McCain's Son Enlists

John McCain remains the chief cheerleader of the war in Iraq and the central proponent of the plan to add more troops to the region. It remains perplexing that a man like McCain, who truly knows the horrors of war, could have such an unnuanced and seemingly callous approach to a war that has cost tens of thousands of lives and continues to produce no positive outcomes.

Now, Time reports that Jimmy McCain, the Senator's 18-year-old son, will report to boot camp in September as a member of the US Marine Corps. According to Time, the younger McCain could be in Iraq by next summer.

"I'm obviously proud of my son," McCain told the magazine, "but also understandably a bit nervous."

McCain is poised to take the helm of the Armed Services Committee if the GOP retains control of the Senate this fall-- a position that will give him "day-to-day responsibility for oversight of the war."

In Washington, the vast majority of the architects and proponents of the war are men who have neither served nor have children who are currently serving. With the memory of his own service in Vietnam and the prospect of his son entering into the chaos of Iraq, will McCain change his tune? Or will his incorruptible sense of "character" and "integrity" continue to lead him on his misbegotten path?

If there's anything that should prompt soul-searching of the profoundest kind, it's putting your child's life on the line. Very few political leaders ever have to make this kind of choice, and now McCain--one of the most powerful and influential in the world when it comes to Iraq-- must.

Comments (55)

1. Maybe he can get him the honorary "Dubya desk" in the Tx Air Nat'l Guard.....I hear no one ever really sat in it anyway.

   Posted by leftofcenter at 07/31/2006 @ 2:29pm

2. "It remains perplexing that a man like McCain, who truly knows the horrors of war, could have such an unnuanced and seemingly callous approach to a war that has cost tens of thousands of lives and continues to produce no positive outcomes."

   How is support "callous"?

   Posted by IAMIRONMAN at 07/31/2006 @ 2:36pm

3. McCain will not change his tune----To think that he would shows a complete misunderstanding of the man and the issue. When he runs for President he will be immune from the "what if it is someone in your family" criticism.

   Posted by Len Mosse at 07/31/2006 @ 2:37pm

4. And I still wouldn't vote for him with a gun to my head.

   Posted by New Dawn at 07/31/2006 @ 2:40pm

5. Confession ... when I think of John McCain I think of the professional-soldier character played by Gary Sinise in the movie Forrest Gump ... don't rescue me, Forrest, I'm supposed to die! I know he's a better man than that, I guess I just can't help myself.

   It's great that his son is following in his father's footsteps. How much greater it would be if this high profile American family were to demonstrate that sometimes the best thing to do in a war is to stop fighting. But I guess we're still stuck on trying to make the other poor bastard die for his country.

   Good luck, Jimmy.

   Posted by MyParadigm at 07/31/2006 @ 2:42pm

6. ZERO

   AK-47 and PKM rounds(Bullets) do not distinguish between an Infantrayman or a logistical support specialists or a intelligence analysts.

   The nametape above the heart says it all...U.S. Marines/Army/Navy/Air Force.

   Posted by CPT at 07/31/2006 @ 2:43pm

7. "the best thing to do in a war is to stop fighting."

   Great philosophy----Would have worked well in World War's I and II. Thank God that our leaders knew back then that the best thing to do in a war is win.

   Posted by Len Mosse at 07/31/2006 @ 2:44pm

8. MYPARA

   Why is always US that must "stop fighting" first??????

   Why dont you go to ME and compel them to stop fighting thru the tactics of Gandi and MLK? What do you think would happen?

   Posted by CPT at 07/31/2006 @ 2:48pm

9. New Dawn---McCain will be hard pressed to get Republican nomination, but if he does he will get 51 votes from my extended family (husbands, wives, aunts, uncles, first cousins, grand parents etc.)---Who ever the democrat candidate is will get one vote (he lives out of state and is in the family by marriage)--I guess there is a black sheep in every family.

   Posted by Len Mosse at 07/31/2006 @ 2:51pm

10. Dont send your son to be sacrificed on George Bushs Satanic Altar, dont send your son to be fed feet first into George Bushs industrial shredder - called Iraq. All any American in Iraq can accomplish by being there, is to waste blood & treasure & make Americans less safe.

