What Has McCain Lost?

Posted by on . 3 comments.

Maybe it is his marbles and not his bearings after all.

ABC’s Charlie Gibson asked John McCain about his reaction to Iran test-firing nine medium long-range missiles two days ago. McCain delivered himself of this beauty:

… I hope that this will be a catalyst to actually come together and impose these sanctions on the Iranians at the end of the day also we cannot afford to have a second Holocaust.

Forget the fear-mongering aspect of that remark (given that by any sensible estimate, Iran is years away from a nuclear bomb). If McCain describes Iran exploding a nuclear bomb as a second Holocaust, then isn’t this proud and brave military warrior hero (who nobody is allowed to question on any military matters whatsoever) describing our bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as the first Holocaust?

It’s one thing when liberal blogger ladies do that, but isn’t McCain supposed to be on the side that regards the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings as regretful and necessary, the side that argues that it was definitely the right and honorable thing to do?

Is our Johnny starting to forget which side he’s on? Any day now he’ll be pissing in his pants.

Comments

  1. John Maszka says:
    July 11, 2008 at 7:15 pm

    John McCain is a great man who has served our country with great sacrifice. I have tremendous respect for him. I hope if he wins, he will realize that without engaging Iran, there can only be more conflict. As Colin Powell remarks in his insightful article “The Craft of Diplomacy,” we have to leave our enemy an honorable path of retreat.

    While diplomacy with Iran may have its challenges, it should be pursued at every length. Iran has a conscription army and nearly 10 million eligible males between the ages of 18 and 32 (Posen, 2003). Iran’s conventional military potential aside, US Intelligence assesses that Iran will likely have nuclear weapons capability within the decade (Select Committee on Intelligence, 2006).

    “Je vois plus que jamais qu’il ne faut juger de rien sur sa grandeur apparente.” – Voltaire

    We should be careful what we assume about Iran, or any country.

    The United States needs to be very aware of Iran’s growing political influence in the international community as well. In a sermon commencing the month of Ramadan 2007, the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei accused the Bush administration of war crimes in Iraq, and of attempting to undermine Islam in the Middle East. Amidst chants from worshipers: “Death to America,” Khamenei stated that he has a firm belief that one day this current US president and the American officials will be tried in a fair international court for the atrocities committed in Iraq.

    American popularity worldwide has plummeted over the 2003 invasion of Iraq and Khameinei’s words are falling upon a rising number of sympathetic ears. Any inclination the Bush administration has toward regime change in Iran should be given very, very careful thought. Ultimately, the situation confronting the United States regarding Iran is identical in many respects to the threat of terrorism itself:

    A clash of cultures, a stubborn battle of wills, two very different ways of looking at the same reality, a global game of chicken in which neither side wants to back down. This of course is a gross oversimplification of a very complex problem, but there are some basic truths to the argument.

    The United States and Europe are largely divided on their views of Iran, as well as their views of how best to counter terrorism. One of the greatest challenges facing the United States in its efforts to counter terrorism, is learning to understand those who resort to its use, and developing a coherent construct within which to address terrorism.

    The same can be said of Iran. And few can argue that there is no small amount of testosterone in the air, and this stubbornness can be seen on both sides of the standoff. Henry Kissinger has aptly stated that so long as Iran views itself as a crusade rather than a nation, a common interest will not emerge from negotiations. But this observation is equally applicable to the Bush administration as well.

    Puor bien savoir les choses, il en faut savoir le detail, et comme il est presque infini, nos connaissances sont toujours superficielles et imparfaites.

    Unfortunately, what we do know is that the Bush administration cannot be trusted to do what it says. Iraq taught us that lesson. Many experts have long been predicting that Bush would invade Iran before he leaves office. But of course, the Bush administration would never admit to such a thing.

    On ne donne rien si liberalement que ses conseils.

    But it is the man who follows his own counsel, he’s the one that should lead.

  2. matt says:
    July 11, 2008 at 8:26 pm

    copy/paste much?

    exhibit a

    exhibit b

    please familiarize yourself with our comment policy.

  3. effay says:
    July 11, 2008 at 8:53 pm

    Why are we treating Iran as an enemy again? Because they can shoot missiles at a country that has dozens of nukes? Ya, I’m really scared that they might get themselves killed.