http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/#26279420
WATCH IT!
http://thenewshole.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/08/18/1274219.aspx
Tonight's Special Comment Posted: Monday, August 18, 2008 9:00 PM by Countdown
Filed Under: Special Comment
"Now as promised a Special Comment on the remarks of the Senior Senator from Arizona about Senator Obama at the VFW Convention, and about NBC News and MSNBC....
Four times in just two days, Senator McCain's campaign managers have, simply, hung him out to dry.
First, trying to scapegoat the media, in the exact way that has spelled doom for other presidential candidates already watching from the sidelines.
Second, doing so with a petulant statement so full of holes that it virtually confirms that which was reported, and which set off this pointless temper tantrum in the first place.
Third, sending the candidate out to speak before the Veterans of Foreign Wars convention, even as the millstones of a series of disastrous, anti-veteran votes, still figuratively dangled from around his neck.
And fourth, encouraging Senator McCain, while there, to address his opponent in the language of unseemly contempt, undignified calumny, and holier-than-thou persiflage unsupported by reality... near-nonsensical bluster that -- at best -- makes the speaker look like a dyspeptic grouchy neighbor shouting "Hey you kids, get out of my yard."
"Though victory in Iraq is finally in sight," you told the V-F-W today, Senator McCain, "a great deal still depends on the decisions and good judgment of the next president. The hard-won gains of our troops hang in the balance. The lasting advantage of a peaceful and democratic ally in the heart of the Middle East could still be squandered by hasty withdrawal and arbitrary timelines. And this is one of many problems in the shifting positions of my opponent, Senator Obama."
The shifting positions of Senator Obama?
Senator McCain -- on the 22nd of May, 2003.. you said, of Iraq, on the Senate floor, quote:
"We won a massive victory in a few weeks, and we did so with very limited loss of American and allied lives. We were able to end aggression with minimum overall loss of life, and we were even able to greatly reduce the civilian casualties of Afghani and Iraqi citizens.
Senator -- you declared victory in Iraq, five years and nearly three months ago.
Today you say: "victory in Iraq is finally in sight"?
The victory you already proclaimed five years ago?
Are we going back in time Sir?
---
If that had not been enough, in June of 2003, with even Fox News noting "many argue the conflict (in Iraq) isn't over," you answered:
"Well, then why was there a banner that said 'Mission Accomplished' on the aircraft carrier? Look, the -- I have said a long time that reconstruction of Iraq would be a long, long, difficult process, but the conflict -- the major conflict is over, the regime change has been accomplished, and it's very appropriate."
In 2003, your war was won, because somebody was putting up a... banner.
In 2008, your war might finally be won, because you are putting up... a campaign based on the mirage that Iraq is winnable.
And yet it is Obama shifting positions on Iraq?
Even if this country were to forget, Senator, the victory lap you and President Bush took five years ago -- just on their face, your remarks today at the V-F-W, Senator, are nonsensical.
"Senator Obama commits the greater error of insisting that even in hindsight, he would oppose the surge. Even in retrospect, he would choose the path of retreat and failure for America over the path of success and victory."
This construction, Senator, is extremely simple.
If your surge worked, the troops would be home from Iraq.
Or most of them, would be.
Or all of them who were surged, would be.
Or at least we'd have the same number of troops in Iraq now, as we did then.
Or... maybe one or two guys would be out of harm's way.
Please, Senator McCain, stop!
This is embarrassing.
Whether on his own impetus or an advisor's...
The Senator also foolishly invoked his opponent in that speech today.
Previous political careers have foundered on the rocks of the VFW Convention:
The Republican majority in Congress and the Senate -- the very viability of Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld -- began to unravel at this convention two years ago -- that was the venue for the first of Rumsfeld's two references to Bush critics as Nazi Appeasers.
Prudence and judgment, demanded that Senator McCain tred lightly.
Instead he told the convention, quote:
"I suppose from my opponent's vantage point, veterans concerns are just one more issue to be spun or worked to advantage. This would explain why he has also taken liberties with my position on the GI Bill.... As a political proposition, it would have much easier for me to have just signed on to what I considered flawed legislation. But the people of Arizona, and of all America, expect more from their representatives than that, and instead I sought a better bill. I'm proud to say that the result is a law that better serves our military, better serves military families, and better serves the interests of our country."
