May 15 2008
McCain turns fortune teller
He’s old; one can hardly blame him for staring wistfully into the future…
McCain believes Iraq war can be won by 2013
COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) - Republican John McCain declared for the first time Thursday he believes the Iraq war can be won by 2013, although he rejected suggestions that his talk of a timetable put him on the same side as Democrats clamoring for full-scale troop withdrawals.
The Republican presidential contender, in a mystical speech that also envisioned Osama bin Laden dead or captured, and Americans with the choice of paying a simple flat tax or following their standard 1040 form, said only a small number of troops would remain in Iraq by the end of a prospective first term because al-Qaida will have been defeated and Iraq’s government will be functioning on its own.
“By January 2013, America has welcomed home most of the servicemen and women who have sacrificed terribly so that America might be secure in her freedom. The Iraq War has been won,” McCain told an audience of several hundred here in the capital city of a general election battleground state.[..]
In outlining other potential achievements of a first term in his speech, the 71-year-old McCain implicitly was suggesting he would seek a second term, an attempt to mute suggestions he would serve only four years after being the oldest president elected.
In particular, he sees a world in which the Taliban threat in Afghanistan has been greatly reduced.
He added: “The increase in actionable intelligence that the counterinsurgency produced led to the capture or death of Osama bin Laden, and his chief lieutenants. … There still has not been a major terrorist attack in the United States since Sept. 11, 2001.”
American desperately needs a leader to emerge from this election, not a fortune teller. What we especially do not need is a senile old man who will do nothing more than continue the policies of the failed Bush administration.
Really, my Republican friends, is this the best you’ve got? You should be ashamed.
11 Responses to “McCain turns fortune teller”
Len, in this instance, you are absolutely right. Republicans should be ashamed of McCain. He’s nothing more than a Democrat trying to pass himself off as a Republican. Conservatives are not fooled.
Really, no matter what candidate is elected, they’re all basically the same. We’re up a creek without a paddle with any of the three.
However, I don’t think liberals should be asking if McCain is the best the Republicans have. Its not exactly like the Democrats are running stellar candidates. Neither Obama nor Hillary can make up their mind (isn’t that a Democrat trait?) about anything, like a true politician. I read through much of Obama’s “Blueprint for America”, and it was terrifying. He’s nothing more than your run-of-the-mill socialist. Nice to have a guy wanting to be President who is all for removing any incentive for hard work so that you can just get your money from those with more than you. Worked great in the USSR, didn’t it?
Ahh, for another Ronald Reagan… There was a man who knew how to get things done. I doubt they’ll ever be another great President like him in my lifetime.
How do we know this isn’t really part of a larger pattern on the GOP’s part and parcel vis-a-vis electoral strategy of consulting with astrologers, fortune-smellers and suchlike among the Dregs of Society, or dangerously close to its fringes?
@Aaron : What did Reagan do (aside from giving pretty speeches)? What are Obama and Clinton unable to make up their minds about? In one sentence you tell us that Obama doesn’t know what he wants to do; in the next you say that he’s a socialist who wants to remove any incentive for hard work. Which is it? Can’t be both.
Unlike you, Aaron, I am praying that we never have another president like Ronald Reagan. At least not in my lifetime.
We’ll agree that John McCain is no prize.
Len, Anyone who has to ask what Reagan did is obviously not a student of history. Even most Democrats are rather respectful of Reagan.
Let’s try: winning the Cold War without firing a shot.
Let’s try: Ratcheting down the threat of nuclear holocaust.
Let’s try: Making the USA the dominant world power.
Let’s try: Making the U.S. economy remarkably strong.
I could go on, but that should get you started.
Obama and Clinton blow whatever way the prevailing political wind blows them. This is true of most, if not all, politicians. My grievance with Obama is that he claims to be a “different kind” of politician… and then shows that he is exactly like every other politician. He’s not “different” and neither is Clinton. They’ll both lie and spin and spout and posture and in general soil their integrity - whatever it takes to win. There is growing sentiment in polls (for whatever they’re worth) that more and more Americans are increasingly finding Obama to be untrustworthy. And we all know Clinton (and her husband) have been lying for years.
