Top Leaderboard, Site wide
August 29, 2014
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
Help us grow by sharing
and liking Truthdig:
Sign up for Truthdig's Email NewsletterLike Truthdig on FacebookFollow Truthdig on TwitterSubscribe to Truthdig's RSS Feed

Newsletter

sign up to get updates


Europe’s Warming Raises Tropical Disease Risk






Truthdig Bazaar
The Five Biggest Lies Bush Told Us About Iraq

The Five Biggest Lies Bush Told Us About Iraq

By Robert Scheer, Christopher Scheer and Lakshmi Chaudhry

more items

 
Report

McCain Is More Dangerous Than Bush

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Aug 15, 2008
McCain
AP photo / Mary Altaffer

By Bill Boyarsky

The brief, bloody Georgia war provided another example of John McCain’s reckless views on foreign policy and what he’ll do if he becomes president.

He’s Bush but worse. Forget the moderate image, promoted by an admiring media. Forget the so-called straight talk and independence. With the Russian-Georgian war winding down, McCain has firmly established himself as an old-fashioned Cold Warrior and a supporter of the huge oil companies that have a big stake in Georgia and the rest of the Caucasus.

President Bush talks to the Russians. McCain seems to long for the Iron Curtain days of those long decades of conflict with plenty of brinkmanship, saber rattling and possibly a trip to the edge of war.

Bush chatted with Prime Minister Vladimir Putin during the Olympics, even while Russian troops were invading Georgia. Engagement with the Russians is alien to McCain. For example, he urged Bush to boycott a meeting of the Group of Eight, composed of major industrial nations, in St. Petersburg in 2006. Bush ignored his advice.

And whereas Bush said that when he looked Putin “in the eye,” “I found him to be very straightforward and trustworthy” and “I was able to get a sense of his soul,” McCain said, “I looked into his eyes and saw three letters, a K, a G and a B.”

Advertisement

Square, Site wide
McCain may have a clearer reading of the old KGB spy’s soul than Bush. But his hostile attitude is dangerous in a time when these two powers must get along. Only the most fanatic neocons want a resumption of the Cold War. 

McCain’s attitude toward the Georgia war was unrelenting hostility toward Russia. He sounded like a throwback when he encouraged Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili’s efforts to join NATO, a step guaranteed to stoke the fears of Russia and its former president and now prime minister, Vladimir V. Putin.

When the war started, McCain advocated steps certain to further inflame the Russians who fear that the United States and the rest of the West want to surround Russia with hostile nations.

In McCain’s words, the United States and “allied partners” should “immediately consult with the Ukrainian government and other concerned countries on steps to secure their continued independence.” That’s certainly a challenge to a Russia that is suspicious if not hostile to Ukraine.

Then, in a further challenge to the Russians, McCain said, “The U.S. should immediately consult with Azerbaijan and Turkey and other interested friends to develop plans to strengthen the security of the Baku-Tiblisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline.”

Turkey and Russia are historical rivals, although relations between the two have improved. The Russian relationship with Azerbaijan isn’t especially good. McCain’s idea of bringing them into the game is provocative.

Most important, there is the matter of oil. The Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline, according to Canada’s Globe and Mail, carries almost 1 million barrels of oil a day from the Caucasus fields at Baku to the Turkish port of Ceyhan. It is owned by a consortium led by the oil giant BP and includes the big U.S. companies Chevron and ConocoPhillips.

In other words, McCain contemplates inviting these two nations, which have shaky relations with Russia, to help us save the oil giants’ valuable pipeline.

Contrast that with the more complex and cautious comments of the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, Sen. Barack Obama.

Obama criticized Russia. “No matter how this conflict started, Russia has escalated it well beyond the dispute over South Ossetia and has now violated the space of another country. Russia has escalated its military campaign through strategic bombing and the movement of its ground forces into the heart of Georgia. There is no possible justification for these attacks,” he said.

But he also said, “For many months, I have warned that there needs to be active international engagement to peacefully address the disputes over South Ossetia and Abkhazia, including a high-level and neutral international mediator, and a genuine international peacekeeping force—not simply Russian troops.”

As the campaign for president moves on, McCain will try to smear Obama as an inexperienced and soft-headed oddball, unequipped to lead the country. He’ll campaign as the battle-proven warrior. A friendly media, enamored with his military past, will pick up the theme.

Obama will have to fight back, with more intensity and skill than he has demonstrated so far. His lofty style didn’t work when he spoke out about Georgia during his Hawaiian vacation.

The Republicans will play dirty. They already have, with a deceitful book about Obama written by the same mudslinger who produced the anti-John Kerry book “Unfit for Command.” It is published by Threshold Editions, whose chief editor is longtime Republican hack Mary Matalin.

Obama must show what the Georgia war has demonstrated: Believe it or not, McCain is more dangerous than Bush.

 


New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

By cyrena, August 21, 2008 at 5:04 am Link to this comment

By thebeerdoctor, August 21 at 1:29 am

•  “For all the talk of innovative change, I see the Illinois Senator making the same rounds as Senator McCain (VFW, NAACP, etc) including that Saddle bum church thing, where both anointed candidates had to respond to the baptism of Rick Warren.”

This is one of your sadder comments beerdoc, lacking completely in any sense of context. Help us connect ‘innovative change’ to the campaign process, and where any delegates happen to appear to talk to voters.

VFW, NAACP? How LWV, or the docs, or the firefighters, or maybe the students/staff at blah, blah, blah? (Hillary was at my campus, and Obama was at the City College here). How about any other Veterans Groups? How about the CYO or the XYZ?, How about any other Church? (Obama has spoken at many in Los Angeles) or ANYWHERE ELSE that US voters are likely to congregate? How about your regular old Town Hall Meetings? How about journalists? All of these follow a pretty basic format. The person/candidate speaks for however long they’re going to speak. That follows (generally though not always) with a question and answer period. This procedure is as old as dirt, and as old as campaigning has been around.

Why do they do it this way? Well, because it provides the LARGEST portion of the electorate opportunities listen to HOW the candidates ‘plan’ to work their CHANGE (if that’s what they are promising) and relative to the specific issues that people are concerned about. The questions and answers that follow, give ADDITIONAL opportunities for the candidates to make it clear, what they have in mind for CHANGE, and how they plan to go about it; .again in reference to the issues that most concern the particular group who happens to be gathered.

Q. Mr/Ms Candidate, will you change social security?

A (1)…Yes, and this is how…blah, blah, blah.

Or A(2) Hell NO! I’ll leave it just as jacked up as it is right now, at least until I can wipe it out entirely.

Q. Mr/Ms Candidate, will you change the current foreign policy?

A (1) Yes! I’m going to stop dispatching our military troops and equipment around the globe to steal their resources and force US global hegemony via bombs and other weapons. I’m also planning to engage in constructive dialoged with our international neighbors in order to reach mutually beneficial goals on the global level.

A (2) NO! I will not change anything of the basic strategy, but I will increase the level and frequency of blowing up the rest of the world. So, same stuff, but it’ll happen faster, and I’ll get to use all of the newest toys.

And, on it goes. That’s what we mean by ‘innovative’ change, and we get to find that out, when the candidates show up at all of these various and sundry locations, to talk to people. (or lie to us)

This particular session was of course a farce IMO because I don’t care about stuff like how ANY candidate feels about faith, or religion, God, or any of Her prophets. I DO care about whether or not safe medical procedures and birth control will be available for women, and by extension, there families, and I don’t want any president with the power to take that access away. So, I definitely would wanna know how these candidates feel about that. Other’s may wanna know that other stuff, and they vote too.

I don’t care about gay marriage either, because I’m not gay, and I don’t wanna marry anybody who is. (matter of fact, I don’t wanna marry ANYBODY) BUT, that might be something important for many people to hear. (I’m sure it is). Now of course we didn’t have to get those opinions from an interview by a self-ordained representative of some church. Any journalist could have posed those questions.

But I still don’t get how speaking to as many of the people of the nation as possible, is somehow an indication that there is no sincere desire to effect change in the way the government is operated.

So, if there’s any example of ‘no change’, it’s with your standard, NO CONNECTION analysis.

Report this
thebeerdoctor's avatar

By thebeerdoctor, August 21, 2008 at 2:34 am Link to this comment

re: correction to post
that should be; “who do not even know what Truthdig is.”

Report this
thebeerdoctor's avatar

By thebeerdoctor, August 21, 2008 at 2:29 am Link to this comment

Recent polls suggest that Senator McCain has closed the gap with Senator Obama, partially because of their joint appearance at the Saddleback church. Apparently calling the Arizona senator the bogeyman hasn’t quite worked among that vast number of folks who do not even what Truthdig is.
For all the talk of innovative change, I see the Illinois Senator making the same rounds as Senator McCain (VFW, NAACP, etc) including that Saddle bum church thing, where both anointed candidates had to respond to the baptism of Rick Warren.
I am no great fan of op-ed columnist Kathleen Parker, but in this matter I agree with her. Who really lost at the Saddleback event? The country. It seems the separation of church and state has disappeared. Both McCain and Obama should be ashamed.

Report this

By Sodium, August 20, 2008 at 2:05 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Re:Cann4ing August 20 at 7:30 am.

Cann4ing,

Thank you for the explanation with regards to Keith
Olbermann’s fascinating analysis or rather dissection of the record of John McCain.

Most appreciated…...

Report this

By cann4ing, August 20, 2008 at 8:30 am Link to this comment

Sodium, the reason Olbermann was so effective is that, unlike the right-wing clowns over at the network Olbermann aptly refers to as “Fixed Noise,” he takes the time to actually research a topic before he addresses it.

When I first entered the practice of law, I went to work for a business litigator who had at one time served in the Justice Department under Robert Kennedy.  I learned from him that the most effective means by which one can condemn an opponent is to use the opponent’s own words against him.

In this instance, Olbermann was deeply disturbed that McCain would suggest that Senator Obama would take the position he has taken on Iraq simply because Obama has “the ambition to be president.”  While Olbermann felt that remark an absurdity and said so previously, he didn’t stop there.  He or his staff did their homework, finding a passage in McCain’s own book where McCain wrote that he did not run for president in 2000 out of any lofty policy goals but simply because he had the ambition to become president.

In making the accusation against Senator Obama, McCain had done nothing less than to project onto his opponent his own personal motives, and that makes McCain the ultimate hypocrite.

The willingness to actually dig out the facts before running at the mouth is what separates the forceful editorial opinions of real journalists from the blather and propaganda that emerges from most of the talking heads in the corporate media.

Report this

By Sodium, August 19, 2008 at 9:43 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Subject:The Real John McCain Exposed by Keith Olbermann

Anyone who is interested in knowing the real John McCain and how chilling and dangerous this man can be should have watched and listened to Keith Olbermann,the anchorman of “COUNTDOWN” of MSNBC,cable channel.

At the end of “COUNTDOWN”,which lasts for one hour,Olbermann has exposed not only the deceptive record of John McCain,but he also has dissected it the way a professional biologist dissects a frog.It was a fascinating performance by any measurement of standards.I do hope that he will do it every night to alert the public to what is really going on.

As I listened last night,Monday 18,2008,to Olbermann,I had/have become more convinced than ever that John McCain not only more dangerous than Bush,he was/is much more deceptive and craftier than Bush.At least,I can tell when Bush tells a lie.With John McCain’s ability to convey to the public what he is not,(he conveys serenity in order to cover his well known short temper which no one in his/her right mind would care to have behind a button of a nuke),it is certainly much more difficult for the average voter to detect that great deception John McCain uses like a wizard to get elected.HE IS A REAL ACTOR,WITH NO HONESTY WHATSOEVER.BY HOOK OR CROOK,HE WANTS TO BE PRESIDENT.Period.

If John McCain is elected in November,2008,the American people will pay dearly in blood and treasures for the endless wars he and his advisers,
(most of them are neoconservatives who have lead us into the quagmire in Iraq),will certainly push hard and fast for wars,for various reasons that have nothing to do with national security,but will certainly have a lot to do with the MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX,ISRAEL AND BIG OIL.AND EXACTLY IN THE ORDER MENTIONED.

If I were Obama,I would hit back harder when McCain smears me with distortion and falsehood.That is the only way to force McCain to start debating the real issues that are close to the hearts of the American people.There is no other way to defeat a terrible,dangerous and miserable opponent.Common courtesy will never succeed with the GREAT DECEPTION Obama is facing..

Note to Obama:Every phony hug McCain pretends,it is the hug of death for your election as President.I have witnessed presidential election after another since President Dwight D. Eisenhower was elected by
landslide.The most deceptive and dishonest elections are the ones that took place in the 21ST Century.That is to say,since the presidential election of 2000.

Obama;Respond to every smear,distortion and lie with hard hitting expose’ from McCain’s ample record.And ask Keith Olbermann to help you in digging it in a
real professional manner.Otherwise,you may lose the election.

