More War! McCain! More War! McCain!

more war
less jobs
more consumption
less conservation
...a promise for a fatter, stupider, racist, fascist america!

Set to Music

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzJgytGDafA

Marge? Obama worse than Bush?

Put down the koolaid. Seriously.

McCain is really beginning to show brain damage. Good thing his statement regarding more wars and less jobs is recorded because it will be used against him in November after more American military die in an illegal war and more Americans are still without jobs.

I think you mean to say John McCain is General Buck Turdgison.

Geo @ 8:

Marge? Obama worse than Bush?

Put down the koolaid. Seriously.

Geo ... feeding the Troll will only cause others to come expecting handouts.

billy bob,

bill and hillary are the fred 'n ginger of tap-dancing on the head of a pin.

when it comes to parsing, she can b.s. with the best of them.

that's why her old friends called her "slick hillie".

Anyway ... Brave New Films did a great job with this clip. maybe we should have an Awards Show after the Primaries for the Best Film Clips. Sounds like fun.

You guys would prefer Mitt "Magical-Underwear-of-the-Apocalypse" Romney as your President?

McCain's plan to end the war is to win the war.

McCain's plan to win the war is to kill everyone.

Gee, that's the same plan Nixon had to end the Vietnam war.

Look how well that turned out.

And when did H. Clinton say, "I hate the gooks.... I will hate them as long as I live," as McCain did in 2000?

The clip doesn't compare McCain to Strangelove but to Buck Turgidson.

Americans are seriously entertaining the notion of voting the guy who sang "bomb bomb bomb Iran" as the next president of Yoo Ess of Ey?

I dunno... it seems that anybody in a political office who would sing a little ditty about a next unjustified, based on false pretenses war would be a no-go in any other country but our glorious republic?

I mean do some people seriously believe that we need to add Iran-American War to the future schoolbooks for our children?

And what will the authors in those schoolbooks write - the truth that we Americans are dumb enough to believe again that WMD are the cause of war, go in and then not find any?

Or how about S 762, the Kohl Amdt. No. 455; To provide humanitarian food assistance in connection with U.S. activities in Iraq. ult: Agreed to, 67-26, with 7 not voting.

4 Not-voting on the Dem side (HC voted Yea with caucus);
26 Nay votes on the R side, including McCain.

Cause, yeah, it's not a good idea to supply food to civilians.

Dave @ 29:

when Mccain dies in office and Arnie is president

Without a C. Amendment, he is not eligible for the Presidency. Were he VP when the President died, the Speaker of the House would become President (or if they decline, the Pro Tem President of the Senate).

There is going to be plenty of time for the the press "to stop giving McCain a pass" on a host of issues. He has so many flip flop issues, so many back peddling stances and fake beliefs that Obama is going to be able to chop him into little bits any time he wants to...

Unfortunately McCain didn't learn a damn thing from the Vietnam war . Was it because he was flying high in the sky and didn't see the results of Napalm he dropped or is he suffering from some kind of mental illness .

One thing is clear, he has been tapped to take over Bush's Endless NEOCON WAR , because if you have read PNAC, Michael Ledeen and the other degenerate imperialists , to them it's a LONG, LONG term plan. to establish a permanent occupation of Iraq , use it as a " lilly pad" or jump off to attack any country that doesn't adhere to U.S. foreign policy agenda .

Questions for McCain .

1. By the pentagon's own estimate , " Al qaeda " represents less then 5 % of foreign fighters , how in the world could they possibly , establish a " permanent base" to launch attacks against the U.S. or anybody else ?
And if the Iraqi Military can't handle a few hundred fighters , well then , they don't have much ability to defend itself from a bunch of Boy Scouts . let alone " Al qaeda " .

2. You glowingly speak of " democracy" in Iraq . Please tell us how , irregardless of what Iraqis people want , how will they of a SOVEREIGN and FREE country , living under an occupation . Can you explain to the Iraqis , why you insult their wishes of a Free, and independent Country , while you make huge declarative statements , that we will be in iraq 'for a 100 Years " . All polls indicate , the majority of Iraqis want U.S, troops out soon .

