Announcing the announcement

Hillary Clinton sent out an e-mail to her supporters early this morning (not quite at "3:00 AM," but close!) declaring her intention to announce Saturday that she'll endorse Obama. This is the old "announcing the announcement" trick, and it raises the question: If you tell everyone you're going to endorse somebody, doesn't that mean you've already endorsed him?

Here's the key language:

On Saturday, I will extend my congratulations to Senator Obama and my support for his candidacy. This has been a long and hard-fought campaign, but as I have always said, my differences with Senator Obama are small compared to the differences we have with Senator McCain and the Republicans.

I have said throughout the campaign that I would strongly support Senator Obama if he were the Democratic Party's nominee, and I intend to deliver on that promise.  ...

I will be speaking on Saturday about how together we can rally the party behind Senator Obama. The stakes are too high and the task before us too important to do otherwise.

If Hillary were a run-of-the-mill superdelegate, I think this e-mail, signed by the candidate herself, might be enough for the media to declare her to have "endorsed" Obama, as of this morning. (For instance, many news organizations started counting Jimmy Carter in Obama's superdelegate column Tuesday afternoon, after Carter said publicly that he would endorse Obama later that night.)

But in Hillary's case, the media seems to be mostly playing along with the concept that announcing that you're going to announce something isn't quite the same as actually announcing that thing. Hence the headlines that begin with phrases like: "Clinton promises," "Clinton plans," "Clinton to endorse," "Clinton will bow out." All future tense, not present tense.

The take by Gawker and Wonkette, however, is more blunt and immediate. "Hillary Clinton Drops Out In 2 AM Email," declares Gawker. "Hillary Quits," writes Wonkette. "Hillary Clinton just conceded in a 2 a.m. email to supporters. She concedes, finally!"

Frankly, I think Gawker and Wonkette are on to something here. It would be different if "endorsing" or "suspending" or "dropping out" or "quitting" or "conceding" had some technical, procedural meaning, and thus required certain formalized steps to make them official. But they don't. They're just words. "I endorse." "I concede." "I quit." So, if you reveal that you're going to endorse -- if you concede that a concession is forthcoming -- haven't you just, in fact, endorsed and conceded?

In view of this, I'm going to remove the "Obama clinches" countdownup from the sidebar. I don't think it serves much of a purpose anymore.

P.S. On the non-existent distinction between "suspending," "conceding," and "dropping out," here's what DemConWatch wrote when Edwards dropped out:

There is no first-ballot "vote for your candidate" rule at the Democratic Convention. Technically, any delegate is free to vote for any candidate on any ballot. ... Therefore, there is no such thing as a "legal" release of delegates. There is a political "release" - almost all delegates will vote for their candidate unless their candidate tells them they don't have to. But from a Rules point of view, a "release" of delegates mean nothing.

And therefore, it doesn't matter whether Edwards "ended" his campaign or "suspended" it as far as his delegates go. My guess is he will tell any delegates he has left that they can vote for who they want, or he could endorse someone and tell his delegates to vote for that person. But it doesn't matter from a rules point of view. They can vote for anybody at any time anyway, regardless of what Edwards did or say today or does in the future.

And, with regard to the current situation, Marc Ambinder writes:

A note on terminology: some news outlets will report that Clinton will "suspend" her campaign; others may report that she will "concede" to Obama; other will report that she is "dropping out."

It's ok to use "dropping out." 

She doesn't officially lose her delegates until they vote for someone else at the convention, so she could always jump back in. There's no paper you sign that magically waives away your delegates, and there will be plenty of them, I'd bet, who, if you ask them next week, insist they'll vote for Hillary.

But there's no need to parse ... aides and advisers say that she's conceding the race and endorsing Obama.

After Friday, virtually all of the staff will be gone. Not furloughed, but gone. Clinton will have conceded the race by Saturday, will have endorsed Obama, and will stop campaigning. For her, the race is over.

If Clinton does for some reason use the word "suspend," instead of some more final word, it will be a rhetoric feint, one that is sure to further anger the Obama campaign.

But Ben Smith writes:

A couple of readers asked what it meant that Hillary would suspend, rather than end, her campaign.

