Somebody needs to ask the two questions that should been answered before initiating this debacle:

1. How will we know when and if we've won?

2. How will we know when and if we've lost?

Try to answer those questions honestly, and you'll see what a stupid idea the Iraq invasion was from the outset.

Anyone find it convenient that violence in Iraq has gone down nicely in time for the elections ? McCainiac says it's because of the surge,

He's just pleasing the base. If he'd been president i strongly doubt he'd have invaded Iraq in the first place. He'd probably have read the pdb's also. Not that I'd vote for him. Just goes to show what a disaster arbusto has been.
As to winning or losing, I think it was Sun Tzu, who said "When you do what your enemies want you to do you have lost".

May McCain dine with Satan for an eternity.

911, 911

[refers to deleted post]

Please tell me you're trying to be funny.

[deleted - please see the commenting policy]

Even the Moonie Times has begun figuring out what we’ve known all along.

Now, now. Just because the Wash Times says so, doesn't make them right. It could just be a coincidence.

I love this piece!

I have been saying for years that McCain is the biggest effin liar in congress! What a distinction!

The reason he is hated so much by his fellow Republicans, is that, even among sleazy, skanky whores, there is always one who stands out as the sleaziest, skankiest. When that slut carries a bible and tells the rest of em they're going to hell, they hate her.

Case in point: torture. McCain raised holy hell about it, embarrassing the party no end. He got tons of fawning press attention, then - when push came to shove - he voted with the rest of his party. He almost always does.

He has pulled this same scam repeatedly, getting tons of praise from an adoring and uncritical media for "straight talk," "independence," "maverick" status, blah, blah, blah. There is never a follow up when he quietly sells out; nobody in the MSM calls him on his hypocrisy and outright lies. I have seen him do this over and over.

Many times progressive friends would wonder why my eyes would bulge out and my hair would stand on end when they said he "wasn't too bad" or "was the one Republican they had respect for." If they read this, they will know.

If McLiar does become the nominee, that's what we will have to fight - his carefully crafted, media enhanced, image of reason, integrity and moderation. It won't be easy. Well crafted lies have much more power in this society than simple truths - and he has spent decades polishing this facade, unchallenged by the media.

Rush to War @ 18:

The only people that win are the Oil oligapolies, Some people might see a temporary boost from payoffs, but down the road every one will be expendible. You Military folks are being used, Everyone in Vietnam was used, and all the other wars we have been in has been for the fun of the elite.

All those weapons being manufactured globally have to be field tested don'tcha know! Corporate wars for Corporate whores.

Rush Limbaugh fans are nothing but useful idiots who do not even know they are being used as props in mind-controlled experiments for the benefit of big media/big corporations.

I am not impressed when Rush Limbaugh's fans show up on C&L to give all of us a "dose of reality."

Again, Rush Limbaugh fans are being mind-controlled, but, are so UNAWARE of how EASY they can be MANIPULATED.

or else it’s time to question his sanity, or possibly both.

It's greed. He isn't insane, just a pompous ass that is greedy and wants himself some of that there Presidential power.

[deleted - please see the commenting policy to see the real reason your comments were deleted. if you wish to have an intelligent conversation, try not to insult our intelligence.]

McCain will bring us more McGovernmentMcCorporateMcCainiaMcManiaMcInsania of, by, and for all the exalted consumers.

Sometimes wingnut hypocrisy just takes your breath. Hello 30 second add Mr. McCain.

Mr. XXXX @ 27:

Dear C&L Staff:

Crooks and Liars is GREAT.

Much thanks to Logan Murphy, Nicole Belle, and without saying, John Amato. Also many thanks to anyone I did not mention, who provides all of us, with much information, to discuss here at C&L.

Thanks again.

Mr. XXXX

May, I also add, great many thanks to the Site Monitors who keep everyone on point.--Mr. XXXX

Steve is most likely a person who would walk into a biker bar and insult them in one way, shape, or form. Steve would insult such a group, and then expect nothing to happen, after he starts such crap with them.

Yes, Steve seems like the type who likes to provoke, but then yells the loudest for help, when its obvious people are not going to go along with his antisocial antics.

What McCain conveniently neglects to mention is that these fearsome terrorists make up only 2 per cent of those who are fighting against U.S. and coalition forces in Iraq. McCain also does not state that al Qaeda is despised by both the Sunni and the Shia. People who have been suspected of belonging to al Qaeda have had burning tires placed around their necks by the Iraqi citizenry. It is often difficult to determine who engages more in fear mongering, Bush or McCain.

Steve I hear the church in the middle of your town is handing out free donuts and coffee this afternoon and there will be a bible reading on how to love your neighbor at 3:00 p.m. Tomorrow the church is gonna have a speaker talk about "how to love your enemies" and "turn the other cheek." Although, I doubt Rush Limbaugh is going to be there, you may want to go there and learn something about love and tolerance of others.

Steve, I have compassion for you, but check out those psychatric medications that Bush's favorite big pharma corporation pals are dispensing for free to individuals like yourself who suffer from awful bouts and episodes of deep paranoia and are easily mind-controlled.

