McCain ‘more hawkish’ than Bush.
Bloomberg writes that, while there is a public perception that John McCain may be “less bellicose” than Bush, in reality McCain is as determined “to stay the course in Iraq and more confrontational” on a wide range of foreign policy issues. “On Russia and China, he is clearly more hawkish than Bush,” said Ken Weinstein, chief executive officer of the Hudson Institute. Ivo Daalder, a former National Security Council aide in the Clinton administration, added, “This is a man who hasn’t seen a country he doesn’t want to bomb or invade.”
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
115 Responses to “McCain ‘more hawkish’ than Bush.”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Register
RSSLogin
View Most Popular
Visit Our Affiliated Site
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
Reports
In depth studies on select topics
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Beck
Big Oil
Bolton
Bush
Cheney
Civil Rights
Dobbs
Drudge
Economy
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Feith
Fox News
GI Bill
Global Warming
Gore
Guantanamo
Hagee
Health Care
Immigration
Impeachment
Iran
Iraq
Justice
Kristol
LGBT
Lieberman
McCain
McClellan
Media
Military
O'Hanlon
O'Reilly
Obama
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Rove
Terrorism
Torture
Veterans
Wiretapping
Women's Rights
Archives
Then why isn’t he the Neocons’ wet dream come true?
March 12th, 2008 at 11:02 am“Bomb, bomb, bomb…bomb, bomb…Canada?”
March 12th, 2008 at 11:04 amYeah McCain!!!!
These Pancakes Don’t Run!!
March 12th, 2008 at 11:06 amhttp://tshirtinsurgency.com/ these-pancakes-dont-run-t-shirt
Mc100yearsinIraq should simply check into a nursing home so we taxpayers don’t have to pay for his diaper changes.
March 12th, 2008 at 11:07 amWhen the real race for the presidency begins I sure hope the twits running the Democratic Party keep reminding Americans that McCain wants more war, more national debt and more dead and disabled vets.
It’s really as simple as that.
March 12th, 2008 at 11:08 amWhy dont they call it, ‘HAWKISH’, what it really is…War Mongering.
Hawks catch prey for their survival and dont bomb bomb bomb. They should call it “Tasmanian”
McTasmaniac…yuhh thats better.
March 12th, 2008 at 11:15 amWho pays for yours?
Comment by Southern Man
(R) Vitter pays for his own!!
March 12th, 2008 at 11:17 amDont worry McCain will be unable to visit any country abroad for being Booed
FCUK HIM
March 12th, 2008 at 11:18 amThen why isn’t he the Neocons’ wet dream come true?
Comment by The Republic of Stupidity — March 12, 2008 @ 11:02 am
Because until recently, he was against torture. You know the neocons — they like to bomb AND torture.
March 12th, 2008 at 11:18 amMcCain worldwide is already more unpopular than Bush
March 12th, 2008 at 11:19 amComment by Tobie Tall — March 12, 2008 @ 11:19 am
Whoa.. Tobie, dude… that… that’s hard to believe.
Not that I have any use fer McNutjob…
Already????
It’s just… hard to believe.
March 12th, 2008 at 11:21 amComment by missmolly — March 12, 2008 @ 11:18 am
Riiiight… and leave the money on the night stand afterwards.
March 12th, 2008 at 11:22 amPTSD can do serious damage to rational thought processes.
Is this the man America needs to right a ship of State badly listing?
McCain would most likely be bombing Iran right now if he was POTUS.
At the very least, how about an in-depth psych eval, non-military?
March 12th, 2008 at 11:22 amHe’s indeed a hawk, and this is why he’ll be elected. He’s serious about *winning* in Iraq -Jackball
If hes serious about winning then why does he think it’lll take a hundred years?
And if you dont think its about the control of oil, ask Greenspan.
March 12th, 2008 at 11:23 amI’m glad to see you back “Tobie”. The whole freaking world is watching this election closely. If McCain gets elected we are in deep doo doo.
March 12th, 2008 at 11:23 amHmm Obama may be the most hawkish of all. Oiy!
Comment by jackoff — March 12, 2008 @ 11:19 am
Well, it’s clear McInsane will definitely be getting “the delusional vote”.
Question folks… if you suffer from multiple personality disorder, do you get to vote more than once?
March 12th, 2008 at 11:24 amMcJowl’s national anthem is, after all, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb______________(fill in the blank).
March 12th, 2008 at 11:24 amI’m glad to see you back “Tobie†-Mary
Agreed, Mary. It’s good to hear opinions & views from the other side of the pond.
As I recall, Tobie was one of the first posters to raise our awareness of how the British were viewing the Iraq invasion.
Welcome, back, Tobie!
March 12th, 2008 at 11:25 amJust for future reference: has new troll jackball ever contributed anything worthwhile yet?
From what I’ve seen, it sounds like a garden-variety troll with garden-variety talking points and garden-variety attitude. Am I missing something?
March 12th, 2008 at 11:26 amAmericans who want victory -Jackball
Its not about victory if its a 100 year war jack, its an occupation. Remember mission accomplished, Iraq is soverign, purple fingers? Operation Iraqi Freedom? Reconstruction and nation building? Freeing the oppressed? The UN resolution that has expired?
Jackball is not on the ball.
March 12th, 2008 at 11:26 amLeadership is about doing what you feel is correct regardless of what others may think -Jackball
What you describe is not a democracy.
March 12th, 2008 at 11:28 amBush is elected, as is congress, to serve the peoples interests, to represent them Jackball.
March 12th, 2008 at 11:29 amThen why isn’t he the Neocons’ wet dream come true?
Comment by The Republic of Stupidity
==================================
I think the Neo-cons love his ass and will throw rose petals in front of him. The born agains and RePUG rednecks on the other hand don’t like his thing with the boarders and other things.
March 12th, 2008 at 11:30 amMcWar Admin = Complete and Utter End of America.
Period.
March 12th, 2008 at 11:31 amIf, as jackboot suggests, Obama wants to “invade our ally Pakistan”, and if that distortion means that he is more “hawkish” than McCain, doesn’t it follow that the neocons should be supporting him?
Or does it indicate that there is in fact a war of choice that neocos wouldn’t support?
March 12th, 2008 at 11:31 amFrom what I’ve seen, it sounds like a garden-variety troll with garden-variety talking points and garden-variety attitude. Am I missing something?
Comment by ralph the wonder llama — March 12, 2008 @ 11:26 am
It has that whole Putin-love, jackboot thing going.
March 12th, 2008 at 11:32 amI think it is really that simple.
Comment by jackball — March 12, 2008 @ 11:31 am
Of course you do. Complexity makes your head hurt, doesn’t it?
March 12th, 2008 at 11:32 amHey, jackball. GSY (Go Snark Yourself)!
March 12th, 2008 at 11:33 amOT, but something to consider.
Book Titles in the Bush Library:
Nation Building for Dummies
Waterboarding for Beginners
Feel free to add your own…
March 12th, 2008 at 11:35 amIts not about VICTORY Jack, never has been. A hundred years is not a timely victory. 5 years is not a timely victory. Rumsfeld said it would be six months, then they keep filling you full of nonsense and you keep buying it. The AUMF has expired. No WMD were found, Saddam was toppled. Its time to go.
McCains stance on the war, which it ISNT, is that we should occupy Iraq for a hundred years.
How is that timely?
March 12th, 2008 at 11:35 amplease read from antiwar.com (Justin Raimondo):
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=12240
March 12th, 2008 at 11:36 amMore titles in the Chimp’s Library :
How to Trample on the Constitution in 10 easy steps
March 12th, 2008 at 11:37 amHow to create a False-Flag Op in 10 ten easy steps (9/11)
Bush didnt make good on his promise to capture Bin Laden, Jackball.
Bush said our troops should not be be used for nation building, and they are. Bush said we can only have victory with an exit plan.
Now there are permanent bases, thats not a sign of victory Jackball. Why do you keep insisting, lamely “its that simple”?
March 12th, 2008 at 11:38 amAnd if you dont think its about the control of oil, ask Greenspan.
Comment by Xisithrus
Or Rove - he says oil prices will skyrocket if we leave Iraq. Not that I’d believe anything that waste of space would say…
March 12th, 2008 at 11:41 amBtw, they cheered Reagan, remember?
Right on, pant-load. Of course, that was just because “Bedtime for Bonzo” was a cult film favorite in Europe.
March 12th, 2008 at 11:42 amJust ignore the troll, folks. Nothing you can say will change his world view, spoonfed to him by his heroes Rush and Bill. If he can’t think for himself, why do you think he can see reason? Just ignore the troll and deprive him of the attention he so pathetically craves.
March 12th, 2008 at 11:43 amIf you’re good enough you’re young enough. Unfortunately, McCain is neither. If during his presidency he uses the phrase “my friends” i’d push for impeachment.
March 12th, 2008 at 11:43 amWell, what I’m describing is leadership. A leader shouldn’t worry weather the Euros boo your leader when he visits.
~So whats the point of visiting?
Btw, they cheered Reagan, remember?
~Reagan cut and ran from Beirut
Not that it mattered…
~So why bring it up?
…but my point is that who cares who cheers, who boos.
~Obviously it bothers you, you keep bringing it up.
Leadership is doing what is right despite the naysayers.
~Dick Cheney, leader, said Iraq would be unmanageble, now hes a naysayer?
However, if you’re point is that democracy means doing exactly what the masses want, even to their own detriment, then I’m certainly glad that we have a representative republic.
~Have you look at the detriment done to our economy, the high price of fuel, the record deficits, the loans made, the costs incurred, the three trillion dollar budget? Losing jobs? Bigger government? Arent those things detrimental?
Additionally, please don’t ignore that Euros don’t get to elect our president
March 12th, 2008 at 11:45 am~You keep bringing up the euros when I haven’t mentioned them.
Is that a lump in your throat or are you just pleased to see me?
March 12th, 2008 at 11:47 amOr Rove - he says oil prices will skyrocket if we leave Iraq. Not that I’d believe anything that waste of space would say…
Comment by TheToonGuy
Not that they, oil prices, havent already even with Iraq pumping 2.2 million barrels a day we are STILL payoing for the reconstruction.
In fact the high gas prices have reduced the amount of oil we used by some 150,000 barrels a day.
March 12th, 2008 at 11:47 amIvo Daalder, a former National Security Council aide in the Clinton administration, added, “This is a man who hasn’t seen a country he doesn’t want to bomb or invade.
