Tuesday, 12 August 2008
 

McCain Was Right About Putin;
And Russia Is Just Warming Up!
Contributed by Ron Winter

When President Bush met Vladimir Putin for the first time in 2001, Bush said, "I looked the man in the eye. I found him to be very straight forward and trustworthy and we had a very good dialogue.

"I was able to get a sense of his soul."

Obviously when he looked into the window on Putin's soul the shades were pulled down and Bush saw only what Putin wanted him to see.

John McCain on the other hand, said he looked into Putin's eyes and saw the letters KGB, the Russian secret police and terror organization Putin headed until the Soviet Union collapsed in 1990.

Now Russia, under Putin, has invaded the sovereign land of Georgia, one of those former Soviet republics that went independent as fast as it could in the 90s. Georgia became a US ally, and has been petitioning to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

Unfortunately, membership did not come fast enough.

Putin travelled to China last week for the opening of the Olympics, as did Bush, and while the cat (Bush) was away the mouse (Putin) revealed that it was never a mouse, but rather a mountain lion and pounced.

Initial reports from China said Bush and (Ras)Putin had a very testy exchange of words before Putin headed home to cheer on his troops as they smashed through Georgia's outer defenses. The mad Russian initially claimed he was sending in troops to support people in Georgian provinces who really wanted to be part of Russia but were being restricted by the Georgian government.

But by mid-morning Monday - east coast US time - Russia had continued its offensive and fighting was reported in portions of Georgia that were not in dispute a week ago.

This shouldn't surprise anyone. Putin has been planning this move for years, McCain has been warning about it, and Putin's feigned friendship with Bush was just the starting point to throw him off guard. There is a major pipeline for oil and natural gas running through the disputed territory. Putin has long shown he wants control over energy sources.

Why do you think Russia made such a big deal of the US talking with former Soviet republics about installing anti-missile systems in Eastern Europe to guard against a potential attack from Iran? I'd say it had much more to do with Putin worrying that Eastern Europe would be able to protect itself from Russia.

Putin has been working step by step for most of this decade to reinvent the old Soviet Union and the attack on Georgia is proof. Commentators have said Putin is no longer a communist, but rather a nationalist who was merely consolidating his power in Russia and had no intent of reinventing the old Soviet Union.

I disagree. People who are communists in their hearts and souls never stop being communists. They believe that communism is the only true and proper form of government for all humanity and their belief in the Communist Manifesto requires that they continue the struggle for their entire lives.

We have known for decades, going back to the 1930s and 1940s, that we have had communists in our Congress, in our State Department and in our military, and we still do. We have domestic communist organizations agitating against the war in Iraq, against our military and against democracy.

Do you see the leaders of Code Pink preparing to fly to Georgia to stand in front of invading Russian tanks? No you don't. Do you know why? In the first place, communists world wide support Russian expansionism.

In the second place despite all the rhetoric that domestic communists throw at US forces, they know the Russian military will roll over anything and anyone that stands in its way, and it doesn't give a damn about human rights violations, nor does Putin.

There will be no consequences for Russian commanders who level towns, villages and cities and every living thing in them, unless they fail to level said communities and every living thing in them.

Why do you think Russia has been arming Iran, supplying it with nuclear fuel and highly sophisticated anti-aircraft missile systems? It sure looks like a diversion to me. Keep the US focused on the War on Terror and the possibility that Iran's nutcase leader will develop a nuclear weapon, then hit somewhere else.

But here is another thought. Georgia is just a minor piece of Russia and RasPutin's overall puzzle.

Georgia is in fact, practice. Why? Because unlike the United States the Russian Army has not had much real combat experience since it left Afghanistan nearly 20 years ago. It has fought against the Islamic rebels in Chechnya, but that isn't a big enough war to get sufficient combat experience for a large segment of troops.

The United States, Great Britain, and other countries that have been helping us in the War on Terror, including Georgia by the way, have what is called a "blooded" army. In other words, we have in-depth combat experience and a huge pool of combat veterans if they are ever needed.

By invading a couple of Georgian provinces, the Russians get a couple of quick and relatively easy victories. By continuing their attack into Georgia, even though Georgian authorities have called for a cease-fire, the Russians are giving their troops a stiffer challenge, which they will gladly embrace since they still are riding a combat high after their victories of the past two days.

Meanwhile, George Bush dallied in China, Vice President Dick Cheney issued a strongly worded warning, and Condoleezza Rice has been told to make it clear that if the Russians don't stop this and stop it this instant there will be consequences.

All of which Putin is laughing off as his tanks, ships, bombers and troops continue the slaughter in Georgia.

On the American presidential campaign scene Barack Obama is on vacation in Hawaii and issued a position paper. One of his advisers told Fox News on Monday morning that the US has no right to say anything about Russia invading Georgia, because after all we invaded Iraq when its leaders didn't want us there.

Wow! Talk about no clue whatsoever. The same Obama spokesman then claimed that both McCain and Bush are responsible for Bush's foreign relations policies. In the Obama campaign rhetoric the presence of a murderous despot, Saddam Hussein, who invited terrorists into his country to rebuild their terrorist network to launch further attacks against the United States after 9-11 corresponds to a peaceful country that hasn't harmed anyone.

I think Obama wants to use appeasement as a reason to sit down and be the next American leader to look into Putin's soul. That has to be the definition of clueless.

McCain on the other hand accurately defined Russia's invasion of Georgia as a moral and strategic crisis. He wants Russia isolated, the invasion halted, and Russia punished.

McCain can't do much about it right now, and won't be able to do anything unless he becomes Commander in Chief.

Meanwhile, what we should be determining, is what Putin really is up to. Georgia is practice. Just practice. It gives Putin a little more land, it gives his troops some limited combat experience, but just enough to make them willing to go for more.

The question is where? And when? And what the hell are we going to do about it? This is just the first step, and for anyone who was not alive or has forgotten the brinksmanship that went on for decades during the Cold War, I guarantee you, we do not want to go back to that era.

The communists murdered an estimated 100,000,000 (that's one-hundred million) people from 1917 to the end of the Soviet Union, and state sponsored deaths continue in China and the remaining communist countries to this day.

