Monday, February 05, 2007

John McCain





Up until recently I have had no preference for any presidential candidate in the upcoming 2008 election. However, things are becoming a bit clearer for me now that the Democrats are pushing for a resolution to condemn Bush’s plan for a troop surge in Iraq. A plan that is designed to match the surge in violence between the Sunnis and Shiites in Baghdad.

Senator Chuck Hagel, who has rose to prominence simply because he is a Republican that criticizes the Bush Administration, has become locked in a fierce debate with fellow Republican Senator John McCain. The disagreement between the two is centered around a resolution proposed by McCain to support the troop surge.

Hagel’s stance, which dictates that we should not get involved in a civil war between Sunnis and Shiites, makes sense if you don’t really care about the fate of the Iraqi people. Since the US is in the middle of transferring full sovereignty to the Iraqi government it can be argued that we have a moral responsibility to do something about this terrible violence. On Saturday a truck bomb killed about 130 civilians. The attack devastated a popular market in a Shiite Baghdad neighborhood. Since the bombing was aimed at civilians it is quite clear that the objective of this attack was to incite the Shiites into retaliating and further escalating the violence.

Yet Hagel wants US troops redeployed to the borders of Iraq and remove them from the cities where they are most needed to combat this sort of atrocity. He has also demanded that there be consequences for the Iraqi government if they don’t meet benchmarks laid out by McCain’s proposal. While I agree that the Iraqi political leadership could do more to stem the violence, the withdrawal of support for their fledgling government would be fatal. Hagel is actually trying to destabilize the Iraqi government and that leads me to believe that he is not particularly interested in helping them. Typically, when fighting a common enemy, you support your allies and attack your enemy. Hagel is actually doing the reverse.

Citing the Iraq Study Group Report, he wants to turn to Iran and Syria for help.

Iran had a leading role in inciting the failed Shiite rebellion against Saddam in 1991 and ever since they have continued to exert their influence among Iraqi Shiites. The Mahdi Army, which fought many battles with US troops and is behind much of the escalation in sectarian violence, has been trained and armed by Iran. While the political arm of the Mahdi army has participated in the electoral process - its leader, Muqtada al-Sadr has shown more loyalty to Iran than his own country. When Sadr visited Tehran early last year he declared that he would defend Iran if it is attacked. This is a very disturbing statement coming from a man that has spent much of the last couple of years fighting his own countrymen. During this time Iran has continued their intrigue on many other levels. Agents of the Iranian government are believed to be distributing sophisticated IED devices that were made in Iran to Iraqi insurgents. In addition, terrorists that recently conducted an attack on Americans dressed in US uniforms are believed to have been trained in Iran.

Syria has a long history of supporting terrorism in neighboring countries and has become a safe haven for Saddam Hussein loyalists who finance and organize the Iraqi insurgency. Although relations between Syria and Saddam’s regime had been quite icy in the past, they began to work together in the last years of Saddam’s reign. In 2005 Congress determined that Syria helped funnel $3 billion dollars in money and weapons to Saddam Hussein during the period of the scandal-plagued UN Oil-for-Food program.

Despite these facts, Hagel still thinks that we can work with these countries. He said, “There is going to be no peace in Iraq, there will be no peace in the Middle East unless all the regional partners are brought in to a framework of a political agreement.” What kind of concessions would the Iraqis have to give in order to win the support of Syria and Iran? Syria will not support a Shiite led government that is friendly towards to the US and Iran will not accept anything less than a Shiite theocracy that is hostile to the US. Inviting further influence by regimes that are behind the violence in Iraq is a folly worse than giving the Sudetenland to Hitler. Instead of looking for easy solutions that don’t work, critics of the Bush Administration should start looking for answers that do. Abandoning Iraq to anarchy is not a strategy. Its amazing that they can foist their lack of strategy as a concrete plan, while Bush’s strategy has resulted in the defeat of a terrible regime and the formation of Iraq’s first truly representative democracy in its history.