Another republican liar exposed. Not if they would expose the "surge" and how it is nothing but paying the terrorists not to attack you for half a billion dollars. Why is McCain never asked if he agrees with paying off terrorists in this fashion?

Any ways,..........back to the thread. Has anyone out there seen McCain's White Wanky Hanky? I hear tell that he needs it. I blew my nose in somethin' a moment ago but I threw it away. I got it from McDonald's. I hope it wasn't his.

steve @ 42:

its all art. I do this on the rightwing blogs too. There's always one goofball who takes the bait and gets all crazy when I do the contrary thing. Mr. XXXX, you took the bait. I'm merely doing an exercise for my MA thesis in communications online. sorry. wasn;t trying to offend. just get material for my paper.

Well when you are done your "thesis", it will take you a few years to grow up and discover there is no black and white, only shades of gray. You prob don't understand that yet, but you will when you are mature enough to.

All the wingnuts like to brand opponents of withdrawal from Iraq as "surrendercrats".

Methinks these people don't understand what surrender means.

Scenario 1: Your troops occupy a city. An enemy army besieges the city. After months of blockade, with supplies exhausted and no hope of relied in sight, you surrender the city to the enemy.

Scenario 2: Your country is invaded by an enemy army. After repeated defeats, your army is wiped out and you no longer can repel the invasion. The enemy is occupying your country with overwhelming force. You surrender and acknowledge that you cannot prevent the invaders from taking over.

In both scenarios (I am sure there are others, but I didn't want to make this too long), surrender happens when you give up something that you are holding by force or something that you believe belongs to you. This situation does not exist in Iraq. While we have an established military presence in Iraq, we can't in any sense be considered as holding Iraq by force because we don't really control the country. And Iraq does not belong to us.

So, if we withdraw from Iraq, we are not surrendering to the enemy. We are acknowledging that with the force level at our disposal, we cannot bring about the outcome that we (or at least the administration) want to achieve in Iraq and that it is no longer worth the manpower and resources we have devoted to it. Surrender and withdrawal are two different things.

John McCain was a surrender-cat in Vietnam!

Sorry for being off topic, but this is just too much. The media aren't the only ones playing the race and gender cards. HuffPost has jumped on the bandwagon too:
Obama's South Carolina Test: How Many White Votes Will He Get?
January 26, 2008 02:09 AM

Is it any wonder the Dems lost the last two elections, when their own supposed Dem supporters are blogging crap like that? Who cares about where they stand on issues. Is they black? Is they white? Did Hillary use Kotex or Playtex? What brand of condoms does that black fellow use? Good grief.

What would happen if the U.S. pulled out of Iraq immediately? What will happen next a neocon might ask. This is exactly what would happen The Shia tell Iran "Thanks for the help, now leave. Get out of our country". That is the part the neocons can't seem to understand. Everybody says that Iran will take over Iraq. Or they will have so much influence that Iraq will essentially become part of Iran. Well that will NOT happen. Iraq is Iraq. They don't want to be told what to do by Iran. Remember when Saddam invaded Kuwait, Saudi Arabia let the U.S. stage in their country to throw Saddam out of Kuwait. And Egypt helped the coalition in that war. Both those countries are Sunni. Saddam was Sunni. In fact Egypt harbored an exiled Saddam many years ago but Egypt helped throw Saddam out of Kuwait. Being from the same sect did not help Saddam. Saddam didn't listen to Saudi Arabia when it came to Kuwait and Saudi Arabia is Sunni like Saddam. Why would Iraq listen to any other country? So you see that just because part of Iraq and Iran are the same sect you cannot assume that Iraqi Shia will let Iranian Shia tell them what to do. As far as the Kurds go they have it figured out. And the Sunni? They will have to figure out how to have their own area. Joe Bidden knows how this will work out. Most of them have left the country anyway. And Al Qaeda? you may ask. Well the Iraqis will kick their sorry butts out in a matter of hours after the U.S. leaves. You can bet your bottom $ that no Iraqi will be told what to do by some Al Qaeda nut who all of Iraq hate. Just like they will do to the Iranians, "Thanks for the help. Now get the hell out." The neocons don't get it or they want this war to continue for financial reasons. You know this. I know this. 73% of the U.S. knows this. Getting out is the dilemma. Remember Iraq was better off with Saddam. I said it within 6 months of the U.S. invasion. Nobody wanted to say it at the time but now everybody knows it is true. Let's pack it up and leave tomorrow.

I fully expect Tim Russert will play back all these clips for McCain next time he's on Meet the Press and demand an explaination. Yeah, right! He aint Hillary.

Tommykey @ 46:

All the wingnuts like to brand opponents of withdrawal from Iraq as "surrendercrats".

Methinks these people don't understand what surrender means.

Scenario 1: Your troops occupy a city. An enemy army besieges the city. After months of blockade, with supplies exhausted and no hope of relied in sight, you surrender the city to the enemy.