Senator McCain spoke out against that very bill last May -- on the asinine premise that the rewards to our heroes were so good that it didn't encourage them to stay in the service.
Or perhaps force them.
More over, Senator McCain missed 10 of the 14 Senate votes on Iraq up to the middle of last year.
This year, he has missed them all -- including one to honor the sacrifice of the fallen.
He has voted to table or oppose:
20 million dollars for veteran's health care facilities.
322 million dollars for safety equipment for our troops in Iraq.
430 million dollars for veterans outpatient care.
One billion dollars in new equipment for the National Guard.
And, in separate votes: One billion, 500 million dollars in additional Veterans' medical care, to be created by closing tax loopholes.
And one billion, 800 million dollars in additional Veterans' medical care, to be created by closing tax loopholes.
And yet, Sir, you have the audacity to stand in front of the very Veterans you repeatedly and consistently sell out, and claim it is your opponent who has put politics first, and country second.
"Behind all of these claims and positions by Senator Obama lies the ambition to be president," you said -- with a straight face -- today. "What's less apparent is the judgment to be commander in chief. And in matters of national security, good judgment will be at a premium in the term of the next president -- as we were all reminded ten days ago by events in the nation of Georgia."
Senator, three points:
One -- is your increasingly extremist and reactionary language towards Senator Obama really the method by which you want to try to achieve the Presidency -- or perhaps split the country if you succeed?
Two -- criticizing a man for having quote "the ambition to be president"? Seriously? You do realize you are currently running for president, as well, right? That either you also have "ambition to be president" or, what?, somebody's blackmailing you into it?
And three -- you might want to ask somebody -- somebody other than say, your Foreign Policy Advisor, Randy Scheunemann -- whether or not you are making a jackass out of yourself every time you bring up the conflict between Georgia and Russia.
The Georgians have paid Mr. Scheunemann and his companies 800-thousand dollars over the last several years to lobby for them.
It's pretty clear the Georgians have bought Mr. Scheunemann.
And, Senator McCain, it sure as hell looks like the Georgians thought they had bought you.
When you had the tastelessness to paraphrase the rallying cry of 9/11 and say that we are now all Georgians, that nation's President called you out...
He said that your words were very nice, but he needed action -- not a verbal receipt from a lobbyist and his pet Senator!
---
Going back to the beginning of this sad 48 hours of paranoia from the McCain Campaign...
We have manager Rick Davis's unfortunate letter to NBC News, about Andrea Mitchell's reporting on the possibility that Senator McCain violated the so-called "Cone of Silence" for the Rick Warren Presidential Forum over the weekend.
The coverage of this detail, and that forum in general, is, to start with, overwrought.
But Mr. Davis has elevated them to the ridiculous.
As Nate Silver at the website 'Five-Thirty-Eight-dot-com' noted, Andrea's reporting -- reporting of what the Obama camp claimed -- included two essential observations:
"McCain may not have been in the cone of silence"... and that he
"May have had some ability to overhear what the questions were to Obama".
Rick Davis writes to NBC: "The fact is that during Senator Obama's segment at Saddleback last night, Senator McCain was in a motorcade to the event and then held in a green room with no broadcast feed."
As Silver astutely notes, for roughly the first half of Obama's participation, his own campaign manager places McCain in a car -- where he could have been made aware of the questions to Senator Obama. "In a motor vehicle," Silver writes, "one may use the radio, a cell phone, a Blackberry, Bluetooth Wireless, a Sling box, and perhaps a satellite TV feed. Whether McCain actually used any of those devices, we have no idea. But he absolutely had the ability to use them, which is all that Mitchell had reported."Silver also tripped over Mr. Davis's strange observation that for roughly the second half of Obama's participation, his own campaign places McCain, quote, "in a green room with no broadcast feed."Not a green room without cell service or internet, nor without a closed-circuit feed, nor, for that matter, without a guy running back from the audience with notes, written in crayon.
Rick Davis's argument is, in short, illegitimate.
