McCain: “Bomb Bomb Bomb, Bomb Bomb Iran”

-

mccain.jpg
When I first read it as an unrelated comment to my last post, I brushed it off as a joke.
It’s no joke.
Speaking at a VFW meeting in South Carolina, McCain asked when the U.S. would “send an air mail message to Tehran. ” McCain replied: “You know that old Beach Boys song, Bomb Iran? Bomb bomb bomb, anyway…”
So much for diplomacy first, force as a last resort. Raw Story has the video clip.
McCain is truly an enigma to me. He’s pressed for international cooperation on global warming. He’s spoken of the need to eventually join the International Criminal Court. He’s spoken out against torture. His forceful advocacy on these issues has earned him a fair amount of credibility on international affairs.
Recently, McCain’s buffoonery on Iraq eroded that credibility. With this gaffe, it has hit an all-time low.
— Scott Paul

Comments

122 comments on “McCain: “Bomb Bomb Bomb, Bomb Bomb Iran”

  1. Dan says:

    ROMNEY SUPPORTERS (please read)!!!!!!!!
    We need to start exposing McCain’s 2 big personal scandals to tip the scales to Mitt. This guy will say and do anything to sabotage Romney and it’s about time he give him a bit of his own medicine.
    We need to expose:
    1) McCain cheating on his disabled wife with a mistress half his age, McCain divorcing his disabled wife then marrying his millionaire mistress, and then having her rich daddy buy his seat in Congress.
    2) Keating 5 ethics scandal and how McCain was the only member of the rebuked 5 not to resign his seat in Congress.
    Mitt has had too much class to bring this up, but we must! The American people, who know nothing about these scandals, are evidently under the delusion that McCain is a straight-talker and man of honor. We must spend today spreading the TRUTH of why he is not.

    Reply

  2. Pissed Off America says:

    Harrumph.

    Reply

  3. MP says:

    POA…thanks. I re-read the comments above, and you’re right. I was conflating your arguments with Rich’s on this score. I apologize…everything you say here is correct. I shouldn’t react so carelessly. Thanks for pointing it out.

    Reply

  4. Pissed Off American says:

    “You are arguing (I guess) that we need our guns to protect our liberties.”
    No, if you were honest in representing my comments, you would opine that I am stating that we may need weapons to protect our persons and our property. My coments are quite clear. Having experienced two natural disasters, of an epic scale, in my lifetime, I know that the life experience can change in a split second. But hey, if you want to keep demonstrating to this blog that all you are capable of doing is misrepresenting the comments of other posters, go for it.
    “Instead of genuflecting before the Second Amendment……..”
    I haven’t mentioned the Second Ammendment one single time, have I, MP? (Will you EVER offer honest debate, or is this kind of crap all you have to offer?) Smug pseudo-intellectual reflections of constitutional intent are not exactly my bag. To me, its quite simple. I am armed for the eventuality that someday I may need to defend me or mine against a life threatening situation. And I am going to be armed for that eventuality whether some ass like yourself agrees with it or not. I have taken the time and expended the effort throughout my lifetime to train myself in the safe operation of firearms, and I do not consider them recreational. I view them the same as I view my tablesaw or a block plane.
    “…….and calling me a Good German, etc., etc.”
    Look, not one time here have I mentioned anything even closely resembling calling you a “good German”. You know what, MP? You can be a real ass. Sorry, but man, is this the best you got?
    “…maybe you can simply show us all what you are are proposing.”
    I think I’ve been pretty explicit in my comments, and haven’t really “proposed” anything. But since you asked, how about I propose that you stop using this chickenshit tactic of misrepresenting the comments of other posters?

    Reply

  5. Joem says:

    I thought that McCain was quite reckless with that joke. The situation in Iraq makes the McCain bomb Iran song a bit inappropriate. McCain should be more careful with his future comments if he wants to win the election.

    Reply

  6. MP says:

    Rich writes: “I’ll remind you I practice nonviolence. But nonviolence doesn’t work against unrestrained, lethal state power. Not to recognize that and act accordingly is to fail to grasp even a glimmer of the origin and point of America.”
    I would say that the Jewish experience in Europe especially is a better illustration of your point. English rule would, eventually, have sloughed off in the States (I believe).
    This is a very tough question and your best point thus far. Had the Jews all been armed and rise up…what would the outcome have been? To be fair, I guess you’d also have to factor in all the Germans being armed at the same time. To be honest, I’m not sure what the result would have been. Since Jews represented a few % points of the overall pop, it could easily have been a fight they wouldn’t have won anyway. But it is a challenging point.

    Reply

  7. MP says:

    Rich writes: “The piece of paper is just an artifact that represents and verifies the real ideas and social contract forged in the crucible of history and maintained by ineradicable culture.”
    I guess it’s worth pointing out that we haven’t come to the end of history…and culture keeps changing. The crucible keeps smelting. Denying this is simply to assume an artificially rigid position, a position that is inevitably overturned by the wheels of history and the changing face of culture.

    Reply

  8. MP says:

    POA writes: “Perhaps poetic justice will serve to instill some honesty in him. A month or two, unarmed, in an urban environment that has lost its infrastructure and civil services, with food and water scarce or inaccessable, should do the trick.”
    Ah yes, Mad Max returns. Talk about having to scare folks.
    “And note how the dissembling straw mnan converts Rich and my comments to “What then are YOU proposing we do NOW, then? Get out our rifles and glocks and attack the WH? Carry out a raid on Congress?”
    Simply a challenge to conduct a thought experiment. You are arguing (I guess) that we need our guns to protect our liberties. I’m asking you to show us how that might work. Instead of genuflecting before the Second Amendment and calling me a Good German, etc., etc., maybe you can simply show us all what you are are proposing.

    Reply

  9. MP says:

    Rich writes: “”Carry out a raid on Congress? The whole thing is absurd–and worse.”
    So POA’s right– you DO put words in our mouths. That’s fiction–and you’re remarkably irresponsible.
    ME: It’s not fiction. What is the point, in your mind, of the right to bear arms, if we’re not going to bear them and use them? Like they did in 1776…as you’ve been saying over and over. Otherwise, the right to bear arms is there… but what?
    C’mon MP–stand up and answer the point: what’s become of this social contract?
    ME: It is under severe strain in my view. It has been before. Lots of things need to be done…voting in better people… protesting…writing and speaking. That’s where I think we are right now.
    What happens when that social contract is intentionally trashed, by men like Bush? When it’s royally, openly, totally fvcked?
    Answer that.
    ME: See above.
    “Things are bad, but I have protested without any fear. So has the rest of the family–and guess what? No need to carry guns.”
    You offer non-sequiturs? No one needs a gun to vote. So how is that a point?
    ME: How is that a non-sequitur?
    Never mind that you’re naive and in denial. DC cops clubbed citizens who’d peaceably assembled–across the street from the White House–on the eve of war with Iraq.
    ME: They clubbed us in Chicago, too. Civil rights activists were clubbed and worse over DECADE. We came out victorious. I fail to see how the Second Amendment contributed to any of those victories for liberty and full rights for all citizens. Maybe you can explain it too me.
    It’s not. What’s it take, MP? torture? suspension of habeas corpus? Lives fed into the maw of Moloch; into the meat-grinder of faceless bureaucracy? I wanna know: where is the point beyond which you will not go?
    ME: Now you are putting words in my mouth. My point is simple: I don’t believe we need guns to protect liberty as the Second Amendment asserts. You (I guess) do. You (apparently, though it’s hard to tell) think we need guns now. Or soon. Yet you are unwilling to say so…or show us how guns will help us do the protecting.
    Rich: “Civil liberties are not a ‘social construction.’ Inalienable, Creator-endowed; they’re intrinsic to you as a living creature. The anti-conservative and irrational claims that government can lawfully or rightly ‘suspend’ them have no merit. We do not owe those liberties to benevolent government or simpler times, nor to the Constitution.
    The piece of paper is just an artifact that represents and verifies the real ideas and social contract forged in the crucible of history and maintained by ineradicable culture. “Interpreting” the Second Amendment out of existence never worked–it had zero impact on memory or the social contract. Cultural integrity and honesty overrides the betrayal of ‘interpretation’–every time.
    ME: Ah yes, the Platonic view of the Constitution. It’s true; the US does have a gun culture which probably will never go away. However, my view on the efficacy of guns isn’t touched by your argument, such as it is.
    Rich: Whenever Jurists became Popes, it was an ugly, black day. Because when a Priesthood claims a Hotline to the Constitution, but offers the Golden Calf of Interpretation instead of a plain, just Reading, you know you’re in trouble. But it’s not just SCOTUS; the law’s become ‘Whatever-you-can-get-away-with.’
    ME: True. But you can’t get away from the need for interpretation (even if you don’t want to call it that) as times changes and new situations arise. Interpretation is a necessary occurrence–and the facts are on my side because interpretation ALWAYS happens and has from the very beginning. Recognition of this fact doesn’t mean the law becomes “whatever you can get away with.” This is simplistic and simply not true, nor has it proved to be true. Moreover, all guiding documents are inevitably interpeted: the Bible, the Qu’ran, the Sutras. The Jewish tradition is an excellent example of this: There is a reason we no longer condone and eye for an eye, even though it’s still written in the Torah there plain as day.
    Excesses–some of them extreme–have occurred and some of them have been enshrined in the Constitution. Interpretation and amendments have been the way forward and the way to truly stay true to the Constitution’s core principles.
    (I hope we won’t be hearing about the gold standard and the un-Constitutionality of the income tax.)

    Reply

  10. Pissed Off American says:

    “Police and soldiers confiscated guns from homes and some evacuees primarily to keep them away from looters, police Superintendent Warren Riley said.”
    MP really likes that kind of logic. Render the households defenseless during a crisis. Then, when they want their legally owned firearms back, refuse to return them until someone sues. (Wouldn’t have anything to do with the fact most of them were poor blacks, would it??) Yep, MP’s logic is flawless on this one, isn’t it?
    And note how the dissembling straw mnan converts Rich and my comments to “What then are YOU proposing we do NOW, then? Get out our rifles and glocks and attack the WH? Carry out a raid on Congress?” It seems that MP can only rebut with horseshit. He needs to pervert the comments of others in order to construct a platform for his own misguided nattering. It would be refreshing to see him debate honestly for a change, but I have given up on that likelyhood.
    Perhaps poetic justice will serve to instill some honesty in him. A month or two, unarmed, in an urban environment that has lost its infrastructure and civil services, with food and water scarce or inaccessable, should do the trick.

