equal,

I think you are correct. The media is afraid to attack McCain, because he has his story about POW in Vietnam. I think they also cut him some slack becasue he is older, and they (the media) got burned when they attacked Reagan as being too old.

I will vote for McCain, becasue I think he will not cut and run in the war on the jihadists. Obama won't either, but he is dishonest with his base about this fact. I prefer honest men, even if they are a bit befuddled.

Not only is McCain befuddled, he's not that competent either.

Remember back in 2000, Republicans rejected McCain in favor of George Bush for President. Therefore, even Republicans found McCain worse than Bush.

How anyone would vote for someone worse than Bush is beyond belief.

McCain adequately reflects his supporters. Do you remember his rape jokes?

Baron Parker,

McCain was competent enough to support the surge in Iraq. Obama is so incompetent that even now, he will not admit his error in judgement. The irony here is that the surge worked so well, that it provided a window for a possible withdrawl in 2010.

Let's not forget one important thing: If Obama had been president over the past eight years, Saddam would still be in power. Yet, Obama claims to be opposed to oppression. Is he befuddled or incompetent or disingenuous?

I don't like Obama. But, I really don't like McCain either. For the first time, I think that a 3rd party candidate may do well, even a Ross Perot.

But to get to McCain. His age is definitely a problem. This run for election is keeping him going, but if he stops he will not get up again.

Even if he won, it would be a 4 year term that he is looking at and someone else would have to take over. The idea of him being in the job for 8 years is just not credible.

Looking at pictures of him now and a year ago, his age is much more evident. He has to have advisers with him all the time because his befuddled brain won't cope much longer.

You gotta admire our system of separating the wheat from the chaff and running the chaff. Remember, even Jay Leno has writers. Also remember that FDR would not allow reporters to quote him without his permission.

So Gary, where was McCain in 2003 when the surge was originally needed, when Bush and Rummy canned Gen Shinseki for advocating it? 20-20 hindsight shows us how wrong the Bushies, including McCain, were all along about this. Bush came around to the surge only by his knee-jerk contrarian impulses, when everyone else said they opposed it. That's how they tricked him into doing the right thing at last.

And don't forget that, after almost 8 years of Bush, two of the three Axis of Evil members are still there, better off than ever. North Korea loves the appeasement money Bush sends it, and Iran is secretly grateful that Bush reduced Iraq, its main rival, to utter chaos.

Gary, dude. What the h**l is the fuss about this surge business? Why is it so noble to support a fix for someting that was stupid to begin with. The invasion of Iraq was stupid; trying to fix it with a surge has helped, but it shouldn't be a cause for celebration, unless putting a bandaid on something is worth some sort of victory lap. Its a non-issue.

As for Saddam, he posed no real threat, despite the manufactured beliefs that the Bush administration wanted us to swallow. The US and allies owned the skies above Iraq and were aware of his every move -- he probably couldn't have taken a c**p without someone in the CIA knowing how much and how long he was in there. There are some who even say that Saddam's support was diminishing, and would have been toppled by other Iraqi factions. Unfortunately, we were fed bad intelligence about this supposed "threat", and most people bought it. However, some didn't.

McCain supported a heavier American troop footprint from the beginning ( Web Link ).

McCain's support for the liberation of Iraq is in the finest tradition of American ideals and international human rights.

Obama is much more of an idealist than McCain, and he seems willing to defeat each and every bad guy in the world (except, curiously, Saddam). McCain wants there to be an American national interest at stake before he goes after the bad guys.

If Obama is elected, his supporters will become hugely disappointed by the wars he involves us all in. In fact, he will bring back the draft.

Saddam was not a threat. We were Saddam's allies--we put him in power. Then we turned on him when we needed a scapegoat. Not to say that he was a nice guy or a mensch, he wasn't, but he wasn't a menace to the U.S. either.

Are there really that many people who've swallowed the propaganda? Scary.

