McCain Not Fit to Run for President

Author Topic: McCain Not Fit to Run for President  (Read 1787 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline trixi1

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,891
  • He is watching. Smile because Jesus is Lord.
McCain Not Fit to Run for President
« on: February 03, 2008, 11:39:27 PM »
http://www.amconmag.com/2008/2008_02_11/cover.html

Quote
February 11, 2008 Issue
Copyright © 2008 The American Conservative

The Madness of John McCain

A militarist suffering from acute narcissism and armed with the Bush Doctrine is not fit to be commander in chief.

by Justin Raimondo

John McCain’s reputation as a maverick is no recent contrivance. The senator first captured the media spotlight in September 1983, not long after he’d been elected to his first term in the House, when he voted against President Reagan’s decision to put American troops in Lebanon as part of a multinational “peacekeeping” force. One of 27 Republicans to break with the White House, the freshman McCain made a floor speech that reads as if it might have been written yesterday—by Ron Paul:

    The fundamental question is: What is the United States’ interest in Lebanon? It is said we are there to keep the peace. I ask, what peace? It is said we are there to aid the government. I ask, what government? It is said we are there to stabilize the region. I ask, how can the U.S. presence stabilize the region?... The longer we stay in Lebanon, the harder it will be for us to leave. We will be trapped by the case we make for having our troops there in the first place.

    What can we expect if we withdraw from Lebanon? The same as will happen if we stay. I acknowledge that the level of fighting will increase if we leave. I regretfully acknowledge that many innocent civilians will be hurt. But I firmly believe this will happen in any event.

Now insert “Iraq” where McCain said “Lebanon.” It’s as if McCain the Younger foresaw our present predicament and taunted his future incarnation, showing that wisdom doesn’t necessarily come with age.

In sketching out McCain’s political career alongside a timeline of American interventions abroad, one comes, at last, to a turning point. But his course was set much earlier, in his first visible venture into the realm of national-security issues at the time of the Lebanese events: Reagan’s request for U.S. troops and the subsequent attack on the Beirut marine barracks, where 241 military personnel were killed. This vaulted McCain to national attention. His initial opposition to the administration’s resolution authorizing the sending of troops was picked up by the media, and he basked in the spotlight. As he put it in his memoir, Worth the Fighting For:

    It [his vote against the resolution] caught the attention of the Washington press corps, who tend to notice acts of political independence from unexpected quarters. My press secretary, Torie Clarke, began receiving interview requests from national print and broadcast media. Because of my POW experience, I had always enjoyed a little more celebrity than is usually accorded freshmen, but not so much that my views were solicited or even taken seriously by the national media. Now I was debating Lebanon on programs like the MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour and in the pages of the New York Times and the Washington Post. I was gratified by the attention and eager for more.

On the strength of his prescient skepticism of U.S. intervention in a Middle Eastern nation known for its fierce sectarian passions, McCain’s star burned bright. U.S. News & World Report lauded him as a “Republican on the rise,” while on the other side of the culture-chasm, Rolling Stone hailed the Arizonan for his dissenting voice on an important foreign policy issue. His reputation was made as that straight-talking, idiosyncratic, interesting Republican congressman from the Southwest, a version of Barry Goldwater the liberal media could like—and would come to love.

Not yet, however: there was a dark interregnum during which McCain and the media were at odds. There were shouting matches between the voluble senator and reporters over the “Keating Five” scandal and his wife’s struggle with drugs. But this adversarial relationship turned a corner, in 1991, when the first Gulf War erupted. McCain reflected in his memoir, “As self-interested as this sounds, I was relieved when Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait in August of that year gave reporters some other reason to talk to me and something else to report.”

His position on that war was not the reflexive interventionism we have come to expect from him but a more thoughtful approach, as cited in the New York Times of Aug. 19, 1990: “If you get involved in a major ground war in the Saudi desert, I think support will erode significantly. Nor should it be supported. We cannot even contemplate, in my view, trading American blood for Iraqi blood.”

McCain preferred to use air power to keep Saddam Hussein out of Saudi Arabia, rather than introducing ground troops, and opposed the call that went out from the more militant neoconservatives that U.S. troops, having freed Kuwait from Saddam’s clutches, should push on to Baghdad.

What changed his foreign-policy purview, however, was the Kosovo War. Again he played the maverick role for all it was worth, taking up the cudgels against many in his own party. But this time, he was on the side of intervention.

Monday, April 5, 1999, was a busy day for McCain: Larry King, Charlie Rose, Catherine Crier, two appearances on MSNBC, another two on CNBC, capped by an interview on ABC’s “Nightline.” The next morning, he was up early for Don Imus. “We’ve turned down far more than we’ve accepted,” McCain enthused. It was “all McCain, all the time,” as one Republican strategist put it to the Washington Post, and it sure wasn’t hurting his presidential campaign.

“When I urged the president of the United States not to rule out the option of ground forces, then I also assumed responsibility for what may be the loss of young Americans’ lives,” averred McCain. “I don’t know how it affects my campaign. But I’ve basically put my campaign on hold to some degree.”

This was disingenuous, at best. Far from putting his campaign on hold, his newfound visibility gave it a shot in the arm, and political operatives in both parties saluted the pragmatism of his stance. “He looks presidential at a time when many Republicans don’t believe the current president does,” said Whit Ayres, an Atlanta-based GOP pollster. “He’s where the country is,” added Mark Mellman, a Democratic pollster. “Americans certainly like to win and they don’t like politicians sniping in the corner when the question is whether we’re going to win it.”

“We’re in it, and we’ve gotta win it!” McCain repeated endlessly as he berated his “isolationist” fellow Republicans and demanded that they get behind the president and support the war. Yet his support was framed by a critique of the handling of the conflict that disdained Clinton’s alleged timidity in taking steps to ensure a victory.

Three weeks after hostilities began, McCain delivered a speech to the Center for Strategic and International Studies in which he declared that American intervention in the Balkans had been effectively stymied: “I think it is safe to assume that no one, including me, anticipated the speed with which Serbia would defeat our objectives in Kosovo, and the scope of that defeat.” While conceding, “yes, the war is only three weeks old, and yes, NATO can and probably will prevail in this conflict with what is, after all, a considerably inferior adversary,” he warned “victory will not be hastened by pretending that things have just gone swimmingly.”

According to McCain, there were two big problems with the conduct of the war: first, “an excessively restricted air campaign that sought the impossible goal of avoiding war while waging one. The second is the repeated declarations from the president, vice president, and other senior officials that NATO would refrain from using ground troops even if the air campaign failed. These two mistakes were made in what almost seemed willful ignorance of every lesson we learned in Vietnam.”

We were, he warned, in danger of “losing” to the Serbian army—with its outdated equipment and complete lack of an air force—if we failed to launch air strikes that were “massive, strategic and sustained.” Furthermore, “no infrastructure targets should have been off limits”—factories, water plants, hospitals, schools, markets, whatever. Yes, “we all grieve over civilian casualties as well as our own losses,” but “they are unavoidable.”

But all of this was eminently avoidable, as critics of the war—including many of McCain’s fellow Republicans in Congress—pointed out at the time. The war itself was unnecessary. The U.S. was never threatened by the Serbs, and the trumped-up charge of “genocide” was egregious overstatement. Aside from that, the conflict lasted little more than 11 weeks, and, contra McCain, the U.S. was never in danger of losing. A “massive” bombing campaign would have accomplished little aside from inflicting untold suffering on innocent civilians and incurring the everlasting enmity of the Serbian people—and of decent people everywhere.

Yet McCain was persistent in demanding that the situation called for American “boots on the ground”—a phrase that, if you Google it, you’ll discover what might be called the McCain Panacea. To hear McCain tell it, there is apparently no crisis anywhere in the world that cannot be resolved by the presence of U.S. armed forces. This full-throated, high-handed interventionism is a long way from the hard-headed realism of the young congressman who challenged the disastrous decision to send peacekeepers to Lebanon by asking, “What peace?”

It is impossible to know what is in McCain’s heart. There may be a purely ideological explanation for his changing viewpoint. But what seems to account for his evolution from realism to hopped-up interventionism is nothing more than sheer ambition. This was the case in 1983, when he defied the Reagan administration over sending U.S. soldiers to die at the hands of a Beirut suicide bomber, and in 1999, when the cry went up to take on Slobodan Milosevic. He was positioning himself against his own party, while staking out a distinctive stance independent of the Democrats. It was, in short, an instance of a presidential candidate maneuvering himself to increase his appeal to the electorate—and, most importantly, the media.

