McCain Gains Credibility – Loses Presidency

Senator John McCain, W-Az, was on The Late Show last night where he announced that he'd be running for President, and that he'd be announcing that again in April… and presumably, every month thereafter.

However, in the course of announcement, he happened to say the following:

"Americans are very frustrated, and they have every right to be… We've wasted a lot of our most precious treasure, which is American lives."

The comment seems at first to be remarkably similar to one made by Barry O'Bama a few weeks earlier and it has resulted in some Democrats further demeaning the military (they can't further demean themselves) by disingenuously demanding that McCain apologize. McCain subsequently has, thus proving conclusively that two wrongs don't make a right.

That's because there's a big difference between what McCain meant and what O'Bama meant.

See, Barry opposed the war from the start, and as such, he has a vested interest in seeing that it not succeed. That may not be conscious on his part, by the way, it just is – if we are successful in Iraq, Barry is diminished.

McCain, on the other hand, wants victory, and he realizes how important it is for us and the world, even if the world doesn't.

So when O'Bama says that our soldiers' lives have been wasted, he wants you to feel outraged, angry, disgusted, and demoralized. He wants you to realize you were a fool for ever backing this operation.

John McCain wants nothing of the sort. He's probably angry and disgusted too, but not about the mission. He's likely frustrated with the one man who has steadfastly refused to do what's necessary to win, but McCain, of course, can't talk about that considering the absurd numbers reported in a recent poll which showed that 76% of Republicans are, in fact, ostriches.

So O'Bama wanted you to know that the lives of our finest were just wasted from day-one. McCain wants you to know that they have been wasted because we haven't done what it takes to prevail. Make no mistake, lives were wasted in either case, but the numbers differ, and for McCain, it doesn't… or at least it didn't… have to end in abject failure.

It's one thing to say that every life we've lost in Iraq was a waste, and quite another to say that (some) lives have been squandered due to incompetence and indecision or worse, for… staying the course.

So McCain's candidacy is officially wasted, but he had nothing to apologize for. Someone else does, and not for saying that lives have been wasted, but for actually wasting them. However, Republicans won't demand that - they are even reticent to name.names.

Democrats will name names, there's just always in the wrong context.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend


About tedwest

A longtime veteran of comedy and political forums, I decided that I needed a more restful venue because... well... I finally hate everybody. Except my wife that is... and my ex-wife.. and... no, that's about it. I lead about as simple a life as one can, preferring activities that include anything that doesn't involve going out and seeing YOU! And I particularly enjoy what I call "Get the Bitch" movies on Lifetime. You know the ones where the intended victim finally does something so incredibly stupid that she forfeits her right to live, and from that moment on you're rooting for the stalker. Of course, it rarely works out the way you want, but when it does, the feeling you get is... well, there's nothing else like it, other than, maybe, eating chocolate chip cookies. Oh, and I'm proudly anti-wildlife, both foreign and domestic, and anti-environment - especially foreign environments. I think Howard Stern put it best when he said, "If fifty percent of the population died tomorrow, I can live with that." And I feel the same about the other fifty percent, so together, we've pretty much got it all covered.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

14 Responses to McCain Gains Credibility – Loses Presidency

  1. Adam says:

    So, what does McCain think should have been done?

  2. JBsblog says:

    I hate to say it but it looks like the Bush administration has taken a little from past Republican administrations and sold/given weapons to the enemies of our enemies so they will kill each other, and from his religous zealot views that if you're not Christian then it don't matter. We seem to have embarked on a dual agenda of helping the Muslim world destroy itself, with our help, and consolidating the world's wealth back to that 1% that controls 70% of the money (the ones who benefited most from tax cuts and war profits). When will the world wake up and realize that Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr was right when he talked about the need to determine the root cause of conflicts and uproot them. It is the belief in limited resources, distrust, lack of compassion and love of fellow man, and greed that have to be uncovered and eliminated. But a good start would be to impeach the current adminstration for as the bumper sticker says "When Clinton Lied – No One Died".