Basically, it's a technicality, the most important part of which is that she can keep raising money to pay off debts.

So, if Smith is right, it's a campaign-finance distinction, but it otherwise makes no difference.

P.P.S. Incidentally, Gawker's post concludes, "Wait: Clinton is massing thousands of supporters in DC to suddenly 'concede?' That means she's really attempting a coup or something, right?" Heh.

UPDATE: Meanwhile, Linda Platt parces the e-mail and notices what Hillary didn't say, namely: "On Saturday, I will extend my congratulations to Senator Obama on winning the Democratic nomination for President of the United States and offer my whole-hearted support for his candidacy."

True, she doesn't say that stuff outright, but she tacitly says it. At this juncture, I'm not sure Platt's point is all that important. The test will be what Clinton actually says on Saturday, and beyond. Will she actually try to undo the damage she's done? I repeat:

There will be more developments like these [i.e., Clinton supporters publicly declaring they'll support for McCain, stay home in November, or write in Hillary's name], and no matter what she says publicly about "unity," Hillary can't wash her hands of them. She created this monster. If you tell people, over and over again (even unto the very night that your opponent clinches victory!), that their votes aren't being counted, that they aren't being "respected," that they're "invisible," and that their chosen candidate, despite having lost, is the legitimate winner -- no matter how untrue all of those things are -- many of them are going to start believing what you're telling them. Hillary's dead-woman-walking "campaign" has become one giant Big Lie.

At this point, the only way Hillary can even begin to redeem herself is by aggressively countering this stuff -- not merely by dropping out and endorsing Obama, which she will inevitably do at some point, but by explicitly walking back her combative, divisive rhetoric. She needs to passionately make the case to her supporters, particularly women, that Obama's their man, and McCain isn't. She needs to find a plausible way to openly contradict her past statements about "elitism," electability, the "commander-in-chief test," and so forth. She needs to be the one who convinces her supporters that Obama is really and truly the legitimate nominee, that the "popular vote" doesn't matter, that nobody was "disenfranchised," that no one is "disrespecting" her "18 million" supporters. Above all, she needs to make perfectly clear that she was not robbed, that she lost fair and square.

She needs to do all this, irrespective of the fact that it will leave some of her most fervent supporters feeling "betrayed." She can't use their fragile emotions as an excuse, because she created those emotions with her shameless demagoguery. (That's what demagoguery does. That's its whole purpose.) Like I said: she created the monster. Some of the damage she's done is irreparable, which is why she can never fully be forgiven for her actions. But she can take a small step toward reconciliation by undoing as much of the damage as possible.

Somehow, though, I don't think she'll be walking back her rhetoric on any of these key points. Oh, she'll make the case for Obama on policy, and argue that he's better than McCain, for the sake of appearances. But, having planted the "she was robbed" seed in her supporters' brains, she'll let them stew about it, and she'll tell herself that if they want to stay home -- or vote for McCain -- because of that, well, there's nothing she can do. Like so much of what she says, that's a lie. But maybe it'll let her sleep at night.

Needless to say, I'll be watching closely to see what she actually does and says. So will a lot of other people.

Comments

[Becky]

yawn! there are tens of thousands of people dying a slow, agonizing death from starvation in Burma and we're discussing the difference between suspend and concede.

[Angrier and Angrier]

Interesting how nobody is talking about Burma anymore. Sad and pathetic.

[Andrew]

Sorry A&A, I'm still licking my wounds from being labeled a bad person for suggesting that the military junta is evil and responsible for the suffering of the Burmese people when the cyclone had just hit and I apparently should have been focused only on prayer vigils. Lord knows the Burmese people would be so much better off right now if I had lit a few candles in a grotto than if the American military had taken the devastated area by force and opened the door for aid to flow directly to the people.

[Medina]

How exactly will blogging about Burma, to the exclusion of all other topics, help the people of Burma?

Is it possible to blog about politics and still "help" Burma too? Is it possible one can do both?

Ok, now I'm not going to talk about the concession and that will most assuredly help the Burmese people.

