McCain Adviser: Christian Right a "Serious Problem"

Yesterday representatives of Clinton, Obama and McCain spoke before the United Jewish Communities. Obama liaison Daniel Kurtzer, a former US ambassador to Israel, tried to put an end to Obama's so-called "Jewish problem," denouncing the false emails that are circulating wildly around the net about him.

"There's a question in the community that's unfortunately been stimulated and stirred about and played with in e-mails and innuendos and newspaper articles that suggests that there's something wrong with Senator Obama's views about Jews, about Israel," Kurtzner said, according to Dana Milbank of the Washington Post. "There are nagging doubts, there are e-mails, there are innuendos: These are the kinds of things which we as a community have suffered over the years at the hands of anti-Semites."

Clinton adviser Ann Lewis tacked to the right, criticizing Obama for saying he'd meet with the President of Iran and for suggesting that a US President needn't have to echo the policies of the Likud Party in order to be "pro-Israel." "The role of the president of the United States is to support the decisions that are made by the people of Israel," Lewis said. "It is not up to us to pick and choose from among the political parties."

McCain Advisor Lawrence Eagleburger, deputy secretary of State under Bush I, tacked to the right of both, saying McCain "will not talk with the Syrians, will not talk with the Iranians, will not talk with Hamas and Hezbollah...He isn't going to push the Israelis."

Yet Eagleburger bluntly contradicted McCain on at least one major issue of concern to the Republican Party: the role of the religious right. McCain has spent two years making nice with the likes of Jerry Falwell and John Hagee, repenting for referring to Falwell and Pat Robertson as "agents of intolerance" back in 2000. Yet Eagleburger seemed to suggest that we shouldn't take McCain's embrace of the religious right too seriously.

"On the Christian hard right, I live in Charlottesville now and I can't tell you I'm surrounded by it," Eagleburger said. "I must tell you we fought it there, fought hard against it. There's no question that in the Republican Party it is a serious problem...Among the hard-right conservatives in the Republican Party John McCain was, shall we say, less than enthusiastically received...What you see is what you get. You are not going to see him moving to assuage the concerns of these conservatives.

"The issues that have concerned the far right I don't see and I don't expect to see any changes. I know there will be some people in his entourage who will want to advocate for those changes, and again, I don't believe he will shift on those fundamental issues. For example, on abortion, he's clear, he's opposed. On one of the issues that upsets the far right, stem cell research, he is prepared to accept some of that, and that's something that upsets the far right. I could go on with these issues." Too bad he didn't.

Paging Pastor Hagee!

Comments (63)

1. Apparently Grandpa has only reverse mortgaged his soul and not out-and-out sold it. I can already hear the calls from Limbaugh and his like saying how Grandpa isn't a true conservative and James Dobson re-opening his calls for a possible third-party candidacy. And suddenly he doesn't look so strong to the right now does he?

   Posted by yutsano at 03/18/2008 @ 5:06pm

2. "The role of the president of the United States is to support the decisions that are made by the people of Israel," Lewis said. "It is not up to us to pick and choose from among the political parties."

   Well, there you have it! Hillary is backing the right-wing Likud Party in Israel!

   Do we need any other evidence that she is Bush/Cheney-lite? These right-wing Democrats that want to be like Republicans should go join their party. It is time to turn the page on the DLC Clintons and their conservative counterparts in the Republican party. Their embrace of "anything" the government of Israel does is the root cause of much of the anti-American sentiment around the world and the primary motive for international terrorism against this country.

   Posted by Metteyya at 03/18/2008 @ 5:11pm

3. Look at this way, the Hard Right can stay home or vote McCain while the Hard Left can stay home or vote Nader....

   Refreshing that the "Straight Talk Express" is reflected by McCain's spokesman......what a contrast to the NAFTA charade by Obama's Univ.of Chicago advisor and Samantha Power on the Iraq `plan'!

   Posted by Happy at 03/18/2008 @ 5:17pm

4. James Carville, in 'Stickin': The Case for Loyalty'

   '...Nowhere in the entire world is disloyalty more rewarded and rewarded well than in Washington,...

   Posted by HonestLiberal at 03/18/2008 @ 5:18pm

5. "Clinton adviser Ann Lewis tacked to the right, criticizing Obama for saying he'd meet with the President of Iran and for suggesting that a US President needn't have to echo the policies of the Likud Party in order to be "pro-Israel." "The role of the president of the United States is to support the decisions that are made by the people of Israel," Lewis said. "It is not up to us to pick and choose from among the political parties.""

   Tacking to the right? Oh? Hardly right or left. A US president's role is to support the decisions of Israelis? Well, if Israel were the 51st US state, yes, provided those decisions were not at the expense of the other 50 states. To a far lesser, but still important extent if Israel were linked to the US via an alliance treaty. But there is no alliance treaty at all between Israel & the US. After the 6-Day War in June '67, LBJ offered such a treaty to Israel, but Israel declined, because all alliance treaties require that both/all treaty parties agree to: 1) defined borders, and 2) to inform all allies of any impending military action against another country. Israel refused to accept those traditional conditions. Hence, to this day, no alliance treaty exists between the US & Israel.

   HRC is well aware of these facts. If Ann Lewis is, as she appears to be, speaking for HRC, than HRC the candidate is saying that she places Israel's interests above those of US national interests. Is this really what the majority of US voters want?

   Posted by sloper at 03/18/2008 @ 5:19pm

6. Make that WORLD-WIDE adviser:

   CHRISTIANS ARE A SERIOUS PROBLEM

   Evolution people, ever hear of it?