It is an attempt to pick a fight with the media, over the journalistic equivalent of chewing gum in class.
"This is irresponsible journalism and sadly, indicative of the level of objectivity we have witnessed at NBC News this election cycle," he writes.
"We are concerned that your News Division is following MSNBC's lead in abandoning non-partisan coverage of the Presidential race. We would like to request a meeting with you as soon as possible to discuss our deep concerns about the news standards and level of objectivity at NBC."
What Davis is really saying here, of course, is that he wants no level of objectivity, that the only campaign he wants questioned is Obama, and that "partisan coverage" consists of questioning whether McCain or his campaign support the stage whispers branding Obama as somehow 'foreign,' or whether McCain is to be inoculated from all criticism by dint of his military service.
Senator McCain -- did you pay any attention to the Democratic primaries?
Did you notice the hair-pulling frenzy of some of Senator Clinton's supporters who could not face the possibility that her loss might have been her fault -- or theirs -- and thus it must be ours?
Do you remember the apoplexy of a washed up Republican operative named Ed Gillespie, writing a furious letter to NBC on behalf of President Bush?
Mr. Bush's support has since dropped.
And Senator Clinton's supporters have now relocated to such a degree that her "eighteen million voices" first re-counted themselves as "two million" and were then unable to get even 250 people to show up at a meeting.
The public sees through this nonsense, Senator -- they see through it quickly.
NBC and MSNBC do not have the power to seriously impact an election.
If we did -- Senator Pat Buchanan would already be serving with you.
Besides which, Senator, who in your camp thought it was a good idea to take a shot at NBC and MSNBC... during the Olympics on NBC and MSNBC?!?
During the Olympics, Senator McCain, on which you have already run millions of dollars' worth of McCain Campaign commercials... on NBC and MSNBC!?!
---
Senator, let me wrap this up.
You -- and your campaign -- need a serious and immediate attitude adjustment.
Despite what you may think, Senator McCain, this is not a coronation.
Despite how you have acted, Senator McCain, you have no automatic excuse to politicize anything you want.
Despite how you have whined, Senator McCain, you have no entitlement to only sycophantic, deceptive, air-brushed coverage in the media.
And despite how you have strutted, Senator McCain, you have no God-given right to the Presidency.
Let's have an adult campaign here, in other words -- and I am embarrassed to have to say this to a man who turns 72 at the end of this month -- Senator, grow up!
---
Good night, and good luck."
Keith....the guy's 72 .....he can't grow up....
I do not know what's more creepy, Olbermann's man crush on Obama or AOX/FOTD's mindless devotion to Olbermann.
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
I do not know what's more creepy, Olbermann's man crush on Obama or AOX/FOTD's mindless devotion to Olbermann.
The thing is, Olbermann's quite possibly is the sanest voice out there.
Unless you're a neo-con that is.
quote:
Originally posted by Hoss
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
I do not know what's more creepy, Olbermann's man crush on Obama or AOX/FOTD's mindless devotion to Olbermann.
The thing is, Olbermann's quite possibly is the sanest voice out there.
Unless you're a neo-con that is.
I agree. Why does McCain think he gets a free ride? Why does McCain think its wrong to question him? I saw a clip of a Fox program talking about McCain's infidelity during his first marriage and the host said "He's a prisoner of war!" which somehow is supposed to justify cheating on his wife.
Obermann is cool. Sometimes he goes off and dwells too much on inane stuff but overall the best on the tube right now.
One of my favorite McCain urban myths is the one he repeated this past weekend while fawning to the religious zealots on TV. You know, the one where he is let out on Christmas day by his Vietnamese guard who loosens his shackles slightly? Then to McCains astonishment the guard uses his foot to draw a cross in the dirt and they both look at each other. Just two Christians playing two different roles but with the same faith. The audience gasped in adoration as evangelists wiped tears from their eyes.
Only thing is its just a story. And one I seem to have heard as happening in WWII. No guard to corroborate it, no other prisoners relayed the same story. No evidence to confirm it at all. It wasn't reported by him at the time either. How convenient. If it happened at all, the guard could have been drawing a menorrah for all we know.
