The Case Against John McCain

"Why Has John McCain Abandoned the American Soldier?"
Posted May 11, 2008 | 07:23 PM (EST)

by John Eskow
George Bush, Dick Cheney, and John McCain are sending a razor-sharp message to the fighting men and women of America.

It's underlined again in bright, fresh, blood-red every time a tank in Bahgdad is blown up by an IED and shrapnel rips into another soldier's flesh.

It's written in script-letters of grimy dust along the floors and walls of fly-infested VA hospitals.

It's spelled out in the invisible ink of the GI Bill that's still not passed -- the critically-important Webb/Hagel bill, sponsored by two gutsy Senators (and veterans) with the courage not to quit in the face of cold-blooded Bush/McCain resistance.

That secret message is everywhere the American soldier and veteran looks nowadays. But it's a secret message that's not really all that secret -- it goes something like this: pssst. Hey dude and dudette. Come. Be All You Can Be. We'll sing you national anthems and write you flowery speeches. We'll solemnly call you the pride of a nation, the Best of the Best, as we Stop-Loss you back to Iraq for tour after tour. But then, goddamn it--if you DO manage somehow to keep your ass from gettin' blowed up, and find your way back home, you're on your own. Understand?

To which The Happy Warrior, John McCain, might add: This is America, "my friends!" Do what I did! Marry some billionaire Cruella-de-Ville lookin' chick, and you won't NEED health-care for your war injuries! Over and over, McCain has chosen tax-breaks for the rich over the desperate needs of our wounded GIs. Whatever his private reasons, in addition to fighting non-stop to block the GI bill, McCain has -- as reported by Aaron Glantz, author of The War Comes Home:

-- voted against nearly every effort to increase funding for healthcare and disability benefits for wounded soldiers

-- voted against the interests of disabled American veterans 80 percent of the time

-- received a D+ voting grade from the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (when Obama got a B+, and Clinton, to her lasting credit, an A-)

--consistently voted against expanding mental healthcare and readjustment counseling for service members returning from Iraq and Afghanistan, efforts to expand treatment for injured veterans, and proposals to lower co-payments and enrollment fees veterans must pay to obtain prescription drugs.

And it goes without saying that the ex-bomber-pilot never lifted a finger to help Mary Tillman, as she struggled valiantly -- through one Pentagon lie after another -- in a lonely quest to find out what really killed her heroic son Pat.

Some maverick, huh?

For our suffering vets, the "Straight Talk Express" is a runaway train bound to Nowheresville.

Many peace groups make it clear that while they oppose the war, they support our troops. McCain's real campaign slogan ought to be: I support the war, but I oppose our troops.

0 Replies

roger wrote:

Zippo wrote:
Quote:
who can lay out the best case as to why McCain should not be President?

Me. He's an @$$ 'ole.

Can't beat that with a stick.

Just thought of something that can. He's an; old @$$ 'ole Laughing

http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/3/-/2/mccain_no_old_men.jpg

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

It's a serious question, and the whole 'tell your enemy your endpoint' argument is so much BS on the part of you Republicans.

As Soz said above:

Quote:
"McCain wants to stay in Iraq until no more Americans are getting killed, no matter how long it takes and how many Americans get killed achieving that goal--that is, the goal of not getting any more Americans killed. And once that goal is achieved, we'll stay."

He wants us to stay for the conceivable future, whether it be in combat roles or during peace. He provides no real plan as to how peace is going to be achieved, other then for us to keep doing More Of The Same(tm).

The problem for your position is that McCain keeps changing his story. In the famous DNC ad, he segues right to the South Korea analogy when asked by the questioner how long we will stay in Iraq. At other times, he's said other things. .... Cycloptichorn

Believe what you like and continue the deceptive propaganda as long as you choose and believe it still benefits your cause.

The fact remains that McCain is and has been entirely consistent with principles well known to people with some military experience and people familiar with the history in our actions in other situations of varying similaritiy to what exists in Iraq. He intends to reduce the amount of our presence (#troops and # & type of units) AND the nature of their activities (initially active prosecution of the conflict, already morphing into a support & a backup role for Iraqi forces, and later evolving into a garrison force, not at all engaged in day-to-day activities, but focused more on training and support for the Iraqis.) and doing so on a continuing basis consistent with the evolving situation in Iraq. This is merely common sense and should hardly strain even your ability to understand the situation.

Your objections and the efforts of Democrat "commentators" to pin it all down to a date specific are merely a partisan attempt to replay an issue under what you and they apparently believe are awkward conditions for McCain. They are completely analogous to the interest & motives of some Republican commentators in repeatedly asking Obama to, once again repeat his objections to the actions & words of the Rev. Wright, or of endlessly repeating the same old tape excerpts. It is merely partisan politics, designed to drive home and repeat an advantageous "spin". I note that you objected vociferously to the Republican commentators when they did this, and I am surprised (and disappointed) to see you here doing the same thing.