[Angrier and Angrier]

Andrew-

I actually agree with you on this. I don't think the U.S. should overthrow the junta (though it deserves to be). I think U.S. forces should accompany aid shipments into the country. If the junta attacks, we blow their palaces, etc, to shit.

[Angrier and Angrier]

FYI - Apparently Clinton hasn't told Obama she is planning to concede. He had to learn it from news reports.

The contempt this woman is displaying is unbelievable. Apparently Charlie Rangle and Rahm Emmanuel had to tell her she was going to lose all support if she didn't do this. She is truly a narcissistic nut job.

[Becky]

Medina, indeed, it is possible to blog about politics and still care about Burma. However, it seems to me that the vast majority of the press is obsessed with Clinton's posturing to the exclusion of ANY talk whatsoever about the plight of the Burmese people. Brendan's obsession with Clintonian rhetoric is a microcosm of what's happening in the larger media and I think it reflects a failure of the media to parse what constitutes an important story versus what constitutes Hillary Clinton eeking out one last moment in her fading spotlight.

[Julie]

Other folks must be thinking along the same lines...Foxnews.com now has a front page "exclusive" on Burma's continuing struggles and the government's coverup.

[Sandy Underpants]

Forget Burma, we should be talking about how Republicans (like Joe Mama) think that 'only' losing 8 Soldiers in the past 5 days (and 187 this year so far) represents success in Iraq.

[Andrew]

Sandy, so success is determined solely by body counts and wars should be fought, justified, and judged solely by how many American soldiers were lost?

[Angrier and Angrier]

I only heard a brief mention on the radio that the U.S. is turning all aid shipments away from Burma now.

Of course, given her husband's abject failure on Rwanda, maybe Hillary could use this moment in the spotlight to say, "I'm making an announcement on Saturday. However, in the meantime, I strongly encourage the news media to focus on the plight of the Burmese people."

But then that would be Presidential, wouldn't it?

[Joe Mama]

Forget Burma, we should be talking about how Republicans (like Joe Mama) think that 'only' losing 8 Soldiers in the past 5 days (and 187 this year so far) represents success in Iraq.

Right, because that's exactly what I said. It couldn't be that I think there are positive trends in Iraq, or that insurgent attacks hit a 4-year low in mid-May, or that there could possibly be anything else encouraging going on in Iraq besides 8 soldiers being killed in the last 5 days . . . no, I must think we've had "success in Iraq" because "only" 8 soldiers were killed in the last 5 days.

Tell me again why Sandy and other like-minded f*cknozzles should be taken seriously?

[Jim]

NPR this morning made it a point to note that she *wasn't* endorsing and specifically *wasn't* 'releasing' her delegates.

Not even in just the parsing sort of way, but they stated that Clinton's staff were incredibly careful with their wording.

Knowing Clinton, I think their analysis might be more accurate... that perhaps she isn't giving up on the possibility of trying to do something in Denver.

That said, I think the party leadership might/should step in and make it clear to her that trying an August surprise might not be in the best interests of her career.

[Angrier and Angrier]

Many of her Super Delegates and senior staffers are already going over to Obama's side. She may want to try something in Denver, but I doubt there will be any stomach or desire to do so. Hillary is done. Hopefully Obama wins in November so we will never have to deal with her being a Presidential Candidate ever again.

[Megan D]

We don't take them seriously do we Joe? ;-)

[Marty West]

Joe Mama,

I believe you posted this the other night:
It's certainly not a lie. Marty's WashPo link is outdated. Try this one, it's more current.

Posted by: Joe Mama | Jun 3, 2008 9:59:45 PM

There was a hyperlink in there citing an 'upturn' in Iraq. Turn off FauxNews.

[Marty West]

And for the record...my link was not outdated. It was from May 1st.

[Marty West]

Soldiers dying is not progress. Apaches killing civilians is not progress. Soldiers raping Iraqi women is not progress. Civil war is not progress.

Until you can show me that those listed above ARE progress I will continue to be against this wasteful war.

