Boston — Is it any wonder that John McCain was feeling a tad neglected? There was Barack Obama on a nine-day trip through eight countries with three network anchors and all John got was a lousy T-shirt. Or to be more exact, all he got was a ride in George H.W. Bush's golf cart and a rejection slip from The New York Times' op-ed editor.
Even McCain's inner circle began to get snarky. They keep referring to Obama as "The One" and complain that the maverick boytoy McCain has been replaced in the media's heart by a new trophy wife named Barack. The straight talker's Web site even posted a video of "The Media is in Love," a montage of fawning sound bites against a soundtrack of Frankie Valli singing "Can't Take My Eyes Off You."
Never mind that Frankie's "Eyes" was a No. 2 hit in 1967, a year when Obama was 6. For some reason, McCain's cultural references have a sell-by date of 1970. It's like the strange "Summer of Love" ad that tries to place Obama in the upheavals of 1968 when he was headed to second grade.
But it wasn't just Frankie Valli that makes me feel that the Republican is locked into a 40-year-old time frame. It's the debate about Iraq itself.
Gary Hart once said, "In a way, John is refighting the Vietnam War." For a long time, the former prisoner of war has believed that Vietnam should have, could have had a different ending. Americans lost the war because they lost their will. He's thought more about the sorry last chapter of that war than its foolish beginning.
So, too, his attention on Iraq has been less on the war's origin than on some undefined victorious conclusion. McCain jumped the shark when he accused Obama of wanting to win an election even if it meant losing a war. But even before that intemperate charge, he said something equally damning: "The fact is, if we had done what Senator Obama wanted to do, we would have lost."
McCain starts the historical clock running after the invasion and even after the surge. For all his complaints about the media, he's been able to focus the Iraq debate on the surge's success. He has said repeatedly, "I'm proud that I was right. That's what judgment is about. That's why I'm qualified to lead."
But what if "we had done what Obama wanted to do" in 2002, when he was a lowly state senator and an opponent of invasion? We wouldn't have roared into this disaster. What if we dated judgment to the prewar days? Is McCain still proud that he was right?
I am well aware that we cannot rewind the past. We focus now on the least catastrophic exit plan. When the Iraqi prime minister and Obama agree on a timetable, I synchronize my watch. But it's still fair to measure a candidate by his view on our entrance to this war.
The current president has never admitted that we invaded Iraq on false premises or phony pre-emptives or fictitious weapons of mass destruction. Bush will breeze home to Texas without a modicum of guilt. Do we want another president like that?
Let's go back to a McCain op-ed that did run in The New York Times before the invasion: "Only an obdurate refusal to face unpleasant facts ... could allow one to believe that we have rushed to war." Let's go back to an interview with Tim Russert when McCain was asked if he would still have gone to war even knowing there were no WMDs. "Yes," he answered without missing a beat. The only regret or anger expressed by McCain is that we didn't have enough troops earlier.
Finally, in the recent, rejected op-ed, McCain said that by advocating timetables for withdrawal, Obama was "emulating the worst mistake of the Bush administration by waving the 'Mission Accomplished' banner prematurely." Dear John: Wasn't the "worst mistake of the Bush administration" launching the invasion at all?
This is not a summer of love. Frankie Valli is no longer a teen idol. Iraq is not Vietnam. But Americans are in a $10 billion-a-month war with more than 4,000 dead and 30,000 wounded. We've watched the current president deny and deny that he was wrong in invading Iraq. If there's a bottom-line, rock-solid qualification for being the next president, it's a candidate who acknowledges just how badly we were misled. So far, Obama's The (Only) One.
Comments
LJWorld.com doesn’t necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.
This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.
cato_the_elder (anonymous) says…
Another ridiculous headline, not to mention the story. The people who have been "stuck in the Vietnam era" from the start of the Iraq War have in fact been the tired ex-hippies who immediately dusted off their old protesters' garb as soon as we liberated Iraq, and have been pushing for us to "lose" ever since then - partly born of their longing for the days of their youth, and partly because of their complete hatred of the Bush administration. Immediately after Saddam was deposed, the comments about "Vietnam" began to surface, often from those who had been protesters themselves during that era. Soon thereafter, it became evident to all those who hated the Bush administration that opposition to the Iraq War, and advocating the easy way out, could be a way to manufacture political gain. As a result, many of them, while professing to "support the troops," did everything they could to undermine our efforts there, with Senator Obama being at the forefront of same. Ms. Goodman, your comments about Senator McCain are reprehensible. He would never, I mean never, have visited Germany as Senator Obama just did and deliberately choose to cancel trips to Landstuhl Hospital and Ramstein Air Base in favor of continuing to coddle his fellow socialists in Germany. And, no matter what one thinks of Senator Clinton, I can guarandamntee you that she wouldn't have either.
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
Substitute "McCain" with any of the posters above into this article, and it goes a long way in describing how completely out of touch with reality their comments are.