I don't mind your use of such political propaganda if that sort of activity interests you. However, if you insist that I accept the notion that you truly believe these canards then I must conclude that you have a serious lack of historical knowledge and understanding, limited understanding of basic security issues, and an extremely limited ability to distinguish political propaganda from reasoned analysis. (How's that for an exercise in avoiding the use of non-PC words?? Nimh will be pleased !!)

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
It's a serious question, and the whole 'tell your enemy your endpoint' argument is so much BS on the part of you Republicans.

As Soz said above:

Quote:
"McCain wants to stay in Iraq until no more Americans are getting killed, no matter how long it takes and how many Americans get killed achieving that goal--that is, the goal of not getting any more Americans killed. And once that goal is achieved, we'll stay."

He wants us to stay for the conceivable future, whether it be in combat roles or during peace. He provides no real plan as to how peace is going to be achieved, other then for us to keep doing More Of The Same(tm).

The problem for your position is that McCain keeps changing his story. In the famous DNC ad, he segues right to the South Korea analogy when asked by the questioner how long we will stay in Iraq. At other times, he's said other things. .... Cycloptichorn

Believe what you like and continue the deceptive propaganda as long as you choose and believe it still benefits your cause.

The fact remains that McCain is and has been entirely consistent with principles well known to people with some military experience and people familiar with the history in our actions in other situations of varying similaritiy to what exists in Iraq. He intends to reduce the amount of our presence (#troops and # & type of units) AND the nature of their activities (initially active prosecution of the conflict, already morphing into a support & a backup role for Iraqi forces, and later evolving into a garrison force, not at all engaged in day-to-day activities, but focused more on training and support for the Iraqis.) and doing so on a continuing basis consistent with the evolving situation in Iraq. This is merely common sense and should hardly strain even your ability to understand the situation.

Your objections and the efforts of Democrat "commentators" to pin it all down to a date specific are merely a partisan attempt to replay an issue under what you and they apparently believe are awkward conditions for McCain. They are completely analogous to the interest & motives of some Republican commentators in repeatedly asking Obama to, once again repeat his objections to the actions & words of the Rev. Wright, or of endlessly repeating the same old tape excerpts. It is merely partisan politics, designed to drive home and repeat an advantageous "spin". I note that you objected vociferously to the Republican commentators when they did this, and I am surprised (and disappointed) to see you here doing the same thing.

I don't mind your use of such political propaganda if that sort of activity interests you. However, if you insist that I accept the notion that you truly believe these canards then I must conclude that you have a serious lack of historical knowledge and understanding, limited understanding of basic security issues, and an extremely limited ability to distinguish political propaganda from reasoned analysis. (How's that for an exercise in avoiding the use of non-PC words?? Nimh will be pleased !!)

I disagree quite vociferously with this:

Quote:

The fact remains that McCain is and has been entirely consistent [on this issue]

McCain has been ANYTHING but consistent on this issue. He's changed his story several times. He posits a situation which does not exist and uses a situation which will never exist to sell it. How you can ignore the fact that his position on, say, whether there should be permanent (and yes, 50 or 100 years means permanent) bases in Iraq no less then 3 or 4 times since 2005, I just can't understand. You aren't being honest if you truly believe that he's been consistent, for he simply hasn't. At times he's said that we should have no permanent bases, at others, that we should - and it isn't a clear progression from one position to the other, but back and forth.

McCain won't give an endpoint to the war, or even say "we're going to start withdrawing troops as soon as we can." Clinton and Obama both said this. It isn't a matter of a specific date, it's a matter of attitude and overall strategy. McCain does not present an attitude or overall strategy which show any real difference from the current bunch in office. This will not work well for him in the general election. Now, you may think that it will be disastrous for us to start withdrawing from Iraq now, and you may even be correct; but most Americans disagree with you, and will vote that way.

When you say 'the evolving situation in Iraq,' it's the same thing as saying 'we don't know how long it will take.' This is no longer an acceptable answer.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

You folks are operating under a false assumption.
Iraq is not the war.
"The war" is much bigger than the two large battles in Afghanistan and Iraq.

0 Replies

H2O_MAN wrote:

You folks are operating under a false assumption.
Iraq is not the war.
"The war" is much bigger than the two large battles in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Thanks for your opinion.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

[
When you say 'the evolving situation in Iraq,' it's the same thing as saying 'we don't know how long it will take.' This is no longer an acceptable answer.

Cycloptichorn

Perhaps not to you. However, happily you don't speak for everyone (though it sometimes appears that you believe you can).

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
[
When you say 'the evolving situation in Iraq,' it's the same thing as saying 'we don't know how long it will take.' This is no longer an acceptable answer.

Cycloptichorn

Perhaps not to you. However, happily you don't speak for everyone (though it sometimes appears that you believe you can).

I rest comfortably upon the 2/3rds polling majority who agree with me. I don't expect that everyone will agree, but we will defeat you in the elections.

2006 should have been a warning to Republicans on this issue, but they don't seem to have gotten it. You'll get it after this cycle though.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

H2O_MAN wrote:
You folks are operating under a false assumption.
Iraq is not the war.
"The war" is much bigger than the two large battles in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Thanks for your opinion.

Cycloptichorn

<snork>

Admit it, you gotta love Cyclo - he's so facetious.

