September 18, 2006:
Recently Yahoo! News ran something called "Talk to Power" and one of the question and answer segments, featuring Judy Woodruff asking the questions that readers submitted, spotlighted Senator John McCain, one of the presidential hopefuls for 2008. McCain's responses should serve as a warning to those who believe that this spin master would be a good choice for the highest office in the land. Below are some excerpts with my take on them.
The first two questions regarded the war in Iraq and the role and responsibilities of the U.S. military. A member of the military wrote: "It frustrates me that my unit... has been extended in Iraq for a minimum of 120 days. ... There has been a failure here in Iraq. How can you effect change in US policy here?"
"If we left without the Iraqi military and government in control, then I think you would see chaos not only in Iraq but in the region," Sen. McCain said. The second question followed up on the first, focusing on deployment of troops: "Would you allow units to be extended past one year?"
John! John! (snapping fingers and waving hand in front of blank stare), what do you mean "I think you would see chaos not only in Iraq but in the region."? What do you call what we are seeing in Iraq?
To this, Sen. McCain said he considered the armed forces "overstressed" and said that, as President, he would "expand the size of the Marine Corps and the Army so that we have sufficient numbers of troops on active duty."
John, look! We know you were in Viet Nam, like Congressman Murtha who says we should get out of Iraq. But he's a Democrat, a liberal, so his opinion doesn't count. Right? And let's not talk about John Kerry; the Swift-boat nut cases really gave him a going over; didn't they? He's a Democrat too so that's alright, isn't it? So, John, we have the opinions of three veterans of the Viet Nam war; you think we should "stay the course", Murtha says we should get out, and Kerry agrees with both of you. We honor you service in that conflict, John, but as regards opinions on military matters there is one fact that seperates you from Murtha and Kerry: You got captured!
With respect to your belief that we should "expand the size of the Marine Corps and the Army so that we have sufficient numbers of troops on active duty"; just how would you accomplish that? A draft, John? Is that on your mind? Forget it!
John, I know you're a Senator and all that, but I may be so presump-tuous I'd like to point out a fact that you may not be aware of. A draft is unconstitutional! You know, the US Constitution, what Bush, the American Caligula referred to as "only a goddamned piece of paper" (it's really parch-ment)? Well, this document has a bunch of annoying additions (they're called 'amendments') that frustrate the efforts of "patriotic" American leaders like the present Neo-Con Chickenhawks from turning this country into a carbon copy of Nazi Germany. Put you reading glasses on, John.
Amendment XIII
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
John? Did you get that part about "involuntary servitude"? Isn't that what a draft is? After all, what crimes have apple cheeked kids fresh out of high school been convicted of? And did you also get the part about "any place subject to their juristiction", meaning the United States. Boy, that sure makes Guantanamo look different, doesn't it? But, back to the draft. I know you're probably wondering how young folks get drafted when there's that pesky ol' 13th Amendment to deal with. It's easy: They volunteer! Here's how it works;
Draft notice appears in the mail: Report to Induction Center. Of course that's what the guv'mint tells the kids to do, so they go. Once there they go throught a process designed to confuse and intimidate them. When all that is done, the "inductees" are told to line up; they do and when they are all in a nice straight line they are told to take one step forward to be sworn in. When they do this - take this one step forward, they are volunteering! It's a sneaky and underhanded (so what's new) way for the Military Industtrial Complex ( that Eisenhower warned us against) to ensure that there will be enough cannon fodder for the monied interests (Haliburton, Kellogg Brand) to get fat on.
John, you still with me? Howsabout we do what's right and tell folks whose kids might just get a draft notice someday: Tell your kid not to take that step forward!
The third question also focused on the war in Iraq. But in this case, the issue raised by the Yahoo! user was funding for the war: "Why is the Iraq war still being funded through stopgap emergency funding?" wrote the reader. "It is not fair to ask us as taxpayers to have no say in how much money this war is costing us."
The fault, said Sen. McCain, lies with Congress, which has not taken the lead in demanding that the funding go through the regular budget process.
John? You still with me? Did some concerned citizen really ask this question? I have trouble believing that, since the question seems to focus not on the billions of dollars we are throwing away on that loser, but the method by which we are thowing it away. So far we have spend enough to completely rebuild New Orleans' at least three times. Oh, but that's another issue, isn't it?
The conversation then turned to oil and energy. "Hello Senator McCain," wrote one person, "What is your plan to reduce our nation's dependence on foreign oil?" In posing the question, correspondent Judy Woodruff also noted a variety of related questions on the boards, including comments focusing on nuclear energy, alternative fuels, renewable energy sources, and global warming.
One reader wrote: "Mr. McCain, after your recent trip to Greenland do you have a more clear picture of what Americans, among others, are doing to our planet's environment with our wasteful use of available energy?"
Sen. McCain responded first by dismissing the idea that global warming isn't real. .
"First of all, I just came back from Greenland where I saw the dramatic effects of climate change. Anyone who doesn't believe that climate change is real - now if you can't visit Greenland, look at Tom Brokaw's latest piece that I think is on the Discovery Channel, which is a really comprehensive look at climate change.
I believe, among other things, that nuclear power has to be a very - play a very big role in our finding ways to eliminate our dependence on foreign oil. Our dependence on foreign oil is fraught with danger. Look around the world: Venezuela, Iraq, other places in the world where we get our oil supplies. Ethanol doesn't make a lot of sense to me when oil is $10 a barrel. When it gets over $40 a barrel, then ethanol is very important, and I'm glad to see us proceeding rapidly with adopting ethanol as an alternative fuel. By the way, Brazil had managed to now become foreign oil independent because now they are fueling their automobiles with ethanol.