Believe me, we don't want to turn back the clock.

Contributed by Ron Winter on August 12, 2008 at 07:44 AM in Current Affairs, John McCain, Ron Winter, Russia | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Thursday, 10 July 2008
 

He's What?
Contributed by The Gray Dog

I’d like to take this opportunity to tell you just how damn smart I am. I mean, if you ignore most of the blog articles I have ever written, and omit my predictions of John McCain being dead in the water for the 2008 presidential nomination, I would like to point back to my December 2006 article, American Idol Mystique. That is where, months before a majority of the country had ever heard the name Barack Obama and well before this witless shoe shine and a smile declared for the presidency, I, The Gray Dog, spelled out exactly how and why Obama would ascend not only to the Democrat nomination but to the presidency itself. I even accurately foretold of the influence and role the Oprah would play.

Fast forward to today. What brilliance, what prescience, what clairvoyance!

But, now my position as Oracle of the dogoshphere is being challenged. With memories of Jeremiah Wright still lingering, Obama flip-flopping as he stretches his scrawny pencil neck toward the center, Michelle snarling and snapping at everyone, a trait quadrupeds such as myself find very attractive and now, the Reverend Jesse Jackson accusing Obama of talking down to black people and threatening to cut his … well you’ve probably watched the tape by now, conventional wisdom tells us this could be a close race and McCain might pull this out in a squeaker.

Now, personally, I like to buck conventional wisdom, (which may play a small part with why I live in a dog house,) and would have been willing to bet on Obama’s ability to overcome these minor distractions. But when you add to all of this, the threat that Hillary’s supporters may break ranks and flock to McCain coupled with the fact that the Oprah has cooled her overt support of Obama due to the backlash of angry female fans who felt betrayed by the daytime Queen of Estrogen, and Obama’s presumed November miracle seems less certain.

But, I believe in the Oprah. Or should I say, I believe in the power of the Oprah. She hasn’t backed a loser since Dr. Phil, and she’s not gong to make that mistake again. She also has powerful friends. In fact it is a very powerful and close friend of Oprah, one who may have provided Bill Clinton with the only thread of a legacy that has nothing to do with a blue dress, who could be called upon to resuscitate Obama’s faltering campaign.

What will it take to make large West Virginian women in sensible shoes switch allegiance from Hillary to Obama? Who can influence the Stepford Wives of Oprahland to become adoring Obama-nuts? Perhaps a bad choice of terms if the secret service doesn’t apprehend Jesse pretty soon. None other than the Oprah’s close friend, author Toni Morrison.

For those who are unaware, Ms. Morrison is very powerful. She won a Pulitzer Prize. But her real powers, just like the powers possessed by the Oprah, are derived from being both black and female. So, just as Toni salvaged Bill Clinton’s image by declaring him to be America’s First Black President, I predict that this very influential FOO (Friend of Oprah) will appear on the Oprah’s show before the end of this month to declare Obama, when elected, shall become America’s First Woman President!

Think of the exquisite ironies. Will Michelle be shocked or surprised. I don’t think so, as she has all of the testosterone in the Obama family to begin with. On the other hand, the double slap in the face to Hillary has to leave her wondering why Toni Morrison has it in for her, again. (Clue: Toni’s just like the rest of us; she hates you too.) Finally, on this last point I’m torn. While it might have been entertaining to watch, Ms. Morrison’s declaration is certainly going to thwart any of Reverend Jackson’s recent plans. Although, I've heard rumors this has already been handled.

Is this prescience or just another dog dream?

Contributed by The Gray Dog on July 10, 2008 at 11:02 AM in Current Affairs, Decision '08, Dem Dumbness, John McCain, Politics, The Gray Dog | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Wednesday, 27 February 2008
 

Straight Talk
Contributed by Russ Vaughn

Now that John McCain is the obvious Republican candidate for the 2008 presidential election, I think it would behoove the senator to explain to those of us who are clueless as to the true meaning of the McCain-Feingold Act, just what are the actual terms of this piece of legislation in plain English that we can all understand. For instance Senator McCain, how is it that ordinary American citizens and the companies that employ them are now restricted in the amounts they can contribute to the upcoming federal elections but a greedy, currency-manipulating billionaire like George Soros can pour untold millions into advertising for his socialist agenda? Let’s see if I have this straight, Senator, I can only contribute in small, limited amounts but this Hungarian interloper who is obviously trying to buy himself financial advantage in a socialist American government can dump millions on anyone he deems his best puppet?  I’d really appreciate a plain English explanation of that.

While we’re on the topic, how about a plain English version of all promulgations by our government entities? I hold two degrees, both granted with honors, one with a straight 4.0 GPA in a legal field, yet I confess to having a difficult time deciphering the pending and passed legislation as presented to me on my congressmen’s websites. The newspaper versions are no help because the reporters and editors are no more proficient at understanding the deliberately arcane obfuscations of government declarations than I am.

Democrats loudly proclaim that they want to bring democracy and prosperity to every American while Republicans agree to the former but qualify the attainment of prosperity to those who have worked to achieve it. As someone who grew up relatively poor in a family of staunch Democrats, I can’t but help sympathize emotionally with that party’s dream to bestow the American Dream upon every citizen. But at the same time, six decades of hard work leave me realistically aligned with the Republicans because I know that prosperity comes only with effort, determination and commitment to goals. The current housing crisis in our country so clearly demonstrates this truth: the American Dream cannot be granted by legislative edict; it must be earned.

There exists a simple way to help us all, Democrat, Republican, whatever, to work towards these goals regardless of the varied avenues we choose. It is a concept stupefying in its simplicity: all we ask is that our executive, legislative and judicial bodies give us legislation, rulings and orders that we, the ordinary citizens, can read and understand without translation by lawyers. There are federal and state laws operative now that demand that the language of contracts must meet such plain-spoken standards. Then why should we not have a law to make all government legislation and edicts equally comprehensible?

