McCain: Clinton raising the 'white flag'

I'm glad someone's saying it. Clinton and any of the democrats, really, have never articulated any type of plan for victory in Iraq and Afghanistan. Their rhetoric veers from appeasing the angry left with vague "we'll bring the troops home" statements to statements that somehow condemn Islamic terrorism and the war we're fighting against it at the same time.

None of them have the consistent track record of supporting the surge and supporting the mission that McCain does.

THE FIGHTER PILOT AND THE PRINCESS IN AMERICA’S PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARIES

The fighter pilot of this story is, of course, John McCain, but the princess is not Hillary Clinton as some readers might have guessed. The princess in the story is Britain’s late Princess Diana.

What possible connection is there between the late Princess Diana and John McCain? Well, as it proves, there are connections of serious importance to American voters and citizens of the world.

There is today an unpleasant but necessary, excruciatingly-detailed inquiry into Diana’s death underway in Britain. It is unpleasant because no one should have every private thought and act exposed this way, but it is necessary because the Princess’s own actions and words left millions believing dark, paranoid fantasies around her death. Her remarks and notes in private about believing she would be assassinated, her batteries of obsessive telephone calls, her reported private fits of moodiness and hysteria, her going public with private marital problems – these and other events point to a person with mental instability. Detailed revelations of the inquiry come as no surprise because many sensed something more than her wonderful public charm and grace, and her family does have other such cases in its history.

McCain has all the signs of a similar personality disorder. He can be charming in public, and he has a reputation as an interesting maverick. He is sometimes bluntly truthful, as when he talked about the Religious Right in his 2000 campaign for the Republican nomination.
But McCain has the same highly inconsistent pattern as Diana in public and private behavior. In private, he is famous for a colossally ugly temper. McCain has made some absurd claims over the years, reminding me very much of Princess Diana's whispers and notes about people in high places wanting to assassinate her, all the while smiling beguilingly in public.
Recently, McCain told us he would still have invaded Iraq, even without the excuse of "weapons of mass destruction." He has learned nothing from all that pointless death and misery.

McCain promised voters in South Carolina that he'd hunt down Osama bin Laden, even if it took him "to the gates of hell." And he swore he knows just how to do the job. Good Lord, if McCain knows, why has he kept it secret all these years?

“The gates of hell"? McCain in 2000 made fun of hellfire Christian fundamentalists’ role in politics, now he’s feeding them their own lines.

I think we know that Osama has long been dead, despite the CIA's phony periodic tapes released to intensify the public's paranoia to support the war on terror. The government hasn't wanted to claim credit because that would make Osama a martyr. His remains are buried under a million tons of rock in the mountains that had the destructive equivalent of World War II dropped on them. And were it possible that Osama did miraculously survive, would hunting him down now be a high priority to a rational person? Two unfinished wars are underway. McCain’s promise is just one for increased destruction and horror abroad.

Recently, he told a crowd in South Carolina that the state "was, hands down, the most patriotic in the nation." First, what does his utterance mean? Nothing, it is empty rhetoric of the worst kind. Two, keeping Dr Johnson's dictum on patriots in mind, who cares who is most patriotic? That way is the certainty of more war. Noisy patriotism is a valued characteristic only to the brain-washed, feeble-minded, and aggressors. Three, regardless of the meaning you attribute to McCain’s statement, if you account for the historical facts, quite the opposite is the truth. South Carolina was the state that started secession from the Union at the start of the Civil War. South Carolina was also "hot to trot" back in John Adams' day under the secret promptings of anti-federal opposition leader Jefferson. Again, in Andrew Jackson’s day, South Carolina pitched the national government into a crisis over a state’s right to nullify federal law. Jackson threatened troops to put an end to it.

Recently, too, McCain told us he would still have invaded Iraq, even without the excuse of "weapons of mass destruction." He previously had one of his tasteless, juvenile joking sessions before reporters about bombing Iran, complete with vicious, laughing antics. The man has learned nothing from all the death and misery of Afghanistan, Iraq, and Vietnam.

McCain simply loves death and killing, just as it can be argued Princess Diana regularly flirted with death. She had deliberately turned down requests to increase the level of protection about her. She needlessly drove off on wild adventures like the ride in Paris that killed her.
After seven years of the low-grade psychopath, Bush, and the destruction on every front he leaves as his legacy, the last thing humanity needs is the smiling death's head of John McCain as commander-in-chief.