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
"He would never, I mean never, have visited Germany as Senator Obama just did and deliberately choose to cancel trips to Landstuhl Hospital and Ramstein Air Base"You're right-- McBush would have used the injured soldiers as a prop for his presidential campaign without a second thought.
BrianR (anonymous) says…
Somebody, get Scott Bakula and Dean Stockwell !!
Agnostick (anonymous) says…
****************************************mr. russert: Looking back at the beginning of the war, back in March of 2003...SEN. McCAIN: Yep.mr. russert: ...if you had known then, if the intelligence came out and said, "We know that Saddam Hussein does not have biological..."SEN. McCAIN: Mm-hmm.mr. russert: ..."or, or chemical or a nuclear program..."SEN. McCAIN: Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm.mr. russert: ...would you still have voted to authorize the war?SEN. McCAIN: Well, obviously, given information that we have changes your decision-making process. But Saddam Hussein was still a threat. The sanctions were breaking down. There was a multibillion dollar Oil for Food scandal in the United Nations. The-every day American airplanes were being shot at. Saddam Hussein had used and acquired weapons of mass destruction in the past, and there was no doubt there was going to be in the future. The problem in Iraq, my friend, was not whether we went in or not, it's the way it was mishandled after the initial invasion.mr. russert: Yeah, but, Senator, it's an important question because President Bush...SEN. McCAIN: It's an important...mr. russert: President Bush has said...SEN. McCAIN: Yeah.mr. russert: ..."Even if I knew he did not have biological, chemical or nuclear program..."SEN. McCAIN: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.mr. russert: ..."i still would go into Iraq to topple Saddam Hussein." Would you have?SEN. McCAIN: I-yes, but the point is that if we had done it right, it's been well chronicled in many, in many books, you and I wouldn't be even discussing that now. The mishandling after the war. Look, I met with a high-ranking former al-Qaeda operative in Iraq recently. And I asked him, "How did you succeed?" He said, "The lawlessness after the initial invasion and Abu Ghraib." And so they were able to recruit people because of the disorder and the mishandling. So you would not be asking me if it hadn't been mishandled, you would've said because we succeeded in an established and stable Iraq, you would've said, "Aren't you glad we went in? Because Saddam Hussein, one of the most brutal, most terrible dictators in history, who fought in several wars, used weapons of mass destruction, invaded his neighbor, is now gone from the world scene." That's what you'd be saying.[more]
Agnostick (anonymous) says…
mr. russert: But I think there'd be a real debate with the, with the-amongst the American people if we were told he did not have biological, chemical and nuclear weapons.SEN. McCAIN: If frogs had wings-look, Tim, we can talk about lots of hypotheticals. Would we have, would we have stopped Saddam Hussein from going into Kuwait back in '91 when, when he went in? Would we have, would we have said that the Chinese aren't going to cross-would we have known-if we had known that the Chinese were going to cross the Yalu in the Korean War, would we have done it differently? I'd love to get into thousands of historical hypotheticals with us, but what we knew at the time and the information we had at the time that every single intelligence agency in the world believed he had weapons of mass destruction. So...mr. russert: So bottom line, the war was not a mistake?SEN. McCAIN: The war, the invasion was not a mistake. The handling of the war was a terrible mistake.****************************************Full transcript of NBC's "Meet The Press," January 6, 2008, can be found here:http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22487036/The above excerpt was taken from page 3. There are also some interesting comments about the bungling of the hunt for Bin Laden, on page 2.Agnostickagnostick@excite.comhttp://www.independentvoting.orghttp://www.americanplan.org
scott3460 (anonymous) says…
"They keep referring to Obama as "The One" and complain that the maverick boytoy McCain has been replaced in the media's heart by a new trophy wife named Barack.."How deliciously ironic this unfolding transformation has been. You just know somewhere the first Mrs. McCain (not the current snake-eyed, souless, MADD hating sugar mamma version) has enjoyed a few small smiles of satisfaction. What is that appropriate saying: How you reap, so shall you sow." Indeed.
Agnostick (anonymous) says…
madmike (Anonymous) says:"He's not stuck in the Vietnam era, he just has learned some hard lessons about life that junior has never seen, and never will. He saw what a Demoncrat controlled congress did to him and his comerades in Vietnam, sending them there, and then pulling the rug out from under them by refusing to fund the was they sent him to fight."____________________________________________________By "junior," you're obviously referring to our current president?I can agree with that. McCain certainly has more experience than George W.... who had Daddy arrange a special stateside national guard assignment for him, back in the day.--Ag
scott3460 (anonymous) says…
"When Bam bam was still having moma wype his butt, McCain was up to his chin in a muck pit in a bamboo cage wishing he had some rice."Is this supposed to be some sort of argument for McCain, or against Obama?
jaywalker (anonymous) says…
"Somehow I knew the right wing would be in full foaming at the mouth, ranting mode on this column.'Re-he-he-he-eally? What's that make you, some sort of savant? Why would anyone be angry at such a back-handed, insulting, beyond the pale attack at a man who stood by his guns? Stick to pointing out the incredibly obvious, beo, the merely obvious is easy for everyone.