Scenario 2: Your country is invaded by an enemy army. After repeated defeats, your army is wiped out and you no longer can repel the invasion. The enemy is occupying your country with overwhelming force. You surrender and acknowledge that you cannot prevent the invaders from taking over.

In both scenarios (I am sure there are others, but I didn't want to make this too long), surrender happens when you give up something that you are holding by force or something that you believe belongs to you. This situation does not exist in Iraq. While we have an established military presence in Iraq, we can't in any sense be considered as holding Iraq by force because we don't really control the country. And Iraq does not belong to us.

So, if we withdraw from Iraq, we are not surrendering to the enemy. We are acknowledging that with the force level at our disposal, we cannot bring about the outcome that we (or at least the administration) want to achieve in Iraq and that it is no longer worth the manpower and resources we have devoted to it. Surrender and withdrawal are two different things.

The Iraqis army had already surrendered. The new puppet government can't agree on how much they should surrender their only resource, OIL.

Um, anyone think the situation in Haiti might have been different than the situation in Iraq? You don't need to buy into neo-conservatism to see differences.

So McCain is partisan? No surprise.

What interests me more is his emphasis on Congress's responsibility to set deadlines on troop deployments. Amen. So the Democrats should damn well set one and stop f*cking around. Then they should play this clip to shut the Republicans down once they start screaming that such is the purview of the 'Commander in Chief'.

I am tired of McCain and his supporters always playing the "victim card" and the "hero card" when it comes to his war criminal actions in Vietnam.

The real victims were the Vietnamese and the real heroes were those who survived and died from the immoral actions of the United States military.

John McCain will someday have to answer to God for his war crimes just like all the right-wing war criminals in the Bush administration will go to hell for killing and torturing innocent Iraqi men, women, children, and elderly.

Ask the members of the 1967 USS Liberty what they think of war criminal John McCain's daddy? They view McCain's daddy as nothing but a traitor for putting out a false report on what really happened to the assault on the USS Liberty.

John McCain's family past has never been scrutinzed the way it should be, only because the media is infatuated with this war criminal and his corrupt family.

This is the same shit they always do. If they start the war, it's a good war. If someone else starts the war, it's a bad war. What else is new? It applies to everything. Economic policy, energy policy, health care, education, you name it.

I agree with Mr. XXXX at 63 above. All war is wrong. Period. This country is ruled now by lunatics, and this will not change any time soon...

mudshark @ 65:

you keep ranting and raving about how McCain is a war criminal.....he was a lieutenant in the Navy.Perhaps you should dig deeper and attack the people who gave the orders.

The Nazis in Germany were just following their superiors "who gave the orders." Adolf Eichmann was tried for just following those leaders "who gave the orders."

McCain is still guilty of being a war crime, regardless of the fact that he only carried out the duties from those "who gave the orders."

Dugg it!

Mr. XXXX @ 27:

Dear C&L Staff:

Crooks and Liars is GREAT.

Much thanks to Logan Murphy, Nicole Belle, and without saying, John Amato. Also many thanks to anyone I did not mention, who provides all of us, with much information, to discuss here at C&L.

Thanks again.

Mr. XXXX

I'll second that...thanks for keeping a good eye on the hate mongers.

Gramarye @ 67:

I think the OP comparison overlooks the obvious: Iraq and Afghanistan are both clearly more tied to threats to American national security than were Haiti or Somalia. The latter two were almost purely PR moves, similar to what an American intervention in Darfur or Burma would be today. Afghanistan was a direct response to 9/11 and Iraq was at least based on the belief, if mistaken, that there was a weapons program there growing to maturity in the hands of a slightly-mad dictator with a penchant for underestimating the consequences of his actions and a history of supporting other terrorist organization, if not AQ.

Neither Haiti nor Somalia were credibly part of a larger ideological struggle, either.

Sorry but I think you are wrong. I'm not sure the reason for invading Afghanistan, but I can guarantee you it had nothing to do with a war on terror. Haiti, Somalia, Nicaragua, El Salvadore, Iraq, Cuba, etc, etc, are all about American control. There are no good reasons for killing anybody in any of these nations. The real reason it's done? Cuz we is the big boys with the big toys, and we can. It's that simple really.

The Provokateur @ 73:

McCain is looking great for '08.

Really. can this bush twin really be worse than Clinton. With McCain Americans may at some point wake up and realise they been had again and again.

With Clinton they just pretend like they aint been had.

You raise a very valid point. Like JFK (but at least he was killed, so the awe is understandable), Americans are obsessed with how great life was with Bill Clinton. What was so great about it? Compared to now? You can't compare like that.

