Guilt by association...

Powerline (which can do much better than this) quotes at length one of Sen. McCain's top foreign policy advisers, one former CIA Director James Woolsey, on the supposed wrongheadedness of Sen. Obama's intention to return to a more law enforcement-centric method of combating terrorism. That the conservative blog favours McCain's position over Obama's ought to surprise nobody (the merits of both are certainly debatable, and there are plenty of 'experts' supporting each side) but Woolsey appears to be an extraordinarily disreputable source. He was on television the day after Sept. 11 suggesting Iraqi sponsorship of the attacks, and suggested in 2006 that the United States ought to unilaterally bomb Syria.

It ought to also come as no surprise that the Project for the New American Century member may also be a merchant of death, simultaneously supporting the invasion of Iraq (in fact serving on the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq) while also profiting from its prosecution.

Here is Rightweb on Woolsey and his connections: "Former CIA Director James Woolsey is a principal in the Paladin Capital Group, a venture-capital firm that, like [Richard] Perle's Trireme Partners, is soliciting investment for homeland security firms. Woolsey joined consulting firm Booz Allen Hamilton as vice president in July 2002. The company had contracts worth more than $680 million in 2002. Woolsey told the Wall Street Journal that he does no lobbying and that none of the companies he has ties to have been discussed during a Defense Policy Board meeting."

If the guilt-by-association standard is to be applied throughout this election - which I generally don't support - let it be done fairly, to both candidates.

Iraq looks better, but is nowhere near secure

Via The Economist:

"THOUGH still lacerated by the tragedy of the past five years, Iraq is at last getting better all round. The violence, albeit still ferocious in parts of the country, has subsided dramatically. The American military “surge” that began a year ago has worked better than even the optimists had hoped, helped by ceasefires with Shia militias, by accords with Sunni tribal leaders and by the fact that sectarian cleansing in many areas is sadly complete."

Nuance

Saddam Hussein was not Adolf Hitler. Not even close.

Mahmoud Ahmedinejad is not Adolf Hitler. Not even close.

Dopey comments regarding the holocaust do not equal the holocaust.

Anti-Iraq war does not equal pro-Saddam. Pro-Iraq war does not equal war-monger.

Talking to dictators we don't like (that is to say, those who are not already allied to the United States) 'without preconditions' does not equal appeasement. Anyone who speaks out against a war is not Neville Chamberlain.

Moreover, we only use the word 'dictator' when it's a dictator we don't like. One never hears the words 'Saudi Arabian dictator King Abdullah,' nor 'Pakistani dictator Pervez Musharraf.'

Hugo Chavez and Mahmoud Ahmedinejad are not dictators. Both men were democratically elected, and both are subject to checks on their powers - Chavez by the legislature and Ahmedinejad by the Mullahs.

A plague of locusts will not terrorize the land if one's preferred presidential candidate is not elected, Republican or Democrat.

The 'War on Terror' is not World War II redux. Sept. 11 was not Pearl Harbor redux. The Iraq War is not Vietnam redux. Each of these events is more dissimilar than alike, although it's debatable how much more similar one set is than the other.

20th century American foreign policy in the middle east was shameful. In light of this, it's obvious that the terrorists do not hate us directly because they are evil or hate our freedoms, or, as President Bush put it, because we have a democratically elected government. However, in part, they do hate some of what a liberalised society allows that they find sinful. Essentially they are the extreme religious right-wing of the Muslim world - getting back to the basics of the faith because they believe that the mainstream of Islam has strayed from the faith of Muhammed.