Democrats are trying hard to paint John McCain as a continuation of President Bush, or “McBush.†How fair is that? Here is an excerpt of a New York Times article on how McCain and Bush compare:
“A look at Mr. McCain’s 25-year record in the House and Senate, his 2008 campaign positions and his major speeches over the last three months indicates that on big-ticket issues — the economy, support for continuing the Iraq war, health care — his stances are indeed similar to Mr. Bush’s brand of conservatism. Mr. McCain’s positions are nearly identical to the president’s on abortion and the types of judges he says he would appoint to the courts.
“On the environment, American diplomacy and nuclear proliferation, Mr. McCain has strikingly different views from Mr. Bush, and while he shares the president’s goals in Iraq, he was at times an outspoken critic of the way the war was managed.
“. . . While it would be hard to categorize him as a doctrinaire Republican or conservative, Mr. McCain appears to have ceded some of his carefully cultivated reputation as a maverick.
“In a CBS News poll two weeks ago, 43 percent of registered voters said they believed he would continue Mr. Bush’s policies, and 21 percent said he would be more conservative in his policies than Mr. Bush. Twenty-eight percent said he would be less conservative than Mr. Bush.â€
113 Comments
McCain said the war would be quick and easy, just like Bush said it would. Did McCain ever vote to end the illegal occupation? Nope, but he did promise a 100 year occupation and more wars, all of which will be paid for by borrowing another trillion from China so the rich can have another tax cut.
bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb iran…
McC*nt
I get so tired of hearing the left beat the “hundred year war” drum. If you listened to his speech and heard that phrase in the context that it was given, you come away with a different meaning. So, we still have troops deployed around the world in places that we have fought wars. Technically, we are still at war in Korea, but are at a cease fire. I don’t hear any of the pinheads clamoring to bring our troops home from Korea and they have been there over 50 years.
Biblically speaking, Mc CAIN, didn’t feel enough accomplishment with just one murder. Don’t have any idea what that means, just feel like he’s a decendant of Cain.
sorry, descendant
70 year old McCain
Promises a 100 year occupation
Yeah.
Just like Obama has visited all of the 57 states.
I don’t hear any of the pinheads clamoring to bring our troops home from Korea
Don’t read here much do you?
Pinhead indeed.
21 percent said he would be more conservative in his policies than Mr. Bush.
Uhm… O..K… Can anyone post anyting conservative that McCain has done?
Good picture.
But the wrong one. You SHOULD have used the one with McCain hugging bush like he was going to mama.
A vote for McCain may as well BE a vote for bush.
But given the alternative, maybe the whole idea of voting is a waste of time.
Given all of McCain’s flip-flops — campaign finance reform, torture, habeas corpus, a 100-year occupation and then a promise to have the troops out of Iraq by 2013, evangelicals “a divisive force” then sucking up to Falwell Hagee Parsley… — this thread’s topic should be
How much is McCain like McCain?
Doddering old man.
“Nope, but he did promise a 100 year occupation and more wars,…”
He did nothing of the kind. And you know it.
This is what he 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.”
It’s droll to see CON posters such as “fleettwood” rear up on their hind feet and all of a sudden insist on “the context” of McC*nt’s hundred-year gaffe.
The CONs were so concerned about the context of Jeremiah Wright’s more than four-hundred thousand minutes of sermons during his tenure at Trinity Church of Christ, weren’t the? Nope, they played a four-second sound bite over and over and over and over…
“…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.”
Well? It isn’t. Run on it though John!
House Approves $162 Billion War Funding Bill
Meanwhile the House has passed a $162 billion war-funding bill to keep funding the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The bill was approved by a vote of 268-155. As the House approved the war-funding bill, a protester in the visitor’s gallery began throwing red-stained dollars at lawmakers. Minority Leader Republican John Boehner said he was pleased with the vote.
Rep. John Boehner: “A compromise is a compromise. I want to thank my Democrat colleagues for working with us to get to this point and I want to thank them for their commitment that this is the bill. This is the bill that will end up on the President’s desk.”
Many Democrats criticized the bill for not setting any conditions on President Bush. This is House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
Rep. Nancy Pelosi: “So, let us think and hope that this is the last time that there will ever be another dollar spent without constraints, without conditions, without direction. Why should we trust the same judgment that got us here in the first place in this war?”
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/6/20/headlines
I thought the Dems got elected to end the war. Why do they keep funding it with no strings attached?
Damn it. Wrong thread…
What I’ve seen and heard is that McCain is whoever and whatever YOU need him to be.
Are you a defender of bush and sure history will show his policies kept us safe? Can you justify the Iraqi war? IF YOUR ANSWER IS YES, McCain is like bush.
How about if you can no longer defend bush, question his policies and his justifications for the Iraqi war? THEN, Mccain isn’t like bush.
I have heard ONE poster here say they will vote FOR McCain (I think that was fleetwood!), all the others indicate some version of holding their nose, best of the worst, at least he isn’t Obama…
The Republicans have gone from so decisive that most rational people see it as absurdly stubborn in bush to no principles worth defending if it loses me a potential vote in McCain. I’d say there is quite a lot of difference in the two men. But the differences aren’t going to make a hill of beans of difference in their lack of leadership abilities. bush took our country to depths unimagined; McCain doesn’t know the first rule of holes.
McCain voted with Bush 95% of the time - not much more needs to be said.
McCain can TRY to separate himself from Bush, as he did yesterday in Iowa - “Look! We didn’t come within THIRTY miles of Bush! See, we’re THAT far apart!”