   Posted by bleedingheart at 03/18/2008 @ 6:03pm

7. "The role of the president of the United States is to support the decisions that are made by the people of Israel," Lewis said. "It is not up to us to pick and choose from among the political parties."

   Wow.

   Posted by felixholt at 03/18/2008 @ 6:16pm

8. Isn't it ironic that the Democrats, who so enthusiastically call Republicans racists, field two leading candidates who are racists. Hillary's campaign was quick to resort to racist inuendo when she was losing. And Obama willingly embraced a racist buffoon for his pastor.

   I will pause at this point to chuckle.

   It's also worth pointing out that nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki was the most economical option for ending WWII as far as lives were concerned. When the historically illiterate, such as Pastor Wright, condemn the atom bombings of Japan they are implicitly endorsing a conventional war against Japan that would have taken more lives by an order of magnitude. Hiroshima and Nagasaki stopped the war with the loss of a few hundred thousand lives. Invading Japan and conquering it on the ground would have cost millions of lives, mostly Japanese. Pastor Wright is the voice of ignorance in this case, as he is on so many other topics.

   Posted by libzsuk at 03/18/2008 @ 7:10pm

9. "You are not going to see him moving to assuage the concerns of these conservatives."

   Paging LVLIBERTY!

   heheh

   Posted by Mask at 03/18/2008 @ 7:51pm

10. Posted by HAPPY 03/18/2008 @ 5:17pm

    Look at this way, the Hard Right can stay home or vote McCain while the Hard Left can stay home or vote [Clinton/Obama]...

    There, fixed that for you. If you want to bring Nader into the discussion, then you have to bring in the Constitution Party, the Libertarian Party and other possible runs from people like Buchanan on the right. To remind you, those two parties won close to the same number of votes as the Greens and Nader combined in 2004.

    Posted by srjenkins at 03/18/2008 @ 7:57pm

11. "The role of the president of the United States is to support the decisions that are made by the people of Israel," Lewis said. "It is not up to us to pick and choose from among the political parties."

    Tell that to the palestinians. Apparently the same rules don't apply to the rest of the world. Democracy is ok, as long as you vote the right way.

    Posted by gwolverine at 03/18/2008 @ 7:58pm

12. Posted by MASK 03/18/2008 @ 7:51pm

    Except McCain is LVL's man because he is centering his campaign on killing Muslims and more war. McCain is on his central issue and he is less problematic than the alternatives (for example, he gives lip service to pro-life).

    Posted by srjenkins at 03/18/2008 @ 8:01pm

13. It's also worth pointing out that nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki was the most economical option for ending WWII as far as lives were concerned. When the historically illiterate, such as Pastor Wright, condemn the atom bombings of Japan they are implicitly endorsing a conventional war against Japan that would have taken more lives by an order of magnitude. Hiroshima and Nagasaki stopped the war with the loss of a few hundred thousand lives. Invading Japan and conquering it on the ground would have cost millions of lives, mostly Japanese. Pastor Wright is the voice of ignorance in this case, as he is on so many other topics.

    It's nice to know you wholeheartedly advocate the death of hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians as the most "economic" way of ending the war, not to mention the decades of ecological and health devastation that we wrought upon the Japanese. Truman rightly agonized over this decision, as the effects of radiation poisoning were coming out of Los Alamos from just the testing grounds. Then again they're just Japanese right? They ain't good ol' Merikans!

    Posted by yutsano at 03/18/2008 @ 8:03pm

14. Actually I think Hillary has the tougher argument coming out of that conference, and the fact that Berman is more or less giving her advisor a free pass is rather telling. That was more or less a total kiss-up to AIPAC and honestly should be examined more thoroughly. And before y'all jump all over me my father's Jewish and my cousin's considering emigrating to Israel, so I believe in its right to exist, but there is zero doubt they need sever behavior modification.

    Posted by yutsano at 03/18/2008 @ 8:07pm

15. Posted by SRJENKINS 03/18/2008 @ 8:01pm

    Well, of course. Ol' "Blood 'n Guts" LVLIB is hoping that McCain will be the one who finally "takes the gloves off" and goes "Curtis LeMay" on the "jihadists" (and of course any "collateral damage" from the city blocks we have to level will be "regretable").

    Posted by Mask at 03/18/2008 @ 8:09pm

16. Posted by LIBZSUK 03/18/2008 @ 7:10pm

    It's also worth pointing out that nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki was the most economical option for ending WWII as far as lives were concerned.

    Totally false, but thanks for bringing up the point. Leaving aside the fact that it was totally immoral for a moment. Pretty much every military commander in the field said that Japan was already defeated and that it was militarily unnecessary. This includes Eisenhower, MacArthur, Leahy and Nimitz. In other words, your comments about being historically illiterate...are rather ironic.

    Posted by srjenkins at 03/18/2008 @ 8:11pm

17. Posted by MASK 03/18/2008 @ 8:09pm

    More Fallujahs on the way to the rapture. Praise be to Jesus.

    Posted by srjenkins at 03/18/2008 @ 8:12pm

18. Posted by SRJENKINS 03/18/2008 @ 8:12pm

    LL has a simple plan for the "War on Terror"...

    "Kill 'em til they stop hating us!"

    Posted by Mask at 03/18/2008 @ 8:22pm

19. "The role of the president of the United States is to support the decisions that are made by the people of Israel"

    Excuse me? The people of ISRAEL? Wow, that's astonishing. And here, all along, I thought the role of the president of the United States had something to do with the people of the UNITED STATES.

    Posted by maddox at 03/18/2008 @ 8:38pm

20. Posted by MASK 03/18/2008 @ 8:22pm

    Why stop at Muslims? I've heard "liberals" hate America too, and if they get their way, it will just be like Dhimmitude, only possibly worse. If God wanted people to have free health care, he would have made hospitals sprout out of the ground like trees.