Agnostick (anonymous) says…
Marion (Marion Lynn) says:Aggie, you borrow Merrill's cut-and-paster, or what?And did the LJW staff approve those links that you always include at the end of your posts?_____________________________________________________Every computer has the ability to "copy and paste" from other articles. Surely, a wide-ranging "pump and dump" stock spammer like yourself would know this...?The LJW staff has never contacted me about the links I sometimes attach to my "signature file." I'm guessing that if they really had a problem with it, they'd contact me about it. They are not my own personal web sites--they are there for informational purposes. They are not a poorly-disguised effort to re-route LJW traffic to my own dying, shoddily-run excuse for a discussion forum. I think that's an effort that you would know more about.Agnostickagnostick@excite.comhttp://www.independentvoting.orghttp://marciaford.blogspot.com
scott3460 (anonymous) says…
McCain: Look, I met with a high-ranking former al-Qaeda operative in Iraq recently. And I asked him, "How did you succeed?" He said, "The lawlessness after the initial invasion and Abu Ghraib."Anyone know who this alleged high ranking former operative was? When or where the meeting took place?
Agnostick (anonymous) says…
Good question, scott3460... I'm sure the answer is out there, somewhere...--Ag
jaywalker (anonymous) says…
Our Village Idiot says:"You're right- McBush would have used the injured soldiers as a prop for his presidential campaign without a second thought."Ummm....you mean like using a supposed fact-finding tour of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Europe as one big campaign tour? Like having the three lead anchors of the Big Three networks fly on his plane and promote him like he's already won? Like shooting hoops with the troops, addressing a large crowd of Germans(instead of visiting injured soldiers) where the draw was coupled with a rock concert? How 'bout photo ops with Maliki, Sarkozy, Petreaus that are portrayed just like a CIC visit would be? This "goes a long way in describing how completely out of touch with reality(and honesty) (your) comments are."If the roles were reversed, bozo, and McCain had snubbed soldiers in hospitals who had been awaiting his visit, you would be the lead moron out there screaming and whining and calling him every name in the book, and everyone here knows it. Quit bein' a clown.
labmonkey (anonymous) says…
To the loony left: Obama is just a liberal George W. Bush. How can you not see the parallels to the 2000 election? You have an outsider with shaky credentials vs. a someone with experience. Both (Obama and W.) claim to be uniters when they are actually the most divisive choice on the ballot. Both try to cover up their past (W. with drug use and his military "service", Obama going to a Muslim school in Indonesia, his going to Rev. Wright's church for 20 years, and the questionable people he has been friends with over the years). Both have a very vague message who hope their followers will swallow and vote for them in droves (Bush the religious right, Obama, the loony left). This time around there is someone else to vote for who has been a uniter while working with the other side. We have a moderate candidate who is actually acceptable to many moderates slightly to the other side of center. But the media does love their boy Obama and I wonder how they are getting around the fair-time law. Of course more of McCain's gaffes will get played when he gives 24-7 access as opposed to the limited, very controlled access that Obama allows.
yourworstnightmare (anonymous) says…
I wish I could say that McCain is "stuck" in a way of thought.He is not. He is lost. He doesn't know what he thinks and believes. His statements go from pillar to post on most major issues. He has so many flip-flops he looks like KU in September.On every major issue McCain has flip-flopped: Iraq, offshore drilling, tax cuts, etc.He opposed the Bush tax cuts before he was for them. He opposed offshore oil drilling before he was for it.We have heard this before. McCain is the John Kerry of 2008.
scott3460 (anonymous) says…
"Ummm:.you mean like using a supposed fact-finding tour of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Europe as one big campaign tour? Like having the three lead anchors of the Big Three networks fly on his plane and promote him like he's already won? Like shooting hoops with the troops, addressing a large crowd of Germans(instead of visiting injured soldiers) where the draw was coupled with a rock concert? How 'bout photo ops with Maliki, Sarkozy, Petreaus that are portrayed just like a CIC visit would be?"OK, time for these lies to stop. The visit to Iraq was official government business & as such the Congresssional delegation could, under Pentagon rule & regs, appear with US soldiers. While in Iraq, Obama did visit wounded soldiers. Obama's solo trip to Europe, on the other hand, was a political event & as such the Pentagon advised Obama that the planned trip was inappropriate because of the status of his visit as a political event. (Does anyone honestly think Obama would have put the event on the schedule & then taken it off on his own?) The purpose of the Pentagon rule is to prevent troops from being used as political props. Something that the righties would have complained of had Obama gone ahead with the visit. My understanding and recollection is that McCain has followed the same protocol, and I commend him for it. Of course, we all know that some politicians don't feel the same ethical restraints and go ahead with the aircraft carrier photo ops anyway.