    Posted by LiberalPride at 07/31/2006 @ 2:58pm

11. While I would agree with Zero and LeftOF that McCain Jr. will probably not be put in the most hazardous situations that the Marines have to offer........I'm still not callous enough to poke sarcastic jokes at this thread.

    This young man has made a decision to follow in his father's footsteps and defend a country that he obviously believes is worthy of his service. To belittle that in any way is absurd. Even though I'm not in agreement with the elder McCain on many of his political philosophies, I believe him to be a man of principle for the most part. If his son through service becomes half the man his father once was, then he will be better for it..........I wish him and all those fighting overseas the best, and hope for their safe return ASAP. Hopefully we will be in the process of withdrawl from Iraq before this young man has to make the decision to kill or be killed.

    Posted by jpolston at 07/31/2006 @ 2:59pm

12. "Confession ... when I think of John McCain I think of the professional-soldier character played by Gary Sinise in the movie Forrest Gump ... don't rescue me, Forrest, I'm supposed to die! I know he's a better man than that, I guess I just can't help myself. "

    MYPARADIGM - Excellent! LMAO on that one!

    Posted by woodyee at 07/31/2006 @ 3:04pm

13. After Sam Graham-Felsen wrote: "It remains perplexing that a man like McCain, who truly knows the horrors of war, could have such an unnuanced and seemingly callous approach to a war that has cost tens of thousands of lives and continues to produce no positive outcomes."

    I-am-Ironman responded: "How is support 'callous'?"

    I-am-Ironman's question proceeds from simple short-circuited logic, of a type that is common in the USA today. Support for a war and support for soldiers is considered to be one and the same thing. Few seem to reflect that it may be in the soldiers' interest NOT to continue occupying a foreign country that is proving extremely difficult to govern and may be destined to split apart eventually anyway.

    So many US-Americans are in the thrall of powerful metaphors. Most powerful among these is the "war-as-competitive-sport" metaphor. This misleads people into imagining that the worst possible outcome of a war, or even of an occupation, is "losing" -- not, curiously, the perpetuation of violence and death, such as that which we see in Iraq every week. The war-as-sport metaphor likens supporters of a war to supporters of one's home team -- cheerleaders, if you will. Nothing spoils a good game like party-poopers who fail to cheer for the home team, right? So critics of a war, or of an occupation, are regarded with the same cold shoulder as fans of a visiting team. Indeed, the war critics' arguments are often dismissed as support for the "opposing team," even though war critics are seldom supporters of any side. Indeed, the critics of the Bush administration's occupation of Iraq generally believe that total victory is impossible for all parties, which is why they counsel a change of strategy, preferably including a removal of our country's soldiers (at least) from out of harm's way.

    Not only is the "war on terror" in Iraq not a game, it is not even really a war. It is, rather, an attempt to occupy a country in which a once-sovereign (if repulsive) government was decisively defeated long ago (this was your victory, sports fans!), but in which now no armed group fully controls any other. This situation might be called a "civil war," or perhaps "anarchy," or perhaps a "quagmire," but the phase of international "war" in the sense of WWII was over already in 2003.

    It is possible that our troops do more good than harm by occupying Iraq, but: (1) has anyone really done a cost-benefit analysis to be certain of this claim? and (2) is it really in the interest of the troops themselves to be required to police a whole nation, or perhaps several ethnic groups who are mortal enemies of each other, whose language our troops do not even speak? I think not.

    Free yourselves from misleading metaphors. Think clearly. Breathe deeply. Thank you.

    Posted by JakobFabian at 07/31/2006 @ 3:44pm

14. Why is always US that must "stop fighting" first??????

    Posted by CPT 07/31/2006 @ 2:48pm | ignore this person

    Uh, how about because we STARTED the fighting?!?!?! Hello?!?!?

    Posted by Lillian at 07/31/2006 @ 3:47pm

15. Sam,

    The occupation of Iraq is not a war. The so called "war on terror" is not a war. You must resist the temptation of labeling either a "war" as it allows too much Constitutional latitude to a President that has literally gone mad with power.

    Posted by freedomplease at 07/31/2006 @ 3:56pm

16. Isn't Mr Graham-Felsen missing a point?

    It's also going to give McCain a lot of CREDIBILITY for anything he says about the war...pro or con.

