Bob,
While I hold no love for McCain I find your rant to pure talking point dogma of the left.
OK.
Fossil fuels - have the democratic candidates expressed any knowledge on the subject or have they simply pandered?
Obama at least had the good sense to say what lifting the gas tax is: a gimmick. Does he know anything about the problems that fossil fuels create? Honestly, I don't know. But I do think that he will appoint intelligent people, won't stifle and edit the science, and will be a quick study who will respect the findings of scientists.
The surge? Do you think the truce and the Sunni switch might be because of the surge?
No. The Sunni switch happened because Al Qaeda in Iraq was arrogant and stupid. They way way overplayed their hand, and antagonized a great majority of Iraqi Sunnis even more than the US. Iraqi Sunnis aren't Saudi Sunnis. Or Pakistani Sunnis. Religious fundamentalism would never find a home there with most of them. That is another reason why Bush and friends' linking Iraqi Sunnis with Al Qaeda was so absurd: they are natural enemies, not friends. I've already had the "but the enemy of my enemy is my friend" discussion with Nadine, and don't really want to have it again. The truce that the Shia declared may have been influenced by the Surge, that I don't really know. It is also possible that they had "cleansed" enough neighborhoods of Sunnis by then, and were sick enough of the civil war, that they wanted a break in the action. But I am convinced that if either the Shia or the Sunni insurgents wanted to keep fighting, there wouldn't be very much that 160,000 US troops could do about it, other than kill a lot of people and be killed themselves in endless and pointless conflict. They wouldn't be able to stop the carnage if hundreds of thousands--probably millions--of Iraqis want to continue it. Numbers would overwhelm them. Unless, of course, they wanted to be as ruthless as we were in WWII, and bomb the smithereens out of them, not worrying about any "collateral" damage. But that would defeat the whole purpose of being there. So we are trapped in a conflict that can't be won militarily and is unlikely to be won politically.
John McCain a liar? Well - he is a politician. Are the dems running a saint - or - do they bend the truth? For Hillary - heck - she tries to create truth.
"Bend" the truth? His performance last spring after returning from Iraq was more than "bending" the truth. From what I can see, he is either pandering to constituencies he thinks he needs, or saying nonsensical things (cf. the article I posted earlier tonight about his comments on the Minneapolis bridge) that conform to the talking points he thinks are his "strength," whether or not the situation fits the talking points. I don't know if he has always been mindless, but his comments of the past year make him seem so to me.
Your post makes John McCain look good compared to a government completely of the left for the next two years.
Well, I wouldn't really expect you to say anything else, Bob. On the other hand, I have to admit that some of the left makes me nervous too. And I have also have to admit that control of both the WH and Congress by one party gives me pause. But not nearly as much as a McCain presidency would. And there is enough division within the Democratic party that I don't think that they would do for a Democratic president what the Republican majorities did for Bush--lay down and moo. Both Frist and Hastert said that it was their job to shepherd the President's agenda through Congress. Well, guess what, that isn't the job any congressman or Senator. They are supposed to be coeval branches, not one subordinate to the other. And certainly not Congress subordinate to the Executive branch. The President is supposed to "execute" the laws that Congress passes. It is not supposed to be that Congress passes the laws that the President wants. Or licks his shoes and wags their tail while he or Cheney does whatever the hell they please. |
