18
   

Why I can't vote for McCain

 
 
Reply Sun 31 Aug, 2008 11:53 pm
I like John McCain and have long considered him an honorable man and once wanted him to be president more than any other candidate, but his continuing insistence that invading Iraq was a good idea is something I can't accept from him, and while his hawkishness might not have mattered in a different time this is a time where stupefying hawkishness is the status quo and I can't accept it.

This video has appeals to emotion that I don't condone in an argument, but otherwise captures the McCain that I don't want to see anywhere near the White House very well.

 
Below viewing threshold (view)
kuvasz
 
  -4  
Reply Mon 1 Sep, 2008 03:42 am
@gungasnake,
Quote:
Saddam Hussein had been sitting there taking potshots at us for ten or twelve years and finally supplied the 9-11 hijackers with anthrax which was used to poison the US Senate Office Building as well as two post office sites. There is no possibility of anybody getting away with **** like that and the guy had fifty body doubles; there was zero chance of taking the guy down short of invading the place. It had to be done.


More innanity and unsupported lies from the village idiot again. btw where were those alledged WMD, moron?
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Sep, 2008 05:12 am
@Robert Gentel,
Whether it's Obama or McCain I don't see us leaving before Iraq wants us to leave. There will be little difference in Iraq regardless of who wins the election.

Hell, if it were McCain instead of Bush we wouldn't be in this war (or if we were at least McCain would have been honest about it; as opposed to Bush who did lie us into Iraq) we'd likely be out by now.
gungasnake
 
  -3  
Reply Mon 1 Sep, 2008 06:37 am
@maporsche,
Nobody "lied us into" Iraq. Demokkkrat leaders are clearly on record that something had to be done about Iraq even prior to 9-11.

For the benefit of anybody who might have missed it:

Saddam Hussein was provably involved in the anthrax attacks which followed 9-11. That means that George Bush had very few options unless you call letting somebody poison the US senate office building with anthrax and just skate an option, which is brain-dead. He could do what he did, which was try to take the high road, eliminate the Hussein regime, and try to construct a rational regime in Iraq both to prevent further attacks and to provide an example of rational government in the region, or he could do what I would have done, which would have been to level both Mecca and Medina, and ban the practice of I-slam not just in the US but throughout the world.

Most people would probably want to try what W. did first.

Oh, yeah, I know, you guys don't believe Hussein had anything to do with 9-11 or the anthrax attacks which followed...


The first case of anthrax after 9-11 (Bob Stevens) showed up about ten miles from where Mohammed Atta himself had been living, i.e. the short drive from Coral Springs to Boca Raton.

The last previous case of anthrax in a human in the United States prior to 9-11 had been about 30 years prior to that.

There are other coincidences. For instance, the wife of the editor of the sun (where Stevens worked) also had contact with the hijackers in that she rented them the place they stayed.

Atta and the hijackers flew planes out of an airport in the vicinity and asked about crop dusters on more than one occasion. Indeed, Atta sought a loan to try to buy and and modify a crop duster.

Atta and several of the hijackers in this group also sought medical aid just prior to 9/11 for skin lesions that the doctors who saw them now say looked like anthrax lesions.

Basically, you either believe in the laws of probability or you don't. Anybody claiming that all these things were coincidences is either totally in denial or does not believe in modern mathematics and probability theory.

While the anthrax in question originally came from a US strain, it isn't too surprising that Iraq might have that strain since that strain was mailed to laboratories around the world years earlier. That is, it wsa mailed out for the purpose of allowing other nations to develop medicines to cure it, not to make weapons out of it...

Nonetheless, it was highly sophisticated, and went through envelope paper as if it weren't even there; many thought it to be not only beyond the capabilities of Hussein but of anybody else on the planet as well including us. Nonetheless, later information showed Husseins programs to be capable of such feats:


http://www.aim.org/publications/media_monitor/2004/01/01.html


Quote:

In a major development, potentially as significant as the capture of Saddam Hussein, investigative journalist Richard Miniter says there is evidence to indicate Saddam’s anthrax program was capable of producing the kind of anthrax that hit America shortly after 9/11. Miniter, author of Losing bin Laden, told Accuracy in Media that during November he interviewed U.S. weapons inspector Dr. David Kay in Baghdad and that he was "absolutely shocked and astonished" at the sophistication of the Iraqi program.