Not a threat? Have you gone back to read quotes of the era from your very own liberal senators and congressmen? Almost everyone believed him a threat:
genocide
wars
chemical weapons used on his own countrymen
bounties to terrorist's families killed in the line of duty
etc

Given more time he would have made good on a lot more of it. Don't forget the wars he started and the oil wells he burned-your renewable energy will take a long time to cancel the energy loss and pollution from that.

An ally today is not always an ally tomorrow. Remember Stalin was our ally in WWII.

I believe the scary part is that you seem to either buy or generate revisionist history to support your politics.

So where's McCain's flip-flop on Iraq at this moment? Is he still for keeping our troops in there another 100 years, or has he flopped over to the cut and run mode that Bush just flipped into, obeying to his handpuppet al Malaki? Is McCain going to protect our investment, or is he gonna hand all that oil back to a foreign government in Baghdad?

mccain is now even with obama is some prominent polls. romney took him for granted too. obama can kiss florida and ohio goodbye, and mccain has pulled even in colorado, minnesota, and one or two other key swing states. looks like barack is going to follow in mcgovern's footsteps...a mclandslide for mccain.

Yes, NOT a threat. All of the examples you've given were threats against his own people, save for one -- the invasion of Kuwait. And for that, we established no fly zones, established tight sanctions, and patroled Iraq like a hawk. Saddam was a demented sable-rattler that terrorized his own people, but hardly posed any real threat to people outside of Iraq. There was no good reason to go in, and even advisors in Bush's administration admitted this. This the part of the history that you're forgetting, Mike.

Paul,

If you follow Obama's actual words, recently modified, he will be keeping U.S. forces in Iraq for as long as necessary to get the job done.

McCain put hiself out there, with his "100 years" remark, but he laid down his marker. Now Obama is slip-sliding towards McCain's position.

I have seen this coming for a long time (I like to gloat!). Please remember that I said Obama, if elected, will bring back the draft. He will have no choice, if he means what he says. He will wait as long as possible, probably second term, then allow a provcation to develop...then his devoted followers will bend to the need to save the world. Imagine that...a liberal military. We haven't seen that since WWII.

Baron Parker,

You need to factor in, among other things, 9-11 and the USS Cole. That was collateral damage related to our no-fly zone (Osama didn't like us flying planes out of bases in Saudi Arabia).

There was one factor that no president could ignore, post 9-11: The possibility that Saddam would hand off a WMD to al qaeda (enemy of my enemy is my friend rationale). To GWB's credit, he did not. Actually, if Obama was president at the time, I think he would have made the same decision, although I am not completely confident of this.

There was a report on NPR today that the UN mission in Darfur is failing. Obama is very big on saving innocents in Darfur. Will he, if elected, send in U.S. troops (repeat of Somalia)? Or will he hold diplomatic consulations? Or will he snort some cocaine and go to sleep? This is his essential problem...we pretty much know what McCain will do, but we have no real sense of Obama as commander in chief. Big problem for Obama.

Gary,

Agreed, the world was a more dangerous place as a result of the Cole and 9-11 events, but there is not a shred of evidence that either event had any relevance to Iraq or connection to Saddam. Again, Bush insiders admitted this.

Could Saddam have given a WMD to Al Queda? Hard to say, but probably unlikely -- the information we know is that Osama and Saddam did not like each other, and there was no significant presence of Al Queda in Iraq during Saddam's reign. Plus Saddam had no WMDs to give to anyone, Osama notwithstanding. UN Inspectors found no WMDs, and US forces confirmed nothing was there after invading the country.

The invasion of Iraq was not justified. War is hell, and you better have a damn good reason before starting one.

we are now in the middle east fighting a large war that was started to control oil. we could have infiltrated al queda and killed off the whole lot of them if we wanted to. same with saddam. same with sudanese butchers. same with zimbabwe. same with serbian killers. same as it ever was. same as it ever was.

war is a money-maker for the wealthy, on the backs of the poor and unfortunate; we're at war because some wealthy folks want it that way. same as it ever was. same as it ever was.