BushCo promised McCain the election in '08 and now it looks like they might be able to deliver–especially if they start scaring the masses with fake-o Orange Alerts or a false flag operation against Iran.
McCain: 100% Batshit Crazy

Courtesy of TDS: The Crooked WeinerMobile

http://thumbsnap.com/v/EPMlVmTs.jpg
http://thumbsnap.com/v/EPMlVmTs.jpg

ConcernedCanuck @ 74:

Gramarye @ 67:

I think the OP comparison overlooks the obvious: Iraq and Afghanistan are both clearly more tied to threats to American national security than were Haiti or Somalia. The latter two were almost purely PR moves, similar to what an American intervention in Darfur or Burma would be today. Afghanistan was a direct response to 9/11 and Iraq was at least based on the belief, if mistaken, that there was a weapons program there growing to maturity in the hands of a slightly-mad dictator with a penchant for underestimating the consequences of his actions and a history of supporting other terrorist organization, if not AQ.

Neither Haiti nor Somalia were credibly part of a larger ideological struggle, either.

Sorry but I think you are wrong. I'm not sure the reason for invading Afghanistan, but I can guarantee you it had nothing to do with a war on terror. Haiti, Somalia, Nicaragua, El Salvadore, Iraq, Cuba, etc, etc, are all about American control. There are no good reasons for killing anybody in any of these nations. The real reason it's done? Cuz we is the big boys with the big toys, and we can. It's that simple really.

I think the case for Afghanistan was the strongest we've had for any foreign military action since Vietnam. Osama was there, even if we failed to catch him.

Also, what makes you think I disagree with you about Haiti and the others? If you believe that we had no business being there, then you ought to have been supporting McCain in calling for getting out of Haiti and Somalia. I would have been, had I been at all interested in politics at the time. (Of course, at that age, I hadn't even taken the SAT yet.) I at least agree with Haiti being about American control. I don't know about Somalia (why on Earth would we want to be in control there? If we were going to invade a Middle Eastern/North African/Central Asian nation with the intent to take control, you'd think we'd pick something more like ... well, Iraq). That's an aside, though. The point is that McCain was right to call for withdrawal from those countries, so why blast him about it now, other than senseless partisanship?

You'd think you could find something to blast him about where you actually believe he was wrong.

cg @ 75:

In fairness, McCain would have looked awful silly if he had argued "if we leave, the Haitians will follow us home!" I disagree wholeheartedly with McCain on the Iraq war, but I think there's a better argument out there than this one.

Of course he'd have looked silly if he said that.

That's probably why he didn't say it.

The whole point is that even if you disagree with him saying that about Al Qaeda or other Islamist cells in Iraq, he doesn't look completely silly saying it. He may be wrong, but he doesn't look ridiculous--particularly to people of a more centrist bent than those who hang out on anti-GOP blogs--saying it in public.

yes..McCain was right to say get out of Somalia and the others...that's what got him a lot of support...and alot of people really liked him on both sides of the aisle...then he kissed boosh's ass...it's been all down hill from then on

Gramarye @ 81:

ConcernedCanuck @ 74:

Gramarye @ 67:

I think the OP comparison overlooks the obvious: Iraq and Afghanistan are both clearly more tied to threats to American national security than were Haiti or Somalia. The latter two were almost purely PR moves, similar to what an American intervention in Darfur or Burma would be today. Afghanistan was a direct response to 9/11 and Iraq was at least based on the belief, if mistaken, that there was a weapons program there growing to maturity in the hands of a slightly-mad dictator with a penchant for underestimating the consequences of his actions and a history of supporting other terrorist organization, if not AQ.

Neither Haiti nor Somalia were credibly part of a larger ideological struggle, either.

Sorry but I think you are wrong. I'm not sure the reason for invading Afghanistan, but I can guarantee you it had nothing to do with a war on terror. Haiti, Somalia, Nicaragua, El Salvadore, Iraq, Cuba, etc, etc, are all about American control. There are no good reasons for killing anybody in any of these nations. The real reason it's done? Cuz we is the big boys with the big toys, and we can. It's that simple really.

I think the case for Afghanistan was the strongest we've had for any foreign military action since Vietnam. Osama was there, even if we failed to catch him.

Also, what makes you think I disagree with you about Haiti and the others? If you believe that we had no business being there, then you ought to have been supporting McCain in calling for getting out of Haiti and Somalia. I would have been, had I been at all interested in politics at the time. (Of course, at that age, I hadn't even taken the SAT yet.) I at least agree with Haiti being about American control. I don't know about Somalia (why on Earth would we want to be in control there? If we were going to invade a Middle Eastern/North African/Central Asian nation with the intent to take control, you'd think we'd pick something more like ... well, Iraq). That's an aside, though. The point is that McCain was right to call for withdrawal from those countries, so why blast him about it now, other than senseless partisanship?

You'd think you could find something to blast him about where you actually believe he was wrong.

Who knows when he's wrong? He flips, he flops, he splashes, he sticks his finger in the air, and does amazing 180's. What McCain believes in this week, next month he is totally against. I think he's either senile, or batshit crazy, or the greediest SOB in the RePUgnant race.

45 US soldiers died in Somalia.
0 US soldiers died in Haiti.

3932 (and counting) US soldiers have died in Iraq, but McCain insists we have to have to stay there forever or else he'll call the US troops losers and terrorists winners.

McCain is a two-faced sad sack o crap

There is no 'question' about McCain's sanity.

