McCain Hates War

Does anyone else find it a bit absurd that we've reached a point where a major party presidential nominee needs to protest defensively that he hates war:

At any rate, as is often the case the issue here isn't John McCain's subjective attitude toward war. The issue is the likely consequences of his policies. McCain's stated policy toward Iran is likely to lead to war. McCain has in the past called for a policy toward North Korea that he admitted at the time might well lead to war. McCain's Iraq policy will lead to a prolongation of an ongoing war. McCain's vision of a "League of Democracies" would create a Cold War-style standoff which would likely fuel proxy wars around the world. Whether or not McCain hates war, if you would like to see a president likely to try to avoid getting the country into further wars, you don't want McCain in the White House.

Comments

You might say, that's not change we can believe in.

Posted by CK | June 6, 2008 5:38 PM

The more things change...
Franklin Roosevelt once had to make a very similar declaration.

I guess in a campaign where Obama has to say that he doesn't hate America or the flag then it makes sense that McCain should have to say that he hates war, poverty, and injustice.

Next: Where do the candidates stand on motherhood and apple pie?

Posted by Angry Customer | June 6, 2008 5:51 PM

Does anyone else find it a bit absurd that we've reached a point where a major party presidential nominee needs to protest defensively that he hates war:

=================================================

Like TOTALLY absurd:

I have seen war. I have seen war on land and sea. I have seen blood running from the wounded. I have seen men coughing out their gassed
lungs. I have seen the dead in the mud. I have seen cities destroyed. I have seen two hundred limping exhausted men come out of line-the
survivors of a regiment of one thousand that went forward forty-eight hours before. I have seen children starving. I have seen the agony of
mothers and wives. I hate war.

Franklin D. Roosevelt
August 14, 1936

===============================================

Hard to believe we'd reached that point in 1936! The absurdity

Don't they teach history at Harvard?

Posted by Campesino | June 6, 2008 5:56 PM

MY:
I'll ask you what I asked over at Digby's. When is someone going to ask McCain about his forward to Halberstam's book, The Best and the Brightest? Or has he flip-flopped on that one too?

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | June 6, 2008 6:11 PM

John McCain hates war, especially when he's in it, but I bet he gets a little thrill at the idea of being in charge of one.

Posted by Bill | June 6, 2008 6:22 PM

You should note about this ad that despite saying he hates war, McCain does not say he is running to keep the country at peace. He says he is running to keep it safe. Seems to me that is the same reason Bush said we needed to go to war against Iraq.

Posted by Cap and Gown | June 6, 2008 7:19 PM

Campesino, that was a very curious speach by FDR in 1936, considering that he had spent WW I as Asst. Secretary of the Navy. I haven't seen anything suggesting how he had the opportunity to witness combat at such close quarters as the speach indicates . . .

Posted by rea | June 6, 2008 7:40 PM

McCain's vision of a "League of Democracies" would create a Cold War-style standoff which would likely fuel proxy wars around the world. Whether or not McCain hates war, if you would like to see a president likely to try to avoid getting the country into further wars, you don't want McCain in the White House.

But Black Messiah will inspire the enemy. He will reason with them. They will in turn also worship the Man who says future generations will remember it was at the moment he became his Party's candidate that the oceans rise will be slowed, the Planet began healing, and through the Messiah's talks without precondition, the world found it's way to the Peace of Obama.

Just the other day, Obama showed his willingness to negotiate without prep or precondition with foreign leaders and their American boosters at AIPAC. While everyone else has battled on Jerusalem status, the Black Messiah showed his talks only displayed his superior judgement, grasp of all international affairs from being in a foreign country for 4 years as a pre-teen child.

He said Jerusalem was an Israeli city, and should be the capitol city of the Jews. Thus, all the Israelis and their boosters he sat down with were happy. He had solved their Jerusalem problem by not being afraid to talk to them with no preps!

Obama, Oh, Obama, healer of the Planet Earth, Calming Voice who commands control of the Ocean's floods! We are not worthy of you!!!

(Then his handlers in Team Axelrod had him trot out today and say his Jerusalem declaration was inoperative..and fairly straightly said he was duped by the Israeli Zionists there and by American Likudniks. That Jerusalem's status is now being negotiated..)