Senator McCain has spent a great deal of time criticizing our policy in Iraq, but he has also remained committed to defeating our enemies. Instead of running a safe campaign that sells out our troops, McCain is remaining true to his convictions.

Politicians like Hagel who voted to authorize the use of force against Iraq didn’t do so because they believed it was the right thing to do, they voted for the resolution because they felt that it was the popular thing to do. They can blame Bush or the CIA or whoever they want, but the truth is that they never seriously considered what they were getting themselves into. That is why they lack the conviction to follow through with the commitment that they made to the Iraqi people.

I prefer a candidate that is more concerned about the best interests of the American and Iraqi people, not his own self-interest.

57 comments:

kuhnkat said...

Let's not forget the recent evidence captured by our troops of Iranian Agents supplying CASH and Arms to the Sunni nutjobs also!!!!

Bringing Iran in to settle things down in Iraq would have been like bringing the KKK in to settle racial unrest in the South!!

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Of course, this is EXACTLY the type of solution the LEFTARDS LOVE!!!

Freedomnow said...

Good point, we cant settle racial issues in that region without involving our regional partners, the KKK. Lets open a dialog with them...

LOL

WomanHonorThyself said...

lol kuhn...but on a serious note: I prefer a candidate that is more concerned about the best interests of the American and Iraqi people, not his own self-interest...Does such a person even exist?

Freedomnow said...

McCain took a step in that direction.

The timing of his decision to support the troops and their mission was unwise for someone who wants to run for president during the dark days of the ISG and the Pelosi ankle biters (Al Qaeda is pretty bad too, but they arent as bad as a threat to US foreign policy).

nanc said...

mccain - nyet.

of course, in the next elections, we'll all have to hold our noses and vote...er...uh..."conservative"...

dear Lord, help u.s...

kuhnkat said...

WHTS:

"I prefer a candidate that is more concerned about the best interests of the American and Iraqi people, not his own self-interest...Does such a person even exist?"

Looking down the list so far, ummm, well, ahem.... NO!!!!

Mr. Tancredo might, but, I just don't know enough about him yet. Newt Gingrich has been through it and returned, but, I am not sure of him either.

I WOULD vote for either of them over all other announced and likely candidates.

McCain has been on too many sides of too many issues and, even when he comes down on the conservative side, it would appear to be under duress!!

Gooeylani has more in common with a Fascist than most of the others. Being a stron leader can be really nice, for EMERGENCIES. Long term it starts looking like Chavez. Basically he is too Liberal on too many issues to let him in and sell us out on everything BUT the war!!

Romni is similar to McCain. His Conservatism is too recent to trust. Many convert on their DEATHBED!!!! That is, he also looks too opportunistic!!

On the DHIMMI side, no one running appears to have any interest in ANY conservative values. There may be a couple relatively honest people, but, Stalin and Mao were HONESTLY Communist!!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Freedomnow said...

I dont know if you guys forgot or not, but I'm not a Conservative so these issues are not issues for me.

You guys got way too many issues...

kuhnkat said...

freedomnow,

"You guys got way too many issues... "

you have NO IDEA!!!!!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Of course, even not being a Conservative, I would think you are NOT in favor of Authoritan gubmint???

I mean, unlike many in gubmint today, you don't think George Orwell's 1984 was an INSTRUCTION MANUAL do you???

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Freedomnow said...

Thats funny, I was just reading about Orwell.

http://www.newcriterion.com/archives/25/02/orwells-catalonia-revisited/

Orwell gets bashed for his totalitarian leanings and gets painted as more radical than Stalin, whom Orwell despised.

The problem is that we get so trapped inside ourselves and our own petty little worlds.

I'm sure Orwell would agree...

nanc said...

okay - so we have too many issues - perhaps you don't have enough?

kuhnkat said...

nanc,

looking back over FreedomNow's archives, it would appear he has PLENTY of issues!!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

kuhnkat said...

FreedomNow,

only paying attention to one or a few Major issues is a classic mistake in Politics!!! The front runners will try and use a FEW BIG issues to cover up all the not so big ones that they can use to steal our Freedom Now!!!

