2008 USA Republican Party Presidential Campaign

[quote=“Jaboney”]
Not liking’s beside the point; the man’s a dangerous fool. His ideological blinders have cost lives. That matters, does it not?[/quote]

The death toll of 4000 US soliders and 50,000 to 150,000 Iraqis (I don’t accept the Lancet figures) is pretty low for a war. If you had been alive during WW2, would you have been against Curtis Lemay’s bombing of Japan, which killed 330,000 Japanese? The atomic bomb, which killed 140,000 in Hiroshima and 80,000 in Nagasaki? The firebombing of Dresden, which killed between 20,000 and 40,000 civilians? Do you think Stimson and FDR were ideological fools as well? Or would you have held the same views as Joseph Kennedy, David Lloyd George etc.? What about Truman in Korea? LBJ in Vietnam? Would you have been against all of these wars and the bipartisan “Cold War” consensus? Didn’t this war have bipartisan consensus at the start and still does in many quarters?

As long as we can keep up these rationalizations, history will be no problem for Bush. All those dead soldiers and dead Iraqis will just be a comma in the history books.

Oh I see. Another lame ass WWII : Iraq comparison.

Yeah, yeah, Saddam and Hitler, Germany and Iraq, all the same league really.

Knock yourself out idiot.

[quote=“games”]

Knock yourself out idiot.[/quote]

If you can’t see any similarities and have to resort to name calling (without any wit or humor attached to it to boot), I suggest you go back to the comprehensive school you probably barely graduated from.

On McCain and controversial endorsements:

McCain rejects Hagee’s views on Catholics
03 Apr 2008
[i]"Republican presidential candidate John McCain on Friday repudiated any views of a prominent televangelist who endorsed him last month “if they are anti-Catholic or offensive to Catholics.”

"“We’ve had a dignified campaign, and I repudiate any comments that are made, including Pastor Hagee’s, if they are anti-Catholic or offensive to Catholics,” McCain said.

“I sent two of my children to Catholic school. I categorically reject and repudiate any statement that was made that was anti-Catholic, both in intent and nature. I categorically reject it, and I repudiate it,” McCain said.

“And we can’t have that in this campaign,” McCain said. “We’re trying to unite the country. We’re uniting the country, not dividing it.”

He was responding to one critic in particular, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a Democrat, who raised the issue in a Thursday conference call with reporters.

“She made the attack. I am responding by saying that I am against discrimination and anti-Semitism, anti-Catholic, anything racial, and I have proved that on the campaign trail,” McCain said."[/i]

McCain On Hagee Endorsement
February 29, 2008
[i]"After the announcement of Pastor John Hagee’s endorsement of John McCain, not everyone took it as good news. Catholic League President Bill Donohue said Hagee “has waged an unrelenting war against the Catholic Church.”

In response, the McCain campaign released a statement on the endorsement today:

[b]"Yesterday, Pastor John Hagee endorsed my candidacy for president in San Antonio, Texas. However, in no way did I intend for his endorsement to suggest that I in turn agree with all of Pastor Hagee's views, which I obviously do not.

"I am hopeful that Catholics, Protestants and all people of faith who share my vision for the future of America will respond to our message of defending innocent life, traditional marriage, and compassion for the most vulnerable in our society."[/b][/i]

Seems pretty clear this is a Demo/DNC/Pelosi stink-bomb being tossed out.

Here is an interesting piece on Sen J.Mcflashback:
thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=8121

Seems to me an Interesting dilemma has been forced upon the voters: There is the Bonanno Family ® and the Genovese Family (D),tough decission. But seeing how they are both run by the Gambino Family(WB),I guess it doesn’t really much matter.

Fareed Zakaria is none too thrilled with McCain’s foreign policy proposals. newsweek.com/id/134317/output/print

[quote]On March 26, McCain gave a speech on foreign policy in Los Angeles that was billed as his most comprehensive statement on the subject. It contained within it the most radical idea put forward by a major candidate for the presidency in 25 years. Yet almost no one noticed.

In his speech McCain proposed that the United States expel Russia from the G8, the group of advanced industrial countries. Moscow was included in this body in the 1990s to recognize and reward it for peacefully ending the cold war on Western terms, dismantling the Soviet empire and withdrawing from large chunks of the old Russian Empire as well. McCain also proposed that the United States should expand the G8 by taking in India and Brazil—but pointedly excluded China from the councils of power.[/quote]

Well now we know which candidate the Illuminati will be putting into office. They’ve already anointed him:

McCain accused of accepting improper donations from Rothschilds

Spook…pssst!..over here Spook…c’mon…Republican nominee thread…over here…Good Spook…c’mere…

I won’t argue with Chewy on this one. Personally, I think all the whining about 4,000 deaths is embarrassing. Percentage-wise, I’m guessing that’s less deaths per soldier in Iraq than there would be per deaths per driver in Taiwan. Not to mention getting one’s ass laid out is pretty much what one signs up for when one agrees to be a soldier, is it not?