    Reply

  11. rich says:

    MP: “Carry out a raid on Congress? The whole thing is absurd–and worse.”
    So POA’s right– you DO put words in our mouths. That’s fiction–and you’re remarkably irresponsible.
    C’mon MP–stand up and answer the point: what’s become of this social contract?
    What happens when that social contract is intentionally trashed, by men like Bush? When it’s royally, openly, totally fvcked?
    Answer that.
    “Things are bad, but I have protested without any fear. So has the rest of the family–and guess what? No need to carry guns.”
    You offer non-sequiturs? No one needs a gun to vote. So how is that a point?
    Never mind that you’re naive and in denial. DC cops clubbed citizens who’d peaceably assembled–across the street from the White House–on the eve of war with Iraq.
    Plenty of people have reason to fear. I’ll remind you I practice nonviolence. But nonviolence doesn’t work against unrestrained, lethal state power. Not to recognize that and act accordingly is to fail to grasp even a glimmer of the origin and point of America.
    You obviously haven’t been paying attention to current events. Are you saying Bush has been responsive to citizens he serves?
    Maybe we all are, these days, but you having “vote[d] in a new Congress in 2006 and they ARE doing some good things in the right direction” just makes you a slightly less repressed species of Good German.
    My point is simply that the eager denial of the rule of law and our birthright–is not only reckless but an invitation to a Brave New World. Why should Bush lie well, or even at all, if willing believers like yourself helpfully construct a contemporary 1984 and willingly try to tell us it’s “better.” It’s “modern.”
    It’s not. What’s it take, MP? torture? suspension of habeas corpus? Lives fed into the maw of Moloch; into the meat-grinder of faceless bureaucracy? I wanna know: where is the point beyond which you will not go?
    Lucky for us, you have no right nor any ability to “turn in your civil liberties” down at the local KBR ‘detention facility.’ Painless, I guess–for those too numb to feel anything.
    Civil liberties are not a ‘social construction.’ Inalienable, Creator-endowed; they’re intrinsic to you as a living creature. The anti-conservative and irrational claims that government can lawfully or rightly ‘suspend’ them have no merit. We do not owe those liberties to benevolent government or simpler times, nor to the Constitution.
    The piece of paper is just an artifact that represents and verifies the real ideas and social contract forged in the crucible of history and maintained by ineradicable culture. “Interpreting” the Second Amendment out of existence never worked–it had zero impact on memory or the social contract. Cultural integrity and honesty overrides the betrayal of ‘interpretation’–every time.
    Whenever Jurists became Popes, it was an ugly, black day. Because when a Priesthood claims a Hotline to the Constitution, but offers the Golden Calf of Interpretation instead of a plain, just Reading, you know you’re in trouble. But it’s not just SCOTUS; the law’s become ‘Whatever-you-can-get-away-with.’
    What did Justice Brennan write about pornography? ‘I know it when I see it.’ Well, I know the First Backwards Step when I see it:
    First they came for the Second Amendment–and MP said nothing.
    You know where that leads.

    Reply

  12. Kathleen says:

    I’m torn on the gun issue. I’ve never owned one and don’t intend to, but I would not like a situation in which only the Federalis could have them.
    Careful training on their safe use and very careful background checks should be de rigeur.

    Reply

  13. MP says:

    Matthew: YES, YES, and YES. And buttress it all constantly with lots of hearings, so that information gets out.

    Reply

  14. Matthew says:

    MP: In regard to your comments about Congress. All we really need from the Democratic Congress is their commitment to stop listening to their DLC consultants. We have a Prez with a 29% approval rating. Challenge him, every day. Oppose his policies, everday. Timidity is the Democrat’s biggest enemy.
    Let him veto bills. Let him “go to the country.” His coattails are now a sweater vest.

    Reply

  15. MP says:

    Rich writes: “What recourse to American citizens have right now? No redress of grievance to an unresponsive Preznt that’s seized unprecedented power. No option to protest without fear of the unwarranted, unrestrained boot-heel of state power. What, MP, do you think’s been going on here? Civil disobedience wouldn’t work in Germany in 1941, either: if it’s denied us now, MP, what social contract are you referring to, exactly?”
    What then are YOU proposing we do NOW, then? Get out our rifles and glocks and attack the WH? Carry out a raid on Congress? The whole thing is absurd–and worse.
    Things are bad, but I have protested without any fear. So has the rest of the family–and guess what? No need to carry guns. We’ve worked voter protection booths in all kinds of precincts. And guess what? No need for guns. We did vote in a new Congress in 2006 and they ARE doing some good things in the right direction. And we have a good chance in 2008. And still, no need for guns. MLK faced FAR worse than we’re facing now. And guess what–no guns.
    The notion that we need guns to redress and right the severe imbalance of the Bush years…is really comical. Sad. Americans have really mezmerized themselves with this crap. And I don’t care who wrote it down. They wrote down a lot of stuff–and not all of it was correct.

    Reply

  16. MP says:

    Note this, too: “Police and soldiers confiscated guns from homes and some evacuees primarily to keep them away from looters, police Superintendent Warren Riley said.”
    Of all the things those poor people in NO needed…guns were not at the top of the list by any stretch.

    Reply

  17. Pissed Off American says:

    Thanks for the info, POA. Is it mid-afternoon in America, or closer to sundown?
    Posted by Mackie
    It is 8:31 PM right now, as I post this, in Central California, (if you are talking about real time). If you are talking symbolically, I would say it is definitely sundown for our nation.

    Reply

  18. Mackie says:

    Thanks for the info, POA. Is it mid-afternoon in America, or closer to sundown?

    Reply

  19. Pissed Off American says:

    Good grief, man–do you honestly think I care?
    Posted by MP
    Of course not. Your disingenuous bullshit and blatant falsehoods are hardly the musings of someone that cares whether or not they are respected.

    Reply

  20. MP says:

    POA writes: “I apologize for failing to extend the respect you have never deserved.”
    Good grief, man–do you honestly think I care?

    Reply

  21. Pissed Off American says:

    Heres a quote from a “USA Today” article. Note that the NRA sued in order to have the confiscated weapons returned to their legal owners.
    “Police in New Orleans, facing litigation from the National Rifle Association and other groups, have begun returning guns confiscated after Hurricane Katrina. Seventeen of the 700 seized weapons were returned by the close of business Wednesday, the second day the guns were available, police said. Police and soldiers confiscated guns from homes and some evacuees primarily to keep them away from looters, police Superintendent Warren Riley said. The NRA and others said the seizures took away peoples protection amid lawlessness that gripped the city. Natural disasters may destroy great cities, but they do not destroy civil rights, said Alan Gottlieb, founder of the Second Amendment Foundation, which joined the NRA in the lawsuit. The lawsuit was dropped after the city agreed to return the guns.”
    Does anyone reading this agree with confiscating the weapons of law abiding civilians that are in the midst of a natural disaster?
    MP states that he can think of no reason to own a gun. Is there anyone here that would want to experience the aftermath of a massive natural calamity, or terrorist attack on a major metropolis, unarmed, knowing that it may be weeks, or even months, before basic utilities and access to food or water are restored?
    Can you imagine what a devasted Los Angeles Basin would be like? It would make Katrina look like a minor rainstorm. Considering the current usage of our National Guard, how much help could be expected from our “authorities”? And considering the dismal performance of these bastards in the current administration in regards to Katrina, it could well be months before civil order would be restored. If MP thinks going through such an event unarmed is a good idea, I will suggest a couple of streets for him to stroll WITHOUT the added criteria of a natural catacalysm.
    Actually, I see a weapon or two as an essential part of ANY survival kit. If I envision spending a month or so in a major metropoliis that has experienced a natural disaster, I think I would rather have a 9mm semi-auto than I would a flashlight.

    Reply

  22. Pissed Off American says:

    More on Blackwater/New Orleans……..
    http://tinyurl.com/39nmg3

    Reply

  23. Pissed Off American says:

    http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/091005A.shtml
    an excerpt…….
    That raises a key question: under what authority are Blackwater’s men operating? A spokesperson for the Homeland Security Department, Russ Knocke, told the Washington Post he knows of no federal plans to hire Blackwater or other private security. “We believe we’ve got the right mix of personnel in law enforcement for the federal government to meet the demands of public safety.” he said.
    But in an hour-long conversation with several Blackwater mercenaries, we heard a different story. The men we spoke with said they are indeed on contract with the Department of Homeland Security and the Louisiana governor’s office and that some of them are sleeping in camps organized by Homeland Security in New Orleans and Baton Rouge. One of them wore a gold Louisiana state law enforcement badge and said he had been “deputized” by the governor. They told us they not only had authority to make arrests but also to use lethal force. We encountered the Blackwater forces as we walked through the streets of the largely deserted French Quarter. We were talking with 2 New York Police officers when an unmarked car without license plates sped up next to us and stopped. Inside were 3 men, dressed in khaki uniforms, flak jackets and wielding automatic weapons. “Y’all know where the Blackwater guys are?” they asked. One of the police officers responded, “There are a bunch of them around here,” and pointed down the road.
    “Blackwater?” we asked. “The guys who are in Iraq?”
    “Yeah,” said the officer. “They’re all over the place.”
    A short while later, as we continued down Bourbon Street, we ran into the men from the car. They wore Blackwater ID badges on their arms.
    “When they told me New Orleans, I said, ‘What country is that in?,'” said one of the Blackwater men. He was wearing his company ID around his neck in a carrying case with the phrase “Operation Iraqi Freedom” printed on it. After bragging about how he drives around Iraq in a “State Department issued level 5, explosion proof BMW,” he said he was “just trying to get back to Kirkuk (in the north of Iraq) where the real action is.” Later we overheard him on his cell phone complaining that Blackwater was only paying $350 a day plus per diem. That is much less than the men make serving in more dangerous conditions in Iraq. Two men we spoke with said they plan on returning to Iraq in October. But, as one mercenary said, they’ve been told they could be in New Orleans for up to 6 months. “This is a trend,” he told us. “You’re going to see a lot more guys like us in these situations.”
    If Blackwater’s reputation and record in Iraq are any indication of the kind of “services” the company offers, the people of New Orleans have much to fear.

    Reply

  24. Pissed Off American says:

    Slime is what you’ve used against me from the beginning.
    Posted by MP
    I apologize for failing to extend the respect you have never deserved. Your initial defense of “alec”‘s bullshit was highly instrumental in exposing your true nature, and my reaction to it. The transparently feigned metamorphasis into a self proclaimed moderate poster pretty well cinched the deal. Then, of course, there is your alliance with that ass Winnepeger, whose rhetoric you never once criticized, even when it was far fouler than anything anyone else, including myself, have ever posted here.
    Try being honest sometime, and perhaps I will re-invent our interaction. I wouldn’t hold my breath, though.

    Reply

  25. MP says:

    POA writes: “In MP’s world, there are no illegal drugs, because we have laws against them. There are no rapes, because rape is against the law. And all we need to do is outlaw guns, and there will be no criminals on our streets carrying them.”
    Actually, what I’m saying is that guns do little to nothing to address these problems or correct them. Currently, we have all the guns we could possibly want. Just about anyone can get one. And yet I haven’t noticed any marked decline in any of these ills. Nor have I noticed any up-tick in the government’s respect for our liberties.