Posted by chris ford | June 6, 2008 7:42 PM

The point of the ad is that, unlike Obama, he has served his country in war and been tortured, so he knows what he's talking about on the subject of war... so think twice before calling him a war monger. That's what the ad is saying.

Posted by Tim K | June 6, 2008 7:50 PM

shorter chris ford:

Niiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggg......

you get the idea. Hey chris. When Obama is elected and the blacks rule the country I'm sure they will spare raping your disgusting family.

Posted by drjimcooper | June 6, 2008 7:59 PM

Silly Matthew. Politicians' policies and actions don't matter--all that matters is how the politicians themselves feeeeeeel about them.

George Bush wants peace and prosperity and is very sad we don't have it. Therefore, he's fit to be President! He wants freedom in the middle east--therefore, it doesn't matter what he does, just how much he wants freedom!

Nothing matters more than how politicians feel about what they're doing. It matters much, much, much more than what they're actually doing. If they want freedom A LOT, that's all they need!

This is what our discourse has sunk to.

Posted by anonymiss | June 6, 2008 8:05 PM

Yes, yes, McCain dropped bombs on people. Big fucking deal. Was it in defense of his country? Well, now that you mention it, there really wasn't much chance that the North Vietnamese were going to darken the skies of San Francisco. Hell, they weren't even likely to make it as far as Honolulu.

I would go so far as to argue that McCain's blind obedience to an idiotic dictate for war and his inability to recognize that he was never fighting for anything that might reasonably (or even laughably) be called "national security" demonstrates quite clearly why he is in no way qualified to lead the United States.

Posted by Circus Freak | June 6, 2008 10:04 PM

Yes, yes, McCain dropped bombs on people. Big fucking deal. Was it in defense of his country? Well, now that you mention it, there really wasn't much chance that the North Vietnamese were going to darken the skies of San Francisco. Hell, they weren't even likely to make it as far as Honolulu.

I would go so far as to argue that McCain's blind obedience to an idiotic dictate for war and his inability to recognize that he was never fighting for anything that might reasonably (or even laughably) be called "national security" demonstrates quite clearly why he is in no way qualified to lead the United States.

Just about a perfection summation of why the Democratic party has lost 7 of the last 9 presidential elections.

Posted by Tim K | June 6, 2008 10:23 PM

Matt - Put the word out - McCain opens by saying anyone who jokes about war is a fool.

Anti-McCain ad opens with that clip - then follows with years of clips of McCain speaking about war in a joking and cavalier fashion.

Then closes with McCain, in effect, calling himself a fool.

Posted by Comment | June 7, 2008 12:26 AM

Matt - Put the word out - McCain opens by saying anyone who jokes about war is a fool.

Anti-McCain ad opens with that clip - then follows with years of clips of McCain speaking about war in a joking and cavalier fashion.

Then closes with McCain, in effect, calling himself a fool.

Posted by Comment | June 7, 2008 12:27 AM

Matt - Put the word out - McCain opens by saying anyone who jokes about war is a fool.

Anti-McCain ad opens with that clip - then follows with years of clips of McCain speaking about war in a joking and cavalier fashion.

Then closes with McCain, in effect, calling himself a fool.

Posted by Comment | June 7, 2008 12:28 AM

Tim K is example #1 of the pathetic state of the Republican Party. He whines that my statement represents why the Democrats lose presidential elections (we will ignore, for the moment, his idiocy in handing George W. Bush credit for winning in 2000), but doesn't provide any actual facts.

Demonstrate, with specificity, how my statement is related to your comment. Is it because I have somehow misconstrued McCain's position on Vietnam? Is it because you can, magically, demonstrate a threat to national security from the Vietnamese?

Please elaborate or simply admit that you are a factless goon who is overmatched by a simple circus freak in an argument on foreign policy.

Posted by Circus Freak | June 7, 2008 12:37 AM

Does anyone else find it a bit absurd that we've reached a point where a major party presidential nominee needs to protest defensively that he hates war.... At any rate, as is often the case the issue here isn't John McCain's subjective attitude toward war. The issue is the likely consequences of his policies.

