John McCain keeps making an issue of Iraq. So, is
Obama, the Dem candidate, going to take him on, on
Iraq?
McCain is really not working on all cylinders and is
not sincere. The first is not his fault, the second
certainly is. So he uses the typical Rove-Republican
method of "talking points" in hoping to appear as if
he has some sorts of rational logic for his
sloganeering.
McCain has said that he can look at us in the face and
tell us that we are winning in Iraq. But what does
that mean? What does it mean to say that the "surge"
is succeeding?
It is much like saying that we are "winning the war on
terror?"....What is "the war on terror"?
Is the War on Terror the war on bin Laden?
If binLaden is dead, does that mean that we won the
War on Terror?
Did the War on Terror subside as we "got him!"--
Saddam Hussein?
Will it subside when we say "we got him!"-- Osama
binLaden?
If the war in Iraq is fought against alQaeda, then
what does winning the war in Iraq mean to winning the
War on Terror?
Our NATO allies want to abandon us in Afghanistan
because they think that the way the Americans are
running the War on Terror is so poor because of our
Iraq obsession that they do not want to invest any
further on the Afghan American venture. They would
rather invest in fighting their own War on Terror as
the European Union instead of as the American led
NATO. The reason for that is, what they deem, the
American mindless and pointless squander of assets in
Iraq that can only serve Iran's interests at the
expense of all America's Arab allies and truly to the
detriment of Afghanistan and the global War on Terror.
But McCain rattles on about Iraq because his mind can
only cope with one note at a time. A president has to
conduct a global symphony and this alone raises
questions about McCain's mental capacity-- here I mean
it as a clinical term, not as a political one. So, if
you ever encounter McCain, be sure to query him, NOT
ON IRAQ (for you will only get propaganda from him
whispered in his ear by minder Lieberman that you
can't refute unless you are querying him from Iraq,
for he will challenge your logic wit his visits to
Iraq; but not on the relationship of Iraq to the War
on Terror and to the alQaeda-Afghan issue because he
can't. He will show his brain's deficit in his
inability to integrate the two. He cannot relate one
to the other as he has no idea how they relate to his
campaign other than saying that we are fighting
alQaeda in Iraq, we are winning there, and if we leave
alQaeda will use Iraq as a base from which to attack
us. But McCain has no idea what this line of tactical
argument has to do with the overall strategic aspects
of the War on Terror as whole and how "victory" (???)
in Iraq will reverberate on our war against alQaeda.
The developing instability in Pakistan totally passes
him by; he cannot relate it to the War on Terror
either.
Who walked what street on what day is a Potemkin Tour
of Iraq without relevance. The real issue is what has
McCain contemplated in terms of a strategy for dealing
with the overall issue that he claims Iraq is a part.
He has no plan, since Lieberman has yet to transmit to
him in simple form what the necons grasp as their
orders from Likud HQ in Israel, now that Netanyahu may
become the next Prime Minister. But what McCain is not
grasping is that, seeing Lieberman as his neocon
"minder," people are wondering if under his presidency
Israel will be an ally or America's foreign policy
master?
This is how things come out when all you have to work
with are, once again, the hyperbolas of the neocons
through Lieberman. And this is dangerous to America's
relationship with Israel that keeps asking for more
and more and more money while calling for attacking
Iran--->through Liberman---> and thus through McCain,
for McCain's Iran policy is also whatever Lieberman
whispers in his ear. But that too McCain has no idea
how it ties in with the war on terror, other than
saying that Iran runs terrorists that kill American
soldiers in Iraq....But we run terrorists (so
designated by the State Dept.) in Iran, who kill
Iranians and are based in Iraq, supplied and supported
by us, despite the protest of the Iraqi government. It
seems that everything is a total muddle that McCain
had better show some sign that he can disentangle and
integrate into a global strategy for America's War on
Terror. He can't do that, unfortunately, because it is
like asking someone who knows only fractions to plot a
variable trajectory-- you need calculus for that, just
like you need more brains, not just slogans like a
parrot, to play chess than to play checkers. McCain
has never proven to have that; instead he proved to
suffer a severe deficit in trying to handle the
particulars at issue instead of parroting slogans.
Haven't we learned our lesson with a president who
bragged at a Yale Commencement that he is living proof
that "a C student can get to be president" and, at
another Yale Commencement, bragged that Cheney is
living proof that a "college drop out can be Vice
President"?
Now, before we buy the McCain product, with all the
mileage wear and tear, it might be good to ask McCain
to demonstrate that this guy who came in at the bottom
of every ranking he ever faced is good enough to be
president by showing that he can integrate Iraq, Iran,
Afghanistan and the War on Terror into one strategic
plan with a clearly defined mission and goals that
others can pick apart and that he respond to them
without he becoming apoplectic. So far, his answer to
tough questions have been stupid slanderous "jokes" to
which only he laughs and tirades that raise questions
about exactly where those melanoma cells of his have
traveled.
I offer you a brilliant article by Bruce Riedel-- from
a very pro-Israel think-tank that focuses the issue of
what our Iraq War did to our War on Terror:
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070501faessay86304/bruce-riedel/al-qaeda-strikes-back.html?mode=printDaniel E. Teodoru
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