People voting for Schwarzenegger is a perfect example of not worrying about MOST of the issues cause the Candidate CLAIMS he is on your side and talks the talk on a couple BIG issues.

He has pretty much sold ALL of us down the river to slavery at this point!!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

George Orwell was a visionary. A veritable Canary in a Coal Mine. Sadly, few people appear to have taken him seriously. Some who do refuse to recognise how THEIR SIDE use him as a HOW TO instead of a HOW NOT TO!!

Mr. Ducky said...

The Iranians were supplying funding to the Sunnis?

Now that is a story?

American Crusader said...

I still haven't made up my mind but there is a lot of time before the primaries even start. Hagel has turned into an embarrassment for the Republican Party and I wouldn't be surprised to see a strong movement to replace him.
I don't believe that most Nebraskans are happy with his political maneuverings.

Freedomnow said...

Hey Ducky,

Ever heard the term the enemy of my enemy is my friend?

Hows this one strike your fancy, Hoover-era United States calling Stalin, "Uncle Joe"?

In the case of Iran I would have to say that they are a bit stupid for helping the Sunni insurgency because they are also killing Shiites (...but in the short-term Iran greatly benefits from that as well. It drives the Iraqi Shia closer to Iran).

In any case, Iran has shown itself to favor heavy doses of brinksmanship diplomacy, so all of this is very unsurprising.

Funny thing is, if Iran were to accomplish all of its dreams of a Shiite Lebanon and Iraq it would mean war with its closest ally, Syria.

These clowns travel in packs.

Cheers

Freedomnow said...

AC,

I dig how Hagel is going around saying "I'm not anti-war, I'm not anti-war!". What a loser.

He will definitely have a harder time getting reelected this year and has no chance of winning the Republican nomination to run for president.

beakerkin said...

I will stick with Rudy. Rudy has shown more leadership than Mc Cain.
He might get some votes if he promises to stop those inane Mc Cain french fry add that have nothing to do with him.

American Crusader said...

Unless Tom Tancredo can generate a strong campaign, I see this as a race between McCain and Giuliani. I haven't yet made up my mind but I'm probably leaning towards Giuliani. Living in New York, the positive changes and leadership of Giuliani is hard to ignore.

Freedomnow said...

It should be an interesting race. The Democrats do not have a front runner that can beat either McCain or Giuliani, but its still early so time will tell.

FLORIAN said...

Hagel and Spector: Just some more RINO's in the Republican party. McCain is sort of iffy for me as a candidate. I like his stance on the war on terror---and he's a self-proclaimed "pro-lifer", but his stance on the border and illegal immigration is atrocious. Being from Arizona it would be political suicide to stand up to the illegal invaders so I guess old gringo has to take a few hits for McCain's political career to survive. If he's the Republican nominee, I'd vote Libertarian in a protest vote. Me being the extremist I am, I'm pulling for a Newt Gingrich or Tom Tancredo to somehow grab the true conservative base of the Republican party out of hibernation.

Freedomnow said...

Thats exactly why the Democrats dont have any real contenders because they are afraid to alienate the anti-war protester crowd.

So they only have candidates that give lip-service to the center.

Look at the pressure Clinton gets for being too "rightwing".

I'm surprised the Dems arent pushing to change the Constitution so Hugo Chavez can run.

Anyways, there is enough time for the Dems to change their strategy, but with people like Howard Dean, Pelosi and Soros in charge its not likely.

peedoffamerican said...

Vote peedoffamerican for POTUS!!!! He will station the military on our borders and actually order them to defend them. Instructions to shoot and kill all foreign invaders, after all border crossing is an act of war! He will also order the immediate round-up and expulsion of ALL illegal aliens.

He will also withdraw our troops from the mideast and make one LARGE glass covered parking lot out of it, excluding Israel of course.

Eliminate welfare for all moochers that do not want to work.

Order the immediate arrest/trial/hanging for treason of Hanoi Jane Fonda and her defenders for treason. (John Wayne,"I promise you a fair trial and a nice hanging!"

