"I'll make you a deal: I'll do it for you."

Good. Because "journalists" sure won't. They'll seek any angle (if they do any reporting at all) that will portray Obama's detractors as the cause of any trouble. Joe Biden tells us so. We'll be too stupid to see Obama's "unpopular" decisions as the right decisions.

I can hear that angle now. They're not done with Bush - "This is the result of W's policies!" Rather than Obama's failure to reign in affronts on democracy when "diplomacy" doesn't work.

I loved Peters' prediction of redoubled attempts to silence journalists and that their "crocodile tears in newsrooms will provide drought relief to the entire southeastern US."

neocons sure are snatching this whole storyline up. im just glad it wont be mccain getting tested next year. his judgement is poor and his current campaign makes clear that he farms off far too many of the big decisions to others

I truly hope Ralph Peters is wrong. Unfortunately he is more than likely correct. The ugliness is just waiting for a week president. Remember, Iran held the hostages for a big part of the Carter administration, and only released them when we elected a President the Iranians thought would shoot...

One of the reason's I'll vote for John McCain is he'll put honest effort in keeping terrorists at bay, and I don't think he'll hesitate to shoot.

youre right Matt.as soon as Pres.Regan was sworn in,the 1stAD was mobilized and moved to the railhead. we were ready to go and the Iranians knew it.

So we get Obama tested.

"I'll pick 'Surrender!' for $200, Alex."

"And the answer is, 'the best course of diplomatic action when faced with a threat involving the invasion of territory, akin to Germany's invasion of France in WW1 and WW2'."

"What is, um, abject capitulation?"

"All right. The judges accept that. Next?"

"I'll pick 'Surrender!' for $400, Alex."

"Very well. The answer is - the phrase used by Nixon to describe the withdrawl of US Forces from South Viet Nam, which doesn't make any reference to the aftermath when millions died."

"What is 'Peace With Honor', Alex."

"Not exactly an apt name, but historically correct."

"I'll pick 'Surrender!' for $1,000, Alex."

"In 2009, when Russia invaded and took Georgia over, describe the NATO response, spearheaded by the US."

"Um, ah.... that was send a strong note, suggesting economic repercussions..."

"Please state your answer as a question."

"What was... send a strong note, suggesting economic sanctions if an immediate phased withdrawl wasn't initiated? That's my answer, Alex, for $1000."

"The judges are conferring... NO, I'm sorry. The correct question was 'What was an immediate show of force, sufficient to make Russia back down?' Russia, as you know, doesn't respond well to diplomatic initiatives. That brings you to negative $400 - and you are out of the game."

Daniel Larison tears apart Peters's idiocy quite handily.

Pfft, who does Larison write for, Harper's?

...

Oh.

Remember, Iran held the hostages for a big part of the Carter administration, and only released them when we elected a President the Iranians thought would shoot...

That lie has some impressive legs.

Also, this bit:

Speaking of Joe Biden, he has no appearances today, even with Obama off the trail in Hawaii.

is bullshit. What, did you just make that up?

Biden blitzing Colorado on 2nd day of early voting:

GREELEY, Colo. (AP) Democratic vice presidential candidate Joe Biden is beginning a blitz of communities along Colorado's Front Range on the second day of early voting statewide.

Biden begins his tour at the University of Northern Colorado in Greeley on Tuesday and will visit Commerce City, a northeast Denver suburb, later in the day.

Know, Parthy, Iran didn't hold the hostages for MORE THEN A YEAR. They released because all of a sudden they feared Carter. You lefties are incredible denialists. ww

This isn't the first time Obama's Vice-Presidential pick has labeled Obama as a weak, inexperienced leader. Biden did it in the primaries and, apparently, spending more time with Obama hasn't changed that opinion - as evidenced by Biden's candor this past weekend.

Makes you wonder what he sees that the electorate doesn't, eh _Mike_?

Larison said (in the link mantis provides for us), "Obama will support Israel just as full-throatedly and unequivocally as he did in 2006 during the last war."

Some would beg to differ on that point. (Well worth reading the whole thing)

Constantly saying little more than "Israel has a right to defend herself" is hardly 'full-throated' or 'unequivocal' support. Any nation (yes even Iraq did) has a right to defend itself from attack.

Larison had a couple of good points, but for the most part, his retort was weak.

Constantly saying little more than "Israel has a right to defend herself" is hardly 'full-throated' or 'unequivocal' support.