Senator McCain, I’m lobbing you a softball here: using the unfathomable act you authored with Senator Feingold as a clear example of the need for clarity of language in American law, why don’t you propose an amendment to our constitution which would forever mandate that all federal acts, legislation, executive orders, judicial rulings, etc., be issued in their final form, in language capable of being understood by ordinary citizens? Who, in their right mind, would vote against it? It’s a gimme in that regard, but you have to keep in mind the extraordinary obstacles of constitutional revision. It would take someone with a bully pulpit and Teddy R’s resolve.

Senator, consider the legacy that would attach to that: President John McCain, father of the Straight Talk Amendment, the man who finally made democracy understandable to the world.

Russ Vaughn

Contributed by Russ Vaughn on February 27, 2008 at 04:30 PM in John McCain, Politics, Russ Vaughn | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Thursday, 14 February 2008
 

Conservative Sense & Sensibility
Contributed by Bill Faith

Gary "Boomer" Adams finally got healthy enough to send me a bio for the site, which I'll have up as soon as he has time to proofread what I did with it. [Update: Please check out Gary's bio here.] He also now has his own key but he's going to need a day or two to figure out TypePad before he's ready to use it. In the mean time, here's something he mailed me:

McCain is being hammered a lot lately.  As is always the case there are differences when it comes to candidates and issues.  This excellent article by Bill Bennett lays out the differences clearly and succinctly.

We in Guam are not able to cast  votes.  We therefore must rely on our friends and relatives back in the mainland to use their precious votes wisely as they see best in the interest of everybody.  This is not a time for casting a vote because of either gender or race as is the possible scenario now.  That is unless you feel that candidate can serve ALL of us well. 

We shall, all of us, never agree on everything.  We may change our minds sometimes and that is what is healthy about looking at both sides of any issue or problem and making a decision based on what is good or at least the best of choices available to us. 

There are several serious issues being debated right now.  The one issue that is most important, IMHO, would be the defense of the nation and the very real war against radical Islam (terrorists).   Lose this one and all is lost.  Think about it.

Vote as you might, but please do so smartly and with your head...not your heart.  We in Guam wish we could be right behind you in line to exercise what should also be our right.  We served to earn that right, but are unable to use it.

Boomer in Guam

Contributed by Bill Faith on February 14, 2008 at 10:47 PM in Boomer, John McCain, Politics | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Tuesday, 05 February 2008
 

Entertaining Considerations
Contributed by Bill Faith

Via email from Russ Vaughn:

I was afraid this was going to happen when McCain started coming on stronger in the primaries. To an even greater extent than John Kerry, John McCain possesses the ability to politically divide American veterans more than any other presidential candidate. With Kerry, a key determinant of which way veterans’ loyalties fell was party affiliation. I’m sure there were many liberal Democrat veterans, particularly Vietnam veterans, who held their noses and supported a man they viscerally disliked because he was their party’s candidate and represented their overall liberal positions. It was easy for those of us who were politically conservative Vietnam vets to take a hard, unrelenting stand against the man we knew had smeared us because he was the candidate of the party whose positions we opposed.

Today, this division among veterans in general and Vietnam veterans in particular has been turned by McCain’s candidacy into a family fight among Republican veterans that threatens our already diminished prospects for victory in November. While virtually all of us admire and respect McCain’s military service and POW sacrifice, there are millions of us who feel that is simply not enough for him to be able to command our political loyalties four decades later. Setting aside the fact that McCain sided with John Kerry in 2004 and denounced those of us who dared to question Kerry’s very questionable war record, there are many reasons why we do not see John McCain as being someone we can trust to represent the mainstream views of the Republican party. I will spare you a Sean Hannity, rapid-fire recitation of the litany of McCain’s transgressions against his own party because I think there is a single issue far more compelling.

Go ahead and Google “McCain switching parties?” and look at the pages of hits which take you to articles from every sector of the media examining whether or not John McCain was preparing to switch parties as far back as 2001 and continuing into the 2004 campaign. The most chilling of all these reports is one from the Boston Herald in which McCain is quoted as responding to ABC’s Charles Gibson’s question as to whether he would even entertain the idea of running as John Kerry’s VP if Kerry extended such an offer,

“John Kerry is a very close friend of mine. We’ve been friends for years. Obviously I would entertain it. "(http://www.bostonherald.com/blogs/news/presidential_briefing/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/2408_briefing_-_kerry-mccain.pdf)

That is a very telling quote. In his own words, to further his political ambitions, John McCain would have considered abandoning his party and his supposedly conservative principles to serve on the ticket with one of the most liberal candidates ever to run as a Democrat presidential candidate. Even worse, reading down, one reads that Kerry now claims it was McCain’s people who initiated such a proposal, not that we’d be inclined to lend too much credibility to that particular source. Some very close friends, huh? No wonder then that McCain was able to denounce his fellow Navy Vietnam veterans as “dishonest and dishonorable” when they dared to attack Kerry’s self-promoting war record. McCain was selfishly attempting to curry favor with the man and the party which could do the most for his personal political future. (http://dir.salon.com/story/opinion/conason/2004/08/06/mccain_on_swift_boat_veterans/)

Now I ask you, just who was being dishonest and dishonorable here? Was it the sailors who served in combat with Kerry and raised issues with his war record that Kerry never successfully refuted and refused to release the Navy records which he claimed would do so? Or was it the self-serving maverick politician who was entertaining the possibility of forsaking his Republican party to fill the number two position on the Democrat ticket?

A good friend and fellow Old War Dog, Bill Faith, cites Mitt Romney’s contradictory and self-serving statements about not serving in Vietnam as proving Romney unworthy of his vote. To that I would respond that talking out of both sides of one’s mouth is congenital in politicians and that perhaps Romney might have gone AWOL on the issue. But Romney’s transgression completely pales against John McCain’s admitted willingness to “entertain” the possibility of full-fledged desertion to the enemy in the midst of political combat.

I don’t know about you but I don’t want a commander-in-chief who even entertains such considerations.

Russ Vaughn

Contributed by Bill Faith on February 5, 2008 at 02:48 PM in John McCain, Politics, Russ Vaughn | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack

Tuesday, 22 January 2008
 

Not So Fast There, McCain!
Contributed by Russ Vaughn

Up front, as a Vietnam veteran, I will readily concede that I respect John McCain for his service to his country, first as a naval aviator and POW in Vietnam, then for his long years in our national Congress. I even will admit to the fact that I somewhat admire McCain’s desire to effect some sort of political reconciliation with the Democrat party. That being said, I must also make it very clear that I do not support certain decisions McCain has chosen on his pathways to political advancement.

