Stumbling on Reality
John McCain is in the news today. It isn't likely that anyone is listening, but he is there. McCain's supporters seem to be those folks who are so tired of hearing reality in the news that they have stopped listening to reality and have attached themselves to John McCain instead, and probably gone back to their infotainment on Fox News.
But meanwhile, a couple of issues arose yesterday. McCain is responding to a Moveon.org advertisement about the idea of a 100-year war in Iraq. Also he snarled himself up with a comment that the Iraq War had something to do with oil. Heaven forbid that a Republican wishing to inherit George W. Bush's seat would say something like that, so he is backpedaling to get out from under that statement.
There seems to be a conflict here between the "Straight Talk Express" that McCain prides himself with and the need to keep reality in the dark, keep it away from being discussed in an open forum like the election process. We all know the war was about oil and America's dependence on Middle East oil. At the very least, it was about preventing all our money that we spend in the Middle East from going toward anti-American or anti-Israeli military capabilities. We didn't want Iraq strong so we took them out. Some would speculate that there was more to it than that, that there was the need to fit Iraq in with respect to Globalization. Iraq wasn't playing the game very well. That may seem like a new idea to you, my readers, but Bush has been talking about this all along.
McCain said as much with his Friday comment, but then the puppeteers told him, oh no, the war was about WMDs, remember? So McCain had to backpedal and somehow explain away his comment that with his energy plan we wouldn't ever need to send our troops back in to the Middle East.
So much for straight talk. Now nobody knows what he was saying.
And the 100 year war? He certainly made that comment, that we could be there for 100 years. But now he's saying that's after we win the war. He's not saying how long he would be willing to fight to win the war. He seems to be denying that we would be willing to fight for 100 years if that's what it took. He's actually denying that idea. So it would appear that McCain is saying we would win the war rather quickly, that success is just around the bend, so to speak.
But the thing is, Bush promised us on day one that the troops would come home as soon as the job was done and not one day longer. So according to this McCain plan, the job isn't winning the war. The job is winning and then maintaining the peace as long as America has energy interests in the Middle East.
Or is it?
Where is the straight talk when you need it? Nobody, and I do mean nobody, knows what McCain is saying. I guess that's how you win the Republican vote. Maybe that's how you win the independents too?
But meanwhile, a couple of issues arose yesterday. McCain is responding to a Moveon.org advertisement about the idea of a 100-year war in Iraq. Also he snarled himself up with a comment that the Iraq War had something to do with oil. Heaven forbid that a Republican wishing to inherit George W. Bush's seat would say something like that, so he is backpedaling to get out from under that statement.
There seems to be a conflict here between the "Straight Talk Express" that McCain prides himself with and the need to keep reality in the dark, keep it away from being discussed in an open forum like the election process. We all know the war was about oil and America's dependence on Middle East oil. At the very least, it was about preventing all our money that we spend in the Middle East from going toward anti-American or anti-Israeli military capabilities. We didn't want Iraq strong so we took them out. Some would speculate that there was more to it than that, that there was the need to fit Iraq in with respect to Globalization. Iraq wasn't playing the game very well. That may seem like a new idea to you, my readers, but Bush has been talking about this all along.
McCain said as much with his Friday comment, but then the puppeteers told him, oh no, the war was about WMDs, remember? So McCain had to backpedal and somehow explain away his comment that with his energy plan we wouldn't ever need to send our troops back in to the Middle East.
So much for straight talk. Now nobody knows what he was saying.
And the 100 year war? He certainly made that comment, that we could be there for 100 years. But now he's saying that's after we win the war. He's not saying how long he would be willing to fight to win the war. He seems to be denying that we would be willing to fight for 100 years if that's what it took. He's actually denying that idea. So it would appear that McCain is saying we would win the war rather quickly, that success is just around the bend, so to speak.
But the thing is, Bush promised us on day one that the troops would come home as soon as the job was done and not one day longer. So according to this McCain plan, the job isn't winning the war. The job is winning and then maintaining the peace as long as America has energy interests in the Middle East.
Or is it?
Where is the straight talk when you need it? Nobody, and I do mean nobody, knows what McCain is saying. I guess that's how you win the Republican vote. Maybe that's how you win the independents too?
posted by Bill | 7:13 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home