Eliminate all socialist programs that are unconstitutionally financed by taxpayers. This will allow an immediate tax cut of 55% for all WORKING Americans.

Outlaw all liberal moonbats and declare them traitors. (Even my oldest (sob) sister)

Bitchslap Ted (buuurrrpppp) Kennedy, Shrillary, Flip-Flop Kerry, assorted RINO'S and send 'em packing to Cuba!

This is just for the 1st ten days of office, more would definitely follow.

Greg said...

Freedomnow: I've been MIA-ing for quite a bit here but thankfully for all, I'm back;)

What you say concerning Iran and Syria never having been interested in a peaceful, prosperous Iraq in the first place, and surely not being interested in one now, in my humble opinion, is right on! The Syrian and Iranian regimes represent all that is repugnant, racist, bigoted, and fanatical in this here part of the world. The more or less normal citizens of Isreal would like nothing better than to see these regimes lose their power.

On the subject of whether more troops need to be stationed in Iraq, I just don't know. I've gone back and forth on this issue, and each time it's been you who's influenced me. On one hand, you have thousands of dead American soldiers. Both American troops and Iraqi civilians are being murdered on a daily basis. On the other hand there's Iraq's stability, something of utmost importance at this point. Also, you have the Bush government not doing anything about a threat much greater than Iraq: Iran. Bush and Condi have not only not done aboslutely nothing about Iran; they have pushed Israel to make more and more consessions(like we haven't made any before) to the terrorist Abu Allah along with the Hamas-controlled P.A.

As you know, I'm an American citizen and plan on voting in the upcoming elections. I'm also an Israeli citizen and my main concern is Israel's well-being. My vote will not really matter since I'm from Illinois(a state that always votes Democrat no matter what) but at this point I don't see any candidates backing a military strike on Iran. Hence, I, too, will probably end up voting Democrat.

As for Iraq, I support the President's call for another troop redemployment, but am very sceptical as to the outcome of any policy on Iraq. The Bush administration has just made too many mistakes in its Iraq policy over the past 7 years or so.

Freedomnow said...

The Bush Administration has made too many right decisions that have not been recognized.

Our enemies have exaggerated mistakes that are perceived to have occurred in Iraq, most of which are just a product of our policy that attempts to use an even-handed approach in a country that has spent its entire existence in a black hole of injustice.

It is a fact that Iraq is a sovereign nation and if they pressure us to de-Baathize their government then we have no choice. Bremer acceded to the will of the Iraqi majority.

The US military is the most heavily armored and armed force in the world. But no matter how heavily armored they may be they will always be vulnerable to IEDs. Never in modern history has a military been so heavily armored. Decisions were made in the Clinton administration to compact the size of our military units and make it more mobile in order to adjust to a post Cold War reality. This was a wise move, because we need a faster responding military force. The emphasis was to increase our firepower and react faster to guerilla warfare (abandoning a conventional stance). As the conflict in Iraq progressed the military increased its armor accordingly and the enemy has increased the power and sophistication of IEDs. All the right decisions are being made and we are doing a fantastic job. We are innovating the role of robotic warfare and developing strategies for counter ambush operations against the enemy. There are no zero casualty wars.

Our military could have never sustained the level of troops that critics have argued that we needed. Many soldiers are on their third tour, so time has proven the foresight our leaders have shown because they have eased the burden that could have overextended our military.

We cannot sustain a larger military presence in Iraq for an extended amount of time, but in light of the recent spike in violence between the Sunnis and Shiites, a temporary surge is appropriate.

The US was too timid in the beginning stages of the insurgency because we had to change gears from a highly successful strategy that was utilized in the invasion. We refrained from hitting civilian infrastructure and wooed the press with our reliance on more accurate attacks as opposed to indiscriminate carpet bombing. I remember in the early days of the invasion listening to PBS Public Radio and I rarely heard any negative coverage of the conflict. This was despite the fact that Islamist propaganda continued to cover civilian casualties as a tool to attack the US. Of course they did not focus on Baathist tactics like using civilians as human shields, shooting civilians in the back when they fled to coalition controlled territory and executions of US prisoners. In any case, we did not switch tactics fast enough, but the issue has never been put into proper context.