    Reply

  26. Pissed Off American says:

    POA, I completely missed the Blackwater at Katrina story. How much coverage and/or outrage did it get? Are there any legislators who’ve made it a pet cause?
    Posted by Mackie
    No. It occurred completely under the media radar. To my knowledge, no one is pursuing answers on this. Initially, the Federal government denied that Blackwater was contracted by them, instead, that private industry had hired them. Yet, at the same time, Blackwell employees were stating that they were under contract to FEMA, a claim that was later admitted by FEMA.
    As an aside, Blackwater is currently engaged in procurring a large tract of land outside of San Diego, to be used as a training facility. Being a bit paranoid about the direction this Nation is taking, I can’t help but wonder if the proximity to a major Marine installation is by design.

    Reply

  27. MP says:

    POA writes: “Lemme know. If countering slime with slime is acceptable to you, maybe I’ll wallow for a while.”
    Slime is what you’ve used against me from the beginning.

    Reply

  28. Mackie says:

    POA, I completely missed the Blackwater at Katrina story. How much coverage and/or outrage did it get? Are there any legislators who’ve made it a pet cause?

    Reply

  29. Pissed Off American says:

    In MP’s world, there are no illegal drugs, because we have laws against them. There are no rapes, because rape is against the law. And all we need to do is outlaw guns, and there will be no criminals on our streets carrying them.
    Is the above argument acceptable to you, MP? Am I allowed to employ asinine, dishonest, and disengenuous interpretations of your arguments as a tactic of rebuttal, as you repeatedly attempt to do in your rebuttals?
    Lemme know. If countering slime with slime is acceptable to you, maybe I’ll wallow for a while.

    Reply

  30. Pissed Off American says:

    MP would have us all disarmed, an event enabled by the media vision of a Cho hiding in every college cafeteria, armed to the teeth by those nasty pro-gun lobbyists.
    http://tinyurl.com/ywjeph
    “Fear begets fear and dulls rationality. Under fear’s influence, the autonomic nervous system shifts into fight-or-flight mode. Perhaps this either-or response clarifies the bipartisanship of laboring freedom fighters and the willingly deceived. The former empower themselves with knowledge. The latter, so fearful of annihilating reassuring illusions, continue to defend the crimes of their pseudo-conservative leaders, and in so doing, stave off the anxieties which would surely accompany enlightenment. So desperate to believe in an imaginary benevolent Big Brother, We the People unknowingly and sometimes willingly turn a deaf ear to the truth, choosing instead to believe a lie. We lull ourselves into complacency or forced submission. We allow fear to breed a culture of silent ignorance and unthinking loyalty by which dictatorial regimes are allowed to flourish.”

    Reply

  31. MP says:

    Rich wrote: “They knew that both were crucial, before and after the establishment of the Nation, for the continuance of the Nation. And they wrote it down, so that people like you couldn’t forget it. They wrote it down because they knew that people like you would always be around to offer up cheap gutless lies, instead of even minimal acknowledgment of historical & contemporary facts about culture and power in America.”
    Sorry you had to take that route toward me…
    Have fun with your guns. Hope they keep you safe.

    Reply

  32. rich says:

    MP: “Mandatory gun safety courses . . . Cho used his gun safely. . . .He knew how to work the gun. He knew how to aim it.”
    Are you really arguing for IGnorance here? Good luck with that.
    Better that pacifists or liberals should learn how to use guns themselves. And bullies and the in-crowd learn how to reach out to loners, the unbalanced, and the lonely and to include them, befriend them, and serve them.
    If all sectors were gun-educated, that’s one more area of social common ground, making it much more likely that peace-freak and war-hawk would form a cohesive-enough society to pro-actively address people like Cho. If all sectors were skilled in outreach and inlusiveness, same thing.

    Reply

  33. rich says:

    MP: “And, from what I’ve read, there were long periods, including the lead up to the Civil War, when the vast majority of Americans didn’t own guns and didn’t particularly know how to use them.”
    That study was a hoax. The “scholar,” upon being challenged to produce his data, found his paper had been conveniently lost to water-damage in a flood the previous fall.
    MP–you are being extraordinarily patronizing and deeply disingenuous.
    OBViously it is the social contract that protects us. But where that social contract is ruptured, what then? When a Hitler or a King George III or a (making no equivalence) George Bush just tears it to shreds no matter what his actual powers are, no matter what the social contract is, what then?
    What recourse to American citizens have right now? No redress of grievance to an unresponsive Preznt that’s seized unprecedented power. No option to protest without fear of the unwarranted, unrestrained boot-heel of state power. What, MP, do you think’s been going on here? Civil disobedience wouldn’t work in Germany in 1941, either: if it’s denied us now, MP, what social contract are you referring to, exactly?
    Obviously courts interpret laws. Where there is an explicit right to keep and bear arms, though, “interpreting” that explicit meaning out of existence is to willfully remove text, and willfully replace it with an illegitimate and unsupportable excuse for a wholesale, whole-cloth, unlegislated structure of governance.

    Reply

  34. Pissed Off American says:

    “They wrote it down because they knew that people like you would always be around to offer up cheap gutless lies, instead of even minimal acknowledgment of historical & contemporary facts about culture and power in America.”
    Bingo.

    Reply

  35. rich says:

    MP:
    Can’t go through these in detail–no time.
    But merely contradicting what I’m getting at–or evading the clear principles at work historically and Constitutionally, for that matter, won’t get your fundamentally inviable and stillborn position further down the road.
    The rhetorical disingenuousness and self-contradition you deploy means responding doesn’t take much work. Case in point–slavery was obviously an economic engine, but that doesn’t negate or speak to the obvious injustice I raised–one clearly contradicting the core meaning of the Declaration, Constitution, Revolution.
    On the other hand, the root of liberty–the very planting of the tree of liberty–was secured by the availability of guns and men who knew how to use them. Denial of that fact does not negate or speak to the core liberty codified in the 2nd Amendment. What’s more, the Founders and the political culture as a whole was responsible and honest enough to explicitly codify BOTH a standing army AND the Second Amendment in the Constitution.
    They knew that both were crucial, before and after the establishment of the Nation, for the continuance of the Nation. And they wrote it down, so that people like you couldn’t forget it. They wrote it down because they knew that people like you would always be around to offer up cheap gutless lies, instead of even minimal acknowledgment of historical & contemporary facts about culture and power in America.
    It’s almost like you think King George III would have said, “Ok, colonists! You lot make a persuasive, rational case. Go on, have your freedoms.” Or that King George V will say, “Oh alright, we do have elections because we are a nation of men and laws, not kings, and so I renounce torture and signing statements, & I resign immediately.”
    That liberty is becoming MORE relevant today, not less. The WTO repression in Seattle, the Bush maladministration–and specifically, the misuse of the National Guard abroad eviscerated the rationale for dishonestly “interpreting” the 2nd Amendment out of existence. Deployed in Iraq, they weren’t around to “guard” national borders, or even the streets of a single city. Instead, we got abuse of power: Blackwater.
    MAybe your heart’s in the right place, but I have to question that: the debilitating naivete at work here goes against the grain of every American character trait. And everything we learned the hard way in 1776 about the abuse of power, and liberty.

    Reply

  36. Pissed Off American says:

    “Mandatory gun safety courses are in no way in contradiction with unfettered access to handguns. The two easily go hand in hand. Cho used his gun safely. He didn’t kill or hurt anyone he didn’t intend to. He knew how to work the gun. He knew how to aim it. He didn’t shoot himself in the toe. He knew when it was loaded.”
    Posted by MP
    Don’t be an ass. Cho would have never even attempted to acquire a handgun legally if he would have thought he had to commit to weeks of courses. And even if he had, his bizzarre social behaviour would have been glaring to the instructors, and they undoubtedly would have failed him. Your asinine stance on this issue would put Cho in the position of needing to obtain his weapons illegally, which leads to a disarmed law abiding citizenry, and an army of armed criminals and wackjobs on our streets. Are you really so ignorant that you think criminals and wackos are going to observe gun laws? The law failed in Cho’s case. The system broke down. The bigger failure was in the mental health care end, and if you really used your brains, your efforts would be to improve THAT system, rather than trying to trample MY right to bear arms because some wackjob went on a rampage.

    Reply

  37. Pissed Off American says:

    “And if it ever gets to the point where the average person feels the need to reach for his gun before leaving his house…then we will be in much bigger trouble than we are now.”
    Posted by MP
    You’ve never strolled in Pacoima, or East Los Angeles, eh? And what about post Katrina? You think the looters in a natural disaster are not armed? Should, God forbid, “the big one” occur in Southern California, and millions of citizens be left to their own devices to fend for water and food for weeks, are you seriously contending that you would want to be in the center of that mess unarmed and defenseless? If so, I pity your family, because their odds of surviving are slim indeed. Apparently, also, you are choosing to ignore the point I made about armed mercenaries patrolling our streets with federally banned automatic weapons while the legal weapons of the citizenry were ordered confinscated. Do you think an American citizen should surrender their arms while a private army marrauds in the streets? Many of the Blackwell mercenaries are not even United States citizens. Should I put words in your mouth, as you do mine, and imply that you agree with such a terrifying development occuring on our nation’s streets, as it actually did? What do you think the purpose of the exercise was, if not to gauge public and media reaction??

    Reply

  38. MP says:

    POA writes: “Note how he puts forth this straw argument, (lie), that I have advocated “unfettered access to handguns”, even after my post advocated mandatory gun safety courses as a prerequisite to gun ownership.”
    Mandatory gun safety courses are in no way in contradiction with unfettered access to handguns. The two easily go hand in hand. Cho used his gun safely. He didn’t kill or hurt anyone he didn’t intend to. He knew how to work the gun. He knew how to aim it. He didn’t shoot himself in the toe. He knew when it was loaded.

    Reply

  39. MP says:

    Rich writes: “You’re comparing the grave injustice of slavery–often called America’s Original Sin–to gun ownership? The tool that enabled America to win its indendence against the injustice of British rule? Any “analogy” that likens the denial of liberty to the winning of liberty loses you the argument.
    ME: No. What I’m saying is that the right to own slaves was just as much a part of the Constitution as the 2nd Amendment.
    I’m as far from gun-nut/gun-right poltics as you can get, but gun-ownership is the root of America as a nation, and American liberty, by definition.
    ME: This is ridiculous. The root? Please. It could easily be argued that slavery did far more to build this nation than guns.
    Rich: Your Living Constitution stab fails too. It wasn’t written in stone. But neither can you, or Supreme Justices, feign that the written word has no meaning. A rejection of Absolutism cannot default to rejection of Reality.
    ME: I don’t claim it has no meaning. The 2nd Amendment is part of the Constitution and needs to be respected as such (though it is obviously open to interpretation and has been interpreted). It can also be repealed, and I see no reason not to.
    Rich: Meaning that just because clauses in the Constitution can/should be weighed against or in tension with other clauses–does not and cannot put any one of the Bill of Rights (or other clauses) out of commission.
    ME: No, but it can be repealed out of commission.
    Rich: Or even temper them, when they are a clear landmark. You don’t call something a Right and then just interpret it out of existence or fritter it away, as though inalienable rights are too unwieldy to be practicable.
    ME: All rights are interpreted…what else would you call all those thousands of Supreme Court opinions? And books of jurisprudence? If it were simply obvious what the meaning and application of these rights were, and they only meant “one: thing, then there would be no need for the Supreme Court or its decisions.
    I think it is a deep fallacy that guns can protect you from any danger. They work, and may be necessary, in certain situations. But they have to be used very judiciously and in a very limited way. It’s really only the social contract that keeps us safe.
    Simple example: Most people don’t steal or kill because they are afraid of martial retribution. They don’t because of an ingrained social contract.
    This works at the macro level too. Israel (I hope) is learning the limits of the effectiveness of martial power. Ultimately, it needs a social contract with the Palestinians and its neighbors to be safe. The same point applies to individuals with guns. A society in which everyone were carrying a handgun (and had learned to use it safely per POA) would NOT be a safe environment.
    And, from what I’ve read, there were long periods, including the lead up to the Civil War, when the vast majority of Americans didn’t own guns and didn’t particularly know how to use them.
    You know, at bottom, I can’t think of a single good reason for any citizen to own or carry a gun. And if it ever gets to the point where the average person feels the need to reach for his gun before leaving his house…then we will be in much bigger trouble than we are now.