I'm not going to vote for McCain, in large part because of Iraq and his likely approach to Iran. That said, it's worth noting that Matthew Yglesias has accused McCain of loving war. Then when McCain protests that he actually doesn't, Matthew Yglesias gets high-minded and says, no, actually, we've been having a serious policy discussion all along.

Any weapon to hand, I suppose.

Posted by Eh | June 7, 2008 1:12 AM

Circus Freak:

Your disgusting mischaracterization of John McCain's service in Viet Nam dishonors not only his service and sacrifice but the service and sacrifice of the 50,000 US servicemen who died in that conflict, the hundreds of thousands of others who took part, and those who continue to service in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Democrats - in the McGovern era - allowed their brand and image to be hijacked by the left-ward activist fringe of their party, so that the proud party of Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy and Johnson became, to many Americans, the party of abortion, acid and amnesty.

Today the same risks happening again.

Your attitude toward John McCain's service in war is the same attitude that led MoveOn to take out the ill-advised (to say the least) "General Betray Us" ad. It is an attitude that sees US servicemen and women as war criminals and draws a moral equivalence between the US military and Iraqi insurgents, Al Qaeda in Iraq, and the Taliban. Just as the Left drew a moral equivalence between the US service men in Vietnam and the Viet Cong.

The problem with trying to paint McCain as a war-monger is at least two-fold... 1) John McCain knows a hell of a lot more about war than Barack Obama, and it only draws attention to that unfavorable comparison for Democrats... 2) A war-monger is likely to make Americans feel more confident than a peacenik that he'll keep the country safe.

Posted by Tim K | June 7, 2008 2:59 AM

"The point of the ad is that, unlike Obama, he has served his country in war and been tortured, so he knows what he's talking about on the subject of war... so think twice before calling him a war monger. That's what the ad is saying."

If you are right, then the ad is stupid. Just because you are a war veteran, even a heroic one, doesn’t mean that you can’t also be a war monger. There is even a term for a war veteran who loves war too much, particularly an officer with some say in how battles are waged. “War Wacky”. As in; “that guy has gone war wacky”. The term specifically precludes non-veterans. I don’t even have to mention the typical German example; there is a great American one. Curtis LeMay, he was a WW2 war hero before he became a war wacky American general.

Of course, just because the ad is stupid, doesn’t mean it won’t work. This is America after all.

Posted by Raindog | June 7, 2008 3:15 AM

Raindog:

The point is the Democrats, particularly Barack Obama, doesn't have any credibility calling anybody "war wacky" or any other similar characterization. You're talking about a Democratic nominee who just did a commencement address on the subject of service, and never mentioned military service.

Posted by Tim K | June 7, 2008 3:26 AM

I feel, in this world, that there are objective realties and nearly objective realties.

You don’t have to be a black person to say something is racist. You don’t have to be a woman to say something is sexist, right Tim? And you don’t have to be a veteran to say something is militarily unwise.

I am already sick to death of McCain using his POW experience as a shield for his unpopular and troublingly vague Iraq positions. Just because he is a war hero of a war from 30 years ago doesn’t mean that his posistion on a modern war can’t be questioned. Just because Barack Obama is not a veteran doesn’t mean his Iraq posistion, (or his Iran position for that matter), is unwise.

A bad posistion on a military or national security matter is a bad posistion, regardless of who espouses it or who denigrates it. Of course, many Americans won’t get this. There is a trend throughout American history of non-veterans being so insecure about their lack of service that they treat all veterans like grand military strategists or something. All veterans are patriots, but even the most heroic patriot can be wrong.

Posted by Raindog | June 7, 2008 3:55 AM

Raindog:

You don't have to have any particular qualification or experience to just make a remark. But being President of the United States and Commander-in-Chief is different. For that you do have to have a background of experience and qualifications in order to make pronouncements.

I never made the point, however, that John McCain's Iraq position cannot be criticized. They have a difference of opinion on a pressing issue of huge importance, of course it should be vigorously debated. I just take exception to the idea that John McCain wants to start World War III, which is the way Matthew Yglesias and many on this blog talk. I think accusing a former POW of loving war is disgusting and really obnoxious.

Posted by Tim K | June 7, 2008 4:04 AM

Realities not realties. Damn it, I need to get to bed, it’s 3 am here.