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
Of course, Obama's tour was political-- he's running for president. Everything he does is done with a political calculation. Same for McCain.
scott3460 (anonymous) says…
LabMonkey:If McCain is so gaffe-prone & it hurts him to have his stupidity broadcast in example after example, why the heck does he allow it to continue. You and I would have the common sense to put an end to it. If the "Straight Talk" tactic ain't working for you any more, shut it down and go to something else. Do we really want a President who is too stupid to understand this?
temperance (anonymous) says…
"When Bam bam was still having moma wype [sic] his butt, McCain was up to his chin in a muck pit in a bamboo cage wishing he had some rice."This just goes to show that McCain isn't the only one stuck in the Vietnam era. Some of our favorite commenters are right there with him.But if we're going to use judgment about Vietnam as a test, McCain flunks. In the lead up to the first Gulf War McCain, in an exchange with Henry Kissinger, said that he regretted that the US didn't use more air power, didn't press on despite US public opposition and a spiraling civilian casualty rate, and continue the war. McCain wanted a bigger, longer Vietnam War. So far, McCain has thrown his support behind two dumb wars. Coupled with his multiple foreign policy gaffes, it's amazing that anyone thinks he can competently run the country. "I don't oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne." (Barack Obama, Oct 2, 2002)
jaywalker (anonymous) says…
First, name one thing in the paragraph you cited that was a lie, Scott?Second, while you are correct that the Pentagon prohibits political campaign interaction with troops, that only meant that BO could not have gone with his entourage and snapped photos or shot video. He was and never would be prohibited to visit the troops without the cameras. That being said, that wasn't my point. I was merely pointing out Our Village Idiot's hypcrisy and ignorant garbage once again as he's positing that McCain would only use the troops as props. As to your last statement, the CIC is allowed to and does meet, interact, preside over, take pictures with, and address HIS troops whenever he sees fit. There's nothing unethical about it. He's the CIC!
ASBESTOS (anonymous) says…
This is a BS article. The whole of the lefties are stuck in the hippie generation and the protest of "hell no we won't go".This is the "audicity of hypocricy"!
scott3460 (anonymous) says…
OK jay, if your point about Obama not taking camera's to visit injured troops is valid, then it's valid for bushie, too. Not sure whether the regs permit even a vist though during a political trip. I do know there has been a firestorm in the right-wing blab-o-sphere about how "unpatriotic" Obama was for not visiting the injured troops in Germany which I understood your post to be furthering. Actually, in rereading the exchanges, I see that I was probably responding more to cato's post about how unpatriotic Obama was for cancelling the visit than I was to your post. So, my apologies. My point was to bring an alternative viewpoint, but leapt at your comment by mistake.
Kontum1972 (anonymous) says…
okay...so how many vietnam vets are here in this posting....show of hands please....?and how many of you are iraq vets?
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
No need to apologize to jaywalker, scott. S/he is here mainly to vent her/his frustration that her/his sycophancy towards BushCo is going so badly, with McBush apparently headed towards losing the election in a landslide.
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
"so how many vietnam vets are here in this posting"Not a Vietnam vet-- just a little too young. But not so young that I didn't spend my youth hoping that I wouldn't end up as cannon fodder and being the first one on my block sent home in a box.
KEITHMILES05 (anonymous) says…
Senator McSame thinks she he was held captive for several years that gives him foreign policy expertise. Newsflash! NOT.
Kontum1972 (anonymous) says…
obtw..the problem was always in Afghanistan, read "Charlie Wilsons War"...we dropped the Ball there thats what hacked off Bin Ladin..we did nothing after that to rebuild that country....we just walked out and slammed the door behind us....we did rebuild S.Vietnam...war experts
Weezy_Jefferson (anonymous) says…
Conservatives dream of another Reagan in the White House. McCain is their poster boy; however, even though he's an elderly, white, Christian man, he lacks experience working with chimpanzees. Hey, you can't have it all.
yourworstnightmare (anonymous) says…
McCain claims he knows how to win wars. Which wars would those be, Senator?Obama and McCain have won exactly the same number of wars: zero.Or maybe McCain thinks that because he was an Air Force captain and was held as a POW that he has some greater insight into foreign policy (all evidence to the contrary).I would like someone to exlain to me how McCain's service record gives him a foreign policy advantage.
Kontum1972 (anonymous) says…
does anyone know the real reason Saddam invaded Kuwait?any experts on this one?
Kontum1972 (anonymous) says…
you think in a box....when u are in combat...u end up in one.....i never thought about dying.....i thought about coming home in one piece....and i flew helicopters...i was 20 when i went ..fresh out of flight school...