It ain’t gonna work.
They are like the clowns that pile out of the little car at the circus - they may have different wigs and rubber noses, but they are still just clowns.
“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.”
Reason # 51,259 why the American people will not let McGovernBama into the White House.
“maintain a presence”
And just how were you going to pay for that, John?
Fleet? Got a clue as to how we can continue to maintain over 700 foreign military bases plus 50-60 more in Iraq.
I find it amusing that the libs have to constantly lie to defend their positions.
400,000 minutes of sermons? That equals over six hours of sermon, seven days a week, every day for over twenty years.
Four second sund bites? LOL! The longer the sound bite, the better in ‘context’ it gets and the worse it becomes!
So . . . Please put “NO, NO, No, NO! Gawd Damn America!” in context for us! What exactly was the good Reverend Wright saying?
nitwit liar
“Got a clue as to how we can continue to maintain over 700 foreign military bases plus 50-60 more in Iraq.”
Sure. Cut welfare payments and other giveaway programs to those who live in HandOut Land.
“McCain voted with Bush 95% of the time - not much more needs to be said.”
That’s good enough for me!
(Of course, it’s another liberal lie!)
“It’s droll to see CON posters such as ‘fleettwood’ rear up on their hind feet and all of a sudden insist on ‘the context’ of McC*nt’s hundred-year gaffe.”
It’s better than his usual drive by snarking, and on this he is correct. McCain did not advocate a 100 year old war. To say otherwise is to be misleading. Context is important and bullsh*t should be called on both sides.
That being the case, McCain’s statements about the judiciary (the most important single issue of this campaign) is reason enough to vote for his opponent. We need balance in the judiciary.
“Sure. Cut welfare payments and other giveaway programs to those who live in HandOut Land.”
How much will that “save” per year?
And why do you favor spending American taxpayer money on foreign countries instead of spending it on Americans?
“(Of course, it’s another liberal lie!)”
Really? What is the correct percentage, Mr. Price?
“‘McCain voted with Bush 95% of the time - not much more needs to be said.’
“That’s good enough for me!
“(Of course, it’s another liberal lie!)”
No, it’s not.
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/is_it_true_john_mccain_voted_with.html
But then, what can one expect from a person who, by his own admission, gets his news from Faux, the WSJ, and other right wing sources? A guy who watches news to validate and reinforce his own political biases rather than to get information is in no position to evaluate the truthfulness of claims.
As soon as a CON starts name-calling on this forum, you know they’ve got nothin’.
Here’s a little context. You’ve sure got a right to disagree with the ideas, but the guy didn’t preach for nearly 30 years (sorry, the 400,000 figure should have been closer to 200,000. My bad.) by saying “God damn America” every four seconds.
Here’s from the “God damn America” sermon –
“The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing ‘God Bless America.’ No, no, no, God damn America, that’s in the Bible for killing innocent people,” he said in a 2003 sermon. “God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human. God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme.”
Sounds a lot like Evangelical Conservatives who want more God and less government.
Remember when Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell blamed 9/11 on God’s punishment for allowing gays and Lesbians in America?
On the Sunday after Sept. 11, 2001 Wright said pretty much the same thing; that the United States had brought on al Qaeda’s attacks because of its own terrorism.
“We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye.”
“We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America’s chickens are coming home to roost.”
Again, you’re entitled to disagree with the rhetoric or the ideas.
But thirty years in the pulpit reduced to a four-second sound bite is not, cannot, be a fair assessment of the man or his theology. And it certainly isn’t worthy of guilt-by-association attacks against a parishioner. (BTW, Obama was not in the congregation for Wright’s 9/11 sermon.)
If you’re really interested in context, “HLP,” you can purchase CDs of many Wright sermons from Trinity Church of Christ. No doubt you’ll find a lot of grist, but at least you’ll hear it in context.
BTW, I offered to attend your kid’s church just to hear if there might be four seconds I could take out of context. (And who knows? I might get saved and answer the altar call!) But he steadfastly refuses to invite me.
Now wsc, you’re asking for facts when attacks are the only ammunition they have. Guess the two words sound similar so it must be OK in the world of don’t need no stinkin’ facts when you’ve got attacks!
HLP,
I suppose you think he ought to say “Thank you America for not lynching as many of us as you used to!”
This supports the 95% voting with Bush claim:
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-oe-alterman20-2008jun20,0,6320394.story
But it is from the Los Angeles Times, so it may be a bunch of nonconservative lies.
Repeat after me: liberals tell lies, conservatives never do!
Seeing that quote in context was interesting. It showed me where Michele Obama got her attitude about our country. When you hear for twenty years that our country is furnishing drugs to blacks, building new prisons just to hold them and then passing that dreadful three strike law so you can jail habitual criminals you have to damn the country that is doing this. This isn’t a country you could be proud of.
There are many differences between McCain and Bush. Their records show this. I am disappointed with Bush on several things and McCain wouldn’t have been my first choice but McCain at his worst will be better than Obama at his best.
And I was shocked to see that Bush’s approval rating has now surpassed that of the Democrat congress by several points.
Worse congress ever.
Drill here, drill now, pay less.
For those who have an interest in Iraq?
Get on over there!
I didn’t lose anything there and I don’t intend to.
In 2008 McCain has voted with Bush 100% of the time:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/27/mccain-voted-with-bush-10_n_103718.html
Some maverick, huh?
“okobserver” chimes in with –
“Seeing that quote in context was interesting. It showed me where Michele Obama got….”
