like in Viet Nam. Via the Card essay, I now understand that the Bush middleground strategy isn't repeating Viet Nam's lesson in American self-over-restraint, but is the only plausible strategy in steering the ship of Western Civilization between Scylla and Charydbis, to repeat Card's analogy.

And the future of Western Civilization, Mr. Classical Values, is what is at stake here in the War and, sadly, this election. One party is so hopped up on Bush hatred (and, really, is controlled by a radical clique of America haters, even though that view does not reflect the vast majority of Dem party members) that they are willing to surrender in a war of survival.

OK, so Republicans might stop being such wild spenders if we have Speaker Pelosi. Ho. Hum. That's not what is at stake. A Democrat-controlled House will cut off funding for the war effort and we will go down to defeat. You can defeat "redeployment" from now until the camels come home, but it will perceived across the globe as the defeat of Fortress America. We lose in Iraq and the forces hell-bent (prior word chosen carefully) on returning to the Dark Ages will be ascendant and, possibly, triumphant.

And I don't think that will be bring us any closer to Andrew Sullivan's dream world of universal same-sex marriage.

So, thank you for proselytizing the Card essay. Everyone on the fence should read it before he or she votes.

Why do you care what celebrity activist Orson Scott Card thinks? What does he bring to politics that Barbra Streisand does not?

Furthermore, why do you believe Card when he claims to be a Democrat? Just because he says so? I have never heard of him expressing support for the Democrats before. He has written that homosexuality should be illegal and that New York City's secular liberal intellectuals brought 9/11 upon themselves. Is Dinesh D'Souza a "Democrat" too?

Card is playing the part of a College Republican concern troll: "Oh, I was a Democrat, until those people who believe [*list of things Democrats believe*] went too far--so vote Bush!"

Whatever you think, the American people cannot stand fighting alone in a war that has no foreseeable conclusion or objective. As far as I can tell, you are right about the consequences of American surrender (surrender is what leaving before the job is finished is all about) in Iraq. Osama bin Laden predicted this after Reagan's retreat from Lebanon two decades ago. We have not got the stomach to fight this war and win it. Neither does anyone else in the world. Moreover, no one else in the world has the resources to do the job even if the will were there. Is this what things were like in 1938? Only Pearl Harbor changed America's mind back then. Many thought that 9/11 would be this decade's Pearl Harbor, but they were wrong. Ever since Bush invaded Iraq without a clear explanation I've been pessimistic. My only hope is that by cynically recruiting so many veterans to run for office the Democrats, my party, have sown the seeds for a return to the party of John F. "bear any burden pay any price" Kennedy and Scoop Jackson.

TTT, I agreed with Card's reasoning in that piece, and I liked the way he said it. (Sometimes I agree with things Clayton Cramer says, even though I disagree with his views on homosexuality.)

Until now, I hadn't read Orson Scott Card's views on other subjects, but I wasn't commenting on them, was I?

Wikipedia says he's also spoken against Intelligent Design; so what?

As to whether he's a Democrat, that depends on his party registration. If you can show he's other than a registered Democrat, I'll note that, because I don't like dishonesty of that variety. Conservative Republicans might call me a RINO, but only I can change my registration.

As to his celebrity status, you're right that it counts for no more than Barbra Streisand's, and I'd agree with him even if he was a mere blogger. (Which I actually thought he was. Silly me!)

Card's celebrity status counts for more than Streisand's, because he earned it thru thoughtful creative writing rather than performing.

"I'm tempted to say 'no more Vietnams' but it would sound like an antiwar slogan"

Actually, that was exactly what Nixon said in his book of the same title. Although it may not be popular to quote him, Nixon has the folowing to say on this slogan:

"No more Vietnams" could mean we will not try again. It should mean we will not fail again.