And no one questions the story. Not the writer of the Swiftboat lies, not the Fox faux news, not the press or anyone. No one looks around to see if this story was reported in WWI, II, Korea and Nam. They just take it for granted that little old men who suffered don't fabricate perfect stories to curry favor with the group that will make or break them.
Most Vets support McCain. Most Ford dealers seem to like Fords. But if you swim in the Nam vet sites you find tons of suspicion and animosity for the guy.
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
One of my favorite McCain urban myths is the one he repeated this past weekend while fawning to the religious zealots on TV. You know, the one where he is let out on Christmas day by his Vietnamese guard who loosens his shackles slightly? Then to McCains astonishment the guard uses his foot to draw a cross in the dirt and they both look at each other. Just two Christians playing two different roles but with the same faith. The audience gasped in adoration as evangelists wiped tears from their eyes.
Only thing is its just a story. And one I seem to have heard as happening in WWII. No guard to corroborate it, no other prisoners relayed the same story. No evidence to confirm it at all. It wasn't reported by him at the time either. How convenient. If it happened at all, the guard could have been drawing a menorrah for all we know.
And no one questions the story. Not the writer of the Swiftboat lies, not the Fox faux news, not the press or anyone. No one looks around to see if this story was reported in WWI, II, Korea and Nam. They just take it for granted that little old men who suffered don't fabricate perfect stories to curry favor with the group that will make or break them.
D'oh!
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/08/18/pow-i-remember-mccain-telling-the-cross-story-in-1971/
Whatever Waterboy. Well, I guess this guy is lying too. After all, YOU were in the Hanoi Hilton those five years with McCain.
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
One of my favorite McCain urban myths is the one he repeated this past weekend while fawning to the religious zealots on TV. You know, the one where he is let out on Christmas day by his Vietnamese guard who loosens his shackles slightly? Then to McCains astonishment the guard uses his foot to draw a cross in the dirt and they both look at each other. Just two Christians playing two different roles but with the same faith. The audience gasped in adoration as evangelists wiped tears from their eyes.
Only thing is its just a story. And one I seem to have heard as happening in WWII. No guard to corroborate it, no other prisoners relayed the same story. No evidence to confirm it at all. It wasn't reported by him at the time either. How convenient. If it happened at all, the guard could have been drawing a menorrah for all we know.
And no one questions the story. Not the writer of the Swiftboat lies, not the Fox faux news, not the press or anyone. No one looks around to see if this story was reported in WWI, II, Korea and Nam. They just take it for granted that little old men who suffered don't fabricate perfect stories to curry favor with the group that will make or break them.
D'oh!
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/08/18/pow-i-remember-mccain-telling-the-cross-story-in-1971/
Whatever Waterboy. Well, I guess this guy is lying too. After all, YOU were in the Hanoi Hilton those five years with McCain.
You mean you would be surprised that this guy is lying or suffering from a planted memory?
I called Orson Swindle, a fellow POW who is campaigning for McCain, to ask him about it.
"I recall John telling that story when we first got together in 1971, ....... I vaguely recall that story being told, among other stories."He then goes on to contradict himself again. Lots of people have memories that fade or are unreliable. Remember the owners of the "Satanic Daycare" that served time for planted memories? Or the lady who swears her father murdered her child hood friend revealed to her in psychoanalysis?
But thats not my point Guido. Other than apparently some blog activity, an unsubstantiated 38 year old memory from a stressed POW whose now a political candidate is taken without reservation and reported without question by the same folks who gave tons of coverage and respect to a lying editor whose facts continue to be repudiated (the Swiftboating moron). If we had his story posted by an anonymous newbie on this forum, someone would question his source or ask for documentation.
Thanks for the Whatever.[;)]
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
One of my favorite McCain urban myths is the one he repeated this past weekend while fawning to the religious zealots on TV. You know, the one where he is let out on Christmas day by his Vietnamese guard who loosens his shackles slightly? Then to McCains astonishment the guard uses his foot to draw a cross in the dirt and they both look at each other. Just two Christians playing two different roles but with the same faith. The audience gasped in adoration as evangelists wiped tears from their eyes.