Nice strawman. First hit from a google search:

The US Israel relationship is rooted in shared interests, shared values, shared history and in deep friendship among our people. It is supported by a strong bipartisan consensus that I am proud to be a part of and I will work tirelessly as president to uphold and enhance the friendship between the two countries. Two years ago I had a chance to travel to Israel and it left a lasting impression on me. I have long understood Israel's great dilemma, it's need for security in a difficult neighborhood and it's quest for peace with its neighbors, but there is no substitute for meeting the people of Israel. Seeing the terrain, experiencing the powerful contrast between the beautiful holy land that faces the constant threat of deadly violence. The people of Israel showed their courage and commitment to democracy everyday that they board a bus or kiss their children goodbye or argue about politics in a local café. And I know how much Israelis crave peace. I know that Prime Minister Olmert was elected with a mandate to pursue it. I pledge to make every effort to help Israel achieve that peace. I will strengthen Israel's security and strengthen Palestinian partners who support that vision and personally work for two states that can live side by side in peace and security with Israel's status as a Jewish state ensured so that Israelis and Palestinians can pursue their dreams.

I also expect to work on behalf of peace with the full knowledge that Israel still has bitter enemies who are intent on its destruction. We see their intentions every time a suicide bomber strikes, we saw their intentions with the katusha rockets that Hezbollah rained down on Israel from Lebanon in 2006 and we see it today in the Kasams that Hamas fires into Israel every single day from as close as Gaza or as far as Tehran. The Defense cooperation between the United States to Israel has been a model of success and I believe it can be deepened and strengthened. Now the gravest threat as Robert mentioned to Israel today I believe is from Iran. There a radical regime continues to pursue its capacity to build a nuclear weapon and continues to support terrorism across the region. President Ahmadinejad continues his offensive denials of the Holocaust and disturbing denunciations of Israel. recently referred to Israel as a deadly microbe and a savage animal. Threats of Israel's destruction can not be dismissed as rhetoric. The threat from Iran is real and my goal as president would be to eliminate that threat.

American Thinker is total joke, Oyster. And Larison destroyed Peters.

Know, Parthy, Iran didn't hold the hostages for MORE THEN A YEAR. They released because all of a sudden they feared Carter. You lefties are incredible denialists. ww

So... the Ayatollah Khomeni was terrified of President Reagan, but the Ayatollah Khameni doesn't care if Tehran gets nuked, because that's all in Allah's plan. Do I have that right?

Mantis,

You may think "Larison destroyed Peters", but that's hardly the case. You may want to believe Larison's unsubstantiated/poorly substanciated opinions more than Peters' opinions but that in no way means Peters was destroyed by Larison.

I, and I believe a lot of others who are not suffering from BDS, would say that Peters' projections are not at all unlikely.

Also Peters didn't fill his piece with weasel words like Larison did. Larison's piece practically debunks itself with all the hedging, hemming, and hawing. Hell half the time Larison agreed with Peters then argued against himself. Not what a reasonalbe person would call "destruction".

But that's just my opinion.

And Parth, you're making absolutely no sense.

What SPECIFICALLY is the lie in the following statement?

"Remember, Iran held the hostages for a big part of the Carter administration, and only released them when we elected a President the Iranians thought would shoot..."

Mr. Bunyan:

This bit-

"Remember, Iran held the hostages for a big part of the Carter administration, and only released them when we elected a President the Iranians thought would shoot..."

Granted, the lie would be more clear had the word 'when' be replaced with 'because.' I believe the author of the comment implied that the Iranians released the hostages out of their fear of President Reagan, although I will grant that he could have meant that the two were simply two events connected only by coincidence. If what he meant was the former, then he lied.

You may want to believe Larison's unsubstantiated/poorly substanciated opinions more than Peters' opinions but that in no way means Peters was destroyed by Larison.

Peters was destroyed because Larison showed how utterly idiotic Peters's basic assumptions were (not to mention his basic misunderstanding of many foreign countries, their people, and their governments), as they are based in his own paranoid delusions rather than reality. As Larison points out, there is zero substance to any of Peters's criticisms.

Also Peters didn't fill his piece with weasel words like Larison did.

Smart people tend not to talk with absolute certainty when making predictions. Stupid people, like Chicken Lit...er, Peters, stick with absolutes.

his judgement is poor and his current campaign makes clear that he farms off far too many of the big decisions to others

peabody3000,

You're a fuggin' twit, aren't ya? "Farms off"! LOL!

Why did the Iranians release the hostages on the day Regean became President, Parth?

see #4 above Parth.