Report this

By cyrena, August 19, 2008 at 8:10 pm Link to this comment

Rod Adams,

Thanks so much for your comments @ By Rod Adams, August 19 at 12:08 am

I’ve never had the pleasure of meeting Alberto Mora myself, but I he’s still a hero of mine as well. Same goes for Lawrence Wilkerson and Maj Gen Tabuga, both of whom I have had the pleasure to meet and hear from. I also ‘get it’ about the search terms, (such a shame, but it’s the way of the world now…to watch every word).

And…maybe I ‘get’ this part the most..

•  “Believe it or not, but it has - for the past 7 years at least - been a part of the indoctrination of staff officers to teach them that we have something called a “total force” that includes three types of employees - military, government civilians and contractors and that contractors are the most productive and least expensive part of that force. (I keep asking for the studies that show that - they do NOT exist.)”

I believe that it’s been part of the indoctrination, which actually began in the private sector long ago, as deregulation of everything hit my own former industry. (commercial air transportation). And, a bunch of the stuff that USED to exist (in study format as well as basic operational records) doesn’t exist any longer.

It’s really quite spooky. In fact, after 7 years of this stuff, it can make a person downright paranoid. (I have nightmares about renditions). Louise assures me that if we’re not paranoid, it means we’re not paying attention, so I take some comfort in that.

Thanks again.

Report this

By samosamo, August 19, 2008 at 7:37 pm Link to this comment

To any that would be interested and have not been to bill moyers journal to catch his latest guest last friday, here is the link to moyers 2 part interview with Andrew Bacevich who teaches at a college in boston and has lost a son in Iraq and has a book, ‘The Limits of Power’. A very enlightening discussion from moyer’s journal:

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/08152008/watch.html

As a matter of fact I am repeating the link that
By GW=MCHammered, August 18 at 6:26 am
had posted in an earlier comment here.

Report this

By cann4ing, August 19, 2008 at 8:32 am Link to this comment

Rod Adams, to clarify my last post, the number of private mercenaries now operating in Iraq now exceeds the number of the so-called Coalition Forces.  While the number of US troops still exceed the pre-escalation levels (labeled by the Orwellians in the Bush regime as “pre-surge” levels), the presence of these heavily armed mercenaries, coupled with the inability of media to travel un-embedded, frees the Bush regime to spin its “the surge is working” propaganda without any independent means of verification. 

The press will dutifully report the numbers of casualties amongst American troops, and, if there is a reduction in that number, cite it as evidence that “the surge is working.”  Deaths of mercenaries usually go unreported.  And what goes unmentioned is that overall violence reduction is largely attributable to the fact that Iraq has been carved into a network of heavily armed, sectarian enclaves where violence is largely reduced because ethnic cleansing campaigns have, in large measure, been completed within the enclaves.  Travel between enclaves remains exceedingly dangerous as there are snipers ready to take the other side out.

When the Bush regime invokes bringing democracy and freedom to the Iraqi people as a belated justification for this imperial conquest (WMD & al Qaeda links canards having been expose), it has resorted to the traditional language of “liberation” historically invoked to justify imperial conquest.  And, if the Lancet studies are anywhere near accurate, there has been a liberation of sorts.  More than 1.1 million Iraqis have been liberated from their obligation to breathe.

Commenting upon imperial conquest, the ancient Roman historian, Tacitus, said it best:  “They create desolation and call it peace.”

Report this

By cann4ing, August 19, 2008 at 8:13 am Link to this comment

Rod, I thank you for your thoughtful and well-reasoned comment. 

The problem is not those serving in the U.S. military but those making a killing off the killing.

In “Thieves in High Places” Jim Hightower observed:

“The military budget is a massive wealth transfer program from ordinary taxpayers to major corporations, and it has proven easy over the years to wrap this transfer in the red, white and blue and
have a portion of the American people burst out in a rousing chorus of the national anthem and applaud their own mugging.”

Published in 1970, Seymour Melman’s “Pentagon Capitalism” noted that the alignment of the military-industrial complex under the state-controlled Pentagon system directed a major portion of the nation’s resources to “parasitic growth.”  The Pentagon system produced products that do not enter the marketplace and cannot be used for future production.  Sixteen years later, Gore Vidal would analogously observe:  “The Pentagon is like a black hole; what goes in is forever lost to us, and no new wealth is created.”  The enormous size of today’s “black hole” is perhaps reflected in a 2006 study released by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute that revealed that global military spending has topped $1.1 trillion and that the “United States accounted for nearly half of the world’s spending.”  The U.S. spends $1,600 for every American; China, just $31/person.

What has changed since Melman’s time is the effort to outsource the military function itself, beginning in the early 90s when then Sec. of Def. Cheney began outsourcing the support function to KBR.  During the current regime even the military’s core functions are increasingly outsourced to private mercenary firms like Blackwater—and at a far greater cost than would occur if the same functions were handled directly by the military so that, by now, there are a greater number of these so-called “private contractors” operating without accountability in Iraq.

If you haven’t done so, I would strongly urge reading Naomi Klein’s “The Shock Doctrine.”  Klein observes:

“The Bush administration…seized upon the fear generated by the attacks not only to launch the ‘War on Terror’ but to ensure that it is an almost completely for-profit venture, a booming new industry…a ‘disaster capitalism complex,’…much farther-reaching tentacles than the military complex…; this is a global war fought on every level by private companies whose involvement is paid for with public money, with the unending mandate of protecting the…homeland in perpetuity….In only a few short years, the complex has already expanded its market reach from fighting terrorism to international peacekeeping, to municipal policing, to responding increasingly frequent natural disasters.  The ultimate goal for the corporations at the center of the complex is to bring the model of for-profit government…into the ordinary and day-to-day functioning of the state….”

Your personal experience squares with that assessment.

Report this

By avi, August 19, 2008 at 2:06 am Link to this comment

hi, guys I think about McCain Is More Dangerous Than Bush My guess is that Bush will talk to anyone when he’s drunk.  He’s also been known to challenge his father, the sitting Vice President, to a fistfight on the front lawn when he’s drunk. Cheney named himself VP and his pal Rumsfeld, became Secretary of Defense. They surrounded themselves with like-minded power-seekers and they were ready to “test” their vision. And people I know in the military immediately began informing me of their alarm. Certain this would mean within the next few years we would be at war!

rocky

owa Drug Treatment

Report this

By Rod Adams, August 19, 2008 at 1:08 am Link to this comment

cann4ing:

You wrote:

In the wake of 9/11, Addington, Mayer tells us, advanced a doctrine known as “the New Paradigm,” in which he asserted “that the President, as Commander-in-Chief, has the authority to disregard virtually all previously known legal boundaries, if national security demands it.  Under this framework, statutes prohibiting torture, secret detention, and warrantless surveillance have been set aside”—a doctrine which even a long-time Republican legal activist like Bruce Fein regards as “quite alarming.” Alberto Mora, the Navy’s general counsel, described the Justice Department memoranda as “an extreme and virtually unlimited theory of the extent of the president’s Commander-in-Chief authority.”

I had the honor of meeting Mr. Mora and supporting his office during my first DC job. He is one of my heroes.

In my view, a big part of the answer to the initial question posed in the title of the article falls into the study of the relationship between money and power, particularly the notion that money and power are ideally concentrated into the hands of a very thin slice of the world’s population. Please understand - that idea is NOT mine and NOT one that I have sworn to support and defend, but it is one that motivates and drives some of the key decision makers in our current government. Louise KNOWS who they are - she proved that to me by her commentary.

I am kind of talking around this, I know, but search technology makes it important to avoid certain words so that the meaning can be made clear to those in the discussion but not to those casually looking for certain clues or keywords.

I have expanded on the importance of energy fuels in my comments in this discussion because it is hard to talk about the anti-democratic use of money and power over the past 150 years or so (and especially in the past few) without recognizing the importance of control over energy fuels. In engineering there is a technical definition for power - energy per unit time. Mathematically, power increases by expending the maximum amount of energy in the shortest period of time. Monetary power also comes from a similar exercise - the concentration increases when you can increase the numerator and decrease the denominator.

I have spent the past 7 years in minor financial and technical positions in Navy headquarters staffs fighting against people who wanted to spend more quickly, to award more contracts in a shorter period of time, and to push as possible much of the very serious responsibility of projecting our nation’s power and influence into “the private sector”. Those courtiers are acting under the influence of briefings and directives signed out by SecDef with strong influence by VP. It has been a huge, depressingly eye-opening experience to see my organization being systematically stripped of many of the attributes that make it valuable to the nation and to the world. I started to awaken early in my DC tenure when I realized that all of the service secretaries (and many of the assistant secretaries with a big exception in Alberto Mora) had the same kind of defense contractor background.

Ike - one of the true heroes of the 20th century - did not warn people against the military, but against the “military-industrial complex”. I have encouraged many of my colleagues over the years to go back and carefully read that speech and to think long and hard about the contrast between Ike’s warning and some of the directives that we have been given.

Believe it or not, but it has - for the past 7 years at least - been a part of the indoctrination of staff officers to teach them that we have something called a “total force” that includes three types of employees - military, government civilians and contractors and that contractors are the most productive and least expensive part of that force. (I keep asking for the studies that show that - they do NOT exist.)

Report this

By cyrena, August 19, 2008 at 1:00 am Link to this comment

Samosamo,

Thanks for the link!! I did need it. I was able to figure out which book it was that she just put out, but I’m grateful for the link. I hadn’t seen it.

I agree with you and Louise, but at the same time, after so long conversing with Louise on this site, (which I thoroughly enjoy) I’ve decided that she gives GW slightly more credit than I do. I think he’s a total moron, who can’t do diddly shit on his own, and only takes orders from papa Dick, who actually IS very smart, and therefore able to convince Jr. that he thought it all up himself. That’s not to say that GW isn’t slick like a con-artist is, like when he suggested to Tony Blair (revealed by the downing street memos) that in order to invade Saddam, they could paint an aircraft in the UN colors and fly it over the no-fly zone, and have Saddam shoot at it, thereby providing a reason to strike back. Now he could think up something like that, or any other similar diabolical scheme.

BUT, the actual covering up of all of this stuff, and the paperwork for setting up the destruction of the constitution…no way. Dick has Addington do all of that, based on the vision that Louise described, and Cheney has had *that* vision for 30 years or better. Call it the New Paradigm, or the Imperial Presidency, or the Unitary Executive Doctrine. That’s always been Cheney’s goal, and we’ve watched him carry it out, with the help of the legal brain in Addington, (and the rest of Cheney’s secret staff). So they write the stuff, and the jr shrub signs it.

Remember how jr. couldn’t answer the 9/11 Commission questions by himself? He had to have Cheney with him, because Cheney insisted on it. And just last week in the midst of the Georgian surprise, jr was mild mannered enough in his dufus response, until Cheney told him to STFU and get his ass back to DC, while HE took care of things.

Still, I’m not saying that george wouldn’t still be dangerous on his own. He’s gotta be the type that choked and drowned small animals as a child, and picked the wings and legs off of flies. His favorite pastime at Yale was playing that board game, “Global Domination”. (A global version of monopoly). And, according to his colleagues from back then, would interrupt all of them when they were trying to study, insisting that they play with him, and of course always changing the rules or otherwise moving the goal posts when he was losing. I still don’t understand why nobody managed to beat the shit out of him decades ago. I guess the elite manage to do their worst damage without getting themselves dirty. But a good old fashioned gutter-brawl would have finished him off.

OK…thanks again for the link

Report this

By Rod Adams, August 19, 2008 at 12:59 am Link to this comment

Louise:

You wrote:

I appreciate your comments on energy, because like it or not, energy is a major factor in the power struggle that’s defined nations for many years. [Or at least the major excuse] And of course those who have goals that lead to a desire to add their name to that control, are or should be familiar to a degree with the energy “crisis.”

Thank you for accepting my comments as not “off-topic” and for posting some very perceptive analysis of the way that people who favor an imperial presidency also favor the privatization of warfare.

You also wrote:

However, I have some concerns over nuclear energy as being the best solution. Specifically the growing problem with nuclear waste. Anything you can offer that might prove helpful to easing these fears would be appreciated.

For example, where are the mountains of waste?

The answer is - there aren’t any. If you put all of the used nuclear fuel that the US has produced in the past 50 years into the same place, you would have perhaps the start of a small hill. On a football field, that hill would only be about 15 feet tall and it only grows by a few inches each year. It is adequately safe and secure right where it is until such time as we start reusing the remaining 95% of the energy stored in that solid, carefully inventoried asset.

Of course, the people who like the power and wealth brought by controlling fossil fuel supplies publicly talk about how hard they are working to eventually solve the problem of storing that used nuclear fuel. It keeps most of the nuclear power advocates happy to hear someone say things that sound kind of favorable but at the same time it cements a reluctance to use fission that is very useful to the continued economic concentration of wealth and power into the hands of the fossil fuel suppliers.

Here is a clue to understanding - despite all rhetoric, how many new nuclear plants have actually been started in the past 7.5 years?

I find it interesting that many of the people in this forum who do not like the decisions made by Big Pharma, Big Financial, King Coal, and Big Oil seem to fully support Big Energy’s decision to build windmills (GE, Siemens), solar panels (BP) and drill for geothermal (Halliburton) instead of building emission free nuclear plants.