3 . Please explain why you and other republicans mislead U.S. citizens , into thinking we have a weak military , with assertions such as " we need to increase out military " " we need to Rebuild out military " , when in fact we spend TRILLIONS every 2 years , have already increased the military budget by billions and spend more than the next ten countries combined . We have have hardly a " weak'n military " .
Isn't the problem , that the NEOCON agenda of U.S. hegemony requires BASE after BASE in countries were the majority of people don't want their presence and with endless wars .

4. Why do you falsely assert , that there is no connection between the Military occupation of a country and the start and level of RESISTANCE . By their OWN WORDS , they all say the same things in Iraq , from every so called Jihadist group , former Bath members, former Iraqi Military etc etc. , that they are fighting or resisting the occupation of THEIR country .
Why don't you at least acknowledge reality and FACTS .

5. The so called " surge " seems to be designed for one purpose, to make conditions palatable for an U.S. Occupation , because you make NO reference to the destroyed Iraqi hospitals, the majority that don't work or even exist .
You show no concern over the lack of clean water, why isn't THAT a goal , included in your military plans for Iraq ? Why isn't working sewage , not a goal in your military plans for Iraq ? Why isn't a destroyed infrastructure or lack of reduction of street crimes , rarely reported a concern , and not in your military plans for Iraq ?

6. John McCain , why are you turning Iraq into a BATTLE GROUND, for your neocon agenda and WHAT country are you planning on invading NEXT ?

John McCain , we are TIRED of your militarization of the United States of America and tired of your blood lust for MORE wars, more U.S. causalities and deliberately causing the suffering of middle eastern people . Please.....GO AWAY ! We don't your WARS ! !

McCain and the neocons will loose in Nov....but here's some scary picks for V.P.
for mc cain: jeb bush, dick cheney,rush limbaugh,o'liely,beck,sean,kristol,rudy,lieberman......scary~~~~~~~~~~~

Maybe Arnold the Pantsload can give his Republican cronies some of CA's transportation dollars, help them through the hard times:

"Mitt Romney had to pony up $18 million of his own money for his campaign in the fourth quarter alone, which was two-thirds of the total amount he managed to raise. To keep his poorly financed campaign afloat, John McCain had to take out a $3 million loan and secure it in part with a life insurance policy on himself." -- TPM

In the case of 1998, the weapons inspectors were BLOCKED from entering the palaces. That was a proximate cause for the Desert Fox bombings.

Dy'a think the White House would grant the same approval? (Hell, they can't even offer up 5 million "lost" emails.) The warmongers pressed UNSCOM into searching those palaces as a deliberate provocation against the Iraqi sovereign honor, knowing full well it was a fait accompli that Hussein would refuse. Ergo, a bombing campaign. Against a toothless third world nation that posed dick-all threat to the awesome might of Uncle Sam.

Besides, Bill needed to wag the dog and deflect a couple hours attention from Monica, and hey, if that means missile attacks and deaths, so what, right?

In case anybody was wondering, just because the White House refuses to allow me to search the Oval Office, does not mean I was "kicked out" of Washington.

salamander @ 39:

That’s hilarious nonsense. She has called for bombing Iran? When was that?

Kyl-Lieberman mean anything to you?

The point is correct. McCain is out in public raving about blowing up Iran. A bill supported by 76 Senators, which in itself does nothing, is not equivalent to such public warmongering.

[I note in passing that the IRG is in charge of border security and the Straits of Hormuz, where the incident with the US fleet took place a few weeks ago. No 'terrorism' label will be needed if the IRG can be construed to have attacked a US ship.]

salamander @ 42:

In the case of 1998, the weapons inspectors were BLOCKED from entering the palaces. That was a proximate cause for the Desert Fox bombings.

Dy'a think the White House would grant the same approval?

That's besides the point. The inspectors were not kicked out of Iraq; they were barred from inspecting the palaces (which are vastly more extensive than the White House). Under the Cessation of Hostilities, Iraq surrendered itself to UN inspections, which Hussein then blocked -- probably to maintain the illusion of his possession of WMD for domestic reasons. That strategy backfired; the Clinton admin.'s attack on Al-Qaqaa was a reasonable response, which further degraded Hussein's ability to develop nukes.

Paul, go read Z Magazine's feature, "Iraq And Arms Inspectors: The Big Lie," and get a clue.