TOPIC-SHIFT ALERT!!!
You CONs are so predictable.
You’ve got nothin’ so you change the subject.
You’re all so willing to attack Michelle Obama but don’t want to talk about the other candidate’s wives.
McC*nt walked away from three kids and his crippled first wife to marry the Arizona Beer Queen who stole drugs from her tax-exempt foundation to fuel her addiction.
Ah! But Michelle Obama went to church!
“Drill here, drill now, pay less.”
An injection of reality regarding the above statement:
http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1815884,00.html
“There are many differences between McCain and Bush.”
Older. (By ten years.)
Shorter.
Less hair. (But he does have a first-class combover.)
Fewer smirks. (But that smile is creepy.)
Thicker around the middle.
Wife has more money. (But it is his second wife.)
Anymore?
Monkey I didn’t post that sermon on this thread just answered it. Shouldn’t you be attacking someone else (WS).
McCain, like Bush, was admitted to a highly selective college because of the influence of his father. Like Bush, he performed poorly in college and then was accepted into a highly selective pilot training program, again due to the influence of his father, in spite of the fact that he finished virtually dead last academically in his class. Like Bush, McCain then performed poorly as a pilot, as is documented in his 700-page Navy personnel records, which he, so far, has refused to release. He was passed over for promotion to flag rank because of his poor record of achievement. In the end, his daddy’s influence couldn’t help him pass muster.
SD,
While most of that link is true enough, just the possibility of more oil should drive speculation down. Something I thought about too was in opening the offshore sites, place with that an agreement; all oil recovered is to be refined and consumed inside the US.
I’m not all that hyped about ANWAR, and neither are the oil companies, from what I’ve seen.
There are several factors relating to the cost of oil. The two biggies for me are the failing dollar and speculators. If we can get the fed to soak up the extra money sloshing around that they printed and handed out, that would go a long way towards strengthening the US and lower gas prices. If we even had the thought of drilling and recovering new oil, the speculation would drop.
When the Saudis announced that they would produce 200,000 barrels a day (fairly insignificant amount) the price per barrel dropped $5
“Shouldn’t you be attacking someone else (WS).”
Pray tell, Okie-Dope, why should Monkey Hawk attack me?
Eh?
“And I was shocked to see that Bush’s approval rating has now surpassed that of the Democrat congress by several points.
“Worse congress ever.”
Uhm, ok, you obviously don’t really think things through, do you?
Congressional approval ratings always tend to be lower. Here’s why:
Let’s look at the Congress elected in 2006. Democrats won enough seats to get a majority in the House, and to draw even in the Senate (the Democratic “majority” is defined as such because Leiberman caucuses with the Democrats). Voters were clearly dissatisfied with the actions of the Bush Adminstration and Republican Congress, and expressed their dissatisfaction at the polls. However, you have a lame duck and frankly shallow president who will stubbornly stay the course rather than reconsider his options, and a narrow to non-existant majority in the opposition party. This is a recipe for gridlock. So what happens? Those who agree with the president or identify with the Republicans who were in the majority will not be satisfied with the congress, because their candidates lost and were replaced by those they don’t agree with. In addition, those who wanted change, because the change is stalled, are also dissatisfied because nothing happens. Thus, you have the opposition who are still not satisfied, and those who supported the previous regime of course are not satisfied either. Therefore, you have congressional ratings lower than the presidents because you have most of those who are already dissatisfied with him still dissatisfied added to those who are satisfied with him. It’s simple, predictable, mathematics.
“Drill here, drill now, pay less.”
Nope. Drilling here won’t happen now, and it will cost therefore consumers will pay more. Then we will find ourselves right back where we started when the oil that is extracted and refined is gone.
Use less. Reduce demand. Save more and pay less.
Cathy phrase that “drill here, drill now, pay less.” The small masses who share that brain cell buy into such catchy phrases. Easier than thinking and reasoning!
Well WS that might be because you posted off topic. What he dinged me for. Forgot you are both lefters.
Ksagnostic my point, as I am sure you know, was that this congress promised we would be out of Iraq, they would not fund another dollar for this war, gas prices would come down and the world would be rosy once again.
I’m still waiting.
Once upon a time, McCain was an independent, a maverick. However, ever since his slapdown by Bush in 2000 he has toed the Party line.
“Well WS that might be because you posted off topic.”
Hmmmmmmmmmmm……………… can’t see where I changed the subject - perhaps you can “enlighten” me.
“I don’t hear any of the pinheads clamoring to bring our troops home from Korea and they have been there over 50 years.”
All our foreign troops should be brought home immediately.
And that includes all the (once) secret bases where nobody is supposed to know that we have troops there–like Diego Garcia and Bahrain.
The founders didn’t want a standing army because they knew that whoever runs the army runs the country.
Now we not only have a standing army, we have the biggest standing army in the effing world. We spend more on our army than the all the countries of the world put together. 51 percent of all income taxes go to funding the military, and it still isn’t enough; the government has to issue bonds to cover the massive deficit.
End the American Empire. End it now.
Linda I am waiting for your thinking and reasoning that will come up with a solution for the mess we find ourselves in. Several presidents share the blame for the handcuffs OPEC has us in.
What does your thinking and reasoning mind tell us that will be better than biting the bullet and drilling now so at least 10 years down the road we will be energy independent.
I’m waiting. Share your pearls of wisdom with us.
“I don’t hear any of the pinheads clamoring to bring our troops home from Korea and they have been there over 50 years.”