Total military success should not be the goal of any sane person. The object is to dent the level of the violence so that the Iraqi government can continue to consolidate its authority.

A US victory can be measured by whether or not the Iraqi government can grow into its role as a fully sovereign country under democratic rule.

Greg said...

Freedomnow: You wrote: The US was too timid in the beginning stages of the insurgency because we had to change gears from a highly successful strategy that was utilized in the invasion.

Yes, certainly. Do you remember America's taking over power on the political level in Japan following WWII. Well...you're too young to remember and so am I but my point is the soldiers and diplomats were accustomed to Japanese culture and were ready and willing to comfront the Japanese head-on.

This wasn't the case in Iraq. Our soldiers--the heart of America's mission in Iraq--were nowhere near being as prepared to confront the Iraqi people as were the GI's following Victory in the Pacific. I've yet to hear this point made. In fact it may have been addressed on more liberal sites but it's worth your attention as well, I think.

You wrote: A US victory can be measured by whether or not the Iraqi government can grow into its role as a fully sovereign country under democratic rule.

Agreed 100%. But there's still the problem of American casualties. No American whether neo-con or liberal wants this. But some face up to this reality while others don't. I agree that whether we win the war in Iraq depends on how well an independent Iraqi government can funcion but one must take (growing) American casualties into consideration when discussing further Iraq policy.

Freedomnow said...

Greg,

The Japanese surrendered. The Iraqis ran home and melted away. There was a world of difference between the two.

When US troops landed the Japanese authorities kept order because they followed the emperor who was in favor of capitulation. There was no power vacuum and there was no insurgency.

It should also be noted that Japan is a highly homogenous and disciplined society. Iraq is the complete opposite.

If you want to compare the occupations of Japan to Iraq you would have to admit that the US was willing to heavily invest in both economies and exercise its authority in a much more humane manner than the predecessor regime.

…Our enemies want to put a price on human life. That is why they publish databases detailing how much money is spent on Iraq and how many people have died. How many casualties are worth snuffing out for any cause? I don’t pretend to play God. My overriding concern is how important the cause is… To install a government that will not be a danger to its neighbors, that will not finance terrorism and will not oppress its citizens is most important.

…I appreciate your compliment that I am too young to remember the US occupation of Japan back in 1945. Unfortunately, I can still remember Commodore Perry’s expedition to Japan so there’s no hope for me…

American Crusader said...

I see a lot of people commenting on the troop surge in Iraq. I'm all for it as long as they allow our troops freedom to engage the enemy with less restrictive rules of engagement. President Bush giving the green light to capture or kill Iranians is a good sign.

FreeCyprus said...

The troops WILL have more "freedom to engage the enemy with less restrictive rules of engagement"

That's why a lot of the radical islamist murderers are running away. Unfortunately not enough of them are so it's going to be bloody for while...

Greg said...

Freedomnow: You pretty much dispelled the myth I had been hearing lately concerning American troops' lack of preparation for what was to come in Iraq vs. our troops ability to handle the situation in post-war Japan. Well done! I had no idea concerning your age and fondly apologize;)

I guess for me it comes down to which of the two countries I love I have the greater sympathy and loyalty for. I grew up in the U.S. The U.S. was the country that offered us a home as we were fleeing Communist Russia. Israel offered to take us in, too, but the fact remains we ended up in America.

Having said that, I always dreamed of living in Israel, even being in Chicago. I'm a Zionist Jew(not Progressive Zionist which is hardly "Zionist" at all or any kind of "Reform Zionist.") I'd call myself a religious Zionist similar to MZ. Hence, in the long run, my alligiance is with Israel though of course, I love America and want the best for it.

You've probably heard about Condi's dispossition towards our Palli friends as well as the President's unrelenting willingness to help the Pallies economically. Hence, the Republicans will most certainly not get my vote. Who will?

...that's a tough one to answer.

Freedomnow said...