  3. TedWest says:

    Since McCain has authorized me to speak for him, I can say that we should have used overwhelming force, seized and held territory, not hamstrung our military, and fired anyone who didn't get it done.
    And speaking for myself, we can't know if McCain would have done things much differently, but he has shown some considerable ability focus on the goal and ignore criticism. That may seem like a ridiculous thing to say considering that George Bush has withstood withering criticism, except that he's avoided the sort of criticism that would follow if he'd done the above, and has seemed to capitulate to his detractors or at least to avoid fights over lesser issues that appear to give us an understanding of how he's conducted the war itself.
    For example, the correct and immediate response to Abu Ghraib would have been, "STFU, we're handling it. end of story."

  4. TedWest says:

    I'm leaving your comment, but only because I want it to serve as an example of the insanity that's out there, and if you mistook my comments as in any way supporting your idiotic position, I apologize to sane Americans everywhere.

  5. Matthew 25 says:

    Your remarks about Obama having a vested interest that the war in Iraq fail is more recycled neo-con radio BS. The war is already a failure. Don't you get it?
    But to say that Obama puts his candidacy ahead of peace in Iraq questions his patriotism and humanity. That is a tactic that neo-cons have used over and over. Question the patriotism of anyone you do not like. The public is tired of such crap. Read the 2006 election returns and opinions polls to find out. Better yet, ask someone who may disagree with you.

  6. TedWest says:

    Sir, if you're not an idiot, you're at least lacking in reading comprehension, and of course, there's every possibility that you could be both.
    I said that Barry's vested interest may not be conscious, but that it comes with the territory owing to his position from the start, and that has nothing to do with whether or not he's patriotic. if he were working to undermine the war which many Dems are, THAT would be unpatriotic.
    And I said long ago that the war is a failure, but the difference between you and me is that you don't wish it to succeed, and didn't even when it was quite possible to turn it around.
    And by the way, it could still succeed now, even with stay-the-course, but few are willing to wait-and-see, and none, including the President, are willing now to do what it will take to prevail in the near-term.
    Lastly, if you read the election as a mandate for liberals like yourself, I'm not the one who doesn't get it.

  7. Scio, Scio says:

    Nice. Excellent points.

  8. Scio, Scio says:

    Is neo-con a buzzword in this instance, or are you actually chewing
    your cud instead of regurgitating it? Do you know what a
    neo-conservative is? Like, could you write a paper on what a
    neo-conservative would do in a given foreign policy situation, as
    opposed to what a classic realist would do? Are you a Fukuyama or
    a Krauthammer?
    You're an Ikenberry, ain't ya?
    A mandate…bare
    plurality in the Senate and winning the House…whoopty doo.

  9. Ted:I think you are a trouble maker…:)I'm loving this.

  10. TedWest says:

    And I think you are a a sweetheart if you can wade though all I've been saying and still want to talk to me, much less like it.
    I've been doing this for a long time (writing opinions), and I'm still always amazed at several things, the first of which is what you noted – that people look at me as a troublemaker – and usually not fondly, as you have done.
    Another thing that amazes me is how liberals will take a cue from something and just run wherever they please, logic be damned. They misread, read into, misconstrue, and (intentionally or involuntarily) distort what you say, and often to the point of using it to reinforce some moronic position they've taken.
    If you look at the liberal voices here, and recall the ones in another blog entry you wonder how they manage to dress themselves, much less make a living – much the same way you probably felt about the contestants on Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader. Yet I'm sure they lead their real lives often (even usually) being mistaken for sane people. It's why I've been saying for years that I'm still looking for a rational liberal. And I'd be willing to bet the farm I never find one because empirical evidence suggests that "rational" and "liberal" cannot coexist.
    But then they want to "debate" you, and they usually say that after screaming "Bush lied," or something even more idiotic, and what you're apparently seeing and liking is that I don't suffer fools well. in fact, when I ran the forum, I didn't suffer them at all.
    Still, I would not only be happy to have a rational discussion, I would be delighted. The trouble is, if you're able to get past the "Iraq was no threat to us" veneer of lunacy, you quickly find there's no "there" there.
    And I have a stock line I tell them: If you're focused and rational, we'll get on fine – if you're a nut, it's all insults, all the time.
    I mean, why should I treat them differently than I do my own brother?

