Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

John McCain's Shameless Call for Escalation in Iraq

By Allan Uthman, Buffalo Beast. Posted December 15, 2006.


"Straight talking" John McCain's call for thousands more troops in Iraq is just a pathetic ploy to seem like a patriot for the presidential elections.
121506story
John McCain's Iraq Mutiny
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

"I understand the polls show only 18 percent of the American people support my position. But I have to do what's right... In war, my dear friends, there's no such thing as compromise. You either win or you lose." -- Senator John McCain

Funny -- it's the same way with elections.

So John McCain has joined Bush in throwing a shit fit over the Iraq Study Group's recommendations. What's bothering him? Well, it's certainly not the fact that no one who participated in the ISG had the foresight to oppose the war in the first place. McCain yelled at Baker and Hamilton last week because they didn't like his proposal to increase troop strength in Iraq by a number somewhere between 20 and 40 thousand. But the real bone in McCain's increasingly freakish craw? If the ISG recommendations are followed -- an unlikely event considering Bush's classic "whatever" dismissal -- US combat troops will be out of Iraq before McCain has a chance to get his election on.

While McCain's insistence on "re-invading" Iraq and holding out for a miracle has been assailed as unrealistic except by diehard hawks and Bush loyalists, it has also been absurdly misinterpreted as the brave, bold stance of a man who puts the welfare of his nation above his own presidential aspirations. The common take is that McCain is "jeopardizing" his electability by continuing to support an unpopular war. MSNBC's Joe Scarborough said McCain is "swimming against the tide." CNN's Wolf Blitzer gushed that it was "a Profiles in Courage kind of statement." Even the UK press got in on the act, with the Times of London's Bronwen Maddox arguing the report "damages" McCain, making him look "like the nation's maverick, not the next president." Anatol Lieven wrote on the Guardian's website that McCain "seems to have committed himself to a course which could very well cost him the presidency in 2008."

These opinioneers are either lying or stupid. Mainstream journalists are loath to engage in "straight talk" about McCain in deference to his heroic legend. In the simplistic, shorthand narrative of American political coverage, McCain's flashcard has the word "integrity" on it in big red letters. It's as if a few years of torture and imprisonment renders one immune to ambition, vanity or dishonesty for a lifetime. That may sound callous, but the truth is that McCain has time and again proven willing to change his tune on issues of conscience for maximum convenience, and has even admitted as much. In May, McCain told Fox News' Chris Wallace all about it: "I've found in my life that when I do what I think is right... it always turns out in the end OK. When I do things for political expediency, which I have from time to time, it's always turned out poorly."

Asked for an example, McCain elaborated: "I went down to South Carolina and said that the flag that was flying over the state capitol, which was a Confederate flag, was -- that I shouldn't be involved in it, it was a state issue. It was an act of cowardice," he said, admitting he had done it to help his chances in the South Carolina primary and seeming only to regret the act because he "lost anyway."

Early indicators of the depths to which McCain will stoop to win include his freshly appointed campaign manager, professional scumbag Terry Nelson. Nelson, Bush's national political director for his 2004 reelection campaign and an unindicted coconspirator named in Tom Delay's money-laundering indictment, is responsible for the infamous below-the-belt white bimbo ad which helped sink Harold Ford, Jr.'s senatorial campaign this year by exciting the powerful anti-miscegenation Neanderthal demographic in Tennessee. The appallingly racist ad drew so much heat that Nelson was fired by Wal-Mart, but McCain apparently has lower standards.

Further examples of McCain's shamelessness come in the form of flip-flopping: On abortion, from "I would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade, which would then force X number of women in America to [undergo] illegal and dangerous operations" in 1999 to "I do believe that it's very likely or possible that the Supreme Court should -- could overturn Roe v. Wade, which would then return these decisions to the states, which I support" last month. On the gay marriage amendment, from "antithetical in every way to the core philosophy of Republicans" in 2004 to "reconfirming" his support for the same amendment to Baptist gasbag Jerry Falwell and doing two commercials for an Arizona ban. On Falwell himself, who McCain called an "agent of intolerance" only two years ago, only to eat shit at Falwell's Liberty University this year and now supporting teaching the idiot theory of Intelligent Design in schools. McCain opposed Bush's tax cuts, but has since voted to make them permanent.


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: iraq, john mccain

Allan Uthman is the editor of the Buffalo Beast.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from World! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
John McCain's Day Is Over
Posted by: Tom Degan on Dec 15, 2006 12:32 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There once was a time when I took John McCain seriously, can you believe it? Those days are long gone, my friends. Whatever the reasons behind his latest take on the war in Iraq might be, they are all but irrelevant. The fact is this: while a staunch supporter of this obscene war will no doubt receive the republican nomination in 2008, they will not win the general election. Whomever the democrats nominate in a year and a half will be the next president of the United states. (Note to Hillary Clinton: the democratic nomination will go only to someone who opposes this war; give it up, gir)l.

I once had great respect for John McCain. In a party chock full of nuts and half-witted extremists, he at least seemed reasonable. You live and learn, ya know what I mean? John McCain's day has come and gone. folks.

Pray for peace.