I am more cynical and ask - why did they make that decision? What is in it for them to encourage taxpayers to subsidize wind, solar and geothermal? (I have some answers, but do not want to get too far off topic lest I offend cann4ing.)

Report this

By samosamo, August 18, 2008 at 10:33 pm Link to this comment

By cyrena, August 18 at 8:16 pm #

You have probably seen this as I saw it because I check out bill moyers about once a week. I am very impressed with Ms. Mayer’s work. Here’s the link whether you need it or not:

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07252008/watch2.html

As to your’s and louise’s conversation on the lies of w and his mental capacity, my 2 cents worth as I have commented/posted here and else where is: it does take a relatively high level of intelligence to lie and commit crimes especially to get away with them. Add the attribute of being able to keep up with the lies and to who, when, where and how would require a bit higher level of intelligence but I would think require a bit of management such as writing it down, archiving it and having it ready for verification which would most likely take a second or third layer of management. No w is not a complete idiot though he tries, but neither is he a consumate crook/liar because too much has been written as to cheney’s part in just about everything that deals with the major issues, such as w giving him the Iraq issue to deal with, the oil issue that dick handles and both work with the saudis to advance that area of corruption.
I don’t know what the percentages are for the criminals that get caught vs. the ones that get away but it does take some elaborate and sometimes over elaborate planning to get away with what you do criminally. And the main thing for me that comes to mind is the way these people just keep tearing this country and this world up and the the people are just as docile as sheep because they have no way of knowing or learning what has been done and how it happened, thanks mostly to the corporate media’s strangle hold on the truth.

Report this

By cyrena, August 18, 2008 at 9:16 pm Link to this comment

Ernest,

I found it. Jane Mayer’s latest book, (Doubleday July 15, 2008) is:  “The Dark Side: The Inside Story of How The War on Terror Turned into a War on American Ideals.”   
 
I’m not sure this is what you’d mentioned before, but it sounds like her normal excellent work. So, I’ve saved it to the wish list for when I get the Kindle.

Report this

By cyrena, August 18, 2008 at 9:07 pm Link to this comment

•  “Yes. In a way Bush does have a ‘high degree of intelligence.’ Most schizophrenics do. And even allowing I could be wrong in my diagnosis, [after all who am I?] being completely bonkers doesn’t mean being completely ignorant. Foolish maybe, easily led about, perhaps, but not incapable of grasping the plan if clearly defined. [Especially if allowed to believe it’s HIS plan.]”

Louise,

Glad you elaborated. I agree with this 100%, if only because I’ve learned this long, long ago, dealing with people who are schizophrenics, as well as those with bi-polar disorder, and related mental illnesses that still defy full scientific analysis. So I’ve known for years,  just how intelligent they can be, (and usually ARE!)

And you’re right, it does take a certain intelligence (which I apparently lack) to keep track of all the lies, and who told them and who is privy to what lie, and on and on. I can’t do it, which is probably why I just avoid lying. I don’t like to trip myself up that way.

My discovery was early on. 2nd grade I think. I’d stopped at a mom/pop candy store on the way home from school, despite orders not to. When my mother asked me later that day if I’d stopped anywhere on the way home, I lied and said that I hadn’t. She promptly told me that I *had* and knew that I had stopped at that particular store, AND what I had purchased. (Raisinettes) In hindsight of course, I realize there had to be numerous ‘clues’ to what I’d been up to, that any adult could easily sniff out.  However, at the time, I was thoroughly convinced that my mother had eyes in the back of her head, and could see everything, from anywhere. (she was allegedly at work when I was in that store).

Now of course this was the same period when (in my 2nd grade Catholic school class) that we were being indoctrinated into the omnipresence of God. My unspoken thought was that He didn’t have *nothin’* on my mama! The moral of the story though, is that I just decided back then, that it was too much trouble to lie, and only compounded the punishment. First, for whatever the original ‘crime’ was, and then for lying about it. It wasn’t until later on down the road that I incorporated the ethical and moral concepts into it. That hasn’t prevented me from continuing to commit the occasional ‘crime’ (like when I don’t see the act as being at all criminal) but I never bother lying about it.

Meantime, thanks to both you and Ernest for the most recent posts you’ve put here. (too lazy to reference, but you know which ones). I’ve saved those to my ‘academic projects’ file, under the Authoritarian States Project. If I don’t manage to get that one wrapped up in the very near future, it won’t be for lack of information and research.

Ernest, I’d read this particular piece by Jane Meyer, (among dozens of others over the past several years now) but you also mentioned another book by her recently, that I was not familiar with. And, I can’t remember the title. It seems like you posted a link for it as well, so many they are one and the same. I’m not sure. If not, and if you remember what I’m talking about, can you repeat that info for me? In the meantime, I’ll check the standard references to see what her latest work is.

Report this

By yellowbird2525, August 18, 2008 at 8:31 pm Link to this comment

alas: alternative green energy solutions have been squashed by our Gov to “keep” oil KNOWING that car emmisions were the #1 cause of global warming; which I learned in early 60’s in junior high; not new then; car companies bought & kept all car patents in vault; well aware & capable of creating vehicles with more MPG that ran cleaner, etc; they “claimed” they didn’t; kinda like they claimed the WMD existed in Iraq; finally Japan was allowed to make cars in USA after signing treaty agreeing would LIMIT MPG to 20-25; Europe & other countries averaged 50-70 MPG & USA destroyed cars bought & brought to USA in 70’s at Oregon port; fraud, deception, lies, bribes, graft, & corruption; BOTH parties are in on it; so is the Pentagon with it’s “overspending” & “lost” equipment that always goes into their pockets; WAKE UP AMERICANS!

Report this

By Louise, August 18, 2008 at 8:13 pm Link to this comment

cyrena,

At first I laughed. Such an obvious question. Then I read about going back to the Brotherhood of the Illuminati and laughed some more, because I feel your pain. wink

Then I thought about it. And my answer surprised even me.

Yes. In a way Bush does have a ‘high degree of intelligence.’ Most schizophrenics do. And even allowing I could be wrong in my diagnosis, [after all who am I?] being completely bonkers doesn’t mean being completely ignorant. Foolish maybe, easily led about, perhaps, but not incapable of grasping the plan if clearly defined. [Especially if allowed to believe it’s HIS plan.]

Some of the most powerful leaders in history have been completely insane and still made brilliant strategically decisions. I think when it comes to thought process, Bush is lazy. I think when it comes to understanding what he wants and how to get it he’s smart. Another gift schizoids have is the ability to almost read the other guys mind, and anticipate what they will say or do before they say or do it. Keeping track of lies and who did what to who and when requires a high degree of intelligence.
Cripes! I think I’m pretty smart and I cant keep track of all of them!

Who are the ones using the tools?
Who controls the wealth of the world?

Even allowing for overlaps, ‘cause some of these folks are very wealthy, the fact remains. The true wealth of the world is controlled by a select group. A tight little club that’s very hard to get into.

Report this

By samosamo, August 18, 2008 at 8:09 pm Link to this comment

By Rod Adams, August 17 at 11:21 pm

My apologies for the wrong name and yes I would say you are in a position to not express political rhetoric. As a matter of fact I see you in a unique position to have access to information that lay people like myself don’t have especially when it comes to foreign affairs which I would assume you cannot make comment at just anytime you feel. And since you can’t jump into political debate I will not push you to it as accepting the aggressiveness of russia which I include the US as such.
I will still take the issue of the invention of the internal combustion engine as being a cause of an increase in demand for oil and issues of today about supply, demand and control. I am aware of the use and drilling for oil pre-ICengines but how could it be other wise that the demand increased dramatically at least 25 years after the invention of ICengines. That has to have started a mad dash to pump oil out and make the gas to run these engines. In your capacity, do you have figures showing the difference of pre IC to say 25-50 years after ICengines? I am not trying to prove a point but would like to know what that would be.
U.S. the lone superpower, I still don’t believe russia is not a super power, nor china, nor india, nor just about anyone that has a deliverable atomic weapon. In my reality, if just one of the atomic nations(weapon) attacked another nation, it would create at the least a major dispruption in the short term for most of if not all the world. And I don’t want to use that as the definition of a super power.
One last question: Of late I have heard that using spend nuclear fuel is a possible source of energy, better to me since it seems that is would keep from more and more used nuclear material being buried, recycled sort of, like that could be an answer to the nuclear problems, is this true or possible and how?

Report this

By Louise, August 18, 2008 at 7:33 pm Link to this comment

Yes, McCain Is More Dangerous Than Bush. Because McCain is much more like Cheney and Rumsfeld!

A “war against terrorism” is akin to a “war on war,” something that sounds nonsensical unless you examine the mind-set that believes a war can be fought and won with less fighting bodies and more fighting machines. But that belief has to be proved. And how else to prove war for the sake of war, as a means to prove and define a new vision, than endless war for the sake of war?

Cheney named himself VP and his pal Rumsfeld, became Secretary of Defense. They surrounded themselves with like-minded power-seekers and they were ready to “test” their vision. And people I know in the military immediately began informing me of their alarm. Certain this would mean within the next few years we would be at war!

Rumsfeld re-wrote Air-Force response directives to hijacking, and Cheney took charge of security response staging “simulated” attacks on Manhattan, [coincidentally] the day 9/11 happened, which gave them the excuse they needed to go to the new long war standard.

We’ve seen disastrous results, but the money people who guide the machine and the politicians, are quite content with the out-come. Billions of dollars have been fed into private coffers. And the best part of all, the profit has come on the tax-payers investment, not theirs. And you can bet they have no intention of letting that go without a fight.

This isn’t being dumb. This is about the deliberate lack of preparations for the aftermath of military victory in Iraq. And there-in lies the truth that proves the position that the whole thing is founded in the need for a grand experiment. A test. A necessary exercise to see what will work and what will not. And none of this would be possible without the GWOT, and the support and encouragement of the powers that control the money. And by the way, OIL.

No matter what they do, or how horrible the outcome, we in a sick perverted way accept and even justify, because of the OIL.

War with Iraq was necessary to test and prove pre-conceived notions that would never prove out against a nation guided by a bunch of tribal factions with no real leader or army. It had to be a nation with a recognized leader and an organized military.

Bush has rewarded key architects of the war for their incompetence. And the war for war continues on. And beyond the desire to absolutely control all governments and their resources on the planet earth, the absolute has not yet been clearly attained.

Absolute control of the world by America requires absolute control of the American people. Which in turn requires absolute control by a dictator in the office of president, and that requires a congress willing to abdicate their responsibility as a check and balance.

To this end, creating the Imperial Presidency, Cheney has dedicated the last thirty years. But the absolute has not yet been reached, because each day is another foray into identifying and controlling unknowns.

A vision of the perfect fighting machine, with a small force backed up by a “for profit” corporate machine has been a Rumsfeld dream since the failures in Vietnam. Cheney and Rumsfeld came together and through the years have devised [with help and support from many others] what seemed the perfect plan.

Develop the new military “for profit” machine, and create the all powerful Imperial Presidency. The eternal war gives unprecedented power to the later and the later gives continual finance to the former.

Now, Iran is an invitation to test our nuclear bunker-busters. And the borders of Georgia and Ukraine an invitation to test our missile defense system. And whether or not Russia really will come after us.

And oil is the fuel, literally and figuratively that drives the madness, while the search for absolute continues. And that philosophy is completely embraced by McCain.

Report this

By cann4ing, August 18, 2008 at 6:59 pm Link to this comment

Cheney was and is a radical sociopath who has never accepted the constitutional separation of powers.

As revealed by Jane Mayer’s July 3, 2006 New Yorker exposé, “The Hidden Power,” the driving force behind unprecedented claims of dictatorial executive powers is to be found not in the President but in the Vice-President, and more especially, in the Vice-President’s chief of staff and long-time legal adviser, David Addington, a man described by Lawrence Wilkerson, Collin Powell’s former assistant at the State Department, as “utterly ruthless.” 
Addington, who began his government legal career inside imperialism’s covert branch resisting Congressional oversight at the William Casey-led CIA, assisted Richard Cheney in preparation of the Iran-Contra Minority Report when, in 1987, Congressman Cheney served as the ranking Republican on the House Select Committee investigating Iran-Contra.  As noted by Ms. Mayer, despite the fact that the scandal produced seventeen felony convictions, the Minority Report made the “outlandish” claim that it was “Congress—not the President—[which] had overstepped its authority, by encroaching on the President’s foreign-policy powers.  The President, the report said, had been driven by ‘a legitimate frustration with abuses of power and irresolution by the legislative branch.’”

In the wake of 9/11, Addington, Mayer tells us, advanced a doctrine known as “the New Paradigm,” in which he asserted “that the President, as Commander-in-Chief, has the authority to disregard virtually all previously known legal boundaries, if national security demands it.  Under this framework, statutes prohibiting torture, secret detention, and warrantless surveillance have been set aside”—a doctrine which even a long-time Republican legal activist like Bruce Fein regards as “quite alarming.”  Alberto Mora, the Navy’s general counsel, described the Justice Department memoranda as “an extreme and virtually unlimited theory of the extent of the president’s Commander-in-Chief authority.”