He has none.

Dr. Wu @ 88:

McCain used to be an independent thinker, but he drank the Kool-Aid around 2003 and ensconced himself squarely in the Bushwhore camp. His comments about Haiti are almost identical to Bush's 2000 campaign promises to abstain from "nation building." Of course, Bush (or McCain) will never admit that his ill-considered and incompetently-planned "nation building" adventure in Iraq turned into a complete clusterfuck, so I'm sure they have compelling arguments as to why Iraq is totally different from Haiti or Somalia. Just like their compelling arguments as to why Clinton's "disregard for the rule of law" (getting a blow job) represented a constitutional crisis and an impeachable offense, whereas Bush's illegal spying on thousands of American citizens represented a great leap forward in heroic patriotism. Republican hypocrisy is hardly news, but efforts like this to chronicle its hundreds of forms can't hurt.

This is true. However, I still think McCain has independent leanings. His recent war rhetoric is pure politics as the quotes in this post point out. He's playing partisan now because he knew he was going to run again. He doesn't do well among the base for working with Democrats. Going along with the war and W (whom he HATES) is his way of pretending to come back in the fold. I'm just waiting for his becoming born-again so that he can get all of the evangelicals on his side.

Say what you will about McCain but I believe he's one of VERY FEW Republicans who actually put country first, party second. Remember what McCain said upon hearing about Lewinsky, "I hope that this isn't true...", which was the exact opposite of what most bloodthirsty Republicans were thinking at the time. At the end of the day, if another Republican wins this year, I would want the guy who most annoys the Republican base over those who's every move/vote is done to please them.

Brendan @ 93:

Dr. Wu @ 88:

McCain used to be an independent thinker, but he drank the Kool-Aid around 2003 and ensconced himself squarely in the Bushwhore camp......Republican hypocrisy is hardly news, but efforts like this to chronicle its hundreds of forms can't hurt.

This is true. However, I still think McCain has independent leanings. His recent war rhetoric is pure politics as the quotes in this post point out. He's playing partisan now because he knew he was going to run again. He doesn't do well among the base for working with Democrats. Going along with the war and W (whom he HATES) is his way of pretending to come back in the fold. I'm just waiting for his becoming born-again so that he can get all of the evangelicals on his side.

Say what you will about McCain but I believe he's one of VERY FEW Republicans who actually put country first, party second. Remember what McCain said upon hearing about Lewinsky, "I hope that this isn't true...", which was the exact opposite of what most bloodthirsty Republicans were thinking at the time. At the end of the day, if another Republican wins this year, I would want the guy who most annoys the Republican base over those who's every move/vote is done to please them.

There may have been a time when McCain hads airs of independence but now he's merely another TooL.
Even Pat Buchanan says:
“McCain would be a continuation of the neo-conservative foreign policy and we could very well be at war with Iran...I think he’s Bush on steroids.”

Don't be fooled by his rhetoric—if he gets in office the same hacks, cronies, incompetents and criminals will be running the government in front of and behind the scenes.

The Real McCain:
http://thumbsnap.com/v/6EwKIzOR.jpg
http://thumbsnap.com/v/6EwKIzOR.jpg

.

thank.you.for.your.service,sir...but.on.this.point.youre.an.old.fool...we.dont.need.endless.war.and.you.want.it...

McCain's Problem With the Facts
http://www.democrats.org/a/2008/01/mccains_problem.php

You guys are repeating the old Republican narrative/swiftboating of John McCain. It's 2008, man! You're living in the past, man! He spent years in a prison in Vietnam that most of us wouldn't survive for even a day, so let's give a (illegitimate war) hero his due. It wasn't his illegitimate war, and he was heroic. Blaming the soldiers is as odious as blaming imaginary evildoers.

If you want to express contempt for McCain, there are lots of legitimate issues to raise. Here's one: the fake stroll throught he Baghdad market to convince us there's peace in Baghdad, without telling us he had half the military protecting him from danger. Big, fat warmongering liar.

Here's another: "The surge is working, my friends." Pure bullshit. Violence is down in certain areas because opposing ethnic groups have been wiped out of those areas. (See big, fat warmongering liar, above.)

raker @ 101:

You guys are repeating the old Republican narrative/swiftboating of John McCain. It's 2008, man! You're living in the past, man! He spent years in a prison in Vietnam that most of us wouldn't survive for even a day, so let's give a (illegitimate war) hero his due. It wasn't his illegitimate war, and he was heroic. Blaming the soldiers is as odious as blaming imaginary evildoers.

If you want to express contempt for McCain, there are lots of legitimate issues to raise. Here's one: the fake stroll throught he Baghdad market to convince us there's peace in Baghdad, without telling us he had half the military protecting him from danger. Big, fat warmongering liar.

Here's another: "The surge is working, my friends." Pure bullshit. Violence is down in certain areas because opposing ethnic groups have been wiped out of those areas. (See big, fat warmongering liar, above.)