————————————————————-
That statement is just plain stupid.
March 12th, 2008 at 11:50 amIraq Occuption:
Hubris
March 12th, 2008 at 11:50 amHegemony
Ethnic Cleansing
The fact is Jackball, because you worry about Victory you have overlooked your political ideology. You are a detriment, in effect, to your ideas of what government should be.
March 12th, 2008 at 11:50 amNo one will ever get me to believe McJunior stands a chance of being legally elected.
March 12th, 2008 at 11:52 amIf he is installed, we have to do whatever it takes to set it right.
OT :
As The American Media has a field day with a governor’s sex life,
Cheney and his new Centcom pal configure an attack on Iran.
Wake up America.
March 12th, 2008 at 11:53 am# 52 There’s also not been another attack on US soil.
But, I’m sure Cheney and his PNAC pals are sure planning another one. But this one will make 9/11/01 look like a walk in the park.
March 12th, 2008 at 11:55 amThis country is seriously screwed, no matter which of the three candidates ends up in the White House.
Assuming, of course, that Bush doesn’t start WWIII before the election, and declare himself dictator for life.
March 12th, 2008 at 12:00 pmMc100yearsinIraq should simply check into a nursing home so we taxpayers don’t have to pay for his diaper changes.
Comment by Dr. Matt — March 12, 2008 @ 11:07 am
Who pays for yours?
Comment by Southern Man
The intelligence and wit of our resident trolls is simply breathtaking.
March 12th, 2008 at 12:01 pmMcCain/Cheney -’08. I can just see it now. Perpetual war for the sake of Haliburton/KBR, Blackwater, and the rest of the cabal that runs this country.
Look at Iraq: The war was over in short order and it’s been over for years, but the occupation must continue until we “win”?
No one ever bothers to define this “victory” we keep hearing about - the only thing we really have to go on is the neo-cons’ “manifesto” from 30 years ago that the US must achieve world dominance in a way that prohibits any other country from ever again being able to challenge us. Rome and Napoleon and Hitler also had delusions of this “victory” in mind, at one time, too…..
March 12th, 2008 at 12:02 pmAmericans who want victory will simply vote for McCain.
That would be the 35% who aren’t opposed to our being in Iraq. Good luck with that.
March 12th, 2008 at 12:03 pmNot that I want to get into a big thing with you on this, but crafting policy to avoid being boed by people in foreign countries should never, ever be something that you want your president to do.
Absolutely. We need to prove to the world that we are the biggest and baddest bully. Then, heaven help us if we ever need the support of the rest of the world.
March 12th, 2008 at 12:05 pmIt’s a proven fact that reich-wingers are the ones with the diaper fetish. In fact, southeridiot inquiring about whether people wear diapers only reinforces this reality.
March 12th, 2008 at 12:05 pmMeanwhile Obama says he may invade our ally in pakistan.
No, Obama said that if he had actionable intel that said AQ was planning an attack on us, he would send in troops to take out AQ. That has nothing to do with invading Iran.
Then Bully Boy Bush does the same thing, but he is, as usual, a chickenshit. He sends in the drones carrying bombs to take out AQ. That way he can take out dozens of civilians along with the supposed AQ targets.
March 12th, 2008 at 12:07 pmPlease don’t make assumptions about me. I am not even a republican, btw. I just have different ideas than you. That is still ok, even in this hyper-partisan atmosphere.
Comment by jackball — March 12, 2008 @ 11:57 am
There is no victory to bring home. You are an ignorant ideologue, a racist fool. We lost the day we invaded a country that was no threat against us, as proven by the UN inspectors. We lost again and again, and if the the world’s “greatest military” can’t win against a ragtag group of underarmed, undertrained terrorists, it’s because there is no such thing as victory in this boondoggle. And the “not another attack on US soil” certainly doesn’t negate the very successful attack that Bush and McCain failed to prevent on 9/11, not the anthrax attacks, neither one of which has been properly prosecuted. The real victory in iraq comes the day we pull out, and spend the money necessary to rebuild that country, without interfering. That’s the only voctory there is, and you can’t define what you mean by victory. There is nobody there that can surrender to us, that’s been done. You haven’t the faintest idea of what you’re shooting your mouth off about.
March 12th, 2008 at 12:07 pmAnyone want to bet that jackball is BERT? Interesting coincidence that Bert gets banned and all of a sudden jackball pops up.
TP, please ban trolls on their IP address. It will make your job much easier in the long run.
March 12th, 2008 at 12:07 pmWhat the kool-aid guzzlers here today keep forgetting is that we DO NOT HAVE THE MILITARY to continue an occupation for much longer. Bush has decimated the ability of our Armed Forces to such a disasterous point where we would be hard pressed to respond should something pop up somewhere else in the world. They also are ignoring the FACT that Democrats have been turning out in record shattering numbers and they are sick and tired of the boy king and his failed policies. The cantankerous
March 12th, 2008 at 12:08 pmfool McCain promises more war (which we can’t militarily sustain), more of the same failed economic policies (which this Country can not afford). These two policies alone are enough to put a Dem in office despite the day dreaming dillusions of these poor piss-soaked mis-informed trolls. Yeah, keep pounding those war drums and touting that fiscal conservatism/corporate welfare that has worked soooo good these past seven years. It only helps us and further isolates you losers that still support this tap dancing monkeyman and his self-serving Administration!