"Ever since Bush invaded Iraq without a clear explanation"

Jimbo, the explaination might be clearer if you had listened to what Bush said rather than what the Democrats and MSM said he said. For example, you might have noticed that, contrary to what others would tell you, liberating the Iraqi people and establishing a functioning democracy was not an afterthought but a paramount goal from the start.

RE: Card vs. Streisand,

Streisand has a high school education and nothing that particularly suggests she is informed or thoughtful about current events or geopolitical issues.

Card has a master's degree and was part way through his doctorate when he left grad school to support his family. He is now in a long-term college faculty position, in addition to having written some topselling and thoughtful novels. He's earned a serious hearing.

Yes, the Card piece was good, partly because he discussed something that gets too little attention: that it's hard for officials on our side to speak clearly about the war. This is not because they are inarticulate (though some may be), but because the political/strategic reality is so complex and delicate. Thus, as Card points out, we have the vague "War on Terror" appellation, avoiding the words "Islam" or "Muslim." They don't make a big deal about our soldiersbeing in Iraq so that we can fight terrorists away from our soil, because that would make Iraqis resentful and clue in the terrorists that we want them to go to Iraq and attack our troops, and not come to the U.S. and attack civilians. And clearly we are there partly to be near Syria and Iran, but we can't publicly say so.

Thanks, Eric, for another fine post.

You might also find Dennis Prager's reasons for voting Repub. interesting. Snippet

please remember that it was disaffected Republicans who voted for Ross Perot who helped elect Bill Clinton president, and it was disaffected Democrats who voted for Ralph Nader who helped elect George W. Bush president. Unless you run yourself, dear annoyed Republican, you will never find an ideal candidate. Compared to you and your conservative principles, real-life Republicans are indeed a failure. But compared to real-life Democrats, they are almost giants.

Vote out of anger, and you'll either vote Democrat or stay home. Vote out of reason, and you'll vote Republican. Please choose reason. If you don't like the Republican candidate, the place to get rid of him is in the primary, not the general election. The general election is not between good Republicans and irresponsible Republicans; it's between Republicans and Democrats.

I can think of all sorts of people who have neither a master's degree nor a long-term college teaching position whose opinions are more interesting and better informed than those of many people I have met with doctorates and tenure. Surely, the man has earned a hearing on the basis of his argument and not on the basis of his credentials.

If Orson Scott Card has argued "homosexuality" should be illegal I would argue for criminal charges to be laid on the grounds of stupidity. But neither would undermine his arguments for voting Republican in this election.

All I can add is that this is not only one of the most important elections in your history but for those of us who, not being American citizens, will have no vote to cast. To paraphrase Tony Blair, it is not a burden you have asked to carry but it is your burden to carry nonetheless.

Orson Scott Card wrote Ender's Game, which was a disturbingly creepy explanation of the creation of military genius, and a study of its nature.

He also wrote several sequels, and the Alvin Maker series which was very original for genre fiction. His writing is a bit depressing, but its very thoughtful and creative. I'd rank him as one of the more serious SF/Fantasy thinkers (above L.E. Modestit and R. A. Heinlein and Ken McLeod for example) even though I don't enjoy his fiction writing that much since its so gloomy.

As to not listening to him because he thinks homosexuality is bad, hmmmh...1)He's written at least one short story from the view of a young homosexual. 2) If your favorite color is not blue, then I'm not going to listen to you. See how that works? Sounds silly when I say it.

TTT and his ilk love to say things such as "Orson Scott Card isn't a REAL Democrat. He believes things I don't believe. He supports George Bush. He is a spy and a plant."

Read TTT further above. Examine the paranoia. Examine the hatred and spite.

The true believers are trying to purge the Democrats of everyone who doesn't toe thier line. They may well succeed. After 9-11 I still voted for John Kerry, but I had gotten so disgusted with the Dems that it was close. Now I consider the Dems to be complete freaks.

Orson Scott Card, too, has become disgusted.