The brace of arguments McCain made in his CSIS speech in support of the Kosovo War didn’t hold together at the time—and fares even worse in retrospect. According to McCain, the Serbs threatened “our global credibility and the long-term viability of the Atlantic Alliance”—the former because two successive presidents had warned Milosevic against committing “aggression” against Kosovo, and failure to act would embolden other “rogue states” to defy American edicts. Yet McCain’s reasoning is circular: according to him, our government’s edicts must be obeyed because they are, by definition, non-negotiable—even by Americans. A certain course, once taken, must be pursued to the bitter end, even if it acts against our long-term interests. McCain’s worldview, which admits no possibility of error, is undiluted hubris.

The illogic of McCain’s interventionism is further underscored by his appeal to “the long-term viability of the NATO alliance.” With the implosion of the Communist empire a decade earlier, the original rationale for the creation of the alliance vanished. Was the unnatural perpetuation of an outmoded alliance really worth the lives of 5,000 Serbs, mostly civilians?

McCain’s arguments are so facile that one can hardly believe they are held with any degree of sincerity. There has to be something else involved, and a hint of this was revealed in the opening of his CSIS address, thanking his sponsors “for so graciously providing me a forum to share a few thoughts on the crisis in the Balkans. I’ve been having a terrible time finding media opportunities to get my views out, so I appreciate your help.”

One can well imagine the appreciative laughter, albeit tinged with an undertone of nervous uncertainty at the sight of someone who gets far too much pleasure out of being in the spotlight. Such narcissism, unseemly in anyone, is especially unbefitting in a president, yet it is key to understanding McCain’s evolution from conventional Republican realist to relentless interventionist.

During the 1990s, he earned the attention and adulation of the media by supporting a war most journalists approved of and doing so more consistently and vociferously than even the Clinton administration. He’s pursuing the same strategy now that we’re in Iraq. While the media has largely turned against this particular war, McCain’s criticism of Donald Rumsfeld and the Bush administration’s handling of the war has won him plaudits and given him credit as the “real” author of the surge.

If opportunism married to an inflated ego birthed his persona as the Ares of America’s political pantheon, then this psycho-political pathology soon found expression as a full-blown delusional system. By 1999, in defense of Clinton’s war, McCain was declaring, “I think the United States should inaugurate a 21st-century policy interpretation of the Reagan Doctrine, call it rogue state rollback, in which we politically and materially support indigenous forces within and outside of rogue states to overthrow regimes that threaten our interests and values.”

In 2006, McCain traveled to Tskhimvali, in the disputed region South Ossetia, where pro-Russian citizens want to secede from the former Soviet republic of Georgia and seek union with Russia. After his visit, he concluded:

    I think that the attitude there is best described by what you see by driving in [to Tskhinvali]: a very large billboard with a picture of Vladimir Putin on it, which says ‘Vladimir Putin Our President.’ I do not believe that Vladimir Putin is now, or ever should be, the president of sovereign Georgian soil.

Imagine if the British, annoyed by American encroachments in Texas, had sent a member of Parliament to denounce the defenders of the Alamo. That, at any rate, is how the South Ossetians think of it. And what American interests or values are at stake in that dirt-poor, war-torn corner of the Caucasus? What American values are reflected in the Mafia-like “democratic” government of today’s Kosovo, where Orthodox churches are burnt-out ruins and the few remaining Serbs are under siege?

In the warmonger sweepstakes now taking place among the major GOP presidential contenders, John McCain out-demagogued even Rudy Giuliani, whose studied belligerence seems narrowly centered on the Middle East. McCain’s enmity is universal: if he were president, in addition to taking on the Arabs and the Persians, we’d soon be at loggerheads with the Russians. The G-8, he says, should be “a club of leading market democracies: It should include Brazil and India but exclude Russia.” Putin’s Russia, he claims, is “revanchist” and surely qualifies as one of those “rogue states” that “threaten our values.” If we take him at his word, President McCain would launch a campaign for “regime change” in Moscow, just as we did in Iraq.

Prefiguring the revolutionary Jacobinism of Bush’s second inaugural address, which proclaimed the goal of U.S. foreign policy to be “ending tyranny in our world,” McCain was straining at the bit to launch a global crusade while George W. Bush was still touting the virtues of a more “humble foreign policy.” Neither time nor bitter experience has mitigated his militancy.

Other politicians were transformed by 9/11. McCain was unleashed. His strategy of “rogue state rollback” was exactly what the neoconservatives in the Bush administration had in mind, and yet, ever mindful to somehow stand out from the pack while still going along with the program, the senator took umbrage at Rumsfeld’s apparent unwillingness to chew up the U.S. military in an endless occupation. He publicly dissented from the “light footprint” strategy championed by the Department of Defense. More troops, more force, more of everything—that is McCain’s solution to every problem in our newly conquered province.

