Saint McMaverick

C

Cypress

Well-known member
He may be awesome and all mavericky, but I think this is a pretty good explanation of why he won the GOP nomination. It's all about Iraq. Which is the foundation of their "national security" argument. They love the war. There's really no other issue the GOP can run on. As elaborated below:


It's the day before the Virginia primary, and darkness has fallen outside the Aviation Museum in Richmond. Inside, presumptive Republican nominee John McCain stands proudly before a museum-exhibit version of his own A-4 Navy jet fighter, plowing through the Poconos-stand-up portion of his stump speech.

snip

I clench my teeth, bracing for impact. Behind me, a pair of aging Soccer Moms in acrylic sweaters sing McCain's praises.

"I can't even imagine being a prisoner of war," says Mom Number One. "It must be so hard."

"Yeah," agrees Number Two. "You know he won't surrender over there."

"Mm-hmm," says the first. Then, after a pause: "Oh, hey, you know what I watched yesterday? Saving Private Ryan. And We Were Soldiers."

"Oh, those are great war movies," says Mom Number Two. "Great war movies."
Another pause. Then, "Oh, I went to that new buffet," says Mom Number One. "The one with the salads. I have to say, I'm not that into sweetbreads."

I want to choke the life out of both of them. But how do you communicate to someone the sheer insanity of voting to bomb the fuck out of some distant country while you sit safe and cozy in the Virginia suburbs, evaluating sweetbreads — just so the world can keep on feeling like the heroic war movies you rock yourself to sleep with on Sunday afternoons?

The answer is you can't. And that is one big reason why John McCain, defying the expectations of almost everyone who watched him last summer — myself included — has risen from the political dead to wrap up the GOP nomination. He's survived because Onward to Victory is the last great illusion the Republican Party has left to sell in this country, even to its own followers. They can't sell fiscal responsibility, they can't sell "values," they can't sell competence, they can't sell small government, they can't even sell the economy. All they have left to offer is this sad, dwindling, knee-jerk patriotism, a promise to keep selling world politics as a McHale's Navy rerun to a Middle America that wants nothing to do with realizing the world has changed since 1946.

The lesson of the McCain campaign is that one should never underestimate America's capacity for self-delusion. Balls-deep in one of the biggest foreign-policy catastrophes of all time, an arrogant military misadventure destined to make us infamous for a generation across a dozen cultures, minivan-driving suburban America is still waiting for Bill Holden to make it right by blowing up the Bridge on the River Kwai — and returning, tanned and handsome, to get the girl with a mouth full of cool one-liners.

I scoot away from the Moms, knowing I can't win any argument here. McCain, meanwhile, is wrapping up the tale of an old soldier who trained a monkey to take his place on the front lines during World War II.

"So I said to him, 'I can see why you weren't promoted,' " says McCain. "And he says, 'That's not what made me mad. The monkey retired as an admiral!' "

The audience roars with laughter. We'll lick this Iraq thing yet!

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/18721308/mccain_resurrected
Click to expand...
 
"Which is the foundation of their "national security" argument"

And isn't it just brilliant that Hillary, in a year of recession, has decided to shift the Dem campaign to national security, also?

I shouldn't question. After all, she - like McCain - has a lifetime of nat'l security experience. 35 whole years.
 
Cypress said:
He may be awesome and all mavericky, but I think this is a pretty good explanation of why he won the GOP nomination. It's all about Iraq. Which is the foundation of their "national security" argument. They love the war. There's really no other issue the GOP can run on. As elaborated below:
Click to expand...

Oh wow, this looks like an excellent piece, I want to read the whole thing later. I love Rolling Stone.

And no, you can’t reason with that sort. They willfully close their eyes to the torment, death, suffering and grief their wars and bombs bring to others, so that they can feel “safe”. They are despicable.
 
Onceler said:
"Which is the foundation of their "national security" argument"

And isn't it just brilliant that Hillary, in a year of recession, has decided to shift the Dem campaign to national security, also?

I shouldn't question. After all, she - like McCain - has a lifetime of nat'l security experience. 35 whole years.
Click to expand...

Hillary....what a moron. She's been doing this crap since new hampshire.
 
Darla said:
Oh wow, this looks like an excellent piece, I want to read the whole thing later. I love Rolling Stone.

And no, you can’t reason with that sort. They willfully close their eyes to the torment, death, suffering and grief their wars and bombs bring to others, so that they can feel “safe”. They are despicable.
Click to expand...

Rolling stone has outstanding journalism.

this an awesome piece. There's another about "the surge" in Iraq, that is just about the best analysis I've ever seen from the media. It totally explodes the myth behind the "surge"


http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/18722376/the_myth_of_the_surge
 
Cypress said:
He may be awesome and all mavericky
Click to expand...
He's not a "maverick", he's a compromiser. He has a disturbing tendency to accept (and sometimes even initiate) liberal legislation, which is why so many libs like him and conservs don't. Kind of like hiring a bank guard, and then finding out he occasionally hands out money from the vault to robbers passing by. He also has a quick temper which may be why the media came up with their misleading "maverick" title.

They love the war.
Click to expand...
You have the weirdest preception of Republicans. No wonder you keep losing elections to Presidents you consider "dumb".
 