Good post, Eric. Slightly off the subject, I recommend Ender's Game to you - it's a quick read but it is full of thought-provoking discussions about leadership and morality. It's fiction, but in my mind it stands up there with Orwell and Huxley.

I believe that Ender,s Game was on the Naval officers reading list. So someone in the military respects Card. I was impressed with his article and agree with much of it. The idea of respecting and honoring those what fight for the same things we do, is seldom mentioned but very important as he makes clear. We have allies dying beside us in Iraq and Afghanistan who deserve our support. Including the voters with purple fingers. If we do not support these allies, our own future grows grim.

I've long thought Card one of the more interesting SF writers, though unlike Mr. Ashley I'd rank him after Heinlein, if that meant anything. His writing may be creepy but it's also insightful, thought-provoking and persistently intelligent. It's one of his better essays and it makes a good, if link-light, case for letting Bush pursue the war his own way. Perhaps the best one can hope for in the election is a split Senate where Lieberman can insist on being heard. Not that my vote matters on that score; no Senators in Oregon running for reelection, and my Rep's a safe-seat Democrat.

It's interesting how superficial and wrong is Card's analysis. The only serious choice for those interested in winning the GWOT is Democratic.
Let's start with a few points.
1. Secret Trials.
2. Seceret Evidence.
3. Renditions.
4. Torture.
George, the USSR collapsed under your daddy's watch. Why are so eager to ape it?
5. Loss of allies.
6. Failure to help secure ex-Soviet nukes.
7. "Bin Laden? I don't really care where he is", and disbanding the CIA unit hunting for him.
If you look at the manner we intervened in Bosnia and Kosovo, or the manner we gathered allies for Gulf War I, (yes, obviously Bush Sr. But equally obviously so different from the son that it highlights fiercely his failings) we see serious minds at work.

Bush crossed another rubicon. He actually agreed Darfur is genocide, but is sitting by and watching. Words, sure. But words can be important. And in this case are.

On the issues of torture, and secret trials, and taking away the rights of Americans he accuses of terrorism, Bush Jr. has proved himself not just a war criminal, but fundamentally a traitor to our basic principles. He insults the basic relationship of our free people and the free individuals that make it up, to the state that derives any power from their consent.

Andrew Sullivan is spot on. The highjacking of the conservative movement and of the GOP is breathtaking.

I'll add that if you seek to trade freedom for safety, then please, please bow out of this whole war on terror. Find a nice ranch in a rural area and let the Democratic party and those who have not been unmanned by the prospect of terrorism finish this thing. Because you're dragging us down.

Card is definitely a Democrat, and has been for years. I actually remember an old story about him getting in an argument with Heinlein (who had no such failing). Regardless, he still holds leftist/liberal views on the economy-mistrust of markets, a belief in the idea we are all getting poorer and must invest in healthcare, education, and research through the government like crazy to survive, and a support for population control that came from reading Paul Ehrlich.

Does it matter if Card is a Democrat? If I had a Dem candidate saying "STAY THE COURSE IN IRAQ" and a Repub candidate saying "GET OUT NOW" then I would vote for Dem. It's not about party affiliation, it's about the ideas and motivations of the candidate.

But as it is, the only people who want to stay the course in Iraq happen to be Republican. The Dems have made sure than anyone who doesn't toe their party line gets kicked out a la Joe Leiberman.

How in the world is keeping republicans in power going result in a "win" in Iraq? They lack the capacity to win because they lack the capacity to reason. They have made every strategy decision based on its domestic political effect, rather than on the likelihood that it will increase our chance of success in Iraq. Just a few examples off the top of my head: staffing the CPA with neophytes based on their political juice; allowing the Shi'ites to keep their militias; allowing the country to "approve" a constitution that leaves unresolved basic questions of federalism; caving in to Malaki's demand that American troups abandon one of their own in Sadr city (to avoid any appearance of dischord a week before the election); announcing (days before the decision of the court explaining its reasoning will issue) that Saddam will hang, throwing gasoline on an already chaotic situation in order to command the front page of u.s. papers one day before the election.