No one will ever get me to believe McJunior stands a chance of being legally elected.
If he is installed, we have to do whatever it takes to set it right.
Comment by Keith H. — March 12, 2008 @ 11:52 am
Yeah - why even bother holding the election? Let’s just install Obama now, or else lets start organizing our anarchist cells.
March 12th, 2008 at 12:09 pmHowever, I think you may underestimate the voters, in that I think Americans will indeed elect a candidate who promises to bring home a *timely* victory in Iraq, and will likely reelect him if he makes good on that promise.
Again, that 35% who don’t think Iraq was a mistake are going to go a long way towards insuring a victory for McBush. Another ignorant troll who flunked math in school. It somehow thinks that 35% represents a majority.
March 12th, 2008 at 12:10 pmYeah - why even bother holding the election? Let’s just install Obama now, or else lets start organizing our anarchist cells.
Comment by Keltoi
Sorry troll. There will be no need to install Obama. By the time the election takes place, he will have a double-digit lead over McCain. Not even the Republican party is stupid enough to try to flip the vote with a double digit lead. The American public wouldn’t buy it and there would be a revolution in this country.
We’re mad as hell and we’re not going to take it any more!
March 12th, 2008 at 12:15 pmThere’s also not been another attack on US soil, so he’s not completely worthless.
Comment by jackball — March 12, 2008 @ 11:53 am
Not counting the anthrax attacks and the three bombings in New York since 2005, of course.
March 12th, 2008 at 12:17 pmComment by jackball — March 12, 2008 @ 11:19 am
“He’s indeed a hawk, and this is why he’ll be elected.”
– Even though a sizeable majority of Americans oppose the war in Iraq? Seems to me that hawkishness is out.
“He’s serious about *winning* in Iraq…”
– And what does “winning” mean, exactly? Are we waiting for a surrender ceremony aboard the USS Missouri? This conflict has gone beyond winnable — all that remains is varying degrees of losing.
“…and he knows that you can’t fight a politically correct war.”
– Especially since the war was so politically incorrect to begin with…
“He also seems to understand the seriousness of the threat.”
– WHAT threat? That a few misguided crackpots with some well organized financing could attack us again? If he thinks continuing to occupy a country against the wishes of the local populace will mitigate that threat, he should think again.
“Americans who want victory will simply vote for McCain.”
– I think a better way to phrase that would be “Americans who still cling to the fantasy that a ‘victory’ is possible will simply vote for McCain.” Which is why McCain’s opponent will win.
“It will likely come down to that one issue, I believe.”
– If McCain is stupid enough to campaign solely as a hawk, it could. Which is why McCain’s opponent will win.
“Those who are hung up on war-for-oil, Bush-lied and other foolish naive beliefs will vote for the other guy or gal.”
– Which is why McCain’s opponent will win. Thank you so much for stating our case so well.
“Meanwhile Obama says he may invade our ally in pakistan.”
– Obama has never said he would attack Pakistan. He said that IF he received intelligence that there were high-value terrorist targets inside the Pakistan border, and IF Pakistan’s government refused to take action, he would attack those targets (not the rest of the country). This is NOT the same as “invading Pakistan.” However, this is how a REAL “war on terror” should be conducted, if you’re going to have one.
“Hmm Obama may be the most hawkish of all. Oiy!”
March 12th, 2008 at 12:22 pm– Not even close. Obama still believes only in attacking those who have attacked us — unlike our current administration who attacks “pre-emptively” just because they feel like it. However, since you feel Obama is such a hawk, I assume you’ll be voting for him?
The new troll “Jackoff” thinks that what he believes is what everyone else believes. Living in a bubble can be so comforting.
Buck Hussein Fush
March 12th, 2008 at 12:24 pmSorry troll. There will be no need to install Obama. By the time the election takes place, he will have a double-digit lead over McCain. Not even the Republican party is stupid enough to try to flip the vote with a double digit lead. The American public wouldn’t buy it and there would be a revolution in this country.
We’re mad as hell and we’re not going to take it any more!
Comment by Bilbo Hussein Baggins — March 12, 2008 @ 12:15 pm
So be it, Hobbit, let the process go forward.
What I object to is anyone saying 7 months in advance of the election, “if the candidate I don’t like wins it is automatically fraud” and then imply violence should be used to overturn the result. If your double-digit Obama lead really materializes, I’d be fine with that, quite happy actually.
But I think this thing is going to be much closer than that - the Democrats are certainly saying that, and the more blood Hillary sheds before bowing to Math the closer the general will be.
March 12th, 2008 at 12:25 pm– Obama has never said he would attack Pakistan. He said that IF he received intelligence that there were high-value terrorist targets inside the Pakistan border, and IF Pakistan’s government refused to take action, he would attack those targets (not the rest of the country). This is NOT the same as “invading Pakistan.†However, this is how a REAL “war on terror†should be conducted, if you’re going to have one.
Comment by missmolly — March 12, 2008 @ 12:22 pm
###
Not to mention that there is no need to “invade” Pakistan. We have an airbase in Jacobabad, Pakistan that we have been running ops out of since 2002. If we have a high-value target in that area, we already have the go ahead from the Pak government to move on that target. It is part of our SOFA with Pakistan. All Obama was saying is that he would allow that to continue.