    Any rival for 2008 just has to be asked by Maverick John "Did YOUR child go over there, Senator/Mayor/Congressman/Governor?"

    Posted by Mask at 07/31/2006 @ 4:04pm

17. Lillian

    Uh, how about because we STARTED the fighting?!?!?! Hello?!?!?

    Posted by LILLIAN 07/31/2006 @ 3:47pm | ignore this person

    Nuff said.

    Posted by CPT at 07/31/2006 @ 4:17pm

18. Freiheit,

    What is a "war" in your opinion?

    Are you refering to the "war on terror" or are you refering to the occupation of Iraq? Or are you refering to the now UN led occupation of Afghanistan?

    Posted by freedomplease at 07/31/2006 @ 4:20pm

19. Free yourselves from misleading metaphors. Think clearly. Breathe deeply. Thank you.

    Posted by JAKOBFABIAN 07/31/2006 @ 3:44pm | ignore this person

    Heed your own sage advice.

    Posted by CPT at 07/31/2006 @ 4:22pm

20. FREEDOMPLEASE

    You see the Islamic-facists joining arms, did you not listen?

    "From Spain to Iran we will re-take the lands and restore Muslim domination" ZAWAHIRI

    Why is it that they seem to get it how this is all connected, yet you cant?

    It is the same ideaology of jihad that is driving them.

    Posted by CPT at 07/31/2006 @ 4:27pm

21. A few things strike me as...interesting. First, from the article itself:

    With the memory of his own service in Vietnam and the prospect of his son entering into the chaos of Iraq, will McCain change his tune? Or will his incorruptible sense of "character" and "integrity" continue to lead him on his misbegotten path?

    I love how "character" and "integrity" are in quotes, as though they're somehow bad things or at the very least things to be mocked. The context makes it clear that it's this meaning, rather than a criticism of John McCain's character, that the author intends, because "character" and "integrity" are juxtaposed against a concern for one's own son. That kind of decision, between someone that you care about and a cause that you feel is just, is a difficult one that cannot justifiably be mocked in the way that the author apparently does.

    "the best thing to do in a war is to stop fighting."

    Great philosophy----Would have worked well in World War's I and II.

    Much as I tend to disagree with the more liberal-leaning folk on this thread, I have to say that this is a pretty blatant strawman (partly because it's quoted out of context).

    While I would agree with Zero and LeftOF that McCain Jr. will probably not be put in the most hazardous situations that the Marines have to offer........

    Interestingly enough, the article itself seems to suggest otherwise:

    Time reports that Jimmy McCain, the Senator's 18-year-old son, will report to boot camp in September as a member of the US Marine Corps. According to Time, the younger McCain could be in Iraq by next summer.

    I-am-Ironman responded: "How is support 'callous'?"

    I-am-Ironman's question proceeds from simple short-circuited logic, of a type that is common in the USA today. Support for a war and support for soldiers is considered to be one and the same thing. Few seem to reflect that it may be in the soldiers' interest NOT to continue occupying a foreign country that is proving extremely difficult to govern and may be destined to split apart eventually anyway.

    So many US-Americans are in the thrall of powerful metaphors. Most powerful among these is the "war-as-competitive-sport" metaphor. This misleads people into imagining that the worst possible outcome of a war, or even of an occupation, is "losing" -- not, curiously, the perpetuation of violence and death, such as that which we see in Iraq every week.

    First of all, this isn't actually responsive to Ironman's question. The claim he's calling into question presupposes that anyone who supports the war in Iraq doesn't care about the fact that many people, military and civilians alike, are dying over there. I would go further to suggest that this claim is pretty obviously false, and rather insulting to boot.

    Second, the "game mentality" argument doesn't really make much sense. For one thing, it's unclear what basis exists to believe that people see this as a "game." In addition, many of the arguments that have been consistently marshaled in favor of staying in Iraq contend specifically that leaving is a bad idea because of the bad consequences that it would have, an evaluation that suggests that people actually see this war as a war rather than a mere game. People believe that, unlike a game, this war will have serious consequences either way, which would be another explanation for why dissenters are often times harshly criticized, and why there is a great deal of emotional division on the Iraq issue that is inexplicable from a gaming framework.

    Why is always US that must "stop fighting" first??????