Why is Rove prosecuting the war? And why is it that there is no one in the republican party who will stand up to them? Do you honestly think the republicans have moved us closer to victory in Iraq?

As to not listening to him because he thinks homosexuality is bad, hmmmh...1)He's written at least one short story from the view of a young homosexual. 2) If your favorite color is not blue, then I'm not going to listen to you. See how that works? Sounds silly when I say it.

That's because it's silly. Card contributes nothing that others don't already supply without the added bigotry. When you can find the original nugget in his slavering you might have a point.

If you “hate elections” what would you prefer, a monarchy?

I have no reason to doubt that Card, a mid-list sci-fi reader, but one I've never read, is a Democrat, if he says so, but I think he misapprehends the party he claims to have been a part of for decades. I don't disagree that the Democrats today are a pathetic bunch, craven and hypocritical, but their fault is hardly that they are too extreme, too desirous of America's "defeat," too "left."

Their fault is entirely the opposite: they are cowards who have colluded and laid down for the execrable law-breaking administration of Li'l Butch and Big DICK as it has engaged in its 6-year rampage of war-crimes and torture, mendacity and hubris.

We have violated the Geneva Conventions and thus committed a war-crime in our invasion of Iraq, and we have continued to commit war crimes in the pursuance of the original crime. One can hardly be said to be "wishing for America's defeat" when the task we are engaged in is a crime of historic proportion; one might be said to wish that America would stop compounding its crimes sooner, rather than later, and depart Iraq post-haste, and prosecute Li'l Butch, Big DICK, et al for their part in the torture, imprisonment, and murder of thousands of innocent human beings.

Oh, and Card's intellectual dishonesty is revealed quite clearly when he whines over the "Democratic Party leaving Joe Lieberman," when all that has happened is democracy in action: his constituents in his state have decided they do not agree with his position on at least some issues of grave national import, so they chose to cast their vote for someone who purports to hold views more in line with their own. To characterize such a decision of choice by a majority of Lieberman's own party's voters as being somehow a shameful abandonment--as if once in office, Lieberman's constitutents are OBLIGED to continue to vote for him, out of fealty to the person, as opposed to their making a choice based on how his positions have evolved either along with or contrary to theirs--is to reveal a contempt for democracy.

Whay to go, Card!

Bill, Bill, Bill.

1) Secret trials. Name one person suspected of being a terrorist who has been sentenced through a secret trial. (Oh, wait- you can't, because they're SECRET! PARANOIA, meet Bill).

2) Secret evidence. Used to secretly convict people in secret trials secretly, but by golly, if they had to share it, thoughtful people like Bill would see that the evidence is secretly not real.

3) Renditions. How DARE the CIA apprehend suspicious terroristic-type people from foreign countries? Why, those cooperating foreign governents should be subjected to secret trials for helping America stay safe!

4) Torture. Some call it "The Red Hot Chili Peppers," other call it degrading acts of humiliation. Oooh, and water boarding- don't forget that. Mustn't force those terrorists to give up juicy details that are cross-correlated into actionable intelligence that prevents attacks, while simultaneously becoming "secret evidence."

Bill, you obviously long for the good old days of the USSR facing down evil American capitalism, why are you griping about Bush restoring the reich?

And help me out with your little case of cognitive dissonance here- are you proposing that Bush should kill the arab (muslim) militia in Darfur, to stop the genocide there?

Because the rest of your post seems to be an argument for getting on our collective knees in the face of islam. So it's kinda funny that you want Bush to kill muslims. Not coherent, or thoughtful, mind you- just funny.

Bill, my freedoms are impacted every time I go to an airport, and have to waste my time in security screening. I don't blame Bush for that- I blame islam. The democrats are fundamentally unserious on national security. But you just keep talking, okay? You're doing an excellent job of proving that point.