Paul, do you want to deny this:

"Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) produced a remarkable piece titled: 'What a difference 4 years makes: News coverage of why the inspectors left Iraq'. The piece consists of ten paired examples of mainstream media quotes from 1998 and 2002, covering the withdrawal of weapons inspectors from Iraq. Without fail, the quotes from 1998 report that inspectors were withdrawn, while the quotes from 2002 assert that they were "thrown out", or otherwise forcibly expelled."

sheik yerbouti @ 45:

According to Ritter, inspectors acted covertly on behalf of the United States to deliberately provoke Iraq into non-compliance, thus providing US warplanners with a Casus belli.

Such are the many contradictions of Scott Ritter. Regardless of supposed provocations by US agents, Iraq had no right to block inspections.

The response of Desert Fox was a limited military strike (very low civilian casualties) specifically on Hussein's nuclear materials manufacturing ability, but also with the clear intention of degrading Hussein's hold on power.

Thirty-five of the 100 targets were selected because of their role in Iraq's air defense system, an essential first step in any air war, because damage to those sites paves the way for other forces and minimizes casualties all around. Only 13 targets on the list are facilities associated with chemical and biological weapons or ballistic missiles, and three are southern Republican Guard bases that might be involved in a repeat invasion of Kuwait. The heart of the Desert Fox list (49 of the 100 targets) is the Iraqi regime itself: a half-dozen palace strongholds and their supporting cast of secret police, guard and transport organizations. -- William Arkin, writing for WaPo,

quoted in wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Desert_Fox

Sure, dismiss Scott Ritter -- who was right about everything -- and make the paragon of credibility about Iraq WMDs -- or lack thereof -- to your girl Hillary -- a neocon in a skirt. Laughable. It's not just Hillary who stoops to lying and disinformation; her supporters have been infected by the same Pinochio virus.

Yes palaces are often used to house uranium reprocessing plants and chemical weapons factories.

(Sarcasm intended)

Cmon' PIL.

Che's Lounge @ 56:

Yes palaces are often used to house uranium reprocessing plants and chemical weapons factories.

The Iraqi "palaces" are not some series of throne rooms. These were acres and acres and acres of Hussein's stuff.

"The sites already covered 32 square kilometres (12 square miles) and comprised hundreds of buildings in 1998 when a UN Special Group of diplomats and weapons experts were allowed to tour them briefly."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2288895.stm

Paul in LA @ 52:

Sounds like a blatant act of war as opposed to a strategic strike on WMD factories. And what is your definition of "very low civilian casualties"? Something like Al amariya in '91? That was also considered a military C&C target.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amiriyah_shelter

i miss george

Che's Lounge @ 60:

Sounds like a blatant act of war as opposed to a strategic strike on WMD factories. And what is your definition of "very low civilian casualties"?

Act of War it would be, were it not that the war had produced a treaty allowing full access for inspections.

If you have a civilian casualty number to post, do so.

You do understand that the US is a hostile power worldwide, and that anyone intending to become President is going to have to endorse a fair amount of violence, don't you? Because I'm taking the devil's advocate position here, simply trying to show that H.Clinton's warmongering for political positioning is not equivalent to McCain's long history of hawkism and outright racism.

On the secondary count, Clinton's bombing against Iraq does not in any way compare to the extremes of either Bush, and while those actions may be considered warcrimes or acts of superpower abuse, in comparison to Republican full-fledged war, they are comparatively minor.

Che's Lounge @ 61:

"The sites already covered 32 square kilometres (12 square miles) and comprised hundreds of buildings in 1998 when a UN Special Group of diplomats and weapons experts were allowed to tour them briefly.”

So they were inspected?

They were viewed as sites, and then Hussein blocked inspection. The whole point of inspection is SURPRISE. You show up with minimum warning, and go through the place. When the inspectors were shown the palaces briefly, there were reportedly significant signs of recent removal of materiel.

It is certainly possible to view the entire engagement with Iraq as being a US conspiracy throughout. But put this another way, the Pentagon as a warmaking machine produces endless conspiracies. Was there a longterm Pentagon plan to install permanent airbases in Iraq, and was Desert Fox a part of that strategy? Probably. But the proximate action itself is not necessarily conspiracy. Of all the plans presented to Bill Clinton by the Pentagon, he undoubtedly did not select the worst options.

