Embarrassing America

In a stump speech yesterday, characterizing Obama’s “tax and spend” policy as dangerous for national security and trying to frighten people into not voting for Obama, McCain went on to say this,

"At least in the past when European nations took the path of raising taxes and cutting defense, they knew that their security would still be guaranteed by America."

Does this arrogant, doddering, senile old jackass even give a moment’s thought to how the things he says sound to Europeans who hear them?

We’ve had almost eight years of this kind of sneering at our neighbor nations from the leadership of this nation, embarrassing us in the eyes of the world. Do we really want four more?

Update: Thursday morning
I grew up in a Deep South culture; one grandmother was raised on a plantation in Milliken's Bend, LA, the other in Arkansas. I am (what's the word?, not amused) amazed by where all of the talk about the effect of racism in this election is coming from. In all of the discussion of that topic, what state names are mentioned? No, not Alabama, or Georgia, but Ohio and Pennsylvania.

What was the Civil War all about?

Update 2: Thursday morning
McCain is warning us about all those "suspicious credit card donations" that have been made to the Obama campaign, warning us that we "don't really know who all of those people are."

Hey, pea brain, three of those were me. Want to make something of it?

Update 3: Thursday morning
I just read the fourth blog pundit who said words to the effect that after watching Obama's infomercial last night he's going to quit giving unneeded advice to the Obama campaign.

Ha. I made that decision weeks ago.

Trade Mission Exposed

Okay, this Palin thing is getting pretty old by now. It’s kind of like going hunting and shooting, oh I don’t know, maybe dairy cows or something. Not very sporting. But this just cropped up and I could not let it go by.

In the interview with Katie Couric, Sarah Palin gave as her foreign policy experience with Russia that she had engaged in “trade missions back and forth.” Well, it turns out, to no one’s surprise, that she may have, um, enhanced the truth just a little bit.

Alex Koppelman of the Salon website pursued this question with the governor’s office, but they would not speak to him about it, and the reason is a real side-splitter.

Morgan said she could not legally discuss any trade missions with me because she's a state employee and I had first heard this claim through the Couric interview, which was part of Palin's campaign for the vice-presidency.

So the state employee can’t talk about matters that occurred in the state, acts that were performed by the governor of the state, events that occurred before the governor was a member of McCain’s election campaign, because the questioner is asking as a result of something he heard in connection with McCain’s campaign. Presumably, if the questioner had asked out of idle curiosity, having had a bolt of inspiration out of the clear blue sky, the state employee would have been able to answer the question.

I wonder if CBS and Katie Couric know that she is "part of Palin's campaign for the vice-presidency" and how they feel about that.

The Unnoticed Lie

Toward the end of the debate, John McCain said the following, with the emphasis added my me,

Jim, when I came home from prison, I saw our veterans being very badly treated, and it made me sad. And I embarked on an effort to resolve the POW-MIA issue, which we did in a bipartisan fashion, and then I worked on normalization of relations between our two countries so that our veterans could come all the way home.

The first underlined part of that statement can be considered true only if you consider a vigorous and unrelenting effort to obstruct having them found as "resolving the issue."

As the families of the missing soldiers came to Washington to seek help in finding out what had happened to their loved ones, what had happened to their fathers and their sons, what they got from John McCain was not an "effort to resolve" the issue, what they got was open and angry hostility. McCain's attitude on the issue raised the ire of VietNam veterans groups to the degree that they began calling him the "Manchurian Senator."

As to the second underlined part, I think he's trying to sound noble with that, like allowing VietNam vets to finally be reach some sort of inner peace as the two nations reach national peace. The only problem is that VietNam veterans were pretty much united in their opposition to having this done, and when he espoused that cause they felt that McCain had betrayed them and that he was reopening old wounds. When vets confronted him he attacked them because they had not gone through as much hardship as he had, hadn't suffered like he had, which, of course, didn't make them like him any better.

