Monday, July 21, 2008

John McSame or John McBush?

Since 2001, John McCain has voted in support of the President's position 377 times.

McCain supported Bush 92 percent in 2004.

So if you like George W. Bush's policies and the current state of the country, then you should vote for John McCain. If not, then you should vote for Barack Obama.



I have wanted to write about this for a couple of weeks, but have had a hard time finding time. I will try to fit it in now.

I am on record here and at the original site that I feel George W Cunt is the most reprehensible President in our history and should be executed for treason. I still feel this way but feel the need to preface what follows with this preamble.

Mr. Cunt could very well become a very lucky man, a man who could be remembered in the distant future as a man who brought peace to the Middle East.

I don't know if any of you have been following the negotiations between Israel and Syria, but what I have been hearing is that they are going swimmingly. Israel apparently is willing to give up the Golan Heights(because of modern satellite imaging, the Heights aren't as militarily strategic as they once were)and Syria is apparently willing to clip Hezbollah's wings. If this comes to pass, Israel's border neighbors will have peace agreements(the others, Egypt and Jordan). Since the Palestinians have effectively divided themselves they pose little threat to the security of Israel. My source is telling me that the assassination of Hezbollah's top leader in February was the work of Syria's intelligence apparatus and was a down payment to the Israelis.
Syria is also enjoying reentering the Arab fold with energy piplines with Egypt and Libya. Syria basically just wants to control Lebanon, their cash cow, for which Israel could care less.

With Hezbollah, the only friend they will have if this agreement is consumated will be Iran, their financial backers. Which brings me to Cunt. I never could make sense of the surge; how could 23,000 troops make a difference when 200,000 could not. But if you think about the timing of the surge, remember back, it was after the Democratic takeover of Congress and Bush seemed powerless, Iran felt like they were in the catbird seat. The only thing which makes sense about the surge was that it was for the benefit of Iran, not Iraq. Iranians could not count on the sanity of the President, here he was getting shit for his strategy in Iraq and the President puts more troops in Iraq, defying his own people. This put a fear in Iran. And Iran has taken the bait. They are the ones responsible for the lack of violence in Iraq by holding the Shiite militias at bay. Couple this with our military conscripting the Sunni militias and holding them back and you have relative peace. Al Qaeda is no longer a force in Iraq. We are now in talks with the Iranians on a slew of topics, Iraq, nuclear weapons and diplomatic relations. We are even putting forth the idea of a diplomatic post in Tehran and they aren't balking.

If this peace deal between Syria and Israel comes to fruition, Iran will feel very lonely(Arabs in general are enjoying this). And because they are lonely, they might be a little more appreciative of a diplomatic way out, especially if they get security from the Iraqi border(no more war). There are a lot of qualifications and it still could fall through, but as much as I hate to admit it, Cunt may be getting lucky.

coreydbarbarian said...

3 things jump out at me.

1) peace between syria & israel would be just peachy by me, but since "syria just wants to control lebanon, their cashcow", why would lebanon just sit back and let syria take (more) control?

2) the relative stabilizing of iraq depended on 3 things: the sunni awakening, the shi'ite militias standing down, and lastly, the american "surge". i have a hard time saying the surge caused shi'ites to stand down, even indirectly (via iran).
personally, i attribute this to local politics and strategy, including the upcoming iranian election.

3) i think dubya's reputation is so sullied that he wouldn't get credit even IF he deserved it. i'm reminded of carter's reputation, nixon's, lbj's, etc.
these men are not remembered for their successes so much as their failures - and dubya has plenty of failures to obscure and successes he might stumble across.

just my opinion, btw. :)

coreydbarbarian said...

oops, should have read "plenty of failures to obscure any successes he might stumble across."
my bad.



Before the Hariri assassination in 2005, Syria was controlling Lebanon. The US was responsible for prying Syria away and isolating them along with Iran. Syria has very little industry and doesn't have the energy resources like it's Arab neighbors. Lebanon is a financial hub in the Middle East with international banking, arms trading and drug manufacturing at it's core. This is what Syria wants control of and Israel could care less about that as long as Hezbollah is contained. Lebanon with an ineffectual military(with so many factions in the country, nothing has any unity)and Syria's strength in it's intelligence organizations leaves very little wiggle room for the Lebanese government to really control the country. Israel has the chance to have all of it's borders under the control of peace agreements, a situation which has to be very appetizing.

As far as Iraq is concerned, what you need to remember is that there will be no agreement if Iran is not on board. This has been the situation frome the very beginning. I believe Iran was instumental in getting us into Iraq in the first place. Iran has most of the controls(but not all) over the Shiite militias, even al Sadr. If Iran had not been holding these militias back there would be no talk of the "surge" working. I believe you are giving the local government too much credit, al Maliki and al-Hakim, the main leadership core(and Shiite)are beholden to Iran for their power. Granted, Iran does not have a hold on all power in Iraq, but again Iran has to be on board for there to be an agreement.

Also, all this talk about attacking Iran is part of this process; it is all psychological, because as much as hawks would like to tell you we could attack Iran without much problem, there is very little we could actually do as we are stretched to the limit militarily(hell, to put more troops in Afghanistan we would have to take them from Iraq). Another point made to me was why would we be telegraphing an attack on Iran(all this press worrying about an attack), it makes no military sense.

Your last point on Cunt's legacy very likely is correct. But if this all comes to pass, he would have something he could hang his hat on; sorta like Nixon's trip to China.

coreydbarbarian said...

i don't disagree with your points, bawdy. mostly, i concur.

but i don't think lebanon wants syria to control it. not the christian half, anyways. also, i wonder how the "spreaders of democracy" here in the u.s. would feel about giving up a democracy to syria.

i completely agree with all your points about iran. i only want to add that local iraqi powers hold more sway than their federal powers in this peace, imo. al maliki and al-hakim weren't what i meant by local. i mean town leaders, and the people themselves.

by no means do i want to belittle the efforts and sacrifice of our troops in all this, btw. they do their jobs admirably.

you have a point on nixon going to china. at least he knew what he was doing in foreign affairs, unlike our current embarrassment of a leader. personally, i think the history books will tout bush's charisma, but little else.

csm said...

I find it intriguing that no one has commented on my assertion in the initial post, that is: If you like what has happened during Bush's tenure, then you should vote for McCain; if not, you should vote for Obama.

No value judgments (at least not this time). I'm interested in hearing why someone might, or might not, agree with this statement...


Because I am an idiot who isn't voting for either.:)



I can well imagine lots of Lebanon wants nothing to do with Syria, but that won't matter to Syria or Israel. Like I said Lebanon is so factional it is inherently weak and easily controlled.

Your comment about the "spreaders of democracy" got me to thinking about the Israeli bombing of the supposed Syrian nuclear reactor and all the mystery surrounding the event. The bombing happened on the Turkish-Syrian border and all three, the Turks, the Syrians and the Israelis were pretty hush-hush about it, which seemed strange. You would have thought the Syrians, at least, would have howled to the world about the attack, but they didn't. The howlers ended up being the US government(months later)and from what I heard it had to do with the peace negotiations between Syria and Israel, apparently we weren't too thrilled about Syria breaking out of the choke hold we put on them. Just goes to show, most countries only think of their own well being, or saving face, no matter how much the whole world could benefit from the opposite.

coreydbarbarian said...

sorry bout dat, csm.
of course i agree with your original statement. one thing i'd add, though:
if you can't vote for barack, at least vote for barr. the republican party needs to understand that they've left their constituents behind, one way or the other. and a protest vote for barr would send that message (not to mention it'd be one less vote for mclame).

i've actually convinced 5 staunch pro-life relatives to take this course. there was just no way for them to vote for obama with his liberal stance on abortion rights.

csm said...

At least I got an honest answer out of you Bawdy (joking... joking...)

G said...


I understand that perspective coming from some, but I disagree. For one thing, John McCain is NOT George Bush (despite the Obama campaign's efforts to paint him that way). Sure, they see similarly on many issues. But they also have significant differences.

And if one doesn't like the current state of the country, then why should they hold McCain responsible, but not Obama? They are both members of congress (a congress that actually has LOWER approval ratings than Bush, believe it or not).

But aside from those points, even if one thinks McCain will be the same as Bush and doesn't like his policies, that doesn't necessarily mean they should vote for Obama. Sure, Obama will be different. But they shouldn't vote for him unless they believe he would be BETTER. I know that you and many others think that he will be better, but at this point that is merely opinion. "Change" does not automatically mean improvement.

The question each person needs to answer is, "Which candidate do I believe will be the best president for the next four years?" That includes ALL the candidates. I know the arguments about "wasted" votes on third party candidates. But for me (a resident of California), ANY vote for POTUS is essentially meaningless. The number of voters is so enormous and the political leanings are so overwhelmingly Democrat that any single Californian's vote in this election holds almost no weight.

I also think the idea of voting against McCain to send a message to the Republican Party (or to the Bush administration) is absurd. Within the Republican Party, John McCain is about as far from "toeing the line" as you can get.

csm said...

Not saying they should hold McCain responsible, but I am saying that they should take into account that McCain's positions are very close to those of Bush (according to his votes and his stated positions). As such, if you like what W has done, then McCain is the logical choice to continue in the same vein.

I agree, too, that voting against McCain to send a message to the Reps, if you are a Republican, is not an intelligent course of action. Same as I would say that voting against Obama because you are pissed off that Hillary lost is equally ridiculous.

Now as far as McCain not toeing the line... 8 years ago, yup, I agree. Today, uh, no way! McCain is Mr. Republican (at least Mr. GWB-style Republican).

coreydbarbarian said...

let me try this from a different angle.

if, after all the b.s. the republican party has pulled these past 7.5yrs, another republican wins office, how exactly would that encourage the party to repent from its wicked ways?

of course, if you're happy with the crap they've gotten away with, and want more of the same, vote for mccain. if you are not happy, however, why reward them with your vote?


Gee, voting your conscience, now that is a novel idea.

Anony Mouse said...

CSM, why not just vote for the man who is the best candidate? That would seem to be the a better alternative than sending messages and what not. The GOP is not going to be in control of the congress so there is the message. The Dems certainly need a mesaage sent their way just as much so losing the presidency would suffice for their wake up call.

McCain is not Bush so that line is nothing but rhetoric. Obama is becoming about as close to Bush lately as McCain.