    Posted by CPT 07/31/2006 @ 2:48pm | ignore this person

    Uh, how about because we STARTED the fighting?!?!?! Hello?!?!?

    That's not actually a reason why the US should start the fighting first. It might actually be a reason against doing so based on a responsibility to clean up the mess that we are responsible for making.

    Sam,

    The occupation of Iraq is not a war. The so called "war on terror" is not a war. You must resist the temptation of labeling either a "war" as it allows too much Constitutional latitude to a President that has literally gone mad with power.

    This doesn't even make sense. It definitionally is a war, insofar as the regime change and aftermath were directly authorized by Congress, and though the status of a war on terror as a war in the conventional sense has been called into question, this claim certainly doesn't give "Constitutional latitude" to a supposedly "power-mad President." Bottom line: this is all really silly and unwarranted.

    Posted by Thrawn at 07/31/2006 @ 4:37pm

22. Freiheit,

    Don't get emotional. I am asking you if the USA is actually involved in something that can be called a "war" in your opinion and therefore are we currently a Constitutional Republic as we would be under a non War President or are we under a Presidential State of supreme power.

    Since you claim that the objective is not complete until the end of "radical Islam" and since that objective has no actual parameters of what constitutes a victory over "radical Islam" then you are hereby granting all power to the President whoever he or she may be. You have abandoned your faith in the system that was created by our founding fathers.

    I for one, find your approach both short sighted and cowardly.

    The terrorists cannot defeat us unless they succesfully terrorize us into defeating ourselves. I'm not going to let them win....are you?

    Posted by freedomplease at 07/31/2006 @ 4:38pm

23. Posted by CPT 07/31/2006 @ 4:27pm

    I see muslims becoming Islamo-fascists and joining hands in response to Bush's GWOT

    Posted by nathanhale at 07/31/2006 @ 5:30pm

24. New Dawn---McCain will be hard pressed to get Republican nomination, but if he does he will get 51 votes from my extended family (husbands, wives, aunts, uncles, first cousins, grand parents etc.)---Who ever the democrat candidate is will get one vote (he lives out of state and is in the family by marriage)--I guess there is a black sheep in every family.

    Posted by LEN MOSSE 07/31/2006 @ 2:51pm

    LEN, You don't even know who the Dem candidate will be, yet 51 of you already have decided to vote Republican?

    Your family doesn't sound openminded... No offense, but you sound like you're all brainwashed.

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 07/31/2006 @ 5:45pm

25. Osama Bin Laden formally declared war on the United States. Twice [mideastweb.org]. Maybe that's why some folks call it a war.

    Posted by FREIHEIT 07/31/2006 @ 4:15pm

    In case you haven't heard the news, FREI, Iraq had NOTHING to do with 911 and was not working with Al Qaeda.

    Why do you and other conservatives continually try to conflate the two? Is it because you are practicing Joseph Goebbels' strategy of repeating a lie often enough to get people to believe it?

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 07/31/2006 @ 5:50pm

26. Oh, and before you all trip over each other to point out Osama Bin Laden had nothing to do with Iraq, Relax, I know that argument.

    Posted by FREIHEIT 07/31/2006 @ 4:23pm

    Too late! (I generally respond to posts as I encounter them, before completing the thread.)

    Besides, it isn't an "argument", it is factual finding. There is a difference.

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 07/31/2006 @ 5:53pm

27. Posted by FREIHEIT 07/31/2006 @ 5:52pm

    FREI, as I said, I generally respond immediately before completing the thread. Sorry for the confusion.

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 07/31/2006 @ 5:54pm

28. FREI.

    I wonder if that same TEDDY story would have the same impact on the UBL, ZARAQAWIs, or Iranian mullahs of the world.

    Posted by CPT at 07/31/2006 @ 6:33pm

29. FREI

    Do you think the Chinese saw the elegant moral high road of the students in Tinanmen Sqaure?

    The one brillantly defiant student standing in front of T-72 tank, i dont think it won any photo of the year awards in China. That photo is not acclaimed in China, students are taught that they were miscrent law-breakers. In the end, the brutal regimes in world care more about winning at any cost, than world public opinion.

    And as govt is a uniquely human endeavour, it will forever have its Kim-IL Sung, Jong ILs, and host of other assorted brutal regimes, that do not value life as we do.