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
The war in Afghanistan was a mistake, too. That's not to say that nothing needed to be done there with the Taliban and al Qaeda, and all, but any true solutions will be political, not military. The military "solution" of the last seven years has done nothing more than establish a bunch of competing warlords, and install a mayor of Kabul.So while Obama's talk of a "surge" in Afghanistan is wrong-headed, I think he is also much more likely to seek real, political solutions there, rather than just bombing the bejesus out of them (again and again and again, as McBush would.)
JohnBrown (anonymous) says…
This just in: Obama had a go-ahead from the DoD to visit Landstuhl Hospital. Then, after Obama sent his senate staff back to the States the DoD added that he could only be accompanied by his senate staff. More political shenanigans.Based on experiences with my own father-in-law, I'm beginning to suspect that McCain may in the early stages of losing his mental faculties. Over the past year he's made quite a few mis-statements of fact, any one of which could be attributed to simple CRS syndrome. Taken together, they seem to represent a trend.
Kontum1972 (anonymous) says…
Bush made a comment of bombing them into the stone-age....jeez...they live in the stone age...they do not have running water or electricity in the region's where most of the population lives
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
"does anyone know the real reason Saddam invaded Kuwait?"One reason that has been put forward is that the Saudis, Kuwaitis and other oil-rich Emirs and Sheiks in the region (along with the Americans) were helping finance his proxy war against Iran. After the war, they reneged on paying him his blood money, so he invaded Kuwait, intending primarily to hold it hostage till they paid up the money he thought they owed him.But the invasion convinced them that their hired thug was now too dangerous to them, so they hired the Americans to kick him out of Kuwait.
yourworstnightmare (anonymous) says…
"The war in Afghanistan was a mistake, too."Wrong, Bozo. I realize that you are opposed to war in any circumstance, which is the basis of your view.We were attacked by a group that was being harbored by the taliban, who at the time were running Afghanistan.Our attention was diverted from our true enemies by the neocon fantasy of toppling Iraq and installing a new government there.
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
Certainly, both the Taliban and al Qaeda needed to be contained, but the invasion and occupation have been a complete failure, with the only clear accomplishment being the spread of the conflict in Afghanistan into the tribal areas of Pakistan.
Kontum1972 (anonymous) says…
folks if Gen. Petreaus had not stepped in to run the show..things would be extremely bad....and the administration has tried to pigeon-hole the General on what he is doing there....but the General is so brilliant he out-thinks these boobs, he is way ahead of them...I personally know Petreaus and a good majority of his field commanders....thank goodness he is in charge or we would really be in a world of poop! He wrote the book on counter-insurgency aka..COIN...and he speaks the language fluently...the term "know your enemy"...works for him!
scott3460 (anonymous) says…
"Or maybe McCain thinks that because he was an Air Force captain and was held as a POW that he has some greater insight into foreign policy (all evidence to the contrary)."What he truly did have insight on was the use of torture on POWs, but sadly he has compromised his principles on that issue (as he has on so many others) to appease the drooling, sadistic base of his party. You would think his base would witness so many flip flops for their benefit & worry that he just won't flop back to a middle of the road, centerist position once elected, but they are apparently not that smart.
Kontum1972 (anonymous) says…
wrong ..bozo...the dudes in Kuwait were stealing oil from iraq....they drilled down across the border and were pumping oil out the iraq region and Saddam caught them thats why the whole thing started.....the Kuwaties were steal his oil...
Kontum1972 (anonymous) says…
McCain was navy
Agnostick (anonymous) says…
yourworstnightmare (Anonymous) says:"We were attacked by a group that was being harbored by the taliban, who at the time were running Afghanistan."Our attention was diverted from our true enemies by the neocon fantasy of toppling Iraq and installing a new government there."___________________________________________________Clear, concise, factual.That gets my award for "Post Of The Day!"--Ag
Kontum1972 (anonymous) says…
the group that flew the planes were saudis not iraqis or afgani's or taliban..."SAUDI'S"
cato_the_elder (anonymous) says…
Scott0000 and JohnBrown, what you have posted about the Ofuhrer's non-visit with our wounded military personnel in Germany is a lot of BS shoveled out by his spin people. In fact, it demonstrates quite clearly what a seriously strained relationship a person like this would have with our military forces were he elected president. I heard one of our military commanders say yesterday, specifically, that Senator Obama had been entirely welcome as long as certain protocols were followed relating only to the number and makeup of his entourage. In other words, of course we'd love to have you meet and talk with our wounded servicemen and servicewomen at Landstuhl, but, if you don't mind, please, no highly orchestrated dog-and-pony shows with hundreds of handlers, staffers, paid supporters and other camp followers. While this offer was clearly open to Senator Obama, it turned out to be more important to him to snub our military personnel and continue discussing World Government with his socialist buddies in The Fatherland. People are really starting to wise up to this inexperienced pretender with every passing day, and the now-whispered comments of "You know, Hillary's looking better and better all the time," which her supporters can't really be criticized for encouraging, are going to grow louder prior to the Denver convention.