Now that the Senator has won primaries in New Hampshire and South Carolina and the network pundits are proclaiming he may well be the Republican “Comeback Kid,” I am reminded of an old Army joke about a platoon sergeant faced with the prospect of breaking the terrible news to one of his young charges, Private Jones, that the soldier’s mother has just passed away. The sergeant calls his platoon into formation and barks out the order, “All of you with living mothers take one step forward.” Then after a momentary pause, he mutters, “Not so fast there, Jones.” That’s my take as a veteran and a conservative Republican on this new political development: “Not so fast there, McCain.”

My first and biggest beef with John McCain is that when a very brave group of Vietnam veterans who had served with John Kerry stood up to say that Kerry’s self-serving portrayal of his war record was patently false, that his blanket charges of war crimes against them were absurd, and that his testimony in Congress was used by the North Vietnamese to further torture McCain’s fellow POW’s, Senator McCain airily dismissed these courageous men and sided with his Senate pal. Playing conciliator in the national media, McCain despicably denounced the Swift boat veterans’ ad as dishonest and dishonorable, hinting that they were pawns of George Bush and the Republican right.

Like all the leftists in the MSM, John McCain never gave these true American heroes even the least opportunity to defend their claims. As a veteran who had suffered more than most to defend our constitutional right of free speech, McCain inexplicably used his powerful office and national presence to ally himself with the repressive forces of mainstream media to suppress that right to men who had risked their lives in combat to preserve it. It was one of the bitterest betrayals the Swift boat vets and the millions of us Vietnam veterans supporting them would have to endure. We expected treachery from the MSM and Kerry’s campaign, but not from John McCain.

What I can never reconcile in my mind, my heart or my soul, is how this naval aviator, POW and true war hero, could so easily turn his back on his fellow sailors, combat veterans all. In the name of political expediency, and a sorely misguided attempt to lay to rest all the troubled ghosts of Vietnam that his treasonous Senate colleague was primarily responsible for creating, John McCain turned his back on the true heroes and sided with a phony vet with phony medals and a suspect discharge.

Never mind that I disagree with McCain on immigration, taxes and his unconstitutional McCain-Feingold bill; that’s all merely politics and has nothing to do with honor and loyalty to those who served bravely alongside you in combat. Nope, that’s not the issue. But I’m putting the Senator on notice right now; if you should somehow get the Republican nomination, you are gambling with the votes of millions of veterans like me unless you repudiate your reprehensible siding with the traitorous, treasonous John Kerry. I have never stayed home on Election Day in protest of a distasteful candidate, but this could be the first time for me and many Vietnam vets, again turning our backs on a fellow vet who turned his first.

The Senator should read the excellent recounting of how a determined few veterans, whom he disgracefully defamed, defeated his old buddy, John Kerry, in the 2004 campaign. In ‘To Set the Record Straight,” authors Scott Swett and Tim Ziegler, lay it out, page by page, what the concerted efforts of a few honorable patriots with an unrelenting resolve can accomplish in the arena of national politics.

Like the old platoon sergeant, I would caution, “Not so fast there, McCain!

Russ Vaughn
Vietnam 65-66
Presidential Campaign 2004

Contributed by Russ Vaughn on January 22, 2008 at 06:57 PM in John McCain, Politics, Russ Vaughn, Viet Nam | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBack

Monday, 21 May 2007
 

N.Z. Bear Makes Monkeys of the MSM
Contributed by 72nd TCS

Glenn Reynolds has earned a hearty "Thank you" from the public in this post , in which he links to a remarkable achievement by N.Z. Bear.  The latter has broken out the monstrous draft immigration bill--over 300 pages--in a form that makes it readily available to any citizen who has access to the internet.  He provides a table of contents, listing topics by subsections, complete with links to every subsection and to individual pages.  The beauty of it is that the right-hand sidebar has space for comments.  The visitor can read existing comments and append commentary ad lib. 

At the present writing, one sees only a handful of comments, led off by a link to a scathing example from Mickey Kaus.  That must change, and swiftly.  Let your imagination run wild for a moment.  The Senate Majority Leader wants to ram the bill through in the absence of any serious debate.  It is unlikely that other senators will let him get away with that.  If not, the public has an unparalleled opportunity--and a unique challenge--to be heard.  Picture it: a few days into the debate, the blogosphere dumps on every senator's desk a copy of N.Z. Bear's version, marked up by us The Great Unwashed, acting as a committee of the whole, and bearing hundreds or possibly thousands of heartfelt critiques.  The Bear's achievement in making this possible is unprecedented, even world-changing.

We must buckle down to it, citizens.  It's a patriotic duty. First, go here, to benefit from N.Z. Bear's guidance on how to get the most from his effort.  Then, go there to read the bill and mark it up. Absent that effort on our part, we'll have only ourselves to blame when the D.C. sausage factory serves up a rotten, stinking mess.

Contributed by 72nd TCS on May 21, 2007 at 02:57 AM in Current Affairs, G W Bush, John "72nd TCS" Werntz, John McCain, Remember the Alamo, Unclear on the concept | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Sunday, 08 April 2007
 

McCain Channels Hercules,
The War You're Not Reading About
Contributed by 72nd TCS

What's all this about Hercules? Well, if we can believe a front-page item in the WaPo of Saturday, April 7, Senator John McCain, in his to-be-announced campaign for the presidency, plans to wade all alone into the fever-swamp of the MSM crusade to discredit the war effort and--like Hercules in the Augean Stables--to clear up the whole foul, stinking mess.

The article linked to bears the title "McCain to Stake Bid On Need to Win in Iraq," and is bylined Michael D. Shear, who kicks off with this:

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) will launch a high-profile effort next week to convince Americans that the Iraq war is winnable, embracing the unpopular conflict with renewed vigor as he attempts to reignite his stalling bid for the presidency.

