Maverick?
I have a few questions about the debate last night. First, why did McBush never mention Sarah Palin, nor did he refer to himself as a "Maverick"? Answer, because he was told how dumb either of the two would be.
Second, I continue to see in the polls that when asked which candidate would do a better job protecting us from "terrorists" a few more than not feel McCain would be the one. Can someone please explain what McCain or the Republicans have shown or done to earn or deserve the title of supreme guardians from the threats of terror (never the acts mind you)!!! Is bin Laden dead...no. Is Al Qaeda broken and crushed...no. Name one credible piece of information to come from Guantanamo or the Patriot Act (Either form). Name a single arrest of a serious foreign terrorist threat inside the United States since September 11, 2001...you can't. Any arrests at home have had no ties to any foreign groups. We are in two wars....one we failed to find the main target (bin Laden)....the other we failed to even ID the correct target let alone find it (WsMD). More data has been collected on US citizens via the Patriot Act and The Protect America Act, than was collected on true outside terror suspects. So, I ask you again what the hell have the GOP and McCain done to prove their claim to rein supreme over the protection of our nation? Unless you count alienating us from other countries and our allies more than has been seen since WWII, in addition to selling great debts to China and Saudi Arabia...they have done nothing or at best very little.
So the next time you imagine John McCain is better suited to fight terror and wage war ask yourself why. What reason do you have for your logic? Is it because he was a half-ass pilot in Vietnam? Is it because he insisted on remaining in a POW camp because he didn't want to leave without "his" men? This was a code of conduct for POWs that was never looked on as a mandate but more of a guideline as it was always understood every man will break down. And before any of you piss pots question my wisdom, I had a few conversations with a Vietnam Vet (I called him Dad). Military experts speculate he actually made things worse on his "men" because the Viet Cong viewed his gesture as a great insult and in fact had he left, so would all of the attention he brought. It was felt had he left it would have allowed the North Vietnamese government to quietly release more POWs in a much shorter time frame. And all we need do to prove this theory is notice how many POWs were released because McCain stayed....no more than would have been the case had he left. I will admit this is just a theory, although so is most everything regarding this matter.
Also, I submit there is something VERY wrong mentally with a man who is described as having been tortured and beaten for some 5 1/2 years and yet he has no reservations about war and balks at ending a war that is felt by many to be equally as useless and full of lies as the very war he was held captive in. I am so sick of hearing about people that do their jobs being heroes. I have saved lives many times, I have seen things I hope others never have to see. But I saw and did these things because it was my job, a thank you is enough for me.
Finally, how do you measure victory when you have no defined goals or objectives. If the purpose of war in Iraq is to allow freedom and democracy to live on after we have departed the arena, then don't we in order to WIN have to DEPART? At some point the only way to determine a real winner is to make the move and force those left behind to either stand or fall...much like we did some 233 years ago in this great land. Had our stand failed the Union Jack might still fly in DC today.
Second, I continue to see in the polls that when asked which candidate would do a better job protecting us from "terrorists" a few more than not feel McCain would be the one. Can someone please explain what McCain or the Republicans have shown or done to earn or deserve the title of supreme guardians from the threats of terror (never the acts mind you)!!! Is bin Laden dead...no. Is Al Qaeda broken and crushed...no. Name one credible piece of information to come from Guantanamo or the Patriot Act (Either form). Name a single arrest of a serious foreign terrorist threat inside the United States since September 11, 2001...you can't. Any arrests at home have had no ties to any foreign groups. We are in two wars....one we failed to find the main target (bin Laden)....the other we failed to even ID the correct target let alone find it (WsMD). More data has been collected on US citizens via the Patriot Act and The Protect America Act, than was collected on true outside terror suspects. So, I ask you again what the hell have the GOP and McCain done to prove their claim to rein supreme over the protection of our nation? Unless you count alienating us from other countries and our allies more than has been seen since WWII, in addition to selling great debts to China and Saudi Arabia...they have done nothing or at best very little.
So the next time you imagine John McCain is better suited to fight terror and wage war ask yourself why. What reason do you have for your logic? Is it because he was a half-ass pilot in Vietnam? Is it because he insisted on remaining in a POW camp because he didn't want to leave without "his" men? This was a code of conduct for POWs that was never looked on as a mandate but more of a guideline as it was always understood every man will break down. And before any of you piss pots question my wisdom, I had a few conversations with a Vietnam Vet (I called him Dad). Military experts speculate he actually made things worse on his "men" because the Viet Cong viewed his gesture as a great insult and in fact had he left, so would all of the attention he brought. It was felt had he left it would have allowed the North Vietnamese government to quietly release more POWs in a much shorter time frame. And all we need do to prove this theory is notice how many POWs were released because McCain stayed....no more than would have been the case had he left. I will admit this is just a theory, although so is most everything regarding this matter.
Also, I submit there is something VERY wrong mentally with a man who is described as having been tortured and beaten for some 5 1/2 years and yet he has no reservations about war and balks at ending a war that is felt by many to be equally as useless and full of lies as the very war he was held captive in. I am so sick of hearing about people that do their jobs being heroes. I have saved lives many times, I have seen things I hope others never have to see. But I saw and did these things because it was my job, a thank you is enough for me.
Finally, how do you measure victory when you have no defined goals or objectives. If the purpose of war in Iraq is to allow freedom and democracy to live on after we have departed the arena, then don't we in order to WIN have to DEPART? At some point the only way to determine a real winner is to make the move and force those left behind to either stand or fall...much like we did some 233 years ago in this great land. Had our stand failed the Union Jack might still fly in DC today.
Comments