Being cartoonishly belligerent to muslim countries and political movements is the only way that Mr. McCain can communicate to the lizard-brain GOP base that he is one of them. While true that his economic policies would largely mirror those of President Bush, he is viewed with suspicion - and sometimes outright hostility - by the Republican base on most other issues.

Remember how his responses at debates on the torture issue went over with the audience? Even if we don't accept his sincerity on this - and there's much reason not to - the anger that the GOP base consistently expresses with regard to his declared position on torture is just one example of how much he needs to compensate by emphasizing how mindlessly warlike he would be as president.

On "national security" issues, the man would be even more disastrous than Bush. A lot of the reason for that is that the public and the media would already have moved him to the political "center" in their minds due to his ostensible positions on other issues, which would lend the radicalism of his foreign policy a false air of reasonableness.

Get ready for Hillary to join McCain in fanning the flames for a conflict with Hamas. Having lost the anti-war faction to Obama, she has decided to become the AIPAC candidate. There will be no shortage of targets for obliteration, or groups whom the U.S. must now confront for reasons both vague and incoherent.

maybe we should give some consideration to a leader with magical powers. Cause if McCain (or Hillary, for that matter) thinks they can do all this stuff without reinstateing conscription, they must know how to make G.I. Golems. Hmmm...maybe that's where Israel comes in.

I think we already tried to overthrow the democratically elected government by sending arms to Fatah which I understand was the proximate cause of Hamas taking steps to take over Gaza.

Found it on YouTube, crusty old John McCain's recycling lines from 1980s Rambo movies:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MKq7ushFlhk

It's right at the end, around 1:35.

Document #2063; November 2, 1956

Eisenhower to To Edward Everett Hazlett, Jr.

[...]

The Mid East thing is a terrible mess. Ever since July twenty-sixth, when Nasser took over the Canal, I have argued for a negotiated settlement. It does not seem to me that there is present in the case anything that justifies the action that Britain, France and Israel apparently concerted among themselves and have initiated...

The real point is that Britain, France and Israel had come to believe--probably correctly--that Nasser was their worst enemy in the Mid East and that until he was removed or deflated, they would have no peace. I do not quarrel with the idea that there is justification for such fears, but I have insisted long and earnestly that you cannot resort to force in international relationships because of your fear of what might happen in the future. In short, I think the British and French seized upon a very poor vehicle to use in bringing Nasser to terms.

Of course, nothing in the region would be so difficult to solve except for the underlying cause of the unrest and dissension that exists there--that is, the Arab-Israel quarrel. This quarrel seems to have no limit in either intensity or in scope. Everybody in the Moslem and Jewish worlds is affected by it. It is so intense that the second any action is taken against one Arab state, by an outsider, all the other Arab and Moslem states seem to regard it as a Jewish plot and react violently. All this complicates the situation enormously.

As we began to uncover evidence that something was building up in Israel, we demanded pledges from Ben-Gurion that he would keep the peace. We realized that he might think he could take advantage of this country because of the approaching election and because of the importance that so many politicians in the past have attached to our Jewish vote. I gave strict orders to the State Department that they should inform Israel that we would handle our affairs exactly as though we didn't have a Jew in America. The welfare and best interests of our own country were to be the sole criteria on which we operated.

I think that France and Britain have made a terrible mistake. Because they had such a poor case, they have isolated themselves from the good opinion of the world and it will take them many years to recover. France was perfectly cold-blooded about the matter. She has a war on her hands in Algeria, and she was anxious to get someone else fighting the Arabs on her Eastern flank so she was ready to do anything to get England and Israel in that affair. But I think the other two countries have hurt themselves immeasurably and this is something of a sad blow because, quite naturally, Britain not only has been, but must be, our best friend in the world.

http://www.eisenhowermemorial.org/presidential-papers/first-term/documents/2063.cfm

Lang on Hamas, 2006:

I listened to the CNN chat with the Hamas fellow from Gaza. I thought he was remarkable frank. Mahmoud al-Zahhar is his name and he is a surgeon. He said (roughly):

-We are Islamic. This is an Islamic government and it will stay that way.

-We will not be threatened over money. There are other sources of money in addition to the wallets of Americans.

-We will not recognize Israel. If they allow us to create our state then we will make Hudna with them (renewable)

-We will not give perpetual recognition to Israel because religiously we can not give up recovery of the land as a long term goal.

-We are willing to make short term arrangements (10 years, 20 years) but not sign any permanent cessions of land.

-We could live next to them on that basis.

Already the rationalizing has begun in the chattering classes. The dimly sighted want the election result to be about “Corruption!!!! (NOT THAT!), “Inefficiency” anything, anything but religious nationalism. President Bush is remarkably insensitive to the power of religion. The neocons and some Israelis want desperately to believe that Hamas, the religious revolutionary group, will prove to be really “agrarian reformers,” “crypto-socialists” “pragmatists” “moderates,” etc. These things were all said of the Mullahs in Iran and look where we are.

The Hudna thing is interesting. They would observe a truce. The Muslims just about always do. In the life of the Latin States (Crusader states.) there were many Hudna (jama' aysh? "Hadaneh" mumkin?). Most were for 10 years, some longer. See Joshua Prawer for details. The Muslims never gave up on their duty to return Palestine to the Umma. They won’t this time either. Last time it took 190 odd years. I suppose the inference insures that the Israelis don’t like that analysis.

http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2006/01/the_duck_rule.html