Now the Iraqis figure… well that’s a different story. First of all, I don’t find it surprising at all the Chewy “doesn’t accept” the Lancet figures - of course not! They would make his support for the war rather inconvenient! But even if one accepts the ridiculously conservative figures of 50,000 - 150,000, that also neglects the huge numbers of Iraqis who have lost or fled their homes and become refugees. Democracynow.org had a great piece on this - I’ll look for it later and post it here. Not to mention the number of detainees - 95% of whom are not caught by US forces on the battlefield but turned in by Kurds or Pakistanis for a bounty - getting tortured and creating further hatred towards our country.

But all of this neglects a more straight-forward problem with maintaining the war. WE CAN’T AFFORD IT!!! Our country is heading towards a fiscal disaster if it stays on its present course. I have to bail out of here now, but I’ll post some articles on the wherefores of this later.

WWII was a War About Something so dying fighting it was purposeful. The war in Iraq is a War About Nothing though so even one life lost fighting it is one life too many. If you don’t believe that just ask the families of those who died in Iraq who no longer believe the war was ever about anything other than lies and deception. How many families of those who died fighting WWII ever came to that sad conclusion?

The war in Iraq has also outlasted WWII by a year-and-a-half with no end in sight. Who knows how many American soldiers and innocent Iraqi civilians will die in its quagmire grip before it finally ends sometime in the second half of this century – if those who started it are correct.

Blood for Oil
Ol’ straight talk got it right. This war is a money maker.

[quote=“Vay”]

But all of this neglects a more straight-forward problem with maintaining the war. WE CAN’T AFFORD IT!!! [/quote]

This argument is always put forth by quasi-isolationists. Again, as Ambassador in London during World War II, the anti-Semite Joseph P. Kennedy argued that America should deal with Hitler because war would ruin America. Opponents of the Vietnam war mentioned the costs of maintaining American troops in Indochina. You would think that peace activists might try and new argument ever so often. Then again, they usually aren’t the creme de la creme are they? :laughing:

[quote=“Chewycorns”][quote=“Vay”]

But all of this neglects a more straight-forward problem with maintaining the war. WE CAN’T AFFORD IT!!! [/quote]

This argument is always put forth by quasi-isolationists. Again, as Ambassador in London during World War II, the anti-Semite Joseph P. Kennedy argued that America should deal with Hitler because war would ruin America. Opponents of the Vietnam war mentioned the costs of maintaining American troops in Indochina. You would think that peace activists might try and new argument ever so often. Then again, they usually aren’t the creme de la creme are they? :laughing:[/quote]

So if you’re not a warmonger you’re an “isolationist” – and an anti-semite to boot? Surely there’s something in between. Reality can’t be that bleak.

That’s probably a lot more question than you want to bite off though so how about this itty, bitty little question: what exactly is an “isolationist” other than a catchall word for everything to the left of warmonger?

[quote=“spook”]

So if you’re not a warmonger you’re an “isolationist” – and an anti-semite to boot? [/quote]

Of course, not all isolationists were/are anti-Semites, but there is no questioning the fact that some surely were/are. You can’t deny the fact that prominent isolationists before, during, and after WW2 (Joseph P. Kennedy, Charles Lindbergh, Patrick Buchanan etc.) often have that element about them.

Bill Moyers did a thing on Hagee’s church last year.

[quote]Bill Moyers Journal on PBS, Oct 07, 2007
youtube.com/watch?v=OaXs8MdmXWY (part 1)
youtube.com/watch?v=okLFCQTO-a0 (part 2)
youtube.com/watch?v=JQRiAnYj4gY (part 3)
youtube.com/watch?v=9h3xG-kQaQI (part 4)
youtube.com/watch?v=GWaZgllv6HE (part 5)
[/quote]
These guys are a perfect fit for McCain’s bomb bomb bomb Iran plan.

This point does nothing to address the actual veracity of the argument, but thanks for the pseudo-history lesson! As a side note, I personally agree that 10 years Fred Smith estimated it would have taken to achieve “victory” in Vietnam would have not only financially devastated the US and killed tens of thousands of US soldiers but also left that country in a state of utter obliteration. But don’t ask me to back that up with data. I think the employment of a little common sense is adequate.