[Andrew]

Marty, that has to be the most asinine reductio ad absurdum posted on this website since ... Sandy's ridiculous remark. Where is this supposed civil war? How are examples of soldiers raping Iraqi women any more relevant than Marines raping Okinawan women? In what war were the deaths of soldiers and civilians completely avoidable? By your ridiculous logic, we should have abandoned the fight for Europe after the astonishing bloodbath we endured on D-Day (which, despite its strategic success, was full of tactical blunders that cost tens of thousands of lives). The unbelievable amounts of civilian deaths due to the firebombing of Tokyo surely must've indicated we were losing the war in the Pacific and that the war was unsupportable and wasteful. We should also withdraw our military presence in Japan because soldiers committing rape is "not progress".

Could you be a bigger dumbass?

[Joe Mama]

No, apparently Marty can't. Not to pile on here, but

(1) The hyperlink in question which I provided in that previous thread with the headline of an "upturn" in Iraq was to the WASHINGTON-F*CKING-POST, not "FauxNews"; and

(2) That hyperlink was dated May 30, so yes, your link from May 1 is outdated!

Honestly . . .

[Alasdair]

Joe Mama and Andrew - you are persisting in reacting to Sandy Underpants and Marty West as though they present ratinal positions ...

Now, if you are responding for amusement, go for it ... but to react to them as though they were rational, well, ain't exactly rational beahviour ...

Still, it won't stop 'em continuing to be themselves - and is there a greater punishment possible ?

Personally, I find that the quickest way to cause folks like them to change the subject is to ask about the Civil War in our major US cities, where the murder counts are WAY higher in each of several cities than the counts in Iraq ... as soon as I ask when we should pull out of New York or Los Angeles based upon the Civil-War-level body counts there, they start talking/typing about something else ...

[Alasdair]

When a Clinton parses language that tightly, you *know* there's something else as-yet-unspoken ...

So - do we think that Friday, about 6 PM East Coast, the contents of some FBI files will be 'leaked' ? Or is there some other as-yet-unvoiced little gift for the Obama campaign with its fuse growing shorter and shorter even as we speculate ?

Or will whatever it is to be break, far from Senator Clinton, *while* she is expressing how the Party must work together to get the Democratic Party nominee elected ?

[Jim]

Alasdair: They might start talking about something else until someone points out that you are being either intentionally or accidentally dishonest in saying New York or Los Angeles having higher body counts. In 2006, the city per-capita was Detroit, with 47 murders or non-negligent manslaughters per 100,000 people.

Iraq, on the other hand, in 2007 saw it's worst area have 255 deaths per 100,000. To look at the entire countries comparatively, according to the IBC for the whole USA in 2006 saw approximately 5/100k deaths while Iraq saw 89/100k.

If you think you are lucky, and that maybe violence so far this year has gone down, *perhaps* (although I wouldn't bet on it) if you take all of Iraq and compare it to the single worst shit hole in America, you might be close to being right.

[Youngblai]

Quick notes, as we're about to have Mother Nature start rearranging the furniture outside.

1.) Iraq. It is getting better. Quoting statistics is futile (for both sides) as, you know, it's a country the size of California. If I were in, say, Watts I'd be convinced that the entire California justice system was ineffective, gang warfare was rampant, and anarchy was well within range. However, if I were say, in Santa Monica--not so much. Iraq, once you guys are done partisan sparring, is the same. In the north right now, it's really pretty good. In Baghdad, not so much.

2.) That being said, the reason we're even having this debate is no one (to include the idiot who should be doing so) can clearly explain what victory is or why it is in our best interest to just lose. In short, even though we're making progress, it's been 5 years and, yeah, people would like to know three things:

a. Why are we burning money on a country that, while it was an ardent supporter of terror, did _not_ attack us on 9/11?

b. What is our plan to _stop_ burning money?

c. Finally, if the surge is such a great thing, why didn't we do it in the first place?

Since Bush seems to be content to just run out the string, maybe it's time for both sides to start acting like adults and solve this problem rather than scoring cheap political points off one another, calling names, and basically trying to make political hay off our soldiers.

3.) Speaking of our soldiers, all of you who think intervening in Burma is a capital idea need to explain to me where we're getting the necessary combat power. Because, yes, if you fly armed aircraft along with the aid planes fully intending to throw down if there's so much as a peep from the crazy junta, _you are invading_. In addition to being unconstitutional, ordering this course of action is strategically unsound. The military's purpose is not to make you feel good and help you sleep better at night, it is to impose America's will in the national interest.