It is Cheney and Addington who were behind the more than 1,000 presidential signing statements that suggest the president can pick and choose which laws he will abide by and who are principally responsible for torture and the Kafka-like military tribunals.

Report this

By cyrena, August 18, 2008 at 6:48 pm Link to this comment

Louise,

Thanks for the essay and specifically the links. If there’s one thing to reiterate here, it is that Dick Cheney has been THE MOST POWERFUL FIGURE in the Executive Branch of the US government…EVER, if only BECAUSE of his determined vision for a Unitary Executive Doctrine. That Americans somehow missed this along the way of the past 30 years is the disaster. Then again, based on our politically apathetic character, it was probably inevitable.

But, I’m curious about your take here, for when you have more time:

•  “..Personally I think Cheney, like Bush and Bush and Rumsfeld and Gates, and all the “right” Supremes, and yes even Rove and McCain are tools. Tools who are easily used, because their high degree of intelligence is equaled only by their high degree of amorality, conceit and personal ambition.”

Did you really mean to include both of the Bushes in this group of ‘high degree of intelligence’ tools? I mean clearly we cannot find anything ‘intelligent’ about GW. It’s impossible. It’s not there. But, if the others are in fact ‘tools’ (and I can see that with some like Gates, and Rove and McCain) who are the ones using them?

I’m still trying to narrow down the main characters behind the main characters, behind them. If I go much further, I’ll be back to the Brotherhood of the Illuminati, and I’d really rather not go there.

Report this

By Louise, August 18, 2008 at 6:41 pm Link to this comment

Rod Adams,

I appreciate your comments on energy, because like it or not, energy is a major factor in the power struggle that’s defined nations for many years. [Or at least the major excuse] And of course those who have goals that lead to a desire to add their name to that control, are or should be familiar to a degree with the energy “crisis.”

However, I have some concerns over nuclear energy as being the best solution. Specifically the growing problem with nuclear waste. Anything you can offer that might prove helpful to easing these fears would be appreciated.

For example, where are the mountains of waste?

Report this

By Louise, August 18, 2008 at 6:28 pm Link to this comment

Ed Harges,

“Louise, you’re wrong. I have never liked Cheney. But you simply refuse to see that he’s gotten worse than he used to be. Your reasoning seems to be, “This is a terrible person; therefore, everything he’s ever done and said must have been wrong.”

au contraire!

This is a man with a vision. A vision that has guided his entire adult life. That fulfilling his vision has required from time to time doing terrible things does not alter who or what he is. He is an opportunist with grand plans, too many of which have come to pass.

I finished my remark with “I could be wrong.” Referring to Cheney and the Gulf War. And I respect your kindness in stepping up to try and prove me wrong. However with all due respect I still think I’m right, but proof of that will have to come later, since I’m constricted by time factors.

Cheney,  like Rumsfeld shared a vision of turning our military into a small force with a big “private enterprise” machine. Cheney validated his position in the first Gulf War, but only to a degree. He eventually had to accept that moving into Baghdad would require a force presence for many years. And the vision of the growing mindless machine that would replace the “force” was still in the development stage. Besides, the reality of replacing a military presence with a civilian presence was gaining public support, and in some areas proving cost effective, and profitable.

I don’t believe Cheney was concerned about troop losses, as was Powell. In any case, based on Powell’s advise, the decision was made by Bush I, not Cheney.

Cheney had to see great potential for profit in the growing civilian service to the military and that’s where he put his eggs.

Personally I think Cheney, like Bush and Bush and Rumsfeld and Gates, and all the “right” Supremes, and yes even Rove and McCain are tools. Tools who are easily used, because their high degree of intelligence is equaled only by their high degree of amorality, conceit and personal ambition.

Their intelligence provides appropriate response when inappropriate action is required for dominance or control.

Their amorality makes it possible to do things on the “dark side” without feeling any personal remorse for bad consequences.

They are driven by a centered conceit that allows them to believe they are the really big fish when in reality they are the suckers being pulled along on the bait.

But Cheney, Rumsfeld and Bush I, are unique in that they, particularly Cheney have played on both sides of this fascist monster, managing to not only put themselves in positions of power and influence, but amass a personal fortune along the way.
http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/dickcheney/timeline_printer.html

And we mustn’t forget, Cheney spent 30 years lobbying for a new version of the office of president. The Imperial Presidency.
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/10/09/savage-cheney/

The Presidency defined as the First Branch of government, exercising absolute control over the other branches of government. The selection of Bush and then himself as Bushes Vice made his goal much easier to attain. In today’s White House, the Vice President of the United States has more power than most previous presidents. Maybe that’s back-handed payback for being shut out of the final decision to end the Gulf War. And what better way to justify an Imperial presidency to a distracted and disinterested populace than eternal war?

No I do not agree that Cheney has gotten worse.

Cheney has never changed. It’s just that ‘we the people’ are slow to identify a political monster hungry for absolute power.

Report this

By yellowbird2525, August 18, 2008 at 6:25 pm Link to this comment

They start with infants; put growth hormones & other toxins in the formula; the FDA is FOREVER DENYING AMERICANS the TRUTH! IT is like the whistle blowing office Bush set up; for whistleblowers to have an office to go to without fear of retribution; ALL reports were sat on; until finally enough pressure was put on them to ACT; Bush shook his hand on TV & stated” good job; thank you for serving your country; HEADS UP ALERT! to ignorant people:THIS was the JOB they wanted DONE! to SIT ON & DO NOTHING on the PROBLEMS whistleblowers told about; they “present” us as “this is what we are doing” and folks THINK it is a good thing; in REALITY: it is SERVING the country the way THEY want it served; both parties are 1; they want us to THINK one or the other is “better”; that they are NOT dictatorship; that they are looking out for our interests; THEY ARE NOT! Did they LIE to Indians? to vets? about WMD? about Georgia? about Al Quieda? do they not train torturers for other countries including Mexico? And Chad? do they not over throw Govs who are NOT with “their” agenda and set up someone who is? DICTATORS like the Shah of Iran, like in chile, etc etc etc; SMASH thru images YOU have been propagandaed into believing; they use every psychological tool they have AGAINST you; then READ, & WEEP; then get mad & FIGHT.

Report this

By yellowbird2525, August 18, 2008 at 6:14 pm Link to this comment

our Gov is run on BRIBES: folks: http://www.pbs.com; bill moyers journal; capital crimes; READ IT; and weep; UNDERSTAND everything is set up with Corps to exploit, victimize, and harm to the maximum degree the people who are called pinheads, & other things; claiming “this is the way democracy works”; it is the WAY our Gov works & NEWS FLASH! “we” are NOT the good guys! Rumsfield rushed thru asparteme; it has FORMALDEHYDE in it that breaks down in your system; this is one of the most harmful toxins on the planet;it has been agressively used in every possible way in the USA to do the greatest harm to get the most $ to the Pharma’s ; who also have the lawyers who get mega lawsuits that KEEP over 2/3’s of the amount supposedly awarded & KEEP the rest. Just like our Gov keeps 2/3s of all stated AID to countiries for thenselves claiming cost;

Report this

By cann4ing, August 18, 2008 at 6:05 pm Link to this comment

Mr. Adams, the topic of this article is whether John McCain is more dangerous than George Bush.  It is not about whether wind/solar/geothermal/wave technologies are superior to nuclear.  Do you have anything that is not “off-topic” to add?

Report this

By Rod Adams, August 18, 2008 at 4:50 pm Link to this comment

cyrena:

I realize that many people post under assumed names, but there are some of us who take full responsibility for what we say in serious discussions. I apologize if my comment seemed a bit arrogant, but I was simply trying to provide samosamo and others a suggestion. If you want to find out who someone is, it is often quick to do a Google search to see if they have much written by them or about them.

You wrote:

As MOST of us know, solar, wind, and water energy are hardly new. In fact, they’re about as old as the wheel. The technology for such increased uses (like updating from the centuries old windmills) has been available and in use by many other modernized nations for decades. It’s been available in the US as well, but has consistently been STIFLED by the interests of the OIL industry.

I completely agree with all but the last few words - humans have known that there is energy available in the wind and sun for thousands of years. We have also known that energy is useful and makes life better, so countless generations of scientists, engineers and inventors have worked on ways to produce useful ways to capture energy to make it do work.

Those of us who have dedicated a good portion of our lives to the study of energy production systems, however, know about the limitations as well as the opportunities offered by such diffuse and unreliable energy sources as the wind and the sun.

Oil became important BECAUSE engineering types realized that it offered a better solution to an old problem, the inventions to use oil did not occur because there was a vast and powerful industry that wanted to sell oil. If you study the history of science and technology, you will find that the industrial age began with wood and then coal as the more accessible and useful fuels - oil did not make many inroads into the market until nearly 100 years after the invention of the steam engine.

You also wrote:

“we just happen to consume more of the stuff then the rest of the world combined. (the military helps considerably in this consumption)”

That is not factually true - US energy consumption is about 20-25% of the world consumption, so the rest of the world combined consumes between 3-4 times as much as we do.

I do agree that we use a lot more energy per person that many other countries, although I believe there are several countries, like our northern neighbors, that actually beat us in this measure of energy consumption.

From my point of view, harnessing energy to do work and to make climate more amenable to human comfort is a good thing. I have lived off the grid in several different environments; it is not a very comfortable or even particularly healthy way to exist.

My personal goal is to enable as many people as possible achieve the same access to energy sources that Americans have always taken for granted.

I also am quite proud of the fact that my particular section of the military does not use much fossil fuel - my last ship was powered by a heavy metal core that could fit under my office desk and it lasted for 15 years of rather heavy use.

Report this

By peacenik1, August 18, 2008 at 4:25 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Multimillionaire McCain voted against raising the minimum wage.  He has no conception of the struggles of the working class, who have been losing ground after eight years of the Bush Administration’s mismanagement of America’s affairs.

I’m voting for Obama.  He has good advisors (as contrasted with the long list of lobbyists on the McCain Straight Talk Express).

Let’s hope American voters won’t be fooled again and vote for their own executioners.

Report this

By Sodium, August 18, 2008 at 3:34 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Subject:The Arrogance of John McCain.

Through a telephone conversation with the President of Georgia(Mr.Mikheil Saakashvili),he said publicly that he told Mr.Saakashvili the following provocative
statements:

Quote
======

I speak for all Americans.We are all Georgians.

Unquote
========

I wish to respond to such arrogant two statements
quoted above:

(1)As an Independent American,I must remind you that I have NOT given you my consent to speak on my behalf.How dare you? Arrogance? Yes, indeed.

(2)Again,as an Independent American,I do NOT feel that I am a Georgian.In fact,I feel American from the top of my head to the bottom of my feet.This reality will remain so,as long as I live.Again,I ask:how dare
you making such a statement which you have NO right
to make on my behalf? Obvious arrogance? Yes,indeed.

(3)Since you are merely a Presidential candidate and
behaved with such arrogance now,I keep wondering to what extent your arrogance will be stretched,if you are elected President!! I only can assume:

A WARMONGER WHO WILL KEEP AMERICA,OUT OF SHEER
ARROGANCE,IN CONSTANT AND DESTRUCTIVE WARS AGAINST
ITSELF AND THE REST OF THE WORLD.

SIR,YOU ARE A TERRIBLE CANDIDATE FOR PRESIDENT.IN CASE YOU ARE ELECTED,MAY GOD HELP AMERICA AND THE
REST OF HUMANITY….....

Report this

By cann4ing, August 18, 2008 at 2:32 pm Link to this comment

Ed Harges, Your post is smack dead on.  The real question is why someone has not run the same 1964 ad against McCain, who is more reckless than Goldwater, and certainly more dishonest.

Report this

By SteveL, August 18, 2008 at 1:50 pm Link to this comment

To the extent that McCain can see no mistakes in the current policy.  Like they should not have done the invasion in the first place.  This alone make McCain more dangerous than Bush

Report this

By Alan, August 18, 2008 at 1:50 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Like Dubyah, McCain is too damn dumb to act
as president without “help” (read direction,
read manipulation, read the tutelage of the
secret tyrant (read Cheney)).  Let’s see
from which office will Cheney run the presidency
next?  McCain names Cheney “special counsel to
the president” or “McCain names Cheney director
of homeland security”? or “McCain names Cheney
chief of protocol”?  A McCain preziduncy
won’t be DubYah all over again, it will be
Cheney all over again.

Report this
Ed Harges's avatar

By Ed Harges, August 18, 2008 at 1:32 pm Link to this comment

re: By metros, August 18 at 9:50 am:

Metros can’t fight the evidence, so he tries a superficial association.

It’s a cliché to attack that ancient TV ad, and so just because Metros asserts a similarity between this article and that ad, we’re supposed to dismiss the whole issue. Pathetic.

First of all, Metros, the main reason that ad is infamous is NOT because it was untrue that Golswater was a dangerous militarist extremist - he certainly gave every indication of being exactly that by his heated cold war rhetoric.

