John McCain: The Armageddon President

As the Democratic primary finally grinds to an excruciatingly messy halt, I keep hearing from Hillary Clinton supporters who vow to cast their lot with Republican John McCain now that Barack Obama has wrapped up his party’s nomination. Honestly, it’s an assertion that goes beyond ludicrous and eclipses disastrous, landing somewhere in the neighborhood of apocalyptic.

After over five years of failed policies concerning the war in Iraq (and don’t forget that other unfinished war in the country that actually was involved in 9/11), electing McCain would lead this country beyond the point of no return. If George W. Bush is the self-proclaimed War President, then his Republican wannabe heir apparent could easily be dubbed The Armageddon President.

Don’t believe it? Look at the record. Remember the November, 2002 “Joint resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq” that Congress bought into hook, line, and sinker? The one that allowed Bush and his cronies to instigate a war that McCain himself has said could last for a hundred years? Not only did Senator McCain vote for that resolution (and every pro-Iraqi War measure since), he was a co-sponsor of the bill.

In February, 2003, on FOX’s “Hannity & Colmes,” shortly before the initial invasion of Iraq, McCain was decidedly more optimistic about the length of the impending war, predicting that it “will be brief." On CNN, he said "The success will be fairly easy," and added "I believe we can win an overwhelming victory in a very short period of time." The following month, in a speech on the floor of the Senate, he said, “When the people of Iraq are liberated, we will again have written another chapter in the glorious history of the United States of America.”

That’s right, while Obama spoke out against the invasion of Iraq from the very beginning; McCain was leading the charge in a war that former White House press secretary Scott McClellan now calls “a serious strategic blunder,” while accusing the Bush administration of utilizing deception and misinformation to sell it to Congress and America.

Despite the backlash from an admittedly stunned White House, McClellan isn’t the first ex-insider to criticize the current administration over Iraq. The Washington Post lists 37 former White House staffers who broke ranks and wrote books or opinion pieces critical of Bush and his inner circle’s handling of the war. Among those who have questioned the validity and handling of the war are former Joint Chiefs of Staff director of operations Marine Lieutenant General Gregory Newbold, Army Major General Paul Eaton, Major General John Batiste, former Bush anti-terrorism adviser Richard Clarke, and former Army Gen. Eric K. Shinseki.

In an April, 2006 opinion piece in Time magazine, Newbold criticized Donald Rumsfeld and other Bush officials, saying, “The consequence of the military's quiescence was that a fundamentally flawed plan was executed for an invented war.”

While the release of the McClellan book puts McCain in an uncomfortable position with his hawkish position on Iraq (which he now claims is “winnable by 2013”), it is his stance on Iran that is even more disturbing.

Appearing on NBC’s “Meet the Press” in April, 2006, Senator McCain spoke about possible sanctions against Iran: “We're going to the United Nations Security Council with our European allies. We are seeking sanctions. We must have sanctions against Iran.”

He then said that if sanctions failed, the U.S. must be prepared to use military force against Iran: “Would it be a difficult military option? Sure, it would be a difficult military option. But you cannot remove it from the table.”

“Meet the Press” host Tim Russert asked McCain what could happen if the U.S. found itself embroiled in two major wars at once.

A year later almost to the day, while speaking at a South Carolina VFW hall in April of 2007, McCain was asked about Iran, or rather, “When do we send them an airmail message to Tehran?”

“That old Beach Boys song? Bomb Iran?” (to sporadic and slightly nervous laughter). And then he actually sang a chorus:

Senator McCain…war is NOT funny. Lives lost, both civilian and military, is no laughing matter. A country pushed to the verge of bankruptcy to fund not one…not two…but countless conflicts around the globe is not something that America should find laughable.

But McCain hasn’t stopped there. He has continued to beat the war drum in speech after speech. This past January, he shocked a crowd of supporters by saying, “There's going to be other wars. I'm sorry to tell you, there's going to be other wars. We will never surrender but there will be other wars.”

Even staunch conservative Pat Buchanan was critical of McCain’s aggressive approach to international relations, saying “You get John McCain in the White House, and I do believe we will be at war with Iran. That's one of the things that makes me very nervous about him. There's no doubt John McCain is going to be a war president. His whole career is wrapped up in the military, national security. He's in Putin's face, he's threatening the Iranians, we're going to be in Iraq for a hundred years.”