With the Virginia Military Institute as a backdrop, McCain plans to argue in a speech on Wednesday that victory in Iraq is essential to American security and that President Bush's war machine is finally getting on track after four years, aides and advisers said.

McCain's rosy assessment of safety on Iraq's streets after his recent visit to a Baghdad marketplace was mocked by many, prompting him to tell a television reporter that he 'misspoke' and now regrets the comments. But, in the interview to be broadcast tomorrow, the senator sticks by his defense of the overall war effort, predicting that failure in Iraq would be 'catastrophic.'

Why on earth, if the senator hopes to convince a skeptical public that there is visible progress in Iraq, did he step on his own message by admitting that he "misspoke" when he proclaimed the good news in Baghdad? [ed. note: The reference above to "a television reporter" points to a McCain interview to be broadcast Sunday evening on "60 Minutes" and perhaps watched by millions.] Are his "aides and advisors" asleep at the switch?

Michael Shear dilates upon the generally negative response of the media to the Baghdad press conference:

Wearing a bulletproof vest and surrounded by 100 soldiers in Baghdad's central market, McCain said: 'Never have I been able to go out into the city as I was today.' Headlines soon after called his statements 'propaganda' and a 'magic-carpet ride.' The Statesman Journal in Salem, Ore., declared: 'Brainwashed McCain is a straight-talker no more.'

One GOP consultant said of the incident: 'That strikes right at the heart of who people thought he was-- a truth teller.'

Poor John McCain. The Salem, Oregon broadsheet calls him brainwashed and laments the derailing of the Straight Talk Express. An anonymous "GOP consultant" [working for Chuck Hagel?] chimes in. Has the Arizona Republican got a prayer of winning the GOP nomination? At this moment, it would be foolish to speculate. Recent polling results, however, indicate that a solid majority of Republican voters--the only folks who count in a primary, outside of crossover states--remains loyal to the president and his new policy in Iraq. They are unlikely to punish McCain for standing firm.

There are plenty of other reasons why conservatives might want to shun McCain. Like him or not, one has to admire his courage. The man is no weathervane.

*** Webmaster's update: 72nd TCS just sent me a link to this with a suggestion that mention it in a Bill's Bites post. I responded that Senator McCain may not be an "Old War Dog" but he definitely qualifies as an "old war dog" and I think what he wrote qualifies for mention on this site as well:

The War You're Not Reading About
By John McCain

I just returned from my fifth visit to Iraq since 2003 -- and my first since Gen. David Petraeus's new strategy has started taking effect. For the first time, our delegation was able to drive, not use helicopters, from the airport to downtown Baghdad. For the first time, we met with Sunni tribal leaders in Anbar province who are working with American and Iraqi forces to combat al-Qaeda. For the first time, we visited Iraqi and American forces deployed in a joint security station in Baghdad -- an integral part of the new strategy. We held a news conference to discuss what we saw: positive signs, underreported in the United States, that are reason for cautious optimism.

I observed that our delegation "stopped at a local market, where we spent well over an hour, shopping and talking with the local people, getting their views and ideas about different issues of the day." Markets in Baghdad have faced devastating terrorist attacks. A car bombing at Shorja in February, for example, killed 137 people. Today the market still faces occasional sniper attacks, but it is safer than it used to be. One innovation of the new strategy is closing markets to vehicles, thereby precluding car bombs that kill so many and garner so much media attention. Petraeus understandably wanted us to see this development.

I went to Iraq to gain a firsthand view of the progress in this difficult war, not to celebrate any victories. No one has been more critical of sunny progress reports that defied realities in Iraq. In 2003, after my first visit, I argued for more troops to provide the security necessary for political development. I disagreed with statements characterizing the insurgency as a "few dead-enders" or being in its "last throes." I repeatedly criticized the previous search-and-destroy strategy and argued for a counterinsurgency approach: separating the reconcilable population from the irreconcilable and creating enough security to facilitate the political and economic solutions that are the only way to defeat insurgents. This is exactly the course that Petraeus and the brave men and women of the American military are pursuing.

The new political-military strategy is beginning to show results. But most Americans are not aware because much of the media are not reporting it or devote far more attention to car bombs and mortar attacks that reveal little about the strategic direction of the war. I am not saying that bad news should not be reported or that horrific terrorist attacks are not newsworthy. But news coverage should also include evidence of progress. Whether Americans choose to support or oppose our efforts in Iraq, I hope they could make their decision based on as complete a picture of the situation in Iraq as is possible to report. A few examples: ...

[Read the whole thing.]

Contributed by 72nd TCS on April 8, 2007 at 12:05 AM in Current Affairs, Iran, Iraq, John "72nd TCS" Werntz, John McCain, Politics | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Monday, 02 April 2007
 

Straight Talk Express Derailed--by straight talk
Contributed by 72nd TCS

On Sunday, Republican Senators John McCain, Lindsey Graham and Indiana's Representative Mike Pence strolled through a Baghdad marketplace as a show of confidence in the improved security resulting from the "clear and hold" tactics introduced there by General Petraeus.  Afterwards, these members of Congress held a press conference at which McCain expressed cautious optimism about the progress made so far. The  AP account was picked up by some newspapers.  As with yesterday's story about the imminent exhaustion of funds to pursue the war, the Washington Post did not deem the press conference newsworthy. The New York Times, Chicago Tribune and others treated it in the lackluster fashion that customarily greets any favorable news or comment regarding  the war in Iraq. The citation that follows is taken from the major Phoenix outlet, The Arizona Republic:

Iraq strategy is working, McCain says
Senator visits Baghdad; 6 U.S. soldiers are killed

Associated Press
Apr. 2, 2007 12:00 AM

BAGHDAD - After a heavily guarded trip to a Baghdad market, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., insisted Sunday that a U.S.-Iraqi security crackdown in the capital was working and said Americans lacked a "full picture" of the progress.

The U.S. military later reported that six soldiers were killed in roadside bombings.

McCain, a presidential hopeful, acknowledged that a difficult task lies ahead in Iraq but criticized the media for not giving Americans enough information about the recent drop in sectarian killings, the establishment of security posts and efforts against al-Qaida.

"These and other indicators are reason for cautious, very cautious optimism about the effects of the new strategy," McCain said.