scott3460 (anonymous) says…
Keep trying Cato. The video from the trip surely showed how potentially likely it is that President Obama will have a strained relationship with the troops. Something tells me they'd prefer Obama to a fool who's had 4,000+ of their compatriots killed for no good reason. Or an old codger who's losing his marbles, and who apparently wasn't all that smart to begin with. You stupid kooks still don't see the point of Obama's visit do you? The audience was the vast majority of Americans who do not follow politics closely, but who do know that george w. bush has destroyed our reputation in the world in the last 7+ years. The message from his visit is that he is capable of restoring our national integrity, is doing it, and neither bush, nor McCain seems up to the job.
Confrontation (anonymous) says…
Anyone who was held as a POW for that many years cannot be mentally sound. Add that to his dementia, and you have another Reagan.
jaywalker (anonymous) says…
Our Village Idiot aka Bozo the wonder idget spews:"No need to apologize to jaywalker, scott. S/he is here mainly to vent her/his frustration that her/his sycophancy towards BushCo is going so badly, with McBush apparently headed towards losing the election in a landslide."I'm guessing you're all of two, bozo, which means you've wonderfully grasped the ability to type though rational, intelligent thought and perspective are still years away from your understanding. Point to one post of mine that paints me as a sycophant for the Bush administration. Just one. The fact that I ridicule the idiocy and frequency of the posts generated by uninformed, uneducated blowhards like yourself, duplenty, logrithmic et al. does not make me a supporter of anyone or anything but fact, logic, and perspective. You're a wonder. Your posts have none of these things. Ever. And FYI, brain trust, to be frank, if the election were today I'd be voting for Obama. I guess you know even less than you think you know. Shocker.When you do finally grow up and gain some perspective, the ability to read AND comprehend, and are able to post something, anything that has some semblance of substance, get back to me. Or keep posting and I'll be happy to keep proving you a fool.
funkdog1 (anonymous) says…
Mr_Nancy_Boy_To_You (Tom Shewmon) says:BTW, the woman who said America seems to be "unraveling" lives with her husband and kids in::..of all places: France.-----------------------------I can't find any evidence that Ellen Goodman lives in France. The only information I can find is that she lives in Massachusetts.
cato_the_elder (anonymous) says…
Scott0000, with how many of our troops and their families have you spoken in the last 6 years? What connections, if any, do you have with people in the military? Do you base your conclusions solely on what you see on television? Do you really believe that our military personnel would ever respect someone who has advocated flushing their sacrifices and hard-earned accomplishments down the commode, won't admit that he was wrong about the surge, and whose "plan" for Iraq prior to the surge would have resulted in the loss of Iraq to radical extremists? Sure, most of our military personnel and their families would rather that they come home as soon as possible, as we all do - but only when it's feasible militarily, not in the mind of a woefully inexperienced, ambitious politician who has shamefully used the Iraq conflict as an attempted springboard for higher office.
jaywalker (anonymous) says…
Scott,While we've had our dust-ups in the past, truly appreciate your 10:34 post. And I am as sick of the 'unpatriotic' jabs at BO as you, but what I'm really disgusted with is both 'sides' in this country, and moreover on these threads. I tend toward the center. I see good and bad on both sides of the aisle, as there so obviously is. Centrism is what has been abandoned in this country, and realistically, whichever candidate gains the White House come November we will have the most centrally positioned President in a long time. I may hold onto a more conservative approach when it comes to responding on this site, but that's largely due to the ridiculousness of posters like bozo et al. There's no doubt that our foreign policy and unilateral imperialistic attitude has done this country little good during the last administration. But I refuse to believe it was done out of malice, ignorance, or evil intent. Stubborness - yes. Arrogance - yes. Inflexibility - yes. To look at it from the other side, Clinton's policies and cutbacks/red tape/re-working of our intelligence services are what led to our vulnerability and inability to prevent 9/11. But that wasn't due to malice or evil intent on the Prez' behalf either. These guys aren't clairvoyant, they try to do what seems best. And noone's perfect.
jaywalker (anonymous) says…
Not for nothin', and to anyone that gives a rat's fanny, I highly recommend you pick up 'The Post-American World' by Fareed Zakariah. He's a regular contributor to Newsweek and I believe he is progressive/liberal but he is always fair and relatively balanced. He's a fantastic writer, solid researcher, and wonderful thinker. The book is illuminating and a must read if you are hungry for insight into what's going on and what's in store for this country and us as Americans.