I dont take too much stock in nationalism. We should be loyal to the cause of liberty and human rights.

The Iraqi insurgents and Palestinian terrorists lack any dedication to either and have earned my opposition.

.......Leftists suffer from a lack of critical thought because of their immensely arrogant echo chamber.

You should note that many of them blame the US for the conflict with the Japanese. They say that sanctions against the warmongering Japanese Empire provoked an attack. In reality it was Japanese aggression throughout Asia that provoked the US to PEACEFULLY challenge such a threat to international peace.

Nothing short of total appeasement will ever please such idiots.

Freedomnow said...

FreeCyprus,

Things will always be bloody as long as the Appeasement Fanatics steal the headlines.

Terrorists will always have hope...

kuhnkat said...

Another detail not often mentioned is that SS and other diehard Nazis resisted in Germany for over 5 YEARS!!!! Unlike the Japanese their cowardly leader was not around to tell them to put down their arms and rebuild peacefully!!

We DID persevere and Germany is not exactly a Paean to Freedom, but it is at least not currently aggressive and somewhat healthy!!

One other BIG difference between Post WWII and the ME is that there are COUNTRIES SUPPORTING THE VIOLENCE in Afghanistan and Iraq. After WWII if there had been any country STUPID enough to try and intervene they would most likely have been invaded and reduced the same as the AXIS countries.

The LEFTARDS have polished their tools of DEFEATISM in Korea, Vietnam and the Cold War. Allowing ANYONE from the LEFTARDS to weigh in on a War or cleaning up AFTER a war is SUICIDE!!!

To DEFEAT an enemy, you MUST BEAT HIM SO BADLY THAT HE NO LONGER HAS ANY IDEA OF BEING ABLE TO RESIST AND WANTS TO COOPERATE!!!!!

Attempting to convince someone of ANYTHING by logical argument, appeasement, or compromise simply tells them that they can MANIPULATE YOU!!! It also tells them that YOU ARE NOT SERIOUS ABOUT DEFEATING THEM!!!!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Have some good NIGHTMARES NOW!!!!

kuhnkat said...

If you desire to be a HUMANITARIAN, save it for AFTER you have totally destroyed their will and capacity to fight and THEY HAVE UNCONDITIONALLY SURRENDERED!!!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Freedomnow said...

That is very true. During the early years of the occupation GIs had to modify their jeeps with a large pole secured to the front fender because the Nazis would emplace chains across the roads in order to decapitate US soldiers driving by.

However, the holdout Nazis didn’t gain much traction due to the widespread exposure of their war crimes and most importantly because Germans on both sides of the border were much more sympathetic to the American capitalists than the much hated Soviet Communists.

The blockade of Berlin and the Marshall Plan ensured that the Germans would become willing collaborators with the American occupation, of which remnants of the US occupation force still remain.

US troops out of Germany now! End the unjust colonization and rape of Germany’s strategic beer supply!...

American Crusader said...

It's been reported that perhaps as many as 30,000 Iranian agents are now in place in Iraq. My feeling, is if they are arming and training (maybe participating?) Iraqis to fight and kill Americans, we should be doing the same for resistance groups inside of Iran.

As for your suggestion to leave Germany, I'm not yet ready to give up my Weihenstephaner.

Always On Watch Two said...

I've never trusted McCain. I'm not sure why, exactly, but part of my inkling comes from his occasional coziness with the Admiral of Chappaquiddick.

Always On Watch Two said...

KuhnKat,
only paying attention to one or a few Major issues is a classic mistake in Politics!!!

IMO, that's how the majority of voters decide how to cast their ballots. Voters are manipulated by candidates' pr agents.

Freedomnow said...

AC,

A smart diplomat would suggest the same to Iran. It would be an excellent bluff, but the NY Times and the Dems would sabotage such an effort if it is implemented.

There would be strategic leaks from the CIA that would be timed and worded to cause maximum damage to our foreign policy. These people are nothing but traitors.

However, Iran is a victim of their own propaganda. It would only take a few simple rouses to get them believe that we are actually implementing such a plan.