This is typical of the objective reporting that one sees: a brief, flat, recital of the bare facts.  The New York Times, by contrast,, weighs in at the outset with a resounding "But," setting the story in the context of the daily horrors generated by the enemy’s all-too-effective media campaign:

4 G.I.’s Among Dead in Iraq; McCain Cites Progress
By KIRK SEMPLE

BAGHDAD, April 1 — Mortar attacks, suicide car bombs, roadside bombs, ambushes and gun battles killed at least two dozen people on Sunday, including four American soldiers, the authorities said.

The American military command said the soldiers were killed southwest of Baghdad just after midnight as they responded to an earlier bombing that had killed two other American soldiers. The insurgents have frequently tried to reap greater death tolls by carrying out attacks against rescue crews rushing to bomb sites.

The attacks coincided with a visit to Iraq by a Republican Congressional delegation led by Senator John McCain, who declared at a news conference that the new American security plan was “making progress” and that there was cause for “very cautious optimism.”

In sometimes testy comments to reporters in the heavily fortified Green Zone, Mr. McCain said the American public was not receiving “the full picture about what’s happening,” and he described the delegation’s visit to a downtown market where scores of people have died this year in multiple car bombings and other attacks. There, the members of Congress said, they strolled around, haggled with merchants and drank tea.

But the outing was far from carefree. The delegation traveled in a convoy of armored military vehicles and was accompanied by a large contingent of heavily armed soldiers. The politicians wore body armor while they shopped.

“We had protection today,” Mr. McCain acknowledged when pressed by reporters.

The technique is not the least bit subtle, but highly effective. The Newspaper of Record conveys the strong impression that Senator McCain and his colleagues are a bunch of fakers, donning body armor and surrounding themselves with an impenetrable military cordon in order to create an artificial impression of progress in Baghdad.

On the left-leaning side of the blogosphere, McCain’s remarks unleashed a storm of sneers, jeers, and vilification, with epithets such as Neverland, delusions and pandering [to wingnuts] rife in the telling. [Too many examples for links. Just GOOGLE "McCain Baghdad" and slog through the muck.]

The senator certainly knew what he was in for, and even invited it by taunting the media to their faces, as reported by CNN:

‘The American people are not getting the full picture of what’s happening here. They are not getting the full picture of the drop in murders, the establishment of security outposts throughout the city, the situation in Anbar, the deployment of additional Iraqi brigades who are performing well, and other signs of progress,’ he said.

No gift of prophecy is needed to foresee the end of the McCain-Media honeymoon.  In truth, it’s here. As a serious candidate for the presidency, he has chosen to speak his mind on the central and most controversial issue of our time. Whatever the impact on his ambitions may be, he has vouchsafed an admirable embrace of principle. He deserves our respect, whether or not he gets our vote.

Contributed by 72nd TCS on April 2, 2007 at 02:31 PM in 1st Amendment, Current Affairs, Iraq, John "72nd TCS" Werntz, John McCain, Media Perfidy | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Thursday, 29 March 2007
 

Surrender is NOT an option
Contributed by Bill Faith

McCain Stands in the Gap
John Hinderaker

Let's put aside for a moment McCain/Feingold and the right's other grievances against John McCain. When it comes to the war on terror, is he the Lincoln of our time? McCain has now launched a petition drive, under the name Surrender Is Not an Option. McCain says: ...

• The supplemental appropriations bill that passed the Senate on March 27, calling for a date certain withdrawal from Iraq, is nothing more than a guaranteed date of surrender.

• It is a refusal to acknowledge the dire consequences of failure, in terms of the stability in the Middle East and the resulting impact on the security of all Americans, whether home or abroad.

• Democrats have chosen the politically expedient position of failure rather than putting aside the small politics of the day in the interest of our nation and the values upon which this nation rests.

• We the undersigned remain steadfast in our support for the war against terrorism and mindful of the consequences of failure in Iraq, even if Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid refuse to acknowledge those consequences.

• We support our troops and the new strategy and believe it should be given the opportunity to succeed. American national security interests are directly at stake. Success or failure in Iraq is the transcendent issue for our foreign policy and our national security. People say they want to defeat the terrorists, but if we withdraw from Iraq prematurely, it will be the terrorists' greatest triumph.

• If we leave Iraq based on an artificial timetable, al Qaeda will be free to plan, train for and conduct operations from Iraq just as they did in Afghanistan before 9/11.

Signed, [YOUR NAME]

Click the image at the top of the quote to go to the petition page. Now!

Contributed by Bill Faith on March 29, 2007 at 12:53 AM in Iraq, Islamism Delenda Est, John McCain | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Sunday, 03 December 2006
 

American Idol Mystique
Contributed by The Gray Dog

Gray Dog’s Note: Please read the following with care.  If you misconstrue my intent or become offended, it is solely your own fault.

I like polite, educated, well spoken, attractive people.  I appreciate people who rise up from humble beginnings to become successful.  I admire people who give back to their communities and work to help those less fortunate.  I count myself fortunate to be married to such a person.  I’m sure that most of you know such people.  Perhaps, your parents, a favorite teacher or minister, or maybe you are such a person.  If this is you, then you have my respect and admiration, but you don’t necessarily have my vote.

Fortunately for me, my wife has once again declined to run for President in 2008.  Unfortunately for the country, Barak Obama has miraculously vaulted to the front of the Democrat pack.  With not yet two full years in the Senate, Obama is about as lightweight a potential presidential candidate as I have ever seen in my lifetime, but he possesses one key trait in his favor, the rest of the Democrat wannabes lack:  He’s black. 

Continue reading "American Idol Mystique"

Contributed by The Gray Dog on December 3, 2006 at 09:33 PM in Current Affairs, Dem Dumbness, John McCain, Obamanation, Politics, The Gray Dog | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Friday, 17 November 2006
 

The Land of BLOG
Contributed by The Gray Dog

Appearing yesterday before two conservative groups, always hopeful John McCain delivered speeches liberally peppered with invocations of “Ronald Reagan”, while telling his audience that, “Republicans must return to their conservative convictions.”  Poor John, haven’t any of his handlers advised him that he’s asking Republicans to return to a home he’s never visited?  Perhaps if McCain clicks his ruby slippers together three times and repeats, “There’s no place like home, there’s no place like home…”

As the house came to an abrupt landing, McCain awoke with a start.  Obviously shaken, our hero began to pan the surrounding room before his eyes stared into mine.