    Posted by srjenkins at 03/18/2008 @ 8:39pm

21. RESE,

    You enjoying your last 12 days on the blog before you get hauled away to the Halliburton detention camp in Montana?

    Posted by Mask at 03/18/2008 @ 10:21pm

22. libzuck (who i have on ignore for stupidity) engages in some laughable condescension. Apparently if you don't agree with the stuff in his 10th grade history book you are historically illiterate. And apparently he stopped at the 10th grade because he seems to be unaware that there is genuine debate over the reasons the bombs were dropped. On my first run through of this I went through some different theories (scaring the Soviets, forcing unconditional surrender by Japan so as to make Japan a military outpost for us in East Asia) and evidence for them. But any attempt to do that would have been poor (there is a reason history books are so long), so let me just suggest, if libzuck wants to really join the ranks of the historically literate, a good book to read; James Carroll's 'House of War'. Carroll is by no means the first to question the official account (my sense is most historians these days doubt it), but he puts the evidence together well.

    Answers to questions about why a country did something are almost always terribly complex of course. It is rarely the case that one person can force a decision through (presidents have to deal with bereaucratic opposition, worry about congressional reaction and oversight, and don't always have access to all the information). And for each person there are likely several distinct reasons in play at any time for doing any one thing. So while we can sometimes say 'it was more this reason than that reason, we are likely never in a position to say 'it was this reason and this reason alone.' Sometimes the left is guilty of the same kind of oversimplification that libzuck or whoever displayed, in particular with regards to the explanation for why we went to war with Iraq (I have been guilty of such oversimplification myself. It could be that some in the administration thought Iraq had WMD's and were willing to make up evidence to that effect. Iraqi oil reserves and engineering contracts, opening the Iraqi market, providing a military presence in the Middle East, setting up a puppet to vote in OPEC. All these things likely had something to do with it, and we shouldn't get attached to our pet theories here). But at least we aren't guilty of being pollyanish about the activities of our government, like some 10th graders.

    Posted by dentedpat at 03/19/2008 @ 12:33am

23. srjenkins, as usual, does the job better and with fewer words.

    Posted by dentedpat at 03/19/2008 @ 12:34am

24. McCain is just trying to tack to center now. He, unlike what many of the more conservative bunch on this page think, is a politician. He was willing to feign support for the religious right when he was in the running for the nomination because he needed them to beat out his rivals. Now that he is running against people who appeal to even the center, and the center tend to think the far religious right are a little crazy, hence the fact Huckabee is not the candidate. Now the religious right have only two choices, don't vote (which they will never do) or vote McCain. He is being extremely political and intelligent. He knows the far right will never vote Democrat so he no longer has to appeal to them. As much as you make your candidate out to be a clean white sheet and moral guide Happy he is not. The "Straight Talk" express derailed a long time ago, this is politics at it's best.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 03/19/2008 @ 02:57am

25. He never did look strong to the right or the conservatives..because he is not one of them..he even called out Robertson when he wondered into the desert...

    Posted by JOMAMMA 03/18/2008 @ 5:08pm

    Even Bush Senior thought and probably still thinks the Christian right is a bunch of nutcases.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 03/19/2008 @ 06:52am

26. Who wants a nice tall glass of Manischewitz flavored Kool aid?

    Posted by crabwalk at 03/19/2008 @ 07:19am

27. Nukes are pansy ass compared to the Tribulation Bomb.

    boy, when them flying colored horseys come a-trompin down, aren't ya'll gonna be HAPPY campers!

    Jeebus is comin', and He is pissed!

    Posted by crabwalk at 03/19/2008 @ 07:27am

28. OFF TOPIC

    I see no blog about the taxpayer funded bailout of Bear Stearns. So much for the vaunted "free market" eh. One thing, among many, that I don't get, is why the feds did not ask the CEO of Bear to pick up the tab himself. He should have the cash, or equity to borrow against.

    James E Cayne

    Total Compensation

    $28.40 mil (#36)

    5-Year Compensation Total

    $132.14 mil

    James E Cayne has been CEO of Bear Stearns Cos (BSC) for 13 years. Mr. Cayne has been with the company for 37 years

    James E Cayne's Ownership Of Bear Stearns Cos

    Stock Owned $903.9 mil

    I assume that stock value was before the fire price sale.

    Posted by crabwalk at 03/19/2008 @ 07:35am

29. fire sale price

    Posted by crabwalk at 03/19/2008 @ 07:38am

30. The bank has not yet disclosed last year's bonuses, but in 2004 Cayne received $24.7 million, including a $10 million bonus and share options. The other four members of the executive committee shared $41 million.

    Last year's bonuses should be higher. In November, Bear Stearns reported record profits for the fourth consecutive year.

    At the time, the bank said it paid $250 million in settlement of investigations into mutual fund trading by U.S. regulators.

    Securities and Exchange Commission

    Litigation Release No. 18109 / April 28, 2003 Securities and Exchange Commission v. Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc., 03 CV 2937 (WHP) (S.D.N.Y.)