Tom Degan
Goshen, NY
"The Rant" by Tom Degan

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» John McCain's Day Is Over Posted by: derfb1
» RE: John McCain's Day Is Over Posted by: cottontail
» RE: WW II analogies Posted by: tiellis
» RE: John McCain's Day Is Over Posted by: symcokid
» RE: John McCain's Day Is Over Posted by: VannaLaRoche
» RE: Iraq Never Attacked America Posted by: edgar_michel
» RE: Iraq Never Attacked America Posted by: Conservasaurus
» RE: Iraq Never Attacked America Posted by: Conservasaurus
» Tell it to the media... Posted by: SteveB
Military Service
Posted by: timebomb734 on Dec 15, 2006 12:49 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why is it that when someone (unless they are john kerry) has served in the military, they cannot be wrong about anything involving foreign affairs? People like to act as if disagreeing with them makes you disrespect military service in general. I must have forgotten that every enlisted soldier gets and education in diplomacy and IR theory with basic training. This happens not just at the level of the federal government (ala John McCain), but even in political discussions between individuals.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Military Service Posted by: paschn
» RE: Military Service Posted by: opeluboy
"...who do you think voters will trust..."
Posted by: Sojourner on Dec 15, 2006 1:41 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yes, that's what it's all about. That's why Bush Jr got elected. And pointing out that McCain needs the war continuing in 2008 is also right. Right out of Orwell's "1984," where the same dynamic of constant warfare somewhere else on the globe justified the domestic suppression.

Right now, voters don't trust anyone. The Demos were elected as the lesser evil. We want someone to trust. But we will settle for a known evil, since we only get to vote for politicians.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» trust you with power? Posted by: zipper696
Hypocritical Piece
Posted by: xi_people on Dec 15, 2006 3:10 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
After railing against other journalists who "don't do their homework" and report falsely on McCain, Uthman then commits the same crime himself with this absurdity:

And a still-roiling quagmire in Iraq would be huge boon for McCain in a run against soft-on-slaughter Democrats, including Hillary Clinton, his most likely opponent.

Has he heard any of those supposedly "soft-on-slaughter" democrats speak on the subject of Iraq in the past year? If so, he would have noted that Hillary is just as blood-thirsty as McCain, and is lusting over "getting tough" with Iran. I'm guessing that doesn't mean just giving the Mullahs a noogie or two.

And notice that he projects Hillary as the "likely" opponent of McCain. I don't know any democrat who is the least bit interested in voting for Hillary as the democratic nominee. Not one. But yet we keep hearing from the so-called "progressive" media that she's some kind of prohibitive favorite. In seeming to criticize McCain, Uthman is doing nothing else than acting as a disinformation agent and imputing a legitimacy to Hillary's presidential ambitions that doesn't exist.

Even thinking about running that woman is pure folly. But the money men and the media are championing her cause, which means that the rest of us should run away from her like a prime Carl Lewis on an Olympic racetrack.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Hypocritical Piece Posted by: cottontail
» RE: Hypocritical Piece Posted by: xi_people
» RE: Hypocritical Piece Posted by: opeluboy
» RE: Hypocritical Piece Posted by: xi_people
» a triangulating asshole. Posted by: zipper696
Call a newspaper by its correct name.
Posted by: colinmeister on Dec 15, 2006 3:49 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is no such newspaper as the The Times of London, just as there is no such newspaper as The London Times. The newspaper is called The Times. I notice that the writer did not refer to The Guardian of London, or maybe that was because he couldn't remember if it was still published in Manchester.

I couldn't see anything else in the article worth commenting on. I suspect John McCain's attempts to gain the Republican Presidential nomination will be as numerous and successful as those by Lyndon Larouche to gain the Democrat one.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Never trust a Republican who opposes torture.
Posted by: kepstein7777 on Dec 15, 2006 3:53 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
He probably has a thumbscrew up his sleeve.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

McCain: Mr. Republican
Posted by: Moonray on Dec 15, 2006 4:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
John McCain is a pathetic political prostitute who will take any position or espouse any nonsensical cause to garner votes from the ignorant, the parochial and the xenophobic.

In short, he's the perfect Republican. And that's why, in all likelihood, he will be our next president.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Blood Lust
Posted by: stephennnn on Dec 15, 2006 4:31 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When the blood lust is upon someone all reason, decency and moral values are cast aside. I blieve that McCain is at that point in his life. Too bad that the the chaos and killing of war has not taught him more. Certainly he does not exhibit the cool, reasoned demeaner of an elder statesman, a quailty sorely needed in the excutive office today.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I can't believe.....
Posted by: custersbud on Dec 15, 2006 4:57 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I actually contributed money, and made phone calls on this guy's behalf in 2000. I won't make the same mistake in '08!

If his kissing Bush's ass for the past 6 years after what Bush's buddies, the Wyle brothers, did to him in the 2000 primaries wasn't enough, now he wants to send more Americans off to the Bush inspired chaos in Iraq.

McCain defines the term political opportunist perfectly. He's a political whore that's sold his soul to be president. Fortunately, it's not gonna happen!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: I can't believe..... Posted by: Conservasaurus
» Clintons..... Posted by: CatDad
» RE: Clintons..... Posted by: seltzer
» Obama Posted by: Conservasaurus
» Obama Posted by: Conservasaurus
» Obama Posted by: Conservasaurus
» Obama - Yikes -- too impatient - N/T Posted by: Conservasaurus
He killed enough people already
Posted by: ng1944 on Dec 15, 2006 5:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
During Vietnam he did not go to jungle and drink
rotten shit as Kery and other regular Joes had to do,
because his father was a big shot.
No they were flying high and dropping napalm bombs
on so called strategic willages.
And because everibody was called to Vietnamese army
14 yers old and up, it was women children and
elderly people left in these villages.
How many thousands or hundred thousands people
he burned alive only god will know.
He is as bloody as his boss Bush, sick warmonger.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Actually, you're insane Posted by: brunowe
» Typical "logic" from you Posted by: brunowe
» Get used to it Posted by: rwa
» Armchair cheerleaders Posted by: mirimac
» Boy Ann, you must be fuming! Posted by: mirimac
» RE: Boy Ann, you must be fuming! Posted by: Conservasaurus
» No it isn't. Posted by: brunowe
» Psychopathic Posted by: rwa
» Et Tu, Brute Posted by: Douglas
maninmoon
Posted by: maninmoon on Dec 15, 2006 5:57 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
McCain is a turncoat. In other words...a traitor.
Didn't you noticed how he "changed" after his threatdown by Bush & Co?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