Posted by Raindog | June 7, 2008 4:09 AM

"I'm sure they will spare raping your disgusting family."

I hope not.

Add Tim K's disgusting family to the list, Obama.

Look, you fucking moron, singing "bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran" is not the way to "hate war".

McCain is a militaristic lunatic, and even the notion of his being President should qualify one for a straitjacket.

He's a war criminal, a fucking incompetent military moron with no clue about REAL ON-THE-GROUND WAR, and he's senile to boot.

Take YOUR disgusting, obnoxious bullshit and shove it up your ass.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | June 7, 2008 4:14 AM

“I think accusing a former POW of loving war is disgusting and really obnoxious.”

I don’t think that just because someone is or was a POW that they can’t also love war. But neither Yglesias nor I said that McCain loves war. In fact, Yglesias’ whole point was that it doesn’t matter if McCain loves war or not, that his positions on military issues and foreign affairs will lead to more war. You are, I’m sure, aware of the existence of the “Strawman Argument”?

Posted by Raindog | June 7, 2008 4:19 AM

Once the N. Vietnamese learned that little Johnny Mac was an Admiral's kid - they applied the pressure in a way that had Johnny singing classified info like an alto Ethel Merman. Wouldn't it be nice if some nice unaffiliated PAC group out there brought this up? This "man of courage" has in actuality always been a wretched little coward.

Posted by Trevor | June 7, 2008 5:14 AM

If we can lay off the rape jokes for a while, I think the notable thing here is that war is not an abstraction. It is instantiated in specific wars: WW 2, the Korean War, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq.

If you hate war as an abstraction, but whenever a specific war comes up, you support it, then the claim to hate war should not be taken at face value.

Posted by Julian Elson | June 7, 2008 5:20 AM

Nice to see Tim K transforming himself into a McCainiac, now that his Clintonista days are over.

Incidentally, this is a particularly amusing piece of idiocy:

"The point is the Democrats, particularly Barack Obama, doesn't have any credibility calling anybody 'war wacky' or any other similar characterization."

First, of course Obama didn't call McCain "war wacky". Second, Tim K is apparently unaware that many Democrats actually served in the military--and that many Republican warmongers did not. But I guess any "Democrats are not real manly men like those Republicans" meme is a good one as far as our brand new McCainiac is concerned.

Posted by DTM | June 7, 2008 5:42 AM

McCain both loves and hates war, at the same time. He can geniunely mourn the victims of his wars, well at the same time feeling proud that he and America have the courage to take this terrible, but necessary, burden on themselves.

Posted by CSS | June 7, 2008 5:55 AM

"Nice to see Tim K transforming himself into a McCainiac, now that his Clintonista days are over."

No surprise there, given that many of Clinton's supporters were clearly right wing Republicans. Not to mention raving lunatics and ignorant morons.

Clinton hangs out with right wing Republicans in their "prayer breakfasts" and belongs to a right wing religious cult called "The Family". No surprise she acts like a right wing Republican and attracts that sort of supporter.

There's not a penny's worth of difference between "bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran" McCain and "we will obliterate Iran" Clinton.

Both are genocidal scum willing to kill millions of people for war and oil profits and money and power.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | June 7, 2008 6:19 AM

CSS,

In other words, McCain hates war, but he loves the personal and national glory he associates with war.

Posted by DTM | June 7, 2008 6:38 AM

" . . . feeling proud that he and America have the courage to take this terrible, [un]necessary, burden on themselves."

Fixed it.

Posted by Joel | June 7, 2008 7:49 AM

The mindless recitation of RNC talking points demonstrates clearly why Tim K can't be taken seriously. His inability to define my "mischaracterization" of McCain's service (adding dishonest platitudes on top of vague assertions does not, in fact, a refutation make) reminds all of us that he is, quite simply, not up to the challenge of debating even simple circus freaks.

What dishonored the service of the nearly 60,000 dead in Vietnam was that their country asked them to kill people without any honest national security reasons. Even in his incoherent rant Tim K still couldn't be bothered to define a rationale for John McCain's bomb dropping.

A million people died, and the right-wing-nuthouse is still unsatisfied with the bloodshed. That nuthouse includes John "more wars, more bombs, more death" McCain.