All our foreign troops should be brought home immediately.
And that includes all the (once) secret bases where nobody is supposed to know that we have troops there–like Diego Garcia and Bahrain.
The founders didn’t want a standing army because they knew that whoever runs the army runs the country.
Now we not only have a standing army, we have the biggest standing army in the effing world. We spend more on our army than the all the countries of the world put together. 51 percent of all income taxes go to funding the military, and it still isn’t enough; the government has to issue bonds to cover the massive deficit.
End the American Empire. End it now.
“What does your thinking and reasoning mind tell us that will be better than biting the bullet and drilling now so at least 10 years down the road we will be energy independent.”
One, conservatives may be clamoring to drill in ANWR, but the oil companies show almost no interest in pursuing those fields.
Two, American oil companies have thousands of acres under drilling permit that they are not using - no drilling.
Three, we could save more oil than ANWR could ever produce by just changing our driving habits slightly.
Could any of us save three percent of our usage by just planning trips better, turning the thermostat down a bit in winter?
Conservation could have a much greater impact than American drilling in a much shorter time frame.
Linda & Steven – Well everybody,
This is absolutely jaw dropping; the truth about Alaskan oil…
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3340274697167011147
“Sure. Cut welfare payments and other giveaway programs to those who live in HandOut Land.”
Ok. Cool.
But, just for a change of pace, how about we START with corporate welfare and hand outs to business?
ya know, just for a change…. THEN we’ll stop programs that help poor people.
Mkay?
“Ksagnostic my point, as I am sure you know, was that this congress promised we would be out of Iraq, they would not fund another dollar for this war, gas prices would come down and the world would be rosy once again.”
Your point was addressed. Congress is gridlocked because there is no meaningful majority, and an obstinate lame duck president. Plus, “and the world would be rosy once again” is nothing more than a rhetorical flourish.
“What does your thinking and reasoning mind tell us that will be better than biting the bullet and drilling now so at least 10 years down the road we will be energy independent.”
I call bullsh*t. Drilling here will not make us “energy independent”. To make ourselves “energy independent” is a relative term, and it involves weaning ourselves off of fossil fuels to the greatest extent possible, and increasing the efficiency of the use we continue. Even allowing for the most rosy scenario that comes from drilling, such a solution would just defer the inevitable changes we need to make.
SolDevVB
Posted June 20, 2008 at 9:00 am | Permalink
House Approves $162 Billion War Funding Bill
Meanwhile the House has passed a $162 billion war-funding bill to keep funding the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The bill was approved by a vote of 268-155. As the House approved the war-funding bill, a protester in the visitor’s gallery began throwing red-stained dollars at lawmakers. Minority Leader Republican John Boehner said he was pleased with the vote.
Rep. John Boehner: “A compromise is a compromise. I want to thank my Democrat colleagues for working with us to get to this point and I want to thank them for their commitment that this is the bill. This is the bill that will end up on the President’s desk.”
Many Democrats criticized the bill for not setting any conditions on President Bush. This is House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
Rep. Nancy Pelosi: “So, let us think and hope that this is the last time that there will ever be another dollar spent without constraints, without conditions, without direction. Why should we trust the same judgment that got us here in the first place in this war?”
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/6/20/headlines
I thought the Dems got elected to end the war. Why do they keep funding it with no strings attached?
————————————————————————-
THE DEMOCRAT Congress will continue the SAME Bush policies.
They LIE about being against the war in Iraq, while they REPEATEDLY vote to fund it, year after year after year.
He did nothing of the kind. And you know it.
How does it feel, fleetwood (and all the rest of the repubs here) to have the words of your own taken out of context? Bites, doesn’t it?
So maybe we should either dispense with the sound bites (misspelled on purpose) and concentrate on what was really said. (Note that REALLY.)
ANWAR would produce 1,000,000 Barrels/Day, but this is seen as No Big Deal.
Saudia Arabia annouces a whopping 200,000 Barrels/Day increase and everyone is HAPPY, HAPPY, HAPPY!
Drill Here, Drill Now, is No Big Deal, cause it’s not a Democrat idea.
http://news.in.msn.com/business/article.aspx?cp-documentid=1475728
Oil prices dip as Saudi promises to add 200,000 barrels a day
Singapore: Oil prices extended their decline Wednesday despite expectations that a U.S. government report to be released later in the day will show a drop in crude oil inventories.
That $162 billion could have gone a long way towards helping with the victims of the Iowa floods.
Yes, Max, the Dems have voted to fund the war yet again. But we all know what you and your fellow (fill in the blank) would say if they didn’t. “They don’t support our troops! They won’t fund the equipment that’s needed!” So there ya go.
I agree that the Dems need to grow a pair, and not just about war funding.
Predestined
Posted June 20, 2008 at 11:59 am | Permalink
Yes, Max, the Dems have voted to fund the war yet again. But we all know what you and your fellow (fill in the blank) would say if they didn’t. “They don’t support our troops! They won’t fund the equipment that’s needed!” So there ya go.
———————————————————————–
Right, so the Dems continue the war for Political Reasons. Yet the Dems blame the Dead on Bush.
Political Power though, is more important to the Dems then saving lives.
Holy crap, y’all really need to watch this all the way through. It explains Iraq, Sadam, and why Bush and McCain have such a hard on against Iran.
Do y’all know what deal Kissinger made in Saudi?
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3340274697167011147
51 percent of all income taxes go to funding the military
Yet look above and see what they bitch about. This “war” in Iraq has done nothing positive.