    Reply

  40. rich says:

    “MP: It was an army that GW assembled. Rag tag to be sure, but still an army. And it was a French navy that helped us kick out the Brits. The Mel Gibson view of the American Revolution won’t fly.”
    No one gives a rat’s ass about Mel Gibson. Citing GW’s Army is unresponsive to the fact that he had to, and did, draw soldiers from a pool of armed citizens–a reservoir of power so recognized as necessary to counterbalance power then and now; and so crucial that political, cultural & legal forces saw fit, at the time, to formally codify the right to keep and bear arms in the Constitution.
    And, to think, you’re talking to the product of an adamantly anti-war, anti-violence household.
    “MP: Gun owning isn’t any more a “core” Constitutional value than slavery was or the disenfranchisement of women. The Constitution wasn’t given down by God to Moses; it was and is subject to amendments and interpretation.”
    You’re comparing the grave injustice of slavery–often called America’s Original Sin–to gun ownership? The tool that enabled America to win its indendence against the injustice of British rule? Any “analogy” that likens the denial of liberty to the winning of liberty loses you the argument.
    I’m as far from gun-nut/gun-right poltics as you can get, but gun-ownership is the root of America as a nation, and American liberty, by definition.
    Your Living Constitution stab fails too. It wasn’t written in stone. But neither can you, or Supreme Justices, feign that the written word has no meaning. A rejection of Absolutism cannot default to rejection of Reality.
    Meaning that just because clauses in the Constitution can/should be weighed against or in tension with other clauses–does not and cannot put any one of the Bill of Rights (or other clauses) out of commission.
    Or even temper them, when they are a clear landmark. You don’t call something a Right and then just interpret it out of existence or fritter it away, as though inalienable rights are too unwieldy to be practicable.

    “MP: I mostly agree with this. However, had Cho not had access to guns, 32 folks would probably still be alive.”
    Prohibition doesn’t work. Fails both practical & effectiveness tests. Avoidance of responsibility to know how to use & handle guns just abandons a powerful tool to those most in need of your help–like Cho.
    “MP: Hard to know if this [Gore supporting the 2nd Amendment in 2000] is an argument from principle or political expediency. ”
    Both. Of course.

    Reply

  41. Pissed Off American says:

    Ah…go back and read…I was asking you a question.
    Posted by MP
    What you were doing is perfectly clear. You were doing your usual straw fabrications and bullshit. Do you really think I am the only one here that recognizes the underhanded BS you use to throw straw?

    Reply

  42. MP says:

    POA writes: “If I was to advocate the citizen’s right to keep and bear advanced military weaponry and ammunition, I would say that this current administration is the role model I would hold up as a justification. I would be very careful when advocating the disarmament of the citizenry on ANY level, because it appears that our government is becoming the very kind of entity that we were warned against as a reason for us to keep and bear arms.”
    We haven’t gotten even CLOSE to disarming the citizenry. And who among the citizenry has “advanced military weaponry and ammunition” that needs protecting? And if it really got to the point that the citizenry needed these advanced weapons to protect themselves, do you really think “gun control” would stop them? This romantic notion of latter day irregulars led by a GW fighting off the government is pure FANTASY. And it’s used to protect and prop up the gun industry and a bunch of gun fanatics. I won’t mention the lobby and poor old Zumbo.

    Reply

  43. MP says:

    Rich writes: “POA is pointing out that anti-war Americans and gun-control advocates need to wrap their heads around the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution–and the fact that it took gun-owning colonists willing to bear those arms to kick the British out of North America.
    ME: It was an army that GW assembled. Rag tag to be sure, but still an army. And it was a French navy that helped us kick out the Brits. The Mel Gibson view of the American Revolution won’t fly.
    Rich: Ideological old-school liberalism that pushes a Prohibition deviating from Constitutional core values is not “liberal.” Nor is it responsible–it compounds the problem with another problem–one that is not politically viable.
    ME: Gun owning isn’t any more a “core” Constitutional value than slavery was or the disenfranchisement of women. The Constitution wasn’t given down by God to Moses; it was and is subject to amendments and interpretation.
    Rich: The answer to attacks like the one at VT is not more guns (Buchanan) or no guns (Kucinich), but coherent inclusive communities, an intact social fabric, and a health care system that delivers. None of which exists, really, esp on college campuses.
    ME: I mostly agree with this. However, had Cho not had access to guns, 32 folks would probably still be alive.
    Rich: Had Al Gore properly stood up for 2nd Amendment in 2000, he would have won both West Virginia and Tennessee. (Which means no Florida recount.) It shouldn’t be so hard for “liberals” to support the Bill of Rights (or the rest of the Constitution for that matter).
    ME: Hard to know if this is an argument from principle or political expediency.

    Reply

  44. MP says:

    POA writes: “Note how he puts forth this straw argument, (lie), that I have advocated “unfettered access to handguns”, even after my post advocated mandatory gun safety courses as a prerequisite to gun ownership.”
    Ah…go back and read…I was asking you a question.

    Reply

  45. Ticia says:

    Impeachment Watch: April 25-28 just posted.
    Best,
    Ticia

    Reply

  46. Sandy says:

    Neo-cons forced to flee to spider holes. I like it! Sign me up for your book, Carroll.

    Reply

  47. Carroll says:

    Posted by Pissed Off American at April 21, 2007 01:12 PM
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Yep, I do advocate revolution…in my more snarky moments….but the kind of revoultion I am talking about (semi-snark this time) is more a targeted assault against the neo’s and leadership. I don’t envision Americans taking to the streets with guns.
    If I were writting a fiction novel on this it would be about whacking your way up the chain till there was no one left to support our new empire elite doctrine. People like Abrams, Feith,Wolfowtiz, Woosley, Rove, AIPAC and the AEI and a whole gaggle of corrupt politicans would be desposed of in one way or another with the guarentee that anyone who tried to imitate them would suffer the same fate. Actually there would probably be a mass exodus of neo’s to hiddie holes overseas after the first dozen met justice.
    That actually would be doable..and cleaner and quicker than a bloody revolution.
    I am surprised Clancy or Hollywood hasn’t written this script already.

    Reply

  48. Pissed Off American says:

    When having this debate, it is essential that every American should consider the events immediately post Katrina. You had Blackwater MERCENARIES, under contract to the Federal Government, patrolling American streets with weapons BANNED BY FEDERAL LAW, while the legally held weapons of law abiding citizens were confinscated.
    Think about it.

    Reply

  49. Pissed Off American says:

    “But assault weapons? There is no reason on earth for any civilian to own an assault weapon.”
    Posted by Carroll
    I might add, Carroll, your position seems to be polar to your position on radical activism. If in fact we take to the streets in the manner I have seen you often advocate, do you think such civil disobedience will be bloodless and unopposed? You seem to think that the only way to reclaim our democracy is through revolution, as you have stated on numerous occassions. What do you think the chances are of a successful “revolution” if the citizenry confronts Apache attack helicopters with 20 gauge shotguns, and no modern military weaponry?
    If I was to advocate the citizen’s right to keep and bear advanced military weaponry and ammunition, I would say that this current administration is the role model I would hold up as a justification. I would be very careful when advocating the disarmament of the citizenry on ANY level, because it appears that our government is becoming the very kind of entity that we were warned against as a reason for us to keep and bear arms.

    Reply

  50. Carroll says:

    Posted by Pissed Off American at April 21, 2007 12:58 PM
    >>>>>>>>
    I don’t know enough about guns to tell you what it is. I have been with him to the skeet range a few times and his shotgun does fire more than once without reloading, so it may be.
    But the ones I am talking about are those rapid firing type machine gun things that spew out hundred of bullets.

    Reply

  51. Carroll says:

    Well, I guess so, if the English had been endangered minority living under the boot of a hostile majority for most of their existence. But, in fact, the English have been the boot and done the kicking through a good bit of their history. They were much more effective here in NA than, say, the Spanish were in SA, at conquering and killing the natives.
    Posted by MP at April 20, 2007 07:06 PM
    >>>>>>>>>>>>
    The tyranny of minorities isn’t any different than the tyranny of the majority.
    In some cases it can be worse because it involves revenge or payback for all perceived past greivences instead of just the plain old greed and hubris of the WASP class.

    Reply

  52. Pissed Off American says:

    “But assault weapons? There is no reason on earth for any civilian to own an assault weapon.”
    Posted by Carroll
    Technically, Carroll, if your husband owns a semi-automatic shotgun to shoot Skeet or Trap, he owns what is defined as an “assault weapon” in many circles. Be careful what you advocate, because without a clear understanding of the definitions as they are presented for legislation, you may be disarming your husband.

    Reply

  53. Pissed Off American says:

    “You think the majority are in favor of folks have unfettered access to handguns? Assault weapons? How many folks out there do you think own handguns?”
    Posted by MP
    ROFLMAO!!!!!! Oh here we go with more MP horseshit. Josh Sugarman, a rabid anti-gun activist is now the source to go to for factual and unbiased information about gun ownership in America?
    And, I am quite sure that MP is an immediate expert on this issue. Perhaps his “wife” is an anti-gun activist, like he claimed she was an activist against voter fraud. (never mind on a recent post MP professed complete ignorance about who or what ES&S is).
    Note how he puts forth this straw argument, (lie), that I have advocated “unfettered access to handguns”, even after my post advocated mandatory gun safety courses as a prerequisite to gun ownership.
    And he would have you believe that only one third of American households have a gun in residence by citing a poll cited by Sugarman? Thats laughable, and pure unadulterated bullshit.
    Whatever crap MP casts in this debate, you can bet he will be changing his tune, and modifying his own position and statements as the need arises. I mean, we have barely began and he has already blatantly misrepresented my argument, put words in my mouth, with his “unfettered access” comment. And note how he manages to insert “assault weapons” into his fabricated insinuations of what my comment was meant to convey. I doubt he can even give an accurate accounting of the legal description of an “assault weapon” without googling the term.
    And MP, you will get nowhere by portraying me as an NRA advocate. I no longer consider myself a member, when I was once a lifetime member, after they assumed the stance they did on teflon coated ammunition. There is no reason for a citizen to own or have access to such ammo, unless they plan to kill cops, or each other. And Heston is a raving asshole, and did far more damage to the issue of gun ownership with his “cold dead arms” comment than he did good.
    But, regardless, my stance on this issue is obviously irrelevant to you, as it is obvious you intend to misrepresent my comments anyway. I have full faith you will debate this issue just as you debate the AIPAC/Israel issue, with a bale of straw, and a bunch of horseshit.