The IAVA and The Disabled Vets of America will both disagree with his earlier statement,

I know the veterans. I know them well. And I know that they know that I'll take care of them. And I've been proud of their support and their recognition of my service to the veterans.And I love them. And I'll take care of them. And they know that I'll take care of them.

I'm not going to bother with his voting record in the Senate over the past twenty-six years; it's well known and unrelentingly hostile to veterans' care. But veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan should take some comfort,

They are not the first veterans to be betrayed by John Sidney McCain.

Policy Advisors

There have been several times that pundits on the news shows have noted that Obama seems slow to respond to a new form of attack by the opposing campaign (first Clinton and now McCain), but that once he does respond the response is a measured and effective one. We’re in the midst of one of those cycles now. The McCain campaign has unleashed Palin along with a new blizzard of lies, Obama does not seem to be responding much, and Democrats are freaking out about the impending loss of the election.

First let me say that, to me, a deliberative process that creates a measured and effective response seems to be a pretty good way to run a country, and is therefor a very good reason to vote for Obama.

As to the time it takes him to arrive at a response? Well, this is only a political campaign; he has the luxury of being able to take his time, so he takes it. He takes the time to look at the wide view and makes what is called an “informed decision.”

During the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962, Kennedy spent many hours and, at times, days conferring with advisors and sometimes calling in additional advisors before making decisions as how to respond to Soviet moves. That crisis turned out okay, and it did so, in part, because Kennedy was deliberative in his manner and sought input from others before deciding how to deal with it.

McCain is an ex-fighter pilot, a man of action, a “see it now, kill it now” kind of man. His approach to leadership is that he knows all there is to know about everything. His response to a crisis is along the lines of, “Do something now, even if might be the wrong thing.”

He reinforces success, but he doesn’t learn from failure. In Iraq he is so buoyed by what he sees as the success of the six-month “surge” in reducing violence on a small scale, that he cannot see the abject failure of the five-year overall war in reducing violence and danger worldwide.

Obsidian Wings had a guest post yesterday who made this point at length and in a more scholarly way than I can. Here’s an excerpt, but you should really go read the whole thing for yourself.

On Talk of the Nation earlier this week, Ted Koppel asked Randy Scheunemann, McCain’s main foreign policy guy to explain how McCain’s foreign policy staff was set up. Koppel prefaced the question by explaining that Obama has a core team of five or six advisors and then a couple hundred other experts who can be called upon as needed. Scheunemann answered that McCain, doesn’t have the same needs as Obama because he has 40 years in the military and Senate and is already “intimately familiar” with foreign policy issues. He actually said that “John McCain needs foreign policy advisors like Tiger Woods needs a golf coach.”

Like that guest poster, the pick of Sarah Palin as running mate would have swung my choice to Obama if it had not already been there. I fully agree with the person who said that Palin “doesn’t even belong in Washington, let alone in the White House,” but that is not the point.

What the pick says about McCain is utterly frightening. The idea that one man will be making decisions on the level of missiles in Cuba, out of his own brain and without the advice of others, absolutely terrifies me.

McCain is speaking

and he just started on his "I was blessed with misfortune" and "served with heros" story about being a pow. I just threw up a little bit in my mouth. Did you know he was a pow? If you didn't know or haven't heard the story, I have it on tape and can send it to you. As I said, it makes me vomit, but...

Up until now I simply didn't know what the hell he was babbling about. Now that I know, I wish I didn't.

His speech was preceeded by a video of him being a pow, and that was preceeded by his wife telling the same freaking story, so that makes three times now in one night we have heard the pos pow story in its entirety in one night.

I think the audience has all died. Even when they are standing and cheering they look bored out of their gourds. Except Sarah Palin. I think she's about to have an orgasm. That would embarrass Cindy McCain, who is sitting right beside her and looks slightly less bored than the rest of the audience. Her smile is 4% more authentic than her husband's but significantly more frequent.