In the case of JFK, he dismantled Pentagon plans to preemptively nuke the USSR as soon as enough bombs were available. Even so, he at least initially approved the deployment of limited military forces to SE Asia. Presidencies are not equivalent to peace marches.

I'm going out to protest Bushco's genocide in a few minutes, because I'm on the side of peace. But we cannot act like pacifist Presidencies are possible at this point in our society. The forces of violence are HUGE, and anyone, Obama (Kucinich, Dodd, or the rest) included, who wants to be the civilian leader of our nation, will be struggling to keep the demons in the bottle from day one.

ahem...

whoa @ 69:

But we cannot act like pacifist Presidencies are possible at this point in our society

No wonder you (apparently) support Hillary Clinton.

I'm voting for Obama. I did support Edwards. The point is the comparison between McCain and H. Clinton.

You, no doubt, think the R, who are steamrolling the at the front of the military-industrial complex can simply be ignored? There is a fundamental difference between a warhawk like McCain, and Clinton Democrat, any Clinton Democrat.

I myself am a Nancy Pelosi Democrat, a Progressive. I'll vote for Clinton if she's the candidate, and I think we'll know that pretty much by next Wednesday, because she's better than John McCain and certainly better than Mitt Romney. But the protest vote is now with Obama, so count me in.

To me he's more like Brigadier General Jack D Ripper..

No, John Mccain is George w Bush Jr the Turd!

McCain Confirms It: A Vote for Him Is a Vote for a Third Bush Term
Submitted by BuzzFlash on Mon, 02/04/2008 - 1:24pm. Alerts
A BUZZFLASH NEWS ALERT
DNC Press

Washington, DC - During appearances on Fox News Sunday and CBS's Face the Nation, John McCain made it clear: a vote for him is a vote for a third Bush term. Echoing his earlier statement that we could be in Iraq for 100 years, he said again that he would continue Bush's never ending civil war in Iraq. "We have to take care of the world's security," McCain said.

"The choice between the Democrats and Republicans couldn't be more clear. A vote for John McCain is a vote for a third Bush term with a never ending war in Iraq and an economy that favors those at the top. A vote for a Democrat is a vote to bring our troops home from Iraq, for an economy that works for all Americans, and a return to America's priorities," said Democratic National Committee Press Secretary Stacie Paxton.

McCain: A Third Bush Term
"They want to have the government run the health care system in America. I want the private sector to do it. On the issue of national security policy, there are very sharp differences... They want to withdraw from Iraq and if we do that al Qaeda wins." [Face the Nation, 2/3/2008]

"I have a strong conservative record and I'm proud of that record and I also believe on the national security side it's going to be a clear difference between me and Senator Clinton or Senator Obama. A clear difference on whether we're going to increase spending or decrease spending, increase taxes or decrease taxes, whether we're going to withdraw from Iraq or we're going to see this thing through to the success." [Fox News Sunday, 2/3/2008]

McCain's 100 Year War in Iraq: "We have to take care of the world's security"
"...This strategy is succeeding. Ad I believe that if we had set a date for withdrawal or if we do set a date for withdrawal, al Qaeda will then win and we'll see chaos and genocide in the region. That's another significant difference that Senator Clinton and I have...and I look forward to discussing it. It's not a matter of how long Americans stay. It's a matter of American casualties. And those casualties are coming down and we can eliminate them. Look, we're in Kuwait right next door to Iraq. We're in turkey. We're in Bosnia. We're all over the world. One of the obligations, unfortunately, of being a great superpower is that we have to take care of the world's security." [Fox News Sunday, 2/3/2008]

McCain: More of the Same Bush Supreme Court
"I would appoint justices such as the ones I've strongly supported and gotten through the Senate with the help of many others or help along with others. Only those who strictly interpret the constitution of the United States and do not legislate from the bench... If you have justices that have a clear, conservative, a clear, strict interpretation of the constitution of the United States, then you don't have to worry about what their decisions will be." [Fox News Sunday, 2/3/2008]
A BUZZFLASH NEWS ALERT
http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/alerts/331