Rumsfeld became increasingly un-popular not only with the American people—the abrasive defense secretary saw his poll numbers dropping to 34 percent from 39 percent in May 2004, as McCain and Gen. Norman Schwartzkopf took aim—but also with the media, which had grown tired of him. In the bitter winter of 2001, when the War Party was riding high, the Philadelphia Inquirer had enthused, “No doubt about it, Donald Rumsfeld is a stud muffin.” As Rumsfeld’s cachet faded, McCain felt safe in attacking him, and, after Rumsfeld had resigned, declaring him “one of the worst secretaries of defense in history.” As the war itself became more unpopular, McCain managed a feat of triangulation of Clintonian proportions, posing simultaneously as a war critic and a super hawk.

He was unrelenting in his criticism of the Bush administration, even as he pledged to carry its foreign policy forward: he continued to denounce the “tragic mismanagement” of the war, while hailing the surge—and strongly implying that the Bush White House had plagiarized his views. With the war enjoying the support of about a quarter of the American people, however, it was necessary to frame a narrative that would deflect the disadvantages of a pro-war position, while enhancing his image as a straight-shooter who doesn’t care about polls and just tells it like it is.

But “straight talk” has increasingly turned to reckless talk: on the campaign trail, he was caught on video singing “Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran” to the tune of “Barbara Ann”—not one of his better moments. With his presidential campaign in the doldrums, and Giuliani and the rest of the Republican pack stealing much of his thunder, a new extremism seemed to possess him: in answer to repeated questions from one antiwar voter, McCain told a town-hall meeting in Derry, New Hampshire that the United States could stay in Iraq for “maybe a hundred years” and that “would be fine with me… as long as Americans aren’t being killed or injured” in any great numbers, as in Korea.

Yet the longer we stay in Iraq, the more hostility is directed at American soldiers. The majority of Iraqis now believe attacks on our troops are justified, a far cry from McCain’s prewar prediction that it is “more likely that antipathy toward the United States in the Islamic world might diminish amid the demonstrations of jubilant Iraqis celebrating the end of a regime that has few equals in its ruthlessness.”

McCain isn’t bothered by the failure of his prediction, just as the absence of WMD in Iraq didn’t phase him in the least. He is an actor following a script that was written years ago and cannot be altered because of mere facts: he is McCain the Conqueror, the fearless war hero, the commander in chief who will lead us to victory and stay in Iraq, as he told Mother Jones magazine, for “a thousand years, a million years” because American grit will tame those obstreperous Iraqis, just as we tamed the Koreans, the Bosnians, the Japanese, and the rest.

With the extreme rhetoric appearing to work, an emboldened McCain recently told a crowd of supporters in Florida: “It’s a tough war we’re in. It’s not going to be over right away. 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.”

If McCain finally makes it to the White House, the U.S. will surely start new wars, and not just in the Middle East. With the world as his stage, the persona McCain has created—given visible expression by what Camille Paglia trenchantly described as “the over-intense eyes of Howard Hughes and the clenched, humorless jaw line of Nurse Diesel (from Mel Brooks’ Hitchcock parody, High Anxiety)”—will have every opportunity to act out his fantasies of soldierly greatness.   
_________________________________

Justin Raimondo is editorial director of Antiwar.com.
John 3:16 teaches us: "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

John 14:6 says:  "I am the way the truth and the life; NO MAN cometh unto the Father BUT BY ME."

Offline trixi1

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,891
  • He is watching. Smile because Jesus is Lord.
Re: McCain Not Fit to Run for President
« Reply #1 on: February 03, 2008, 11:43:48 PM »
http://www.thestar.com/News/article/299874

Quote
The alarming consequences of two John McCains  TheStar.com - USElection - The alarming consequences of two John McCains
February 03, 2008
David Olive
Columnist

The man that U.S. Republicans will choose as their presidential nominee this year, who isn't suited to America's domestic or foreign-policy challenges, has long been a favourite of liberals in the U.S. media.

This is McCain the war hero and maverick, who has repeatedly broken with his own party to oppose his colleagues' pork-barrel spending, the U.S. torture of detainees, and drilling for oil in the pristine Arctic Natural Wildlife Refuge, and to support stem-cell research, the most significant campaign-finance reform since the Watergate era, aggressive action to curb global warming and, most recently, an expedited "path to citizenship" for America's estimated 12 million illegal immigrants.