"When you vote, you are voting for the commander-in-chief of a nation of war" -- John McCain

A "nation of war"?!?

Please, please tell me that's a typo. Please tell me he said "a nation at war".

Regardless, while I have respect for Senator McCain, he's just on the wrong side of this issue. The reason Bush gave for the surge was to give the politicians in Iraq some breathing room so that political progress could be made. To date, there has been little political progress, and whatever progress has occurred is likely the result of Iraqis realizing that time is short and they will soon have to run their country without America's military propping them up.

This was a poorly managed war that was sold to Americans based on false "intelligence". It's past time to give Iraqi's their country back and bring our soldiers home.

Yep, this will definitely help McCain get elected President.

66% of the country wants out of Iraq and this guy keeps talking as if we only have to take a couple more hills and it'll all be over and he can declare "victory".

God, I hope he ends up being the Republican candidate for President.

Clinton and any of the democrats, really, have never articulated any type of plan for victory in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Posted by: Jeff | January 24, 2008 12:03 PM

And what is the republics' plan? Remain there forever? Make it our 51st state?
Achieve victory by using our secret weapon, the valiant college republicans? Nope, they have other priorities.

Did Graham actually call the U.S., "a nation OF war"? Well, with the fearmongering, warmongering idiots of the current administration, that would be appropriate.

"Victory" (whatever that means) only has a chance if we leave Iraq. The Iraqi's must settle their differences on their own. As long as the U.S. continues this illegal and immoral occupation, that has cost the lives of 4,000 brave American soldiers and 10s of thousands of Iraqis (mostly civilians), the Iraqi government will have no reason to cooperate with each other. We can't hold their hands forever.

Every "so called" improvement that has happened in Iraq has only come from military options. Until we convince Iraq that the U.S. military presence is not open-ended, there can be no political solution.

McCain scares me to death. We do not want a president who focuses his time and energy on war issues continually. We need a president who is sensitive to the economic issues that effect each one of us every day. We need a president who will raise the standard of conservatism, who understands the social issues of our day, and knows what to do about them. Please don't fall prey to a senator whose biggest band note is being a prisoner of war and a "maverick" senator. In my book, this "maverick" is dangerous to the whole country.

"dead or alive"

Now we're at the gates of hell. Dude he's in Afghanistan, or is he dead?

If he's dead send us a postcard from the under world will ya.

McCain's plan is to keep up surge troop levels and work with tribal and regional leaders in Iraq (per General Petraeus' ideas) to secure Baghdad and the rest of the nation and turn the nation completely over to local authorities when it's ready.

A US military base will remain there in a monitoring role just like those that remain in Germany, Japan, Korea, Cuba and other hotspots.

Hey Canadian, do you guys in Canada spend all your free time worrying about royalty up there, too? I thought that was just England.

Get real, if the US wanted Canada's opinion we'd tell them what it is before having one of your ambassadors publicly repeat it.

Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran! 100 more years in Iraq! The GOPer's, the Party of raving nut jobs.

This "brilliant" statement from Senator McGoo is going to be repeated over and over and over....:
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/01/04/john-mccain-lets-stay-in-iraq-for-100-years/

I can't wait for Senator McGoo to take his toughguy act into a general election.

McCain is the one Republican clown who is running around saying "the surge is working", he's a disaster in the making.

The surge is working? Is that clown serious? The six-month ceasefire agreed to by Al-Sadr and his Madhi army are to credit for the "reduced" amount of violence. However, the situation is only one decision away from returning to the previous state of affairs. That kind of stupid reasoning got us into this mess to begin with. The war is "largely" over ranks right up there with "we are in the last throes of the insurgency" or "Mission Accomplished".

Why did Al-Sadr agree to a six-month ceasefire? To recruit more personnel, gain more weapons and raise more cash for his efforts. Al-sadr isn't stupid, he knows that if they raise hell throughout the summer and into the fall, Democrats will be elected and will remove our army from their borders within a year or two. He also knows that McCain will stay there 100 years if needed.

What are American's real interest in Iraq? Nuclear Weapons program? It doesn't exist. Terrorism? We spread it through our presence. What else does that leave? Oil? Oh yes, texas tea. Perhaps the real reason why our brave men and women are dying.