March 12th, 2008 at 12:31 pmthe more blood Hillary sheds before bowing to Math the closer the general will be.
Comment by Keltoi — March 12, 2008 @ 12:25 pm
That’s convenient conventional wisdom, Keltoi, but it’s hardly a given. Contentious primary races seldom translate into wounded candidates in the general election. There are many advantages to a competitive race. Both Democrats are the focus of the new cycle, while McCain watches from the sideline.
Sure, Clinton attacks on Obama give Republicans a template for their own campaign in the fall — but they’re then taking their template from a losing campaign. A campaign that didn’t succeed.
Remember in 1980, when Bush Sr. called Reagan’s plan “Voodoo economics”? I sure do. And despite the inherent truth in the charge, it didn’t damage him in the primary and it didn’t damage him in the general.
March 12th, 2008 at 12:33 pmNot to mention that there is no need to “invade†Pakistan. We have an airbase in Jacobabad, Pakistan that we have been running ops out of since 2002.
Comment by Chris L — March 12, 2008 @ 12:31 pm
Oh, thosse crazy facts… Is there ANY talking point they can’t refute?
March 12th, 2008 at 12:33 pmRemember in 1980, when Bush Sr. called Reagan’s plan “Voodoo economics� I sure do. And despite the inherent truth in the charge, it didn’t damage him in the primary and it didn’t damage him in the general.
Comment by ralph the wonder llama — March 12, 2008 @ 12:33 pm
Well, he was running against Carter, so it didn’t much matter.
If Obama wins the nomination, I agree, I think something totally unforseen would have to happen for the Dems to lose, but you never know.
If Hillary uses the Super delegates to steal the nomination, I reeeaaalllly don’t think Obama’s people will rally to the same Democratic Party that ignored their popular vote. Throw in Hillary’s other existing negatives and I would have to say McCain would be favored to win.
March 12th, 2008 at 12:37 pmComment by Keltoi — March 12, 2008 @ 12:37 pm
Of course, on the other hand, who give’s a flyin’ F what you think?
March 12th, 2008 at 12:44 pmOT:
Breaking News on CNN:
Developing StoryA small plane violated restricted airspace over Washington, D.C. , but a Homeland Security official tells CNN there is no threat to the Capitol.
sounds like 9/11. Those “drones” were no threat, either. Wake up America!
March 12th, 2008 at 12:48 pmOf course, on the other hand, who give’s a flyin’ F what you think?
Comment by The Republic of Stupidity — March 12, 2008 @ 12:44 pm
Back ‘atcha. You can’t help yourself, can you?
March 12th, 2008 at 12:49 pmRead Robert Dreyfuss`s article in the March 24th issue of the Nation and I think you will all agree that THe “straight talk express” has an agenda that will scare the hell out of most Americans on the left as well as the right.See Ivo Daalder`s quote in the article.
March 12th, 2008 at 12:49 pmThen why isn’t he the Neocons’ wet dream come true?
Comment by The Republic of Stupidity — March 12, 2008 @ 11:02 am
Because he’s a “Maverickâ€!
Comment by Southern Man — March 12, 2008 @ 11:05 am
Nope, not a “maverick”.
Just a TREASONOUS, senile, asz-licker of MURDERER Bush the COXUCKER punk TRAITOR to the USA.
Singing “Bomb Bomb Iran”.
Do we want HIM with his finger on the “nukular” button???
God, NO!!
March 12th, 2008 at 12:49 pmNope, not a “maverickâ€.
Just a TREASONOUS, senile, asz-licker of MURDERER Bush the COXUCKER punk TRAITOR to the USA.
Singing “Bomb Bomb Iranâ€.
Do we want HIM with his finger on the “nukular†button???
God, NO!!
I could not agree with you more. If McBomb gets in with his temper say goodbye to America, folks.
It will be “that’s all folks” — that should be McWar’s Campaign Slogan
March 12th, 2008 at 12:51 pmWell, he was running against Carter, so it didn’t much matter.
Comment by Keltoi — March 12, 2008 @ 12:37 pm
Well, Obama will be running against McCain, so…
March 12th, 2008 at 12:52 pmMcWar will say anything, do anything that the Nazi Chimp wants.
It will be a Third Chimp Admin. in all ways.
Wake UP America!!!!!!!
March 12th, 2008 at 12:53 pmIf Hillary uses the Super delegates to steal the nomination, I reeeaaalllly don’t think Obama’s people will rally to the same Democratic Party that ignored their popular vote. Throw in Hillary’s other existing negatives and I would have to say McCain would be favored to win.
Comment by Keltoi — March 12, 2008 @ 12:37 pm
You’re absolutely right. If the worst-case scenario for this primary happens for the Democrats, then the Democrats are in trouble. I’ll agree with that.
March 12th, 2008 at 12:54 pmA small plane violated restricted airspace over Washington, D.C. , but a Homeland Security official tells CNN there is no threat to the Capitol.
Comment by Kay — March 12, 2008 @ 12:48 pm
Interesting. A similar incident happened last Wednesday, too - they almost evacuated the Capitol. It didn’t get much news coverage, probably because the story was overshadowed by the Times Square bombing.