Miniter said that Kay told him that, "the Iraqis had developed new techniques for drying and milling anthrax"techniques that were superior to anything the United States or the old Soviet Union had. That would make the former regime of Saddam Hussein the most sophisticated manufacturer of anthrax in the world." Miniter said there are "intriguing similarities" between the nature of the anthrax that could be produced by Saddam and what hit America after 9/11. The key similarity is that the anthrax is produced in such a way that "hangs in the air much longer than anthrax normally would" and is therefore more lethal.



Basically, the anthrax attack which followed 9/11 had Saddam Hussein's fingerprints all over it. It was particalized so finely it went right through envelop paper and yet was not weaponized (not hardened against antibiotics). It was basically a warning, saying as much as:

Quote:

"Hey, fools, some of my friends just knocked your two towers down and if you try to do anything about it, this is what could happen. F*** you, and have a nice day!!"



There is no way an American who had had anything to do with that would not be behind bars by now. In fact the one American they originally suspected told investigators that if he'd had anything to do with that stuff, he would either have anthrax or have the antibodies from the preventive medicine in his blood and offered to take a blood test on the spot. That of course was unanswerable.


The basic American notion of a presumption of innocence is not meaningful or useful in cases like that of Saddam Hussein. Even the Japanese had the decency to have their own markings on their aircraft at Pearl Harbor; Nobody had to guess who did it. Saddam Hussein, on the other hand, is like the kid in school who was always standing around snickering when things went bad, but who could never be shown to have had a hand in anything directly. At some point, guys would start to kick that guy's ass periodically on general principles. Likewise, in the case of Saddam Hussein, the reasonable assumption is that he's guilty unless he somehow or other manages to prove himself innocent and, obviously, that did not happen.


At the time, the US military was in such disarray from the eight years of the Clinton regime that there was nothing we could do about it. Even such basic items as machinegun barrels, which we should have warehouses full of, were simply not there. Nonetheless, nobody should think they would get away with such a thing and, apparently, Hussein and his baathists didn't.

Bob Woodward's book "Bush at War" documents some of this:

Quote:

'Cheney?s chief of staff, Scooter Libby, quickly questions the wisdom of mentioning state sponsorship. Tenet, sensitive to the politics of Capitol Hill and the news media, terminates any discussion of state sponsorship
with the clear statement:

Quote:
"I'm not going to talk about a state sponsor."


'Vice President Cheney further drives the point home:

Quote:

"It's good that we don't, because we're not ready to do anything about it."



I mean, we didn't even have fricking machinegun barrels anymore. A friend of mine called up several barrelmakers about a barrel for a target rifle in the early spring of 02 and was told they were working 24/7 making machinegun barrels and didn't have time for any sort of civiliam firearm business.

A country with any sort of a military at all has to have warehouses full of that sort of thing and we had ******* none. We basically needed to go into Iraq the day after 9-11 and we were not able to due to the state Slick KKKlinton had left the military in, it took two years of building.


In the case of nuclear weaponry there appears to have been a three-way deal between Saddam Hussein, North Korea, and Libya in which raw materials from NK ended up in Libya to be transmogrified into missiles pointed at Europe and America by Saddam Hussein's technical people and with Iraqi financial backing (your oil-for-terrorism dollars at work), while Kofi Annan and his highly intelligent and efficient staff kept the west believing that their interests were being protected:

http://homepage.mac.com/macint0sh/1/pict/amos/amos.jpg

Muammar Khadaffi has since given the **** up and renounced the whole business. That sort of thing is one of the benefits of having our government back under adult supervision since 2001.

The Czech government is sticking with its story of Mohammed Atta having met with one of Saddam Hussein's top spies prior to 9-11 and there are even pictures of the two together on the internet now:

http://thexreport.com/atta_and_al-ani_photo_and_analysis.htm

http://thexreport.com/alani14.jpg

Then again as I mentioned, there's the question of the anthrax attack which followed 9-11. Saddam Hussein's the only person on this planet who ever had that kind of weaponized anthraxs powder.

http://www.aim.org/publications/media_monitor/2004/01/01.html

Moreover it does not take hundreds of tons of anthrax powder to create havoc.

The sum total which was used was a few teaspoons full. In other words, a lifetime supply of that sort of thing for a guy like Saddam Hussein could easily amount to a hundred pounds worth, and I guarantee that I could hide that in a country the size of Iraq so that it would not be found.