    SEC SUES BEAR STEARNS FOR RESEARCH ANALYST CONFLICTS OF INTEREST FIRM TO SETTLE WITH SEC, NASD, NYSE, NY ATTORNEY GENERAL, AND STATE REGULATORS

    The Securities and Exchange Commission announced today that it has settled charges against Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc., a New York-based brokerage firm and investment bank, arising from an investigation of research analyst conflicts of interest. This settlement, and settlements with nine other brokerage firms, are part of the global settlement the firms have reached with the Commission, NASD, Inc., the New York Stock Exchange, Inc. ("NYSE"), the New York Attorney General, and other state regulators. As part of the settlement, Bear Stearns has agreed to pay

    $25 million as disgorgement and an additional $25 million in penalties. One-half of the total of these payments - $25 million - will be paid in connection with the SEC action and related proceedings by the NASD and NYSE and will be placed into a distribution fund for the benefit of customers of the firm. The remainder will be paid to resolve related proceedings by state regulators. In the SEC action, Bear Stearns has agreed to a federal court order that will enjoin the firm from future violations of NASD and NYSE rules and require the firm to make changes in the operations of its equity research and investment banking departments. In addition, Bear Stearns will pay, over five years, $25 million to provide the firm's clients with independent research, and $5 million to be used for investor education.

    In connection with this matter, the Commission today filed a Complaint against Bear Stearns in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging violations of NASD and NYSE rules. According to the Commission's Complaint, from at least July 1999 through June 2001, research analysts at Bear Stearns were subject to inappropriate influence by investment banking at the firm. The Complaint also alleges that Bear Stearns published exaggerated or unwarranted research or research that lacked a reasonable basis, made a payment to another firm for that firm to publish research on a Bear Stearns' underwriting client without ensuring that such payment was disclosed, and failed to maintain appropriate supervision over its research and investment banking operations.-http://www.sec.gov/litigation/litreleases/lr18109.htm

    According to the S.E.C., Bear Stearns did that and more. Although Bear Stearns was aware of excessive unauthorized trading in Baron accounts, Mr. Walker said the firm helped keep A. R. Baron in business, allowing it to defraud customers.

    The violations upon which the S.E.C. order are based took place from September 1995 through July 1996. The S.E.C. says that many of the Bear Stearns violations came as Mr. Harriton tried to protect the company from large losses as a result of its clearing relationship with the financially troubled A. R. Baron.

    According to the S.E.C., Bear Stearns not only disregarded the instructions of Baron's customers, but repeatedly charged those customers with trades that it knew were unauthorized. In one case, involving a Baron customer Diaward Steel Works Ltd., Bear Stearns took it upon itself to sell $1 million of the customers' securities to cover a trade that the clearing firm knew to be unauthorized and that Diaward refused to pay for.

    According to the S.E.C., Bear Stearns also refused to return to their rightful owners securities and funds that it had taken to pay for unauthorized trades, even though Baron had told Bear Stearns the trades were unauthorized. Bear Stearns also repeatedly asked for credit extensions to cover Baron's unauthorized trades and helped Baron to operate even when the firm's capital fell below the amount required by regulators for it to be able to continue conducting business.

    -http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9400E1DB1530F935A3575BC0 A96F958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=2

    So, break the law one year, get the guvt to bail you out the next.

    Cute.

    I love this "free market" stuff.

    Posted by crabwalk at 03/19/2008 @ 07:51am

31. McCain is too old a hare to let the evangelicals make foreign policy, any more than Obama would seat Jeremiah Wright at a CEA meeting. The real questions are, for the umpteenth time, getting out of Iraq, sealing the Pakistan-Afghanistan border and nuclear proliferation. McCain's gaffe in Jordan is more disturbing than his religious tendencies.

    Posted by bagehot at 03/19/2008 @ 08:21am

32. LIBSZUK,

    I agree wholeheatedly with you regarding the Japan invasion. Millions of lives at stake and another projected 2 years of war. Also about Hillary: Any thinking American can see that her Nanny mentality is itself racist and design to keep minorities in their place by "protecting" them, deciding when they "are ready" to fly on their own. The "liberal plantation" I think its called. (which of course, in the interest of control, will be never) all the while fostering white guilt through distorted lessons of our history. Its amazing how many have been duped by it all.

    Not sure, though, why you think Obama has embraced a racist. I thought his speech was a clear denunciation of the clowns' remarks, and demonstrated his understanding of simple predjudice, which we all possess, vs real racism. To have completely cut Wright out, thats what a Machaeivellian like Clinton would do. Nice thing about Obama is, (and he knows it) he is refreshingly "not like" any of the current crop of leaders.

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 03/19/2008 @ 09:11am

33. McCain's gaffe in Jordan is more disturbing than his religious tendencies..Posted by BAGEHOT 03/19/2008 @ 08:21am

    Indeed. And even worse is who was at McC's elbow in Jordan to correct his gaffe. That paragon of loyalty & US interests 1st, Joe Lieberman.

    Posted by sloper at 03/19/2008 @ 09:47am

34. Posted by CHIP THORNTON 03/19/2008 @ 09:11am

    You agree because you also don't know your history. This isn't about your whole heart. It's about having a basic acquaintance with the facts. Here's a thought starter for you: why did Eisenhower, MacArthur, Leahy and Nimitz disagree with its use?

    You could either go and say that they agreed with you (which you can't unless you want to continue to make things up) or you are going to have to make some kind of argument that your military judgment is superior to theirs (which you can't). So, you are left with repeating the same things over and over - as if repetition makes something true (which is doesn't).

    What amazes me is how frequently conservatives just makes things up out of thin air. It's like saying, "The moon is made of cheese." And you all get to gether and sagely nod, and say, "Yes, yes, it's most definitely made of cheese." And someone then brings in the relevant facts, we have moon rock or ask questions about what kind of diary gave rise to the moon, and you folks just skip over it and repeat, "It's made of cheese." It takes a lot of effort not to move to scorn with such ignorant tactics.

    Liberal plantation? The whole thrust of this argument is based on absurd thinking like being concerned about racism makes one a racist. Again, ignorant commentary along the lines of the moon being made of cheese. I will say this, you people sure do have chutzpah.