The coming fiscal crisis the US is facing is astutely described by Scott Bittle and Jean Johnson of the non-partisan, non-profit research group, public agenda.org in this Bill Moyers interview:

pbs.org/moyers/journal/02152 … ript4.html

…and by chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York - as well as of his own investment firm, the Blackstone Group - Mr. Peterson in this interview:

pbs.org/now/transcript/trans … erson.html

Democracy Now.org shows the brutal impact the war has on this situation in this interview with Nobel Laureate Joseph Stiglitz and Harvard Economist Linda Bilmes on the True Cost of the US Invasion and Occupation of Iraq

Although this is not a fiscal argument, the highly-decorated Colonel Douglas McGregor sums the argument for withdrawal up very nicely this way:

[quote]We can’t expect any legitimate government to emerge in that country until it becomes clear that we’re getting out - and you won’t see any effort in that country to reach solutions until it becomes clear that we are leaving. As long as we make it clear that we have no intention to leave…we are re-enforcing the division of the country and setting it up for worse violence than we have seen.
[/quote]

Oh, and I just heard the figure for refugees in Iraq today. FOUR MILLION. Google it yourself. I’ve already spent twenty-plus minutes going through old articles and arguing this shite to no possible avail; time for me to get productive.

[quote]General Election: McCain vs. Obama
RCP Average

Obama - 46.0
McCain - 45.0
Obama +1.0
McCain vs Obama

General Election: McCain vs. Clinton
RCP Average

Clinton - 47.6
McCain - 44.1
Clinton +3.5
McCain vs Clinton[/quote]

McCain Prepares for Fall Fight as Clinton, Obama Battle On
[i]"The Democratic presidential candidates snipe and spar. The Republican presidential candidate plans and prepares.

John McCain knows it’s going to be tough to make much news while the dramatic Democratic battle rages on, so in recent weeks, he has turned to frenetic rounds of fundraising and a series of themed travels and messages — campaigning among heavily Democratic working-class white and poor black Americans.

Along the way, McCain has also thrown the occasional jab at his prospective rivals, more often at Barack Obama than Hillary Clinton, signaling his campaign’s belief that Obama will ultimately be McCain’s opponent.

“Never count a Clinton out until they’re out,” said Charles Black, a senior McCain adviser. “But I’d be surprised — not shocked, but surprised — if she won the nomination.” [/i]

The Demo infighting is shaping the vote for McCain. I remain doubtful of his abilities to fully capitalize on this.

[quote=“Chewycorns”][quote=“spook”]

So if you’re not a warmonger you’re an “isolationist” – and an anti-semite to boot? [/quote]

Of course, not all isolationists were/are anti-Semites, but there is no questioning the fact that some surely were/are. You can’t deny the fact that prominent isolationists before, during, and after WW2 (Joseph P. Kennedy, Charles Lindbergh, Patrick Buchanan etc.) often have that element about them.[/quote]

Kennedy, Lindbergh, Henry Ford and even Richard Nixon were all anti-Semites. In fact it’s difficult prior to the 1970’s to find a Christian public figure who wasn’t an anti-Semite in private life.

I don’t think all that visceral hatred and suspicion of people of Middle Eastern origin among the American public ever really went away. Hatred and stupidity aren’t that easily cured. It’s just been transferred onto other targets now that bigotry against Jewish people is no longer socially acceptable.

[quote=“spook”]In fact it’s difficult prior to the 1970’s to find a Christian public figure who wasn’t an anti-Semite in private life.[/quote]Spook -
Where do you come up with these things? This is one of the most profoundly ridiculous comments I have ever seen. And I have seen quite a lot.

[quote=“spook”]I don’t think all that visceral hatred and suspicion of people of Middle Eastern origin among the American public ever really went away. Hatred and stupidity aren’t that easily cured. It’s just been transferred onto other targets now that bigotry against Jewish people is no longer socially acceptable.[/quote]No matter what you want others to assume is the truth, “bigotry against Jewish people” has never been viewed as “socially acceptable” in mainstream American life. Yes, it was a factor and sometimes even a force to be considered in some social groups, but thankfully, from the time period of the '50’s until the present it has been recognized as indicative of a societal disease and viewed as such.
As for any ‘transference’ occurring, distrust of radical terrorist groups has been happening since history has been recording the human cultural experience. The fact that they have their roots in any particular geographic area or all happen to espouse membership in the same religion does suggest a certain characteristic that bears consideration. Perhaps you “think” differently.
I can not and will not attempt to speak for you.