Your last two paragraphs are intelligently stated. Your claim in your first paragraph that McCain was "heroic" is not simply absurd; worse, it is factually incorrect. As I pointed out in comment #82, McCain's last mission was not to bomb a military installation, but rather to bomb a light-bulb factory, which is a civilian target, and which is in clear violation of the Geneva Conventions and therefore merits the definition of McCain being tried as a war criminal. As the Nuremberg trials should have demonstrated, trying to claim that one was "only following orders" should never be considered an excuse to justify killing innocent civilians, since German officials and soldiers ended up being hanged for their crimes. Just as egregiously is the fact that McCain has never expressed remorse for his actions. Quite the contrary, as it appears that he was known to label the Vietnamese as gooks, apparently believing that the Vietnamese should be viewed as being sub-human.

The true heroes of this country are not the super patriots such as John McCain. Rather, they are those of the VVAW [Vietnam Veterans Against the War] and those service members featured in the documentary Sir! No Sir!, who participated in the GI resistance during the Vietnam conflict by saying no the U.S. war machine.

There may have been a time when McCain hads airs of independence but now he's merely another TooL.
Even Pat Buchanan says:
“McCain would be a continuation of the neo-conservative foreign policy and we could very well be at war with Iran...I think he’s Bush on steroids.”

Don't be fooled by his rhetoric—if he gets in office the same hacks, cronies, incompetents and criminals will be running the government in front of and behind the scenes.

The Real McCain:
http://thumbsnap.com/v/6EwKIzOR.jpg
http://thumbsnap.com/v/6EwKIzOR.jpg

.

I take a lot of what Buchanan sez with a healthy dose of salt ;-]

I'm not going by McCain says, rather by what he does; he went against his party with finance reform legislation, he worked with Ted Kennedy (THE unpardonable sin among neocons), and on gun control at gun shows.

Personally, I'll take all of that over the other republican candidates any day...but only if I have to. I don't buy into his love of this "war." I think that's where his talk is really cheap, intended only to appease the hardliners in his party now that he's in the hunt for "Red November."

I just coined that one, feel free to quote me at will...

:-}

Abbybwood @ 98:

Let's also be aware of the fact that McCain makes no apologies for the fact that he "loves Henry Kissinger" who is one of his "trusted advisers".

Here's a tiny snippet of who Kissinger really is (from Wikipedia):

"With the recent declassification of Nixon and Ford administration documents relating to U.S. policy toward South America and East Timor, Kissinger has come under fire from journalists and human rights advocacy groups, both in the U.S. and abroad. Following the release of those documents, officials in France, Brazil, Chile, Spain, and Argentina have sought him for questioning about war crimes he might have committed, such as Operation Condor, hindering his travel abroad.[1]"

And let's recall that Bush named Kissinger to be the head of the 9/11 Commission. Within hours of the family members (The Jersey Girls) questioning Kissinger about his business ties to Saudi Arabia and OBL's family, he stepped down in disgrace.

And McCain "loves" the guy.

Henry Kissinger also is a war criminal who should be tried at the Hague for his direct role in the bombing of Cambodia.

McCain pays tribute to a known entity---one war criminal McCain paying homage to another-Kissinger...

OOOps John- Like Bush's 7 yrs of OOps huh?

Now I am positive a Senator's health care package that the American people provide even when we can't provide health care to ourselves or loved ones, must provide Senator McCain with the memory medicine he requires and we pay for.

So why doesn't his staff make sure Senator McCain takes his med's?

I am glad that he has become very comfortable sacrificing other peoples lives. . .

ConcernedCanuck @ 87:

Gramarye @ 81:

ConcernedCanuck @ 74:

Gramarye @ 67:
Sorry but I think you are wrong. I'm not sure the reason for invading Afghanistan, but I can guarantee you it had nothing to do with a war on terror. Haiti, Somalia, Nicaragua, El Salvadore, Iraq, Cuba, etc, etc, are all about American control. There are no good reasons for killing anybody in any of these nations. The real reason it's done? Cuz we is the big boys with the big toys, and we can. It's that simple really.

I think the case for Afghanistan was the strongest we've had for any foreign military action since Vietnam. Osama was there, even if we failed to catch him.

Also, what makes you think I disagree with you about Haiti and the others? If you believe that we had no business being there, then you ought to have been supporting McCain in calling for getting out of Haiti and Somalia. I would have been, had I been at all interested in politics at the time. (Of course, at that age, I hadn't even taken the SAT yet.) I at least agree with Haiti being about American control. I don't know about Somalia (why on Earth would we want to be in control there? If we were going to invade a Middle Eastern/North African/Central Asian nation with the intent to take control, you'd think we'd pick something more like ... well, Iraq). That's an aside, though. The point is that McCain was right to call for withdrawal from those countries, so why blast him about it now, other than senseless partisanship?

You'd think you could find something to blast him about where you actually believe he was wrong.

Who knows when he's wrong? He flips, he flops, he splashes, he sticks his finger in the air, and does amazing 180's. What McCain believes in this week, next month he is totally against. I think he's either senile, or batshit crazy, or the greediest SOB in the RePUgnant race.

