WE Blog

Anything you can learn is worthwhile to some degree. At least, that’s my opinion. McCain having grown up in the war years might provide another piece to the puzzle of the man’s attitudes.

Besides, WE Blog is often awash in off-topic posts where someone goes off on a tangent over something another poster said. Is that the “best use of WE Blog”?

It is actually interesting. The “Silent Generation” has been silent as far as the executive branch is concerned. We went straight from the WWII “Greatest Generation” to the Baby Boomers in the transition from Bush I to Clinton, and Bush Lite is also a boomer.

From crooksandliars.com –

Don’t try to pass a salt shaker to John McCain. He won’t take it from your hand because it’s bad luck.

Mr. McCain has dozens of superstitions and rituals, many stemming from his days as a Navy fighter pilot, a notoriously superstitious bunch. He carries a lucky feather, a lucky compass and a lucky penny — not to mention a lucky nickel and a lucky quarter.

He almost picked up a lucky dime in January. As he was preparing for a debate at the Reagan presidential library, he noticed a shiny dime on the stage floor. He stopped to pick it up, but quickly walked away — because if a coin isn’t heads up, he considers it unlucky.

McCain even has a laminated four-leaf clover that he carries in his wallet.

“Am I superstitious? I’m that,” McCain said. “But I don’t think I’m alone there.”

No, I suppose not. I have a reflexive aversion to superstition, but I realize most people pick up certain habits and routines they consider to be “good luck.” Maybe it’s a lucky tie or lucky numbers, but I get the sense that the vast majority have at least some kind of superstition in their life.

But doesn’t McCain sound a little nutty about it?

Well, It’s appropriate for McCain to be running now, at the likely beginning of the 21st Century’s Great Depression. If he wins, he can be the new Hoover, and we’ll all damn him!

This is McCains las gasp!

And Nancy Reagan listened to her astronomer, didn’t she?

So what if McCain is superstitious. That does not bother me. What bothers me is his cavalier attitude towards keeping our troops in Iraq for the next 100 years if needed. This is what McCain said and he cannot backpedal from the statement now.

Also, what are his plans for attacking Iran? Is he in agreement with George W. Bush that the US needs to attack Iran? I already know that Hillary Clinton would obliterate Iran if they attack Israel. Why do we have presidential candidates so eager to start World War III?

Our strength will come from our independence of foreign oil and our self sufficiency. Bush has put us in debt to China and I hate to see the day when China calls that note in.

The next president will have the most challenging obstacles to overcome and he/she will never have a chance unless our country can get past the political party loyalty or the race card or the gender card.

If the country continues to be as divided as we have been in the past, nothing will change. A house divided cannot stand.

lucee lucee lucee

This is what McCain said:

Last month, at a town hall meeting in New Hampshire, a crowd member asked McCain about a Bush statement that troops could stay in Iraq for 50 years.

“Maybe 100,” McCain replied. “As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed, it’s fine with me and I hope it would be fine with you if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where al Qaeda is training, recruiting, equipping and motivating people every single day.”

Fleetwood – and what part of that statement infers that McCain is opposed to having our troops in Iraq for the next 100 if needed? Please try to remain on topic.

“needed” to do what – continue the occupation?

Outie,
I always thought that a dam was the most significant memorial to President Hoover they could have built. Unfortunately the generators moot a bit of the meaning (being useful and all).
Of course the unforeseen possibility that may lurk behind this election is that no matter who gets elected, the current occupants of the office might be unwilling to leave. That’s the only rational reason I can see behind the number this administration’s done on our military. Of course I may be assuming a lot when I consider it might be rational.

lucee – and the Bush administration said (weeks, maybe months, definitely NOT years”.

And don’t forget the “we know where the WMDs are … here … and here … “

“Bush supporters like to try to push the war into a nice little gift of democracy, God and mom’s apple pie. But the majority of Americans now know that the real reason Bush went into Iraq was for the control of the oil. That has been proven time and time again.”

Another likely neocon objective of the Iraq occupation is to have permanent bases in that part of the country to keep an eye on Iran and Syria and to have forward forces to launch invasions against them.

The occupation is spurring the insurgency, not protecting Iraqis from it. This latter is the greatest myth of this exciting misadventure.

Ask yourself, who are the insurgents?

Are they Al Qaeda? – at most 10% of them.
Are they dead-ender Baathists? No.
Are they unemployed military staff? No.
Who are they then? for the most part they are shi’ites who are stuggling against our occupation. The Shia were supposed to be our allies in controlling the Sunnis. Shia and Sunnis have banded together against U.S. occupiers. Very simple – they are iraqis first, sectarian members, second. Read it all here:

http://www.powells.com/biblio/1-9781582434032-0

hmmm, the links are screwed up

Fleetwood – you now sound alot like Bill Clinton trying to weasel out of his lie by twisting the definition of “is”.

Every American with half a brain knows that John McCain meant what he said. And McCain did imply that he would not mind our troops being in Iraq for the next 100 years.

The Bush supporters are just looking for anything to distract the American people from the truth – your side is full of war mongerers.

As for keeping on topic – this one is now closed on my end. I have replied to your retorts and to no avail. You just want to argue where there is no argument.

Some people just can’t admit they were wrong. Bush and his 27%ers.