Agnostick (anonymous) says…
RestoreReason (Anonymous) says:scott3460:I guess they'll be expecting you for Kool-Aid Days in Hastings, Neb., next month, you pathetic, little worm of a man.______________________________________________________This, from a pseudo-patriot who falsely claims military service... and clearly has no respect for American taxpayers and individual business owners.Agnostickagnostick@excite.comhttp://marciaford.blogspot.comhttp://www.independentvoting.org
dandelion (anonymous) says…
"I attention was never diverted from Afghanistan. It's an insult for some little punk in Lawrence who never served a day in uniform to belittle the efforts of our troops in Afghanistan, who have risked their lives day in and day out fighting the Taliban and al Qaeda."And what kind of support have you righties given the troops in Afghanistan by starting an unfounded war in Iraq and taking away much needed support from the place the cowards were hiding, and maybe still are. If the citizens of Iraq didn't have the guts to get rid of Saddam, then they deserved him. Given enough time there will be another dictator there soon. Instead of staying and making a stand for stability, anyone who could afford to fled the country. If they had true pride in their country, they would have stayed and tried to change it. I thought you had no respect for cowards, yet you want to spend our taxes on building a country which will fall back to civil war as soon as we get ourselves out of there.
lounger (anonymous) says…
This article makes many good points. Obama will be our next prez....
scott3460 (anonymous) says…
Jaywalker:Continuing the lovefest here, I must say I agree wholeheartedly with the Fareed Zakariah recommendation. I have enjoyed his work for quite a while and agree with your assessment. He is invariably enlightening and should be required reading for many who post here. On the "is bush evil, or just incompetent" argument, it is one, of course, that can never really be won by one side or the other. After observing the cynicism and self-serving acts and enrichment of the last 7 years, I have drawn my conclusion and I doubt anyone will ever convince me otherwise.
cato_the_elder (anonymous) says…
All of this self-righteous fluff about Afghanistan was waiting in the Democrats' hopper for some time as a diversionary game plan to drag out in the event of our increased success in Iraq - which, of course, they did on cue as the surge began to work. They have a similar game plan for damage control in the event Osama bin Laden is captured while President Bush is still in office. It's more than pathetic - the notion that the Bush administration somehow forgot that Afghanistan was on the map is an outrageous, entirely politically-motivated lie perpetrated by the most pathological liars of all.
scott3460 (anonymous) says…
"All of this self-righteous fluff about Afghanistan was waiting in the Democrats' hopper for some time as a diversionary game plan to drag out....."And yet McCain is such an ineffectual leader and campaigner that he cannot stop the diabolical, schemeing Democrats from trouncing him in an election. Sure sounds like Presidential material to me. I want the old guy who can't even shut up a scrawny little Democrat trying to protect me from the big, bad terrorists and trying to outsmart all of our foreign competitors in this global economy! McCain - too stupid 20 years ago & still too stupid today
cato_the_elder (anonymous) says…
Scott0000, has there been an election that I've missed? Can you fill me in?
scott3460 (anonymous) says…
Glad you asked, Cato. Wasn't the official reprimand of the Congressional investigation of the Keating S&L scandal that McCain had exercised poor judgement, i.e. he was just made a dumb mistake. And then there's this from the website of that noted liberal, Pat Buchanan:"Our Take: Since running for the GOP nomination for president, Sen. McCain has been assuring critics that he had learned a valuable lesson about getting too close to lobbyists since his involvement as one of the Keating Five. The Keating Five were United States Senators who were accused of corruption in 1989 during the Savings and Loan crisis in which they improperly aided Charles H. Keating, Jr., chairman of the failed Lincoln S&L. The S&L was the target of an investigation by the Federal Home Loan Bank Board. As a result of that investigation, Keating was convicted in 1992 of fraud, racketeering, and conspiracy and received a 10 year prison sentence. McCain's more recent involvement with Paxson Communications, a big campaign contributor, indicates he really didn't learn his lesson about distancing himself from lobbyists as he continues to claim. We have to wonder about McCain's honesty on other claims. For example, did he really "get the message" on securing our border, or didn't he? We don't think so."So, yes, too dumb before & too dumb now.
ASBESTOS (anonymous) says…
Anyone check out the John Edwards affair cought by the National Enquirer? Ohg, yeah that is right the LJWorld and Lawrence is Democrats and you guys don't do anything bad do they?
ASBESTOS (anonymous) says…
"Wasn't the official reprimand of the Congressional investigation of the Keating S&L scandal that McCain had exercised poor judgement, i.e. he was just made a dumb mistake."Well the Democratic Party Lead Senate and House did it again with the Housing Bailout Bill that gives lots of money away to the unscouplous lenders, exactly like the S & L Bailout. True a considerable number of R's voted for it, but it was opposed significantly in the House by R's. So I guess it depends on just "whose team" is doing the "bailout". OH, and BTW, Senator Barry supports the bailout bill.And there was $25 million earmarked to give to La Raza, and not for housing issues.That is the Democratic Leadership.Pot calling Kettle Black.