Mitchell,

No one has been sentenced through a secret trial because the administration has only just rammed its "secret trial" bill through congress. Instead, you have people languishing in american prisons, sectet or otherwise, without trial for five years.

With regard to secret evidence, every trial involving terrorism to date has involved attempts by the government to present the defendant from seeing its evidence in the name of national security. Doesn't that count? Did you miss that?

Secret renditions. You're right. How dare they? Does the government have a right to spirit "suspicious terroristic-type people" away just so people like you can feel manly and in charge? My answer is no.

Torture is relative? And here I thought liberals were the relativists! I am going to go out on a limb and say waterboarding is torture. And, though I love the Red Hot Chili Peppers, I believe that blaring the music at people in confinement is inhumane to the nth degree and diminishes the stature or the blarer all over the world.

By the way, I think I missed all the terrorist attacts we have thwarted using the information we obtained using torture. I know the bush boys say they can't release the information because of nattional security, but they never let national security stop them when something might make them look good. So I call bullshit on that one. I just don't believe it without real proof.

This "The Democrat Party kicked Joe Lieberman out!" meme reveals truly disturbing things about the right-wingers who believe it. If you have a problem with representative democracy you're definitely living in the wrong country. He worked in the Senate, not the House of Lords. The right-wing Club For Growth worked their butts off to oust the very liberal RINO Lincoln Chafee, yet the media ignores that and nobody huffs and puffs about how it represents some Internet-driven apocalypse. Maybe I just don't understand. Anyway.

Moving right along, I re-read Card's analysis and most of it seems like what he cobbled together after watching cable news for 8 hours straight. Though there are some novel ideas that few of you have commented on, particularly Card's assertion that "the West is nearly as wicked as Islamists claim" (feeding back into his Falwellian quasi-support for 9/11 I referred to earlier) and "the Iraq War is the best-run war in history with the fewest mistakes and is not going badly at all." Would you be comfortable saying that in public, any of you? Would you say it to the parents who have lost children to it? Do you REALLY find that agreeable? Don't mince words. If you think things in Iraq are awesome, be proud and say so.

In addition to cheerleading for how well things are going over there, Card's other real point is that the stakes in Iraq are so high that if we elect the wrong (=Democrat) candidates, we will lose and be permanently weakened or threatened as a result.

Let me ask my conservative friends something: how can anyone claim to be CERTAIN that our very doom rests upon the outcome of the Iraq War? How can you be sure bad things would happen if we withdrew or even, assuming it could really be judged, "lost"?

Whose advice would you trust, and based on what record of accuracy and expertise?

Every single person who ever advocated and supported this war has always been wrong about everything. From the presence of Al Qaeda and WMDs, to the amount of troops, money, and time required, to the local reaction, to the strength of the insurgency, to the significance of catching Saddam / killing his sons / holding sundry elections / killing Zarqawi (remember him?).... everything the pro-war position has ever said has been demonstrably and documentarily wrong. That's part of why the majority of this country has rejected that position. But I'm not here to ask a majority question, because that's more a rhetorical point than a logical one. I want to understand the decision-making here. Why do any of you listen to, let alone respect, the doomsaying of Dick Cheney and Bill Kristol? Where does their credibility come from?

I'm glad we are having another argument about whether to go to war with Iraq. Because, that? That, right there? That is relevant today.

> If I had a Dem candidate saying "STAY THE COURSE IN IRAQ" and a
> Repub candidate saying "GET OUT NOW" then I would vote for Dem. It's
> not about party affiliation, . . .

Well, in fact, let's take a look at 2008's most likely Presidential candidates, Clinton and Obama. Both are decidedly, and clearly prowar. Clinton clearly has no regret for her Iraq vote.

If you look at actual votes taken, you'll see that Ds in power actually do support the WoT pretty broadly.

Plenty think that the course of the war needs adjusting, but that's very different from wanting out of Iraq now or thinking the War On Terror is a mistake.