McCain:  “Heh, heh.  I guess we’re not in Kansas anymore, right Toto?”

TGD:      “Actually, Senator, that’s exactly where you are.  Right smack dab in the middle of the conservative heartland.  And the name’s Gray Dog.”

McCain:  “But how? Why?  What’s this all about?”

Continue reading "The Land of BLOG"

Contributed by The Gray Dog on November 17, 2006 at 12:56 PM in Current Affairs, Dem Dumbness, Jean Fraud Kerry, John McCain, Politics, The Gray Dog, Viet Nam | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBack

Friday, 15 September 2006
 

RE: GI Zhou’s comments on
“Since When Has Geneva Protected Our Troops?”
Contributed by The Gray Dog

The fellow who writes Captain's quarters is so far of the truth it begs a reply. His misuse of Second World War history by selective use of examples and distortions, regarding the treatment of American POWs in the European Theatre of War is just plain bullshit. I am not into censorship – show me a true picture of Ann Coulter nekkid anytime – but this guy's comments I believe drags down this site.

Well, the only thing GI Zhou and I agree within the first paragraph of his comments is a shared desire to see naked pictures of Ann Coulter.  After that we must part ways. 

If you do not follow the Geneva Conventions you become as bad the terrorists/insurgents themselves and further risk alienating a somewhat hostile population depending on the situation – I'm just not talking Iraq here. First time I heard that the Germans routinely shot pilots in the Second World War, I'm not saying there weren't isolated examples, it wasn't the norm. He neglected to mention the German treatment of captured Russians in the Second World War and even in the Second Wworld war, the Allies respected the Geneva Conventions regarding treatment of Japanese POWs.

First, I feel quite certain that no American, British or even Aussie aviator ever took solace in the fact that they were an anomaly, before being shot execution style in the forehead.  Just because it is the “first time you heard it” is not sufficient reason to dismiss the claim.  Also, if he “neglected to mention the German treatment of captured Russians in the Second World War”, I can only imagine that it was because they suffered worse treatment than their Americans and Brittish Allies.  I don’t follow what point you wish to prove here.

When you say, “If you do not follow the Geneva Conventions you become as bad the terrorists/insurgents themselves”, you imply that we do not, or may not in the future.  I would suggest that the prisoners at Club Gitmo are treated with kid gloves.  Literally!  Our guards hand the Koran to them wearing gloves.  This is before and after serving them meals prepared under the direction of dieticians trained in the Islamic requirements of the prisoner’s daily regimen.

Your acknowledgement that the Allies respected the Geneva Conventions regarding treatment of Japanese POWs is fine and dandy.  You unfortunately fall short of acknowledging that this was not a two way street.

This guy needs a good case of STFU when it comes to this (I doubt if this guy was ever in uniform), as comments like these aid an enemy ( including leftist arseholes in Europe) by exposing 'what the Americans are really like'. I just love the way people who haven't been in the military tell the military what it is doing wrong. If it was so damn easy most militaries would have done it already.

I haven’t been to CQ enough to know if he is ex-military or not.  I personally don’t think it matters.  He is not stating that the military is doing anything wrong; instead he is questioning the politics of a couple of U.S. Senators and ex-Secretary of State.  So be it that a couple of them are ex-military and one is an ex-POW.  That does not make them untouchables.

In summation:

1. The U.S. has always held and will continue to hold a higher standard in the treatment of POWs than our enemies.
2. To suggest that any actions routinely taken by U.S. forces or the CIA makes us as bad as the terrorist/insurgents that film the beheading of innocent civilians for broadcast on Al-Jazeera is insulting as well as ridiculous.
3. To believe that the Jihadists are concerned with the Geneva Conventions, is tantamount to believing in Santa Clause.
4. Any attempt to tighten and clarify Common Article 3 of the GC should be welcomed by the West.  While it will have no affect on how our enemies treat our troops, it will provide necessary guidance to our troops and JAG officers.

In the end, Americans should recognize that we are the object of intense hatred throughout the world by our enemies and allies alike.  I would ask GI Zhou and others; just why should we give a good flying F%#@ about what the rest of the world thinks?  While we continue to debate how gently we treat detainees, the Jihadist will continue to behead, maim and torture without fear of recourse.  While we send billions in aid to victims of tidal waves and earthquakes, only to have the honor of wiping their spittle from our faces as our “thank you”, our enemies plan to annihilate us before they can be brought before a world court to be held accountable for their atrocities. This dog finds little reason to worry about how the rest of the world will perceive our process to determine how best to coddle our captured enemy. 

I just love the way people who haven't been in the military tell the military what it is doing wrong.

I just love the way people who aren’t American presume to tell America what she is doing wrong.

*** 2006.09.16.00:43

See also Remind me why I liked Powell and the comments there.

Contributed by The Gray Dog on September 15, 2006 at 08:19 PM in Caring about our troops, Current Affairs, John McCain, Open Posts, Politics, The Gray Dog | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack

HMH: John McCain Has Finally Broken The Camel's Back
Contributed by Bill Faith

The latest Henry Mark Holzer Memorandum. Click here to add your name to his mailing list.

September 15, 2006

JOHN McCAIN HAS FINALLY BROKEN THE CAMEL'S BACK

According to the Internet encyclopedia, Wikipedia, the idiom “The straw that broke the camel’s back” is, ironically, from “an Arab proverb about loading up a camel beyond its capacity to move. This is a reference to any process by which cataclysmic failure (a broken back) is achieved by a seemingly inconsequential addition (a single straw). This also gives rise to the phrase ‘the last straw,’ used when something is deemed to be the last in a line of unacceptable occurrences. A variation of this idiom is ‘the straw that broke the donkey's back’.”

Unfortunately, John McCain—together with and his senate acolytes, among them Republicans Lindsey Graham and John Warner—is trying desperately to break the back of America’s struggle with Islamic terrorists . . . and getting closer with every piece of national security legislation he proposes.