DAMN FOOL
Posted by: fg on Dec 15, 2006 6:04 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
. . . and that damn fool wants to be President?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

poe
Posted by: janiepoe on Dec 15, 2006 6:15 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
mccain surely has a chip in his head!! ugh! this man is dangerous to america, he supports torture of human beings, he wants more of our sons and daughters in war and deaths path, everybody knows the civil war between saudias and iran is happening in iraq between the shites and sunni's.where are our leaders ?to intervine between these 2 countries and religion? the neo-cons are hiding behind religion for murder,AGAIN!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: poe Posted by: MrAllen
Scandal in 80s?
Posted by: riley on Dec 15, 2006 6:54 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I know that all of us have short memories, what wasn't there a really bad financial scandal involving McCain back in the 80s around the time of the Savings and Loan fiasco? Can anyone refresh my memory?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Scandal in 80s? Posted by: ignition
» RE: Scandal in 80s? Posted by: VZEQICVA
cactusannie
Posted by: ladybugmrg on Dec 15, 2006 7:02 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We call him PANDER BEAR in Arizona because there is no behind he won't lick to grab power.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It's quite simple really . .
Posted by: MAD on Dec 15, 2006 7:38 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
McCain's illogical insistence on throwing more meat into the grinder will be understood in short order. Wait and see which defense contractors, oil companies and other assorted war profiteers get on board McCain's "New And Improved Baghdad Express". AIPAC will surely be taking tickets.

To the outsider, it would appear that McCain is committing political suicide by continuing to support this failed war. McCain is no dummy, so he must know something we don't.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Bush makes a “Clean Break” with the Baker Plan by Mike Whitney
Posted by: rwa on Dec 15, 2006 7:41 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Pressure from the Lobby was not the only factor behind the decision to attack Iraq in 2003, but it was critical. Some Americans believe that this was a war for oil, but there is hardly any direct evidence to support this claim. Instead, the war was motivated in good part by a desire to make Israel more secure." ( John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt)


Poor Ehud Olmert.

A couple of weeks ago every thing was hunky-dory. The Palestinian death-toll had just topped 400, 1,000 or so homes had been demolished by Israeli bulldozers, the main power station in Gaza had been knocked-out, the blockade of food and medicine was still going strong, and the IDF was gearing up for another rampage through the occupied territories.

In Lebanon, Pierre Gemeyal had just been assassinated; making it easier for the US and Israel to continue hectoring Syria at the UN. And, in Iraq, the American army was busy transforming the once-vibrant Iraqi society into an ungovernable slaughterhouse headed for decades of anarchy.

All in all, things were looking pretty rosy for Olmert.

The neocon master-plan, "A Clean Break: a New Strategy for Securing the Realm", appeared to be lurching forward according to plan and it was beginning to look like the whole Middle East would be converted into a balkanized hodge-podge of warring factions, armed militias and Islamic extremists killing each other well into the next millennia.

Only one country would prevail in this tempestuous stew of battling factions and broken states; Israel, the soon-to-be dominant power in the entire region...

But Olmert’s plans appear to have hit a few well placed speed-bumps; sending the neocon bandwagon rumbling towards the cliff. The first setback was the Baker-Hamilton report which grabbed headlines across the country and restarted the national debate about the withdrawal of combat troops from Iraq. Baker aptly summarized the Iraqi fiasco as a "grave and deteriorating" crisis in which military victory is no longer possible. The report galvanized the public and sent Bush’s approval ratings through the floor. According to a new CBS News Survey only 4% of the American public now thinks that "the US should keep fighting as it is now" while 75% "disapprove" of Bush’s handling of the war. A mere 21% of the public still supports Bush’s handling of the war.

As for Olmert, the prospect of an American troop withdrawal signals the end of his regional ambitions. There’s no way the Israeli PM can "secure the realm" without the aid of his "proxy army" continuing the fight in the West. That may explain why the neocons have launched a major "media blitz" in the US to discredit the report and disparage its author, Baker, as an anti-Semite.

Baker, an anti Semite?

Perhaps he can join that other great "human rights abuser", Jimmie Carter.
The armchair warriors at the Weekly Standard, The National Review, The New York Post and the Wall Street Journal are leading the charge; each taking shots at Baker while promoting the same worn "stay the course" strategy.

An article in the Washington Post "Hawks Bolster Skeptical President" provides a list of pro-Israel hawks who have lined up against Baker. Among the more familiar names are William Kristol, Richard Perle, Frank Gaffney, and Michael Rubin; the same lineup that will forever be identified with the catastrophe in Iraq. It’s revealing that the Washington Post still provides an open forum for neocon views even though, as we said, less than 4% of the American people still support a "stay the course" strategy. Apparently, that doesn’t affect the editorial policy at the Washington Post where the war-mongering incitement of neoconservative fantasists still gets unlimited coverage.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Bush makes a “Clean Break” with the Baker Plan #2
Posted by: rwa on Dec 15, 2006 7:45 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This tells a great deal about the state of media in America today and whose interests are really served.

It is also interesting to see that a signatory of the Project for the New American Century was a member of the 5-man panel advising Bush on the deteriorating situation in Iraq. After 4 years of unmitigated failure, Bush is still getting counsel from the same coterie of right-wing radicals who pushed for war in the first place. It’s extraordinary. As Middle East expert Juan Cole said, to have a member of PNAC on the advisory-panel "contradicts the basic principle that when someone gets you into a mess, you stop following their advice."

Not Bush. Bush seems to believe that the chimera of "global empire" is still within his reach.

The media blitz has had no effect on public opinion. In fact, the public is more fed up with the war than ever. All it’s done is draw attention to the handful of extremists whose views are at odds with 96% of the American people.

