Letters to the Editor
-
"We can look back at the past and argue about whether we should have gone to war or not, whether we should have invaded or not, and that's a good academic argument. But we're there now, and the question is, is what we do in the future."
Considering his thinking on Iran, it seems pretty obvious what McCain will do in the future is make the same mistakes of the past.
John McCain is alot like Diana Ross. The idea of Diana Ross is great. In reality she's pretty bad. As long as the media and the public are in thrall of the idea of John McCain the real McCain will get very little examination.
-
"Compelling"
It was certainly a compelling argument to John McCain's Hardball questioner, Chris Mathews.
When you are the most vapid pundit on cable television, and displaying one of the most obvious man-crushes on a candidate since Chris declared George W. Bush was "the guy eveyone wanted to have a beer with", it is a very compelling argument.
Until we start seeing REAL reporters on cable television, it will work as well.
-
Thanks, Steve
I'm thoroughly enjoying the War Room these days. Keep it up.
-
I heart Steve Colbert
the man is the Patron Saint of the Body Politic.
-
McCain's experience is academic
Might this explain why he was bottom of the class at the Academy?
-
He is somewhat right
While I think it is important to analyze the decision to go to war, holding Senior decision makers accountable is only something that will be done with voters. The problem is that people are already beyond the decision and are not likely to do anything more about it. They simply want to know what the next president will do with the present.
While I'm an Obama supporter, I find that this is one of his major problems on Iraq. He can explain with great detail and clarity of why it was a bad idea to go there but he does not do a good job at describing how we will end the situation besides just pulling out of the country. When John McCain brings up what is going on in Iraq now and Obama talks about the past decisions, which distracts from the real issue of how to leave.
McCain's believes that his decision to go to war was a good one and many in his party would support him on that as well. So to argue that his experience on this is flawed or on trial assumes that he believes he made a bad decision, which he does not.
-
1984, here we come
It's not to late to begin the dictionary of double speak. Keep it short and twist it around full circle until it all makes sence (to the untrained, uneducated masses his party has cultivated). This guy has no chance against the power of Obama. I await the coming debates with great excitement, as they should reveal the underlying stench of the Rebublican Party for all the world to see.
-
Argumentum ad olescent
McCain's weaseling suggests the infantile tactics that define many of our politicians and especially Republicans -- a rhetoric style halfway between the schoolyard and the law school:
Before an event, insist that "no one can predict the future" and that "the future will certainly be rosy." When the event occurs, insist that "now is not the time for debate" and that "immediate action is required,” then do nothing. After the event, insist that "the time for blame and recrimination is past" and then blame the opposite party for all problems.
Every major disaster, attack, gaffe, and scandal during the Bush regime has followed this pattern. It's also very reminiscent of the sort of sniveling logic behind this nonsensical argument:
"That there have been no further terrorist attacks since 9/11 indicates that Bush’s policies are working."
-- and --
"If, however, there were a further terrorist attack, Bush's policies would be needed more than ever."
But of course, such infantile tactics work because they are effective and they are tolerated.
-
It is NOT just an academic issue
We still don't know why we are in Iraq. We have the alleged reasons that Bush gave for the invasion, but we also know those reasons were a crock of BS.
The neocons who wanted the invasion were involved in cooking the "intelligence data" to create the appearance that it was a good idea. They knew the results were BS, so they also knew that any arguments based on the bogus data were also BS. This suggests that they didn't want to tell us the real reasons for the invasion.
We're not going to find a way out until we figure out why we're there in the first place and what the definition of "success" is. We'll be stuck there at least until we get to the bottom of these questions. This is why the issue is not merely academic.
-
Problematic quote in this post
Yes, McCain's talk is about as straight as a french horn, but there is a tangential point to be made about this post that has everything to do with why the world thinks Americans suck.
Benen uses this quote: "...over 4,000 people have died in this academic argument..." Iraqis are people too. Over 4,000 occupying Americans have died. Over a million PEOPLE are now dead because of our actions. This is not nitpicking.
If critics of this war view "people" only as Americans, then the only problem with the war is that a handful of people have died and we've wasted some cash (many times this number die in the US each year from car crashes, smoking cigarettes and gun shots). In the scheme of things, so what? Yes, we could have spent that money on other American things, but that's a bit like saying raping and murdering someone is bad because the prison time associated with the act cuts down on the perpetrator's earning potential and family time.
-
The man in the Edgar suit,
will be ripped to shreds by Obama. Billory, on the other hand,has more baggage than an overloaded passenger train. She won't be able to duck sniper fire that was never there, and her votes on Iraq are eerily similar to his. She's more like LIEberman than I'm comfortable with. She says the right things when she needs to but is ineffective when trying to bring them to fruition.
We need new blood and fresh ideas and not someone who is tied to the past. If "experience" only means more of the same, lets be rid of it. Pass the baloney...