cato_the_elder (anonymous) says…
Huh? What does that have to do with the question I asked you? You seemed to be referring in your prior post to an election that had already occurred - or was it instead to an upcoming one? If the latter, haven't I previously suggested to you that it's not a good idea to guarantee the outcome of a presidential election, especially when your candidate hasn't even been nominated yet and should be way ahead in the polls but isn't? Does the name Thomas E. Dewey - who in 1948 lost a presidential election to a man named Harry Truman, who would ultimately leave office in 1953 with the lowest approval ratings ever at that time - mean anything to you?
beatrice (anonymous) says…
RR: "John Kerry based his whole campaign in 2004 on his three months in Vietnam, a war he left after receiving wounds that were treated with Bactine."First off, no he didn't. Secondly, once again we find a conservative bashing an American veteran because he doesn't believe in the veteran's politics. It is sad to see anyone bashing any American for having served their country, but to lie about the wounds Kerry received when obviously you weren't there is mind-dumbing. You are basing your nonsense on political lies. Sad, sad, sad.I suspect John McCain has enough class that he would want to smack you in the face if he heard you talk like that about a fellow veteran. Time to wake up and realize that we are Americans first, even if our politics disagree.
jaywalker (anonymous) says…
Dandelion: Congrats, that may be the most uninformed, ridiculous, ignorant post of the day. And on these boards, that's sayin' somethin'.
scott3460 (anonymous) says…
"I suspect John McCain has enough class that he would want to smack you in the face if he heard you talk like that about a fellow veteran. Time to wake up and realize that we are Americans first, even if our politics disagree."Sorry, beatrice, I am afraid McCain has disappointed you. From tonight's headlines:"McCain camp: Obama shortchanged injured troops"Here is McCain from earlier this Spring:""Whatever suggestion that was made that was any way disparaging to the integrity, character, honesty of either Senator Obama or Senator Clinton was wrong. ... I condemn it, and if I have any responsibility, I will take the responsibility, and I apologize for it.""Guess he's flip flopped on this too. Either that or he cannot control his own staff. Why would he engage in such an attack on Obama's character when he so clearly stated it was wrong just several short months ago. By the way, how many injured veteran's hospital visits did McCain make this same week? He rolled around with the ancient President Bush (the Legitimate,) went shopping, etc... Why does he hate the troops so much?!?
scott3460 (anonymous) says…
"Does the name Thomas E. Dewey - who in 1948 lost a presidential election to a man named Harry Truman, who would ultimately leave office in 1953 with the lowest approval ratings ever at that time - mean anything to you?"I just LOVE that you have to qualify this!! "at that time" HA!!!! Who's the lowest ever? The smirking chimp, dim son himself gwb. Hilarious!! gwb, defying nonexistent expectations daily.
scott3460 (anonymous) says…
"In June, McCain apologized for using the image of Gen. David Petraeus in a political mailer, saying that politicization of the military would "not happen again" in his campaign."Oooops.........Flop.
cato_the_elder (anonymous) says…
Scott0000, you must be rather short in stature, because everything goes over your head. For your information, President Bush has not yet left office, and will not do so until next January. I specifically referred to President Truman's approval rating at the time he left office, which was the lowest yet at that time for a departing president. Scott, you really are a klutz.
cato_the_elder (anonymous) says…
Volkischer Beobachter, what you say demonstrates that you at least understood the elementary point I had made, which was lost on Scott0000. Again, however, I would caution against predicting the future, as none of us has a crystal ball. By way of only one example, were Osama bin Laden to be captured this fall, the president's approval ratings would undoubtedly increase. Of course, if he's not captured and Senator Obama is nominated and thereafter elected, Mr. Obama can then offer to negotiate directly with him.
scott3460 (anonymous) says…
Cato, calm down, my coments simply reflected the fact that bush has plummed new depths of unpopularity during his Presidency. I see upon rereading the exchange that you intended the measure to be only on the single day that a Presidency ends. OK, bush has yet to be measured. Any takers on whether he ultimately takes the prize? By the way, you ignored the larger point in my original post: Why should we elect a man as President who cannot even outsmart his scrawny, liberal opponent? What's he going to do when faced with a real challenge from a global competitor or evil dictator? Whine to the press about how unfair it all is?
cato_the_elder (anonymous) says…
Scott, the word is "plumbed," as in "plumbing," but out of courtesy on a Sunday morning I won't go there further.
yourworstnightmare (anonymous) says…
I seem to have caused some confusion with my mistaken post that McCain was in the Air Force.I apologize for the error. I know he was in the Navy and have posted so before. This was simply a mistake. Thank you all for correcting it.I find it humorous that some think I am a right winger and others think I am one of the biggest lefties on this site.McCain is simply lost. He is flip-flopping on all major issues. For a man who has written extensively about honor, he sure hasn't shown it.His flip-flops on torture, on attacks from Bush in 2000, on offshore drilling, etc. show he has little honor but will say and do what is necessary to get elected as a republican.Maverick no more.