The scary claim of that ad that was essentially true: Goldwater WAS a fanatical cold war hothead who seemed very eager to nuke everybody he didn’t like. That ad was NOT a smear. It was NOT a misrepresentation of Goldwater’s foreign policy views.

The ONLY reason that ad was, in hindsight, misleading, was that Johnson HIMSELF also turned out to be a dangerous hawk, disastrously escalating the Vietnam War after he got himself elected.

Report this

By samosamo, August 18, 2008 at 11:44 am Link to this comment

By GW=MCHammered, August 18 at 6:26 am

Thanks for the link to pbs/moyers as I would not have gotten there until later this week. This Bracevich is really on top of the cause and effects, so much so that his book will be one of the next I get, if it is in hardback.
I took exception to moyers claiming that russia attacked georgia and would like for him to bring the proof of that out now. I could have missed some revelation about this skirmish but I don’t think I have. And I was impressed by bracvich’s description of our ‘consumer’ empire to make a connect to my idea of this being a false economy.
I have yet to see the 2nd half and will but I have things to do and much start doing them now. But moyers, appears to be the best ‘public’ (or pbs, period)place to get real news.

Report this

By lodipete, August 18, 2008 at 10:54 am Link to this comment

Flash;New Campaign Slogan for Mac, the war hero, not the computer;

  Making the world safe for Chevron,Haliburton & Blackwater 1 war at a time! Or maybe 2 or 3.

Report this

By Kwaayesnama, August 18, 2008 at 8:20 am Link to this comment

Why is this Arizona resident not supporting John McCain? With out question it is his lack of support for our state in Washington. McCain’s call to fame is that he is the only representative in Washington never to request any earmarks for his home state. What does that prove? To me it shows that in McCain’s mind Arizona is so wealthy that we do not need any assistance from Washington. It seems he is happy to see all the tax dollars that we send to DC go to other states. Wake up John McCain! Arizona has Indian Reservations with unemployment over 60%. We have beautiful rural areas that would greatly benefit from an increase in tourism. McCain’s lack of concern for Arizona shows that when John and Cindy fly over our state in their private plane that they do not pay attention to the people that live outside of Scottsdale. Lets see if in November the citizens of Arizona will send him a message and not vote for him.

Report this

By GW=MCHammered, August 18, 2008 at 7:26 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Finally. Accurate analysis that leads to the truth of where we are, how we got here, and what we can to do about it.

“Is an imperial presidency destroying what America stands for? Bill Moyers sits down with history and international relations expert and former US Army Colonel Andrew J. Bacevich who identifies three major problems facing our democracy: the crises of economy, government and militarism, and calls for a redefinition of the American way of life.”

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/08152008/watch.html
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/08152008/watch2.html

Or download the 18.3MB mp3 podcast >>>
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/rss/media/BMJ-1218.mp3

Report this
Robert's avatar

By Robert, August 18, 2008 at 6:38 am Link to this comment

Sunday, August 17, 2008

“Did John McCain “Borrow” His “Cross In The Sand” Story?

I report, you decide. Transcript from the forum last night here.

It just sounded so fake and so contrived, so I did a little research about it. Someone on here said it sounded like a scene from Ben-Hur, so I did a google search about Ben-Hur and cross in the sand and such. No dice. But I searched around a little bit more and here is what I found. A story about Alexander Solzhenitsyn from his times in the Soviet Gulags.


(snip)

As he waited, head down, he felt a presence. Slowly he looked up and saw a skinny old prisoner squat down beside him. The man said nothing. Instead, he used a stick to trace in the dirt the sign of the Cross. The man then got back up and returned to his work.

As Solzhenitsyn stared at the Cross drawn in the dirt his entire perspective changed. He knew he was only one man against the all-powerful Soviet empire. Yet he knew there was something greater than the evil he saw in the prison camp, something greater than the Soviet Union. He knew that hope for all people was represented by that simple Cross. Through the power of the Cross, anything was possible.


Excerpted from “The Gulag Archipelago” by Alexander Solzhenitsyn, three volumes published 1973–1978.”

http://www.thepoliticalcarnival.blogspot.com/2008/08/did-john-mccain-borrow-his-cross-in.html

Report this
Ed Harges's avatar

By Ed Harges, August 18, 2008 at 5:53 am Link to this comment

Louise writes:

‘If Cheney took the position that we should not continue the Gulf War after we drove Saddam’s troops from Kuwait, that’s news to me. I heard they had to physically remove him from the “War Room” ‘.

Louise, you’re wrong. I have never liked Cheney. But you simply refuse to see that he’s gotten worse than he used to be. Your reasoning seems to be, “This is a terrible person; therefore, everything he’s ever done and said must have been wrong.”

As you can read below, Cheney infuriated the neocons by not supporting the extension of Gulf War I. He didn’t think we should oust Hussein and conquer Iraq. The Israel-first crowd did not like hearing this. His reasoning was actually sort of reasonable. He was never my cup of tea as a person or as a politician. But he is WORSE NOW THAN BEFORE. Get that through your (admittedly witty and perceptive) head!

Please read this:

Cheney changed his view on Iraq
He said in ‘92 Saddam not worth U.S. casualties

By CHARLES POPE
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT

WASHINGTON—In an assessment that differs sharply with his view today, Dick Cheney more than a decade ago defended the decision to leave Saddam Hussein in power after the first Gulf War, telling a Seattle audience that capturing Saddam wouldn’t be worth additional U.S. casualties or the risk of getting “bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq.”

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/192908_cheney29.html

Report this

By cyrena, August 18, 2008 at 5:38 am Link to this comment

Mr Adams,

I haven’t attempted to ‘google’ you, or find out who you are, since there are probably a few million Rod Adams in the country, and I don’t much care anyway. There are less than a handful of people on these forums that actually post under their own names. That said, it might have been a bit presumptuous of you to assume that samosamo was curious enough to ‘google’ the name. In fact, I suspect his very legitimate question was posed by your own introduction of yourself.

Be that as it may, I do appreciate the opinion that you posted, along with the limited information that I suspect many others were already aware of. Is this same concern with Caspian oil not also of relevance in Afghanistan? If memory serves, they’ve got a portion of this pipeline connection as well.

Indeed some of us are aware of the originations of much of this in the Clinton Admin, but it could be a mistake to stop there. In the interest of academic integrity, we generally end of having to follow things to their actual ‘root’, and this thing with the oil goes back decades. ARAMCO (The joint Saudi-US venture) comes to mind. An excellent book if you have time for it is : “America’s Kingdom
Mythmaking on the Saudi Oil Frontier”, by Robert Vitalis. And then of course we could go back to the Anglo-Persian Oil Company, (APOC) formed back in 1908, to have an even broader focus.

Since then of course, and also in the Era of the Clinton Admin, (which just happened to be an ‘off-season’ for the republicans, but didn’t mean they weren’t busy doing other things,) Cheney’s little Halliburton somehow managed to explode, to become the largest and most profitable energy resource management corporation on the globe. I think that means that we have some idea of the politics involved. The continual harassment of Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, as well as Ahmadinejad in Iran tends to add to the pot. In other words, anytime any oil rich nation decides to nationalize this particular natural resource, in an attempt to sell or trade it at reasonable rates, it would seem that they run into major problems from the US. (note what happened to Saddam, and the assassination attempts on the rather vocal Hugo, along with long time and on-going threats to destroy Iran.

Clearly that’s not to ignore the stuff that Russia has also done in very recent years, (the shutting off of the pipeline in the dead of winter) nor to excuse it. A careful study of history however, puts Russia in the game (of using oil for geopolitical control purposes) rather late. The US are pros at it.

Report this

By cyrena, August 18, 2008 at 5:37 am Link to this comment

Part II

At any rate, the question you pose here is an interesting one that I’ve considered over a long period of time.

•  “..Mind you - I have no appetite for fighting over control of this oil, but how do countries like those in Western Europe and the US work to eliminate dependence on Russian good will for such a basic commodity? Windmills and solar panels just are not going to cut it…”

First, I don’t agree that it is necessary to eliminate dependence on ‘Russian good will’ for such a basic commodity. Rather, I believe that some measure of geopolitical respect is required, in order to sustain amicable trade agreements for such a commodity. Russia, like so many other oil rich nations, depends on its own natural resources to assure its own survival. Common sense would dictate that those nations who happen to be in possession of such a commodity, would sell or trade with other nations who need it, for other resources that they may not have themselves. (yeah, idealistic I know). And, while you claim that this is a ‘purchase’ arrangement, (rather than outright theft) the facts of history point more clearly to theft, as in the Profit Sharing Agreements that the US has been determined to shove down the throats of the Iraqis, ever since the invasion and occupation of THAT nation state. And, the words ‘profit sharing’ are a misnomer, if anyone actually looks at the language of those agreements. In short, it amounted to the theft of the primary source of income for that nation. Consequently, ‘Good will’ is a lot easier to come by, if one is willing to PAY for the stuff, instead of stealing it from the owners by such exploitive tactics.

Secondly, while it may be true that windmills and solar panels aren’t likely to serve ALL of the energy needs of the 21st Century and beyond, some continued innovation with those and other sources, (like water) could and WOULD cut back enormously on our own consumption, and we just happen to consume more of the stuff then the rest of the world combined. (the military helps considerably in this consumption) As MOST of us know, solar, wind, and water energy are hardly new. In fact, they’re about as old as the wheel. The technology for such increased uses (like updating from the centuries old windmills) has been available and in use by many other modernized nations for decades. It’s been available in the US as well, but has consistently been STIFLED by the interests of the OIL industry. So while these renewable sources may not be able to handle ALL of our energy needs, they can damn sure drastically REDUCE our dependence on them, and by a drastic amount.

So a change in mentality might be in order. Like say we could give basic science a try, (yeah that stuff that’s as old as the wheel) and eliminate the mentality that considers OIL to be as you describe, ‘a basic commodity’. Maybe we need to start thinking of the wind, and the sun, and the water as our ‘basics’ and the OIL as an alternative for restricted purposes, when the others are not enough. Advanced technology is possibly more effective than you seem willing to credit.

Report this

By Rod Adams, August 18, 2008 at 12:21 am Link to this comment

samosamo

You wrote:

Ron Adams,

I don’t recognize the name so what is your professional position/situation that causes you avoid the political aspects of it but will allow you to give your views on the subset of the geopolitical?

(First of all, it is Rod Adams - if you want to find out more about me, Google works better with the correct spelling.)

I am a government employee and not allowed to engage in partisan politics.

I have a different view of the importance of energy to the health and well being of the common people in the world. I agree that our current addiction to fossil fuels has led to some huge imbalances in the world’s economy, but it is not the fault of the internal combustion engine, which enables previously powerless people to do amazing things and live lives that would have been impossible without it.

If you really think that western corporations have been “stealing” Russia’s oil and gas, please do some searching about their current economic situation. IMHO the proper term is “purchasing” not stealing.

If you think that Russia’s control of the natural resources in its neighbors is something that makes those neighbors happy, please take a look at how some of those neighbors like Latvia, Lithuania and Ukraine have responded to the recent situation.

Without making a partisan comment, allow me to carefully express that I believe that there have been many, many mistakes made in the period since the Berlin Wall fell. As a professional military officer, I have cringed every time some idiot politician figuratively beat his chest and proclaimed that America is the world’s only superpower. What a stupid thing to say or think.

Report this

By samosamo, August 17, 2008 at 11:03 pm Link to this comment

Ron Adams,

I don’t recognize the name so what is your professional position/situation that causes you avoid the political aspects of it but will allow you to give your views on the subset of the geopolitical?

I find oil highly politically entwined in national and international politics and policy unfortunately because of the invention of the internal combustion engine and the unique that has become an addiction of convenience in the name of progress and the modern world. Now I consider it because of its demand to be a source of world wide imperialism practiced by some of the most crooked people in the world for their enrichment and the domination that they are so criminally addicted to.

There is no doubt that america is using oil to gain and exert control and dominance over all countries and most especially the indias, chinas, japans and most probably russia. One thing taken into consideration concerning russia is that after gorbachev ended the USSR’s empire they were vunerable and taken advantage of by america in its acting if it had defeated russia and that it should roll over and play dead for the criminal corporatists that have so much control of the american government and military. Using the control of oil fields, building of pipe lines and stealing oil(remember the NO meters on Iraq’s pipelines?) to just out and out think that these ‘elites’ rule the world forever and ever is probably the most dangerous aspect of this whole state of affairs.

I don’t blame russia and have seen no reason for them not to have reacted as they did when georgia attacked them knowing that america was in the shadows at the least. Russia was able to react. How many other countries are we robbing blind that would love to ‘react’ because they see and know what american hegemony is really all about.(Read some Chalmers Johnson stuff if you need an update). And to slip this question in: Why in the hell does the USofA have to build missile systems in the east european countries? That is really pushing hard for conflict.

And now, with our continual meddling in other countries affairs and natural resources, a bear has come out of the woods to protect itself from a bunch of lunatics by threatening nuclear defensive actions. Russia sure as hell isn’t as pure as the driven snow but neither is america despite all of its obstensible adherence to morality. Both are crookeder than a dog’s hind leg.