3.) Why isn't it in the national interest? Because Myanmar _is a sovereign nation_. Once again for the reading impaired--you don't get to invade sovereign nations because their government is doing something you don't like with regards to their own people. This sets bad precedent, and it's how you end up with the United States / U.N. having to act as the arbiter of what's a "good invasion" versus a "bad invasion." Would you want Saudi Arabia invading us because, hey, we allow Islam to be insulted? No? Then why is it okay for us to arbitrarily decide our value system is okay to impose on others? In a part of the world where Western nations kinda have a bad reputation (you know, memories of colonialism and all that)?

I would at least argue that genocide is a reasonable exception (as people who start offing certain groups of folks sometimes have trouble stopping at international borders), but gross government malevolence is not. Especially when it's going to really piss off China, who will be happy to see us inherit another big mess.

4.) People die, it happens, and if you _know_ you're going to starve to death then maybe it's time to throw a revolution. Die on your feet and all that. I can't see myself justifying asking our men and women to go throw down with the junta's soldiers, be responsible for completely renovating Burma, etc., etc. when it is _not our problem_. While this may sound cold-blooded and churlish, I find it amazing that people who probably think Bush is a simpering moron for invading Iraq and not finishing Afghanistan think it's a good idea to spearhead another intervention.

Let me tell you, if there was ever a time I wish our government would allow the foundation of mercenary entities or volunteer forces (ala the Abraham Lincoln brigade in the Spanish Civil War), it is when reading the caterwauling going on in this comment's section. Contribute to the Red Cross, donate to Doctors Without Borders, but do not ask _me_ to volunteer my tax dollars or our soldiers to take on yet another task of Heracles because you just can't harden your hearts and accept that you can't save everyone.

[Youngblai]

P.S. Yes, I know there are two "3s" up there, but I think I just heard the neighbor's trash can go flying by so I was in a hurry.

[David K.]

Jim, its useless pointing things like that out to Alasdair. We've allready tried to explain to him the difference between raw number of deaths vs. deaths per 1000 people. He just refuses to get it. He thinks 10 people dying in a town of 100,000 is worse than 1 person dying in a town of 100.

[Alasdair]

Jim - I am looking at the statistics as someone who spent his first 21 years in a country (of over 50 million population) where the annual murder rate for the entire country didn't excedd triple digits ...

And I emigrated to a country where more than a handful of cities in that new country (of 200+ million population) had and continue to have annual murder rates in the high triple digits ...

I don't believe in using cherry-picked statistics (except when they are someone else's - and then I'll use valid, well-supported statistics to blow David's out of the water) ...

And, yes, I do think that 10 people being murdered in a town of 100,000 is worse than 1 person dying of natural causes in a village of 100 ... except for those in the 99 still living in the village who lost a valued family member or friend - for them, that single loss is worse ...

Of course, you can quote horrible number sfrom Iraq in 2007 ... our political process over here had just fed the Islamic Fundamentalists the hope that they could pull another Vietnam War out of the defeats they had been encountering ... so they stepped up their efforts, to make the continuation of Gulf War I as unpalatable as possible with as high a gory body count as they could achieve ...

Our side learned from mistakes, and the surge was started ... and the numbers in 2008 do seem to indicate that, if one is honestly going to call Iraq a quagmire and a second Vietnam and that we have to pull out, then to be equally honest, when do we pull out of Detroit (to use your example city) ? After all, for how many DECADES has the Detroit murder body count been as high as it is ? Yet, somehow, no-one rational calls it a Civil War, no-one rational says we have to pull out of Detroit ... (OK, well, not often, and they are usually not being serious) ...

[Sandy Underpants]

Andrew, stick to the topic. Certain people (Joe Mama) continue to judge the war is going well based on bodycounts and criminal data with a 2 week window, that is why I'm pointing out the truth. May had the lowest number of deaths in Iraq, true, but April had the most over the prior 6 months, and June is already averaging 1.5 US Soldier deaths per day. And if you don't care about bodycounts, ask family members of dead soldiers if bodycounts don't matter.