    Posted by srjenkins at 03/19/2008 @ 09:48am

35. lvLiberty-ACook,jomamma,and millions of other right wingers are pro abortion,but you never mention them and I'm wondering why pro abortion people on the left are bad,but the ones on the right are not bad?

    Posted by i'm nobody at 03/19/2008 @ 10:05am

36. So, break the law one year, get the guvt to bail you out the next.

    Cute.

    I love this "free market" stuff.

    Posted by CRABWALK 03/19/2008 @ 07:51am

    Ya Crab,

    See, the Happy types are the free trade market is self correcting and doesn't need oversight unless they are losing THEIR money, then it's ok for the government to save their asses from faulty high risk investments.

    However; those damn fools using adjustable rate mortgage loans to finance houses they couldn't afford in the first place were just making bad decisions and buying over their heads, so they deserve to lose their homes. The investers investing in the banks that set up these ARM loans shouldn't have to shoulder the losses from their risks. Responsibility of profitting off these loans while the going was good was the brilliance of these investors, but now that the investments have turned sour, why should they lose their money? Those poor investers didn't know better...

    If you believe that one, I'll tell you another better bigger lie.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 03/19/2008 @ 10:06am

37. Now the religious right have only two choices, don't vote (which they will never do)...

    Posted by CCCOMFO1 03/19/2008 @ 02:57am | ignore this person

    Not true. Karl Rove himself blamed Bush's loss of the popular vote in 2000 on the large number of evangelicals who stayed home after the revelation of Bush's past drunk driving arrest.

    Posted by cka2nd at 03/19/2008 @ 10:11am

38. John McCain, flip-flopper on Jay-sus.

    Of course, Hagee, et al, have a special name for this phenomenon - backsliding.

    What's a poor boy to think?

    Posted by skeletonman at 03/19/2008 @ 10:17am

39. Posted by SRJENKINS 03/19/2008 @ 09:48am

    There you go again, challenging people to investigate, use multiple sources, integrate data and interpret information.

    You are such a bastard, asking these folks to THINK for themselves.

    Posted by skeletonman at 03/19/2008 @ 10:19am

40. I'm glad your concerned about racism, SR JENKINS. I am too. My concern also extends to the idea that the current generation (my own) seems bound and determined to tromp all over the Constitution in order to achieve what they consider "social justice" for actions that, bad as they were, encompassed a legal institution at the time and that no one today was responsible for. Like mayors in Texas making it a fine to say the N word. Or legislators in Md declaring hanging a noose a hate crime. Reparations, entitlements, "grading" of institutions on how well they cater to this or that group, lawsuits if they do not.

    Or take Howard Deans infamous comment after the Gubenatorial elections that DEMS need to make sure they never have "a Michael Steele problem" again, which meant a black man who made it off their plantation and doesn't need them.

    These things are the legacy of the M/M Clinton/Gore years. The sooner they are gone from the political scene, the better.

    AND REGARDING WWII:

    Operation Olympic was the projected invasion of Kyushu scheduled for Nov 1945. Together with "Coronet", planned for the main island of Honshu the following year, these invasions,it has been estimated, would have cost a million casualties and taken the war into 1946, maybe '47. If the attempted coup by militarists against the Emperor had suceeded in 45, Japan would have been ruled by people who wouldn't have given up until the population was literally exterminated.

    It is easy for us to think of, say, victory at Iwo Jima, as meaning "only 1 more battle left": people then couldn't know that, and their joy at learning it wasn't going to go on is really beyond our comprehension. And since my father was in the Pacific, I have a vested interest in not giving a Red Rats Ass about the dropping of the bombs.

    Not only do you not know YOUR history but you don't have the ability to consider the feelings of a generation other than your own.

    Chip

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 03/19/2008 @ 10:42am

41. LvLiberty-If you view all pro abortion the same way then why do you only mention those on the left while ignoring the millions of pro abortion people who are on the right.I just say pro abortion people and don't point the finger at just those on the left.People on the right vote for pro abortion people like Bush1 and Reagan so how anti abortion can they really be?

    Posted by i'm nobody at 03/19/2008 @ 10:44am

42. CRABWALK Spooky isn't it? Corruption at the top of the financial corporate food chain, in broad daylight, with corporate media largely passing it by. Hey maybe "corporate" is why. Folks, the not-on-the-news flash is: corporate does not = capitalist does not = the American way.

    Posted by winyahn at 03/19/2008 @ 10:51am

43. "The role of the president of the United States is to support the decisions that are made by the people of Israel," Lewis said. "It is not up to us to pick and choose from among the political parties."

    Man, I could've sworn that the President's primary responsibility was to the people of the United States...ah well, that clears up a lot, I guess.

    Posted by nicR at 03/19/2008 @ 11:33am

44. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 03/19/2008 @ 10:00am

    McCain's campaign is not about killing Muslims. That is not his aim nor mine. It is about defending our national security and keeping Americans safe (as much as is possible)...I would rather not see any person die in war. However when someone commits to killing me, my family, or other Americans, action needs to be taken, not just words.

    Given your position that all Muslims and the Islamic religion itself is intent on enslaving all non-Muslims, explain to me how your "defense" and "action needs to be taken" isn't essentially an argument for war on Islam and killing Muslims? What kinds and how many people need to be killed before you feel safe? Are there any good Muslims? Maybe there is some wrinkle to your argument I've failed to understand, but it seems your position is against Islam in general based on your interpretation of the Koran. Explain it to me because I desperately want to believe that you aren't batshit crazy.