    Reply

  54. rich says:

    POA is pointing out that anti-war Americans and gun-control advocates need to wrap their heads around the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution–and the fact that it took gun-owning colonists willing to bear those arms to kick the British out of North America.
    Ideological old-school liberalism that pushes a Prohibition deviating from Constitutional core values is not “liberal.” Nor is it responsible–it compounds the problem with another problem–one that is not politically viable.
    The answer to attacks like the one at VT is not more guns (Buchanan) or no guns (Kucinich), but coherent inclusive communities, an intact social fabric, and a health care system that delivers. None of which exists, really, esp on college campuses.
    Had Al Gore properly stood up for 2nd Amendment in 2000, he would have won both West Virginia and Tennessee. (Which means no Florida recount.) It shouldn’t be so hard for “liberals” to support the Bill of Rights (or the rest of the Constitution for that matter).
    As someone raised in an anti-war, anti-gun household (who nonetheless does not object to lawfully declared war), I’d say assault rifles shouldn’t be banned precisely because they are not used for hunting.
    One interesting analog is the lack of a draft: among other impacts, it’s allowed Aryan & Evangelical penetration of the military.
    http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/4/21/8570/67093
    So if only several generations of Aryan & right-wing Christian End-Timer military veterans have serious training and weapons–what happens in the event of a crisis?
    Military service is one institution that knits the country together socially. Right-wingers are exposed to other ideas; Peace-freaks learn to use–not avoid–military tools.
    And grappling with–not avoiding or vilifying–Cho, Aryans, guns, military service, Peace-freaks, liberals, the Constitution, outcasts & loners, Evangelicals, Unitarians, nut cases, patriots, lovers, and the American Revolution–
    will always be far more constructive and solution-oriented than being either pro- or anti-gun just because it’s “right” or politically popular.
    Doesn’t matter which side you’re on. It’s not right. And it’s not politically popular–either way. The solution isn’t in the tool–it’s in the training and the social fabric/context that fails to train people to deal responsibly with a) people in trouble, and b) guns.

    Reply

  55. Carroll says:

    We have no handguns in the house, never have had. My husband use to be a occasional hunter until I convinced him it was a sin to kill innocent animals. He took up sheet shooting instead.
    I am not totally opposed to people having handguns, although I think mostly they end up shooting themselves or a family member by accident unless they have some training. But assault weapons? There is no reason on earth for any civilian to own an assault weapon.

    Reply

  56. MP says:

    From the Huffington Post, Josh Sugarman, poster:
    “Contrary to the familiar chatter of the gun industry and the gun lobby, firearms ownership has declined dramatically over the past 35 years. From 1972 to 2006, the percentage of American households that reported having any guns in the home has dropped nearly 20 percentage points: from a high of 54 percent in 1977 to 34.5 percent in 2006.
    During the period 1980 to 2006, the percentage of Americans who reported personally owning a gun dropped more than nine percentage points: from a high of 30.7 percent in 1985 to a low during the survey period of 21.6 percent in 2006. Or to look at it another way, nearly two thirds of American homes are gun free, and more than three quarters of Americans do not personally own a gun. This information comes from the General Social Survey (GSS) which is conducted by the National Opinion Research Center (NORC) at the University of Chicago. Except for the U.S. Census, the GSS is the most frequently analyzed source of information in the social sciences and is the only survey that has tracked the opinions of Americans over an extended period of time. A new report from NORC based on the GSS data, Public Attitudes Toward the Regulation of Firearms, concludes that “…gun ownership has been declining over the last 35 years and the 9/11 terrorist attacks did not reverse that trend.”
    This isn’t the best news to greet the NRA as it prepares to open its annual meeting this Thursday in St. Louis, MO.
    A new Violence Policy Center analysis of the NORC data, A Shrinking Minority: The Continuing Decline of Gun Ownership in America notes, “When talking to the news media, gunmakers work to present themselves as a vibrant, growing industry that is an inextricable part of American society.” For example, in a June 2006 press release, National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) President Doug Painter states that “…gun sales and ownership in our country continue to rise.” In the release, the NSSF adds without attribution, “The number of American households with at least one firearm is now estimated at nearly 47.8 million.” According to the U.S. Bureau of the Census, in 2005 there were an estimated 108,819,000 households in America. Using NSSF’s figures, 43.9 percent of American households have a gun–more than nine percentage points higher than the most recent NORC household gun ownership figure.
    The NSSF is not alone in its efforts to puff up the facts about how many Americans have guns in their homes or personally own firearms. The National Rifle Association (NRA) routinely claims that nearly half of all American households have guns and also misleadingly boasts, “The number of gun owners is also at an all-time high.”
    Yet, for the past decade, when talking amongst themselves in industry publications, the issue, as voiced in one gunmaker’s ad in 1998 is, “It’s not `who your customers will be in five years.’ It’s `will there be any customers left?'” This fact is openly acknowledged in gun industry publications and among the associations that act on the industry’s behalf. Discussions of the continuing decline in gun ownership, and the inability to find replacement buyers to take the place of the aging primary market of white males, are often characterized by tones of panic and, at the same time, resignation.
    So why–as gauged by their misleading claims on gun ownership–are the gun industry and gun lobby whistling as they walk together through the graveyard? Because the political might of both the NRA and the gun industry relies on consistently overestimating the number of Americans who own guns. To publicly acknowledge that the gun culture in America is fading away, and that they are a clear minority, undercuts their political power. Unfortunately for the NRA and the gun manufacturers, saying it doesn’t make it so.

    Reply

  57. MP says:

    POA writes: “Nope. He should get a grip on reality, and realize that the majority of the American people would never accept such a policy. ”
    You think the majority are in favor of folks have unfettered access to handguns? Assault weapons? How many folks out there do you think own handguns?

    Reply

  58. Dirk says:

    People here should know that Pelosi chose Rep Reyes (TX) as the replacement for Rep Harman (CA) as the chair of the House Intelligence Committee. Reyes was the second choice after Hastings(FL) was deemed a little too corrupt.
    Unfortunately Reyes was the one who told an interviewer that Al Qaeda consisted of both Sunnis and Shites (sigh).
    Pelosi picked Murtha(PA) over Hoyer(MD), for Democratic Leader because he was a good friend. Hoyer, sadly, won the vote.

    Reply

  59. Pissed Off American says:

    “should he have lied about his position?”
    Posted by Hyperion
    Nope. He should get a grip on reality, and realize that the majority of the American people would never accept such a policy. Which means the majority are not represented by his position. If he thinks he should cater to the minority, than he has forgotten what “represent” means. He may believe that handguns should be banned, and there is nothing wrong with that standpoint. But he should express it as his own opinion, not as a realistic direction in which to pursue policy. What good can come from pursuing a policy that has no hope of being successfully implemented? Why not press for realistic goals to stop the carnage? Improvements in mental health care? Mandatory gun safety courses as a prerequisite to gun ownership?

    Reply

  60. Hyperion says:

    POA wrote: …such an ignorant move
    should he have lied about his position?

    Reply

  61. Pissed Off American says:

    BTW, Kucinich is pushing for banning ALL handguns in the U.S.. That should pretty well nail the coffin shut on his viability as a serious candidate. Steve has commented that he doesn’t consider Kucinich a serious candidate. Apparently, after displaying such an ignorant move, Kucinich doesn’t consider himself a serious candidate either.
    I am gonna vote for my kindergarten teacher. I’m sure she’s long dead by now, so she can certainly do a better job than any of these posturing asses being waved in our faces by our cowardly and criminally comlicit MSM.

    Reply

  62. Pissed Off American says:

    “Not sure about this. I seem to remember back in November when Pelosi was appointing people to various committees, that there was a dust-up between her and Jane Harman. The job went to Steny Hoyer because, the word was, Harman was too close to AIPAC”
    Posted by ExBrit
    If you don’t think Pelosi is in AIPAC’s pocket, you need to pay closer attention.

    Reply

  63. Pissed Off American says:

    I’m no friend of the Iranian hardliners- but we cannot have liars representing us at the top levels of government.
    Posted by Mike
    This is Bushworld, man. In Bushworld, EVERYONE is a fuckin’ liar. You think Pelosi is going to tell ya, “Well, we removed the Iran provision because AIPAC told us to”? Or McCain is gonna come out and say, “OK, I lied, it ISN’T safe to stroll downtown Bagdad”. Or maybe you think Hagel is going to come clean on his actions in regards to the ES&S thing? Hillary is gonna tell us the truth? Cheney? Bush? Gonzales? Reid?
    Nope.
    You want to get to the top in Washington these days? You need a good coating of slime, and the character of a maggot. The only one I have seen that seems to be able to tell it like it is is Kucinich. And unfortunately, he is just a few cards short of a full deck, and is about as photogenic as a sponge.
    So pick your favorite scumball, because thats all get to choose from.

    Reply

  64. MP says:

    Carol writes: “Huummm…I guess this means that as a British -Gentile -hyphen- American I should be calling Blair or Prince Charles to see who they think is best for Great Britian.”
    Well, I guess so, if the English had been endangered minority living under the boot of a hostile majority for most of their existence. But, in fact, the English have been the boot and done the kicking through a good bit of their history. They were much more effective here in NA than, say, the Spanish were in SA, at conquering and killing the natives.

    Reply

  65. MP says:

    Carroll writes: “Since the politicans and special interest set up the divide and conquer ethnic-religious lobbies, PACs and election pandering maybe it is time to form a Gentile-Americans lobby. They are the only ones so far that don’t have a lobby.”
    Actually, the Gentiles have had such a “lobby” since Jamestown. They also benefit from an “affirmative action” plan. You can see it at work in most of the corporate boardrooms and, of course, in government where every single president since the founding has been a white, Christian male. And just one Catholic in the bunch.
    Check out Congress, and you’ll see it weighted pretty heavily in that direction, too.