In fact, in 2001, we still had the Senate. Did that hinder passage of the Patriot Act or the Iraq War authorization?

Jon,

Are you familiar with the concept of relevance? It means having a tendency to make a fact of significance more or less likely.

Here the question is: "will the republicans lead us to victory in Iraq?" I think it's fairly obvious that, if the republicans led us into a war we should never have started, then the chances are greater that they will not lead us to victory in that war. Why? Because the flawed decision making that led us in is still operating in the bush white house. And here's another reason: what made the war wrong was, among other things, the substantial likelihood of a very bad outcome.

This is so very obvious to me that I really have to question to intellectual integrity of those who change the subject.

geez, the tediousness of bill and sophie.

Sophie, have you ever even read the Geneva Conventions? Then you know it covers uniformed soldiers and civilians.

Neither of which do unlawful combatants qualify as.

Military tribunals have a long history in the US to try those who do not belong in civilian courts (ex parte Quirin for one).

The Bush Administration did nothing illegal, indeed, when the Hamdan decision came down, SCOTUS stated that, yes indeed, tribunals could be used, but not as then constituted. So, in complying with SCOTUS, they went to Congress and got the appropriate legislation.

And unlawful combatants will be evaluated, and if necessary, tried under its provisions.

You don't treat terrorists as civilians nor as POW's.... that guts the purpose of the Geneva conventions.

Sophie

Dems have offered NOTHING to demonstrate they are committed to success in Iraq.

What, I'm supposed to consider Dems, who supported the war at the beginning, now wringing their hands, gnashing their teeth and engaging in juvenile antics of "We shouldn't have gone!" street theater?

Sweetcheeks, life is not a dress rehearsal. It's a nice academic exercise to look over all the historical data that led UP to our toppling Saddam, but that has not a THING to do with what we do NOW and in the future.

Leaving Iraq now, as Pelosi and Murtha are foresquare behind, would be a disaster. It hands a victory to the Islamists, it betrays the Iraqi people who depend on us, it will embolden Islamists across ME and Europe and it will weaken the US military. (and it will speed up the full Islamization of Europe by at least a couple of generations)

If you don't understand this, then you are still living, like Groundhog Day, at 9/10/01.

Darleen,

I am not familiar enough with the provisions of the geneva convention to argue its terms with you, but I suspect that there is not any provision that excludes enemy combatants from its protections. In fact, I would bet that "civilians" and "pows" were intended to define the universe of people encountered on the battlefield.

When Murtha and others are in power (in January, god willing), they will look at the situation to determine how troops can be drawn down in ways that leave the situation in Iraq as stable as possible. If you believe that Murtha or Pelosi or even Feinstein intend to do something precipitous that could jeopardize remaining troops or Iraqi civilians you are suffering from republican delusions (and probably think Hilary had Vince Foster killed). Statements made by Murtha (I don't even recall Pelosi's statement) in response to Bush's stay the course lunacy do not indicate the manner in which drawing down troops would be achieved.

My main point, Darleen, is that staying will not lead to victory. I think that is fair statement and one with a lot of empirical support. How do you think "staying the course" will lead to victory? Can you describe what victory even means?

am not familiar enough with the provisions of the geneva convention to argue its terms

Then quit attempting to tell everyone what YOU want them to say.

you believe that Murtha or Pelosi or even Feinstein intend to do something precipitous

I'm listening to what Pelosi and Murtha have actually said, not what you want to tell me you think they are saying.

Is there something wrong with taking people at their word?

Like the Islamists that are already telling their followers that a Dem victory is what they want because of the take of immediate withdrawal means the Great Satan has been defeated.

staying will not lead to victory

See, you already contradict everything you stated. The opposite of staying is LEAVING, and leaving will definitely mean defeat for American troops and will put us all in the cross hairs of jihadists.

GROW UP, sophie. For godsake, grow up.