Instead of lowering the cost of oil (yes, one of Dubya’s admin did say it would), it has skyrocketed and continues to do so.
Instead of reducing the number of terrorists, we grown the number.
Instead of weeks, probably not months, we’ve been there for 5 years.
Those number of those at or under the poverty level have increased.
The cost of health care for all has increased. Yes, including those of you with insurance, and stop blaming people going to the emergency room. Have you checked the cost of your prescription drugs lately?
Please show me at least 3 positives about the invasion and occupation of Iraq.
“But, just for a change of pace, how about we START with corporate welfare and hand outs to business?”
That would be unAmerican………………..
/sarcasm/
Sorry, Max, although I agree with you to some extent, without power, they’re nothing. The proof is in the pudding/congress.
Without power they are nuthin?
Ya think if they did the RIGHT thing they would lose power?
Amazing.
Just keep doing the wrong thing then.
It’s only about Power.
“All our foreign troops should be brought home immediately.”
Why?
“The founders didn’t want a standing army because they knew that whoever runs the army runs the country.”
So far as I can tell, we still have a civilian government after having a standing army for most of our country’s history.
“Now we not only have a standing army, we have the biggest standing army in the effing world. We spend more on our army than the all the countries of the world put together. 51 percent of all income taxes go to funding the military, and it still isn’t enough; the government has to issue bonds to cover the massive deficit.”
This is a problem, and I would stongly agree that misadventures like our invasion of Iraq (never mind the fact that progress does seem to be finally occurring there) has put a considerable strain on our resources. However, just simply promoting a quasi-isolationist across the board sweeping action is not a good idea either. The world is what it is, and it is the way it is in part because of what the US has done, good and bad. Part of the solution is the very thing some conservatives knee jerkingly react negatively against, and that is forming alliances and coordinating actions with other countries, and there are infrastructures for doing that (one of which sends some conservatives into convulsions of horror is the UN).
Unfortunately, other countries like us footing a disproportionate amount of the bill for international security.
Like McCain or not…this country has little choice.
Obama And McCain
By Thomas Sowell
June 5, 2008
Now that the two parties have finally selected their presidential candidates, it is time for a sober — if not grim — assessment of where we are.
Not since 1972 have we been presented with two such painfully inadequate candidates. When Election Day came that year, I could not bring myself to vote for either George McGovern or Richard Nixon. I stayed home.
This year, none of us has that luxury. While all sorts of gushing is going on in the media, and posturing is going on in politics, the biggest national sponsor of terrorism in the world — Iran– is moving step by step toward building a nuclear bomb.
The point when they get that bomb will be the point of no return. Iran ’s nuclear bomb will be the terrorists’ nuclear bomb — and they can make 9/11 look like child’s play.
All the options that are on the table right now will be swept off the table forever. Our choices will be to give in to whatever the terrorists demand — however outrageous those demands might be — or to risk seeing American cities start disappearing in radioactive mushroom clouds.
All the things we are preoccupied with today, from the price of gasoline to health care to global warming, will suddenly no longer matter.
Just as the Nazis did not find it enough to simply kill people in their concentration camps, but had to humiliate and dehumanize them first, so we can expect terrorists with nuclear weapons to both humiliate us and force us to humiliate ourselves, before they finally start killing us.
They have already telegraphed their punches with their sadistic beheadings of innocent civilians, and with the popularity of videotapes of those beheadings in the Middle East .
They have already telegraphed their intention to dictate to us with such things as Osama bin Laden’s threats to target those places in America that did not vote the way he prescribed in the 2004 elections. He could not back up those threats then but he may be able to in a very few years.
The terrorists have given us as clear a picture of what they are all about as Adolf Hitler and the Nazis did during the 1930s — and our ‘leaders’ and intelligentsia have ignored the warning signs as resolutely as the ‘leaders’ and intelligentsia of the 1930s downplayed the dangers of Hitler.
We are much like people drifting down the Niagara River , oblivious to the waterfalls up ahead. Once we go over those falls, we cannot come back up again.
What does this have to do with today’s presidential candidates? It has everything to do with them.
One of these candidates will determine what we are going to do to stop Iran from going nuclear — or whether we are going to do anything other than talk, as Western leaders talked in the 1930s.
There is one big difference between now and the 1930s. Although the West’s lack of military preparedness and its political irresolution led to three solid years of devastating losses to Nazi Germany and imperial Japan , nevertheless when all the West’s industrial and military forces were finally mobilized, the democracies were able to turn the tide and win decisively.
But you cannot lose a nuclear war for three years and then come back. You cannot even sustain the will to resist for three years when you are first broken down morally by threats and then devastated by nuclear bombs.
Our one window of opportunity to prevent this will occur within the term of whoever becomes President of the United States next January.
At a time like this, we do not have the luxury of waiting for our ideal candidate or of indulging our emotions by voting for some third party candidate to show our displeasure — at the cost of putting someone in the White House who is not up to the job.
Senator John McCain has been criticized in this column many times. But, when all is said and done, Senator McCain has not spent decades aiding and abetting people who hate America .
On the contrary, he has paid a huge price for resisting our enemies, even when they held him prisoner and tortured him. The choice between him and Barack Obama should be a no-brainer.
—
Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University , Stanford , CA 94305 . His Web site is http://www.tsowell.com.
SOL — Hoooray for your Video link!! I posted that information, after hearing Lindsey Williams on a Talk Radio show a few weeks back!! I was attacked profusely here, but now, since YOU posted it, perhaps it will not be attacked!! It IS, in fact, enough to make your jaw drop when you hear this man tell about the cover-ups to oil discoveries in Alaska!!