@Aaron : Oh Aaron, Aaron, Aaron. Ronald Reagan did none of those things for which you (and most Republicans) want to credit him. The Soviet Union would have fallen no matter who was in the White House. Its economy was failing rapidly (remind you of anybody?) and its citizenry had no confidence in their government (again, remind you of anybody?). Reagan just happened to be standing in the right spot at the right moment. Ratcheting down the threat of nuclear power? See #1. Making the USA the dominant world power? Again, see #1; and, after the Soviet Union fell, who else was there? Making the U.S. economy remarkably strong? Please! Were you even alive in the 80s? Reaganomics was a complete and disastrous failure.
I’m glad that you’ve kept up to date with the right wing spin on Senators Obama and Clinton, but all you’ve given us so far are platitudes. Have you any specifics?
(You are the guest here. You may have the final word in this discussion.)
Well, sir, its sad that one would have such a warped view of history. No true student of history believes that Reagan just “happened to be in the right place at the right time.” You are certainly free to hold that viewpoint, but facts do not, in any way, back that up.
Reaganomics a disaster? Again, a warped view of history. Ronald Reagan’s economic policies saved a nation from the truly disastrous Carter economic policies. Carter was destroying the economy, and even a casual look at history backs that up. In stepped Reagan to save a nation from itself.
As for “platitudes” on Obama and Clinton, just go to “Shooting from the Right” and read my post about Obama’s “Blueprint for America.” The entire “blueprint” is talking out of both sides of his mouth. Out of one side, he talks about taxing the rich while cutting taxes for the middle class (something he will never do, and something that’s been demonstrated time and time again to be a failed policy), and then tells us how he’s going to enact all these programs that will require a massive influx of money… and doesn’t describe how he’s going to pay for it! Plain and simple, he will tax us further into debt, and, if he does actually increase taxes on the rich, he will further strap the economy, as the wealthy (who hire the rest of us) aren’t going to take the hit out of their pocket… they will take it out of the middle class employees they have!
And Clinton has very similar plans… so ditto.
You haven’t managed to convince me, Aaron, but again… thanks for your comments.
(BTW… my undergraduate degree was in Western History and Political Science. You might say that I was (and perhaps still am) “a true student of history.” Then again, you might not.)
I didn’t figure I’d convince you.
As for being a History major, I’d think you’d know better than your previous comments intimated.
I don’t know how one could honestly, and without bias, look at Reagan and come to the conclusions you did. But I’ve heard them all before. I’d call those “platitudes” just like you accused me of with Obama and Clinton.
Anyway, thanks for the discussion. If nothing else, keeps me informed of the liberal viewpoint. Because I’m certainly not going to spend much time listening to Air America.
That surprises me. I do listen to Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity. I do keep my mind open to all points of view, though my logic and reason (I realize you will argue that I possess neither) dictate that my beliefs gravitate more to one side than the other.
Thanks. And goodnight.
I’m glad you’re able to listen to Limbaugh and Hannity when you likely disagree wholeheartedly with them on most issues. I have attempted to listen to Air America, but just couldn’t do it. The female host that I caught every time I tried to listen just aggravated me so much that I couldn’t listen anymore. She was one of the most dishonest people I’ve ever heard, and I couldn’t stand listening. I’m sure many liberals will say Limbaugh and Hannity are dishonest. I imagine those from both sides dislike the radio personalities from the other side. Honestly, I only listen to those two as much as I do because I’m in the car a lot for my job during the hours they’re on the air.
As for Bill O’Reilly, I don’t care for him or many of his viewpoints. Ditto for Glenn Beck, Michael Savage, etc. All of them have some things I agree with, but none of them are totally in-tune with my beliefs (Limbaugh and Hannity included).
That would probably be Rachel Maddow. You definitely do not want to watch the second video I posted on the entry following this! (The one from MSNBC.)
Goodnight. (For real this time.)