Only thing is its just a story. And one I seem to have heard as happening in WWII. No guard to corroborate it, no other prisoners relayed the same story. No evidence to confirm it at all. It wasn't reported by him at the time either. How convenient. If it happened at all, the guard could have been drawing a menorrah for all we know.
And no one questions the story. Not the writer of the Swiftboat lies, not the Fox faux news, not the press or anyone. No one looks around to see if this story was reported in WWI, II, Korea and Nam. They just take it for granted that little old men who suffered don't fabricate perfect stories to curry favor with the group that will make or break them.
D'oh!
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/08/18/pow-i-remember-mccain-telling-the-cross-story-in-1971/
Whatever Waterboy. Well, I guess this guy is lying too. After all, YOU were in the Hanoi Hilton those five years with McCain.
Oh yeah!
(http://www.edinformatics.com/inventions_inventors/Kool-AidMan.jpg)
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
One of my favorite McCain urban myths is the one he repeated this past weekend while fawning to the religious zealots on TV. You know, the one where he is let out on Christmas day by his Vietnamese guard who loosens his shackles slightly? Then to McCains astonishment the guard uses his foot to draw a cross in the dirt and they both look at each other. Just two Christians playing two different roles but with the same faith. The audience gasped in adoration as evangelists wiped tears from their eyes.
Only thing is its just a story. And one I seem to have heard as happening in WWII. No guard to corroborate it, no other prisoners relayed the same story. No evidence to confirm it at all. It wasn't reported by him at the time either. How convenient. If it happened at all, the guard could have been drawing a menorrah for all we know.
And no one questions the story. Not the writer of the Swiftboat lies, not the Fox faux news, not the press or anyone. No one looks around to see if this story was reported in WWI, II, Korea and Nam. They just take it for granted that little old men who suffered don't fabricate perfect stories to curry favor with the group that will make or break them.
D'oh!
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/08/18/pow-i-remember-mccain-telling-the-cross-story-in-1971/
Whatever Waterboy. Well, I guess this guy is lying too. After all, YOU were in the Hanoi Hilton those five years with McCain.
You mean you would be surprised that this guy is lying or suffering from a planted memory?
I called Orson Swindle, a fellow POW who is campaigning for McCain, to ask him about it.
"I recall John telling that story when we first got together in 1971, ....... I vaguely recall that story being told, among other stories."
He then goes on to contradict himself again. Lots of people have memories that fade or are unreliable. Remember the owners of the "Satanic Daycare" that served time for planted memories? Or the lady who swears her father murdered her child hood friend revealed to her in psychoanalysis?
But thats not my point Guido. Other than apparently some blog activity, an unsubstantiated 38 year old memory from a stressed POW whose now a political candidate is taken without reservation and reported without question by the same folks who gave tons of coverage and respect to a lying editor whose facts continue to be repudiated (the Swiftboating moron). If we had his story posted by an anonymous newbie on this forum, someone would question his source or ask for documentation.
Thanks for the Whatever.[;)]
Got it. McCain or Swindle are either liars or have underlying psychological disorders.
Oh, and about your point, I thought it was the "urban myth" of the cross in the dirt which was "convenient" to McCain and having an absence of corroboration. Jeez, back pedal much?
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
One of my favorite McCain urban myths is the one he repeated this past weekend while fawning to the religious zealots on TV. You know, the one where he is let out on Christmas day by his Vietnamese guard who loosens his shackles slightly? Then to McCains astonishment the guard uses his foot to draw a cross in the dirt and they both look at each other. Just two Christians playing two different roles but with the same faith. The audience gasped in adoration as evangelists wiped tears from their eyes.
Only thing is its just a story. And one I seem to have heard as happening in WWII. No guard to corroborate it, no other prisoners relayed the same story. No evidence to confirm it at all. It wasn't reported by him at the time either. How convenient. If it happened at all, the guard could have been drawing a menorrah for all we know.
And no one questions the story. Not the writer of the Swiftboat lies, not the Fox faux news, not the press or anyone. No one looks around to see if this story was reported in WWI, II, Korea and Nam. They just take it for granted that little old men who suffered don't fabricate perfect stories to curry favor with the group that will make or break them.
D'oh!