John, John, John! (more finger snapping). Try to say this, Air puh-loo-shun; got it John? Good! So what does the price of oil have to do with the fact that fifty years ago the oxygen content of the atmosphere was 21% and today it's only 16%? Is air pullution alright if the price of oil is $10.00 a barrel? Let's be sure that all the folks with respiratory problems, who are advised to remain indoors on days when the air quality is "orange", hear about that. Oh, and don't all those bombs and shells going off all over the place add to Global Warming? Make the air dirty and radioactive (thanks to depleted uranium)?
Ever thought about that, John?
And what this, John? You mean to say while we've been spreading "democracy" in the Middle East in that disgusting war of aggression to get control of the oil (and don't think you and your cronies are fooling anyone), those rascally Brazilians went and got themselves foreign oil independent?
John, do your patriotic duty. When asked if you are a candidate for president, just say "No."
October 11, 2006:
John McCain is still out of touch with reality. In a news conference in Michigan following a fund raiser for Repulican Mike Bouchard, he made this incredible statement, addressed to Hilary Clinton: "I would remind Senator (Hillary) Clinton and other Democrats critical of the Bush administration's policies that the framework agreement her husband's administration negotiated was a failure." Sure was, John! You got that part right. But that is only the bottom line. Let's see if we can figure out just why that ship didn't sail.
Facts, John! That's what we're going to deal with, not the "shoot anything that moves" tactics of cornered rats. It's irresponsible, misleading, and utterly contemptuous, to attack an act of true statesmanship that held great promise but was sabotaged by your leader (not mine). Bush's role in this debacle is a matter of record.
From the NO QUARTER website, October 9, 2006:
How did the North Koreans end up knocking on New Mexico governor Bill Richardson's door in 2003? Fred Kaplan, in "Rolling Blunder
It began in 2001 with Bush rebuking his Secretary of State during a state visit by South Korean leader Kim Dae Jung. "[Colin] Powell told reporters that, on Korean policy, Bush would pick up where Clinton had left off. The White House instantly rebuked him; Bush made it clear he would do no such thing. Powell had to eat his words. ..."
"If Powell was embarrassed by Bush's stance, Kim Dae Jung was humiliated ... Bush not only distrusted Kim Dae Jung but viewed him with startling contempt ... So when Kim Dae Jung arrived in Washington, Bush publicly criticized him and his sunshine policy." The South Korean president was "a democratic activist who had spent years in prison for his political beliefs and had run for president promising a 'sunshine policy' of opening up relations with the North.
Bill Richardson? How did he get involved in all this?
Bill Richardson, governor of New Mexico, a former UN Ambassdor with a record of successfully negotiating with North Korea, tried to act as intermediary for Bush. When the White House flatly refused to talk to the delegation from the North, they went to New Mexico to look Bill up.
Richardson seemed willing to serve as an intermediary. During the two days of talks in Santa Fe, he stayed closely in touch with the State Department. Richardson was no showboat, had no partisan animus, and--unlike Carter in Clinton's day--probably could have played middleman to Bush without going beyond his instructions. But nothing came of the Richardson gambit. As Pritchard(1) recalls it, "The North Koreans were grasping for straws, looking for any friendly face. But they forgot to do the math. Richardson was a Democrat, a Clinton guy. No way would Bush have anything to do with him."... In the Bush administration, "[t]he default mode was skepticism about anything involving Clinton."
1) Charles "Jack" Pritchard "had been director of the National Security Council's Asia desk under Clinton and was now the State Department's special North Korean envoy under Bush."
How do you like it so far, John? You know the old saying, "When you have both feet in your mouth you don't have a leg to stand on." But we are only getting started: get a load of this!
Kaplan continues (quoting Richardson): We must turn North Korea away from its nuclear brinkmanship and toward providing a stable food supply and more opportunity for its people. This means direct engagement from the highest levels in Washington employing all the tools at our disposal.
We are doing this in New Mexico. North Korea desperately needs Western energy, agriculture and medical technology and, as a result of my trip there last fall, New Mexico is providing aid. Our joint humanitarian exchanges have already sent a team on North Korean heart doctors to New Mexico to learn the latest cardiac surgery techniques.
New Mexico? Are you getting this John? The North Koreans are getting aid from New Mexico? I'll bet you didn't know that. I sure didn't but I'm glad somebody has some sense.
Still from NO QUARTER: On Friday, James Baker III was a guest on Don Imus's MSNBC show. He said, politely, that the Bush administration needs to talk more, especially to its "enemies," and that there's a lack of talk, and diplomacy, in general. It's quite clear that the Bush administration 1) doesn't know how to talk to other countries, and 2) has no appreciation for the importance of dialogue and carrot/stick diplomacy.
In 2003
John, please! If the Republicans offer to run you for president, just say, No!
More recently we've heard John saying that we could be in Iraq for a hundred years. And, you know? That's exactly what will happen if this misfit ever sets up housekeeping in the White House. Bush's endorsement may hurt McCain's image but it defines it clearly. More war, more lives, more wealth, squandered in the Neocons' insane Empire Building effort. But there's one item that the Republicans and their Military-Industrial masters seem to have missed: the Revolution has already begun! John isn't going to have much fun if the people are stupid enough to put him in thw White House. Recalling the words of John F. Kennedy, " If peaceful evolution is impossible, violent revolution is inevitable. "
The pot is coming to a boil. Happy landings, John!
No comments:
Post a Comment