He is just a flagrant panderer that will say anything to anyone to get votes. His image of "independence" is a fraud, just like his candidacy. He used to be semi respectable once but when he was assimilated by the Repubilborg Colllective, he sold his soul away. What a pathetic and hypocritical coward---doesn't have the guts to even stand for the image he supposedly promotes. In other words---a perfect fit for the Neocons.

God, McCain is one of the most reprehensible weasels I have ever seen. "Straight talking"? Please. This idiot is still claiming the "surge" is working.

Gramarye @ 67:

I think the OP comparison overlooks the obvious: Iraq and Afghanistan are both clearly more tied to threats to American national security than were Haiti or Somalia. The latter two were almost purely PR moves, similar to what an American intervention in Darfur or Burma would be today. Afghanistan was a direct response to 9/11 and Iraq was at least based on the belief, if mistaken, that there was a weapons program there growing to maturity in the hands of a slightly-mad dictator with a penchant for underestimating the consequences of his actions and a history of supporting other terrorist organization, if not AQ.

Neither Haiti nor Somalia were credibly part of a larger ideological struggle, either.

Saddam with WMDs meant what, exactly? The country suffered from an eight-year war with Iran, invaded Kuwait to ease the monster debt squeeze Saddam put himself in, got whomped in a short war, was forced to starve and endure civilian deaths from sanctions and two Clinton-era bombing raids, and not to mention has two regional enemies who could potentially co-operate with Yankeestan to destroy Iraq (yes, Israel and Iran) one of which had helped demolish the Taliban regime's control of Kabul, and the other with already proven capacity to destroy his NBC program which is allied to a superpower, and he's supposed to ignore all that to use the goddamn things?! Bullsh-t. Saddam was a pragmatic dictator, not some apocalyptic nut like Shrub. Armored Dinner Jacket? He's an idiot, not a nut.

Gramarye @ 81:

ConcernedCanuck @ 74:

Gramarye @ 67:

I think the OP comparison overlooks the obvious: Iraq and Afghanistan are both clearly more tied to threats to American national security than were Haiti or Somalia. The latter two were almost purely PR moves, similar to what an American intervention in Darfur or Burma would be today. Afghanistan was a direct response to 9/11 and Iraq was at least based on the belief, if mistaken, that there was a weapons program there growing to maturity in the hands of a slightly-mad dictator with a penchant for underestimating the consequences of his actions and a history of supporting other terrorist organization, if not AQ.

Neither Haiti nor Somalia were credibly part of a larger ideological struggle, either.

Sorry but I think you are wrong. I'm not sure the reason for invading Afghanistan, but I can guarantee you it had nothing to do with a war on terror. Haiti, Somalia, Nicaragua, El Salvadore, Iraq, Cuba, etc, etc, are all about American control. There are no good reasons for killing anybody in any of these nations. The real reason it's done? Cuz we is the big boys with the big toys, and we can. It's that simple really.

I think the case for Afghanistan was the strongest we've had for any foreign military action since Vietnam. Osama was there, even if we failed to catch him.

Also, what makes you think I disagree with you about Haiti and the others? If you believe that we had no business being there, then you ought to have been supporting McCain in calling for getting out of Haiti and Somalia. I would have been, had I been at all interested in politics at the time. (Of course, at that age, I hadn't even taken the SAT yet.) I at least agree with Haiti being about American control. I don't know about Somalia (why on Earth would we want to be in control there? If we were going to invade a Middle Eastern/North African/Central Asian nation with the intent to take control, you'd think we'd pick something more like ... well, Iraq). That's an aside, though. The point is that McCain was right to call for withdrawal from those countries, so why blast him about it now, other than senseless partisanship?

You'd think you could find something to blast him about where you actually believe he was wrong.

No. Afghanistan is a sovereign state. There's no nation named Al-Qaeda, only a briefly (under Bunt Laden) unified non-state guerilla network, and now a raft of divided decentralized cells. Special Forces are needed in this sort of war, things like Delta Force, not a large-scale invasion like the Afghan and Iraqi wars.

General_Rennenkampf @ 119:

Gramarye @ 81:

ConcernedCanuck @ 74:

Gramarye @ 67:
Sorry but I think you are wrong. I'm not sure the reason for invading Afghanistan, but I can guarantee you it had nothing to do with a war on terror. Haiti, Somalia, Nicaragua, El Salvadore, Iraq, Cuba, etc, etc, are all about American control. There are no good reasons for killing anybody in any of these nations. The real reason it's done? Cuz we is the big boys with the big toys, and we can. It's that simple really.

I think the case for Afghanistan was the strongest we've had for any foreign military action since Vietnam. Osama was there, even if we failed to catch him.