    As for McCain, you are right that McCain doesn't want to kill only Muslims. He says:

    The global war on terrorism, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, threats from rogue states like Iran and North Korea, and the rise of potential strategic competitors like China and Russia mean that America requires a larger and more capable military to protect our country's vital interests and deter challenges to our security. America confronts a range of serious security challenges: Protecting our homeland in an age of global terrorism and Islamist extremism; working with friends and partners overseas, from Africa to Southeast Asia, to help them combat terrorism and violent insurgencies in their own countries; defending against missile and nuclear attack; maintaining the credibility of our defense commitments to our allies; and waging difficult counterinsurgency campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq.

    McCain, as scary as he is, at least says he only wants to kill "Islamic extremists", and he gets a pass from you, because you think Islam and extremists is an oxymoron left in there to fool those stupid liberals. But, in some ways, McCain is even scarier because he's not only talking about Muslim extremists but he's talking about nations like Iran, China, North Korea, and Russia. Frankly, such talk is even crazier than where you are coming from.

    Each passing day seems to put McCain in a stronger position with the American people and a greater likelihood of being elected this November (as indicated by the polls).

    You must be looking at different polls than me. http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08gen.htm

    As to lip service to pro-life, McCain has an excellent record in the Senate supporting right to life rather than the infanticide views of the left.

    http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=53270

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 03/19/2008 @ 10:22am

    Murder of innocent children is wrong whether you are conservative or liberal.

    Combined cells of a human sperm and egg isn't a "innocent child".

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON 03/19/2008 @ 10:42am

    No doubt people pass stupid laws. But you can't get around the fact that racism still exists, and people today are responsible for it. There is nothing wrong with promoting greater diversity in our society by opening up the doors of opportunity to people of color, women and so forth. And unfortunately, because racism itself is institutionalized you need an institutionalized answer to mitigate problems that arise from it.

    As for WWII, when you factor in the four fold increase of bombing capabilities and the damage the air attacks were having, the Soviet taking of Manchuria and plans to attack southern China and even Japan itself, the fact that the Japanese gathered their forces in Kyushu opened up other lines of attack, initial estimates didn't include soldiers from other countries, and so forth, and your already dubious estimates look even more so.

    Not only do you not know YOUR history but you don't have the ability to consider the feelings of a generation other than your own.

    Since you aren't disputing my facts and decided to move to the standard conservative whine about feelings when you got to the end of your weak rebuttal, I'll leave off without further comment.

    Posted by srjenkins at 03/19/2008 @ 12:10pm

45. Oh, come on LVLIBERTY....why NOT kill all the Muslims?

    They're going to Hell anyway, aren't they? Missionary conversions in the Middle East are always barely a blip (has been for centuries)...so it's not like 99% of them aren't going to "reject Christ as their Lord and Saviour".

    Why not facilitate the process a bit and spare Christendom from their bloodthirsty desire to kill all of us who don't agree with them...by killing them off?

    Posted by Mask at 03/19/2008 @ 12:32pm

46. "I'll leave off without further comment" by SR JENKINS

    Thank God

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 03/19/2008 @ 1:26pm

47. Leave without further SRJENKINs

    Thank God,

    ct

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 03/19/2008 @ 1:29pm

48. Murder of innocent children is wrong whether you are conservative or liberal.

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 03/19/2008 @ 10:22am

    But dropping bombs on innocent kids is ok, then they are just collateral damage.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 03/19/2008 @ 1:55pm

49. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 03/19/2008 @ 1:58pm

    S'okay...from now on when a woman wants an abortion, she can say "It's part of my 'war on terrorism' to prevent the child from becoming a member of Al Qaeda!"

    And given there is a POSSIBILITY that a child not wanted might grow up to join a terrorist group....and you DO believe in "pre-emptively stopping terrorism", right?....

    you can't argue with her!

    Posted by Mask at 03/19/2008 @ 2:01pm

50. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 03/19/2008 @ 1:58pm

    Isn't this like the tenth time I have said this. I went to PRIVATE CATHOLIC school. Not public. And yes I equate the INTENTIONAL not unintentional, unintentional implies a lack of knowledge but when they discuss an attack from air they always talk about the collateral damage which means they have a very good gauge of how many innocents they will kill, to killing a unborn child who neither knows nor feels.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 03/19/2008 @ 2:08pm

51. The global war on terrorism, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, threats from rogue states like Iran and North Korea, and the rise of potential strategic competitors like China and Russia mean that America requires a larger and more capable military to protect our country's vital interests and deter challenges to our security. America confronts a range of serious security challenges: Protecting our homeland in an age of global terrorism and Islamist extremism; working with friends and partners overseas, from Africa to Southeast Asia, to help them combat terrorism and violent insurgencies in their own countries; defending against missile and nuclear attack; maintaining the credibility of our defense commitments to our allies; and waging difficult counterinsurgency campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq.

    McCain, as scary as he is, at least says he only wants to kill "Islamic extremists", and he gets a pass from you, because you think Islam and extremists is an oxymoron left in there to fool those stupid liberals. But, in some ways, McCain is even scarier because he's not only talking about Muslim extremists but he's talking about nations like Iran, China, North Korea, and Russia. Frankly, such talk is even crazier than where you are coming from.

    Posted by SRJENKINS 03/19/2008 @ 12:10pm

    I'm not sure I at all follow you here. McCain's position, as embodied in this quote, is literally "there are potential security concerns upcoming, we should probably make sure they don't become serious problems." I understand that when a mafia don says something like that, you might be able to infer that this means "let's just kill them now, or their families." Lacking that, however, how in the world do you make the giant logical leap from "we should probably deal with security concerns" (as any remotely responsible American president should) and "let's just go kill them all right now." If you're going to make this leap, you should be prepared to actually justify it, and so far, you haven't come anywhere close.