At the risk of angering, even alienating, some of my Vietnam War POW friends, I want to make it clear that having suffered the agonies of Communist captivity does not give John McCain, or anyone else, a license to act in a manner inimical to the interests of the United States of America.

Yet that’s what John McCain has been doing for years.

Put aside McCain’s domestic conduct:

• His part in the “Keating Five bank scandal, which cost countless bank depositors incalculable amounts of money, and some of them their life savings.”

• His partnership with leftwing Senator Russ Feingold to sponsor and enact a federal statute that has throttled free political speech in American election campaigns.

• His organizing the senate cabal euphemistically known as the “Gang of Fourteen,” which made him kingmaker and indispensable to the White House in its nomination of Supreme Court justices and other federal judges—thereby, in a single coup, weakening the President’s appointment power and enabling the senate to filibuster in violation of its constitutional duty to give judicial nominees up or down votes.”

• His whitewash of poster-girl traitor Hanoi Jane Fonda, whom he characterized as merely a “confused young actress”—thereby insulting many of his POW brothers and others who suffered from her conduct, and further legitimizing her traitorous conduct on behalf of the Communists.

Despite these egregious wrongs, flowing from McCain’s self-absorbed political ambitions, I have tempered my criticism of him in the past out of respect for his ordeal in Hanoi, but mostly because of my affection and admiration for a mutual friend who shared McCain’s torment in that hellhole.
My attitude changed in 2005 when McCain engineered a near-unanimous senate vote to give “enemy combatants” (i.e., Islamic terrorists) all the protections that the Geneva Convention reserves for prisoners of war, and to prohibit the obtaining of crucially important intelligence by “cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.”

With that amendment, cravenly signed into law by the president, McCain crossed the line—paying lip service to political correctness, but more likely motivated by presidential aspirations.

At the time, The Wall Street Journal correctly observed that McCain’s do-gooder amendment necessarily revealed a flagging commitment to fight the War on Terrorism and assured terrorists that no harm would come to them when captured. That, in the newspaper’s words, the amendment would amount to “unilateral disarmament” in the War on Terrorism. That there was no principled reason for the Untied States not to reserve the ability to do whatever necessary to obtain intelligence necessary to protect our troops and our nation.

The reasons offered in 2005 by McCain and his politically correct colleagues and supporters to abjure "cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment" did not wash. They were specious, empty platitudes echoing mantras from the left.

But thanks to George W. Bush’s signature, they have become law.

That’s bad enough.

But worse was the Supreme Court’s June 2006 decision in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, ordaining that the president’s structure of military tribunals to try Islamic terrorists was unconstitutional.

To accommodate the reading given that decision by government lawyers, and apparently to satisfy the domestic bleeding hearts and ephemeral international opinion, the president has now proposed new legislation.

Writing in FrontPageMagazine, Janet Levy correctly observes that the president’s proposed legislation “may provide greater protections for terrorist detainees than those extended to American servicemen who defend our country and fight to preserve our rights and freedom. Bowing to a recent Supreme Court decision that outlawed Bush-created military commissions to try suspected al-Qaeda members, the Bush administration has now agreed to reject those commissions and follow standards of international law and the Geneva Conventions. Enemy combatants, including the alleged mastermind of 9/11, will enjoy the same rights under the law as legitimate prisoners of war.”

Andrew C. MCarthy, a first-rate lawyer writing yesterday in National Review Online, noted that

“The president’s [now pending] Code for Military Commissions would vest jihadists—unlawful enemy combatants who scoff at the dignity of true soldiers and intentionally target civilians—with a plethora of rights: fair notice of the charges, counsel paid for by the American taxpayers they are trying to murder, the presumption of innocence (notwithstanding they were presumed guilty on the battlefield), lavish discovery of the prosecution’s case, and more.”

That’s bad enough.

But even the president’s abject capitulation to the do-gooders is not good enough for the do-gooder-in- chief, John McCain. Oh no!

McCain and his camp followers, Graham and Warner— and doubtless others he will soon attract, including the just-saved Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island and other Republicans—still aren’t satisfied. Why? Because under the president’s scheme to accommodate Islamic terrorists, including assassins, beheaders, and other assorted manical killers like the 9/11 mastermind, the defendant—but not his lawyer—would be denied access to some sensitive national security evidence, probably what is called “sources and methods” information.

In sum:

McCain took the president to the cleaners with his 2005 torture amendment, perhaps even emboldening some Supreme Court justices to nullify Bush’s military tribunals in the Hamdan case.

Our country is being disarmed morally and militarily by five of those justices who have not the faintest idea what the real world is like, let alone what war is like, let alone what this war is like. It is they—Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer—aloof in their ivory tower, who are responsible for the Hamdan decision (three of the five having been appointed by Republican presidents).

There were ways for the government to work around that decision, instead of capitulating to it in the name of popularity, international law and the Geneva Conventions.

Unwilling to leave bad enough alone, grandstanding McCain and his gaggle of sycophants are now trying to provide the murderers whom we are trying to kill all over the world with classified information, on pain of having the charges against them dismissed if there is nondisclosure. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed of 9/11 infamy has become Ken Lay of Enron fame.

Despite the Supreme Court, the president, and McCain and his followers, Islamic terrorists are not prisoners of war.

Nor are Islamic terrorists criminal defendants.

Islamic terrorists are . . . Islamic terrorists. They are fanatical believers in the worst passages of the Koran. Their mission in life—and death!—is to convert the infidel or, failing that, to kill him. Us. You and me!

And in that nihilistic mission of death worship, they are being aided and abetted by Americans, elected officials, representatives and senators, Republicans.

In the first sentence of Andrew McCarthy’s National Review Online article, he asks the question “Can the nation afford a President John McCain?” Andy doesn’t answer the question. But I will.

The answer is “No.”

This nation can’t even afford a Senator John McCain.

hank@henrymarkholzer.com

Contributed by Bill Faith on September 15, 2006 at 03:29 PM in Bill Faith, Islamism Delenda Est, John McCain, Politics, War? What war? | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBack