I heard "Iran" (and a little bit of Syria)

sounds like he needs further monitoring and investigation. For starters, has he been having an affair with Joe Lieberman?

Make a note, Bat Boy!

McCain is clearly of the "do-as-I-say-and not-as-I-do" ilk of politician. Obama is "naive" to consider bombing areas of Pakistan but McCain with his flip, unfunny and inappropriate comments on bombing Iran is what? My answer: A war-mongering relic in the Senate.

McCain needs to worry today about the bomb coming from the gray lady.

Is the McToast done yet?

So, it's naive to announce you want to bomb Al Queda but perfectly okay to joke about bombing Iran (a sovereign nation).

After getting caught and nearly run out of the Senate for illegally interfering in the investigation of Charles Keating, he starts a relationship with a lobbyist (who started as a typist with an elementary ed. degree and was a partner in the firm in just a few years despite no legislative experience or evidence of contacts in government) that his staffers have to break up right after he casts his vote for conviction in Bill Clinton's impeachment over a blowjob. It appears (see Emptywheel last night) that some of Iseman's clients could well include firms used for outsourcing of torture and for illegal wiretapping.

Yep, McCain is a perfect candidate to carry on as the standard bearer for the party of values.

It's permissible for the U.S. to threaten war against every Muslim and Arab country except for the one actually harboring the 9/11 attackers.

You got it Glenn. I'd expect nothing less from a cowardice Republican.

If they were really supporting this war our Military wouldn't be stretched so thin now would it.

Bush should have installed a draft and made eligible those who voted for him twice.

Bush should have asked his supporters to sacrifice for the good of his policies.

If that would have happened the GOP would have moved to Canada.

LOL

What is naive is for Senator McCain to think he has any realistic chance to become President.

He has tied himself to the mind numbingly unpopular Bush and his war mongering failed policies. Proposing to continue indefinitely a war that 70% of the nation wants to end within the next year, if not sooner, will gain him support only among the chattering classes.

Americans have finally grown sick and tired of the fear mongering. "Less jobs, more war" is not a winning campaign slogan.

And he cheats on his wife!

He's screwing Pakistani lobbyists.

Ha ha lol.

When the slam at Obama was put in heavy rotation on the "News" the other day, I laughed and laughed given McCain's "bomb-bomb-bomb Iran" redmeat for his skittish right wing. It was obvious that StraightTalk was unaware of the irony of his comment, and further, it was obvious that the journalistic fraternity following the presumptive Republican nominee were oblivious to it, even though they themselves reported the "bomb Iran" chuckler.

This should be an Opportunity for the Obama campaign to skewer and rattle the Bullshitting Old Geezer six or seven ways before sun up, but so far they seem to be holding their fire.

But maybe I missed it.

Is from telecom. You couldn't make this stuff up and be believed.

Let me preface by stating that contrary to being naive, stating that he'd be willing to go after OBL in Pakistan and then experiencing the backlash was precisely what drew me to Obama's campaign.

Quoting something I posted elsewhere:

Hunting OBL in Pakistan" was Obama "Emperor's New Clothes" moment. He actually had the audacity to state the obvious and the shocked gasps of the King's court are still resonating....

I think the only thing he might be criticized for is staing bluntly what's been happening quietly.

Having said that though, I will note that much of what Obama is being criticized for isn't that he'd express willingness to go after OBL, it's that he's willing to bypass one of our favored dictators in order to do so.

When McCain spouts off one-liners about bombing Iran or Syria. at least he's referring to nations that are presumtive enemies (at least among the Republican base).

Pakistan (like Saudi Arabia) on the other hand has a purported "ally" in power and is hence off limits. That this is precisely why Al Qeada considers those countries safe haven is not only lost in the debate, it is absolutely taboo to discuss.

It's not that McCain doesn't favour bombing any sovereign country, it's just that in this case it's advisable to do it without saying anything first. In that way Musharraf won't be so embarrased.

Having said that though, I will note that much of what Obama is being criticized for isn't that he'd express willingness to go after OBL, it's that he's willing to bypass one of our favored dictators in order to do so.

That wasn't what McCain's criticism was. McCain's criticism was that it's naive to announce in advance that you're going to bomb another country. If you're going to do it, argues McCain, you decide quietly and then do it -- not threaten it or announce it in advance.

Independently, Obama said he'd consider a bombing campaign only if (a) there was actionable intelligence about where Al Qaeda operatives were and (b) Musharraf refused to take action.

Pakistan (like Saudi Arabia) on the other hand has a purported "ally" in power and is hence off limits. That this is precisely why Al Qeada considers those countries safe haven is not only lost in the debate, it is absolutely taboo to discuss.

True -- and that's the point. We so readily declare other Muslim countries our "enemies" even though they haven't attacked us, but the only taboo topics are talking about military action actually connected to 9/11 -- such as what Obama discussed and, as you say, the role of Saudi Arabia.

It is baffling why the Democrats don't make more of the fact that nothing has ever been done to respond to the 9/11 attacks. Taking all the conspiracy theories out of the equation, the official story was that Saudi terrorists funded by Saudi dollars were responsible for the 9/11 attacks. So what has been our response? As George W Bush has shown repeatedly since the attacks, we go over to Saudi Arabia, kiss their leader, and walk hand in hand with him. Its grotesque that the USA has behaved as Saudi Arabia's bitch because of George Bush and Dick Cheney. And predictably, the media’s Tough Guy Warriors have no problem with the craven cowardice this administration, and the United States, has shown towards Saudi Arabia since 9/11.

If the USA had refused to respond to Pearl Harbor because Roosevelt had deep financial ties to Japan, would the American people, and in particular the opposition party, have just sat back and said nothing? And to not even POINT OUT that we should enforce the law (because, ya know, innocent people were murdered), and bring those responsible to justice?

The common expression heard immediately after the attacks was that we couldn’t have “pre-9/11 thinking”. Well, what was more pre-9/11 than the plan to attack Iraq? Those plans had been so set in stone by the neocons during the 90’s that they were one of the top issues for discussion, when the Republicans regained the White House, at Bush’s first cabinet meeting in January 2001, according to former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill.

When the Democrats finally settle on a candidate, I would like this question to be asked, “Since nothing has ever been done to respond to the 9/11 attacks, what plans do you have to bring those responsible to justice?”