March 12th, 2008 at 12:55 pmWaiting for McBomb to tell a reporter to “f_uck her/him self” on Live TV.
Priceless.
March 12th, 2008 at 12:58 pmMcWar really is a ticking bomb ready to go off!
Which of our glorious potential presidents has any plans to stop arming BOTH sides in Pakistan and Afghanistan?
March 12th, 2008 at 12:58 pmThankfully the surge has been reported to have worked and has all but defeated al queda in Iraq.
Interesting choice of words. It’s not that the surge has actually worked and created a lasting and sustainable change in the Iraqi civil war while creating breathing room for necessary political reforms. It’s just been REPORTED to have worked in defeating al-Qa’ida of Mesopotamia, which was not even the purpose of the surge.
I mean even Bush got reelected, right? Much of that was regarding the war, terror situation, etc. and had nothing to do with healthcare and what not.
Cheers.
Comment by jackball — March 12, 2008 @ 12:55 pm
Oh, please. Bush got reelected because of the evangelicals’ fear of boys kissing.
March 12th, 2008 at 12:59 pmmissmolly,
You’re smart enough to understand that american voters will of course oppose a war when they’re told that we’re loosing, and the american voters will support a war now that the media reports that we’re winning
LIE, so STOP RIGHT THERE.
70% of the American public wants OUT of Iraq.
And we aren’t “winning”. We WON the battle for the OCCUPATION.
The OCCUPATION cannot be “won”, and TRAITORS Bush and McCain STILL can’t define “victory”.
Osama is STILL FREE, we are 3 TRILLION in the hole for Bush and the PNAC’s ILLEGAL WAR CRIME.
Cheers, and Bomb Bomb McSenile!!!
March 12th, 2008 at 12:59 pmWhat I object to is anyone saying 7 months in advance of the election, “if the candidate I don’t like wins it is automatically fraudâ€
Not like there isn’t any history to support this supposition.
March 12th, 2008 at 1:00 pmYou’re smart enough to understand that american voters will of course oppose a war when they’re told that we’re loosing, and the american voters will support a war now that the media reports that we’re winning . Thankfully the surge has been reported to have worked and has all but defeated al queda in Iraq. That’s good news obviously and when victory is an option, american voters will choose it. We’re likely not going to agree which candidate is going to have better leadership regarding Iraq, but I think you’ll be surprised how many people will vote for a strong leader who bring victory instead of surrendering or quitting. I mean even Bush got reelected, right? Much of that was regarding the war, terror situation, etc. and had nothing to do with healthcare and what not.
Cheers.
Comment by jackball — March 12, 2008 @ 12:55 pm
##
First of all, most of the troops on the ground are saying quite the opposite about the surge. There has been a drop in violence mainly due to Sadr’s cease-fire, the large blast walls (that we are now tearing down) and the payments to the Sahwa. But there has been no politicl progress. Secondly, AQI represents about 4% of the insurgency. So we could kill off all of AQI and 96% of the insurgency would still be there. A withdrawal from Iraq would allow us to support the fight against Al-Qaida in Afghanistan - the Real Global War on Terror, instead of cutting and running from Bin Laden and waiving the white flag of surrender to AQ the way Bush has been doing for the last 5 years. If we decided to “surrender” in Iraq, as you suggest, there isn’t even anyone to surrender to. We have no clear enemy there.
March 12th, 2008 at 1:02 pmWell, Obama will be running against McCain, so…
Comment by ralph the wonder llama — March 12, 2008 @ 12:52 pm
Yeah! I knew that was coming. I would have thrown in Stagflation in the 1980 election too, but I didn’t want to make it TOO easy for you.
March 12th, 2008 at 1:03 pmIf we REALLY wanted to stop terrorism, we would
NUKE THE SAUDIS.
Bush’s TERRORIST “friends”.
March 12th, 2008 at 1:04 pmSure, Clinton attacks on Obama give Republicans a template for their own campaign in the fall — but they’re then taking their template from a losing campaign. A campaign that didn’t succeed.
Actually, Hillary Rove Clinton’s attacks on Obama were taken directly from the RNC playbook. I believe that Obama will handle the Rovian attacks from the right with the same combination of dignity and toughness as he has with Hillary. The more she attacks him with Rovian tactics, the more shrill and desperate and un-presidential she looks. The more Obama responds with calm intelligence, the more presidential he looks.
March 12th, 2008 at 1:04 pmHey look, Keltoi, you throw me a hanging curve, you gotta expect me to lace a rope to center-left.
March 12th, 2008 at 1:09 pmActually, Hillary Rove Clinton’s attacks on Obama were taken directly from the RNC playbook. I believe that Obama will handle the Rovian attacks from the right with the same combination of dignity and toughness as he has with Hillary. The more she attacks him with Rovian tactics, the more shrill and desperate and un-presidential she looks. The more Obama responds with calm intelligence, the more presidential he looks.
Comment by Bilbo Hussein Baggins — March 12, 2008 @ 1:04 pm
Excellent point.
March 12th, 2008 at 1:09 pmYou can’t help yourself, can you?
Comment by Keltoi — March 12, 2008 @ 12:49 pm
Hey… just can’t stand ya…
March 12th, 2008 at 1:11 pmYou’re smart enough to understand that american voters will of course oppose a war when they’re told that we’re loosing, and the american voters will support a war now that the media reports that we’re winning.