Your blog sucks, Darleen, and your comment is stupid.

Thank you, Roger, for such a mature rebuttal.

TTT,

In answer to your question ("...Would you be comfortable saying that in public, any of you? Would you say it to the parents who have lost children to it? Do you REALLY find that agreeable? Don't mince words. If you think things in Iraq are awesome, be proud and say so."), while I know it wasn't directed at me specifically, I'd have to answer, "yes." I've just come back from my third trip to Iraq (at government expense... Thanks, taxpayers!). Yes, it's a well-run war. It's a war, though, people, so it involves chaos. Chaos, when mixed with IEDs and an inimical foe will result in casualties, both friendly and neutral. It's a war, a war that is run as well as it can be and better than you believe. Before you discount what I say, bear in mind that I've spent roughly seven times as long in combat as Kerry has (yes, I know he's not running... I provide that only for perspective, NOT to imply that having been to combat for more or less time makes ones positions more or less supportable, mind you).

If there was one thing in the Card essay worth carrying away, it's that the petty pissing and moaning and non-rational (dare I say irrational) anti-Bush sentiments have no place in deciding how we spend the next decade or two. You ask, TTT, whose advice we should trust, and based on what track record. That's a darn good question, but I'd suggest that your following paragraph to explain the rhetorical nature of your question lacks in... accuracy.

Let's turn around some of your questions: what compells you to think the democrats have the solution? What track record of laser-like accuracy have they established? What wars have they won (Kosovo, you might say... Hmmm... think harder)? Is it all Nancy Pelosi's war experience? Is it Dean's storied generalship in far-off lands? Is it Murtha's war record (oddly, I've never heard anybody tout anything of his military career other than that he had one).

If Card is so wrong and so shallow, please, TTT, weave a stronger tale than he did to explain the better course. It might be more productive than repeating the jabs, unfounded though they be (and tiresome, too). As somebody above said: this isn't the practice field... it's game day and the time for wishful thinking and hope is long passed.

Yes, it's a well-run war.

Nope, you're wrong.

If Card is so wrong and so shallow, please, TTT, weave a stronger tale than he did to explain the better course.

Card's out of his mind. No reason for anyone to try to better him. Look:

You hear about the power outages in Iraq and it's always somehow Bush's fault. What nobody points out is that these outages come in places where Saddam barely offered electricity at all. The reason the new power systems can't cope is because the newly prosperous Iraqi people are buying -- and plugging in -- vast quantities of electrical appliances they could never afford to buy before! When a town that used to have two dozen refrigerators and washing machines now has two thousand of each, the old power supply is never going to do the job.

Yeah, all that prosperity! It's refrigeratopia there!

Bubba: Sorry to burst your bubble, but, simply mocking his explanation for power outages doesn't really answer Card adequately. In fact, if accurate, his explanation is reasonable. Unless you know he is wrong or doesn't have the data to back up his statement, you aren't doing a good job of making your point.

Bubba: Sorry to burst your bubble, but, simply mocking his explanation for power outages doesn't really answer Card adequately. In fact, if accurate, his explanation is reasonable. Unless you know he is wrong or doesn't have the data to back up his statement, you aren't doing a good job of making your point.

The point isn't about power outages, nitwit, it's about the state of Iraq, which most reasonable people, including the architects of it agree is a massive fuck-up. The point of the choice of the paragraph is that Card, like you, will cherry pick some small detail which may or may not be true (don't know, don't care in this case) to try to make the case for an outrageously lame-brained policy.

You can't burst my bubble if you can't see it for the blinders.

Darleen is correct on the provisions of the Geneva Conventions, and Sophie Brown is missing the third category of people encountered on the battlefield: spies and sabateurs, which are subject to summary execution. Non-uniformed enemy combatants fall into this category, and they have received far better treatment in this war than any previous conflict.

And remember, the US Constitution does not apply to non-citizens captured in a time of war.