Also, what makes you think I disagree with you about Haiti and the others? If you believe that we had no business being there, then you ought to have been supporting McCain in calling for getting out of Haiti and Somalia. I would have been, had I been at all interested in politics at the time. (Of course, at that age, I hadn't even taken the SAT yet.) I at least agree with Haiti being about American control. I don't know about Somalia (why on Earth would we want to be in control there? If we were going to invade a Middle Eastern/North African/Central Asian nation with the intent to take control, you'd think we'd pick something more like ... well, Iraq). That's an aside, though. The point is that McCain was right to call for withdrawal from those countries, so why blast him about it now, other than senseless partisanship?

You'd think you could find something to blast him about where you actually believe he was wrong.

(#117): Saddam with WMDs meant what, exactly? The country suffered from an eight-year war with Iran, invaded Kuwait to ease the monster debt squeeze Saddam put himself in, got whomped in a short war, was forced to starve and endure civilian deaths from sanctions and two Clinton-era bombing raids, and not to mention has two regional enemies who could potentially co-operate with Yankeestan to destroy Iraq (yes, Israel and Iran) one of which had helped demolish the Taliban regime’s control of Kabul, and the other with already proven capacity to destroy his NBC program which is allied to a superpower, and he’s supposed to ignore all that to use the goddamn things?! Bullsh-t. Saddam was a pragmatic dictator, not some apocalyptic nut like Shrub. Armored Dinner Jacket? He’s an idiot, not a nut.

(#119): No. Afghanistan is a sovereign state. There's no nation named Al-Qaeda, only a briefly (under Bunt Laden) unified non-state guerilla network, and now a raft of divided decentralized cells. Special Forces are needed in this sort of war, things like Delta Force, not a large-scale invasion like the Afghan and Iraqi wars.

There is no nation named Al Qaeda. So what? That gives them complete immunity from anything other than covert strikes (in a landlocked country, at that)? Incidentally, we actually did largely limit our presence in Afghanistan to special forces after 9/11. The footprint of the regular army there was minuscule compared with that in Iraq. Sovereignty isn't a get-out-of-war-free card, and the Taliban cast their lot with Osama when they sheltered him from us. Asking us to respect Afghanistan's sovereignty in such a circumstance would be a non-starter. Technically, if we were to respect their sovereignty completely, it would mean do absolutely nothing, not even use special forces to go after him. The president would have to get on national TV and say, "well, we're reasonably sure we know who did this and where he's located, but it's a sovereign country whose government hasn't officially done anything to us, so we'll wait until he's vacationing in America and pick him up then." Not likely.

As to your comments about Saddam being a "pragmatic dictator" who was "forced" to starve his own people by redirecting humanitarian aid to military equipment and luxuries for his inner circle, I think you've fallen off the leftward edge of the earth at that point. The sanctions weren't the best way to deal with Saddam, but that doesn't change the fact that what he did both before and after they were imposed was unpardonable. Just like the fact that he was executed in the way he was was less than ideal (mob justice), but that's different than saying that it's a bad thing that he's dead.

More than 90% of the country supported the Afghanistan invasion.

Iraq was dicier.

I don't know what the stats were for Somalia or Haiti, but my guess is that they weren't anywhere near that high. That means that a substantial fraction of the country doesn't see any contradiction in McCain thinking Somalia and Haiti were worthless adventures, while Afghanistan and Iraq were/are more vital missions. It's far too shallow an argument to say that "you opposed one war, so you must oppose all wars or you're being inconsistent."

I'm more interested in why McCain, in all 3 screencaps, was not wearing a lapel pin supporting America!
/snark.

Wow, this is a devastating piece of video. I echo the kudos to whomever researched these comments. McCains accusations of surrender have always been adolescent name-calling, no they're shown to be flaming hypocricy. We've won all military force can win. This war is exactly what Bin-Laden is on record as wanting: to draw us into a foreign land to be ground down with guerrilla tactics. Thanks to Bush's mind-blowing incompetence, Al-Qaida has challenged the most powerful military force in the history of the world with a few hundred militants equipped with camels, assault rifles, improvised explosives, and a little brains; and (to quote our own generals) "broken" it. Al-Qaeda has cost the U.S. enormous military capacity, thousands of lives, and TRILLIONS of dollars all through fear, creativity, and tweaking the macho egos of idiots like Bush and McCain. It's time to get out not because we can't stomach losses, but because the benefits of withdrawing simply outweigh the costs. Al-Qaeda's going to declare victory whenever we leave, under whatever circumstances. Who cares?

Erroll @ 120:

Mudshark

Scroll down to May 30 to the post that centers on McCain. It tells what happened on the day that McCain got shot down and the Vietnamese security guard who bravely prevented McCain from being justifiably beaten to death.

http://lefti.blogspot.com/2005_05_01_archive.html

ok Erroll....I read your link and article(thank you btw)I can see how some people might think he was a war criminal.I can also see how some people would not consider him a war criminal.But there is one thing I cannot see and that is calling him a war hero.thanks again for the info.

what I would like to know is this......Was that Light Bulb Factory a primary target or was it a secondary target?Because according to this... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCain#Prisoner_of_war
his target was a thermal power plant.Now I know this is from wikipedia..and can be altered.But I;ve read this before else where.