The Baker report has torpedoed Olmert’s plans to reinvade Gaza and forced him to reconsider talks with the Palestinian Prime Minister Abbas. It’s all for show, of course, but it does illustrate how quickly things can change.

Two weeks ago, Dick Cheney rushed over to Saudi Arabia to try to calm-down King Abdullah who was fuming over the mass-slaughter of Sunnis in Iraq. Abdullah naturally wanted to know why "Iranian-backed, US-trained" Shiite militias were purging Baghdad of its Sunni population. Cheney’s response is unknown, but we do know that he contacted Olmert and asked him to stop the killing in Gaza and extend the olive branch to Mahmoud Abbas. Astonishingly, Abbas complied with this charade and allowed himself to be photographed "hand-in-hand and smiling" with Olmert just two weeks after 18 members of the same Palestinian family were butchered by Israeli tank-rounds in Beit Hanoun. Abbas’ craven behavior speaks for itself. As for Olmert, the escalating violence in Iraq has put a temporary halt to his plans to reinvade Gaza.

Score one for James Baker.

Olmert’s plans for Lebanon have apparently hit a block-wall, too. The largest demonstrations in the country’s history took place last Sunday after 7 days of nonstop protest in the city center. Hezbollah’s Hassan Nasrallah mobilized an estimated 2 million Lebanese who took to the streets to call for American-stooge, Prime Minister Siniora, to step down. Siniora lost all credibility during the Israeli onslaught when he refused to defend his country by taking any action to repel the Israeli invasion or to deploy the 80,000 troops in the Lebanese army to the south where they were needed. His negligence caused the deaths of 1,300 civilians who were killed while trying to escape Israeli bombardment.

A recent poll showed that 51% of the people believe that the Siniora government "lacks legitimacy" and "73% support the forming of a unity government". These numbers confirm that Siniora no longer has any base of popular support and that the US-Israeli war has made Hezbollah the most powerful player in Lebanon’s political system.

Hezbollah poses no threat to Israel. What Olmert fears is an independent Arab regime to its north which may develop a credible deterrent to Israeli belligerence. (Israel has invaded Lebanon 4 times) Nasrallah is a fierce nationalist and not a puppet of Iran as Olmert claims. He has no plans for establishing an Islamic Theocracy in Lebanon although it’s an effective device for demonizing him as a fanatic and a terrorist. What he really wants is sufficient military power to convince Israel that future incursions will come at great cost to the IDF. No country in the region needs to improve its national defense and "power of deterrents" more than Lebanon.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Bush makes a “Clean Break” with the Baker Plan #3
Posted by: rwa on Dec 15, 2006 7:48 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Olmert’s plans for Lebanon were articulated in "A Clean Break". He wants to divert "Syria’s attention by using Lebanese opposition elements to destabilize control of Lebanon", thus, creating a de facto "Israeli protectorate" to their North. The 34-day war sabotaged this plan and further strengthened Israel’s main rival, Hezbollah. The Shiite star continues to rise in Lebanon just as it is in Iraq.

This is not the result that Olmert (or Bush) had in mind.

Baker: "Negotiations with Iran and Syria and a New Madrid"?

The Iraq Study Group made two key recommendations which are pivotal to regional peace. Both have sent tremors through the Olmert regime. First, Baker wants Bush to convene a regional conference with Iraq’s neighbors, including Syria and Iran, to address the deteriorating security situation and the steady escalation of violence. Bush is resisting this effort believing he can cobble together a miraculous "victory" at the eleventh hour. This, of course, will not happen and Bush will soon be compelled to make concessions whether he wants to or not.

The last thing Olmert wants is to see Bush negotiating with Iran which might forestall a preemptive attack on its nuclear and military facilities. If the US enters discussions with Iran, then Iran will naturally demand security guarantees that will lead to a "non-aggression" pact. This would prevent Bush from initiating hostilities "at the time of his own choosing". This explains why the neocons are so adamantly opposed to dialogue with Syria and Iran. They don't want Bush to be bound by treaty obligations.

Second, the Baker report states unequivocally:

"The United States will not achieve its goals in the Middle East unless the US deals directly with the Arab-Israeli conflict." (We must make a) "renewed and sustained commitment to a comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace on all fronts."

Fortunately, Baker recognizes the centrality of the issue and is pushing to create a suitable framework for negotiations. That doesn’t mean he will succeed. Olmert stated plainly before the US Congress that (he believes) that Israel has a right "to all the land", which is the traditional Zionist position. His belief is grounded in a rigid ideology that doesn’t accept the authority of the international community or the rights of the people who have clear title to the land. On top of that, as Uri Avnery said:

"No president will quarrel with the government of Israel if he wants to be re-elected, or-- like Bush now—to end his term in office with dignity and pass the presidency to another member of his party. Any senator or congressman, who takes a stand that the Israeli embassy doesn’t like, is committing Harakiri, Washington-style. The fate of the peace plans of successive Secretaries of State confirms, on the face of it, the thesis of the two professors, John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, that caused a great stir earlier this year. According to them, whenever there is a clash in Washington between the national interests of the US and the national interests of Israel, it is Israel’s interests which win."
Full article:
http://www.urukn et.de/?p=m29033&hd=&size=1&l=e

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

McCain is right on
Posted by: Conservasaurus on Dec 15, 2006 7:53 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
First the author obviously is a "bit" biased ..and his analysis is off base. McCain has always spoken with a reasonable voice and this time is no exception.. McCains comment is 100% on, you either fight the war or get out.. there is no middle ground.. Additional troops could help, in McCains view, reduce attacks and give the US what it needed to begin with, reasonable troop strength.

The military doesnt necessarily want additional troops so I'd have to go with a "military at the scene" plan but both want to see this to conclusion and not just up and leave..anyone with sense, regardless if you agreed with going in Iraq in the first place (I didnt) sees leaving ASAP would do more harm than good and probably result in many more deaths without a stabilized government!

I'm assuming the author is motivated purely by political views with little regard for strategic outlook and more importantly long term impact on the region!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: McCain is right on Posted by: Kitty Lady Oregon
» RE: McCain is right on Posted by: Conservasaurus
» RE: McCain is right on Posted by: opeluboy
» RE: McCain is right on Posted by: Conservasaurus
» RE: McCain is right on Posted by: Rolomax
» RE: McCain is right on Posted by: Conservasaurus
» RE: McCain is right on Posted by: Rolomax
» Rolomax -crayons can be fun! Posted by: Conservasaurus
» Sorry, he's wrong Posted by: brunowe
» RE: Sorry, he's wrong Posted by: Conservasaurus
» RE: Sorry, he's wrong Posted by: Kitty Lady Oregon
» RE: Sorry, he's wrong Posted by: Conservasaurus
» RE: McCain is right on Posted by: ignition
» RE: McCain is right on Posted by: Conservasaurus
» RE: McCain is right on Posted by: baldo
» RE: McCain is right on Posted by: Conservasaurus
» RE: McCain is right on Posted by: HeroesAll
Escalation is Desperate Choice
Posted by: RedDestiny on Dec 15, 2006 8:07 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The war was largely to prevent an economic collapse caused by OPEC switching oil sales to euros. Even though the war was botched, the US can't give Iraq back to the Iraqis because they'd probably choose the euro like Saddam did in 2000, nullifying our reason for invading.

Escalation would allow the military to have better leverage to intimidate Iran to switch oil sales back to the dollar, but Iran has called our bluff already. The plan for escalation could be a convenient preparation for an invasion of Iran, which would be another gamble for safeguarding the dollar's value. It's a desperate move, but the only choice left that has a chance of saving America from a catastrophic inflationary spiral.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Perception vs Reality
Posted by: NoPCZone on Dec 15, 2006 8:11 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
McCain fancies himself as the heir to Goldwater. I beg to differ.

Goldwater was no warmonger, despite the image Johnson's people tried to put on him. What Goldwater advocated was to execute a war fully, once committed. Like many others, he changed his opinion when it became obvious that it could not be won.

McCain should no better than this. History teaches many lessons and one of them is that democracy has never been successfully imposed upon a nation from outside. Autocratic governments have been toppled and democracy restored, but each of those countries had a recent history of democratic government.

Democracy has to come from within a nation and not based upon the timetable or desires of another country. It must be earned and cannot be given. Sen McCain knows this as a graduate of the US Naval Academy. Every cadet gets exposed to a ton of history. He knows better.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hillary? Not!
Posted by: patvic1405 on Dec 15, 2006 8:16 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Nor do I know any dems who want Hill for prez. She is a guaranteed ticket into the crapper for the dems. Please, oh please, don't get the nomination, Ms. Clinton. Better yet, don't even run!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Hillary? Not! Posted by: Kitty Lady Oregon
More is better, huh?
Posted by: willymack on Dec 15, 2006 8:18 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The neocon infection has finally gotten to Mc Cain. Maybe they upped his war profit kickbacks, or maybe he just went crazy. Whatever it is, denial that WE'VE ALREADY LOST THIS "WAR" seems to be the "in" thing in Washington these days. Let's get the hell out of there right now and to hell with winning the hearts and minds of those in the Middle East; Washington needs to win back the hearts and minds of us at home.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

McCain is a toady...
Posted by: outsideagitator on Dec 15, 2006 9:02 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is a great article John. You have treated McCain with the contempt that he so richly deserves.

It will be very interesting to see how the nomination for the repugnican candidate plays itself out. To me it will be very interesting to see how the general citizenry reacts to it. McCain is trying to build an image of a brave warrior who served his county well and did not break while a pow during the Vietnam catastrophe. Those who think it wont work need to remember that 50% of our fellow citizens who vote chose a draft dodging chicken hawk to represent them. They may well vote again in similar numbers for man who would not even stand up for himself when attacked by Bush II bully boys during the Southern primaries when they accused him of actually colluding with the enemy while a pow and turning on this fellow pows. He was later to loyally support Bush and even embraced him while conceding! There is no honor to him, but, many do not give a shit...or even have a concept of what honor is...they will vote for him anyways...

Joseph

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

McCain hotheaded and emotionally unstable.
Posted by: shangrilalad on Dec 15, 2006 9:25 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How can you forget the picture of Mc Cain embracing Bush where he nuzzles his face against the “decider’s” chest like a child? That turned my stomach and I lost all respect for him. Plus, I hear he’s hotheaded and emotionally unstable.

McCain strikes me as a guy who would suck the chrome off Satan’s trailer hitch to be president.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"War Hero" McCain: Killing the innocent as self-justification
Posted by: aburritt on Dec 15, 2006 9:37 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Here is a man who personally delivered tons and tons of bombs and napalm to blow up and burn alive hundreds/thousands of men, women and children on the other side of the world, people who did NOTHING to McCain's own country to merit their murder. These incinerated and dismembered human beings are gone forever, and the pain and grief is still there for many of their surviving family members. Three decades after the end of this war, children are still being born with birth defects and dying from cancer from Agent Orange. Farmers - including their little girls and boys - are still being maimed and killed by buried ordinance.
And how has "war hero" Senator John McCain come to view his own role in this tragedy? 25 years after the end of this immoral and indefensible slaughter of several million people, not only does he have no regrets, he also has the unmitigated gaul to visit Vietnam (April 2000 trip) and proceed to lecture THE VIETNAMESE with words like "murder!" No apologies, no regrets, no public reassessment, nothing but public righteousness. It was after that trip that I, for one, ceased to take anything about this man seriously.

John McCain is a "war hero?" Yes, I suppose he is......just like an unrepentant member of the Wafen SS is a "war hero" to a modern day German citizen whose only real regret concerning WW2 was that Hitler lost.

I just read another story about McCain, whose true life's mission seems to be fighting and WINNING a major war, regardless of the consequences to his own country, before he dies.
Here are his words concerning Iran, in a speech at Yeshiva University this past Sunday:
Iran, according to McCain, is the world's "chief state sponsor of terrorism." (Huh?!) And, as McCain puts it, Iran has a "possibly deranged and surely dangerous regime." (From the story I read, I'm sure that's still Iran he's talking about, and not the current US Administration and Congress.)
The implication, of course, is that Iran is another country which we really need to blow the hell out of, just like we happily and righteously blew the hell out of Iraq, and Vietnam before that. (Fight enough wars, McCain is apparently thinking, and one of these days WE'RE GONNA WIN!) And who better to make all this happen but politicians like GW Bush and John McCain, two of our many paragons of mental stability, intelligence, morality and patriotism.

I don't doubt the great pain and suffering that McCain went through as a POW in Vietnam, but I do doubt that others around the world, including those in this country, should have to be subjected to far worse pain and suffering in order for this one man to try and justify/exorcize his own past. (No comment on the motivations for the vast majority of chicken hawks who are responsible for invading Iraq and are now pushing for attacking Iran.) I think that this is really at the root of McCain's hostile belligerence towards non-Americans, people for whom he has no interest in ever understanding, much less respecting.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What is going on here?
Posted by: zvirgil2 on Dec 15, 2006 10:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
According to Bush and Mccain, the only option in Iraq is victory. but it seems to me that was the only option in Vietnam also. The only option being victory is a mistake like in a bad idea not just bad morally but bad war making also. It is "The Last Best Devotion" to a lost notion of world domination.
Hopefully, it is also the rebirth of the essential idea that America's military is a defensive organization, and not an aggressive army to spread something called democray, corporation style, or anything else.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The prize for victory
Posted by: ScottP on Dec 15, 2006 11:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If we "win" the war our reward is:
- more years as the hated occupier
- $100B/year of taxpayer's money to pay for the occupation as long as we keep "winning"
- more US corpses
- ever more enemies around the world

If we "lose" the war the "penalty" is:
- the healing can start and people can stop blaming us for all that is bad
- we can start thinking about balancing the budget and perhaps save the economy from ruin
- no more US corpses (perhaps the same number of Iraqis for a while until they settle down again)
- dictators around the world will still fear us, after all we did depose the ruler and destroy the nation in any case

Call it what you want, I'll take "defeat", it's better than "victory".

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The prize for victory Posted by: MrAllen
Ever Wonder Why The Media Monarchy FEAR Blogs?
Posted by: mite on Dec 15, 2006 11:51 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Could it be that the only place to get `Free Press' is the BLOG?

Now the Puppet Masters (ILLUMINATI, CFR, TRILATERAL COMM.) of Congress are losing the flow of free information and profits are down. www.cia.gov `Operation Mockingbird'

Try these sources of information for the truth people.

www.infowars.com www.falseflagnews.com www.articbeacon.com www.devvy.com

While the media keep us focused on Iraq, Iran, middleast our Constitution- Bill of Rights is destroyed by acts of treason by Congress. `Patriot Act' `Military Commission Act' and * The North American Union* www.cfr.org www.spp.gov www.worldnetdaily.com

I know this sounds impossible- I hear the denial from my family, friends, and veteran brothers & sisters. But as I say to them I say to all of you " research history, the laws on this nations books and you will see according to our Constitution these laws are actions of treason." If we let these individuals contine with their war against this nation we will wake up someday ruled by a complete dictatorship-police state.
www.furnitureforthepeeople.com www.lawfulpath.com

Enjoy your holidays people because next year we will be in a World War.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"the welfare of his nation"
Posted by: badkitty on Dec 15, 2006 11:55 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"the brave, bold stance of a man who puts the welfare of his nation above his own presidential aspirations"

Anyone who holds the welfare of the people of this nation above his or her presidential aspirations would not support this illegal war/occupation. I guess he could say he was holding the welfare of Halliburton etc. above his presidential aspirations.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Jon Stewart Right
Posted by: Gregor on Dec 15, 2006 12:38 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When Jon Stewart interviewed Fareed Sakawi (sp) he asked him if when it meetings with the President that Cheney bites the people on the neck and they change their stance completely. I think He hit it right on the head there. They all change. Even the ones you trusted. What in the world IS that? Has politics just become this big game that only interests THEM and doing good and living in integrity is just not part of the picture?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A Phony and a Coward
Posted by: opeluboy on Dec 15, 2006 2:29 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That is McCain. I also took exception, like Uthman, to Meyerson's take on McCain. This is what I wrote him:

Great article, but I think you err somewhat in assuming McCain's position is "sincerely held" and imputing "integrity" to this most reptilian of warmongers. McCain never saw a war he didn't like, especially if he could view it while dropping bombs on civilians from 30,000 feet. His integrity is so minimal that he could could suck up to Bush after being reamed out by him and the amoral Rove immediately after the campaign, even while his ass was still smarting. The fact that he can banter glibly with the likes of Jon Stewart gives him a certain affable quality which the benighted find delightful. I never knew him, of course, but I've always heard that Hitler was fun at parties, too.

I do, however, agree wholeheartedly with your brilliant suggestion that our troops be augmented by the editorial staff of the Weakly Standard. I have long fantasized about Bill Kristol being airdropped into the heart of what once was Fallujah wearing a yarmulke and a "Kill the Arabs" t-shirt, armed with naught but his rapier-sharp wit. I figure he'd last a matter of minutes. Maybe.

A man can dream.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

John McCain Does Not Want the Presidency
Posted by: bomar1224 on Dec 15, 2006 5:01 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Regardless of Mr. McCain's feelings toward the Iraq War, I would not vote for him for President even if I was a Republican. John Mc Cain is too quick tempered for that job.