In voting against U.S. President George W. Bush's ruinous tax cuts of 2001 and 2003, McCain correctly adduced that they would not be accompanied by fiscal prudence among the spendthrift Republicans who then controlled Congress. And that they were skewed to Americans least in need of tax relief. "I cannot in good conscience support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us at the expense of middle-class Americans who need tax relief," McCain said in 2001.

But there is another McCain, one who is among the least-principled major American political figures – all the more notable for how central "standing on principal" is to McCain's self regard.

To win the conservative Republican votes so critical in the primaries and caucuses this year, McCain has flip-flopped on numerous of his most "principled" stands. Those unfair tax cuts? He now favours extending them. His compassion about illegal immigrants has given way to a pledge to build walls to keep the Mexicans out. McCain has gone from opposing the repeal of Roe vs. Wade to asserting his pro-life credentials. McCain's opposition to federal subsidies for corn-based ethanol, which consumes more energy to produce than it yields, gave way to a pro-ethanol stand as the caucuses in corn-belt Iowa approached.

Much of this is standard fare in a campaign cycle in which many of the leading candidates' positions have "evolved." What's alarming is that McCain is stubbornly absolutist on the most important question of the presidential content: Iraq, and America's place in the world.

McCain is no less delusional than the Bush administration in detecting progress in Mesopotamia. Iraq still has no functioning government, no army capable of defending the nation, no oil-sharing law, and no effort at ethnic reconciliation one year after the "surge" of 30,000 additional U.S. troops and five years after the U.S.-led invasion.

"We are winning in Iraq," says McCain, who famously demonstrated the new and safer Baghdad last spring by visiting the downtown Shorja market wearing a Kevlar vest and guarded by more than 100 U.S. soldiers, two Apache gunships, and three Black Hawk helicopters. Within a day of the departure the McCain entourage, 21 merchants and workers in the Shorja market were ambushed and killed.

One needn't venture into the murky realm of psychoanalysis to grasp McCain's worldview. As they say, if your only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. McCain, described as third-generation navy royalty, is the son of a U.S. admiral who led the U.S. overthrow of a democratically elected government in the Dominican Republic in 1965, and the grandson of a U.S. admiral who helped eradicate local opposition to the American invasion of the Philippines at the turn of the previous century.

McCain's new theme in debates and town-hall meetings is that Americans should expect to retain a military presence in Iraq "for a 100 years," citing the continued U.S. presence in places such as Japan and Korea. McCain misses the point that America is not at war in Okinawa or Korea's 38th parallel, And that even U.S. war hawks are beginning to realize it is the mere presence of U.S. military forces that has inflamed anti-Americanism, not just in war zones but globally. It was, after all, America's military bases in Saudi Arabia that inspired Osama bin Laden to attack U.S. assets around the world.

McCain struggled in naval academy, finishing 894th out of 899 students, and was rejected by the U.S. National War College until his family intervened with the Secretary of the Navy. In active service, McCain was, by his lengthy acknowledgement in a commencement address last year, a "discipline problem" of violent disposition and frequent insubordination who came late to the task of proving himself.

For whatever reason, McCain has long since located America's greatest achievements on the field of battle. It may be a slight exaggeration to say, as liberal blogger Arianna Huffington insists, that McCain has "an ardour for war." But having jeopardized his presidential campaign by spending so much of last year in Iraq and the Senate cheerleading for an unpopular conflict suggests that McCain would like to field-marshal a war he feels he can win.

McCain's frequently touted early criticism of the Iraq war, directed at Donald Rumsfeld (but never at Bush, the only man who could fire him), reinforces the probability that McCain is not really running for president. "I'm going to be honest. I know a lot less about economics than I do about military and foreign policy issues," he said in a 2005 interview. Which means reviving the economy and delivering universal health care don't top McCain's to-do list. The post McCain seeks is commander-in-chief; he is determined to succeed in Iraq where Bush and Rumsfeld failed.

It isn't McCain's recent statement that an Iran with nuclear ambitions should be threatened with "extinction" that's particularly disturbing. Or his twisted idea of humour at a campaign event last April in singing "Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran" to the tune of the Beach Boys' "Barbara Ann." It's McCain's utter conviction that, no matter what the sentiment of the American people, he knows better. And that sounds a lot like the last seven years.

". . . it's my job to give my best estimate to the American people, no matter what the political calculations may be, as to what's the best in our nation's national security interest," McCain told host Tim Russert on Meet the Press last May in what has since become a mainstay of McCain's stump speeches.

"And I know what's best, in my mind, my experience, in my knowledge, in my inspiration, as to what's best for this country."