The evidence is clear, John McCain understands less about national security than Barak Obama.

Posted by Circus Freak | June 7, 2008 11:27 AM

I don't support John McCain, but I'm not so partisan and so ideological that I believe he is wrong on every issue and has not made a contribution to public service.

Posted by Tim K | June 7, 2008 11:53 AM

Circus Freak:

Most Americans do not see their service men and women as war criminals. That's the disconnect here. Risking your life in service of one's country is noble no matter the cause.

Posted by Tim K | June 7, 2008 12:18 PM

Putting aside for a moment whatever John McCain's actual principles are and policies will be, direct experience on the field is not always the best preparation for management. In sports, rarely are the best executives former players. For ever Joe Dumars, there is a Michael Jordan or worse, an Isiah Thomas. McCain's service as a POW and war vet is secondary as a qualification as commander in chief. Civilians have a different perspective to bring to the table, but it isn't as though they wouldn't have military advisors. Suggesting that Obama would do a better job is in no way disrespectful McCain's service.

Also, I want to be the anti-Kristol and point out that while serving in the military is an honorable way to serve your country, not everyone has the temperament to be successful in it. There are other equally honorable ways to serve the public interest.

Posted by Ethan | June 7, 2008 12:23 PM

That's nice Tim K. Unfortunately your statement is what we call a non-sequitur.

Come on Tim K, show that McCain's bomb dropping was in the service of a genuine national security issue. Barring that, show how he has demonstrated his understanding that the murder of a million Vietnamese was counter to the self-interest of the United States. Show that McCain has demonstrated even the vauguest understanding of national security beyond "bomb, bomb, bomb; bomb, bomb" anyone you imagine opposes you.

Posted by Circus Freak | June 7, 2008 12:26 PM

But he hates war only in the most proforma ways.

You know deep down he loves it as Patton loved it.

Or perhaps like all those VFW members who cheer every war and every rumor of war and love more than anything to attend the funerals of fallen soldiers. Flags waving, taps ringing out plaintively, and the emotional kick they get from their association with service and sacrifice.

Never mind that they are serving and sacrificing for a bunch of politicians. Forget that. There is simply no better way for many to achieve a profound emotional experience along with fostering a self image nobility than rooting for wars to keep the caskets comming.

Posted by rapier | June 7, 2008 12:29 PM

Circus Freak:

It is not for service men and women to decide what a genuine national security issue is. That's why we elect leaders through a Democratic process, and have the forceful and passionate political debates that we have. It wasn't for John McCain to decide that.

If President Barack Obama decided to send troops to Darfur would you want service men and women deserting because that wasn't a genuine national security issue?

Respect and admiration for service men and women should not be contingent of your - or anyone's - subjective political judgment.

Posted by Tim K | June 7, 2008 2:42 PM

"Respect and admiration for service men and women should not be contingent of your - or anyone's - subjective political judgment."

Young Timmy, this is hard for you, but you need to be quiet and listed to those with more experience than you.

The best way for us to show our respect and admiration for American service men and women is to bring them home alive and intact from the tragic mistake that is the current US military occupation of Iraq.

If you sincerely believe that our service men and women deserve our utmost respect and admiration, you will certainly agree that their lives should not be risked on futile missions. The US military occupation of Iraq was based on lies, and is continued on more lies. It is not making Americans more secure now. There is not an atom of evidence that it is making America more secure in the future.

Posted by Joel | June 7, 2008 4:41 PM

Joel:

Dear Joey,

Concern for the lives of American service men and women is more than a catch-phrase that can be used to disguise a thinly veiled knee-jerk anti-war ideology. Invading Iraq was a grave strategic error by the Bush administration, but withdrawing military forces now would be an equally awful mistake. While Senator Clinton and Obama are both correct that there is no military solution, there is also no solution that does not include the US military. And while I'm also open to discussion about troop withdraws contingent on progress on the ground in Iraq, I am totally opposed to unconditional withdrawal irrespective of success.

Posted by Tim K | June 7, 2008 5:12 PM

Oddly, even now, as he implicitly admits defeat on the national security implications of murdering a million Vietnamese nationals, Tim K cannot articulate anything resembling a valid reason for John McCain's bombing runs beyond "politicians said so."