    Only liberals make a moral equivalency between the intentional murder of unborn innocent children and the unfortunate and unintentional loss of life while battling enemies trying to kill us.

    Guess it comes from all of that moral relativism taught in the public school system.

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 03/19/2008 @ 1:58pm

    Liberty, this argument makes no sense. Based on the doctrine of double-effect, one might be able to cogently argue (perhaps) that the inevitable (but not actively sought out) deaths of innocents are less of a moral evil than the deliberate murder of an innocent. However, this doesn't change the fact that even if it is a lesser of two evils (the greater evil being allowing oppressive conditions in a country to continue) it's still a moral evil. It's not a loss that you can just write off and pretend doesn't exist. It's something you have to take very seriously if you consider people's lives to mean anything.

    This isn't moral relativism, either. Maybe it's just me, but I'm pretty sure there are a good number of Christians who are opposed both to abortion and to war, so your argument would imply that they also embrace moral relativism. In fact, this is the opposite of moral relativism, because it says that a life is a life is a life, so that when you take actions despite knowing with virtual certainty that those actions will take innocent lives, you are responsible for a moral evil of some magnitude. To dismiss innocent lives that are lost, and therefore say that innocent lives only really matter under some circumstances is the morally relativist position.

    Posted by Thrawn at 03/19/2008 @ 2:10pm

52. Posted by THRAWN 03/19/2008 @ 2:10pm |

    THRAWN, this is the same LVLIBERTY who said "Think Dresden" in 'how we should REALLY fight the 'War on Terrorism''!

    Posted by Mask at 03/19/2008 @ 2:18pm

53. LvLiberty-No one in Iraq was trying to kill us.You chose to kill the kids in Iraq for profit.I went to a private military school,and not public school, and believe that killing kids is killing kids and don't try to separate between killing them by doctor or by bombs and bullets when we are talking about wars where we are the aggressors.Sorry,but your public school comment was ignorant.I do recall Jesus saying something about how bad it is to harm children,but don't recall him saying that it's okay if they're collateral damage from an optional war of aggression, like Iraq...

    Posted by i'm nobody at 03/19/2008 @ 2:37pm

54. Posted by THRAWN 03/19/2008 @ 2:10pm

    ...the rise of potential strategic competitors like China and Russia mean that America requires a larger and more capable military to protect our country's vital interests...

    How you don't construe this as a committment to a policy of aggression, not only toward whomever is deemed an "Islamic extremist" but also to nation states, is hard for me to understand. You're being a little too generous here, particularly when McCain's campaign is largely centered on his military credentials and his commitment to using U.S. military might.

    Posted by srjenkins at 03/19/2008 @ 2:44pm

55. Posted by I'M NOBODY 03/19/2008 @ 2:37pm

    Nah I'm sure Jesus would be perfectly fine with Americans shooting children in the streets as long as it's only America. Oh yeah and our close allies like Israel. Other than that no killing children!

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 03/19/2008 @ 2:44pm

56. Posted by SRJENKINS 03/19/2008 @ 2:44pm

    I am going to have to agree. Putting out wars before they begin doesn't involve building up more military, it means taking action in the arena of discourse. Talking to these people trying to build mutually beneficial relationships and open arenas to speak in. If you are trying to respond to potential future situations by just building up the military all you are saying yes we will respond to the situation by making sure we have a big enough military to kill enough of them in the future to stop their actions not to preemptively head off the danger ahead by talking to the other leaders.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 03/19/2008 @ 2:48pm

57. MASK, I'M NOBODY:

    Oops!

    Pay no attention when the other half of my personality goes on one of those laughable stabs at macho tuff talk in order to -- shall we say it? -- to beat off them nasty effeminate feelings and impulses. Why, that notoriously America-hating Pentagon and its Insitute for Defense Analysis has just released the report indicating no alQ ties with Ba'athist Iraq following its analysis of 600,000 captured documents. My other half knows that he is liar and a crude bullshitter making up the most batshit insane, half-assed, cretinous nonsense. It just shores up his feeble masculinity if he thinks that he has succesfully manipulated someone to believe him.

    Read On:

    ABC News: Rapid Report

    Pentagon Report on Saddam's Iraq Censored?

    March 12, 2008 1:58 PM

    ABC News' Jonathan Karl Reports: The Bush Administration apparently does not want a U.S. military study that found no direct connection between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda to get any attention. This morning, the Pentagon cancelled plans to send out a press release announcing the report's release and will no longer make the report available online.

    The report was to be posted on the Joint Forces Command website this afternoon, followed by a background briefing with the authors. No more. The report will be made available only to those who ask for it, and it will be sent via U.S. mail from Joint Forces Command in Norfolk, Virginia.

    It won't be emailed to reporters and it won't be posted online.

    Asked why the report would not be posted online and could not be emailed, the spokesman for Joint Forces Command said: "We're making the report available to anyone who wishes to have it, and we'll send it out via CD in the mail."

    Another Pentagon official said initial press reports on the study made it "too politically sensitive."

    ABC News obtained the comprehensive military study of Saddam Hussein's links to terrorism on Tuesday. Read the report's executive summary HERE.

    The study, which was due to be released Wednesday, found no "smoking gun" or any evidence of a direct connection between Saddam's Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist organization.

    The report is based on the analysis of some 600,000 official Iraqi documents seized by US forces after the invasion. It is also based on thousands of hours of interrogations of former top officials in Saddam's government who are now in U.S. custody.