Web Link

Web Link (:O

"we could have infiltrated al queda and killed off the whole lot of them if we wanted to. same with saddam. same with sudanese butchers. same with zimbabwe. same with serbian killers. same as it ever was. same as it ever was."
Sure we could have - and right in the middle of the op, the New York Times would have published a list of agent names and op plans.

War has accomplished some pretty remarkable things:
The end of slavery in the US
The end of Nazism
The preservation of South Korea
The end of fascism in Europe (so far)

Baron Parker, did you see through all of Sadam's lies and deceit and realize he was just bluffing, despite his record and his actions? Monday morning quarterbacking is pretty easy.

We are at war with ideas. Killing a few individuals will have little effect. New leaders will immediately pop up. The evil cultural foundations of our adversaries must be so completely defeated that everyone realizes that they don't work--see our defeat of Nazism and Shinto militarism.
War is destruction. The wealthy mostly pay for it. The old Marxist bromide that the wealthy start wars is rubbish.

If our diplomats were to forget making other countries love us for our open checkbook and instead point out the advantages of being our friend and the disadvantages of being our enemy, we might need less war.

"There was one factor that no president could ignore, post 9-11: The possibility that Saddam would hand off a WMD to al qaeda (enemy of my enemy is my friend rationale). To GWB's credit, he did not." -- Gary

Saddam Hussein didn't HAVE any WMDs to do anything with them. Do you also give Bush credit for the Vatican not giving WMDs to al Qaeda? Same rationale would apply.

And the "cocaine" reference was below you. You've obviously confused the Illinois senator with the governor of New York.

Walter,
Friendship is a two-way street. It's not a matter of other countries falling into line -- it's a matter of people working together.

"War is destruction. The wealthy mostly pay for it. The old Marxist bromide that the wealthy start wars is rubbish."

The wealthy are the main beneficiaries of war - if their side wins. And if they don't pay enough to win they lose big; the wealthy on the other side take their goodies. Seems only fair the wealthy should be the big payers for wars.

"The old Marxist bromide that the wealthy start wars is rubbish."

Name one large war in the last 70 years started by poor people.

.,

Let me just dust off your innacurate charge about Barack and cocaine:


"Through his book, Obama has become the first potential presidential contender to admit trying cocaine." ( Web Link )

Now to your charge that Saddam did not have WMB. Please explain Halabja. He had them, he used them, and various intelligence agencies agreed with his own assertions that he still had them.

Once again, this is getting to be too boring to me. I need some serious opposition. At a minimum, you could at least try to provide some facts to back up your opinions.

Wars are started by statist governments. The instigators have not been wealthy, or at least, their wealth has not been their motivation. Hitler was not wealthy. The Japanese military leaders were not wealthy as far as I know. North Korea is not known for their wealthy motivators nor is North Vietnam. Iraq had some rich thieves and Iran has some wealthy mullahs, but they are poor countries.

"Wars are started by statist governments"

R Wray,

Not always. Al qaeda is not a state. Neither were the American revolutionaries againt Britain. In fact, rebellion, which often turns into war, is caused by individuals who voluntarily come into common cause, without a state status.

Frankly, I don't much care. I am more concerned about who is right, and who is wrong. Individual liberty is worth fighting for, as part of a collective effort, even if the process, by necessity, reduces individual rights. My example would be the military draft to defeat Japan and Germany and the Soviet Union.

The jihadists need to be defeated, not because they are statists or non-statists, but because they are totalitarians, dedicated to their religious cause, and willing to make mass murder to get it done. It will take a state apparatus to defeat them, whether you like that fact, or not.

Back on topic, McCain is a confused old man. And his supporters are mostly also confused old men.

McCain is an experienced elder statesman and a patriotic war hero and brave warrior.

obama is an inexperienced demagogue and PC PR professional.


Who should we trust with defense of the nation in time of war?

No question, McCain

gary, "Once again, this is getting to be too boring to me"

i understand that, because you're basically talking to yourself.