The question of whether or not Hussein had 1000 tons of anthrax powder is simply the wrong question. The right questions are, did the guy have the motive, the technical resources, the financial wherewithal, the facilities, and the intel apparatus to play that sort of game, and the answers to all of those questions are obvious.


Bi-Polar Bear
 
  3  
Reply Mon 1 Sep, 2008 06:37 am
I agree w/Robert 100% and also we have a guy who has shown the good judgement to put a VP on the ticket who was mayor of Moosehead Alaska and has a baby with Downs syndrome when he's 72 and a two time cancer survivor.
Are you shitting me?
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  2  
Reply Mon 1 Sep, 2008 06:39 am
@gungasnake,
the odds are that someone would use WMD's at some point.... oh wait we did in the 40's.
0 Replies
 
rabel22
 
  2  
Reply Mon 1 Sep, 2008 09:09 am
@Bi-Polar Bear,
I dont think that the fact she had the courage to carry a child with downs syndrome to term is a bad thing. In fact it showes courage. Haveing said that I dont think she is quallified to be president and hasent changed my opinion that Mccain dosent make good choices. I wish we had a choice of some good men or women instead of the duds we will be forced to choose from during this election.
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Mon 1 Sep, 2008 09:49 am
Having a down syndrome child doesn't make her qualified to be VP. Do you know how many parents have a down syndrome child in the US? They're all qualified to be VP of the US.
maporsche
 
  2  
Reply Mon 1 Sep, 2008 09:51 am
@cicerone imposter,
No one has said that having a DS child makes her qualified.......
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Mon 1 Sep, 2008 09:51 am
@maporsche,
Lol, nobody's said exactly what DOES make her qualified.

Cycloptichorn
maporsche
 
  4  
Reply Mon 1 Sep, 2008 09:53 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Ok..I'll start I guess.

1) Over 35 years of age.
2) American citizen.
Cycloptichorn
 
  0  
Reply Mon 1 Sep, 2008 09:56 am
@maporsche,
Haha

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Mon 1 Sep, 2008 09:56 am
@maporsche,
maporsche, YOu probably hadn't noticed that when they talk about Palin, they mention the simple fact that she was "brave" enough to mother a down syndrome child. It's another BS PR that has no bearing on her qualifications.
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Sep, 2008 10:03 am
@rabel22,
Down Syndrome is no longer the total disaster that it was 50 years ago. It's mainly a question of diet. They can't CURE it, but Down syndrome people are now leading fairly normal lives including holding professional level jobs.

I was sort of stunned reading about the status of this one a few months back. Not terminating a pregnancy involving DS is, of course, a personal choice, and most would choose abortion, but the other choice no longer flags somebody as a flake or a masochist the way it once would have.
maporsche
 
  2  
Reply Mon 1 Sep, 2008 10:03 am
@cicerone imposter,
I think any parent of a child with a disability is brave, including Palin.

And please don't talk to me about BS PR and THIS election.
littlek
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Sep, 2008 10:06 am
@gungasnake,
A question of diet? How so?

DS kids are being included in school and educated to the best of their abilities. They don't usually represent tough behavioral problems or oppositional disorders. Generally speaking, easy SpEd kids to work with. But, many DS kids needs special care for life. Not that this has anything to do with the VP position.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  3  
Reply Mon 1 Sep, 2008 10:14 am
@maporsche,
There are many parents with a DS child; that doesn't make Palin special or qualified to become VP of anything.

"Brave" is not a prerequisite to become VP.
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Sep, 2008 10:24 am
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

There are many parents with a DS child; that doesn't make Palin special or qualified to become VP of anything.

"Brave" is not a prerequisite to become VP.


That's not what I said.

You are the only one I've heard even mention that being the parent of a child with DS is a qualification to be VP (I know you don't think it is, neither do I). I haven't heard/seen anyone make that claim.
0 Replies
 
rabel22
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Sep, 2008 10:52 am
@cicerone imposter,
CI
Where did you come up with haveing a DS child makes her qualified to be VP. I dont think anyone has claimed this on this site. As to qualifications I dont think any of the people were qulified for the VP or presidential positions. As we git futher into the age of our government the people who elect our "leaders" seem to have become more and more stupid in the election of our politicians. I dont know if it is the influance of tv and radio or not but people seem to take thier politicians at thier word even though they know that they all lie like dogs. Not impuneing the diginity of dogs.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Why I can't vote for McCain
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 08/19/2019 at 12:56:52