I’m not sure where this is heading but I blame our so called government for it. Someone might know where it is heading but they are most likely having to look at things in a different light. Maybe russia and the usa are colluding with each other, who knows? But it is highly charged political crap that is going on and there should be no use for it unless the idea of ‘screw the masses and kill em all’ is a mantra for and by these criminal corporatists.

Report this

By cyrena, August 17, 2008 at 7:41 pm Link to this comment

Such informative (at least I think) discourse is happening here. Words of wisdom I hope we don’t miss. First though, Ed..


Ed, apologies if at least I *appeared* to misrepresent what you were putting forth. It might actually be more of an incomplete perception of what you were suggesting, since only YOU can ‘represent’ what you are actually saying. Still, *I* at least, DID get your point, because you’ve made it before, and I pay attention. So again, my apologies for not referencing that in my own response to you.

You have mentioned before, the sanctions that Cheney was NOT in favor of, or the fact that he did not agree (at the time of the Kuwait offensive) that it was a good idea to remove Saddam and destroy Iraq.

In this respect, I think that you/we or anyone else considering it at the time, (and since) may have misinterpreted that as well. Louise’s post @By Louise, August 17 at 7:20 am explains this very concisely. And maybe, (just a thought, not a proclamation of any sort) this proves out the danger in relying on terms like
‘hawkish/dovish/left/right/liberal/conservative/etc, etc. If nothing else, this regime has certainly turned all of those standard interpretations, upside down. 

At *that* time, it was in Cheney’s long term and short term interests to avoid such sanctions against Iraq and Hussein’s regime, keeping in mind that Cheney has been an energy baron since his youth. His CEO-ship of Halliburton began just a few short years after the fist Gulf War, but we have to understand that it was in his plans long, long, before that. We should probably also connect the dots to the US support of (and collaboration with) the Hussein regime in the 80’s as well, (when the repugs were in power) as Louise points out.

Be that as it may, I DO get your point, and so my apologies if it appeared otherwise.


Ah, dearest Louise…

You bless us with continuing wisdom and hopefully, many will turn these gems into SERIOUS food for thought,

•  “Regardless, if a man has dedicated his life to an overthrow of Constitutional Government as we understand it, it would be more prudent for him to go along than risk being eliminated from any future influence.”

Now, let’s just ponder this for a moment….It would be MORE PRUDENT for him (apply this to ANYONE) to GO ALONG than RISK BEING ELIMINATED from any future INFLUENCE.

I’m gonna provide a minimal ‘prompt’ here, just to get those brain cells fired up…WHY do we suppose that Kucinich didn’t get anywhere in the primary foundation to all of this? Take it a step further and ponder on why, after first gaining very surprising momentum as a ‘dark horse’ (no pun intended) candidate, Obama ‘appeared’ to veer center and some accuse to the ‘right’, leaving him open for all of the ‘accusations’ that are being hurled at him from the so-called left or liberals.

(see above)

Now if someone has dedicated their life to the OVERTHROW of a constitutional government, what would be the best way for someone else to COUNTER that? Someone who’s life has been dedicated to the core values of a Constitutional government as the foundation for stability and prosperity for all?

My own guess is that the same thing must occur. He/She/They must GO ALONG, (to the extent needed, and the balancing act is very delicate) to maintain the influence/momentum/etc to get to the INSIDE, where the motor actually is.

So we can kick the tires all we want folks, and we should. But unless we can get inside the motor, there is no fixing or repairing the damage that has been created thus far. And no, the repair isn’t gonna happen instantaneously. And yes, the repugs will certainly employ there standard techniques, in blaming the dems first for not fixing it, (that’s already begun) and before you know it, it’ll all be the dems fault.

Report this

By Rod Adams, August 17, 2008 at 6:37 pm Link to this comment

Because of my professional employment, I will avoid entry into the political aspect of this discussion, but I really feel compelled to insert some geopolitical information.

There is no doubt at all that the struggle in Georgia is about oil, but it is not just a matter of protecting oil company profits any more than Iraq was just about oil company profits. Oil is important for power of both political and physical varieties.

The Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline was a brainchild of the Clinton Administration with the specific goal of providing western access to oil from the Caspian region that did not have to travel through Russian or Iranian territory. Secretary of Energy Bill Richardson was there to express US support when the agreement to build the pipeline was signed in 1998.

Russia has never been happy about the idea that there was another way for Caspian oil to reach the world market. They LIKE having control of the money and power that comes from controlling energy supplies; it has been a major source of income for the country throughout the industrial era. Since the fall of the Soviet Union, the state of the Russian economy has risen and fallen based on the world price of oil and gas.

Russia has also been quite aggressive about using control over energy fuels to impose its will on its neighbors by such means as turning off the gas supply in the middle of the winter in 2005.

What the Clinton Administration and the Bush Administration have both failed to recognize is that Russia remained in a strong position to control the BTC pipeline once it was built. After all, Georgia is in Russia’s backyard and there are still plenty of people there who owe their economic well being to Russia.

Mind you - I have no appetite for fighting over control of this oil, but how do countries like those in Western Europe and the US work to eliminate dependence on Russian good will for such a basic commodity? Windmills and solar panels just are not going to cut it.

Report this

By kath cantarella, August 17, 2008 at 5:34 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

i can’t escape the uneasy feeling that Captain McCain is driven to be president (for one term) so that he can finally outrank his Admiral Dad, and his Admiral Grandpa. How the hell does a man with such a simple and martial turn of mind get anywhere near the top job in a sophisticated modern democracy? How the hell did Bush get elected for that matter? There is something deeply wrong with your system.

Report this

By samosamo, August 17, 2008 at 5:10 pm Link to this comment

Louise,

If I don’t see a debate it won’t bother me, but yeah, I have given it that thought of how ole johnny will look with the ‘box’ taped to his back and then his being able to juggle the voice in his ear versus the voices in his head and trying to talk serious shit. I don’t think he will come back aggressively as w did on kerry but gaffe city here we come.

Report this

By cann4ing, August 17, 2008 at 4:10 pm Link to this comment

Thanks, Louise.  I nearly busted a gut laughing.

Report this

By sophrosyne, August 17, 2008 at 2:11 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

McPain is a Zionist stooge but I agree with the essay.  McPain is far more dangerous than even Bush.  I wish Obama would begin painting McPain for what he is:  a fraudulent war “hero” and dangerously inexperienced and unstable angry man.  He is an old fashioned imperialist but this country, in rapid economic decline, cannot afford such a damaging person.

Report this

By Valorie, August 17, 2008 at 2:08 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

After watching the debates last night and thinking carefully about what I heard, I have come to the following conclusion:
McCain is the past and Obama is the future.

Grandma Valorie

Report this

By Louise, August 17, 2008 at 1:47 pm Link to this comment

cann4ing,

He borrowed George W. Bush’s tailor and had one of those “built-in shoulder and backbone” suits made for him.

The extra weight causes the loose skin on the shoulders, chest and neck to compress, and push up, which requires a heavy duty shirt collar, to hold it in place. Unfortunately, like a tube of toothpaste, the pressure from the collar tends to push up the loose stuff, causing it to cluster and spill over, creating the floppy, in place of neck look.

Once he masters the swagger and the bounce, his shoulder muscles should become strong enough to carry the additional weight, relieving the pressure and he can start wearing a shirt with a smaller collar allowing [hopefully] for that loose skin to slide down and restoring the appearance of some sort of neck. But just in case, the Tailor’s working on a shirt collar with a “push together, pull down” skin flap feature.

And if that doesn’t work, McCain will go back to wearing turtle necks, and abandon the “Bush Look” altogether.

[Or get some “tuck and fold” surgery]

If he had some hair, he could borrow Nancy’s wig maker and get a chin-lift made, but he doesn’t have enough [hair that is] to even go there. wink

Report this

By msgmi, August 17, 2008 at 12:56 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The neoCONS are depending on McCain’s victory in order to perpetuate their vision on the 21st century new world order.

Report this

By cann4ing, August 17, 2008 at 10:23 am Link to this comment

Good post, Louise, but what I really want to know is who stole John McCain’s neck?  I mean, look at that photo.  The only thing separating the man’s neck from his shoulders appears to be a couple of skin flaps.

Report this

By Louise, August 17, 2008 at 8:20 am Link to this comment

If one cares to look, right there in the Congressional Record are several speeches from an outraged Donald Rumsfeld, condemning the Vietnam War, and the President who led us into it. He did not parse words, and provided ample documentation, denouncing the war as unnecessary, costly, and becoming a hopeless quagmire.

Yet when Nixon became President, Rumsfeld was one of the first in line at Nixon’s elbow, calling for an escalation in Vietnam. Point being, it’s not that they change their fundamental beliefs or standards, it’s that they play sides.

When the war was a bad war under democrat leadership it was BAD. When the war was a bad war under republican leadership it was GOOD. Proving what they do, Rumsfeld, Cheney or any of the war hawks, is never about any kind of a high, moral or principled position. It’s always and only about, “What’s in it for me?” And that should pretty well sum up everything that has and does and will happen regarding the “top dogs” in the so-called conservative world.

If Cheney took the position that we should not continue the Gulf War after we drove Saddam’s troops from Kuwait, that’s news to me. I heard they had to physically remove him from the “War Room” when that decision was made. But I could be wrong. Regardless, if a man has dedicated his life to an overthrow of Constitutional Government as we understand it, it would be more prudent for him to go along than risk being eliminated from any future influence.

Of course Cheney opposed sanctions against Iran during the 90’s. His party did not control the White House! When you take a high-minded position against something that might create problems down the road, it makes it much easier to blame the other party, if in fact there are problems. That’s the first rule of the republicans. Set up the other guy, so if your behavior creates problems you can blame the other guy. Duh ...

You watch. When Obama fails in the first months of his presidency to clean up ALL the mess Bush and republican control has left us in ... across the land there will be a huge outcry against the democrats for “creating” all the mess we’re in!

Truth is, just like when Clinton came into office, trying to get the National Debt back under control will keep him from accomplishing most of the change he wants, and we need. The National Debt. Another negative weapon the repubs have used down through the years to cripple the dems.

Now to McCain. The man has always been as phony as a three dollar bill. The fact that he has managed to convince so many otherwise intelligent people that he was some kind of a “Maverick” or the “moderate” side of the republican party clearly demonstrates how easily people are influenced by a short article in the news, or a speech from the Floor. Or a “mug-shot.” And clearly demonstrates how lazy most people are when it comes to actually digging deep. If taking a position, any position, on any issue, guarantees the press will be waiting to question you, McCain will take a position ... any position ... to make sure his mug is on the evening news.

McCain is who he is, and he has never changed. He is dedicated to working hard for, whatever works for HIM in the moment, and that’s the most dangerous of all politicians. So while some may call it flip-flopping, or a radical change from who he was, the truth is who he was, is what he is. A political opportunist with NO deep seated personal conviction. And that more than anything else explains the confusion about trying to explain away, or understand his so-called change. There is no change, because there is no standard and never has been.

Report this

By majkazuki, August 17, 2008 at 7:55 am Link to this comment

You’re speaking specifically of Israel?  If so, doesn’t McCain believe America should have an interest in a strong Israel, even if those interests are rooted in ideology?  Do you think he puts America before Israel, or is it the reverse?

Report this
Paolo's avatar

By Paolo, August 17, 2008 at 7:37 am Link to this comment

As an Arizonan, I have long seen McCain as the red-faced, foul-mouthed, ill-tempered, egotistical little warmonger that he is. I just hope to God he has some sort of temper tantrum before the election that will show everyone just how unstable he really is.

Regarding the campaign claim that McCain is “experienced” and “safe”: is it possible to get anywhere further from the truth?

Let’s say you were on the board of directors of a bank, and you had to hire a new CEO. A fellow applies, proudly showing his thirty-year resume of experience in banking. But then you notice that he drove three companies in bankruptcy, got convicted of fraud in two others, and was fired from two others for losing his temper and striking his customers.

Ah—but he has EXPERIENCE, they tell you. Let’s put him in charge!

The same goes for the presidency. To have a track record of constant involvement in pointless wars, of banking scandals (the Keating affair), of tanking the dollar to records lows, of bringing the country to the edge of bankruptcy, does not count as “experience” you would want to see in an executive.

Report this
Ed Harges's avatar

By Ed Harges, August 17, 2008 at 6:43 am Link to this comment

You people (Cyrena, jackpine, et al) are misrepresenting what I say.

I am NOT saying that Cheney used to be good and now he’s evil.

I am NOT saying that McCain used to be a dove and now he’s a hawk.

For the record, I have always despised both and considered them far, far to the right of my own positions. MmmmKAY?

HOWEVER: please read carefully:

I am saying that BOTH of them have IN THE PAST taken some positions that are more dovish than the neocons would have wished with regard to foreign policy, and that now they are more extreme and undeviating in their hawkishness than ever before.  NOW, unlike before, they NEVER deviate from neocon orthodoxy.