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/08/18/pow-i-remember-mccain-telling-the-cross-story-in-1971/
Whatever Waterboy. Well, I guess this guy is lying too. After all, YOU were in the Hanoi Hilton those five years with McCain.
You mean you would be surprised that this guy is lying or suffering from a planted memory?
I called Orson Swindle, a fellow POW who is campaigning for McCain, to ask him about it.
"I recall John telling that story when we first got together in 1971, ....... I vaguely recall that story being told, among other stories."
He then goes on to contradict himself again. Lots of people have memories that fade or are unreliable. Remember the owners of the "Satanic Daycare" that served time for planted memories? Or the lady who swears her father murdered her child hood friend revealed to her in psychoanalysis?
But thats not my point Guido. Other than apparently some blog activity, an unsubstantiated 38 year old memory from a stressed POW whose now a political candidate is taken without reservation and reported without question by the same folks who gave tons of coverage and respect to a lying editor whose facts continue to be repudiated (the Swiftboating moron). If we had his story posted by an anonymous newbie on this forum, someone would question his source or ask for documentation.
Thanks for the Whatever.[;)]
Got it. McCain or Swindle are either liars or have underlying psychological disorders.
Oh, and about your point, I thought it was the "urban myth" of the cross in the dirt which was "convenient" to McCain and having an absence of corroboration. Jeez, back pedal much?
I don't live in the either/or world and I didn't back pedal. Since it can't be corroborated it isn't anymore than a mythical story. Swindle "vaguely recalls" McCain telling the story in bull sessions with other POW's. Even that remark is relayed by a campaign worker. Thats weak. Of course we held people in Guantanamo on less.
Faulty memories are not psychological disorders. Memories are unreliable especially under stress and over time, thats why they can be manipulated. Its a sweet story that everyone wants to believe because it somehow shows that even evil people can be saved. McCain did nothing but relay the story and its sweetness rubs off on him. Curious to me that the liberal biased media hasn't been skeptical. Unless the media...is really... conservatively biased. Nah, that just couldn't happen. Or...
For you few questioners:
http://www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnmccain.com/
The guy takes pride in spilling his guts to the enemy. Is he a true hero? Many vets think not.
Many think he's nuts for not getting out when the fix was in to free him from captivity. He takes great pride in returning to his cell. Is that sane? No, it's McInsane.
John McCain:
The Manchurian Candidate connection:
McCain was subjected to 5 ½ years of Soviet driven "brain perversion techniques."
Is he fit to be President and Commander in Chief of the military?
U.S. Veteran Dispatch
By Ted Sampley
March, 2008
http://www.usvetdsp.com/mar08/mccain_manchurian.htm
McShame does have better credentials than Bush or Cheney. So, anythings possible in Dumbf*ckistan. Keep the pedal on the medal.....
"But you who philosophize disgrace and criticize all fears,
Take the rag away from your face.
Now ain't the time for your tears."
Bob Dylan (Brady 8-27-08)
Unfortunately, there is no way to prove or disprove McCain's story. I've read that, other than the link provided above (which, I'm guessing, is the first time its been said), McCain first mentioned this story in 1999 and never before. There is no way Obama can attack him on that front. McCain will get a free pass on a lot of his POW-related stories.
quote:
Originally posted by Nik
Unfortunately, there is no way to prove or disprove McCain's story. I've read that, other than the link provided above (which, I'm guessing, is the first time its been said), McCain first mentioned this story in 1999 and never before. There is no way Obama can attack him on that front. McCain will get a free pass on a lot of his POW-related stories.
Of course McCain's "story" can be proven:
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NWRlODNjZmNhNDgxYzgyYjkzMjU3NWNiMmM5Y2U0ZDQ=
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
quote:
Originally posted by Nik
Unfortunately, there is no way to prove or disprove McCain's story. I've read that, other than the link provided above (which, I'm guessing, is the first time its been said), McCain first mentioned this story in 1999 and never before. There is no way Obama can attack him on that front. McCain will get a free pass on a lot of his POW-related stories.
Of course McCain's "story" can be proven:
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NWRlODNjZmNhNDgxYzgyYjkzMjU3NWNiMmM5Y2U0ZDQ=
His daddy had to pull strings to get him into Annapolis and then McIdiot ended up next to last in his class of well over 400.