With the feeling about the Iraq war as it is now, I, for the life of me, fail to see the logic for Mr. Mc Cain's advice, particularly coming from someone who wants to be President.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

pip-squeak
Posted by: Zampan0 on Dec 15, 2006 8:05 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"my dear freinds" lol. this asshole has no freinds. he's the guy that dropped the bomb on the deck of the u.s. forestall aircraft carrier that started a huge fire that killed several hundred sailors. bombs don't just drop off planes, the jerk released the bomb by accident. then, the asshole gets shot down and captured. he lies that he was offered release. then he marries the daughter of a 'mob boss' and gets elected senator. now, the idiot wants to become pres. he probably will.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: pip-squeak Posted by: Krain61
John Mason
Posted by: jom57 on Dec 15, 2006 8:28 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Somehow, John McCain has turned from an officer and a gentleman to a two-bit political hack. He who fought and suffered in Viet Nam now thinks he can make political hay by sending more young men, AND women, to die inIraq. For what? To appease a fanatical political faction that is no longer popular, if it ever was? McCain has rejected the opinions of the American people, and so we must reject him.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Change is what is needed
Posted by: Krain61 on Dec 15, 2006 8:30 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If you want someone who will change our Country for the better we need to band together like they did in the Ukraine..{They seem to still have ball's after all these years and know what they want} we have it and steady give it away.We need a person man/woman who will stop giving our jobs away.We need to stop buying foreign crap..We need a working person in office who goes through things like me and you every day..Someone who is not a Republican or Democrat..Though's who belong to these parties are just as bad as the people who are are office..We always say we elect the lessor of the evils..It's 2006 and time to make a change.We gave billions to all kinds of victims in the last few years..Now it's time for a cause for America..We need to take it back..Show the rich who pays there wages..But since we allow Unions to be broken up I really don't see any changes here and at present I'm learning a new language because I atleast want to have a foot in the door when were taken over or given away..Let's get real and not vote either and pick someone who works for us and with us and NOT against us..Have you looked at your paycheck and /or your friends checks..And what it buys..some of you have money and good jobs but remember you will read what you sow.And you should think of what's going to be there for your kids and grand kids ..I see nothing in the future as it stands unless we change and not just on political issues but the environment also..We need change now more that ever and screw the atheist..They can move back to hell!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

hypocritical
Posted by: rsaxto on Dec 16, 2006 12:14 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
McCain's hypocritical bullshit has become almost as bad as that of the Bush baby. Both men are guilty of massive war crimes in Iraq because both pushed that illegal war of aggression against a defanged Iraq and both knew that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction and had no connection with international terrorists. Both men are hypocrits and liers and war criminals. For them to continue the Iraq massacres which are clearly war crimes under international law is to admit that they should be tried and convicted and jailed. Every Iraqi and every American who dies a violent death in Iraq during the occupation is a Bush/McCain war crime. Sending more American troops guarantees more Iraqi/ American deaths. Withdraw all soldiers now and stop the mass murder.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: hypocritical Posted by: baldo
poncaokie
Posted by: poncaokie on Dec 16, 2006 1:17 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
sorry but this is my first post

I do not get it? McCain was a war prisoner? What prison? and what was it like? ... maybe a luxury hotel ???? I am am old farm kid from oklahoma.. I have lived in the country in Thailand and I am now living in South Korea... If I was a prisoner of war I would not be so fast to start or maintain a war.. a war that was never commisioned or declared by congress.... What happened to the USA,, there is this war ... a war? a war is fought between to equal parties... Iraq was never our military equal.. Congress never declared war.. Bush pushed the anti-Patriot act and it is LAW? I think I am brain dead.. What the hell just happend? Military State .. Police rule? just my thoughts

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: poncaokie Posted by: rsaxto
» RE: poncaokie Posted by: HeroesAll
Look, the man is lovestruck, that's all
Posted by: xbj on Dec 16, 2006 2:32 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Leave him alone, he's obviously infatuated with Bush, and has been fighting with Lieberman (who'd been there first) over kneepad duty.

That's all. Yes, it does wipe out everything everyone thought he was (the word hero comes to mind), but hey, that's how the war crumbles.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Iraq is the beginning
Posted by: Reader11722 on Dec 16, 2006 6:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Democrats are following the Republicans who are following the neo-cons who are following the zionists. We are NEVER leaving the Middle East. However, Iraq is a diversion. As the army attacks Iraq, the US gov't erodes rights at home by suspending habeas corpus, stealing private lands, banning books like "America Deceived" from Amazon, America Deceived (book) rigging elections, conducting warrantless wiretaps and starting 2 illegal wars based on lies. Soon, another US false-flag operation will occur (sinking of an Aircraft Carrier by Mossad) and the US will invade Iran, (on behalf of Israel). Then we'll attack Syria, then Lebanon (again), then Saudi Arabia, then........

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Iraq is the beginning Posted by: rsaxto
McCain Bill Is Lethal Injection For Internet Freedom
Posted by: rwa on Dec 16, 2006 8:29 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Exploits fear of sexual predators and basic misunderstanding of Internet to attack blogs critical of the warmongering agenda he fronts for
Paul Joseph Watson

Republican Senator John McCain has introduced legislation that would fine blogs up to $300,000 for offensive statements, photos and videos posted by visitors on comment boards, effectively nixing the open exchange of ideas on the Internet, providing a lethal injection for unrestrained opinion, and acting as the latest attack tool to chill freedom of speech on the world wide web.

Under the banner of saving the children from sexual predators, McCain is obviously on a mission to stamp out the influence of the burgeoning blogosphere and its increasing hostility to the warmongering agenda that he fronts for.