0 Replies

:::saving my spot in line for later:::

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

H2O_MAN wrote:
You folks are operating under a false assumption.
Iraq is not the war.
"The war" is much bigger than the two large battles in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Thanks for your opinion.

Cycloptichorn

No, thanks for your opinion.

H2O MAN

0 Replies

H2O_MAN wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
H2O_MAN wrote:
You folks are operating under a false assumption.
Iraq is not the war.
"The war" is much bigger than the two large battles in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Thanks for your opinion.

Cycloptichorn

No, thanks for your opinion.

H2O MAN

Never a problem.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

I'm glad this thread came up, you know, I sign off on a politician, I'm ready to accept the whole person, but I didn't want to draw out the dialog with some folk taking pot shots in my pro-McCain thread, send the message that it's all negative just cuz I think I can talk through a lot of the misgivings...

0 Replies

http://img186.imageshack.us/img186/5412/imgadte9.gif

0 Replies

hanno wrote:

I'm glad this thread came up, you know, I sign off on a politician, I'm ready to accept the whole person, but I didn't want to draw out the dialog with some folk taking pot shots in my pro-McCain thread, send the message that it's all negative just cuz I think I can talk through a lot of the misgivings...

No problem.

Please understand that I don't think that McCain is a bad guy. Just that he wouldn't be the person we need to run the country at this time.

As I said in another thread, oh, that it had been McCain in 2000 instead of Bush!

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

"Comparing Iraq to Korea is farcical. It should not be done and it's a sign that he has no real understanding of the situation there. I don't even have to tell you this, you know this. It's simply a way for him to dodge the fact that he has not indicated how long he wishes to stay under current conditions; I believe that his position is 'as long as it takes.' That's the same as saying forever, in the minds of voters."

He never compared Iraq to Korea and you know this to be true. This is just a typical ploy by losers who need to twist facts to fit their twisted point of view.

You should recall (if you have any respect for truth) that it was McCain who challenged GW's tactics relative to the ground troops. McCain has been proven to be correct from the beginning. If GW listened to McCain instead of his so called "advisors", the Iraq situation would be more advanced than it is today.

0 Replies

McCain may have had some disagreement over tactics, but he's never argued with the strategy. It is our strategy which is a failure, not our tactics. Much like in earlier wars, the enemy cannot hang in any confrontation with us; the US war machine is unstoppable in pitched battles. And yet, we keep on not winning; because of a strategic deficit on our part.

Moving on: McCain is simply too close to Bush, and the Bush position on how government should be ran, for him to be considered. He has abandoned his 'maverick' image(lie) and wedded himself to the guy on many different positions. It's difficult to see how he will be able to thread the needle between satisfying the Bush loyalists (and sticking to campaign promises in the primaries) and also appealing to the moderates and independents, who disagree with Bush on pretty much everything.

Here's the two of them, celebrating while Katrina wrecks New Orleans.

http://www.gumbopages.com/looka/images/bushmcaincake.jpg

People talk about Obama's failure to keep Wright at arm's length, and how it will hurt him. Polling has shown that the public is just as much concerned about McCain's relationship with Bush. It will be used against him over and over this Fall.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

He NEVER agreed with GW's/Rumsfeld and their tactics.

He voted against the Tax Cuts but now is forced to keep them.

He reacted angrily towards GW and his handling of Katrina.

You want so bad for Obama to win that you will distort McCains record which is to be expected.

The big difference between the 2 is that McCain HAS a record of success and some failures. I trust he has learn well from his errors.

Obama HAS NO record so all we can base our decision on his is words.

0 Replies

woiyo,

Accurate and well-stated.

0 Replies

woiyo wrote:

He NEVER agreed with GW's/Rumsfeld and their tactics.

Untrue. He SOMETIMES disagreed with their tactics, when it was politically convenient for him to do so.

Quote:

He voted against the Tax Cuts but now is forced to keep them.

100% false. He isn't 'forced' to do anything. He didn't have to change his story. He now claims that they are good for the economy. He has done a flip-flop on this issue bigger then any other one.

Quote:

He reacted angrily towards GW and his handling of Katrina.

Looks pretty happy in the photo. McCain has had little or nothing to say about Katrina. He certainly did n

othing for years to ensure that the place was cleaned up. At a meeting of Conservatives in March in New Orleans, he had nothing to say about it at all. He opposed the creation of an independent panel to look into the gov't response on Katrina.

McCain voted against relief measures for Katrina victims several times. Voted against giving more money for first responders' communication equipment. Only recently has he criticized Bush in any way on this issue. Another flip-flop on his part.

Quote:

You want so bad for Obama to win that you will distort McCains record which is to be expected.

You have no clue what McCain's record is, Woiyo. You haven't done any actual research on it, that's plain for everyone to see.

Quote:

The big difference between the 2 is that McCain HAS a record of success and some failures. I trust he has learn well from his errors.

Obama HAS NO record so all we can base our decision on his is words.

Naturally, Obama has a record, and you are either exaggerating, or have not bothered to research the record.

Cyclopticyhorn

0 Replies

The Case Against John McCain

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know