Cypress said:
Rolling stone has outstanding journalism.

this an awesome piece. There's another about "the surge" in Iraq, that is just about the best analysis I've ever seen from the media. It totally explodes the myth behind the "surge"


http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/18722376/the_myth_of_the_surge
Click to expand...
From the piece above:

The American forces responsible for overseeing "volunteer" militias like Osama's have no illusions about their loyalty. "The only reason anything works or anybody deals with us is because we give them money," says a young Army intelligence officer. The 2nd Squadron, 2nd Stryker Cavalry Regiment, which patrols Osama's territory, is handing out $32 million to Iraqis in the district, including $6 million to build the towering walls that, in the words of one U.S. officer, serve only to "make Iraqis more divided than they already are." In districts like Dora, the strategy of the surge seems simple: to buy off every Iraqi in sight. All told, the U.S. is now backing more than 600,000 Iraqi men in the security sector — more than half the number Saddam had at the height of his power. With the ISVs in place, the Americans are now arming both sides in the civil war. "Iraqi solutions for Iraqi problems," as U.S. strategists like to say. David Kilcullen, the counterinsurgency adviser to Gen. Petraeus, calls it "balancing competing armed interest groups."

Wow this is what we call stablizing Iraq? Arming opposing sides who now are going to be good little Iraqis until such time as the bulk of US soldiers leave and then the civil war will grab a gear and accelerate like mad. We know this so we have to stay. Because only by staying will we maintain the peace. But by staying we are going to have to continue paying off the ISV's so they don't start fighting us again with the weapons they purchased with our money. This is fucking crazy.
 
Yeap just like I have said for years. The civil war in Iraq will happen as soon as we leave wether its six months from now or 30 years from now.
 
Desh said:
Yeap just like I have said for years. The civil war in Iraq will happen as soon as we leave wether its six months from now or 30 years from now.
Click to expand...

You wanna hear the really sucky part of that?

We could appoint Bush President until he dies, and eventually even HE would have to pull out. But there would still be war & chaos at that point.

Instead, next year, we'll have Obama pulling the troops out, as promised, and there will be war & chaos, just as there would be in 50 years under a King Bush.

BUT...it will be all Obama & the "surrender monkey" Dems fault. The storyline will be that Bush was right, and if we only stuck to his plan for Iraq (which originally stood at 6 months and $50 billion), we'd have been alright....
 
Onceler said:
You wanna hear the really sucky part of that?

We could appoint Bush President until he dies, and eventually even HE would have to pull out. But there would still be war & chaos at that point.

Instead, next year, we'll have Obama pulling the troops out, as promised, and there will be war & chaos, just as there would be in 50 years under a King Bush.

BUT...it will be all Obama & the "surrender monkey" Dems fault. The storyline will be that Bush was right, and if we only stuck to his plan for Iraq (which originally stood at 6 months and $50 billion), we'd have been alright....
Click to expand...
This is EXACTLY why we have stayed as long as we have. Bush goober smooxhers (WRL) don't want us to leave even though that now see that the Iraqi's are not interested in our form of government, or our form of liberalized freedoms. So instead, stay the course and make someone else back out so Dubya doesn't look like the dumbass (they voted for twice) that he really is.
 
Socrtease said:
From the piece above:

The American forces responsible for overseeing "volunteer" militias like Osama's have no illusions about their loyalty. "The only reason anything works or anybody deals with us is because we give them money," says a young Army intelligence officer. The 2nd Squadron, 2nd Stryker Cavalry Regiment, which patrols Osama's territory, is handing out $32 million to Iraqis in the district, including $6 million to build the towering walls that, in the words of one U.S. officer, serve only to "make Iraqis more divided than they already are." In districts like Dora, the strategy of the surge seems simple: to buy off every Iraqi in sight. All told, the U.S. is now backing more than 600,000 Iraqi men in the security sector — more than half the number Saddam had at the height of his power. With the ISVs in place, the Americans are now arming both sides in the civil war. "Iraqi solutions for Iraqi problems," as U.S. strategists like to say. David Kilcullen, the counterinsurgency adviser to Gen. Petraeus, calls it "balancing competing armed interest groups."

Wow this is what we call stablizing Iraq? Arming opposing sides who now are going to be good little Iraqis until such time as the bulk of US soldiers leave and then the civil war will grab a gear and accelerate like mad. We know this so we have to stay. Because only by staying will we maintain the peace. But by staying we are going to have to continue paying off the ISV's so they don't start fighting us again with the weapons they purchased with our money. This is fucking crazy.
Click to expand...


exactly. It's all smoke and mirrors, designed to pass the problem off to the next president.

Paying off sunni insurgents to not attack you, is not a long term viable solution.
 
Socrtease said:
This is EXACTLY why we have stayed as long as we have. Bush goober smooxhers (WRL) don't want us to leave even though that now see that the Iraqi's are not interested in our form of government, or our form of liberalized freedoms. So instead, stay the course and make someone else back out so Dubya doesn't look like the dumbass (they voted for twice) that he really is.
Click to expand...

I have been saying this for about two years now. It's so true.
 
Cypress said:
exactly. It's all smoke and mirrors, designed to pass the problem off to the next president.

Paying off sunni insurgents to not attack you, is not a long term viable solution.
Click to expand...
It's like feeding the lions locked in the room with you all of your meat. What are you going to do when you run out of meat? Or when they want MORE meat? Or when they tire of eating what you feed them that long to snack on you.
 
You can only buy someones loyalty if they are a republican. Otherwise you are just renting it.

What will happen with Pakistan if we cut off the money ?
We do not negotiate with terrorists, we rent them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top