"This constitutionally dubious proposal is being made apparently mostly based on fear or political considerations rather than on the facts," warns Kevin Bankston, an attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation in San Francisco.

McCain has publicly expressed his distaste for blogs in the past and this is why any protestation that he is simply aiming to "protect the children" with this legislation falls on deaf ears.

In a May 2006 speech at Jerry Falwell's Liberty University, McCain attacked the blogosphere as a refuge of those only infatuated with self-expression. He was trying to minimize the importance of the last true outpost of freedom of speech, the Internet, and portray it as nothing more than a swap shop for egos and hyperbole.

In reality, sexual predators have always confined their grooming to live chat rooms, or in the case of Republican pervert Mark Foley, instant messaging and PDA's. Pedophiles are never going to leave a record of their sordid advances on message boards because in most cases, their IP address and location can be obtained immediately from the server log. And as reported by C Net, "Studies by the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children show the online sexual solicitation of minors has dropped in the past five years, despite the growth of social-networking services."

McCain's proposed bill is just another step in greasing the skids for Internet 2, a tightly controlled, regulated and privileged world wide web where government approval will be required just to run a blog.

In recent months, a chorus of propaganda intended to demonize the Internet and lead it down this path has spewed forth from numerous establishment organs.

- The White House's own recently de-classified strategy for "winning the war on terror" targets Internet conspiracy theories as a recruiting ground for terrorists and threatens to "diminish" their influence.

- The Pentagon recently announced its effort to infiltrate the Internet and propagandize for the war on terror.

- In a speech last month, Homeland Security director Michael Chertoff identified the web as a "terror training camp," through which "disaffected people living in the United States" are developing "radical ideologies and potentially violent skills." Chertoff pledged to dispatch Homeland Security agents to local police departments in order to aid in the apprehension of domestic terrorists who use the Internet as a political tool.

- In an interview with Fox News last month, Bush senior slammed Internet bloggers for creating an "adversarial and ugly climate."

- A landmark legal case on behalf of the Recording Industry Association of America and other global trade organizations seeks to criminalize all Internet file sharing of any kind as copyright infringement, effectively shutting down the world wide web - and their argument is supported by the U.S. government.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The New Manchurian Candidate
Posted by: Jersey Devil on Dec 16, 2006 9:29 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Senator's many years in residence at the Hanoi Hilton obviously gave him a unique perspective on becoming President of the United States. One can only wonder what secret plan he will execute once he gets in office. Will he make W look like an amateur when it comes to listening to his inner Vietnamese voice from long ago. The man is damaged goods and it is doubtful we could survive another bizarro Republican Administration, not to mention the Senator's extensive experience in the technique of Torture. We don't need another another President of Lies and Torture destroying the Constitution. Comments?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Come Out of the Shadows. Posted by: edith
» RE: The New Manchurian Candidate Posted by: Conservasaurus
Another Repub Iteration
Posted by: bob t on Dec 17, 2006 1:38 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
McCain is now just another iteration of Republican Party SCUM. He has paid obeisance to Jerry Falwell so he may be deemed okay by the repubs and placed ahead of Rudy Guiliani, who is much more of a free thinker than McCain who has revealed himself to be nothing but a repub crony and suckup. Repubs love suckups and obediance, but then that means McCain has lost all creds. Maybe the rethugs will read through that. Maybe the radical religious right will see through his shameless flip flopping.But if he continues to repeat rethug dogma for the next two years can he delude enough voters to get elected, I hope not. McCain is almost as bad as Bush.
Just thinking out loud.
PRAY FOR PEACE

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

McCain, once a shining light, is no longer relevant
Posted by: writer33 on Dec 17, 2006 4:03 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This subject came up before during a discussion on likely Republican candidates come 2008. In the curent polical atmosphere created so flagrantly and arrogantly by the Bush loyalists, I would have thought NO Republican can win with the deep hole of corruption dug by Bush, Cheney et. al.

But what about John McCain? That might have been an intriguing thought quite some few years ago. But even that question begs to be withdrawn for lack of relevance any more. In fact, it is embarrassing now to even ask it.

Sadly, he has SOLD OUT! When he ran against Bush for president, I applauded him. I admired him. I really liked his "maverick" image. I think we all did. And when he challenged Bush on Abu Ghraib tactics at first, I cheered for him.

But when he began his efforts in earnest meeting with Bush supporters, Bush campaign money folks and began getting chummy with them, that image of a renegade type Republican quickly began to dissolve! When he supported the Military Tribunals Act, that was the clincher for me. John McCain had sold his political soul to the devil to put himself in place for a 2008 run. And finally, to make public his continuing support to "win" the war in Iraq, thereby marching in lockstep with Bush administration neocons to continue the carnage there....

...well....

John McCain has simply morphed into the rest of that rubber-stamp, obstinate, arrogant, blindly-foolish crowd of followers on the road to hell paved by Bush!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

from hero to zero
Posted by: cold2touch on Dec 19, 2006 2:07 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The fact is that he is a very obstinate, mulish, stubborn man but that does not make him a hero, war or otherwise.
Yes, he showed great perserverance and thick skin in the POW camp.
But he was a fighter pilot that got shot down while strafing some village and was taken prisoner instead of being lynched on spot by enraged villagers - how heroic is that?
As a son of a big military family, he joined the elite, the fighter pilots who generally don't get themselves down and dirty with grunts in the jungle, certainly nothing like James Webb or John Murtha did. He didn't see smoldering corpses nor screaming kids with skin peeling due to his laying napalm on them, his war was a high tech one, that is why he doesn't mind escalating another one.
He definitely is not a cruel and corrupt coward and draft dodger like Bush-Cheney, but neither is he a true, battle tested and proven hero.
He looks like a mule, talks like one and therefore is one.
But once he gets into the White House, The Lobby will find the way to neuter him and harness him to their cart.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]