This live blogging is cool. I just turned the sound off; vast improvement. Oh, nope, he's still speaking. I just turned off the tv altogether. Much better, but so much for the live blogging. Good night.

"Troopergate" & McCain

Let’s assume that the trooper is every bit the heinous beast that certain parties want to make him out to be, and that Sarah Palin’s motives are as pure as the driven snow. (Heh, apt enough.) I don’t for a moment assume either to be the case, but let’s assume them. That still leaves the fact that at the time John McCain selected her as his running mate there was a charge pending against Sarah Palin for abuse of the power of her office, and that the investigation had not yet been resolved.

John McCain was aware of that unresolved charge of abuse of the power of her office and he did not care.

Let’s go back now the “The Keating Five.” I lived in Arizona at the time. Everyone I knew was certain that McCain was as guilty as the other four and we were all astounded when he “got off.” He swore that he had “learned his lesson,” but there is plenty of evidence that the lesson he learned was to be sure that no mechanism for the investigation of Congressional breaches of ethics and abuse of power was ever allowed to become established. And to this day, none has.

McCain has pressured the FCC on behalf of campaign contributors repeatedly, and whenever the subject comes up he starts talking about his experience as a POW and the media immediately changes the subject.

So the charge of Sarah Palin’s abuse of the power of her office did not bother him in the least. To him, that is simply the normal way of doing government. It simply never crossed his mind to think that the charge might be a problem. As we say in the software industry, to him

Abuse of power is not a bug, it’s a feature.

Tepid Support

It seems that John McCain needs to spend more time getting to know his present running mate, since he has a far different take on her knowledge and experience of matters regarding national security than she does herself. This is what he said on Fox news this Sunday, emphasis added by me,

"She knows that the surge worked and succeeded and she supported that," McCain continued. "Senator Obama still, still to this day, refuses to acknowledge that the surge has succeeded. She's been commander-in-chief of the Alaska Guard that has served back and back. In fact, as you know, she's got a son who's getting ready to go. But she's had the judgment on these issues that Senator Obama, he's had all the wrong judgments. Governor Palin understands these issues, and she understands the challenges that we face."

This is from an interview conducted at the time of the surge that McCain suggest she supported,

Alaska Business Monthly: We've lost a lot of Alaska's military members to the war in Iraq. How do you feel about sending more troops into battle, as President Bush is suggesting?

Palin: I've been so focused on state government, I haven't really focused much on the war in Iraq. I heard on the news about the new deployments, and while I support our president, Condoleezza Rice and the administration, I want to know that we have an exit plan in place; I want assurances that we are doing all we can to keep our troops safe. Every life lost is such a tragedy. I am very, very proud of the troops we have in Alaska, those fighting overseas for our freedoms, and the families here who are making so many sacrifices.

The only “support” in that quote is, “and while I support our president.” That is usually a preface to adding a disagreement or disclaimer of some sort, and so it is here, “I want to know that we have an exit plan in place; I want assurances that we are doing all we can to keep our troops safe.”

That doesn’t sound very supportive to me.

Since that date and prior to her selection as his running mate, can anyone point me to a quote from her supporting the surge, acknowledging that the surge has been a success, claiming progress or success in Iraq? Anything? Anybody?

We have all of this testimony as to her judgement from McCain, after her selection. Not one word from him or anyone else prior to her selection. Not one single quote or article from prior to her selection documenting this judgement and knowledge on matters of grave national importance. Just John McCain's unsupported word. And, of course, hers.

If you have any such pre-selection quote, please add it in comments.

Selection Sagacity

A good friend told me not long ago that he was reserving judgement on the presidential race until the running mates were chosen; that the choices would tell him more about the candidates, and he would choose then. He made, I think, a good point. My political inclination is more, shall we say, sharply defined than his, but I have been waiting to see what those choices would tell me as well.

What the choices “said to me” was a very mixed bag.

Obama’s choice tells me that he believes the Vice President must be qualified in all respects to serve as President, unlike McCain with his choice.

