McCain to double down on a losing hand

hgc

Penultimate Amazing
hgc
Joined
Jun 14, 2002
Messages
15,892
Yes, according to a WaPo story, McCain will ...

... 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.

...
Click to expand...


Bush's war machine getting on track? Christ, this guy is dumber than a bag of rocks (as if that wasn't obvious after last week's escapades). He knew a lot better back in 2000, before he decided to kiss the boy-king's ring.
 
So, is it just regular politician "I'll do anything to get elected!", or is it actual senility? He is 104 years old, after all.
 
TragicMonkey said:
So, is it just regular politician "I'll do anything to get elected!", or is it actual senility? He is 104 years old, after all.
Click to expand...

:)

I think it's more that the detrimental effects of the Kool-Aid are setting in.

(edited to add, from the link) "Together, aides hope, the speeches and remarks will serve as a reintroduction of McCain to voters . . ." I think McCain's "reintroduction" is what is getting him into trouble in the first place. ;)
 
Last edited:
I wonder what McCain's definition of "winnable" is?
 
Is it really inconceivable that this thing could be turned around?

Let's for a second suppose that Bushco engaged in genuine diplomacy with the significant players in the region and that combined that with significant diplomacy/negotiations within Iraq led to some kind of a settlement that everybody could live with.

I find the above to be in the plausible region. The two big holes in the plan that I see are that Bushco is run by people who don't seem to have much motivation or skill at finding peaceful solutions and the proclivity for killing each other amongst all sorts of various Iraqi factions seems to be almost unlimited. But isn't there at least some possibility that something resembling stability could happen in Iraq over the next two years?

I doubt that the surge will have much effect one way or the other on this. It might even be making things worse as it deepens the divisions within Iraq until the US leaves and the Iraqis can finally settle this for themselves. Still, isn't it possible that something could be better within the next two years in Iraq?

For the record, none of the above is meant to imply disagreement with the apparent consensus of this thread that McCain is a bozo. So far in McCain's campaign it does appear that if he was trying to prove his bozoness he is succeeding..
 
geni said:
Well technicaly it is still posible to kill everyone.
Click to expand...
I know you're joking, but I heard a guy at my office the other days who used the old saying from the Vietnam war, "Kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out." And he wasn't kidding. He was all upset because the Iraqis weren't grateful for the US "liberating" them, so the best thing to do is to kill the ones we were liberating too. I am a little ashamed that instead of confronting his vapid spewing, I simply walked away and let him rant. I still have to work there.
 
This editorial by Pat Buchanan provides a little support for my theory that some sort of improvement in Iraq is at least plausible over the next two years:
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=19783


Following the worst year of his presidency, where nothing seemed to go right for him or his country, President Bush appears to be executing an about-face in foreign policy.
  • Awakening to the fact that future elections in the Mideast, a region where hostility toward him and the United States is pandemic, might bring to power enemies not friends, Bush appears to have set aside the rhetoric of democratic revolution.
  • The White House has acceded to North Korea's demands for recognition, security guarantees and aid, in return for Kim Jong-Il's promise to stop producing plutonium. Yet, there seems no guarantee the North will give up the nuclear weapons it produced and tested on Bush's watch. Though the deal angered former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton, President Bush embraced it.
  • Without preconditions, the United States this weekend sat down in Baghdad with Syria and Iran, and Secretary Rice is to meet with the foreign ministers of both nations next month. The talks may not be restricted to Iraq and may deal with the full range of U.S.-Iranian relations.
The road map of the Iraq Study Group seems to have been found somewhere in the West Wing.
  • Over the weekend, Gen. David Petraeus said in Baghdad: "Any student of history recognizes there is no military solution to a problem like that in Iraq. ... A political resolution of various differences ... is crucial." Any such resolution, said the general, requires engaging some of the Sunni enemies that U.S. forces have been fighting.
  • With U.S. approval, the Saudis have helped cobble together a coalition government in Palestine of Hamas and Fatah. And though Hamas has balked at the three non-negotiable demands of the Quartet -- that it recognize Israel, accept all previous Israeli-Palestinian agreements and renounce war -- a diplomatic track appears to be opening. And Ehud Olmert, surprisingly, has told his Cabinet he will "treat seriously" the Saudi Plan that calls for Israeli withdrawal to its 1967 borders, in return for peace with the Arab nations.
  • Moreover, if personnel is policy, the changes since November augur a change in policy. Rumsfeld is out, Robert Gates of the Iraq Study Group is in. John Bolton is gone from the United Nations. Doug Feith is defending himself from charges he cherry-picked the intel to get us into war. Scooter Libby is no longer the eminence grise of the West Wing, but fishing for a pardon. President Bush is said to be listening more to Condi Rice and less to Richard Cheney.
Click to expand...

My apologies to Pat Buchanan for such a long cut from his article. I couldn't find a small quote that summarized his point well, which is that Bushco is rethinking their belligerent neocon directed ideas about foreign policy.
 
Pat's closing remarks though:
...If Bush can broker a deal that suspends the nuclear enrichment program of Iran before it goes critical, he may yet salvage something of value out of the hellish mess in Mesopotamia.
Click to expand...
Ah, 'Bush the Great Statesman'.

This is one of the things I just don't understand about politics. The urgency for keeping Iran under control would seem to have been an argument for NOT getting into a long term war in Iraq, or ever allowing to descend to open sectarian warfare.

But 'hellish mess' is what is now on the menu. Iran is certainly far more influential and powerful today than it was when we started. They have only us to thank.

I know Pat is a smart guy but this just sounds like 'newspeak'.
 
Tricky said:
I know you're joking, but I heard a guy at my office the other days who used the old saying from the Vietnam war, "Kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out."
Click to expand...

I think you mean (or he meant), "We have to destroy the village in order to save it." :)
 
Mephisto said:
I think you mean (or he meant), "We have to destroy the village in order to save it." :)
Click to expand...

Actually that was a Peter Arnett-ism. It was not a direct quote from anyone but Arnett.

As for Tricky, well discretion is the better part of valor eh? I know some folks like that. I tend to confront them, but then again I'm not a liberal. I guess someone like me can shut up a stupid right-wing rant better than someone like you. Similarly you could more easily shut-up a crazy raving moonbat rant and still be able to work with the individual based on where you are coming from politically, whereas I would not.

At least I think that's how it works?? Have a great holiday weekend Trick...

-z
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom