Let’s see: the Lefties want to grant invaders citizenship, give lawyers to people who shoot at us, haul our soldiers who shoot back into court, prohibit “discrimination” (presumably meaning that we have to shoot an equal number of bad and good guys), etc., etc….

And some idiot thinks that our enemies would prefer McCain???

landlines

Right, whereas McCain is solid on immigration right? Whoops.

Well, but he doesn’t want to close Gitmo and give lawyers to terrorists, right? Damn, again? Two for two.

Dude, when you want to show McCain is better, you need to pick areas where McCain is better.

Steer clear of terrorist prisoners, Gitmo, interrogation, Bush’s tax cuts (although he’s had a reversal there), defense of the Constitution, Global warming, energy policies, or free speech. And avoid anything that ties back to the Keating Five could hurt too. Oh, and avoid marriage vows, or fidelity, or morality as topics as well. In these areas, McCain is as bad (or worse) than the Democrats.

Talk about the economy in general (without Bush Tax cuts), or earmarks or… Iran maybe. I’m not sure, maybe health care?

Really, not a lot of topics, but you just look silly saying the promoter of shamnesty who wants to close Gitmo and bring terrorists into the U.S. (and gain U.S. law protections) is “good” or “better than democrats” on these areas.

And some idiot thinks that our enemies would prefer McCain???

Mark Jaquith on February 19, 2008 at 2:00 AM

Wrong. After doing nothing during the Clinton years and fleeing from Somalia, they expected more of the same. Here is Bin Laden in a BBC interview in October 2001.

We believe that the defeat of America is possible, with the help of God, and is even easier for us, God permitting, than the defeat of the Soviet Union was before.

BIN LADEN: We experienced the Americans through our brothers who went into combat against them in Somalia, for example. We found they had no power worthy of mention. There was a huge aura over America — the United States — that terrified people even before they entered combat. Our brothers who were here in Afghanistan tested them, and together with some of the mujahedeen in Somalia, God granted them victory. America exited dragging its tails in failure, defeat, and ruin, caring for nothing.
America left faster than anyone expected. It forgot all that tremendous media fanfare about the new world order, that it is the master of that order, and that it does whatever it wants. It forgot all of these propositions, gathered up its army, and withdrew in defeat, thanks be to God.

And do forth.

I can’t provide a link because it’s from CNN but google Bin Laden+Somalia and it’s the 3rd entry on the page.

While Webb writes of McCain, notice that the photo is of Obama, the topic of William Rees-Mogg’s article as well.

So, despite the Obama momentum, McCain’s strengths keep surfacing. Even the most idiotic Webb assessment implodes against Webb, not bearing any negative affect upon McCain.

From William Rees-Mogg:

Senator McCain is another matter. I am a McCain admirer; if I were an American, I would almost certainly vote for him. He has the key qualities a President needs – courage, intelligence, humanity, independence, experience of international affairs and sufficient self confidence to support the most intolerable role in the world. As a prisoner of war in Vietnam he was tortured and his behaviour was heroic. If one regards the security of the world as the supreme concern of the President of the United States, one would want John McCain to be the next President. He is probably a wiser man who knows more about war than any President since Eisenhower in the 1950s.

Senator McCain has an advantage over Senator Obama; he is already assured of the Republican nomination, when Obama is still under fire from Hillary Clinton. She may do some damage. Naturally, Senator Obama has briefer and in some ways narrower experience than McCain. The President has to be Commander-in-Chief; undoubtedly Senator McCain is far better qualified for that aspect of the President’s function. Anything that emphasises global threats to the United States would focus attention on Senator McCain’s strengths.

Yet the core argument of the Obama campaign is both powerful and timely. In American politics each generation looks for a renewal. That may come from either party; it is not simply a matter of a swing from the right to the left. In the first half of the past century it came from Theodore Roosevelt as a Republican and from Franklin Roosevelt as a Democrat.

Politicians who offer hope win elections. Despite his age, John McCain offers an alternative Republican programme. He is not a neo-Conservative and would be very unlike George Bush. Hillary Clinton would represent only too clearly a third Clinton term. Barack Obama has the future of America ahead of him

Thanks for the red meat BBC.

TOPV on February 19, 2008 at 8:01 AM

Good point. Do you think Republicans would have let President Gore let Osama run wild for 7 years after 9-11?

• He will close Gitmo and dump their terrorists into our inept court system ala Clinton.

• He will ban waterboarding (which is not torture for the zillionth time).

• He will not secure the southern border allowing the free flow of 10% OTMs into the USA.

• He has the personal skills of Leona Helmsley which should go a long way in bringing along allies in the war against them.

I think al-Qaeda would back McCain – that is not an argument for or against America

What. The. Farg.

Justin Webb, BBC said: …but it seems to me that the vague assumption that the terrorists would back a lefty is lazy thinking…

Talk about lazy thinking! Hey Justin, a lefty would give them an unopposed war, you know, like the one your boy Bill Klinton gave them back in the 90′s…. idiot.

The job of organizations such as CAIR, is to help instill that attitude of no compromise by insisting that their ways be fully catered to. Your views are of no matter to them. Ideally, you would not be allowed to ever protest anything which they may instigate – because that would be both racist and against Islam, which must conquer all.

Interestingly German military leaders always rated Patton as our best commander. When your enemies fear you it shows how effective you really are.
 
William Amos on February 19, 2008 at 12:18 AM

 
We lost only 300,000 soldiers on the Western Front during the whole course of the war out of 5.5 million military casualties in total. The Ardennes Offensive specifically targeted the Americans because they were deemed the least effective fighting force and their home front to be prone to surrender in the face of mounting casualties.

I think al-Qaeda would back McCain – that is not an argument for or against America backing him, but it seems to me that the vague assumption that the terrorists would back a lefty is lazy thinking…

If I weren’t sooooo lazy, I would think that that thinker out thought himself, I think.
Whew!

“Islamic terrorists want war.”

Wrong. They want radical Islam to rule the world. If they can do that without war, if people hand them victory without a fight, they would be satisfied with that – at least as a first step.

I’m not surprised a BBC reporter would be so ignorant of the well-known three choices for kuffir: “When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these, you also accept it and withold yourself from doing them any harm. Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them… If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah’s help and fight them.” Sahih Muslim, Book 019, Number 4327. Also Qur’an 9:29.

So it’s convert, pay the jizya and be subdued as second-class citizens, or get violent jihad.

“They want suffering – among others and their own people alike.”

Now that is correct.

Radical Islam isn’t a lesson learned, its a lesson in the making.
We have a world wide conflict, only partially completed, yet.
We will fight the modern equivalent of the Persians just as the Greeks did.

And the US response to AQ’s pre-9/11 actions led to what?

It might be reasonable to assume that al Qaeda wouldn’t go for a war-cheerleading candidate if we were at all capable of defeating their ideology with missiles and bullets. But we aren’t. At best it’s containment and weed pulling. Their numbers don’t significantly go down, but we keep on bleeding money until our economy collapses from debt, taxes, and devalued currency. So I think Webb is right: it’s lazy to think that they’d prefer a lefty. A lefty might stop the war in Iraq — a major recruitment tool and a major financial drain on America — but wouldn’t otherwise change our meddlesome foreign policy. That’s not a win for them. A win for them is our economy collapsing, or for Middle Eastern sentiment to further turn against us. And it is war-cheerleaders like McCain (“a million” years in Iraq, “bomb, bomb, bomb… bomb, bomb Iran”) who can make that happen.

Or do you really think that the 9/11 plotters didn’t expect us to react to the attacks? C’mon. It’s provocation with near-certainty of resultant conflict. You don’t do that unless you want a fight.

This is news?

Ugly on February 19, 2008 at 1:50 AM

Course not Ugly! This is what is known as cogent analysis.

“I think al-Qaeda would back McCain.”

…on waterboarding.

Chakra Hammer on February 18, 2008 at 10:51 PM

LOL…I hear ya Chakra….this ol codger has learned to keep one hand on the cable connection whenever he hits an unknown link.