  11. Schomer says:

    This is a great thread!BTW, are comments disabled for this post within the group? Wondering if we have a bug to fix. Thanks.

  12. JBsblog says:

    Insane comment? Insane is that McCain wants to continue to support Bush's insanity with more resources that won't get the job done. 21 years in the Army taught me a bit more than he learned serving as a prisoner (which I honor but it doesn't trump common sense). When you fight wars it must be to win both the war and the peace, Bush's plan calls for neither and his hope seems to be that the Arab world will implode. For McCain to support it makes no sense, the guy gives new meaning to flip flop, he's changed his positions more than some change their underwear (hate Bush, love Bush; hate Moral Majority, Love em; pro choice, pro-life; anti special interest money, I'll take all donations). But keep believing the retoric like the good sheep you are, don't worry about the slaughter house in the distance your good republican leaders will protect you.

  13. TedWest says:

    Another satisfied customer!
    Actually, this is just another typical Friday for me, only somewhat calmer than I've been used to over the years.
    But I can't tell you how much I appreciate your comment as well as those of others who've shown their support – as well as the comments of the fine idiots who make all this possible.

  14. TedWest says:

    First off, how do you expect anyone to take you seriously when you don't even know that it's "slaughterhouse?"
    Now this –
    Like all insane liberals, you generalize and make wild charges without offering anything to substantiate your claims. Of course, I'm assuming that you're an insane liberal, but only because I haven't found any who aren't.
    So let me give you an example of where you need to do better, and if you can't, then I advise you to stay away, because after this and your failure to apprise yourself of your host's position beforehand, I will make every effort to show you how -un-sheep-like- I am, if you get my drift.
    You said:
    "When you fight wars it must be to win both the war and the peace, Bush's plan calls for neither and his hope seems to be that the Arab world will implode. For McCain to support it makes no sense,"
    Let's parse that slaughterhouse, shall we? And out of consideration for your logical dyslexia, I'll make it as easy on your comprehension processes as I can by doing it ass-backwards..
    Of course what you said makes no sense – because it's only YOUR conclusion that McCain subscribes to the Bush course. In actuality, he may, but I doubt it, and we can't know..
    Then you throw in some wilder than usual liberal speculation (and that's really saying something) about what the President wants to happen in the Middle East. Although in your defense, you did say "seems." Which begs the question: was that intentional, or merely an accident?
    Finally, you began the whole thing by showing your ignorance about where I stand and probably McCain's stance.
    But note I said "probably," because I can't speak for him where you presume to. And until McCain is Commander-in-Chief, no one, not even he, will know what he'll do, since conditions will have changed by then, and he'll have Bush's history to contend with, you know, the way Nixon had to contend with Johnson's – only not nearly as disastrous?
    And McCain can't say too much right now that would denigrate Mr. Bush's handling of Iraq considering that people whom he needs and who already dislike him, still support their President, even if they disagree with him. Surely you know what that's like too since you've had Clinton and Carter and maybe a future C-word?
    All we can do is judge Mr. Bush's performance to date, and not only can I do that better than you, but I've been tougher on him (while still remaining rational) than anyone. And please note the "remaining rational" part if your attention span permits..
    So what makes no sense then is (and I mean this in the nicest sense) your moronic assumption.
    But I'm even willing to help you with that. Here's some advice I've offered over the years to others with your… let me be kind… capabilities.
    First, pick one single, narrow concept.
    Then make sure you're as focused on that one idea as you can be.
    Write down your all of thoughts about it (no matter how crazy and irrelevant they may seem) as coherently as your brain will allow.
    Then rewrite your Unibomber manifesto again and again – and I probably shouldn't have to say this, but considering to whom I'm addressing this, make it -different- with each rewrite, i.e., refine it.
    When you feel you have it just right, a tight, logical observation, read it through one last time.
    Then, just before you hit "post," discard the whole thing and go away.
    Trust me, you'll be better off.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s