Obama clearly wanted someone who could serve as a governing partner, who could add wisdom and counsel and assist him in governing the nation. In that respect, McCain’s choice is a bit mystifying. While Palin has a reputation as a reformer and a maverick, it is a short and untested reputation and it’s doubtful in the extreme that she would be able to swing any real weight in Washington if elected.

Advantage Obama so far, but things go downhill after that, because then we have to look at the degree to which the choices reflect the political inclinations of the candidates.

Does Obama really embrace the governing philosophy reflected by Biden’s not only voting for but driving the most recent Bankruptcy Bill? And it was Biden who served as the initiator of bipartisanship on the Patriot Act. Just to name two cases of him not only supporting, but serving as leader of anti-populist measures. That conflicts badly with Obama’s populist message.

By contrast Palin does appear to be a real populist; steering funds away from corporate causes and into projects with benefits to the general public, which actually makes her a rather odd pick for a Republican. The caution is that we don’t really know her yet. Politicians always look good their first year or so, busily carrying out campaign promises and clearing the decks for later when the media will be less attentive, so how much of that is for real. It’s a rather thin resume, but to the degree that McCain picked her for this reason, that reflects well on him.

And forget this “troopergate” nonsense. Even if true, Washington politicians do worse than before breakfast just to warm up. A Washington reporter would not even dignify that story with a “pfffft.”

Biden’s foreign policy credentials are much touted, but they are only marginally less warlike than John McCain’s. He adds to Obama’s already stated intention to increase military spending, despite the fact the we already spend more than all of the rest of the world combined, and that we already have the largest deficit in our history. Like Obama, he wants more war in Afghanistan and wants a warlike posture facing Iran.

It does not seem that McCain picked Palin for her military expertise or views because Palin, bless her heart, seems to think guns are only for the purpose of shooting moose. Her only stated policy on Iraq is that she thinks we should have an exit strategy. She has no known position on Afghanistan or Iran.

Joe Biden is a Roman Catholic, but if he has any theory of government that relates to his religion I have yet to hear it. He is pro-choice based on minimizing the government’s ability to interfere in individual rights. He opposes gay marriage but supports civil unions and the provision of benefits to same-sex couples. I believe Obama holds the same views.

Palin does have religious positions, and they were a stated part of McCain’s reason for picking her. Abortion should be outlawed with no exception, and contraception of all types should not be allowed even between married couples. She opposes gay marriage and civil unions for gay couples. She opposes extending benefits to same-sex partners.

She has position on global warming: it is not man-made or contributed to by the actions of man, and no actions should be taken to curb it. Polar bears should not be placed on the endangered species list because she believes they are not endangered. Evolution is just a theory, no better of a theory than creationism, which is the true theory that should be taught in schools

To the degree that those extreme fundamentalist religious views reflect in any way the manner in which John McCain intends to govern, the selection of Sarah Palin utterly freaks me out. That makes him George W. Bush on steroids. The very thought that he embraces her religious beliefs as a governing theory chills me.

And Vice President… We should never let anyone with that extreme set of religious beliefs get anywhere near the helm of our government, let alone within a 75-year-old heartbeat of it.

Flip Flop

Sarah Palin in October, 2006, regarding funding for the “bridge to nowhere,

"I do support the infrastructure projects that are on tap here in the state of Alaska that our congressional delegations worked hard for."

and

"Yes. I would like to see Alaska's infrastructure projects built sooner rather than later. The window is now -- while our congressional delegation is in a strong position to assist."

So, less than two years ago she not only supported funding for the bridge, she supported earmarking as a method of obtaining the funding.

Sarah Palin in August, 2008,

"I told Congress 'thanks but no thanks' on that bridge to nowhere."

Clearly her principles of government are a good match for McCain.

Stunning Selection

Updated below: Saturday morning

I mean that literally. I mean, look at her. John McCain is obviously still hung up on beauty queens. This lady could make a freight train follow her down a dirt road. A muddy, unused, one lane dirt road.