McCain knows that the U.S. should continue spending between $2 billion (U.S.) and $3 billion a week in prolonging America's worst foreign-policy disaster, which already has cost the Republic about $1 trillion. In his mind, victory in Iraq, and restoring America's military pride and the world's respect for his country's awesome might, transcends everything.

He just knows. And that's why McCain is the most dangerous candidate still standing.


David Olive writes frequently about business and politics. He can be reached at: dolive@thestar.ca.
John 3:16 teaches us: "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

John 14:6 says:  "I am the way the truth and the life; NO MAN cometh unto the Father BUT BY ME."

Offline trixi1

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,891
  • He is watching. Smile because Jesus is Lord.
Re: McCain Not Fit to Run for President
« Reply #2 on: February 03, 2008, 11:58:40 PM »
Ross Perot Slams McCain

http://www.newsweek.com/id/94827

Quote
When Ross Perot Calls…

The former presidential candidate blasts John McCain, and gets an education about Barack Obama's religion.
By Jonathan Alter
Newsweek Web Exclusive
Updated: 9:25 PM ET Jan 16, 2008

The phone rang and it was Ross Perot, who hasn't given an interview in years. Perot, who won 19 percent of the vote in the 1992 presidential election, making him one of the strongest third-party candidates in American history, got straight to the point.

"Remember what you wrote about John McCain in the March 13, 2000, NEWSWEEK?"

"Sure," I lied.

"When McCain called Perot 'nuttier than a fruitcake'?"

The Texas billionaire, now 77, still has some scores to settle from the Vietnam era, and his timing is exquisite. Just days before the South Carolina GOP primary, he wants me to know that McCain "is the classic opportunist--he's always reaching for attention and glory. Other POWs won't even sit at the same table with him."

Mark Salter, McCain's longtime top aide, says the Arizona senator has plenty of veteran support and many close friendships among other former POWs.

The Perot-McCain relationship goes back to McCain's five and a half years of captivity in Hanoi. When McCain's then-wife Carol was in a serious car accident, McCain's mother called Perot for help. "She asked me to send my people to Philadelphia to take care of the family," Perot says. Afterwards, McCain was grateful. "We loved him [Perot] for it," McCain told me in 2000.

Perot doesn't remember it that way. "After he came home, he walked with a limp, she [Carol McCain] walked with a limp. So he threw her over for a poster girl with big money from Arizona [Cindy McCain, his current wife] and the rest is history."

Perot's real problem with McCain is that he believes the senator hushed up evidence that live POWs were left behind in Vietnam and even transferred to the Soviet Union for human experimentation, a charge Perot says he heard from a senior Vietnamese official in the 1980s. "There's evidence, evidence, evidence," Perot claims. "McCain was adamant about shutting down anything to do with recovering POWs."

Not surprisingly, McCain sees it differently. He has told me several times over the years that the myth of live POWs was a cruel hoax on the families. He chaired hearings into the issue in the 1990s and found nothing. "The committee did an exhaustive job and pored over thousands of records and every claim of a sighting, no matter how outlandish," says Salter. "It was all untrue."

Perot says he intends to vote for Mitt Romney in the Texas Republican primary on March 4, citing Romney's experience in business and his family values. "When I went to the Naval Academy and met my first Mormons I asked why so many were excellent officers," Perot recalls. "I learned it was because of their strong family unit."

When I asked about Barack Obama, Perot said he admired his eloquence but thought it "a little odd that we would be less concerned about his background than being a Mormon." Perot was pleasantly surprised when I told him that Obama was a Christian, not a Muslim, and relieved when I informed him that the e-mail Perot (and untold others) received about Obama not respecting the Pledge of Allegiance was a fraud.

Perot isn't a Hillary hater, but he's not a fan either, relating the bumper sticker he received that reads: "Monica Lewinsky's Ex-Boyfriend's Wife for President."

The founder of a data-processing empire is still sharp in diagnosing what ails the United States. "The situation in 1992 was not nearly as bad as it is now," he says. "If ever there was a time when it was necessary to put our house in order, it's now.

"It's like having cancer and being in denial. The conduct of the House and Senate is an embarrassment to the nation." President Bush, Perot says, is a "decent person, but you can't say the same thing about the people around him."

Perot is appalled at the specter of big banks having to borrow from foreigners to stay afloat: "We have to go around the world with a tambourine and a tin cup."