But really, what is one to make of Tim K's argument? Someone who fights for a nation, no matter how debased the cause, no matter how sickening the results, that person is automatically noble. For Tim K, military service is a kind of Special Olympics "everyone is a winner." One wonders if he grants the same easy dispensation to the North Vietnamese, and if not, how he justifies it. After all: "Risking your life in service of one's country is noble no matter the cause."

Posted by Circus Freak | June 7, 2008 5:28 PM

Tim K: "Most Americans do not see their service men and women as war criminals. That's the disconnect here. Risking your life in service of one's country is noble no matter the cause."

No, it isn't. It's stupid.

And most Americans are as moronic as you are. Especially those Americans who enter military service and risk their lives in places they don't know for reasons they don't know on orders of people they don't know whose motivations they don't know.

That's a bundle of ignorance that gets one deservedly killed.

It's called being "cannon fodder".

But McCain was never "cannon fodder". He was a pilot whose odds of being killed were rather less than if he were slogging through a jungle. Not to mention being a privileged member of a military family who were used to sending other people to die. Not to mention being a war criminal who bombed civilians.

This fucktard has no legitimacy whatsoever to be talking about war.

And neither do you.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | June 7, 2008 5:30 PM

Circus Freak:

Do you have a strategy for winning this election beyond dissing veterans and defending the North Vietnamese? Talk about 'out of touch.'

Posted by Tim K | June 7, 2008 7:13 PM

Tim K, this is your defense of John McCain's record of incompetence and malice on national security? To tell everyone that his service record makes him untouchable but that discussing the details of his service record make one "out of touch"?

I am forced to ask though, do you really think you can win arguments by simply lying about what others say? Given your inability to support your statements I guess that's the only thing left to you.

Let's try this again, you said "Risking your life in service of one's country is noble no matter the cause." This is an absolute statement. I want to emphasize two points: 1) you don't restrict the nation in question and 2) you explicitly reject the notion of taking the validity of the cause into account. While I pointed out the logical conclusion of your statement, it was you who argued that the Vietnamese soldiers were noble.

Posted by Circus Freak | June 7, 2008 8:28 PM

Circus Freak:

You brought up Vietnam, you brought up the Viet Cong being morally equivalent to US service men, you implied that John McCain was some kind of war criminal for flying sorties in Vietnam. Those were your statements, and I was simply making the point that they are not sentiments - either in tone or substance - that would be shared by the vast majority of the American people. Most Americans, whether they agreed with the Vietnam war or not, and whether they agree with having invaded Iraq or not, have nothing but the utmost respect and admiration for US service men and women of this war and all past wars. Volunteering to defend your country is noble, and it is not service men who decide where they will serve.

Posted by Tim K | June 7, 2008 11:23 PM

It wasn't me that "brought up Vietnam;" I'm afraid you are confused. Your first comment was, "[John McCain] has served his country in war and been tortured." Were you, perhaps talking about some other war where John McCain was tortured? Otherwise your comment "brings up Vietnam" and McCain's history of dropping bombs in a war where you still have suggested neither a national security nor humanitarian reason for his murders.

It also wasn't my statement that "Risking your life in service of one's country is noble no matter the cause." That was yours. You are welcome to reject it and admit that it was a stupid thing to say, but you are not welcome to merely pretend that it doesn't make every soldier noble - no matter how debased the reason they are in the battlefield. Make a choice - were you stupid for saying it, or are you stupid for being unable to accept the implications of what you said?

The problem you have is that you want to use the Vietnam War without having to admit that, like Bush's War On Iraq, it was a nightmare and that those who fought in it were abused by the political leadership.

While it may be true that plenty of Americans are so stupid as to believe "I was only following orders" is a valid defense for slaughtering civilians, we fought a war against such a sickening premise. We also fought a war against the unprovoked assault of innocent nations. These may have been forgotten, but these are truly American values. You may not think these are noble values, but that just makes you a thug and a particularly morally corrupt one at that.

What dishonors John McCain's service is his failure to recognize that he was fighting for no purpose greater than the vanity of old men, like the current John McCain, who love war because it feeds their vanity and they are safe from its effects.