    I appreaciate your Teddy story and with Americans it resonates, with our enemies it wont and never will.

    Posted by CPT at 07/31/2006 @ 6:47pm

30. FREI

    Not that i am claiming your intended audience is our enemies too.

    Posted by CPT at 07/31/2006 @ 6:48pm

31. FREIHEIT

    Are we in a state of war? Yes, because radical Islam is. Am I going to let them win?

    Well, in the context of your post as I read it, I don't know who you mean by "them".

    Radical Islam is an ideology, not a single organizational entity. There are some ideological affinities between the various organizations but they generally have separate goals. al-Qaida directly ran a few crimes like USS Cole, the embassies and 9-11 but often they essentially provided training, expertise and financial support to self-starters (think of the venture capitalist metaphor). You have a war in Afghanistan but the other actions are largely independent internal political conflicts (think Algeria in the 90s, Chechnya today) and criminal conspiracies (London, Madrid).

    Posted by brunowe at 07/31/2006 @ 9:47pm

32. Posted by LIBERALPRIDE 07/31/2006 @ 2:58pm | ignore this person

    Cindy Sheehan's cover is officially blown.

    Posted by Person at 07/31/2006 @ 10:04pm

33. In case you haven't heard the news, FREI, Iraq had NOTHING to do with 911 and was not working with Al Qaeda.

    Why do you and other conservatives continually try to conflate the two? Is it because you are practicing Joseph Goebbels' strategy of repeating a lie often enough to get people to believe it?

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS 07/31/2006 @ 5:50pm | ignore this person

    I'm about sick of this bit. Here's a news flash for you: The whole fucking Middle East is related to 9-11. What's happening today in Lebanon, Syria, Iran, Iraq, Afganistan, Pakistan...the whole region is one big crapper that poses a threat to me and you and everything we hold dear. Terrorists and Islamic kook's are the real deal. They don't sit around and try to see who's the most loving and caring. They draw camel hairs to see who get's dibs on slicing your throat.

    Posted by Person at 07/31/2006 @ 10:20pm

34. Ilovephysics "LEN, You don't even know who the Dem candidate will be, yet 51 of you already have decided to vote Republican? Your family doesn't sound openminded... No offense, but you sound like you're all brainwashed."

    No brainwashing---all 51 have college degrees or are in the process of obtaining them. Some in the family have advanced degrees. I will say that my parents and my wife's parents have had a big influence. Both are life long republicans who raised their children to think for themselves and to take responsibility for themselves. At family reunions the subject soon turns to politics and while you are correct that the Dems have not chosen a candidate I doubt they will nominate the type of person we could vote for----the days of Scoop Jackson and Joseph Lieberman seem to be long gone for the democrats and unless they would nominate someone like them---there will be 51 votes for John McCain and one for whoever.

    Posted by Len Mosse at 07/31/2006 @ 10:24pm

35. Posted by BRUNOWE 07/31/2006 @ 9:47pm

    B,

    Do you think those with a "Radical Islamist" ideology govern Iran? If you do then there is a link between the apparatus of state and "Radicalism". I would suggest that the same was true in Afghanistan prior to the removal of the Taliban and the Al Qaeda training facilities. They had the whole apparatus of state at their disposal. Of course its power and hence level of threat was not as serious as that which Iran poses but it is indicative of where "Radical Islam" intends to be.

    The silly notion that (Islamic) terrorism is a tactic and cannot be fought by conventional means overlooks the stated purpose of "Radical Islam" which is to overthrow the governments of less than sympathetic, Muslim states. That is so that it may gain control of those states for "conventional war" on its enemies (amongst other political and religious objectives).

    There is little doubt in my mind that Bush's "conventional" wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have seriously impeded the agenda of "Radical Islam" with respect to gaining control of states. Surely the licence given to Israel in Lebanon is consistent with the Bush objectives but this time in terms of Lebanon.

    I tend to agree with those who say Bush is (now) overplaying the WOT. I suggest the reason for that is that his efforts so far have been more successful than he is prepared to admit.

    Is that because he wants the power that goes with being a "war" President? I don't know but it is a point the left makes without realising that it also implies something about Bush's success with his WOT to date.

    Posted by lrjones4 at 07/31/2006 @ 10:33pm

36. There is little doubt in my mind that Bush's "conventional" wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have seriously impeded the agenda of "Radical Islam" with respect to gaining control of states.