Two good examples, with respect to Cheney, of how he’s changed:

(1) After the first Gulf War, after Saddam was forced out of Kuwait, the neocon, Israel-first, Weekly Standard crowd was eager for the US to continue the war, overthrow Saddam, and take Baghdad. They were furious at Cheney for advising against this.

(2) During the 1990s, he opposed sanctions against Iran, and complained of the “sanctions-happy” US policy of isolating Iran.

NOW, will you please stop refusing to understand what I’m actually saying?

Report this

By jackpine savage, August 17, 2008 at 5:50 am Link to this comment

And Cheney didn’t somehow become evil since the year 2000.  He was evil when he worked for Nixon…it may be why he worked for Nixon.

I’m so tired of this “hijacking” the government meme.  These guys have been in and out of government, influencing the decisions of policy makers since the 1970’s.

Right here, right now is their dream.  They’ve been working all their lives towards it.  Seriously, what did anyone expect letting them have all the power?

Report this
Ed Harges's avatar

By Ed Harges, August 17, 2008 at 3:42 am Link to this comment

re: By majkazuki, August 16 at 10:50 pm:

Perhaps; but when it comes to Middle East policy, it’s not clear that McCain does put country first - at least not this country.

Report this

By majkazuki, August 16, 2008 at 11:50 pm Link to this comment

Isn’t McCain’s campaign slogan adorning the podium the very definition of fascism?

Report this

By cyrena, August 16, 2008 at 10:16 pm Link to this comment

Cann4ing is dead on the mark here Ed, and this isn’t even overstating it…

•  “Cheney was and still is one of the most ruthless and dangerous men in America”….”he has been that way throughout the Bush regime as the driving force behind excessive secrecy, torture and war.  Cheney is as skilled a sociopathic liar as you would ever want to meet in this lifetime.”

And nope, we probably wouldn’t really ‘want’ to meet him, but you get his point. Cheney was NEVER any ‘moderating’ force behind the shrub’s foreign policy, or any other policy. He is the originator of the Unitary Executive Doctrine, which makes him as much a dictator as any that have come before him. He embodies them all…Hitler, Pinochet, Hussein, and on and on. Pick one, and that’s Cheney..he’s actually worse than Saddam, who at least was a Nationalist. Cheney is the epitome of an anti-democracy, anti-republic, anti-Constitution character as ever there was one. So, the ultimate ANTI-American!!

And, it is he and his secret staff that have made up the shadow government since the Coup. He works georgie’s psychopathology like the ultimate maestro, allowing him to believe that he’s actually running something. There’s no way georgie could think up all of those signing statements that have negated nearly every piece of legislation created in the past 8 years. The shrub can manage to sign his name, and that’s the extent of it. Cheney decides what georgie will think, and then georgie thinks that it was his own idea.

That’s why the short but totally correct description from before The Coup of 2000, that circulated the internet..

“George W Bush and Richard B. Cheney is the most dangerous combination of things that could ever happen to American. George Bush is dangerous because he is stupid, and Dick Cheney is dangerous because he is not.”

Meantime, I too was ‘fooled’ by what appeared several years ago, to be a more ‘moderate’ John McCain. Happens to the best of us I suppose, but at this point, there can be no doubts or denial about how dangerous he is himself.

Report this

By samosamo, August 16, 2008 at 9:44 pm Link to this comment

Let’s put this way, ole johnny will be more dangerous than w because he will retain the same shadow voices telling him what to do and with ole johnny’s finger on the button, his method to relieve ‘conjestion’ will more apt to be, ‘nuke em’. But any way any one can put it, if a republican regime remains in charge it just cannot get better, that is NOT in the neocon’s agenda, except for those ‘priviledged souls’(20%orless) that support the criminals. It will get worse.

Report this

By cann4ing, August 16, 2008 at 9:09 pm Link to this comment

Let me save you some time, Ed.  Check out Amy Goodman’s interview of Matt Welch, author of “The Myth of a Maverick”

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/2/4/the_myth_of_a_maverick_matt

Report this
Ed Harges's avatar

By Ed Harges, August 16, 2008 at 7:19 pm Link to this comment

re: By cann4ing, August 16 at 1:16 pm:

Well, I did say that McCain’s dissent from the neoconservative imperial right was always overstated. You are saying the differences were never really there at all. You may well be right. I probably need to catch up on my reading.

Report this

By Nino Baldino, August 16, 2008 at 5:32 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

how clever..you think its noble of Bush to chat with an enemy while that enemy invades another nation and thus he is superior to the Manchurian candidate who talks tough…etc etc.I guess those folks in Georgia dont count for a hill of beans to you…of course McCain voted to confirm Ginsberg,an official of the aclu..worse then the nkvd…to the supremes..we have another hobsons choice…an anti-semitic muslim marxist and a moral leper who has never worked in the private sector and who supp;orts nafta that has resulted in the loss of millions of american jobs….

Report this
PatrickHenry's avatar

By PatrickHenry, August 16, 2008 at 3:50 pm Link to this comment

McCain would ensure MIC status quo.  I hope when he loses he retires from the senate too.

Report this

By yellowbird2525, August 16, 2008 at 2:43 pm Link to this comment

It is TIME to STOP playing “politics”; EITHER dem or Rep; & get a PEOPLE concerned party together that cares for the PEOPLE and the PLANET of EARTH. All of Congress is corrupt to the core; both parties; & so is the Pentagon. They have LIED repeatedly to the people over & over & over; (Dems control Congress because they LIED & said we would bring troops home from Iraq. Folks: OUR SOLDIERS are fighting to keep the same corrupt system in place there as here with the same corrupt Corp’s; there are NO insurgents, No Al Quida’s or however it is spelled; THEY knew dictatorship & said THAT is exactly what it is; & it is thousands of times WORSE than under Saddam Hussein; Bush said “we prefer to be known as dysfunctional” not dictatorship; diabolically evil doing worse oppression & human rights abuses than any other place on the planet; GET WITH IT PEOPLE!

Report this

By cann4ing, August 16, 2008 at 2:16 pm Link to this comment

One of the few posts from Ed Hargess with which I disagree.  McCain has not “transformed” into a neocon hawk.  The perception of McCain as either a “moderate” or a Maverick is nothing more than a corporate media concocted myth.  Cheney was and still is one of the most ruthless and dangerous men in America.  He was that way when, as a member of Congress, he issued the minority report challenging the conclusions of the Iran/Contra scandal, claiming that it was Congress which had overstepped executive prerogatives, he has been that way throughout the Bush regime as the driving force behind excessive secrecy, torture and war.  Cheney is as skilled a sociopathic liar as you would ever want to meet in this lifetime.

Report this

By felicity, August 16, 2008 at 2:12 pm Link to this comment

Ed Harges - you got it.  McCain riding that bomb ala Slim Pickens in “Doctor Strangelove or How I Learned to Love the Bomb.”

Report this

By william, August 16, 2008 at 2:06 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

remember it’s all of you who voted Bush in to a second term… it’s all of you… even if you didn’t vote for him, you didn’t work against him… now’s your chance to redeem yourselves…

w.

Report this
Ed Harges's avatar

By Ed Harges, August 16, 2008 at 2:05 pm Link to this comment

What’s happened to McCain reminds me a bit of what happened to Cheney.

Remember when Cheney was expected to have a “moderating” influence on GWB’s foreign policy? After all, it was Cheney who had enraged the neocons in the early 90s when he advised against trying to topple Hussein and take Baghdad after Gulf War II. Since then, Cheney has become the ultimate war-loving neocon from hell, causing his old friend Brent Scowcroft to laments, “I don’t know him anymore.”

McCain is still coasting on a very outdated (and always overstated) record as a “moderate”, even as he completes his transformation, like Cheney before him, into a stark raving hyper-Zionist ultra-hawk suicide bomber.

Report this

By Grousefeather, August 16, 2008 at 1:29 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

McCain is more dangerous because the popular myth is that he’s a war hero. In fact, he’s a yellow bellied coward who got shot down in an illegal and immoral war while bombing innocent women and children.

Report this

By cann4ing, August 16, 2008 at 12:50 pm Link to this comment

Congratulations to Big B for the dumbest TD post ever.

Four more years of the Bush regime does not portend to the destruction of the Republican party.  It portends, at a minimum, to the final dismantling of constitutional protections of civil liberties, a final assault on the separation of powers, which, with the elevation of just one more Federalist Society jurist to the Supreme Court, making a majority of five, the radically subversive doctrine of a “Unitary Executive” will become the law of the land—or more accurately, the end of the rule of law as we know it, for it extends to an American president unchecked and unlimited powers far greater than those possessed by the British monarch at the time of the American Revolution.  It would permit the finishing touches on the descent into fascism that the American hard right has been working tirelessly to achieve of an extended period of time.

And that is a best case scenario.  At worst, McCain’s aggression will produce a global nuclear holocaust, ending all life on the planet.  Indeed, one suspects that if McCain had occupied the White House during the Cuban missile crisis, instead of President Kennedy, we would not be hear to debate the impact of McSame following Bush on things like global climate change, for there would be no breathable air that had not been irradiated.  A majority of Americans who are about to vote in this election would not be able to do so because they would never have been born.

Report this
Robert's avatar

By Robert, August 16, 2008 at 12:03 pm Link to this comment

Saturday, August 16, 2008

McSame is Getting even More Same


Approval Ratings: The Public v. McCain


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBfngOsvmA0

Report this

By BobZ, August 16, 2008 at 11:03 am Link to this comment

I’m surprised there haven’t been more articles on this subject, since this isn’t the first time McCain has shown his hardliner tendencies. Couple that with his renowned temper and we could have a problem if he gets elected. Also contrast the way he answers questions that he doesn’t like - he blows them off, whereas Obama will go out of his way to respond to every question. McCain has been given a huge pass by the media - his ties with lobbyists, his association with Rev. Hagee, his ties to big oil, his immense wealth through marriage, his elitist priviliged background compared to Obama, and his frequent gaffes. Obama was given more grief on the Rev. Wright issue alone than McCain has gotten on all of his problems combined. Add to that the stupid remarks about flag lapel pins, pledge of allegiance, and on and on, and you have a media that has been far more critical of Obama than McCain in spite of what the Republican Party says. And now we have the networks inviting that idiot Corsi on to promote this vile book, while Obama is on vacation, it just gets more ridiculous. I think Obama at some point will have to take off the gloves and really go after McCain and the Bush record. I’m hoping Obama is waiting until just the right time to do this, which would be at the convention and up until the election.

Report this

By troublesum, August 16, 2008 at 10:28 am Link to this comment

Bush was shit-faced drunk at the Olympics and even the leftist bloggers covered up for him with the exception of Wonkette who provided photos.  Is McCain really more dangerous?

Report this

By felicity, August 16, 2008 at 10:12 am Link to this comment

Frank Cajon - thanks for your imput on what has always boggled my mind. How little attention, in fact none, we give to an individual’s mental state when that individual might be the most powerful man in the world.

Just how powerful he/she may be can be understood by way of what the majority of Congress signed off on in Sept. of ‘02.  “The president is authorized to use the armed forces of the US as he determines to be necessary - appropriate in order to defend the national security of the US against the continuing threat posed by Iraq.” 

Now that we seem stuck with a supposed to be check-and-balance Branch of gov whose members are more concerned with protecting their political asses than even the country in which they reside let alone the people who put them in office, whoever sits in the OO has at his command the entire American military, personnel and weapons, to do with as he pleases.  To conceive of a person of diminished mental faculties having that much power should frighten the bejesus out of all of us.

Report this

By msgmi, August 16, 2008 at 10:07 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Oil continues to be our national security center of gravity and the neoCONS keep testing its metal. A 21st century national energy policy needs to be implemented post haste in order to deflate the neoCON agenda.