McCain = continued war with no end in sight and no objective for our army to achieve. Hillary or Obama = a dramatically reduced presence in the middle east and perhaps a hope that Iraq will learn to stand on their own two feet.

Things are going so well in Iraq that McCain could probably visit the market with only half a rifle company and one helicopter instead of three. Wow.

Plan for victory? The Bush plan for victory is to turn the problem over to his replacement who will likely be a Democrat. McCain wants to stay in Iraq for many years? Then his "plan for victory" should tell us where he plans to get the money and how he'll get some of those courageous college republicans to sign up.

I just noticed that the "Nation of War" quote is attributed to Lindsey Graham. Hardly matters if Senator McCain didn't address it immediately.

America is a nation of peace but the sad truth is that under the current administration, we are becoming a nation of war.

America must have clearly defined and attainable objectives before ever going to war. Even if you still feel that we should have gone to war in Iraq, we've deposed Sadam, and we've found all of the WMDs that there were to find (none). We have succeeded. We won the war. It's time for the Iraqis to win the peace.

The Iraq war has distracted us from dealing with global terrorism. The sooner we leave Iraq and let Iraqis determine their future the better. I believe that Senator McCain knows this but is trying to use misleading "surrender" language to win an election.

Rick Majerus for president.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/columns/story?columnist=forde_pat&id=3212225&sportCat=ncb

Clinton and McCains' voting records on Iraq are almost identical. They both voted to authorize force because of WMDs, and they both have voted for continued funding. The only difference is that McCain's rhetoric matches his votes, while Hillary's rhetoric flaps in the direction of the latest Gallop Poll.

When Petraeus told Clinton that the GAO report was incomplete and not current, and that his more up to date numbers showed declining violence in Iraq, she told him that would require the "willful suspension of disbelief". Does she still feel that way?

I doubt it. She has already engaged the sliding scale liberal position. The original position was that American presence was the problem, and a surge will only increase violence. Now, it is - OK, we admit violence in Iraq is down, but there is still no political reconciliation. Now that Iraq is slowly and painfully passing tough legislation, what will the argument slide to next? OK, we admit violence is down and there is a trend toward reconciliation, but... Who knows, but she'll have to think of something. When you've tied your ship to total failure of the US in Iraq, you have to be creative.

God, I hope he ends up being the Republican candidate for President.

Posted by: dogjudge | January 24, 2008 12:31 PM

So does the RNC dogjudge, polls consistently show Mr. McCain beats both Mrs. Clinton, and Mr. Obama in the general election. One should be careful what they wish for sir.

"McCain's plan is to keep up surge troop levels"

Nope sorry, can't happen. The surge troop levels cannot be maintained past spring. We do not have the forces to be able to keep them there at those levels any longer than that. The Joint Chiefs have been quite clear on that.

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5haVkrWW1NBiKVm4-cUZnBUNBhavA

So if that is McCain's strategy, he is either very mistaken about the reality of the situation, or is lying. Which is it Jeff?

A US military base will remain there in a monitoring role just like those that remain in Germany, Japan, Korea, Cuba and other hotspots.

Posted by: Jeff | January 24, 2008 1:39 PM

Did you just say that Germany and Japan are "hotspots"? Right....

McCain will definitely lose to a democratic candidate. He IS on the unpopular side of this issue, and has no plans or credentials to deal with the economic woes that will be afflicting our country by November. I predict that the economy, not Iraq, will be the key issue in this election.

And so, instead of someone with some basic understanding of modern economic theory, Americans will elect a socialist to "take care" of us.

Entitlement in America makes me sick

Am I the only one that noticed that Bill Clinton called Sen. Clinton and Sen. McCain close “friends” on purpose? I think Bill and Hillary know that if McCain becomes the Rep. nominee, that Clinton doesn’t stand a chance. McCain may not have the hard core conservative base behind him right now (and Bill is trying to portray him as a liberal with his comment in hopes of crushing his Florida and national candidacy), but with the prospect of Clinton being president, a solid conservative VP, and his direct appeal to moderate Republicans he’ll be able to easily mobilize the entire GOP base to rally behind him. Not to mention the fact that, unlike Hillary, he has MASSIVE appeal to independents. I think the Republicans should be more afraid of Obama (with his same appeal to independents) or even Edwards (with his southern roots), than Clinton, only if, of course, McCain is the nominee; if he’s not, Republicans will lose regardless of the Democratic pick.