    Agree with you on Afghanistan but not Iraq. If anything, the power vacuum created in Iraq has provided openings for both Sunni militants and Shi'ite militants.

    I disagree on the relative threats. Iran, as an established nation-state, is more vulnerable to conventional deterrence. It would also be a lot tougher to knock over than Afghanistan was. It's backing of its Hezbollah proxy is noteworthy but Hezbollah has mainly nuisance value as they can neither destroy Israel or take power outside their section of Lebanon. Any sign that what Israel is doing in Lebanon is working any better than what we are doing in Iraq?

    The silly notion that (Islamic) terrorism is a tactic and cannot be fought by conventional means overlooks the stated purpose of "Radical Islam" which is to overthrow the governments of less than sympathetic, Muslim states.

    They may have that aim but they don't have the capability. In Algeria, they did a lot of damage but didn't come close to taking power. Plots to blow things up and kill people are stopped by the conventional means of police work and intelligence.

    Posted by brunowe at 07/31/2006 @ 11:50pm

37. Posted by BRUNOWE 07/31/2006 @ 11:50pm

    B,

    Think Iraq was a tremendous psychological downer for the post 9/11 euphoria of the Radical Islamists, who were quickly brought down to earth with Afghanistan and with the events that transpired in Iraq. There, the much-vaunted Iraq Army was defeated in three weeks. And that by Bin Laden's "cowardly" Americans who had been sent "scuttling" from Beirut and Somalia during the Reagan and Clinton years.

    See John Miller's ABC interview with bin Laden in 1998. I suggest one can only see how much Bush has accomplished on this front, when one considers that heady pre- Afghanistan/Iraq period when the bin Ladenists believed they were well on the way to victory over the hated "American/Jewish alliance". And of course if Al Qaeda had any illusions about Iraq falling into its hands after Saddam's removal, three years of hard slog, with the US refusing to do a Mogadishu and the diversity of voices in the insurgency, would have disabused them of that dream.

    Don't think the present Sunni and Shiite militias qualify as part of "Radical Islam" in terms of their agenda. Sadr's group may get close to it. But is probably just an anti-American group for a variety of reasons, including religious separatism (from "corrupting" Western influences) and nationalistic fervour.

    Posted by lrjones4 at 08/01/2006 @ 05:12am

38. "But I guess we're still stuck on trying to make the other poor bastard die for his country. "

    Correct = )

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/01/2006 @ 08:35am

39. Freiheit, CPT etal.

    The false choice you people seem to want us to make is absurd and extremely cowardly.

    You genuinely seem to want the choice to be between the geographical viability of the USA and the seperation of powers over the three branches of government.

    Do you think that the USA is going to cease to exist if another terrorist attack happens on our soil? I don't.

    But the experiment of the constitutional republic as we know it DOES cease to exist if we PERMANANTLY empower a single position with as much power as the current President has already assumed.

    All I want, is for you people to define parameters of this "battle against radical Islam" or GWOT or whatever you call it, so I can be comfortable that it is not never ending, which, the way it is defined so far it is never ending.

    If we have a parameter or a set of goals then the other branches can wait in the wings until those stated objectives are met.

    Unfortunately, you people seem to want permanant exectutive war authority granted to the office of the Presidency and that just isn't America folks.

    Posted by freedomplease at 08/01/2006 @ 09:05am

40. I'm about sick of this bit. Here's a news flash for you: The whole fucking Middle East is related to 9-11. What's happening today in Lebanon, Syria, Iran, Iraq, Afganistan, Pakistan...the whole region is one big crapper that poses a threat to me and you and everything we hold dear. Terrorists and Islamic kook's are the real deal. They don't sit around and try to see who's the most loving and caring. They draw camel hairs to see who get's dibs on slicing your throat.

    Posted by PERSON 07/31/2006 @ 10:20pm

    It is better to remain silent and to be thought stupid, than to type this idiotic post and remove all doubt...

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/01/2006 @ 09:47am

41. Conservatives: we liberals understand that Islamic Fundamentalists are terrible - just like Christian Fundamentalists - terrible - just like Jewish Fundamentalists - terrible - Islamic Fundamentalists - terrible.