Go vote for 4 more years of another stupid man ruining our country. It fits.[:P][}:)]
"The line it is drawn
The curse it is cast
The slow one now
Will later be fast
As the present now
Will later be past
The order is
Rapidly fadin'.
And the first one now
Will later be last
For the times they are a-changin'."
B.Dylan (8-27-08 Brady)
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
His daddy had to pull strings to get him into Annapolis and then McIdiot ended up next to last in his class of well over 400.
Untrue. He was 594th out of a class of 599. He was sixth from last.
Please slam McCain correctly.
Pat Buchanan said "John McCain will make Cheney look like Ghandi".
The Most Dangerous Man in America
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/werther.php?articleid=13325
by Werther
"The first crisis over North Korea's nuclear program arose in late 1994. It was obvious there was not much the United States could do to step in unilaterally and disarm the North Korean regime. Sanctions, the normally inevitable option short of war, had no meaning – the United States had no trade with the North in the first place and the regime followed a policy of economic autarky (Juche) in any case. There was really only one feasible course of action: gather as many regional allies as possible, agree to a process of inducing North Korea to freeze its nuclear program, and tender an offer to the North Koreans on the basis of a quid pro quo.
When the Clinton administration outlined its proposed course of action to Congress there was some grumbling. Arm-waving professional patriots of the American political class do not like seeing the slightest diminution of their country's God-given prerogative to impose its will abroad when and as it likes. But there was no rational alternative, and apart from a few obscure, back-bench House Republican members a general consensus emerged that the administration's Agreed Framework was the best of a bad series of options.
Only one politician of any political standing dissented. His name was John Sidney McCain III. His modest proposal was that the United States should be prepared to bomb the North Korean reactor sites. Never mind that he could be condemning several thousand U.S. troops (and tens of thousands of South Korean civilians) in the vicinity of the Demilitarized Zone to a virtual death sentence. It had never occurred to this self-proclaimed military expert that the North Korean regime had amassed thousands of long-range artillery pieces and rocket launchers and concealed them in tunnels north of the DMZ. From these positions the North Korean military could unleash an avalanche of fire south of the border. The result would probably have been a repeat of the Korean war of 1950-53 but with even more murderously lethal weapons.
Fast forward to 1999 and the Clinton administration's great crusade in the Balkans (carefully calculated to target a weak and isolated country – Clinton was no fool). Humanitarian intervention was all the rage but it had to be designed to minimize the exposure of U.S. troops; after all, with no conceivable vital U.S. interest at stake, the public would not contemplate the spilling of American blood without an attendant drop in Clinton's all-important poll numbers.
Some politicians were actually able to set aside their reflexive jingoism and smell the scent of wag-the-dog in the sanctimonious statements of Bill Clinton, Madeleine Albright, and Richard Holbrooke. The vote on an authorization of the use of force against Serbia failed in the House on a tie vote of 215-215 — the only time the equivalent of a war declaration failed in either house in U.S. history.
In the other chamber John McCain was also critical of the administration's Balkan policy. Only for him, it wasn't bellicose enough. Rather than limiting it to a bombing campaign he introduced a joint resolution to authorize the introduction of ground troops into a full-scale war with Serbia, something the Clinton administration did not even ask for. Fortunately, in a rare show of good sense, the Senate tabled the McCain resolution by a vote of 78-22.
McCain's unbridled, almost manic, bellicosity with respect to the quagmire in Iraq is too well known to require elaboration. But the sophistication of his military strategy with respect to that country can be inferred from his remarks to a group of bikers in Sturgis, S.D.: "We'll win it the right way, and that's by winning it!"
Apparently, though, McCain's neoconservative handlers have already grown tired of the generational struggle against "Islamofascism" (not to mention their long-planned intention to bomb Iran), for they are already pivoting McCain into a stance of maximal belligerence against Russia.
Much has been made about McCain's relationship with his principal foreign policy handler, Randy Scheunemann, heretofore a paid lobbyist of the Republic of Georgia, and who still benefits financially from part ownership of the lobbying firm that continues to service the Georgia account. This is clearly a conflict of interest and indicates the corruption that is endemic to political campaigns of both parties. But to try to explain McCain's actions in this way is to misunderstand the man.