Making it clear to the CIA that this is to be a rouse would be a rather interesting test of their loyalty to their country... Something that we cannot take for granted these days.

Freedomnow said...

AOW,

Obama is a great example of a candidate with style over substance.

The guy hasnt even completed a full term in the U.S. Senate and he is running for President?

He is the Democrats Great White Hope. They are looking for a Messiah and are desperate.

kuhnkat said...

AOW stated:

"I've never trusted McCain."

Have you seen the new post at Autonomous?? Another black eye for the RINO!!!

Freedomnow said...

While I have no doubt that Rocco has no love for McCain, the article was clearly aimed at the press.

So far the contest is between McCain and Guiliani. I would support either one. McCain definitely has a better chance, though...

nanc said...

i have come to measure your place for curtains...

Greg said...

We briefly interrupt this segment of "Freedomnow" for an urgent update. He who's known to you as "Greg" of "Hear, O Israel!" has posted a short piece on what he'd do if elected Prime Minister in this here Israel. Y'all are welcome to come on over and present your shrewd intellectual arguments.

FN: I don't know how much you'll like this post since it's quite a bit nationalist, but you're more than welcome to come 'an see for yourself.

Freedomnow said...

I cant say that I agree with your many of your suggestions, but a lot of people who visit this blog may like your ideas.

Things are touch and go for me these days because Nanc, the undertaker, is measuring my blog for curtains.

Do you know any good insurance agents?

nanc said...

oh puhleeeeeeeeeeeze - you know i've had a goodly amount of time to hang curtains here if i really wanted to.............that was just my shameless clue for you to go read my latest!

see how greg did it? well, i'm not as overt - that's all. *:]

p.s. it's madze's 40th birthday.

Freedomnow said...

The old battle dog. I'm on my way to the party.

The Merry Widow said...

Fern-You've been tagged! neener-neener!

tmw

nanc said...

i fixed tmw - i posted my answers at HER site! that'll teach her! or not...

nanc said...

ahem? who you callin' battle dog?

Freedomnow said...

ummm... MZ, why?

American Crusader said...

I was wondering about your opinion on John McCain's recent reversal on his position on Roe v Wade.
Was it a political maneuver or has he actually changed his thinking?

Freedomnow said...

Hmmm... Abortion rights is not as big of an issue to me as it is to extremist liberals or some religious conservatives so I didnt really pay too much attention to McCain's recent statements on the subject.

Taking a Pro or Anti stance on the issue is politically dangerous. I will have to look into the background of McCain's move a bit more in order to give an educated opinion...

Your new avatar is a bit provocative isnt it?

;-)

nanc said...

fern? mccain is pandering to evangelicals - paying much too much lip service. just watch these people start coming out of the woodwork. if nothing else, he's drawn a line in the sand.

evangelicals elected george and now look at how we're feeling about him. we don't like being fooled in the least - nosiree.

kuhnkat said...

See the latest from McMoronCain?

Now he is telling us that Rumsfeld was the worst SecDef EVER!!!

This man has no shame and will do anything to get elected Prez no matter whom or what it hurts. Must be why he and the Clintoons seem to be able to communicate!!

SHOOT HIM NOW!!!

(with Tasers and Pepper Spray!!!)

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Freedomnow said...

Yup, I saw that and came here to comment on it.

He is selling out a man who did a great job.

Sometimes McCain is too lazy to stand up to the leftwing/Islamist propaganda machine.

Still, he is the best candidate out there so far...

Freedomnow said...

My main man, Duncan Hunter, had a surprisingly strong showing in recent polls. I would happily vote for him, but I am afraid that he doesnt have a chance since he is relatively unknown.

That could change, we'll see...

Mr. Beamish the Kakistocrat said...

I believe that nobody doing the current pre-primary primary races should even be considered as serious candidates.

Rudy, Johnny, and Mitty - all empty suits.

And the Democrats? Too scared to even do a Fox News Channel hosted debate (yeah sure, let's have one of these pussies face down Ahmadinejad.)

2008 is far enough away to watch all these fade away and better choices emerge.