    Why? Because Islamic Fundamentalists want to fan the flames, their leaders want all the money and power that goes with being a War President. Islamic Fundamentalists just want a wider war - just like Christian Fundamentalists.

    Some Islamic Fundamentalists are in families like the Bin Laden family - which has invested over $400 million dollars in Carlyle and 100s and 100s of millions of dollars in the Oil Business. Carlyle is in the arms trade - Carlyle is a weapons corporation. The Bin Laden Family is in the oil business and the weapons business - if oil prices go up they make money. The Bin Ladens make money anytime oil goes up or any time weapons have to be used - bombs are dropped on people killing people at Qana or Falluja - bombs are dropped the Bin Ladens get rich. The Bin Laden family is heavily invested in oil and war - has been for decades - oil goes up the Bin Ladens make money. Weapons are used to kill people the Bin Ladens make money. The Bin Laden family are Wahabbist Fundamentalists just like Osama Bin Laden and all the hijackers who attacked us on 911.

    The Bin Laden family - those Islamic Wahabbist Fundamentalists, and their business partners in the Bush family - those Christian Fundamentalists. Armageddon-profiteers, armageddon-bringers-on, idiots, fools, sellers-short-of-the-world, dupes, religious fanatics. Israel and America are currently losing, only by more killing can they lose even worse, only by making the Christian and Islamic Fundamenalist Leaders more money can they make life worse for themselves.

    Posted by conshame at 08/01/2006 @ 10:12am

42. Monday, July 31, 2006

    This shit's gotta stop

    http://xymphora.blogspot.com/

    Posted by plunger at 08/01/2006 @ 10:13am

43. Jewish Fundamentalist: Suicide bombing in Israel? Cool!!!! Islamic Fundamentalist: 34 kids bombed in Lebannon? Cool!!!! Christian Fundamentlist: 911? Cool!!!!

    Posted by conshame at 08/01/2006 @ 10:17am

44. Sincere Jew: Let there be Peace, Sincere Muslim: Let there be Peace, Sincere Christian: Let there be Peace

    Posted by conshame at 08/01/2006 @ 10:23am

45. Posted by PERSON 07/31/2006 @ 10:20pm

    Unfortunately, it's just this variety of misunderstanding that's got us into such trouble over there --the wholesale (and in many ways bigoted) grouping of the various ethnic identities, religious beliefs and individual political goals in the region. In many ways, our leadership (whose basic message is reflected above in PERSON'S post) has failed to grasp a fundamental tenet of warfare, know thine enemy.

    Posted by breasonable at 08/01/2006 @ 10:35am

46. The U.S. will not retain it's preimminent position in the world under the idiot from Texas - give us the Governor from Arkansas.

    Posted by conshame at 08/01/2006 @ 10:45am

47. The U.S. is not retaining it's preimminent position in the world under the idiot from Texas - give us the Governor from Arkansas.

    Posted by conshame at 08/01/2006 @ 10:57am

48. You've got to be nuts if you think they'll put McCain's boy in any kind of real danger. The Marines aren't stupid, or at least not that stupid. This is just McCain shoring up his political career, or his son starting his political career, or (most likely) both.

    Posted by rvs-convener at 08/01/2006 @ 11:18am

49. New Dawn---McCain will be hard pressed to get Republican nomination, but if he does he will get 51 votes from my extended family (husbands, wives, aunts, uncles, first cousins, grand parents etc.)---Who ever the democrat candidate is will get one vote (he lives out of state and is in the family by marriage)--I guess there is a black sheep in every family.

    Posted by LEN MOSSE 07/31/2006 @ 2:51pm

    Your characterization of anyone who votes for a Democrat as a black sheep (even one of yor own family members, by marriage or otherwise) is simplistic and the height of partisanship by definition. Me, I like to vote for a candidate and his principles and platform over the party.

    With all due respect, that just makes me sad for fifty-one people - they all Bush supporters, too, or just at-all-costs party supporters like you?

    When McCain allowed his party to shit all over him, then crawled back and licked the bottoms of their boots, he lost my respect and my endorsement. I respected the man before that, for his service and his sacrifices - but that was a long time ago.

    I hope his son stays safe and doesn't end up another "necessary sacrifice" in Iraq. There is no such thing anymore.