Cindy McCain can’t be happy about this pick. When you are the former younger woman and the present wife, you are not happy when another younger woman shows up. Cindy usually has the “basic botox” look, so it isn’t easy to tell, but she looks to me to be somewhat less than ecstatic.

Sarah Palin’s qualifications seem to be limited to two things; she is rabidly “anti-choice,” and she is a lifetime member of the National Rifle Association. (The first is usually known by Republicans as “pro-life,” of course, but I like my term for it better.) She has no experience in foreign policy and has expressed a sincere disinterest in it.

So I guess if McCain is elected to office and incapacitated, this nation will just disengage from the world at large and devote itself to hunting down abortion doctors. When that is completed we will start searching dark alleyways for guys with coat hangers. If you don’t know what that means it’s because you are young and grew up in a free country, and I’m truly happy for you.

She’s presently the subject of a legislative investigation for the abuse of the power of her office, so she fits right in with John McCain’s agenda.

But most of all, her selection stunningly illustrates how McCain will continue the Bush policy of politics over governance. Sarah Palin was selected for her politics and for the purpose of political gimmickry, and not for the actual qualifications that she brings to the nomination.

The office of Vice President exists for one purpose and one purpose only; to assume the Presidency in the event that the President is incapacitated. The person nominated to the position must have one qualification, and only one qualification; that person must be qualified to be President.

Sarah Palin was chosen because she is female, to cater to disaffected Clinton backers; because she is “anti-choice,” to cater to the religious base, and because she is “pro-gun,” to cater to the rest of the base. She was chosen for those reasons despite the clear fact that she does not have the experience to qualify her to serve as President under any circumstances, and especially not at a time when the nation would be in turmoil due to the sudden loss of its sitting Chief Executive.

John McCain demonstrated his lack of leadership and qualification to serve as this nation’s President by making this choice.

Update: Saturday morning
The "anti-choice" crowd oppose abortion even when the woman's life is at risk. They will allow a woman to die, and the fetus with her, to assure that the fetus is not actively terminated. One life for sure, possibly two, lost; the one loss certainly needless. And they oppose contraception.

That's not "pro-life."

Tuesday Quiz

Do you know who said this?

"I'm sick and tired of re-fighting the Vietnam War. And most importantly, I'm sick and tired of opening the wounds of the Vietnam War, which I've spent the last 30 years trying to heal. It's offensive to me, and it's angering to me that we're doing this. It's time to move on."

Well, it's a bit obvious, of course it's John McCain. In another flip flop of rather major proportions, now he wants to talk about that war all the time; about his role in it as a captive, and about our role in it as quitters. He wants to talk about how we could have won it if we had not lost our national will to fight, a myth that is held dear by a diminishing number of delusional neocons.

John McCain Lies, Again

John McCain stood before the VFW on August 18th, stood before a group of veterans who had gone in harm’s way in wars on foreign soil, and lied to them about the support that he is providing to their comrades presently bearing arms in a war on foreign soil.

John McCain explodes into a tirade of righteous indignation and anger at the merest hint that someone might be disrespecting his precious service to his country, but he stands in front of an association of just such veterans and disrespects their sacrifice by lying to them to pander for their votes.

John McCain dishonors himself and the uniform he once wore.

John McCain claims credit for a bill in Congress for which he did not vote, against which he spoke out, and against which he sponsored a competing bill which failed. McCain was one of 24 Republicans who declined to support the better bill, the one which passed, yet he says to the VFW,

“In its initial version, that bill failed to address the number one education request that I've heard from career service members and their families -- the freedom to transfer their benefits to a spouse or a child. The bill also did nothing to retain the young officer and enlisted leaders who form the backbone of our all-volunteer force.

“As a political proposition, it would have much easier for me to have just signed on to what I considered flawed legislation. But the people of Arizona, and of all America, expect more from their representatives than that, and instead I sought a better bill. I’m proud to say that the result is a law that better serves our military, better serves military families, and better serves the interests of our country.” (emphasis mine)

Just to be crystal clear: his bill failed. The bill that he opposed passed.