Wrong! First, I’m not sure how one can loose a war. Second, the percentage of Americans who oppose our occupation of Iraq hasn’t changed since before the escalation of troops and now when we are being told that we are “winning” our occupation (not sure how you win an occupation).
March 12th, 2008 at 1:12 pmOn the other hand, if the boys need a little time on the speed bag, you do serve a purpose…
March 12th, 2008 at 1:12 pmThe more Obama responds with calm intelligence, the more presidential he looks.
Comment by Bilbo Hussein Baggins
Absolutely, the more I see him keep his calm and act presidential the more I like him, he will be a great president, unfortunately he is being handed a complete and total mess from Bush.
Bush has messed things up so badly that it will be near impossible to clean it up.
Buck Hussein Fush
March 12th, 2008 at 1:13 pmBack ‘atcha. You can’t help yourself, can you?
Comment by Keltoi
Neither can you.
March 12th, 2008 at 1:13 pmmissmolly,
You’re smart enough to understand
Wow, let’s see how condescending a troll can be.
March 12th, 2008 at 1:16 pmDidn’t jackboot say about McCain, “He’s indeed a hawk, and this is why he’ll be elected.” and then, in the very same post, said, “Obama may be the most hawkish of all”?
Can anyone follow this crude stab at logic?
McCain will be elected because he’s a hawk, but Obama “may be the most hawkish of all”?
WTF??? Why would McCain be elected, then, if being a hawk is reason enough to get one elected but he’s not as hawkish as Obama?
I’m not sure which is more damaging to jackboot’s credibility: his crass distortion of Obama’s statements or his disjointed internal logic.
March 12th, 2008 at 1:17 pmmissmolly,
You’re smart enough to understand..
Comment by jackball
I’ve got news for you ignorant troll. missmolly is 10 times smarter than you are and can and will run rings around you.
I still say this one is BERT’s new incarnation.
March 12th, 2008 at 1:19 pmIt’s just been REPORTED to have worked in defeating al-Qa’ida of Mesopotamia, which was not even the purpose of the surge.
It is now since the real purpose of the surge (to provide the Iraqi’s stability to get their act together) hasn’t come to pass. So, in a typical Bush move, they have once again moved the goalpost.
March 12th, 2008 at 1:24 pmActually, Hillary Rove Clinton’s attacks on Obama were taken directly from the RNC playbook. I believe that Obama will handle the Rovian attacks from the right with the same combination of dignity and toughness as he has with Hillary. The more she attacks him with Rovian tactics, the more shrill and desperate and un-presidential she looks. The more Obama responds with calm intelligence, the more presidential he looks.
Comment by Bilbo Hussein Baggins — March 12, 2008 @ 1:04 pm
Weirdly, Hillary may wind up being more Rovian than McCain. It is too early to tell yet, of course, but so far the sparring between McCain and O has been pretty issue oriented and civil, unlike Hillary’s attacks. Mac has distanced himself from several cheapshots coming from surrogates. Whether he can keep the attack dogs on a choke chain forever - even if he wants to - is another question.
March 12th, 2008 at 1:27 pmHey look, Keltoi, you throw me a hanging curve, you gotta expect me to lace a rope to center-left.
Comment by ralph the wonder llama — March 12, 2008 @ 1:09 pm
S’all good, what are friends for?
March 12th, 2008 at 1:41 pmIf this old codger gets elected, we’re all seriously fu(ked.
March 12th, 2008 at 1:44 pmYou’re smart enough to understand that american voters will of course oppose a war when they’re told that we’re loosing, and the american voters will support a war now that the media reports that we’re winning .
Comment by jackball — March 12, 2008 @ 12:55 pm
I live in North Carolina, and a few years ago, we got our very own National Hockey League franchise, the Carolina Hurricanes. They were a bit of a curiosity at first, but interest quickly waned in hockey because the population here is much more interested in college basketball and NASCAR.
Then came the 2005-2006 season. And the Hurricanes were winning. And winning. And winning. All the way up to the Stanley Cup. During the season, interest in the team grew. By the time the Hurricanes reached the playoffs, interest was a fever pitch, and by the time of the Stanley Cup finals, it was tough to find a car around here that didn’t have Hurricane flags flying from the windows.
This sort of thing happens a great deal in the sports world. Not so much with war, except for those of you who view war as a giant spectator sport.
Most Americans oppose our occupation of Iraq. We don’t see it as a sporting event as much as a tragedy that’s costing lives on both sides and serving as a marvelous recruiting tool for more terrorists. It really doesn’t matter if we are winning, losing, or stalemated — as long as we are there, Americans will want us out. If it’s important to declare “victory” while we withdraw, fine.
Not only am I smart enough to understand this, but I’m smart enough to spell “losing” correctly.
March 12th, 2008 at 1:57 pmComment by missmolly — March 12, 2008 @ 1:57 pm
our missmolly: so elegant, so reasoned, so eloquent.
So surgical and deadly.
Yay, missmolly!
March 12th, 2008 at 1:59 pmMcMaverick’s as crazy as a sh*thouse rat.
He’ll definitely nuke Iran, and reinstate the draft so he can try to occupy the entire Middle East.