I will be voting against Obama...that means I will cast for McCain.

Most of the stuff on this thread is BS, or to put it in a kinder way, completely erroneous and not worth responding to. The writers of this kind of "mis-information" have no interest in facts.

McCain is too far to the left for my taste, but he is a far sight better than Obama, who will, in concert with the Dem controlled Congress, send this country into a recession through the tried and trued methods of raising taxes and increasing regulation, increasing wealth transfer and decreasing internation trade..and destroy whatever security we have built..worse than Carter.

Most voters aren't old enough to remember Carter and a Dem congress..read up on those years, price of gas, inflation, unemployment, stock prices, and when the Iran hostage situation began ( and the non-response by our country).

143 days working as a Senator..that is all he has in Federal experience, along with no..repeat, NO..experience earning money in the real world ( versus the political world).

NO thanks. Most 30 year olds have more experience with economics and real world politics than this dude.

Hmmm, looking at the above comments this is going to be a referendum on Obama. McCain will win, and in 4 years let's hope we have better candidates. With any luck, McCain will pick an out of this world VP.

I agree, McCain's VP choice will be very interesting and very crucial.

Resident, who are you rootin' for in VP choice? I like Jindal, but far too young and inexperienced still. But, right attitude.

I don't like Romney or Guliani, come with too many negatives.

Never heard of the Alaska governor till last week. If she is the one, wonder what will happen ?

Does anyone remember the "Keating 5" and Lincoln Saving & Loan?

Are there any unanswered questions regarding the DEA investgation of Cindy' drug theft and usage?

to just thinkin': does anyone remember rev wright, bill ayers, socialist near dictator of kenya who obama helped campaign for in 2006 ( what the hell was he doin' campaigning for another country??)? Are there any unanswered questions about who the real barack obama is?

we are at a point of truly having to choose the lesser of two evils ( if I dare use such a word).

I choose mccain.

"Are there any unanswered questions regarding the DEA investgation of Cindy' drug theft and usage?"

i wonder how many of michelle's hate-filed videos will make it into circulation. imagine dressing your kid up for one of wright's sunday school rants.

Web Link

McCain is an adulterer (in the right wing christian sense of the word). hE IS ALSO A CRIMINAL (KEATING SCANDAL).
his wife is a drug addict. also questions have arisen about his years as a POW (or was he an honored and well taken care of guest) of the Vietnamese).
Do we want this man as president?

no...he is too far to the left for me, but he is better than the only remaining choice.

got used to adulterous presidents long ago..Kennedy and Clinton being the two who broke that taboo.

Honored guestof Vietnam? BS. Find one, just one, person who was there with him who will swear to it. You are scraping.

Keating scandal does not guilt by association make. He was completely exonerated, which was a pretty tough thing to do given it was a DEMOCRAT Senate which cleared him. Dems being Dems, they would have done all they could to hang him.

give it up.

so, yes.

hmmm, with these two ads showing what most of us are actually thinking, maybe McCain is going to be somebody I actually vote FOR, not just use to vote against BO.

I think I will start sending money to McCain if this is what he is going to start doing...telling the truth! The arrogance and ignorance of BO and his supporters is well delineated in these 2 ads...I like them!! Takes guts to run 'em! At first I thought that they couldn't be from McCain because he has been so busy trying to appease the left, that I didn't think he would have had the guts anymore to run such ads. I am glad to see I was wrong.

Now, if he can just start running ads pointing out policy differences, of which there are very many, showing how BOs policy "plans" would destroy our economy and our security..he will sew up my "vote for" vote.

oops! barry flip-flopped again today, this time on offshore drilling. barack o'flip-flopper. i hope all who have their obama signs signs out on the lawn can defend his shredding the 4th amendment, and sullying the gulf of mexico environment. he knows he's going to lose those states anyway, so what the heck, let' 'em drill! he needs california, so, of course, no drilling here. that's not compromise, it's cowardice. no spine.