His “did nothing to retain the young officer and enlisted leaders” means that his preference was to disallow educational benefits until these “young leaders” had stayed in the service long enough to become “old leaders” and no longer of any use to the military before allowing them to retire and receive educational benefits.

His desire to make educational benefits transferable was to serve military dependents instead of those serving in uniform. It would have raised the cost of the benefit enormously while diminishing the reward to those actually putting their lives on the line. It would have been another step, along with “stop loss,” toward turning our all-volunteer force into indentured servitude.

The law that resulted is indeed a better law than what John McCain sought, and it is in spite of John McCain’s efforts that it is so, not because of him.

John McCain is trying to lie his way into the White House.

Opposing the Surge

When tribal leaders in Anbar Province came over to our side and wanted to fight with us against Al Queda, Barack Obama said that we needed to continue fighting against these guys, killing them and letting them kill our soldiers; that we did not want them as allies.

When our military leaders began holding onto areas that had been cleared of insurgents instead of leaving and allowing the insurgents to retake those areas, Barack Obama vigorously objected to that policy. He declared "whack-a-mole" to be a far more viable policy and insisted that we needed to continue that policy in Iraq indefinitely.

Oh, yeah, and he was opposed to sending more troops to continue playing "whack-a-mole" against the Anbar Province tribes that wanted to join us but whom we were fighting instead.

"Barack Obama opposed the surge. He was wrong and I was right."

History according to John McCain, who is the only person alive who can prevent a 757 filled with Muslim terrorists from crashing on my house.

Surge Politics

McCain is saying that Obama is a traitor, that he is willing for this country to lose a war for his own political gain. That’s not just a one-liner he tossed out one time, that is a serious claim that he has made repeatedly. When asked, “Do you really believe that he can be that craven?” his reply is, essentially, “Yes.”

Bush III. If you disagree with me you are an unpatriotic traitor.

He is also saying specifically that it was his own personal “judgement and courage” which created what he calls “the surge that worked.” As a senator, one out of the one hundred who serve in that office.

When called out on his statement that the “surge” led to the awakening in Anbar Province, which happened six months before the “surge,” he responded by delivering an utterly unhinged redefinition of the “surge” yesterday to reporters. I won’t bother to quote his incoherent explanation of how the “surge” really meant “counter-insurgent strategy” and that increased troop count was only one aspect of that. I hope everybody got that, “counter-insurgent strategy.” Very clever.

People with IQ's in single digits will certainly go for that. And newsmen. Well, same thing.

Then he went on to say that if Obama had gotten his wish and the “surge” had not happened, the Sheik who led the Anbar Awakening would have been assassinated by Al Queda. He should have read the newspapers instead of his crystal ball, because that Sheik was, in fact, killed by a bomb right at the peak level of troops during the surge.

Blog pundits are swooning about his campaign being in such disarray that he may not even last until November, that the Republicans may pull him in favor of some other candidate. Don’t kid yourself.

Do not underestimateoverestimate the thinking power of the low information American voter. McCain is barely trailing in the polls because, “John McCain is the Great American War Hero and if I don’t vote for him then a 757 filled with Muslim terrorists will crash down on my house and kill me and my family in our sleep.”

Selling The Point

Many years ago the Hamm’s Beer commercials on television featured a cartoon bear that kept getting in trouble. I loved those commercials, as did everyone who saw them. The bear’s misadventures were a frequent topic of conversation around the office water cooler, and we couldn’t wait to see what was going to happen to him next. Hamm’s was extremely popular for sponsoring that bear.

The only problem was that everyone was buying and drinking Schlitz and Budweiser, not Hamm’s. Advertisers were finding out that the commercials that sold products were not the ones that entertained, but the ones that were repeated so many times that they became annoying. Those were the ones that made the brand name stick in peoples’ minds when they were standing at the point of sale.