SPOT ON, SOLLIE!!! WTG!!!
“The choice between him and Barack Obama should be a no-brainer.”
Yea - if you are a ‘no-brainer’ choose McCain. If you have a brain choose Obama.
I wonder if Sowell wet himself before or after his little rant?
Thomas Sowell has a problem thinking So Well…
“ANWAR would produce 1,000,000 Barrels/Day, but this is seen as No Big Deal.”
http://www.factcheck.org/gas_price_fixes_that_wont.html
1) ANWR would NOT produce 1 millin barrels per day, the amount would fluctuate.
2) Oil is an international commodity. The US producing more than it does will not have a huge impact on oil prices.
3) There will be development prices for getting oil from ANWR, and they won’t be cheap in time or money.
4) Conservation, such as increasing gas milage, is a long term solution that drilling would, at best (and this is relying on extremely questionable optimism) only defer, and conservation would work better in the short term as a method for reducing prices.
Dear Thomas Sowell–
While you work yourself into a fear-frenzy locked in your panic-room while stroking your guns, consider this: the guy who didn’t get Osama bin Laden is your guy.
Your guy allowed the worst terrorist attack on American soil, your guy invaded the wrong country to stop terror, and your guy effed up taking down Bin Laden and Al Qaeda.
Please go to hell.
Thank you.
Thinking readers everywhere.
KsAgno–
Correct a mundo!
The little secret that the CONs continue to hide is that the oil co’s are in no rush to tap ANWR. It’s going to cost plenty to develop it in a very remote part of the world, AND they know damn well that the pay-off is very iffy . . .
Max,
How many years was it that the Dems held Congress? Compare that to how many the Repubs have held it since they got control during Clinton’s admin. Not all that long.
So you want to talk power? These days, it shifts back and forth. Until our “representatives” start representing us (on both sides), power is all we’ve got to look forward to.
A complete overhaul of how this country is run wouldn’t be a bad thng. Not that the Founding Fathers didn’t have a good thing going. They did. But they sure couldn’t see 200+ years into the future. They did a good job with what they had and what they knew. Let’s see if we can honor them by doing the same.
If they’d put hats on, we could call them Bart and Brett!
Another diff., to the best of my knowledge, GW hasn’t called Laura a C$nt!
What Thomas Sowell neglects to mention is why Iran’s influence, militarily and politically, has increased in the region. Hint: The previous administration’s decision to invade Iraq had just a little bit to do with it.
As for Sowell himself, he is an intelligent guy who is nevertheless a conservative shill, and in fact his intelligence has not stopped him from talking authoritatively on subjects where he really doesn’t know what he is talking about (and that is a danger to people who try to interpret everything they see through their personal political viewpoints).
Thomas Sowell’s column, by the way, was an exercise in alarmist absurdity.
“Your guy allowed the worst terrorist attack on American soil,…”
Clinton is not our guy. He’s yours.
Whilst, we’re talking about power, let’s mention just how much the federal courts are inclined rubber-stamp the most chilling abuses of goverment power these days.
John McCain may have been a maverick on some issues prior to 2000, but he’s always been scary when it came to judicial nominees. He voted for Bork, Thomas, Roberts and Alito. He was part of the “gang of 14″ on filibusters.
Then, there’s this little tidbit (yeah, I know, it’s Alternet–but is it inaccurate?):
McCain was also more than willing to rough-up President Clinton’s judicial nominees. McCain missed many important votes on Clinton nominees in 1999 and 2000 while campaigning for the White House. But he was present in 1994 and was among just 12 Senators to support a filibuster of Judge Lee Sarokin, a nominee to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals who was rated unanimously “well qualified” by the ABA (the highest possible rating). McCain’s decision to side with the likes of Jesse Helms and Strom Thurmond in this vote, and against Orrin Hatch and Trent Lott speaks volumes.
http://www.alternet.org/rights/77302/
This man cannot be given the privilege of appointing judges.
Obama at least voted against Roberts and joined the filibuster against Alito.
“Your guy allowed the worst terrorist attack on American soil, your guy invaded the wrong country to stop terror, and your guy effed up taking down Bin Laden and Al Qaeda.
Capn, that’s ridiculous, as usual.
Clinton could have had his head on a silver platter, he had more than one opportunity to neutralize Bin Laden and failed to do so.
Remember the date 9/11/01, Bush hadn’t been in office that long, a year and a half.
And getting Bin Laden wasn’t why he went into Iraq, he as well as the rest of the world, and the Democrats in Congress, all thought Saddam had WMD and Saddam was defying the U.N. and the rest of the world not allowing inspections or limiting them. He was a tyrant and Bush did the world a favor getting rid of him.
You may not like Bush, fine, but don’t lie about it either.
You almost had it right. This is what you should have written:
“This man cannot be given the privilege of appointing judges.
Obama voted against Roberts and joined the filibuster against Alito.”
Field Pay Zone Oil Area of Field
(Average depth of oil pool)
Prudhoe 600 Ft. of pay zone 100 square miles
Kuparuk 300 Ft. of pay zone Twice the size of
Prudhoe
Gull Island 1,200 Ft. of pay zone At least four
times the size of Prudhoe . . .
Estimates are that it is the richest oil field
on the face of the earth. …
http://djomama.blogspot.com/2006/02/peak-oil-my-ass.html
Iraq and Iran are/were targeted because they would not sign on to Kissinger’s deal to trade oil in dollars. Iran is heavily targeted now because they will flood the oil market (Probably Q4 08) based in Euros, not dollars.
Hang on kids, it’s going to be one hell of a bumpy ride.
“Saddam was defying the U.N. and the rest of the world not allowing inspections or limiting them”
No he wasn’t - Blix and the inspectors were well on their way to proving that Hussein did NOT possess WMD or a program for same when the inspectors had to leave Iraq on the eve of war. They had been there for more than four months when they left.
Dem are de facts.
“In 1975, an anonymous ARCO official told Hugh M. Chance, a former State Senator from Colorado, that the Government had allowed only one pool of oil in a 100 square mile area on Alaska’s North Slope to be developed, even though the entire area north of Brooks Range has so much oil, that if it were drilled, “in five years the United States could be totally energy free, and totally independent from the rest of the world as far as energy is concerned.” The Prudhoe Bay oil field is one of the richest oil fields on earth, able to produce an oil flow for at least 20 years, without the need of a pump; and a natural gas supply which could supply the entire country for 200 years. However, the Government wouldn’t allow it to be pumped out, and it is funneled back into the ground. The Gull Island field had a different chemical structure, as did the Kuparuk oil field, west of there, which meant that the three different chemical compositions indicated the existence of separate pools of oil on the North Slope in an area of 50,000 square miles. Needless to say, this seems to be an almost unlimited supply of domestic oil.”
http://www.peakoil.com/printout717.html
“Another ARCO official told Lindsey Williams, a chaplain for the work camps on the Trans-Alaska Oil pipeline, that “there will never be an energy crisis (because) we have as much oil here as in all Saudi Arabia.” Williams had witnessed a huge oil discovery at Gull Island (5 miles north of Prudhoe Bay in the Beaufort Sea) that could have produced so much oil, that the official said that another pipeline could be built “and in another year’s time we can flood America with oil- Alaskan oil … and we won’t have to worry about the Arabs.” However, a few days after the find, the Federal Government ordered the documents and technical reports locked up, the well capped, and the rig withdrawn. Their excuse was that an oil spill in that part of the Arctic Ocean would kill various micro-organisms. Williams felt that the U.S. Government was deliberately creating an oil crisis, and delaying the flow of oil, in order to bankrupt the oil companies, which would lead to the nationalization of oil and gas.
William Brown, Director of Technological Studies at the Hudson Institute, said: “The President (Carter) said there is no chance of us becoming independent in our oil supplies. That is just wrong. We have at least 100 years of petroleum resources in this country.” In 1976, proven resources were set at 37 billion barrels and the estimated recoverable resources were set at 150 billion barrels. This is about a 50-year supply at current usage levels. The American Petroleum Institute said in their 1977 Annual report, that recoverable crude was set at 30.9 billion barrels, and with today’s technology, the amount of recoverable crude was 303.5 billion barrels, which is about an 80-year supply. The 1968 U.S. Geological Survey reported that the crude oil potential of the Atlantic Ocean continental shelf area is 224 billion barrels, the Gulf of Mexico has 575 billion barrels, the Pacific Coast has 275 billion barrels, and Alaska has 502 billion barrels, which is a grand total of 1,576 billion barrels. Only about 2% of these areas have been leased, which at the time of the report, had yielded 615 million barrels of oil, and 3.8 TCF (trillion cubic feet) of natural gas yearly.”
http://www.peakoil.com/printout717.html
WS,
Saddam was leading those inspectors around like they worked for him
“Saddam was leading those inspectors around like they worked for him.” *
Really? So where are the WMD?
* Or are you just playing Rush O’Hannity today?
“Really? So where are the WMD?”
Saddam in dead, but his apologists live on.
“Saddam in dead, but his apologists live on.”
No one is apologizing for Hussein, Fleet Idiot, but it was hardly worth a trillion dollars and 4,100 American dead to rid the world of a two-bit, toothless paper tiger.
By the way, where ARE the WMD?
Sol you have been spot on all day with what you are posting. Geologists all over say the same thing. There is no oil crisis. Still the left believes the lies they are being fed and our economy is going down. All of this to win an election?
Who really knows the motives. The results will be the same. A robust economy that is pulled back by a manufactured oil shortage and high fuel charges.
What will it take to educate the left. Talk about gullible. They also believe all the GW pap they are fed and just keep opening up like baby birds depending on big momma to take care of them.
Saddam was targeted because he didn’t sign Kissinger’s deal and traded oil in Eros, not dollars.
Iran is targeted because it is about to flood the market with oil traded in Eros.
Think the dollar is bad now? Wait until the end of this year.
“By the way, where ARE the WMD?”
Perhaps you should ask this guy.
“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.”
- President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
“President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998″
Sigh, 1,211th time - in 1998 (and until 2002) Iraq refused inspections. The inspectors returned in November 2002 and were well on their way…………… no WMD or program for same.
If the “War President” George WMD Bush had waiting for 30-60 more days, there would have been no justification for the invasion.
Damn.
BDP fleettwood posted,
“- President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998”
————-
Bombing of Iraq (December 1998)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Desert_Fox
March 7 2003 | New York, USA
Statement to the United Nations Security Council
‘The Status of Nuclear Inspections in Iraq: An Update’
http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Statements/2003/ebsp2003n006.shtml
March 20, 2003, the invasion of Iraq began.
Perhaps you could ask your former candidate for Prez:
“We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.”
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
Well, maybe not Gore. After all, he lost.
How about this guy? Ask him. He was a Vietnam vet, you know.
So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real …”
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
You people don’t remember so good. A goodly number of the “you people” voted to give Bush the authority (by any means neccessary).
“The authorization was sought by President George W. Bush. Introduced as H.J.Res. 114[2] (Public Law 107–243), it passed the House on Thursday afternoon at 3:05 PM EDT on October 10, 2002 by a vote of 296-133,[3] and passed the Senate after midnight early Friday morning at 12:50 AM EDT on October 11, 2002 by a vote of 77-23.[4] It was signed into law by President Bush on October 16, 2002.”
You people don’t remember so good. A goodly number of the “you people” voted to give Bush the authority (by any means neccessary).
“The authorization was sought by President George W. Bush. Introduced as H.J.Res. 114[2] (Public Law 107–243), it passed the House on Thursday afternoon at 3:05 PM EDT on October 10, 2002 by a vote of 296-133,[3] and passed the Senate after midnight early Friday morning at 12:50 AM EDT on October 11, 2002 by a vote of 77-23.[4] It was signed into law by President Bush on October 16, 2002.”
March 7 2003 | New York, USA
Statement to the United Nations Security Council
‘The Status of Nuclear Inspections in Iraq: An Update’
http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Statements/2003/ebsp2003n006.shtml
March 20, 2003, the invasion of Iraq began.
“fleettwood” –
The only Republic Party talking point you’ve left out is the hoary old lie, “And Congress had the same intelligence Shrub was seeing.”
Even you guys know better (finally) than to attempt that.
Cheney and Rumsfeld were dead set on invading Iraq on January 20th, 2001. You know that. We all know that.
Shrub? Probably not so much, since he probably couldn’t find Iraq on a globe. Hell, he probably couldn’t find the globe.
I certainly can criticize Democrats in Congress who bought the Shrub/Cheney/Rumsfeld lies. I mean, there’s a tidbit of patriotism left in most of us who find it abhorrent to think an administration would game the intelligence and manipulate the facts just to wage unprovoked war against a 3rd World country… and screw up the invasion so badly that it last longer than World War II and costs American taxpayers more.
But hey, I’m a liberal. Part of being a liberal is the utter faith in the human dignity of people to think you’re not just a blithering idiot; that you might have something of a perspective or insight to support your policies.
So let’s start with a basic:
Just what would constitute “victory” in Iraq?
“Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003″
“Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002″
Inspectors, Fleet Idiot, inspectors.
They left in March 2003 on the eve of war.
Do you have any comprehension of time?
And………….
“A goodly number of the “you people” voted to give Bush the authority”
IF NECESSARY.
Damn.
You are one blood-thirsty son of a bitch.
Christ.
give Bush the authority (by any means neccessary).
And the THREAT was sufficient to force Saddam to allow inspectors back in. THAT was what Congress voted for.
“…and screw up the invasion so badly that it last longer than World War II and costs American taxpayers more.”
The invasion went pretty well, was relatively cheap, and we did not have many deaths in the process. The occupation is where we are running into headaches and expenses.
Sol, your source of peakoil.com is hardly an unbiased source. It is, in fact, a shill site for domestic production. Furthermore, the very material you quoted is clearly anectdotal and indeed hearsay. More unbiased sources paint a different picture on how domestic oil from ANWR would impact oil prices and the domestic economy.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V2W-46WW4VF-1&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=2cdbfd98e7219bb829d7d3968aa688b7
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/238/4828/757
The second article looked at the potential effects of oil development on the environment, but the point that should also be considered is that the environment itself is not conducive for rapid development and that the infrastructure will be expensive to maintain (considerably more expensive than the oil fields in other countries, especially those on the Arab Penninsula).
SolDevVB,
How much oil is Badami, about 1/2 way between Prudhoe Bay and the west edge of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge producing?
And what are Badami’s profits?
What? No occupation deniers? This country is surely going to hell in a handbasket…
McCain and Bush are alot alike in their speech making talents. But I would have to say McCain is slightly worse. McCain has no personality, often stumbles over his words, has that deer in the headlights look on his face, has very odd gestures, laughs at inappropriate moments and is overall very poor in public speaking. At least with Bush we got to hear some made-up cowboy words that was good for the late night comedians the following week!
“mom” –
John Sidney McC*nt the Third (for Shrub’s 3rd term) has problems reading a speech because he’s preoccupied with the ideas he’s imparting.
Shrub never had that problem. He basically reads a script as if it were sounded out phonetically.
No math skills, Boxlock???
“Remember the date 9/11/01, Bush hadn’t been in office that long, a year and a half.” [Boxlock]
Try less than 8 months…. DO the math, Box… at least TRY… You are so good at calling people liars for making errors… But I am not going to do that… Just DO the math…. OK???
The bottom line is that where McCain should be different from Bush he is not. He wants to continue two of the worst policies of the Bush administration. Two that has lead this country down a path of destruction and should have been diverted from seven years ago.
Very good Chas, my point exactly, Bush could simple have had little to no time to enter office and do anything about Bin Laden prior to 9/11.
Correct, Bush took the oath of office January 20, 2001.
I simply was thinking of the year of the election being 2000 and typed that. Big deal.
And Chas, it’s not me that calls people liars for making errors anywhere like it’s done to me.
Case in point.
Actually, this time you didn’t call me a liar.
Thank you for that, that’s a change isn’t it.
One Trackback
Dermatitis…
nice post about this…..