What’s he got to lose? He knows he’s not long for this Earth, so why not go for broke and unleash every militant revenge fantasy he’s ever obsessed over. He doesn’t care about “the american people” because they didn’t suffer like he did.
Dubbie at least has to live with the shame for a while. McMaverick can go balls-out on day one without a care in the world for what anyone thinks of it or what the real consequences are.
March 12th, 2008 at 1:59 pmNot only am I smart enough to understand this, but I’m smart enough to spell “losing†correctly.
Comment by missmolly — March 12, 2008 @ 1:57 pm
Damn… is this one of those “smart missiles”???
Bulls Eye.
Another “smoking crater”* at TP.
H/T to Wayne fer that one.
March 12th, 2008 at 2:02 pmwhere did jackoff go? ran away? funny how the chickenhawks are so easily scared off.
March 12th, 2008 at 2:06 pmwhere did jackoff go? ran away? funny how the chickenhawks are so easily scared off.
Comment by Lefty Patriot — March 12, 2008 @ 2:06 pm
Maybe he decided that he can’t fight for “victory” away from home all the time. His wife and children need to be fed and taken care of too. The family at home can’t be ignored forever. Sometimes the cost of a so-called “victory” is not worth it.
March 12th, 2008 at 2:26 pmNot that I want to get into a big thing with you on this, but crafting policy to avoid being boed by people in foreign countries should never, ever be something that you want your president to do. European countries generally lack strong leadership, imo. Leadership is about doing what you feel is correct regardless of what others may think
Comment by jackball — March 12, 2008 @ 11:25 am
You’re correct, our leaders prefer to change course when there is a patent mistake in the previous path. Congratulations, you love leaders too stubborn/stupid to take the correct decission.
March 12th, 2008 at 3:02 pmLeadership is about doing what you feel is correct regardless of what others may think
Comment by jackball — March 12, 2008 @ 11:25 am
Silly me, and I thought that was the definition of a dictatorship!
March 12th, 2008 at 3:09 pm“Cheerleadership means smiling and waving even when everyone else knows the game is over.”
-jack meoff
March 12th, 2008 at 3:13 pmMaybe he decided that he can’t fight for “victory†away from home all the time. His wife and children need to be fed and taken care of too. The family at home can’t be ignored forever. Sometimes the cost of a so-called “victory†is not worth it.
Comment by ThinkOutsideTheBush — March 12, 2008 @ 2:26 pm
Nah — I think he just ran out of wingnut talking points. That often happens around here.
March 12th, 2008 at 3:15 pmOver the past week, Democrat Hillary Clinton has proclaimed her potential Republican rival John McCain to be the gold standard of wartime presidents. But lost in Clinton’s fierce barrage against Barack Obama’s national security experience is the inescapable conclusion about John McCain’s own suitability as Commander-in-Chief. McCain’s mistake-filled record, questionable judgment, calamitous misreading of history, nonchalance about American casualties and notorious short fuse all combine to make him a dangerous choice to lead an America at war. Simply put, John McCain is unfit for command.
For the details, see:
March 12th, 2008 at 3:27 pm“John McCain: Unfit for Command.”
Btw, do you think either Hillary or Barack will withdraw immediately? Do you think they’ll start a “phased withdrawal†or whatever? I doubt it because congress isn’t even trying to withdraw and they’ve had plenty of opportunity…
Comment by jackball — March 12, 2008 @ 3:47 pm
Obama promised he WOULD end the “war” (occupation) started by TRAITORS Bush, Cheney and their PNAC MASTERS.
Obama said he WOULD.
He has MY vote, and enough to put McSenileTraitor 6 feet under.
March 12th, 2008 at 4:21 pmI think the guy who wouldn’t be surprised at a hundred years’ war, the former POW who now supports torture, who believes in the Bush doctrine of preemption would certainly be considered “hawkish.”
March 12th, 2008 at 5:58 pmComment by jackball — March 12, 2008 @ 3:47 pm
It’s hard to know where to begin here. First — what, to you, is “total victory”? What does such a victory look like? How will we know when “total victory” is achieved? Will everybody there be waving white flags, like in the movies?
Second — you seem to have great faith that the voters (you know, the American people who want us out of Iraq by a large margin) will somehow change their minds miraculously and support the Iraq occupation to the point of voting for McCain “on that issue alone”. You have not provided any compelling reason for this turnaround, you just say it will happen. This is not a convincing argument for your side. I do agree that the difference between McCain and Obama (or even McCain and Clinton) will be stark and staggering, but this will work in the favor of the Democrats.
Third — you ask if Clinton or Obama will withdraw immediately. Nobody can withdraw immediately. We have too many troops and too much equipment over there to do an instant withdrawal — estimates range from 17 to 22 months as to the time that’s needed to get everybody and everything out. However both Democratic candidates want to get that process started.
Fourth — you accuse Congress of “not even trying to withdraw”. They have made attempts to do just that, only to be obstructed by the Republicans and vetoed by Bush. The only time they will have “plenty of opportunity” will be when they get a veto-proof majority (which looks like a “go” for 2008).
But hey — enjoy your fantasy. You can wallow in it for about eight more months.
March 12th, 2008 at 6:04 pmWhat makes you think that Pakistan is really an ally? That proves to me that you have no understanding of international politics and just repeat what you heard on Fox news. :-D
March 12th, 2008 at 7:22 pm