John McCain knows that. He is getting killed right now by current events. He has nothing on which to sell himself other than his personal valor in combat and in the face of torture, and the fact that he supported the surge. And so he repeats these truisms to the point of annoyance. When asked about removing troops from Iraq he responds by saying that he was right on the surge and Obama was wrong. When asked about Afghanistan he responds by saying that he was right about the surge in Iraq.

It is annoying, it is unresponsive, and it works. It makes people remember his name. People only need one fact to remember a person, and they remember that fact and define that person by that fact.

A friend of mine once told me, when I asked him if his razor broke, that he was growing a beard and that he was going to let it grow out to be a large full beard. I asked him why and he replied that it was so that people would then refer to him as “the guy with the beard” instead of “the big fat guy.”

Do not think that John McCain fails to respond to a question because he didn’t understand the question. John McCain is not stupid. He knows how to campaign. You craft a message, a simplistic talking point that defines you, and you repeat that message until your audience cannot see a picture even remotely relating to that message without your name entering their mind.

Yesterday McCain gave the same answer, “I was right on the surge and Obama was wrong,” to three questions in succession. The answer was responsive to the first question, at least moderately so, but it was totally unresponsive to the next two. McCain knows that to get a point to stick in the listener’s mind he has to annoy them with it. A few people will remember it if he says it once, but virtually everyone will remember it if he says it three times. One news station might play a clip of him saying it if he says it once, but by saying it three times he can be all but certain of getting the statement on television.

John McCain is not interested in answering questions. He is interested in getting his talking points on television and, more importantly, implanted in the memories of the voting public.

Is Obama any different? Well, I think the answer is both yes and no. Obama is a politician, and certainly he knows how to do the “talking point” thing.

But Barack Obama is "tainted" by idealism. There are all of these ideas bouncing around inside his head of things he might actually do if elected. They distract him from the cynicism of merely repeating the talking points and these ideas keep getting into his speeches and into the answers he gives to questions. He knows he is supposed to merely provide talking point number four, but he actually has an answer to the question and he just can’t quite prevent himself from giving it.

It makes it hard for the electorate to get a handle on him, though. They want that talking point. That want that one simple fact that defines him and, so far, he isn’t really providing it the way that McCain is. One thing is for sure, though, if Barack Obama is elected,

Either he is going to change Washington, or it's going to change him.

Bush the Third

The media is missing the main story again. There’s nothing wrong with the story they are getting, the criticism they are making is valid enough, but they are stepping over a dollar to pick up a dime.

Asked if, given that the surge is working, McCain now has a better idea of when the troops will be coming home, he replies,

"No, but that’s not too important. What’s important is casualties in Iraq. Americans are in South Korea, Americans are in Japan, Americans are in Germany, that’s all fine. American casualties and the ability to withdraw. We will be able to withdraw. General Petraeus is going to tell us in July when he thinks we are. But the key to it is that we don’t want any more Americans in harm’s way."

Certainly the criticism of, “No, but that’s not too important” is a valid one. The remark is insensitive and is demoralizing to the men and women far from home and the military families whose loved ones are separated from them. These families want to know when they will be reunited and, despite McCain’s apparent opinion, they think that the timing of that reunion is very important indeed.

But his answer betrays two disconnects from reality that speak to his fitness to serve in this nation’s highest office and the media, in its haste to “support the troops,” overlooks two serious issues in McCain's response.

The lesser issue is that McCain glibly speaks of leaving our military in this theatre in a casualty-free environment, but offers no method by which this might be accomplished. In two of the three nations he names it was accomplished by formal treaty signed with national leaders of a vanquished nation. That possibility does not exist in Iraq, as the vanquished nation we are occupying is, at least nominally, our ally even as we suffer casualties inflicted by multiple armed organizations who are attempting to drive us out. In the third named instance it was a formally declard stalemete between two governments and our troops there, faced off against more than a million enemy soldiers and hundreds of thousands of artillery pieces, can hardly be said not to be in harm's way.