Posted by Circus Freak | June 8, 2008 1:15 AM

Is anyone else noticing how the McCain campaign keeps putting a shadow on the left side of his face to hide his cancer scars? I guess they don't want to feed any speculation about his health, but it seems like it has the potential to bring more attention to it when people start to take notice.

Posted by Howard | June 8, 2008 1:34 AM

Circus Freak:

Risking your life in service of one's country is noble no matter the cause. I just wanted to repeat that so there is no ambiguity. Service men and women do not have the privilege of choosing when and where they will be sent into battle. They do not even know if they will be sent into battle. That's what makes their service so courageous. The fact that you cannot bear to admire that kind of courage is troubling as well as shameful.

The underlying theme of your recent posts seem to be that America is fundamentally an imperialist power that has a history of launching aggressive wars without cause and slaughtering civilians indiscriminately. You also seem to feel that John McCain (and presumably John Kerry, Jim Webb and all of the other veterans of Vietnam) is a war criminal. If I have misinterpreted your world-view then please feel free to clarify your perspective on American military history.

I know this may come as a shock to you, but sometimes military force is necessary to defend America's interests, that of America's allies, and keeping the country safe.

Posted by Tim K | June 8, 2008 1:36 AM

"Risking your life in service of one's country is noble no matter the cause." Your repetition of this, without qualifications, confirms that you are saying that the North Vietnamese soldiers were noble. That the Iraqis who fight the American occupation are noble. That the Soviet soldiers who invaded Afghanistan were noble. That the German soldiers who invaded Poland were noble.

That's one sick and shameful philosophy you have there.

As to your inventive reading of my beliefs, please provide some support. It would be good if that support came from my words, rather than from your ass. Unfortunately for you, there is no such support.

There is also no support for the notion that John McCain's dropping bombs on the people of Vietnam served to "defend America's interests, that of America's allies, [or] keeping the country safe." You are welcome to defend this position, but you appear constitutionally incapable of defending any of your positions.

Posted by Circus Freak | June 8, 2008 2:02 AM

Circus Freak:

I don't hold any animus towards individual Iraqi insurgents or Taliban fighters in Afghanistan. I think we can all understand why people tend not to like foreign troops in their country. On an individual level anyone willing to risk their lives without any clear gain is admirable to me. That doesn't imply that the military strategy or objectives are noble, that's a separate issue.

The support for my interpretation of views is that you seem to think John McCain is some evil war-mongerer and the enemy. And that's just a totally warped world-view.

Posted by Tim K | June 8, 2008 2:14 AM

Wow, that's just one sick philosophy you have there Tim K. Here's a clue, fighting for evil is not noble. Fighting for no reason at all is not noble either. An inability to recognize, even forty years later, that you were fighting without cause demonstrates that you are too obtuse to be granted the status of national leader.

I base my view of John McCain as a warmonger on his support for pretty much every war and prospective war in sight. That's pretty much the definition of a warmonger.

As for him being "the enemy," whose enemy? I've never said any such thing. It's more bullshit you've created out of whole cloth.

Posted by Circus Freak | June 8, 2008 2:33 AM

What evil are you referring to?

Posted by Tim K | June 8, 2008 2:48 AM

You gave a pass to the Taliban and to the Nazis. Did you not read your text before hitting "post"?

Posted by Circus Freak | June 8, 2008 3:00 AM

Circus Freak:

German soldiers in WWII weren't all "Nazis" and all Afghan fighters aren't Taliban leaders or Al Qaeda. Talk about over-simplifying the situation.

Posted by Tim K | June 8, 2008 3:09 AM

I'm sorry, we've clearly come to the "Tim K demonstrates his total idiocy" portion of the debate. It doesn't matter if the people you are defending were Nazis or Taliban leaders. What matters is that they fought for evil causes.

You call those fighting for evil causes noble. That's stupid. Worse, you got yourself into the situation where you are required to claim nobility for those fighting for the Nazis are noble in an attempt to defend John McCain's warmongering.

I doubt John McCain would be proud of your equating his service with that of foot-soldiers for Ho Chi Minh.

Posted by Circus Freak | June 8, 2008 11:29 AM

It's not my fault you're incapability of detecting the subtlety of what I was arguing.

Posted by Tim K | June 8, 2008 2:36 PM