Report this
Purple Girl's avatar

By Purple Girl, August 16, 2008 at 9:21 am Link to this comment

I wondered throughout the primaries If Bill was sending smoke signals in an attempt to move voters away from Hillary- who has proven her allegeince to the handbook tactics given to her by Cheneycorp.
Perhaps Mac is doing the same thing.
Showing confusion in Foreign matters, disinterest and detachement from reality about the ‘conditions on the ground’ here. Letting his most vile supporters be seen front & center. Acting presumptuously like the President- Jumped out in fromt of W, regarding Georgia/Russia. making promises this country has no interest in living up to.
Could Mac actaully be playing the CheneyCorp Boys for fools? could this be his ‘Pay backs a Bitch’ for the shit they pulled on him in ‘00?
Hillary was definitely a turncoat, but could Mac be playing a covert operative against the Neo Cons?
He’s doing a hell of a great job turning a good number of Republicans away from him and scaring the shit out of Independents. maybe Mac is telling the truth- ‘Country First’
Did he see the drool on Hillary’s chin when he said he’d run for only one term…is that why he has moved away from that statement? No doubt CheneyCorp is a heavy sponsor for the ‘Clinton machine’.Ddi Mac realize he was not thier only horse in the race- the One they were betting against- again.
Just like this adminsitrations continuous claims of ‘mistakes’- could mac not be “oops’ing” intentionally so Obama actaully wins?
Both Hillary and Mac are not what the appeared to be just a few short years ago,WHY?
Hillary let her Neo Con Freak Flag fly
Is Mac doing so as a Red flag (warning)as to WHO is running his campaign and will ultimately be running his adminstration. could this be Mac’s real heroic sacrific for our country- jumping on the garnade?
I’m taking his unspoken advice.. I’m voting for Obama., and am willing to see a NON Cheney,real Ol’ School Republican help knee cap the Clinton machine as VP


OBAMA/HAGEL ‘08

Report this
Purple Girl's avatar

By Purple Girl, August 16, 2008 at 9:21 am Link to this comment

I wondered throughout the primaries If Bill was sending smoke signals in an attempt to move voters away from Hillary- who has proven her allegeince to the handbook tactics given to her by Cheneycorp.
Perhaps Mac is doing the same thing.
Showing confusion in Foreign matters, disinterest and detachement from reality about the ‘conditions on the ground’ here. Letting his most vile supporters be seen front & center. Acting presumptuously like the President- Jumped out in fromt of W, regarding Georgia/Russia. making promises this country has no interest in living up to.
Could Mac actaully be playing the CheneyCorp Boys for fools? could this be his ‘Pay backs a Bitch’ for the shit they pulled on him in ‘00?
Hillary was definitely a turncoat, but could Mac be playing a covert operative against the Neo Cons?
He’s doing a hell of a great job turning a good number of Republicans away from him and scaring the shit out of Independents. maybe Mac is telling the truth- ‘Country First’
Did he see the drool on Hillary’s chin when he said he’d run for only one term…is that why he has moved away from that statement? No doubt CheneyCorp is a heavy sponsor for the ‘Clinton machine’.Ddi Mac realize he was not thier only horse in the race- the One they were betting against- again.
Just like this adminsitrations continuous claims of ‘mistakes’- could mac not be “oops’ing” intentionally so Obama actaully wins?
Both Hillary and Mac are not what the appeared to be just a few short years ago,WHY?
Hillary let her Neo Con Freak Flag fly
Is Mac doing so as a Red flag (warning)as to WHO is running his campaign and will ultimately be running his adminstration. could this be Mac’s real heroic sacrific for our country- jumping on the garnade?
I’m taking his unspoken advice.. I’m voting for Obama., and am willing to see a NON Cheney,real Ol’ School Republican help knee cap the Clinton machine as VP


OBAMA/HAGEL ‘08

Report this

By Andrew, August 16, 2008 at 8:54 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Mc Cain is suffering from PTSD. A guy having flashbacks of the Hanoi Hilton is not a the type of guy to have his finger on the button.

A hallucinating POW does not a head of state make.

Report this

By Eric L. Prentis, August 16, 2008 at 8:27 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

John McCain is a scary, impertinent, senile old man with outdated ideas formed in the ancient-history cold-war era. John McCain really knows only one thing, the military, and he would love to continue all existing wars and start as many new wars as possible to play into his one strength. Vote Democratic for a sane America and to force the fear-mongering, warmongering neo-cons out of power.

Report this
Robert's avatar

By Robert, August 16, 2008 at 8:18 am Link to this comment

August 16 / 17, 2008

A Letter to Colin Powell

Out Damn Blot

By RAY McGOVERN

Dear Colin,

“Your U.N. speech of February 5, 2003 left me speechless, so to speak—largely because of the measure of respect I had had for you before then. Outrage is too tame a word for what quickly became my reaction and that of my colleagues in Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS), as we watched you perform before the Security Council less than six weeks before the unnecessary, illegal attack on Iraq.

The purpose—as well as the speciousness—of your address were all too transparent and, in a same-day commentary, we VIPS warned President George W. Bush that, if he attacked Iraq, “the unintended consequences are likely to be catastrophic.”

That’s history. Or, as investigative reporter Ron Suskind would say, “It’s all on the record.” You have not yet summoned the courage to admit it, but I think I know you well enough to believe you have a Lady Macbeth-type conscience problem that goes far beyond the spot on your record. With 4,141 American soldiers—not to mention hundreds of thousands of Iraqi citizens—dead, and over 30,000 GIs badly wounded, how could you not?”

http://www.counterpunch.org/mcgovern08162008.html

Report this
Allan Krueger's avatar

By Allan Krueger, August 16, 2008 at 7:07 am Link to this comment

A-f*cking-MEN!

Report this

By hippy pam, August 16, 2008 at 6:30 am Link to this comment

Since we’re talking about music-BOB DYLANS’ “MASTERS OF WAR”-comes to mind….AFTER ALL-master “McBush” has had 8 years-2 terms- to learn from “master bullsh*t”.......why hasn’t KUCINICH PUSHED THAT AGENDA yet?????

Report this

By Pacrat, August 16, 2008 at 6:29 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Dumber than Bush? It’s possible! More dangerous than Bush? Tough to beat, but he seems to be even less trustworthy. He sure as hell knows little about diplomacy.

After a week of McCain stupidity usurping the president and secretary of state with his Georgia comments - that was bad enough. But sending his “ambassadors” Liebermouse and that other twit on a fact finding mission while negotiations were already underway demonstrate that this guy shouldn’t be allowed in the White House or even allowed back into the senate.

Report this

By jackpine savage, August 16, 2008 at 5:52 am Link to this comment

I remember that song, Tony.  I used to sing it in elementary school (that and whole wheat spaghetti were just two of the joys of being raised by hippies).

Report this

By Hilary Smith, August 16, 2008 at 3:21 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

It doesn’t matter what you think about Obama, the reality is that John McCain is not going to be capable of navigating the increasingly complicated international environment that exists now and will exist into the future. His black/white thinking will render this country irrelevant. For the sake of America, I hope Obama can pull this election off.

Report this
G.Anderson's avatar

By G.Anderson, August 16, 2008 at 2:06 am Link to this comment

McCains Lunacy goes way back. To think that the man who sang Bomb Iran, to the tune of the Beach Boys Barbara Ann, is now heading to the White House, should be scaring the living hell out of every American.

He always seems to come up with exactly the wrong answer to every problem facing this country. It’s doubtful that the presidency would improve his judgement, only his aim.

Report this

By Fadel Abdallah, August 15, 2008 at 11:44 pm Link to this comment

I would like to look at both Bush and McCain as two sides of the same shitty coin. Sometimes it looks there is more shit on one side, and other times it looks there is more shit on the other; all depending on the eye of the beholder.

Additionally, Bush has hammered one big nail in the coffin of the American moral compass, McCain, as a president, will hammer the last and final nail in that coffin! The coffin will be then ready for interment!

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, August 15, 2008 at 11:23 pm Link to this comment

Tony, what’s up with the..”we’re all gonna die!!” stuff?

cyrena,
One of my old faves…remember Country Joe and the Fish, the Vietnam song? It just went through my head for some reason when I was writing that. Here’s your blast from the past:
—————————————————————————
Well come on all of you big strong men, Uncle Sam needs your help again,
he got himself in a terrible jam, way down yonder in Vietnam,
put down your books and pick up a gun, we’re gunna have a whole lotta fun.

CHORUS
and its 1,2,3 what are we fightin for?
don’t ask me i don’t give a dam, the next stop is Vietnam,
and its 5,6,7 open up the pearly gates. Well there aint no time to wonder why…WHOPEE we’re all gunna die.

now come on wall street don’t be slow, why man this’s war a-go-go,
there’s plenty good money to be made, supplyin’ the army with the tools of the trade,
just hope and pray that when they drop the bomb, they drop it on the Vietcong.

CHORUS

now come on generals lets move fast, your big chance is here at last.
nite you go out and get those reds cuz the only good commie is one thats dead,
you know that peace can only be won, when you blow em all to kingdom come.
CHORUS

(spoken)- listen people i dont know you expect to ever stop the war if you cant sing any better than that… theres about 300,000 of you fuckers out there.. i want you to start singing..

CHORUS

now come on mothers throughout the land, pack your boys off to vietnam,
come on fathers don’t hesitate, send your sons off before its too late,
be the first one on your block, to have your boy come home in a box

Report this
basho's avatar

By basho, August 15, 2008 at 10:40 pm Link to this comment

DOA - drunk on arrival

when in the hell are you folks going to impeach this arschloch.

Report this

By Frank Cajon, August 15, 2008 at 9:04 pm Link to this comment

John McCain needs to have: a neuropsychological testing battery to include such tests as a Luria-Nebraska and Halstead-Reitan Batteries, formal Weschler Memory testing, an MRI scan of his brain, and an awake and sleeping EEG, and a complete mental status examination by a board-certified Psychiatrist/Neurologist. His mental bunglings are especially worrisome since we already had a man with Alzheimer’s Dementia in the big chair for eight years. While we’re at it, if this sounds discriminatory, give the same battery to Obama and do it discretely. These men have the power to incinerate civilization and McCain in particular is in no condition to be entrusted with this level of responsibility.
He also has had three recurrences of malignant melanoma, which makes his having metastastic seeding of this disease in his brain vastly more likely as that of a person with ONE recurrance of the disease, and incalculably more likely than someone in good general health. I think that age should not obviate anyone from candidacy for a position as important as President of the US, but we have had a mentally unstable man in office for eight years and it has ruined the country, how come so little attention is being paid to the very real issue of fitness for office of this obviously sick and enfeebled man?

Report this

By jackpine savage, August 15, 2008 at 8:44 pm Link to this comment

Bush chatted with Prime Minister Vladimir Putin during the Olympics, even while Russian troops were invading Georgia.

Bush has been shit-faced drunk for the Olympics.  Look at some of those pictures.  Look particularly at Barbara’s face as she’s watching her father make an ass of himself.

My guess is that Bush will talk to anyone when he’s drunk.  He’s also been known to challenge his father, the sitting Vice President, to a fistfight on the front lawn when he’s drunk.  You’re not going to make me think that things could get worse than a relapsed alcoholic with a closet full of issues, surrounded by psychopaths, with his finger on the trigger.

Oh, and Bush got played when he looked into Putin’s eyes.  Putin was trained to live a lie, yet bumbles the President thinks he can be sized up with a wannabe cowboy stare.

McCain can afford to take these kinds of stands because he isn’t the president.  In fact, these kinds of stands are the type that he wants to take before he’s president.  America loves electing dumb, cocky jackasses; it’s the common man approach.

Report this

By 123456, August 15, 2008 at 7:16 pm Link to this comment

Ofcourse he’s more dangerous than Bush, because while Bush is aggressive and reckless, McCain is just insane.

There’s a reason why during the 2000 Republican primaries, many top Necons supported McCain, not Buch (only switching to the latter when it became obvious he’s going to win), because they know he’s just the kind of war-mongerer they need.

Report this

By cyrena, August 15, 2008 at 6:57 pm Link to this comment

By Big B, August 15 at 5:07 pm

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again, Barry needs throw this election (he certainly seems to be trying to). Four more years, especially the next four years, could prove to be the death nell for the republican party, the neocons, and the christian right.

The only problem is, can the US survive four more years of this shit?

~~~~~
Big B, I really do get your point, (even though I don’t *really* think he’s trying to throw it) wink

Still, I’ve often thought that Barack would have been smarter to let somebody else clean up this incredible mess, and it’s not like he’s desperate for time, or any of the standard political considerations. In fact, we’ve discussed that here before. He’s only 48 years old, so he could just kick back and let somebody else do the dirty work for another 4 years, IF he was the typical politician with the well made plans. (Like Hillary basically planning her presidential career from birth). And surely by then, this party of evil destruction would have finally imploded on itself, without anybody having to actually do anything to help them along. I’m also convinced that it was NOT his own original plan to run for the office, at least not this time around.

BUT, your last line says it all, and I believe that said it for him as well, not to mention those who encouraged him to run to begin with. We really CAN’T survive another 4 years of this shit.

As Tony says here, (rather dramatically, and I had to chuckle, even though he didn’t intend it to be funny)

•  “…I agree. McCain DOES actually sound more dangerous than Bush”….” To him, life is war, and it’s only about “winning” and “losing”, “victory” or “defeat”. If he gets elected, we’re all gonna die!”
Tony, what’s up with the..”we’re all gonna die!!” stuff? smile

I’m only reacting humorously because it’s far too close to being real. It’s already happening. Guess I’m practicing some diversion methods.

Consider this, if worse comes to worse, you can always accompany me back to Mexico, since you’ve got some limited experience in this refugee status already, and I know next to NOTHING about the place.

Report this

By yellowbird2525, August 15, 2008 at 6:43 pm Link to this comment

Both candidates are horrible. Of the REP & DEM parties; folks: get with the program; go for Dobbs, Nadar, one of the independents; or let’s all do a massive write in & discover how “free” our “freedom” is; ha ha ha;

Report this

By Big B, August 15, 2008 at 6:07 pm Link to this comment

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again, Barry needs throw this election (he certainly seems to be trying to). Four more years, especially the next four years, could prove to be the death nell for the republican party, the neocons, and the christian right.
The only problem is, can the US survive four more years of this shit?

Report this

Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 >

 
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
 
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Publisher, Zuade Kaufman   Editor, Robert Scheer
© 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.

Like Truthdig on Facebook