Joe Mama, you've been saying everything is getting better in Iraq for 5 years running and if it was up to you you'd be repeating the same lies for the next 15 years as well. Luckily, Americans are taking out the Republican trash and maybe things will improve in Iraq, like when we stop wasting money on this mess.

Alice, If you are presenting a rational point of view, you might want to ask yourself why 80% of Americans are opposed to continuing the war (e.g. on my side not yours).

[Alasdair]

Youngblai - I hope you're able to read this (from within a home where the creature comforts still exist) ...

"That being said, the reason we're even having this debate is no one (to include the idiot who should be doing so) can clearly explain what victory is or why it is in our best interest to just lose." - you are describing the function of the Newspapers of Record and the Netwroks of Record ... and the only problem is that there are very few Newspapers of Record left ... we have a bunch of Editorial Broadsheets of Sort-of Record - but they have eschewed journalism and reporting of stories, and are instead editorialising on cherry-picked sound-bites and leaks ...

There was a time when, even though the editors hated to do so, they would still report fully in the newspapers ... their journalism might include an expression of bias, but they would upfront say that first, here are the facts - and then they would toss in the occasional gratuitous editorial comment ...

Now, the front page might as well be the editorial page, for most newspapers - and their online presence simply follows that lead ...

It all very convenient (and, for some, emotionally satisfying) to blame the current President for failing to get the message out about things - and yet, since the current President doesn't own the newspapers and networks, he must rely upon the newspapers and networks to get the message out ... and they ain't doing it worth diddly ...

[Sandy Underpants]

Alice, you blame everyone Except the guy responsible. Bush can speak to the press or, put on the president's homepage, what the goals are in the war with Iraq, there is no such thing, never has been. The UN weapons inspectors in Iraq told Bush not to start a war because everything that happened, would happen and there was no WMD, Bush didn't listen. Guilty, hang the mother-f'er

Loosely stated, Bush wanted to Disarm Iraq-- Done. Bush wanted Regime change-- Done. Bush wanted a democratic process in place for Iraqis-- Done.

All Bush says today is, "We have to stay the course", but he's never articulated what that course is. It's not hard, if there is a course or a goal, but there is not one. At least not one worthy of sharing with Americans.

"Stay and die" Republicans are dying, thank god.

[Jim]

So, uh, I missed where you admitted that you were wrong, because, uh, you got proven wrong.

[Alasdair]

Sandy - if you ever manage to get past whitehouse.com and actually read what's at whitehouse.gov, you'll see that he has put "on the president's homepage, what the goals are in the war with Iraq" ...

The MSM, however, in the main, hasn't taken those things and put them on the easily-accessible public record ... they managed "Abu Ghraib, Every Day" on the front page for months, but when did you last see the US goals for Iraq enumerated in print anywhere the MSM might expect readers to actually read 'em ?

Bush has articulated the goals many times, and some of those goals shifted as new information came to light ... from his famous 2003 SOTU to the current surge, the MSM has had to be dragged kicking and screaming and with the ululating whine of the waahhhhmbulance to print things even remotely favourable to US efforts in Iraq ... contrast that with the current fawning over Obama ...

If Bush had as much cooperation from the MSM as Obama has been getting, people would be feeling a whole lot better about how Life is going ... and, yes, I just payed over $70 to fill up my car's gas tank a couple of days ago ...

[Alasdair]

Jim - before you declare "Mission Accomplished", realise that *you* are the one who specified "body counts", not me ...

The thread discussion specified numbers of Americans being killed ... I pointed out that comparative numbers of Americans are dying annually in US cities ... you then tried to shift the discussion to "body counts" from IBC - which is not numbers of Americans killed, it's number of civilians killed ... I took a look at the IBC site and found it interesting ... not relevant, yet interesting ...

"The first 8 months of 2007 saw the most massive vehicle bomb-based attacks in Iraq’s history, and occurring with greater frequency than ever. There were 20 bomb attacks killing over 50 (in one case, over 500) civilians in 2007, compared to 12 in 2006 and 17 in all of 2003 to 2005. However, there have been no further vehicle bomb attacks of this scale since August 2007." - which shows at least two interesting correlations ... in the first 8 months of the Democratic-controlled Congress, massive vehicle bombings went up by levels signficant enough for IBC to comment on the rise ... then, the Surge started on June 15, 2007 and hit its peak in September - and "there have been no further vehicle bomb attacks of this scale since August 2007" ... amazing how these little coincidences can occur, isn't it ?

So, Jim, would you like to compare apples to apples ? In terms of American fatalities, how do Iraq and homeland murder rates compare ?

[Youngblai]

1.) Re: Iraq. Hello, is this thing on? Folks, things are getting _better_ in Iraq. This does not mean victory is right around the corner. Likewise, however, it does not mean that we are in the pit of despair because x number of soldiers died now versus later.

Here's a newsflash--_people die in war_! (See part about why I'm soooo opposed to going into Myanmar.) There's a reason it should be the _last resort_, as it's not a videogame, there isn't a reset button, and you can't turn around and say, "Whoa, sorry, didn't intend for that to happen."

Do I sound glib? Yes, I am. Because everyone I know who has died in this war _knew the gig going in_. Our soldiers realize they may die in training, much less in a war zone. It happens, part of the price of doing business, and I know of at least two of the folks whose "deaths" Sandy et. al. so loudly yell about who would probably kick your a** for using their sacrifice in a political argument.

2.) That being said, the only time that it is BS for a soldier to die is when it has happened needlessly. From "Hey, I know, let's not send enough troops to make it a fair fight!" to "You go to war with the Army you have...", the Bush Administration _F-ed this up_. As in, "I won't even have to get out my calculator to do this calculation, Mr. President--you're making Lyndon Johnson look strategically astute."

We're not talking f-ed up in a, "Well sh*t, how was I supposed to know McClellan couldn't fight his way out of a wet paper sack?!" sorta way but in a, "Do you know enough not to stick the knife in the light socket? Yes? Then you should've known not to do x, y, and z"-sorta way." No, this is NOT Monday Morning QBing, either--this is sh*t that was getting brought up _before the war_. So, yeah, the reason why certain individuals are able to carp for political gain is because this Administration has screwed up the Executive Branch's fundamental Constitutional task (slaying the Republic's enemies) so badly no one trusts them anymore.

3.) The reason why I am so hard on the President is that it is his _job_ to seize the bully pulpit and beat people with it. Can't get airtime? Fine, restrict the press's access to the White House. They don't want to air your speeches in prime time? Fine, cut off their flow of information while opening the floodgates for their competitors. Throw heat high and inside and no matter how hostile the press, the information flow will be there.

The issue is not the hostile press, it's that our current President leads poorly. We were brutally attacked on September 11 and his response was...oh, that's right, go shop. Wait, I'm sorry, we're the F---G United States--when people attack us, we b*tch slap them across oceans, continents, and stretches of airspace, nuke them twice, change their governments, then make them into our carbon clones. We don't..."shop." Or, at least, that's what I _thought_ we did, but instead we go beg the jacka**es who did it to us for more oil, let the mastermind get away, and then go settle old scores. But hey, can't let two men marry, that'd be bad.

Bottom line: The reason why 80% of Americans want to tuck their tail and go home (and trust me, that _is_ what we're doing) is because the jacka** in charge ran a perpetual campaign through 2006 then suddenly realized he might want to get his crap together lest he be remembered as a terrible President. I can't blame my fellow countrymen for wanting to quit Iraq, as if there's one thing bad leadership does is it makes you want to say "F it" to whatever task you're trying to accomplish.

However, I can blame them for using the names and service of people I called friends as their justification. I can also blame them for not wanting to own up to the fact that they will be condemning thousands of Iraqis to death, destroying our prestige, and basically unleashing an entire chain of unforeseen consequences because their _tired_. If you want to leave Iraq, at least have the personal intestinal fortitude to own up to it and say, "We're leaving you to your own devices because your well-being is no longer worth one more dollar or one more American soldier in our estimation. Hope you die quickly and early in the ensuing civil war."

But this "let's quote statistics" is just an inane mental circle jerk that serves no purpose other than making your 10th grade math teacher happy.