I hate to keep up with the whole same-sex marriage thing, but the comparison here is too apt. If I marry another guy, there will be benefits to me and to the parts of society who support us (family, friends, sympathetic souls). However, opponents of same-sex marriage think that despite whatever benefit to me, the very concept is objectionable enough that it should be prevented. See how that works? Even if good things are happening in Iraq, those who oppose the war still oppose the war on the same grounds that we opposed it on in March. And some of us are capable of a level of complexity of thought -- though it's difficult, I admit -- that we can applaud the good that's been done over there while continuing to object to the manner in which we got involved. We can continue to ask for accountability even as we're wishing the servicemembers and the Iraqi people well. And we can admit that we're bound by honor and decency (not to mention our significant financial investment) to stay in Iraq till the job is done, even as we look for ways to make sure we never get bamboozled into a situation like this again.

Well put, John. Since nuanced thought obviously isn't much appreciated on the right (they’ve cynically realized it doesn’t sell as well as simple-mindedness in the marketplace of ideas), it's not surprising they wouldn't acknowledge it on the left. Black and white caricature is so much easier. "Yer either fer it or agin it".

John, I find it amazing you manage to make everything about gay issues. Really. If Dean posted a comment about his favorite paper towels, you would manage to turn it around in some manner to relate it to your own personal phobia.

Get a grip, dude.

shep: it's things like that, that really make me lose the respect I gained from you from intelligent posts. If nothing else, hasn't it ever occured to you that conservatives can make the same claim about the liberal stance on the war?

(FWIW, I'm not a conservative. The closest I come is something like Jacksonian/Federalist/libertarian/Keep Your Damn Nosy Hands To Yourself-ian)

In fact, I get really irritated when either side of the debate starts speaking as if the other side is collectively stupid. I also get irritated when I do silly things (as above) when I fall into the trap of describing some sort of bi-polar debate where there are only two positions: conservative/liberal. There's a fair amount of variety on each side.

Yes, there have been some really asinine pro-war posts even here on Dean's World. But there have been just as many asinine anti-war posts as well.

Which brings me back to your comment above: are you trying to engage in debate, or just insult people you disagree with? I think it's pretty hypocritical to pat yourself on the back about your nuanced position,then imply that conservatives simple-minded. Wouldn't you say it's simple-minded when you don't even bother to take honest stock of your opponent's position, or their reasoning?

In point of fact, nuanced is not always good. Simple is not always bad. It depends... (always my favorite answer {g}) In fact, I will say that emphasizing the nuances of a situation is just as bad as emphasizing a simple, "get it done" attitude all the time.

To segue all the way around to the original thread: do you think it's "nuanced" to constantly hype every single thing that goes wrong in Iraq (reported, for the most part, by folks who remain snugly ensconced in Bahgdad), while rarely -if ever- talking about the good things that are happening? And to bring it around (ohh...) 385 degrees, how can you expect American citizens to build a list of "lessons learned" from this if they don't have regular access to the whole story?

Unless, of course, someone has a vested interest in making sure that the distorted version is accepted as gospel truth...

I am sure that neither of you two do, but I would appreciate it if you would agree that at least an attempt to provide balanced coverage is good for everyone.

I have no problem with someone who opposed the war, but appreciates the good fortune of the Iraquis. But does this justify constantly attacking the current administration on every little detail? Save your ammo for important things, dammit.

Besides, the war's over, ok? Done. Finito. 86'd. Got it? Let's focus on reconstruction, and building an effective exit strategy, ok? Hashing out woulda/coulda/shoulda just wastes time and energy.

Jeez. No kidding Casey. If I had a dime for every time I heard a cheap, shallow, mean-spirited argument out of an anti-war person I'd be a multimillionaire. So many of the arguments against were so paint-by-numbers it was ridiculous.

The personal comments and stereotyoping of those who had nuanced, thoughtful opinions in favor of the war were always a treasure, too. I see those continue to this day.

Casey, that kind of false dichotomy is exactly what I’m talking about: conservative vs. liberal, anti-war vs. pro-war (who is pro-war?), reasonable vs. partisan. Not exactly critical thinking and I'm glad to hear that you're turned off by it as well.

Personally, I haven’t “constantly hype every single thing that goes wrong in Iraq” nor have I heard anyone else do it even though they may be viewed and treated as such. And it’s not “patting yourself on the back” to point out that partisan crap.

I’ve stated the case for war, that I think a really good outcome could justify Iraq policy (even though I disagree with how the administration went about it) and that I thought the war WAS well-waged and it’s aftermath going reasonably well so far. For that, I’m labeled and “anti-war” liberal and had my motives repeatedly disparaged.

Nothing shallow or mean-spirited about it, Dean, although I can see why you would want to dismiss it as such.