So before disgruntled Hillary supporters declare their support for a warmonger whose comments make Bush look like a pacifist, they might want to reconsider. Do we really want a president who thinks it’s funny to lead our world down the path to Armageddon while singing a chorus of “Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran”?

I have said before that this is one of the most important elections in our nation’s history. Let’s just hope it’s not the last.

(Mark Faulk’s first book, entitled The Naked Truth: Investing in the Stock Play of a Lifetime, is now available at www.toginet.com. And join Mark and Paul Faulk every Saturday from 1-2 PM CST on The Faulking Truth X2 Show at www.toginet.com)

(Editor's note: This is my latest article for the June 6th edition of NONzine, available throughout the Oklahoma City metro area at an www.nonzine.com )

I'm sick of the Bravo Sierra mantra that the policy in Iraq has failed.

\ it most certainly has not.

We are helping the vast majority of the Iraqi people throw off decades and decades of terror, to throw off invading terrorists and insurgents who have come to make sure this does not happen...and we are being successful at it.

The millions who have voted, who waved their purple fingers at us all, risking death in the process, the hundreds of thousands who have signed up to fight alongside our troops, oft times standing in line around craters and the dead bodies of their fellow Iraqis who are attacked in the recruiting lines for so doing.

If that was not enough, the fact that in Iraq and Afghanistan we are keeping the fundamental Islamic Jihadists so wrapped up that they cannot effectively plan or carry out further attacks against us. Regardless of how the enemy within wants to spin it, they are dieing and fighting over their in their part of the world and not here in mine. That's success from my and my family's perspective.

Finally, these people do not have a geopolitical clue (actually I think they do, and they can look at a map just like me, but they do not like what they see because it means success and success for Bush is an enigma to them...even if it means opposing what is clearly in the best interest of this nation). we have the chief state sponsor of terror boxed in with our forces to either side.

That did not happen by accident or coincident. We are going to have two allies in the region, steadily progressing towards secular republicanism and freedom. That, is something these animals simply have to fight or it spells their doom.

Fact is, Bush's strategy, despite whatever failings and adjustments, has been and continues to be brilliant and will be remembered in history that way. All the more so for holding the course in the face of the rabid opposition who have made asses of themselves and their followers for pure political expediency.

I believe they have a hunch this will be so,,,and so they are all the more enraged about it.

THE AUDACITY OF TRUTH ABOUT BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA

Your friend is a complete fool. If you want to know whose position on Iran is frightening, consider this: one of Obama's senior foreign policy consultants is none other than Zbigniew Brzezinski.

Z'BigBoy is one of the people most responsible for the mullahtocracy in Iran.

Here's a deconstruction of your friend's putative "Blog." As an homage to the DUmmie FUnnies, his incoherent rant is in red.

After over five years of failed policies concerning the war in Iraq

Which failed policy was that? The one where thirty million people were liberated with only 4,000 American deaths? The one where the Baathist regime was destroyed? The one where people who fed other human beings to dogs, or threw them into shredders were sent to the gallows? Or the one where a surge that your candidate said would not work has stabilized the country?

(and don’t forget that other unfinished war in the country that actually was involved in 9/11),

A war which will almost certainly not be finished if He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Middle-Named becomes president; not only because he has no stomach for it, but because all our career military will be heading for the exits. Never fear. We’ll just pursue the Taliban through The Hague.

They bought that line because Bush's Democrat predecessor, and a CIA director appointed by his Democrat predecessor, and a foreign policy and intelligence apparat left largely intact from his Democrat predecessor, and every major Democrat leader in Congress to the right of Dennis (the Evil Elf) Kucinich agreed that Iraq was a growing danger which had defied UN sanctions and the conditions under which it was granted a cease fire in 1991. Democrats may have these memory problems, but those of us who use our brains for a living remember quite well that Bill Clinton enforced the no-fly zone over Iraq, launched numerous cruise missile strikes into that country for a lack of compliance with UNSCOM, and personally maintained during his Presidency and in its aftermath that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Who swallowed what “hook, line and sinker?”

The one that allowed Bush and his cronies to instigate a war that McCain himself has said could last for a hundred years?

McCain has not said that, and when you assume Nazi Big-Lie tactics, by continuing to repeat this Big-Lie, I have to assume you’re a “Little Eichmann:” small, only because you lack his means.

Not only did Senator McCain vote for that resolution (and every pro-Iraqi War measure since), he was a co-sponsor of the bill.