    Reply

  66. Carroll says:

    I like this too:
    Carter urges Iowans to seek ‘balance’
    E-mail News Brief
    Tell the Editors
    Jimmy Carter urged Iowa voters to screen out presidential candidates who don’t take a “balanced” position between Israel and the Palestinians.
    The former president told about 6,000 people at his lecture Wednesday at the University of Iowa in Iowa City that he chose the venue to promote his book “Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid” because of Iowa’s disproportionate role in choosing presidential candidates.
    “The main reason I came to Iowa is to make sure you knew you could shape an outcome in the 2008 presidential election,” Carter was quoted as saying by the Sioux City Journal. “At least you can screen out candidates.” Iowa’s caucuses, the first contest for either party, often set the tone for the primaries, together with the first primary, in New Hampshire.
    Carter urged Iowans to extract pledges from candidates “that they will take a balanced position between Israel and Palestinians.”
    >>>>>>>>
    I read an article some time ago that Iowan cacus has been very critical of the uneven US-AIPAC position on Isr-Pal and the congressional resolutions and bills against Palestine.
    Go Jimmy…the last real American president we had.

    Reply

  67. Mike says:

    Semper fubar: good questions. Do you really think McCaine is so crazy that he doesn’t anticipate the consequences of singing a song about bombing Iran? I don’t. He’s a skilled political operative, whatever else he is.
    What the Bush administration does (and those who support it) is toss juicy bits of scandal to distract us. It’s not just Iraq. They have “fall-men” and women (think Harriet Miers) who are willing to take full responsibility for actions that they were only a minor causal factor in carrying out. Gonzales’s role in the attorney scandal, for which we have tons of evidence indicating involvement by Rove as well as Bush (phone call(s)), is a key example, but there are many others.
    My point is not necessarily about McCaine’s intentions. It’s more that by throwing these juicy bits of scandal at us, like McCaine’s Iran song, that happens to be an excellent way of changing the debate, framing the debate such that McCaine can argue that he was just joking (when he said a very controversial thing for any political figure), and framing it into a new issue, between the “freedom” for people to jokingly express sentiments, and the “pessimist liberals” who “don’t have a life” (his words) and take what he says too seriously. I’m just saying that this is the standard modus operandi of many people associated with Bush, and it has generally worked remarkably well.
    I think we should be much more concerned about effectively negotiating with Iran, about doing all we can diplomatically, about the NASA shooting incident, about very real threats to our country and to world peace, than what some old fart says in some(shameful) song. Today, this old man does not deserve a controversy. (So I think we’re in broad agreement, semper.)

    Reply

  68. Carroll says:

    But really Col. Pat Lang over at Sic Semper Tyrannis sums up the whole AIPAC congress thing best:
    “Democrats? Republicans? Same -Same”
    “AIPAC cracked the whip over the Democrats and they sat up and wagged their tails for the boss.
    Democrats? Republicans? No difference. They are all scum.
    pl”
    >>>>>>>>>
    I am willng to bet that all other issues being equal a candidate who declared that Israel should not be part of US politics would get three times the number of votes from Americans than the total of all Jewish voters in this country. We just need a candidate who will do that.
    Since the politicans and special interest set up the divide and conquer ethnic-religious lobbies, PACs and election pandering maybe it is time to form a Gentile-Americans lobby. They are the only ones so far that don’t have a lobby.
    Wonder what the politicans would do then?

    Reply

  69. semper fubar says:

    But Mike- to what end? He doesn’t strike me as the sort willing to “take one for the team” like Gonzales (who after all, has no other prospects in life but to be part of Bush’s team.) And if he’s trying to generate controversy to distract us from Iraq (or whatever), he certainly isn’t doing his own political career much good. People are starting to think he’s either nuts or senile at this point. How does that help him?

    Reply

  70. Carroll says:

    http://majorityleader.house.gov/media/articles.cfm?pressReleaseID=388
    Democratic strategists cite a nearly identical vote this year on condemning terrorism against Israel as proof that Hoyer’s strategy is working. This July, the number of Democrats voting no or abstaining on the symbolic vote dropped to 11. Hoyer’s efforts are made easier by the defeat last year of two members, Reps. Earl Hilliard (D-Ala.) and Cynthia McKinney (D-Ga.), who had been highly critical of Israel.
    “There’s no official whipping on these bills, but Hoyer has been known to inform members that these votes are closely watched, and that it’s important for the Democratic Party to show solidarity with Israel,” said a Democratic leadership aide.
    But Republicans say that Hoyer’s efforts have had little effect on slowing what they believe is a natural realignment of Jewish voters. They cite exit polling from the California recall election showing that 40 percent of Jews voted for a Republican — double the traditional 20 percent baseline of Jewish support for Republican candidates.
    Chief Deputy Whip Eric Cantor (Va.), the only House GOP member who is Jewish, disputed the possible effect that Hoyer’s efforts might have on the voting habits of Jewish voters.
    “Hoyer may claim that he’s doing something, but frankly all I’ve seen is a silencing of the loudest critics of Israel in the Democratic Party,” said Cantor.
    Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-N.Y.) argued that when both parties are equally strong supporters of Israel, Jewish voters will side with Democrats on the remaining issues.
    Ackerman cited the 1998 defeat of Sen. Al D’Amato (R-N.Y.) by then-Rep. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) as proof that Jews vote Democratic on issues when the Israel question is neutralized.
    “No one was stronger on support for Israel than D’Amato, but he lost because the other candidate was equally strong on Israel,” said Ackerman. “You have to be as strong as them on Israel, and then you win. The tie goes to the Democrat.”
    >>>>>>>
    So what Ackerman is saying here is that Jewish voters vote on Israel’s interest first and then whatever else affects them.
    Huummm…I guess this means that as a British -Gentile -hyphen- American I should be calling Blair or Prince Charles to see who they think is best for Great Britian.

    Reply

  71. Carroll says:

    You can’t get much closer to AIPAC than Hoyer:..he sees his job as whipping new representives into line on support for AIPAC and Lukid Israel.
    http://democraticleader.house.gov/media/statements.cfm?pressReleaseID=406
    Hoyer Addresses AIPAC Political Leadership Conference
    And, as you know, I had the privilege of leading the largest congressional delegation in history to Israel in August.
    This was my sixth trip to Israel, and my fifth as a member of Congress.
    But for many of the 28 other Democrats in our delegation, this was the first time they had been there.
    More than one-third of the members are serving their first term in Congress. Nearly one-third are women. And our delegation included four African-Americans, a Hispanic and a Pacific-Islander.
    Let me say very clearly: as a member of the Democratic leadership and a long-time supporter of Israel, it is absolutely imperative that Members of Congress – especially our new members and those who have few Jews in their Congressional Districts – recognize the moral and strategic significance of the U.S.-Israel partnership.
    Furthermore, it is imperative that Israel’s circle of friends in Congress include non-Jews, too. For the reality is this: Israel’s safety and security is not a Jewish/non-Jewish issue. It is an American national security issue.
    I am confident in saying that two new Democratic members who have a better appreciation of that are Denise Majette of Georgia and Artur Davis of Alabama. Both were part of our delegation. Both are articulate, engaging African-Americans from the south. And both are committed supporters of Israel.”

    Reply

  72. pauline says:

    I wonder if McCain has loved the doings of Condi Rice?
    Check this out from Wayne Madsen today —
    April 20-22, 2007 — WMR has received a copy of a letter sent to the Manhattan Borough President’s office Helicopter Task Force in 1996 warning about the dangers of the possibility that planes could hit buildings in downtown New York. Moreover, four active duty and retired Coast Guard, including a retired Commandant, concurred about concerns about planes hitting buildings. The letter, dated February 18, 1996, provides the response of four Coast Guard officers to the following question: “Because of the flight path and the huge volume of tour and other flights and the resulting confusion in the air, wouldn’t it be easy for a terrorist helicopter to slip under 1200 feet escaping radar detection and drop a charge on the U.N., World Trade Center or other strategic building?”
    The four Coast Guard officers responded:
    “Yes, your concerns are well founded. It’s a security risk.”
    “You’re right. There’s a possibility of a terrorist attack.”
    “Your analysis is correct.”
    “Yes. It should be a no fly zone like Washington.”
    This information that the US Coast Guard considered such a scenario makes Condoleezza Rice’s comment on May 15, 2003 that “I don’t think anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center,” a blatant falsehood.

    Reply

  73. Mike says:

    I would suggest that McCaine knew full well that his comments would generate the controversy they did, and would allow him to fall back on the easy “it was just a song, don’t we all have the freedom to express ourselves publicly” defense. I’m trying not to pre-judge here, but am I right in seeing the connection between what McCaine did here (probably fully aware of the consequences) and what Alberto Gonzales did in the Senate, acting like a fool who knows nothing in order to take flak from the Senate and divert our eyes away from Bush’s machinations and involvement in the whole attorney-sacking affair? Clearly they think the public is quite stupid and easily malleable, if you create diversions to turn their eyes away from larger issues. Ironically they are the stupid ones for believing that human beings are so stupid and easily managed, like sheep.

    Reply

  74. daniel says:

    Steve, I have a great deal of respect for you but implying that McCain was seriously suggesting that we bomb Iran is flat wrong. Clearly, when you listed to the clip (and I have not seen the entire footage of the meeting), it is clear that he “sang” those words to convey an expression of humor. His poor taste / judgment aside, how can you possibly view that brief clip and come away with any serious determination that he was putting forth the summation of his foriegn policy approach to Iran. Perhaps that is what he would truly like to do – bomb Iran – but certainly that clip can not be used to suggest it. You accurately refer to it as a “gaffe”.

    Reply

  75. Mackie says:

    ‘The job went to Steny Hoyer because, the word was, Harman was too close to AIPAC.’
    Hoyer’s sister was the 2004 AIPAC president.

    Reply

  76. Mike says:

    “”Gaffe?” Can it be called a gaffe when it expresses the true beliefs of the speaker? McCain in fact DOES want to “bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran.” He’s only saying what he thinks. The fact that people believe he’s crazy to think it is a separate issue.”
    You’re right that McCaine would in fact like to bomb Iran. But has he taken actual political action that has a good chance of resulting in the bombing of Iran? Aside from rhetoric, aside from whatever ineffectual bills he helps pass? In the end, McCaine can make all the fiery rhetoric he wants, but he is as constrained as the rest of the neocons by the higher leadership that prevents him from really pursuing the bombing of Iran separate from the whole neocon policy establishment.
    He just wants to disseminate his message and gain political support. He wants controversy over these comments, just like Peter Pace wanted controversy when he said “gays are immoral” and now that the Iranian govt. is responsible for supplying arms to the Taliban (which are easily accessible in bazaars in Kabul). We should be vigilant in disagreeing with McCaine, in my opinion, but we should not grant them the controversy they want so that we can take our eyes off the Iraq war and their disastrous foreign policies. Whether intentional or not, the neocons have a very good track record of saying controversial things to take our eyes off the larger issues. (This was not intended as a criticism of you, semper fubar.)