He attributes the success of China to the fact that even uneducated Chinese must learn 3,000 characters early in life, compared to the 26 letters in the English alphabet. "Their hand-eye productivity is incredible because of drawing the symbols," Perot says, noting that most of today's Ph.D.s in engineering are from China and India, and only a small percentage from the United States.

Perot offers no easy solutions, instead emphasizing "a strong moral and ethical base, strong homes and the finest schools." He says he's disappointed that big textbook companies successfully lobbied in the Texas state legislature to reverse his landmark school reforms.

The pint-size Texan with the funny voice and the big ears isn't planning to run for president again, but says he will launch a Web site next month with plenty of the charts and graphs he made famous when explaining the deficit in 1992.

Before hanging up, Perot asked me to read the books he recommended on live POWs. I promised him I would.
URL: http://www.newsweek.com/id/94827
John 3:16 teaches us: "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

John 14:6 says:  "I am the way the truth and the life; NO MAN cometh unto the Father BUT BY ME."

Offline trixi1

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,891
  • He is watching. Smile because Jesus is Lord.
Re: McCain - Who's Your Daddy?
« Reply #3 on: February 04, 2008, 12:04:33 AM »
http://www.rense.com/general80/leibmc.htm

Quote
Joe Rides Shotgun As McCain's
'Straight Talk Express' Rolls On

By Jennifer Siegel Forward
(NY Newspaper)
2-2-8


A Man Of Faith - Lieberman is expected to help McCain among both Jewish and evangelical voters.
 
In more than a quarter-century of public life, John McCain has been called a lot of things. But this week, on the cusp of what proved to be a pivotal win in the Florida Republican primary, one of his leading supporters bestowed upon the Arizona senator a new title: "Maccabee."
 
"McCain is definitely part Maccabeean," Senator Joseph Lieberman said, referring to the band of dissidents whose unlikely victory over the Greeks is commemorated by the Jewish holiday of Hanukkah. "He's got that spirit."
 
Lieberman is certainly a good judge, given his own history with unexpected success - including his decision to endorse McCain last December, before McCain's campaign had fully rebounded from a near-collapse last summer.
 
Since then, Lieberman has been one of McCain's most prominent promoters, lending help by soliciting donations from Connecticut contacts and actively stumping on the campaign trail. Now, after a stretch that has seen wins in New Hampshire, South Carolina and Florida, McCain seems to have bounded to the top of the Republican field and, in the process, catapulted one of America's most famous Jewish politicians back onto the national stage.
 
According to observers, Lieberman's support has been unusually helpful to McCain, giving him a boost with independent voters who contributed to his wins in South Carolina and New Hampshire. In Florida, Lieberman helped give the Arizona senator an edge by turning out Jews, as well as Cuban Americans, in the southern part of the state.
 
But the real surprise may be yet to come. According to a Lieberman aide who spoke on the condition of anonymity, if McCain wins the nomination, Lieberman is also likely to play a growing role in shoring up what at first blush would not seem to be one of his core constituencies: Christian evangelicals.
 
"He's one of those unique campaign surrogates who can travel both in the Jewish community and the Christian community, as well," the aide said. "I would suspect that as the campaign goes further, Senator Lieberman will probably be active on that front, as well."
 
So active, in fact, that speculation has already begun that Lieberman, possibly uninterested in running for a fifth Senate term in 2012, might be rewarded for his support with another shot at the vice presidency, or a Cabinet post in a future McCain administration.
 
In an interview with the Forward, Lieberman said his decision to support McCain was based on their longstanding relationship and on their history of cooperation on a range of issues, including intervention in Bosnia, action on global warming, the creation of the 9/11 Commission and continued military involvement in Iraq.
 
"Look, we have been drawn together because we have similar worldviews," Lieberman told the Forward, adding that they both have the "feeling America has a unique role in the world, of taking the Declaration of Independence seriously. It's a universal declaration of human rights, and our foreign policy is always better when it's based on democratic values."
 
In 2000, Lieberman, on the ticket with Al Gore, made history as the first Jewish vice presidential nominee. Six years after his and Gore's famously fraught battle against George W. Bush, Lieberman was again forced into a hotly contested race when he was defeated in the Democratic primary for the Senate seat he had held for 17 years. He won re-election as an Independent, without the support of his Democratic colleagues. Although Lieberman still caucuses with the Democrats, ensuring their razor-thin majority in the Senate, his relationship with the party has grown increasingly cold.
 