And so did every Democrat, except for the most extreme left-wing of your party. Twenty nine of fifty Democrats, including your Minority Leader voted for the resolution. The Leftists who failed to showed no particular judgment in doing so, since the hard Left has always opposed any resolution or appropriation to defend America.

It was brief. Combat operations were over within a matter of weeks. You might want to check on it. It was in all the papers.

“When the people of Iraq are liberated, we will again have written another chapter in the glorious history of the United States of America.”

He was right, again. Talk to the people of Iraqi Kurdistan, among many.

Scott (The Brain) McClellan, a man who was unqualified for the job of WH Press Secretary, appointed to the position for no reason other than his loyalty to the President, a favor he repaid by selling books at his benefactors expense, and now Lefty "Bloggers" are citing him as some kind of expert on “strategic matters.” I will give you this much: he probably knows more about global strategy than anybody on Barack Obama’s team. Unfortunately for your “deception” thesis, the only one trying to deceive anybody is you. Two independent inquiries, the 9/11 Commission, and a separate independent inquiry in Britain all concluded there was neither deception, nor misinformation, nor pressure on intelligence analysts to sell the war. The “deception” is another of the Nazi “Big-Lies.”

Despite the backlash from an admittedly stunned White House

They were stunned. Normally one expects that level of betrayal, that kind of treachery, from a Democrat.

McClellan isn’t the first ex-insider to criticize the current administration over Iraq. The Washington Post lists 37 former White House staffers who broke ranks and wrote books or opinion pieces critical of Bush and his inner circle’s handling of the war. Among those who have questioned the validity and handling of the war are former Joint Chiefs of Staff director of operations Marine Lieutenant General Gregory Newbold, Army Major General Paul Eaton, Major General John Batiste, former Bush anti-terrorism adviser Richard Clarke, and former Army Gen. Eric K. Shinseki.

Which proves nothing except that this is America. The criticisms were made on a variety of issues great and small, and many of them don’t support your thesis, but don’t let that stop you from trying to lump them all together as if they support your idiotic position.

While the release of the McClellan book puts McCain in an uncomfortable position with his hawkish position on Iraq (which he now claims is “winnable by 2013”),

I thought you just said McCain believes the war is going to last 100 years. (A foretaste of great mathematical reasoning ability to come: 5 = 100.)

it is his stance on Iran that is even more disturbing.

Not nearly as disturbing as a guy who actually takes advice from Z'BigBoy.

A very disturbing stance: it is exactly the same as the European stance.

A very disturbing stance: it is still exactly the same as the European stance.

“Meet the Press” host Tim Russert asked McCain what could happen if the U.S. found itself embroiled in two major wars at once.

McCain’s chilling reply: “I think we could have Armageddon.”

You are as easily chilled as a cheap Merlot. We haven’t been involved in one major war since 1973. Involvement in two major wars would be a problem, but it isn’t very likely.

Senator McCain…war is NOT funny. Lives lost, both civilian and military, is no laughing matter.

I’m sure a person who’s actually experienced what war is like finds your condescension pretty laughable.

A country pushed to the verge of bankruptcy to fund not one…not two…but countless conflicts around the globe is not something that America should find laughable.

We have a $26 trillion unfunded liability around our necks from a program started by a Democrat in the 1930’s and another $5 trillion in unfunded liability from a medical program started by a Democrat in the 1960’s, and you’re calling the current DoD budget “bankrupting.” That would be laughable if you weren’t so pathetically awful at simple arithmetic. "Countless" wars is even more laughable, but considering you don’t know the difference between a couple of hundred billion/year and $31 trillion, I'm assuming you do most of your "ciphering" on your hands, so I won’t laugh at your complete lack of mathematical reasoning...

Bwahahahahahahah !!!

I lied. You are a complete jackass and I just can’t help laughing at you.

Bwahahahahahahah !!!

Even staunch conservative Pat Buchanan…

Staunch Conservative Pat Buchanan. Now you really have lost me. Would that be the same Pat Buchanan who believes in no Free Markets? Would that be notorious Jew Hater and now Nazi apologist Pat Buchanan? Would that be “Neville Chamberlain was right” Pat Buchanan? Would that be, “We can’t roll back the boundaries of the Warsaw Pact and embrace a free Poland, Slovakia, Czech Republic, Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia, and Ukraine because it might make the Russians grouchy,” Pat Buchanan?

Yeah. He’s REAL conservative.

Bwahahahahahahah !!!

Thanks for being my entertainment for the evening.

Your "Blog" is a Faulking moonbat's cave.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.