    Others have reached the same conclusion, but no previous study has had access to so much information. Further, this is the first official acknowledgement from the U.S. military that there is no evidence Saddam had ties to Al Qaeda.

    The study does, however, show that Saddam Hussein did much to support terrorism in the Middle East and used terrorism "as a routine tool of state power." Saddam's government, for example, had a program for the "development, construction, certification and training for car bombs and suicide vests in 1999 and 2000." The U.S. military is still dealing with the fall-out from this particular program.

    The report says Saddam's bureaucrats carefully recorded the regime's connections to Palestinian terrorists groups and its financial support for the families of suicide bombers.

    The primary target, however, of Saddam's terror activities was not the United States, and not Israel. "The predominant targets of Iraqi state terror operations were Iraqi citizens, both inside and outside of Iraq." Saddam's primary aim was self preservation and the elimination of potential internal threats to his power.

    Bush administration officials have made numerous attempts to link Saddam Hussein and the Al Qaeda terror group in their justification for waging war against Iraq.

    "What I want to bring to your attention today is the potentially much more sinister nexus between Iraq and the Al Qaida terrorist network," former U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell told the United Nations February 5, 2003.

    On June 18, 2004 the Washington Post quoted President George W. Bush as saying: "The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al Qaeda: because there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda," Bush said.

    "This administration never said that the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated between Saddam and al Qaeda," The Washington Post quoted Bush as saying. "We did say there were numerous contacts between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda."

    "We know he's out trying once again to produce nuclear weapons and we know that he has a long-standing relationship with various terrorist groups, including the al-Qaeda organization," Vice President Dick Cheney said on NBC's Meet The Press March 16, 2003.

    "But the cost is far less than it will be if we get hit, for example, with a weapon that Saddam Hussein might provide to al-Qaeda, the cost to the United States of what happened on 9/11 with billions and billions of dollars and 3,000 lives. And the cost will be much greater in a future attack if the terrorists have access to the kinds of capabilities that Saddam Hussein has developed," Cheney said.

    ''There is no question but that there have been interactions between the Iraqi government, Iraqi officials and Al Qaeda operatives. They have occurred over a span of some 8 or 10 years to our knowledge. There are currently Al Qaeda in Iraq,'' former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said in a interview with Infinity CBS Radio, Nov. 14, 2002.

    Posted by LV-LIBERTY-2 at 03/19/2008 @ 2:53pm

58. Posted by LV-LIBERTY-2 03/19/2008 @ 2:53pm

    That was the same Dick Cheney who told us that 'estimates of $200 Billion for a war in Iraq are exaggerated...more like $50 Billion'?

    Posted by Mask at 03/19/2008 @ 3:51pm

59. hmm, a few comments calling fetuses children..

    a few about the killing Iraqis of being "not intentional", kind of like the war being " off budget"...

    a comment from someone that thinks the Tribulation Bomb is not only going to fall, but it is a good thing, killing ALL non- christians, saying that he really does not want to kill Muslims...

    but nothing from the cons about tax dollars being used to back up Bear Stearns "equity" in the "free market"

    Fascinating Captain...

    beam me up, my foil hat is malfunctioning. bzzzt bzzt.

    Posted by crabwalk at 03/19/2008 @ 3:56pm

60. "There are currently Al Qaeda in Iraq,''

    Yes, there are. More than ever.

    Mission accomplished. Bin Ladens mission, to bog the United States down in a war in the Middle East. And the cons gave him what he wanted.

    Posted by crabwalk at 03/19/2008 @ 4:07pm

61. lvLiberty-ACook,jomamma,and millions of other right wingers are pro abortion,but you never mention them and I'm wondering why pro abortion people on the left are bad,but the ones on the right are not bad?

    Posted by I'M NOBODY 03/19/2008 @ 10:05am

    IM, please forgive any words I have posted in the past that gave you the impression I am pro-abortion. I can assure you, I am not. I know you've read my statements of support for the Supreme Court's decision not to overturn Roe v Wade and in some cases, if a woman needed to have this procedure done, that it should be done as an exception and not the norm. I don't deny these are my words and I'll stand by them, but in doing so, I do with a very heavy heart.

    Posted by ACook at 03/19/2008 @ 5:40pm

62. How you don't construe this as a committment to a policy of aggression, not only toward whomever is deemed an "Islamic extremist" but also to nation states, is hard for me to understand. You're being a little too generous here, particularly when McCain's campaign is largely centered on his military credentials and his commitment to using U.S. military might.

    Posted by SRJENKINS 03/19/2008 @ 2:44pm

    I don't construe it that way because I don't think that's what it is. Insofar as there are significant strategic concerns, the US should absolutely do its best to negotiate with foreign powers to ensure stable and peaceful relations. However, and this is the key part, this doesn't mean we automatically assume that everything will be fine. That's why the military is significant; you hope that you don't need it, and you do everything you can to avoid needing it, but you have it in case you do need it.

    That's all McCain really seems to be saying here. He's not ruling out negotiation, nor is he even saying that our policy should tilt very strongly towards negotiation. What he is saying is that we shouldn't bet everything on negotiation always succeeding. Any other approach just seems, quite frankly, irresponsible.

    Posted by Thrawn at 03/20/2008 @ 11:26am

63. Milbank's column was a load of anti-Obama horseshit only proving how completely out of touch the United Jewish Communities audience (& Millbank) are fr. the rest of America AND the rest of the Jewish community, which views an Obama candidacy sympathetically.

    God forbid Clinton or McCain become president--the Likud won't need to lobby the White House; they'll have an honorary Likudnik IN the White House.

    Posted by richards1052 at 03/23/2008 @ 02:46am