    Reply

  77. semper fubar says:

    “Gaffe?” Can it be called a gaffe when it expresses the true beliefs of the speaker? McCain in fact DOES want to “bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran.” He’s only saying what he thinks. The fact that people believe he’s crazy to think it is a separate issue.
    I’m actually enjoying the McCain Meltdown spectacle. He’s never been anything but a far rightwing nutjob charlaton. Why people ever bought his “straight talk maverick” bullshit, I don’t know. I hope he stays in the race till the very end, until they have to take him away blinking incessantly and babbling incoherently.
    I loved watching him blow his nose during the whole set up to the question, by the way. Sort of like watching Wolfowitz comb his hair with spit.

    Reply

  78. ExBrit says:

    Pelosi has her head so far up AIPAC’s ass that I am suprised it hasn’t popped out of Ohlmert’s mouth.
    Not sure about this. I seem to remember back in November when Pelosi was appointing people to various committees, that there was a dust-up between her and Jane Harman. The job went to Steny Hoyer because, the word was, Harman was too close to AIPAC

    Reply

  79. Mike says:

    The chain linking Gates’s recent comments to McCaine’s? Both politicians think that they can engage in misleading and barbed rhetoric that doesn’t match reality (unless McCaine’s policy is that we should bomb Iran) with absolutely no consequences. They think they have this authority to express very controversial and inaccurate sentiments, and retain plausible deniability. Whether it’s McCaine saying “bomb Iran” in a song, or Gates couching his nebulous accusations against Iran in a ton of subjunctives “may,” “might,” and other ambiguous words, both are deeply politically irresponsible, and that’s the real issue here.

    Reply

  80. Mike says:

    Sorry, Gates’s claim was that Iran is arming the Taliban. This is absurd, given that they have fought for years and years to stage a counter-Taliban Afghanistan policy, instead supporting the Northern Alliance. If you think Gates is any better than the rest of the Bushies in terms of honesty or integrity, think again.

    Reply

  81. Mike says:

    I wanted to bring this important piece of Iran news to everyone’s attention. It appears Sec. Def. Gates is making false statements to Europeans concerning Iran. Iran gave weapons to the Northern Alliance, and the NA is now selling its arms to the Taliban. But since these weapons are Iranian-made, Gates thinks he has the right to spread ugly disinformation like this:
    “”We don’t know at what level this has been approved by the Iranian government or in the Iranian government. We don’t know the magnitude of the assistance. It’s obviously troubling and worrisome that the Iranians may be deciding to counter the efforts of some 42 nations in Afghanistan to establish a strong democratic state. So we’ll watch it very closely.”
    http://atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/ID21Ak01.html
    I’m no friend of the Iranian hardliners- but we cannot have liars representing us at the top levels of government.

    Reply

  82. Mike M. says:

    Mr. McCain represents failed ideas and policies of the past. He is a fossil from the age of the dinasours. He will never be elected; not even as a VP. He is a liability for the Republican party as he has blindly supported a failed war and thus is responsible for the lives of many being killed in Iraq today. Nevertheless, I am sure his defense stocks are doing well and he will have enough to retire on. Let’s hope he will have some dignity left when he retires.

    Reply

  83. rich says:

    We’ve been told what McCain’s character “is,” so we just accept it as a given.
    The repeated assertion that McCain is a maverick, straight-talkin’ centrist doesn’t make it so. But repeated often enough, in reputable media outlets, and it’s taken as his actual public persona.
    But has he ever been anything other than a politician–rather than a straight-talker?
    Positioning himself for political gain–rather than taking principled stands?
    Far-right conservative–rather than even-handed moderate?
    Think about his actual positions, when it counts. Does it jibe with this carefully constructed public persona?
    It’s no surprise McCain is plummeting in the polls (I can’t type in ‘bombing’)–he assumed he was Kinglet-in-Waiting–but was always out of touch. On top of that, the electorate’s moving in the other direction.

    Reply

  84. Frank says:

    Really, Shakespeare couldn’t make this guy up.

    Reply

  85. Grand Moff Texan says:

    When I first read it as an unrelated comment to my last post, I brushed it off as a joke.
    He is a joke, and so is his party. Remember, they’re the only people who are “serious about national security,” right?
    Right.
    .

    Reply

  86. Arnold says:

    The source of McCain’s little ditty is most likely this:
    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7028457539873894744

    Reply

  87. della Rovere says:

    the real meanings behind McCain’s remarks:
    he supports another unprovoked war this time against a much more powerful enemy. He is willing to send more young troops and wreak more destruction and he finds it amusing enough to think it is joke-worthy. Iraq redux. like Bush, he struts around Baghdad with a small army protecting him and he announces when he getsto the market “mission accomplished”. he is fully as disgusting, dangerous, vicious, cowardly, fascistic, and sick as Bush and Cheney.

    Reply

  88. Mackie says:

    I know. That’s why I said he couldn’t state his ‘position’.
    Re: Kucinich. Didn’t he once throw an opening pitch at an Indian’s game wearing a bullet-proof vest? What a maroon.
    Mormonism? Not that there’s anything wrong with that. :)

    Reply

  89. Marky says:

    Mackie,
    I’m sure McCain knows full well that condoms prevent HIV transmission. He was thinking what was the “correct” answer for the base.

    Reply

  90. Mackie says:

    I knew it was over when he was befuddled and couldn’t state his position on AIDS prevention in Africa, related to condom use. I don’t think he’s mental, but just too old and exhausted to be quick on his feet anymore.
    Yes, it’s scary, the GOP machine could ram him through, but wouldn’t Fred Thompson be easier to package and less of loose cannon?

    Reply

  91. Marky says:

    You people have too much faith in Republican shame.
    Reagan’s gaffe’s—for example, jesting about starting a nuclear attack in 5 min. —were in worse taste than McCain’s; furthermore, Reagan was far more out to lunch than Bush is. If McCain looks like the only shot the GOP has for winning in 2008, he’ll be the nominee.
    Right now Romney is getting a lot of money so he can do a test run, but he has no chance.. a Mormon?!?!
    And Giuliani? Well, much as I loathe the man and his politics, I give him credit for tackling head-on the GOP obsession with gays and abortion, but those positions, as well as his mobbed-up buddy problem, look insurmountable to me.
    The press loves McCain, and will work to rehabilitate him. I really hope he does get knocked out of the race early, because I think in fact he IS the ony Republican who could win in 2008. It will be like 2000, when a sizeable chunk of voters thought they were re-electing GHWB; likewise, millions of morons will think they are voting for the beloved “maverick” and “centrist” who was running in 2000.

    Reply

  92. TLittle says:

    I seem to remember the Capitol Steps putting out a rendition of this not to long ago…I just checked and I do not see it in their catalog.
    Anyways, bombing Iran will be an essential mission for this president and the future of this country should the UN and international community fail to respond to a growing threat in Iran.
    In Foreign Policy a few months back there was a piece on how to save the NeoCons. Bombing Iran is very much a part of that thinking.

    Reply

  93. Pissed Off American says:

    I am watching Bill Clinton right now on “Larry King Live”. No matter what anyone says about either of the Clintons, I gotta say that it is refreshing listening to someone speak that is articulate and intelligent. Clinton would have this pathetic asshole GWB blathering like a moron inside of twenty seconds if they were ever engaged in a debate. People like Bush, Gonzales, McCain, have lowered the bar exponentially when it comes to the quality of intellect that we can expect from our national leaders. Watching Gonzales today on C-Span, it is obvious that he is not only lying through his teeth, he is also unfit for such a high office. He was revealed today as little more than a simpering dolt, whose rise to high office could only have been achieved by being Bush’s faithful lackey.
    Yes, McCain is an embarrasment. But no more so than the majority of the current administration. All these people are unfit for office, as the current state of the union irrefutably demonstrates.
    And don’t hold your breathe waiting for any knights in shining armor. Pelosi has her head so far up AIPAC’s ass that I am suprised it hasn’t popped out of Ohlmert’s mouth. Hillary is the same. And I watched my hero Kucinich give a short speech, and towards the end he was so maniacally animated, waving his arms and damned near jumping out of his pants, that it was painfully obvious that this dingbat isn’t going to get anywheres near the Oval Office, barring a miracle, or a lobotomy, whichever comes first. Too bad, he really does “get it”. But the American public simply isn’t ready to elect Alfred E. Newman as president.
    We’re toast.

    Reply

  94. Matt says:

    You used the word “buffoonery.” “Buffoon” is definitely the best word for McCain, I’ve felt that for a while now. I think he got hopped up on the image created for him by the media so long ago and never recovered… it’s a little sad really… and he’s so damn awkward…

    Reply

  95. Matthew says:

    Imagine this scenario: The Iranian president during a recent campaign stop jokingly referred to the “need” to send America a message by bomobing America’s nuclear facilities.
    The rhetorical response from America would be immediate and swift. Iran’s “jokes” are actual threats and probably merit a military response.
    Our politicians, in response, are racist to the core and so morally blunted by the Iraq War Crime, that threatening to vandalize another Muslim country is now a punchline.
    McCain is a disgrace.

    Reply

  96. parrot says:

    Maybe he’s…losing it?!

    Reply

  97. KingElvis says:

    Not to pick nits or anything. But on the topic of bombing…America has been
    BLIND TO THE FACT THAT BOMBING IS TACTICALLY WORTHLESS
    since WWII.
    I just read the biography of John Kenneth Gailbratih. He was asked to assess the strategic impact of WWII boming – at the time the Army Air Corps was all hot and botherd to break off and become the Air Force – unfortunately, every indicator of war time production indicated that the as the civilian sector was bombed (you know, the part where they keep the lights on at night – and can be seen by bombardiers?) all the workers went to outlying munitions factories to work for rations. 1945 munition production dwarfed that of 1941 in Germany.
    The Air Force advocates were too turgid for their new playthings and tried whitewash the report.
    Then came Korea – the US had overwhelming superior air power – and IT DIDN’T MATTER.
    Then came Vietnam – that went (not) well.
    Do the Taliban or Iraq insurgents need air power to tie us down? Nope.
    This whole notion of the ‘finality’ or efficacy of bombing – it ends the struggle and discussion is FANTASY it’s American delusional fantasy.

    Reply

  98. Kathleen says:

    John McCain is an opportunistic phony. He co-sponsored Russ Feingold’s Campaign Finance Reform legislation, not because he believed in it or even actuallly supported it, because he then campaigned in the same old grubby way.
    No, he used campaign finance reform as an excuse to challenge Dopey to the nomination, posing as a maveric.
    Further his trigger happy temper is unsafe, in any office. Sadly, he is not alone in that category. McCain is unstable at best.