Scheunemann is merely a toad overstuffed by one too many lunches at the Capitol Grill, in sum, a typical Washington success story. But McCain is sui generis. If Scheunemann had never existed someone else would be writing precisely the same talking points for the presumptive Republican candidate. McCain's love of war and diplomatic brinkmanship is nothing if not sincere. Perhaps it is the only sincere thing about the man.
Democrats are finally stumbling onto the fact, although the press has yet to discover it, that McCain is a serial flip-flopper and prevaricator. Across virtually the entire spectrum of domestic policy McCain has held one position and then jumped to the polar opposite, apparently without noticing the inconsistency (and his pals on the press bus are too polite to bring it up):
A recipient of cash and favors from savings and loan fraudster Charles Keating, McCain reminted himself as the Conscience of the Senate, to the hosannas of an adoring and amnesiac press.
McCain could not in good conscience support tax cuts that disproportionately favored the rich – until he began to sniff the incense of a Republican presidential coronation ceremony.
He was against offshore oil drilling before he was for it.
Wearing the garb of the Serious Centrist (a mythical species that David Broder venerates), McCain railed against "agents of intolerance" like Jerry Falwell, but crawled to Canossa when Republican base-pandering mandated that he must give a cringing speech at Falwell's Liberty University.
Even on his signature issue of torture McCain postured as an implacable foe of the Bush policy right up until the primary season commenced. Since then he has voted "no" on measures that would ban torture or confine CIA interrogation techniques to those permitted by the U.S. Army Field Manual.
And so on. McCain's hypocrisy is perhaps somewhat more egregious than the practices of the average politician, but not markedly so. After all, politicians do not have principles, they have positions. No doubt the Democrats will make heavy weather of these flip-flops, as they are clearly entitled to. But in so doing they miss the central point about John McCain.
All these flip-flops illustrate McCain's near-total lack of sincerity: he doesn't really care about the issues at all. In practice he changes positions so easily because the positions themselves are throwaways. He is required to have them for political purposes, but they mostly bore and annoy him.
There is only one thing he cares about, and that is building an altar to Mars. War is the one fixed star in the McCain universe. You will find no flip-flopping or prevaricating there.
While McCain admits he doesn't understand the economy (and then denies that he doesn't), he claims unlimited expertise in national security matters. His belligerent megalomania with respect to the Georgian crisis has now, finally, even earned him a mild reproof from the neocon-friendly Washington Post: "Standing behind a lectern in Michigan this week, with two trusted senators ready to do his bidding, John McCain seemed to forget for a moment that he was only running for president."
In a development little reported in the U.S., Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili "claimed that Georgia's ports and airports would be placed under U.S. military protection, a suggestion quickly denied by the Pentagon." Assuming that the Department of Defense is telling the truth (and granted that it is difficult to determine whether the Pentagon or Saakashvili is more prone to fabrication), then where did the Georgian president get his information that the United States would be militarily intervening? Given that McCain claims to talk to Saakashvili every day, and given a string of grandiose pronouncements by McCain and his handlers regarding Georgia, is it possible that he misled Saakashvili, either deliberately or by implication, to believe that U.S. military intervention would be forthcoming?
It is still unclear whether McCain promised Saakashvili anything, or whether it was simply the Georgian president's own delusion that he was the apple of Washington's eye, but McCain's buttinski tactics would already have been a major scandal if any other American politician who was not the sitting president had made such inflammatory pronouncements on foreign policy. As it is, McCain is already, in his campaign ukases, dramatically downgrading relations with Russia in a manner that suggests he thinks he is president.
The public is inclined to believe the worst of a politician when he is insincere, inconsistent, or dishonest; indeed, such personality traits are virtually what makes the typical politician as we know him today. But such creatures are merely nuisances, like mosquitoes. The really dangerous politician is one with an idée fixe, and when that obsession centers on the desirability of perpetual war, the possibility of catastrophe is all too real.
Given who he is, what makes him tick, and the potential that he might actually realize his ambitions on the world stage, John McCain is the most dangerous man in America."