    Posted by New Dawn at 08/01/2006 @ 12:31pm

50. The one thing you can rest assured of is you will never see anyone on the left applauding the decisions for hazardous national service of our youth of today unless it is total rebellion against our nation, it's institutions and our government! (Right JORCHIEM?)

    Posted by RIO BRAVO 07/31/2006 @ 5:52pm

    I am decidedly "left".

    And I support the hell out of this legislator's actions, as well as any young man or woman who wants to serve our country, no matter how misguided their C-in-C and Defense Secretary may be - I'm a firm believer in walking the walk as opposed to just talking the talk.

    So, just stop your whitewashing of the "left". It makes you look like an asshole and an idiot.

    Whoops, never mind - too late.

    Posted by New Dawn at 08/01/2006 @ 12:46pm

51. Well, CPT, it actually might. But for them I suspect it would be a catalist for revenge and hatred, not introspection, as it was for Roosevelt.

    Posted by FREIHEIT 07/31/2006 @ 6:37pm

    As does the death of every family member of someone killed in Iraq - breeds more hatred, contempt for the West, and fire for vengeance. Good point, Frei.

    Smashing mercury with a hammer....

    Posted by New Dawn at 08/01/2006 @ 12:49pm

52. I'm about sick of this bit. Here's a news flash for you: The whole fucking Middle East is related to 9-11. What's happening today in Lebanon, Syria, Iran, Iraq, Afganistan, Pakistan...the whole region is one big crapper that poses a threat to me and you and everything we hold dear. Terrorists and Islamic kook's are the real deal. They don't sit around and try to see who's the most loving and caring. They draw camel hairs to see who get's dibs on slicing your throat.

    Posted by PERSON 07/31/2006 @ 10:20pm

    This is the most ignorant, xenophobic whitewashing of an entire region I have ever read here, or anywhere.

    I'll be sure to let my Pakistani friend know that you want his entire family dead just because they live in Pakistan.

    Posted by New Dawn at 08/01/2006 @ 12:53pm

53. this thread provides continued evidence that the left is clueless and perhaps beyond hope.

    I used to be dissmissive of inflamed rhetoric about the danger of liberalism to the future of the U.S. Based upon the evidence of this site and the Cindy Sheehans and Dennis Kucinich's and the like, I am no longer of that opinion.

    I believe that while Ann Coulter is certainly not lacking in hyperbole, her conclusions ring closer to the truth than I would have originally considered.

    The U.S. will not retain it's preimminent position in the world for very long should the brand of leftist philosophy reflected here gain political power in the future.

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 08/01/2006 @ 10:31am

    Toilet paper post.

    Posted by New Dawn at 08/01/2006 @ 12:56pm

54. No problem. Any time, false prophet!

    And my cat thanks you for yet another litter box liner.

    Posted by New Dawn at 08/01/2006 @ 2:31pm

55. JPOLSTON wrote: "I wish [McCain's son] and all those fighting overseas the best, and hope for their safe return ASAP. Hopefully we will be in the process of withdrawal from Iraq before this young man has to make the decision to kill or be killed."

    Well, it's too late for me. I felt the same way when my son announced his shocking decision two years ago to put off university and enlist in the Marines after high school. At the time I hoped that two years down the line this illegal war would HAVE to be over -- people wouldn't stand for it, the lies about Iraq and 9/11 would emerge, the lessons of Vietnam have been learned, truth would prevail, etc etc.

    But time has run out: my son is being deployed to Iraq next month, on what has become a deadly fool's errand. I now live with constant fear that he will be pointlessly injured, maimed or killed. Young Americans like my son are being exploited for their patriotic ideals by leaders who support the war but don't, in fact, support the troops. And I'm living the ultimate nightmare where I'm screaming and no one -- but no one -- is listening.

    Does part of me hope that McCain's son will see service in Iraq? You bet. But that would mean all the other mothers of sons in the military will continue to suffer with worry and dread for yet another year. And those sons will continue being caught in the crossfire of civil war.

    Let's hope withdrawal from Iraq begins long before McCain's son is eligible for deployment. Let's hope that McCain Pere is "nervous" enough to support a withdrawal sooner than later. But McCain Fils will have to survive boot camp first.

    Posted by demetroula at 08/01/2006 @ 3:32pm