"In 2000, he was one of the standard-bearers of the Democratic Party, and now he's supporting a Republican for president. It's insane," said one Democratic strategist who did not want to be named, for fear of antagonizing Lieberman. "Everybody thinks it's ridiculous or wrong, but nobody wants to say it, because nobody wants him to bolt the party - at least until January."
 
By then, it might not matter. In the view of some observers, Lieberman's endorsement will be well worth the sacrifice.
 
"It's a win for him no matter what happens, because it is his way of saying, 'See, I gotcha,' to those who abandoned him," said Hank Sheinkopf, a New York-based Democratic consultant who worked on Bill Clinton's 1996 re-election campaign.
 
Moreover, the Connecticut senator has worked to protect his relationships with some of his old Democratic friends. Earlier this month, while he was in Florida, stumping for McCain, Lieberman took time out to visit Mitchell Berger, a prominent Fort Lauderdale lawyer and Democratic fundraiser who is backing John Edwards for president.
 
"We shared a conversation, and I told him that I disagreed with what he did," said Berger, who served as the national finance co-chair for Lieberman's ill-fated presidential bid in 2004. "But we are 20-odd year friends, and after all these years, Senator Lieberman has stood for good things on all these other issues."
 
A similar sentiment was expressed by the national chairman of the National Jewish Democratic Council, Miami-based Michael Adler, who served as national co-chair of Senator Joseph Biden's recently failed presidential bid and is now backing Senator Hillary Clinton.
 
Now, in his new role as a campaigner for McCain, Lieberman has tapped his base of supporters for a member of the GOP. A fundraising letter, written by Lieberman on behalf of McCain, has gone out to a list of Lieberman's contacts in Connecticut, according to the Lieberman aide.
 
In his potential outreach to evangelical Christians, Lieberman could trade on a relationship rooted in a shared concern for the safety of Israel, as well the respect many evangelicals have for Lieberman's Orthodox Jewish background and for his activism on values issues like violence in the media.
 
Lieberman is friendly with Richard Land, who is a prominent leader in the Southern Baptist Convention, the largest Protestant denomination in the United States. (Lieberman contributed the foreword to Land's 2007 book, "The Divided States of America?: What Liberals and Conservatives Are Missing in the God-and-Country Shouting Match").
 
Lieberman also has a relationship with San Antonio-based megachurch pastor John Hagee, founder of the grass-roots group Christians United for Israel. In recent years, CUFI has added the voice of the Christian right to the pro-Israel lobby and has raised money for philanthropy in Israel; last summer, Lieberman addressed the group's annual summit in Washington.
 
According to Lieberman, the role of ambassador - political or religious - is one in which he's comfortable. He recalled a trip he took to Israel with McCain in 2006. It fell during Hanukkah, and one night, at a dinner hosted by Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, Lieberman found himself lighting the candles and telling the story of the holiday. McCain "was really fascinated," Lieberman said. "He was quite taken with the Maccabees."
John 3:16 teaches us: "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

John 14:6 says:  "I am the way the truth and the life; NO MAN cometh unto the Father BUT BY ME."

Offline trixi1

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,891
  • He is watching. Smile because Jesus is Lord.
Re: McCain Not Fit to Run for President
« Reply #4 on: February 04, 2008, 12:20:12 AM »
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Buchanan_McCain_win_means_war_with_0128.html

Quote
Presidential candidate John McCain shocked observers on Sunday when he told a crowd of supporters, "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."

John 3:16 teaches us: "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

John 14:6 says:  "I am the way the truth and the life; NO MAN cometh unto the Father BUT BY ME."

Offline trixi1

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,891
  • He is watching. Smile because Jesus is Lord.
John 3:16 teaches us: "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

John 14:6 says:  "I am the way the truth and the life; NO MAN cometh unto the Father BUT BY ME."

Offline trixi1

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,891
  • He is watching. Smile because Jesus is Lord.
Re: McCain - Proof is in the Pudding
« Reply #6 on: February 04, 2008, 01:14:28 AM »
Sorry, couldn't pass up one more post. I could go on forever, but won't. I'm sure you've all done alot of homework on the guy as well.
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/m000303/

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/m000303/key-votes/


One final note, if he treats his position in congress like this, with so little respect, do you really think he would treat the presidency with respect? I think not.

RON PAUL
By the way, compare McCain to Ron Paul's assessment here. http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/p000583/

Voting Record:  http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/p000583/key-votes/

Check out the other candidates as well if you so choose.
John 3:16 teaches us: "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

John 14:6 says:  "I am the way the truth and the life; NO MAN cometh unto the Father BUT BY ME."