So, while it may be possible to accomplish the utopian status that he envisions, it seems unlikely at best, and he offers no pathway to that destination, merely states his desire to arrive at it.

The greater issue is, “General Petraeus is going to tell us in July...”

I have always despised those who crave authority and are unwilling to bear the concomitant responsibility. They want the glory but are unwilling to bear the risk. They want to swagger and strut, to receive the praise and bask in the adulation of high office, but they shun the anxiety of decision-making and are unwilling to accept the agony of error. They are as sounding brass, filled with noise and fury, signifying nothing.

George Bush calls himself “The Decider,” yet from the very day that this war in Iraq started to go bad he began deferring to “the generals on the ground.” Every good thing that has happened has been his decision and every bad thing that has happened has been “on the advice of my generals.” George Bush has been saying for months that the schedule for troop withdrawals from Iraq will be decided by General Petraeus.

And now John McCain, “General Petraeus is going to tell us in July...”

How can John McCain claim that he is not running for George W. Bush’s third term as President?

How can any president leave that decision to any general? For two centuries this nation has operated on the fundamental principle that the military is subordinate to civilian leadership. The decision as to the nature of the occupation of another, sovereign nation is a policy decision that is properly made by the civilian leadership of this nation, not by the general commanding the occupying army. George Bush committed a grave breach of national tradition, or worse, when he abdicated that decision to David Petraeus, and John McCain is echoing that policy.

Perceiving the timing of the homecoming of troops as unimportant is in poor taste. Being unaware of the manner in which our nation is properly governed renders McCain unfit for office.

McCain: Military Elitist

John McCain said yesterday that, since Barack Obama “did not feel it was his responsibility to serve our country in uniform,” he does not have the right to question McCain’s failure to support the new GI Bill which was at that time being approved in the Senate by a vote of 75-22. One vote was missing; only one; the vote of John McCain. John McCain was too busy at a fund-raising gala to attend to his duties as a Senator in the Congress of the United States.

Well I did “serve our country in uniform,” Senator McCain, and so even by your arrogant military elitist standards I am qualified and do have the right to question your failure to support our veterans with this bill. Your position is self-serving and wrong.

Your claims about retention are garbage on more than one level. What about those who, wounded or otherwise rendered unable, cannot serve multiple enlistments? Do we accept their single enlistment and then toss them out to a lifelong career at minimum wage?

With this bill perhaps we can improve recruitment such that retention is no longer the demand that turns the technicality of “stop loss” into a back door draft. Perhaps with a bill like this one we could secure sufficient recruitment that our men and women might need to serve only one tour in combat instead of the three and four, and more, that they presently serve. Perhaps with a bill like this one we could secure sufficient recruitment that we would no longer need to be sending wounded soldiers back into battle. Perhaps we could restore a rotation which actually allows our soldiers sufficient time to rest and retrain between deployments.

This “war” is supposedly the “ideological struggle of our time” upon which the very existence of our nation depends; this by your own statements. And yet the thanks that we offer to the men and women who fight this war are a pittance in comparison to those we offered to my father when he returned from the greater war that you use as the standard against which this one is measured.

You see, Mr. McCain, “I served my country in uniform.” As did my father, and his father. I remember one day when I was a small child and an olive-drab car drove up and took my father off to war. You have no corner on that story you arrogant jackass.

I will go further. When you use your military service as an instrument of self-aggrandizement and to secure for yourself wealth and power, when you suggest that your service makes you "better than" or renders others who did not serve inferior, you dishonor that service and you lose the right to have me in any way “respect your service.”

We have an all-volunteer military in this country. If you want to talk about the “responsibility to serve our country in uniform” then institute a draft. Until then, do not dare to arrogantly criticize those who do not choose the way of life that you have chosen merely because they did not make the same choice you did.

You owe an apology to Barack Obama, to veterans, and to this nation.