    Reply

  99. Carroll says:

    — John McCain, on the Iran crisis. April 2nd 2006, “Meet The Press.”
    TIM RUSSERT: So we could have two wars at once?
    SEN. McCAIN: I think we could have Armageddon.
    Then there’s his suck up to the other nutcase Hagee……..
    At a July 19th, 2006 Washington, DC inaugural event for CUFI; following a recorded greeting from President George W. Bush; and with four US Senators and the Israeli ambassador to the US in attendance, Pastor John Hagee stated:
    “the United States must join Israel in a pre-emptive military strike against Iran to fulfill God’s plan for both Israel and the West… a biblically prophesied end-time confrontation with Iran, which will lead to the Rapture, Tribulation, and Second Coming of Christ.”.
    Pastor Hagee’s email to members of CUFI:
    CHRISTIANS UNITED FOR ISRAEL
    Membership Update
    January 29, 2007
    Newsflash!
    This morning I had an extended breakfast with Senator John McCain of Arizona. Our topic of discussion was Israel and his candidacy for the Presidency of the United States of America.
    Senator McCain’s comments concerning Israel are on target! He gets it! While I do not want to put the specifics of our conversation in this update I am glad to report to our leadership and supporters that John McCain is solidly pro-Israel.
    We discussed his positions on other matters that I will share with you when I speak with you in person. This newsflash goes to the ends of the earth and I don’t want to read it in the media tomorrow.”
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    What are going to do about these nutcases? There are a lot more of them congress too. I mean, HELLO?…we have people who should be inmates at an insane asylum running this country.
    90% of congress shows up at AIPAC to pledge alleigence to Israel and the featured speaker is a holy roller nutcase Armageddon peddler and a tel cast from an Israeli Olmert telling people to lobby congress for the US not to leave Iraq and to attack Iran?
    Yep, the inmates are definitely running the asylum.

    Reply

  100. HAS says:

    Two decades ago, before the explosion of the 24-hour news cycle, Ronald Reagan opened a Saturday morning radio address with a “test” message where he joked about attacking the Soviet Union.
    Given Scott’s excellent work here, and among other blogs, this should (no pun intended) shoot a big hole in McCain’s Presidential efforts.
    Sitting in “the chair” with your finger on the button is nothing to laugh about; neither was this attempt of “straight talk.” John McCain, circa 2000, where have you gone?

    Reply

  101. Pissed Off American says:

    Cheez, how many different ways are there to say “The man has gone batshit crazy”? But, don’t despair, for in Bushworld such an affliction is a springboard to success. Unless of course you want a press credential, in which case you need another kind of gross abnormality.

    Reply

  102. Friendly_fire says:

    Did “Dean in his moment” advocate bombing anyone?
    Just asking, because my recollection is that he did not.

    Reply

  103. Carroll says:

    Posted by Marky at April 19, 2007 04:54 PM
    >>>>>>
    No, it’s not that. I am referring to the treatment he had for his facial cancer on the side of his head just in front of his ear. It was pretty serious and had reoccured twice.
    I have seen the radiation effects I mentioned in a friend who had a similar situtation. It’s similar to what doctors refer to as chemo brain…it does affect your brain process, not continuously, but sort of like a stone skipping accross water in your thinking every now and then.

    Reply

  104. Marky says:

    Carroll,
    McCain has significant mobility problems in his upper body due to the injuries from his torture. I don’t know the specifics, but I suspect that is all you are seeing.

    Reply

  105. Mike says:

    POA, I think you and others might be right about McCaine being a bit off in the head. I mean, the Baghdad ‘visit’ thing was itself beyond belief and the ridicule too predictable, but there are many instances of just insane behavior for any serious political figure to countenance.
    It’s funny to think how much history was shaped by people who secretly had serious mental problems. Woodrow Wilson comes to mind but there have been many others, probably including Bush (though it also seems to be the case that he’s using Machivellian principles to disseminate ideology- just look back at before 9/11 to see how he didn’t want to have to be a ‘regime-builder’ and pretty much ignored the whole issue of terrorism by non-state actors).

    Reply

  106. Carroll says:

    I am not trying to be snarky, but I think McCain has a mental problem. I wonder if his facial cancer was treated with radiation. Radiation travels in the body and even if not directed directly on the brain he would have radiation effects there that affect his memory and mental process.
    He has always seemed to me to be holding in a lot of anger or agression and he seems less and less able to cover it up now.

    Reply

  107. Pissed Off American says:

    Well, when he is riding his bike through downtown Bagdad on his way to a picnic, at least we know what tune he will be humming.

    Reply

  108. Marky says:

    McCain’s credibility on torture is not very high in my eyes. He’s like Specter on numerous issues; tough talk followed by abject obeisance to the WH.
    I’m glad he’s making a fool out of himself. In my opinion, once McCain is seen to be clearly not viable, the press and the public will realize that there is not one remotely reasonable GOP candidate for 08—no doubt because no good man would want to be a Republican President after Bush. The desperation which will ensue, so early and so hard, will be amusing to watch.

    Reply

  109. Robert Morrow says:

    I think McCain knows his campaign is completely bust and he just does not care anymore. He is saying what he really thinks because he knows he has nothing to lose because he has already lost.
    McCain has close to zero percent grassroots support among Republicans and his fundraising impotence has been exposed, which means he will now raise EVEN LESS money.
    Having said that, I agree with his hawkish stance on Iran.

    Reply

  110. pauline says:

    If somehow McCain ends up as a vp candidate with, say, Giuliani, many American patriotic citizens and others can only hope and pray a serious and thorough re-opening of the 9/11 investigations comes to be. Maybe then, instead of the White House, Giuliani can go straight to the pen house.
    McCain, wrote the forward in the Popular Mechanics
    article de-bunking 9/11 conspiracy theories.
    From that forward, McCain(‘s ghost writer) penned,
    “This conspiracy-mongering is no small phenomenon. Any Internet search will turn up thousands of explanations for the events of September 11.These theories come in nearly infinite variety, but all reach essentially the same conclusion: that the U.S. government, or some shadowy group that controls it, organized the attacks as part of a master plan for global domination. But the truth is more mundane. The philosopher Hannah Arendt described the banality of Nazi evil; the 9/11 hijackers were also ordinary, uninteresting men with twisted beliefs.”
    I question these words to be McCain’s own as the research editor was Benjamin Chertoff, cousin of our dual citizen Homeland Security czar.
    Also, from the “factually challenged” Chertoffs, Wikipdeia shows —
    “Chertoff has been accused of bias in the 9/11: Debunking The Myths story by conspiracy theorists, who argue that he is the cousin of Department of Homeland Security secretary Michael Chertoff.[5][6][7] However, Chertoff has repeatedly both denied this claim and said ” I don’t know”[1], most notably in the September 11, 2006 issue of U.S. News and World Reports, stating “no one in my family has ever met anyone related to Michael Chertoff”[8] and in an audio interview where he notes any possible relationship would likely only be found back in “19th century Belarus.”[9] However, according to political blogger Kurt Nimmo, this fact is disputed by his mother, Judy Dargan, in Pelhalm New York, who has told independent researcher Christopher Bollyn that “Yes, of course, he is a cousin”.[10][2]

    Reply

  111. SmellaRat says:

    gq:
    A Dean moment is symbolic. People will look back to this data point as one that represented the proximate region of the downward curve (not the actual turning point). You are right Dean was never a viable candidate. One could argue, using your own statements, that McCain never was either. Dean’s “rise and fall” was over a shorter timeframe; McCain’s was over a much longer one. Just as the crash of 1929 definitely did NOT start the great depression it is symbolic of the overall trend of economic collapse. McCain’s oral flatus (to match the picture that seems to portray traditional flatus) will be his crash.

    Reply

  112. DisGruntled says:

    I’m an old-timer here in Arizona; McCain used to live down the street from me in the mansion (well, actually just a very nice house) Cindy bought.
    McCain is a Zionist and has been for as long as I can remember paying attention to his stance on the Middle East. He will sell out the U.S. for Israel, as evidenced by this current episode which could be chalked up as tom-foolery if McCain’s intent of swaying U.S. opinon towards supporting an attack on Iran was not so incredibly dangerous.
    Everyone that I talk to here thinks that McCain has lost it, including other former neighbors.
    The bottom line is that the criteria we should hold any presidential candidate to is whether she or he advocates an attack on Iran. Right now, all the *major* ones are, which really is proof of the vast influence of the Israel lobby, because an attack, as I think we here have all realized, will have devastating consequences to not just the U.S. but the entire world.
    I just called McCain’s office in D.C. and got an intern who sounded all of 18. My comments, despite that I’m an actual constitutient of McCain’s, will never get through, because he isn’t listening to the people of Arizona.
    Money talks, McCain dances. Or perhaps he’s being held hostage by the pro-Israel lobby because of his father’s cover-up of the Israeli attack on the U.S.S. Liberty.
    The bottom line is this — we have to get Israel out of our foreign policy right now! And we have to make our elected representatives know that they serve us, not the Israel lobby and that we’re mad as hell about the endless “War on Terror” read “War on Islam”
    If Israel had been stuck in Germany where it should have been I guarantee that the U.S. would be bombing Dresden yet again right now.
    See, I personally don’t view the Bible as a legal document for a 2000+-year-old land claim — Germany should have paid for what she did to the Jews, not the Palestinians, the Arabs, and, soon-to-come, the Persians.
    I hope this effectively stops McCain’s campaign, now on to stopping Hitlery Clinton and the rest of the pro-Israel prostitutes.

    Reply

  113. Steve Wild says:

    It sad to see a man so desparate to be President. It’s pathetic.
    As a Democrat, I voted for McCain in the 2000 primary.
    He makes me sick now, and it’s not because of his support for the Iraq war per se, it’s his graveling to be President.

    Reply

  114. gq says:

    I take exception to this being McCain’s “Dean moment”. Dean was never really a viable candidate. He helped rally the troops, but he was on his way out way before his scream.
    In re McCain’s credibility, I think this is what happens when you are consistently running for president for over eight years. Combine that with by far the most uncritical and friendly news coverage. This is essentially the real McCain as far as I’m concerned. Until his 200 campaign, he wasn’t really a moderate and hasn’t been one since. Only on a handful of issues.

    Reply

  115. Pissed Off American says:

    Gads Steve, did you have to post a picture of the poor guy when he’s passing gas? Is nothing sacred anymore?

    Reply

  116. Dan Kervick says:

    I think McCain knows he is toast, and that his presidential dreams are up in smoke. He probably does not relish the exhausting prospect of expending the kind of road warrior energy required of a primary campaign, especially since he knows he will lose. But he’s the kind of guy who never quits anything. So he is aiming for a “death by gaffe” for his campaign.
    Shooting off one’s mouth in this sort of careless andd casual way is a symptom of a guy who just doesn’t care anymore.

    Reply

  117. Pissed Off American says:

    He’s a wackjob. Unhinged. His behavior of the last few months is the behavior of someone whose sanity is diminishing. Being a politician doesn’t exempt you from aging. Some of us are fortunate enough to age with our mental facilities intact, and some of us aren’t. It appears he is one of the unfortunate ones.
    Although, in retrospect, perhaps sanity will prove to be a terrifying liability in modern Bushworld.

    Reply

  118. Mike says:

    I can easily see Mr. McCaine making it to his deathbed still a fervent believer in the power of bombs and war, despite all the evidence that this religion has horribly failed us.
    Me, I’m “pro-life”.

    Reply

Add your comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *