A DIFFERING VIEW: McCain exemplifies the true American story
Dennis L. Ruffin
Tuesday, July 8, 2008
Has the editorial board of the Rocky Mountain News no shame? The July 4 editorial "Only in America" is a thinly veiled endorsement of Barack Obama, whose total accomplishment warranting such praise was being born half-black. Does that mean America has fulfilled only 50 percent of the promise of the Declaration of Independence?
The feeble editorial never mentions John McCain, who has actually accomplished something in his life. He suffered nearly fatal injuries at the hands of a foreign enemy while being held as a prisoner of war for more than five years.
McCain's sacrifices - along with those of thousands of other veterans defending this country and its Constitution while fulfilling the promise of the Declaration - have allowed people like Barack Obama to realize America's dream.
Obama, on the other hand, willingly accepts those sacrifices, while making few, if any, of his own, and finds a fawning media, on their collective knees, touting his meager accomplishments.
Dennis L. Ruffin is a resident of Littleton.
Post your comment
Registration is required. Click here to create your free user account, or login below.
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.
July 8, 2008
1:19 a.m.
Suggest removal
clyde writes:
Obama is the "Messiah", the Rock Star, the Celebrity, and the Savior. He is a media invention, no more qualified to lead America than my dog, but he has garnered the favor of the press, mostly becuase he is mixed-race and can utter a sentence without pissing off half of the citizens of this good country. He is the ultimate empty suit, with neither qualifications nor background, but with the backing of the media, the lemmings will flock to his side, hoping for change, but getting another Chicago political hack instead. I am sore tempted to vote for him, just to hasten his house of cards collapse, but can't because self-destruction is against my moral code, which is a thing that Demonrats can't comprehend.
July 8, 2008
1:54 a.m.
Suggest removal
RememberThis writes:
Both Obama and McCain are just little dolls in this big string pulled world we inhabit.
July 8, 2008
2:42 a.m.
Suggest removal
paperboy_80110 writes:
You are all morons who probably don't vote anyway, especially you Ruffin.
Wimps like you always talk tough about so and so sacrificing such and such for the freedoms of people who don't appreciate or deserve them. The opposite is true: You, in fact, do not understand or appreciate freedom, and like William Munny said, "Deserve ain't got nothin' to do with it."
July 8, 2008
6:55 a.m.
Suggest removal
stevea writes:
Wouldn't it be nice if we all took a deep breath or six and remembered that North Viet Nam was not "a foreign enemy" from whom the United States needed protection. It was a political enemy, and never a threat to the US.
John McCain, hero though he was, along with the thousands of others who fought and died, did nothing to protect Barack Obama or you or me or the Constitution from anything. They did their duty as members of the military, obeying the civilian government.
Nothing they did has anything to do with allowing anyone "to realize the American dream".
Rhetoric about "heroism" serves only to fill blank space when talking about politicians. Nothing in McCain's Military Record qualifies him to be president.
Nothing in Obama's Whole Life Record qualifies him to be president.
July 8, 2008
7:51 a.m.
Suggest removal
Charles_B writes:
McCain's been on the government dole his entire life (before switching to the sugar-mamma dole).
I respect and admire his military service, but it doesn't suggest in any way that he has the judgment to be president.
Take a look at his prognostications over the years regarding Iraq. He's been dead wrong on every count, whereas Obama showed early on that he understood the potential pitfalls of an attack on Iraq.
Here he is *before* the war weighing in with prescience and good judgment on the question of invading:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhpKmQ...
July 8, 2008
7:51 a.m.
Suggest removal
castafiore writes:
How silly to say that good soldier Schweik should be rewarded with the presidency. Why should a war "hero" be an automatic president? Is it a reward? I see no good arguments in this letter for what a McCain presidency would do for me....other than "the alternative is worse". How depressing if this is as good as it gets, how hopeless.
July 8, 2008
7:54 a.m.
Suggest removal
SheikYurBooty writes:
Someone has to say it - getting shot down is not an "accomplishment."
It is amazing however how many Obamaphobes see him as a "Messiah" or "Rock star."
July 8, 2008
8:43 a.m.
Suggest removal
KaySieverding writes:
We will be electing a team. Not just two people but either Republicans or Democrats.
Being president isn't a reward.
One important aspect of being president is the nation's image. We are basically electing a position statement and a logo. In McCain, we have an old white guy married to an heiress. How does that play with most people in the world? In Obama, we have an image of a new generation with a bi-racial background who benefited from the best of American opportunities, who is proven to be really smart, and who is married and faithful to a woman from a poor family. To me, Obama's image of opportunity in American based on intellectual capability and hard work is fantastic. Getting into and graduating from Harvard Law School is really difficult and reportedly he did very well there. McCain probably could not have done as well there. Obama must be a fast reader with high comprehension skills. If you were working with Obama, he would probably show up early, work long, and be totally impressive at all times. I love his image as a family man and I think that is an image that will inspire other people. Michelle has an up from poverty story too. I'd like to see more press about Michelle's parents and their hard work for their kids' education. Are they still alive and healthy?
July 8, 2008
9:05 a.m.
Suggest removal
cs writes:
The constant declaration of Obama supporters touting his "charisma, age, and promise of change" is nothing short of frightening. The constant comparison of his age (versus John McCain's old guy image) is irritating to say the least. Charisma might be a big factor in the success of a movie star but certainly should never be a factor in choosing the leader of our country. The younger generation seems to be supporting Obama solely on these factors. I've heard over and over that John McCain will insure four more years of Bush policies. John McCain has opposed much of Bush's policies more than supported them. I'm afraid that "charisma" may get us into more trouble than we are already dealing with. Experience means much more to me and Obama just doesn't have it yet. Sometimes I wonder if the goal of being the first black president and making history is not the primary goal of Obama. One can only wonder.....
July 8, 2008
9:19 a.m.
Suggest removal
T1anda writes:
You nailed it cs!! Good post!!
Vote SANE vote McCain!!
July 8, 2008
9:29 a.m.
Suggest removal
CheapEnergyNow writes:
The only thing good about an Obama presidency will be the Jimmy Carter affect. After Jimmy we got Ronald Reagan. Obama will be 4 and out and we can get a real conservative that makes the country great again. Of course that assumes that we don't lose our right to vote or our freedom of speech under Obama.
July 8, 2008
9:39 a.m.
Suggest removal
davis_x_machina writes:
Once more a good number of the posts here remind me that Winston Churchill that sometime darling of the wingnuts was correct when he said:" The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter"
If only one of the stay the course with bush-lite mcinane fluffers would provide us with a list of mcinane's legislative accomplishments I might lend some more credence to their arguments.As it is a legacy appointment as the son and grandson of navy admirals to canoe U where he finished 5th from the bottom of his class and then crashed several planes en route to his date with a missile while bombing Hanoi and a stay as the POW songbird in the Hanoi Hilton says little about any qualification to be president.Nor does a senate career bought with his trophy second wife's beer money.
July 8, 2008
9:49 a.m.
Suggest removal
T1anda writes:
davis X would you PLEASE list Obama's experience AND qualifications to become POTUS!! THIS should be good!!
July 8, 2008
10 a.m.
Suggest removal
zivo24 writes:
Yep, McCain is the "true American story", at least the republican version of one.
He cheated on his first wife, the woman who waited for him while he was a POW. The military, for some reason, never considered his conduct "unbecoming of an officer" even though adultery is listed in their code of justice.
He was officially admonished by his colleagues in the senate for "questionable judgement" for taking millions of dollars in campaign contributions and more than 10 luxury personal vacations from Charles Keating in exchange for his influencing the investigation into Keating's actions in the Lincoln Savings and Loan debacle that ended up costing taxpayers more than $3 BILLION dollars.
Yep, he's the perfect picture of the REPUBLICAN true american story..a self centered, hypocritical cheater and greedy liar.
July 8, 2008
10:01 a.m.
Suggest removal
Bookem writes:
davis_x_machina...
"If only one of the stay the course with bush-lite mcinane fluffers would provide us with a list of mcinane's legislative accomplishments I might lend some more credence to their arguments."
And the extensive, truely remarkable list of Obama's 'legislative accomplishments' is....?
July 8, 2008
10:12 a.m.
Suggest removal
Ofearghail writes:
>>KaySieverding writes:
...In Obama, we have an image of a new generation with a biracial background who benefited from the best of American opportunities... To me, Obama's image of opportunity in American based on intellectual capability and hard work is fantastic... I love his image as a family man and I think that is an image that will inspire other people. <<
What are we electing? A carefully crafted "image" or the nation's leader for the next four or eight years? Obama's "image" is totally manufactured, and you have apparently bought into it completely. He has no experience and is totally unqualified for the job. The past eight years of a doofus president have been bad enough, but the prospect of more time under one who is not only a doofus, but a socialist as well, is just too much to swallow. If that man becomes president, our current decline will seem like nothing compared to the freefall we will experience.
July 8, 2008
10:18 a.m.
Suggest removal
CheapEnergyNow writes:
Forward69,
Do a Web search "Carter is an idiot". The first site listed on MSN engine is
http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/pre...
Were a grown-up when Carter was in office? He was and will remain the worst president in history, including the jerk that is in there now. Reagan, unlike, Obama had a true warmth and intelligence. He ran the state of California (executive experience) and brought down the Soviet Union. He had real communication skills, not like Obama. When Obama is not reading a prepared speech, he makes Bush seem eloquent.
Inflation was out of control under Carter. Interest rates were in the high teens. The US military for the first time in history was reduced to a laughing stock. He installed price controls that made the problems worse. I am hard pressed to think of one thing he did right. Reagan lived the dream and delivered the dream that Obama is trying to sell right now. The difference is you knew that Reagan actually believed what he said. He didn't flip flop for votes. Obama for faith based initiatives. Obama to re think the war in Iraq. Obama has finally seen fit to leave his racist church. Obama and public campaign finance. Obama blasts MoveOn for Petrraus comments. Will the real BHO please stand up?
July 8, 2008
10:27 a.m.
Suggest removal
Tbone writes:
Here is just a few of the bills Obama has had a hand in (I would expect neocons to totally ignore this post):
The Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act
Introduced by Sen. John McCain in May 2005, and cosponsored by Sen. Edward Kennedy. Barack Obama added three amendments to this bill.
The Lugar-Obama Cooperative Threat Reduction.
Introduced by Sen. Barack Obama, Sen. D!ck Lugar and Sen. Tom Coburn.
First introduced in November 2005 and enacted in 2007, this bill expanded upon the successful Nunn-Lugar threat reduction, which helped secure weapons of mass destruction and related infrastructure in former Soviet Union states.
Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006
This act of Congress, introduced by Senators Obama and Coburn, required the full disclosure of all entities or organizations receiving federal funds in FY2007.
Democratic Republic of the Congo Relief, Security, and Democracy Promotion Act
Honest Leadership and Open Government Act
In the first month of the 110th Congress, Obama worked with Sen. Russ Feingold to pass this law, which amends and strengthens the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995.
The House passed the bill, 411-8, on July 31. The Senate approved it, 83-14, on Aug. 2. At the time, Obama called it "the most sweeping ethics reform since Watergate."
Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Prevention Act
Following the Republican-sponsored voter intimidation tactics seen in mostly black counties in Maryland during the 2006 midterm elections, Obama worked with Sen. Chuck Schumer to introduce this bill.
The Obama-McCain Climate Change Reduction Bill
The Obama-McCain bill, which is co-sponsored by Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., would cut emissions by two-thirds by 2050.
July 8, 2008
10:28 a.m.
Suggest removal
Tbone writes:
...continued...
Iraq War De-Escalation Act of 2007
Introduced by Obama, this binding act would stop the planned troop increase of 21,500 in Iraq, and would also begin a phased redeployment of troops from Iraq with the goal of removing all combat forces by March 31, 2008.
Amendments to the 2008 Defense Authorization Bill
Obama worked with Sen. Kit Bond to limit, through this bill, the Pentagon’s use of personality disorder discharges in the FY 2008 Defense Authorization bill.
This provision would add additional safeguards to discharge procedures and require a thorough review by the Government Accountability Office. This followed news reports that the Pentagon inappropriately used these procedures to discharge service members with service-connected psychological injuries.
The Comprehensive Nuclear Threat Reduction provision
Working with Sen. Hagel and Rep. Adam Schiff, Obama authored this provision, which would require the president to develop a comprehensive plan for ensuring that all nuclear weapons and weapons-usable material at vulnerable sites around the world are secure by 2012 from the threats that terrorists have shown they can pose.
A provision from the Obama-Hagel bill was passed by Congress in December 2007 as an amendment to the State-Foreign Operations appropriations bill.
"It is imperative that we build and sustain a truly global effort under an aggressive timeline to secure, consolidate, and reduce stockpiles of nuclear weapons and weapons-usable material to keep them out of the wrong hands. The comprehensive nuclear threat reduction plan required by this provision is an important step in that effort," Obama said of the provision.
July 8, 2008
11:04 a.m.
Suggest removal
mark79trans writes:
Gene writes:
. . whoa, when did Jimmy Carter get the hostages out of Iran??????????????????????????????????????
Gene writes:
. . whoa, when did Jimmy Carter keep us out of an economic mess. ???????????????????????????????????????
_______________________________
It looks like Forward69 was hitting the sauce a little heavy. The two biggest issues that led to Carter's defeat (hostages and the economy), and they are being hailed as accomplishments...this is a joke right? Although, the administration of Jimmy "the peanut" Carter and an administration by Obama won't be a whole lot different.
Maybe if we give Hezbollah a big hug, burn a few candles, and sing Kum bah Yah (substitute Allah) it will all go away!
This guy is simply saying that McCain is a Commander and Chief and Obama is nothing close...I totally agree!!!
July 8, 2008
11:05 a.m.
Suggest removal
zivo24 writes:
Great job, T-bone...
It would be so easy for any of these Obama-haters to just look up his legislative record by doing a simple search..but that would defeat their agenda.
They want to remain ignorant and hope others will just buy the lies they print instead of bothering to do a little reseach, too.
To be fair, McCain has sponsored a great deal of legislation during his career. I don't necessarily agree with everything he's done but I respect that he has been active.
I used to think that McCain would be the one republican that I might vote for if I didn't like the democratic candidate.
I can no longer, in good conscience, even consider that.
When I consider the duplicity of republicans..the way harrassed Clinton over his extra-marital affair and then ignore the fact that McCain, among others, has done the same.
They question Obama's judgement for staying in a church whose pastor said some controversial things but you never hear them addressing the fact that McCain was a member of the infamous Keating Five and was officially admonished by the senate for his actions.
They railed about Kerry being a flip-flopper but ignore the fact that McCain pretty much leans whichever way is going to get him more votes. When he was running against Huckabee for the nomination, he eschewed the religious right as extremists. Now he's kowtowing to them.
I used to respect McCain as one of the few republicans who put our country before his party. Now I see that McCain puts himself before our country.
July 8, 2008
11:08 a.m.
Suggest removal
zivo24 writes:
And you could all use a little review of history.
Jimmy Carter DID secure the release of the hostages in Iran.
The agreement to release them was secured while Carter was president but they weren't released, as an affront to Carter, until minutes after Reagan took office.
July 8, 2008
11:14 a.m.
Suggest removal
temurlan writes:
Froward69
Reagan got the hostages out. Carter launched a disasterous attempt that failed.
Carters economic policies destroyed the economy. Reagan's policies created an economic boom that lasted long enough for Clinton to ride and take credit for.
July 8, 2008
11:16 a.m.
Suggest removal
sunshinestate writes:
I have a friend, life long Republican, who knew McCain personally,worked side by side,while in the Navy at Jacksonville Florida/Cecil Field. This friend now announces he will vote "D" for the first time..................
July 8, 2008
11:18 a.m.
Suggest removal
temurlan writes:
zivo24,
They kept the hostages while carter was in office because he was weak and it humiliated the US.
They released them when Reagan hit office because they knew a new sheriff was in town and he was not going to put up with the situation. He got them out by just showing up.
July 8, 2008
11:25 a.m.
Suggest removal
mark79trans writes:
zivo24,
Jimmy Carter DID secure the release of the hostages in Iran.
-----------------------------
Lets see, Carter proceeded with the ill-fated Operation Eagle Claw. ...a military disaster by someone as ignorant as Carter and his advisors. Iraq finally invaded Iran so Iran had bigger fish to fry. Iran released the hostages after Reagan took office as an in-your-face gesture to Carter. Carter's popularity plummeted during the 444 day crises where everything he said or did was a failure.
...oh yes, he got them out alright!
July 8, 2008
12:42 p.m.
Suggest removal
Tbone writes:
Reagan....isn't he the guy that gave arms to Iran?
Heckuva job, reagan. Way to go, appeasing those terrorists.
Why is it that he is such a saint, anyways?
negoiated with terrorists....I thought the neocons hated that?
July 8, 2008
1 p.m.
Suggest removal
AndyB588 writes:
McCain does exemplifies the American story!
You don't have to have brains if you can marry into money!
And trading the old wife for a newer younger richer model is something most American men can only dream of doing.
Go McCain. So what if he think's she's a c#nt.. Only a real man would have the guts to call his wife that in public.
July 8, 2008
1:15 p.m.
Suggest removal
mark79trans writes:
Tbone writes:
Reagan....isn't he the guy that gave arms to Iran?
Heckuva job, Reagan. Way to go, appeasing those terrorists.
Why is it that he is such a saint, anyways?
negotiated with terrorists....I thought the neocons hated that?
---------------------
You are a little out of touch. The US under the Reagan administration perceived a possible breach in the balance of power in the Middle East given the problems with Iran less then a decade after the Yom Kippur War, which ended the major armed conflict against Israel. In other words, could Iran be a unifying force in the Middle East? ...what did Iran's alliance with the Soviet Union mean for control over Gult oil supplies. The strategy provided assistance to Iraq not Iran as you wrote. The hope was to keep a balance of power, alliances, and oil supplies in the mid-east in check. This worked until the end of the decade when Iran was beat and Iraq looked toward other conquests...we all know the story of the Gulf War...I hope!
As for negotiating with terrorists. Reagan took an extremely hard line conventionally and through special forces against terrorists...many of which were bombed out or assassinated.
July 8, 2008
1:47 p.m.
Suggest removal
Tbone writes:
"Reagan took an extremely hard line conventionally and through special forces against terrorists...many of which were bombed out or assassinated."
Except for the terrorists that he gave weapons to, right, mark?
Oh...excuse me. Sold weapons to.
July 8, 2008
1:54 p.m.
Suggest removal
anarchist writes:
Froward, lies repeated loudly and long enough do not facts make, "reporting of fact, or anything that disagrees with your narrow view of the world." when did you begin using facts?
"Remember Carter won the Nobel peace prize, got the hostages out of Iran and had the vision to keep us out of the economic mess we are in now.", citing facts, when did jimmy accomplish the feat of having the hostages released, FACTS for a change please.
July 8, 2008
3:44 p.m.
Suggest removal
mark79trans writes:
Tbone writes:
"Reagan took an extremely hard line conventionally and through special forces against terrorists...many of which were bombed out or assassinated."
Except for the terrorists that he gave weapons to, right, mark?
Oh...excuse me. Sold weapons to.
--------------------------------------------------
Maybe you should look at it from a 1982 perspective instead of armchair quarterback it from 2008. The modern balance of power politics in the Middle East is a complete mess, and it was a mess long before either you or I were born...long before any living president. It doesn't matter which Mid-East ruler is backed by the US, it won't last just buy us time. International relations is extremely messy and our leaders must put the United States first. The US took a gamble on Iraq and it didn't work in the long run, but it did neutralize the Iranian threat of the time without any direct involvement from the US a common theame during the Cold War; Bush's 1991 UN garbage was a piss-poor response to Hussein's reversal. Those that think we can have a group hug are completely disillusioned. Perhaps you would like to sell out Israel and solve the problem that way. Although, it would actually make the problem worse in the long run. Perhaps you are not concerned about a Russia, China, Iranian, Syrian, Turkey present day alliance? and, the erosion of our NATO alliance. In any event, there is no right answer in that place only the strength or weakness of our leaders and our resolve. Nations will position themselves, in many instances against us, are we prepared? ...are we going to elect someone who will stand for our nation as his first priority? In conclusion, we were neck deep in the Cold War in 1982...this reality determined foreign policy of the time.
I have never been a McCain supporter. I am not much of a Republican supporter. However, McCain is the clear choice when compared to the alternative. McCain has a clear understanding of the problems we face and the impact of globalize good and bad.
July 8, 2008
3:54 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
"Reagan....isn't he the guy that gave arms to Iran?"
couldn't be...as he was also the guy who paved the way for providing iraq with wmds and armed and trained the taliban.
how could we still have folks who cheer the memory of reagan if he did these things?
http://www.progressnowaction.org/page...
"You have two choices. You can keep your sign here and receive a ticket for trespassing, or you can remove the sign and stay in line and attend this town hall meeting."
looks like mcsame isn't only like bush when it comes to policy stances...his attempts to stifle free speech are very similar as well.
July 8, 2008
4:16 p.m.
Suggest removal
mark79trans writes:
jay writes:
"Reagan....isn't he the guy that gave arms to Iran?"
couldn't be...as he was also the guy who paved the way for providing iraq with wmds and armed and trained the taliban.
how could we still have folks who cheer the memory of Reagan if he did these things?
----------------------------
We have already posted on the Iraq part. The Mujahiddin gorillas later to be called Taliban fought the Soviets in Afghanistan. As a nation we praised their gallant efforts in the 80s. Shoot, even the 80's Rambo franchise made a movie and saluted their efforts. Both Saddam Hussein and the Mujahiddin charted their own course after 1988. (actually, those that think peace can be achieved through a little good will may want to read up on what US support gets you with these two groups.)
Jay, for those of us who remember the 70s, the country was spiraling down hill fast. The 80s were a complete turnaround. Reagan was the only president since JFK who had any vision. I was thankful then to have him as a leader, and I am still thankful now.
July 8, 2008
4:29 p.m.
Suggest removal
Tbone writes:
So reagan gives arms to Iran, because they were fighting russia at the time.
He also gave WMD's to Iraq, because they were hostile to Iran at the time.
And how did all of that work out for us? Not so well.
But you rush to excuse reagan...why exactly? Because it was 1982, and hey, this foreign policy stuff is hard?
I have a feeling that if clinton had done something like this, the reaction from the right would be slightly different - not that you're necessarily a member of the right.
Oh yea, and this was rich:
"McCain has a clear understanding of the problems we face"
Mark, you are aware that mccain doesn't know the difference between sunni and shia, correct? And that he said he doesn't know much about the economy?
Seems like, for someone who is not a big mccain supporter, that water jug you carry for him is awful large.
July 8, 2008
4:54 p.m.
Suggest removal
mark79trans writes:
Tbone,
What the heck is a shia (some slang)? Or, are you referring to Shiite?
No, weapons were not given to Iran in 1982 or under the Iatola Komani (King Pahlavi (the Shah)) we did support but he was ousted before Reagan took office during the Carter watch.
No, WMD were not given to Iraq...yes, some economic aid.
Clinton's Bosnia Debacle, mess.
Clinton's Somalia Debacle, mess.
Clinton's mid-east policy. weak and non-committal. (Bush Senior) - not much better.
In 1989, the Cold War ended. Reagan's strategy worked. The USSR was bankrupted. After the cold war, we stuck our head in the sand...maybe we should have done something a little different in the 90s
In the 1980s, fuel prices went down. The economy rebounded and expanded. People went back to work.
McCain has his shortcomings, but not nearly as much as Obama...another election of the lesser of two evils. However, I refuse to pull out my pom poms with the media and chant change supporting a guy with no foreign relations knowledge or experience as a commander and chief. At least McCain has been there and has some clue about the issues abroad.
If you don't understand the collateral damage associated with foreign policy decisions, I am not going to waste my time explaining it to you. Maybe if you did understand, you would put more emphasis on this in the election.
July 8, 2008
5:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
Oliver2 writes:
McCain voted with the Republican leadership over 88% of the time in the current Congress, thus it is certainly not the case to say his positions differ from Bush's more than they concur. Of course he generally doesn't bother to show up so much anymore for his (taxpayer funded) day job, missing almost 2/3 of the votes this session. So much for fiscal conservative and taking care of taxpayers. Sounds more like graft to me.
July 8, 2008
5:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
BO writes:
Interesting how when looking back a Reagan's record, we are supposed to consider the era in which those things took place, yet Clinton can be blamed for everything that goes on now.
Iran Weapons- Terrorist nation (btw- the govt. of the Ayatollah Khomeini wasn't a real big fan of the USSR, either).
Iraq WMDs- Fighting Iran, yet Iraq was more aligned with the USSR (one of their major weapon suppliers).
What a clusterf%&#.
July 8, 2008
6:08 p.m.
Suggest removal
npclady writes:
John McCain has only one objective. He wants to win the VietNam war. He does not care who dies, is hurt, is damaged for life. This as been his goal since he got back. He has no more credibility as the President of the United States than does the Current Occupangt.
July 8, 2008
6:13 p.m.
Suggest removal
Oliver2 writes:
Cohen today in the Washington Post:
"Those of you with keen memories may recall that the energy crisis is not new. In 1977, Jimmy Carter called it the "moral equivalent of war." In the sort of speech a politician rarely delivers, he told a not-particularly-grateful nation that his energy program was going to hurt, but "a policy which does not ask for changes or sacrifices would not be an effective policy." The core of his initiative was conservation. Carter had earlier asked us to lower our thermostats and wear sweaters. He wore one himself.
"Reagan, who succeeded Carter in the White House, wore only a smile. For him, there was no energy crisis.
"...Yet today, Carter's speech reads as prescient. Most of his dire predictions -- "It is a problem we will not solve in the next few years, and it is likely to get progressively worse through the rest of this century" -- have generally come true, although not quite as soon or as calamitously as he had warned. The pity of it all is that in American politics, being right is beside the point."
PS-Most surveys of historians that I have seen place W. in a category of his own, far more 'worse' than Carter. THe same week that the Pew Research Center released a new poll that found Bush's approval rating at the lowest ever recorded, 28%, the History News Network released a poll of over 100 historians, in which 61% rated W. the worse ever.
One article on the poll concludes:
"Like a majority of other historians who participated in this poll, my conclusion is that the preponderance of the evidence now indicates that, while this nation has had at least its share of failed presidencies, no previous presidency was as large a failure in so many areas as the current one."
Under Historical rankings of presidents on Wikipedia, based on polls of Americans (rather than historians) W. still tops the list of the worse, whereas Carter does not (he does poll at 4th worse in one of the 12 presidents since WW2 with 13%; in this poll W got worse at 34% and not even Nixon at 2nd worse got above 17%, half of W's worse percentage.
By contrast, in numerous other polls, since 2000, Carter is often in the top 20 of best presidents (albeit generally around 13-15) whereas W. is not in the top 20 in any of those. So unless you mean the 'history according to you' I think you are off here.
The US sold weapons to both sides during the Iran/Iraq war, the former through the illegal Iran-Contra dealings out of the WH basement by convicted-felon (and Faux News commentator) Ollie North, and the latter including chemical weapons precursors in a deal arranged by war criminal Donald Rumsfeld, who more recently told us that he doubted the current Iraq War would last as long as six months.
July 8, 2008
7:16 p.m.
Suggest removal
KaySieverding writes:
IN 1980 I almost bought a Toyota Starlet. It was a 4 cylinder 4 door small car that supposedly got 52 mpg
July 8, 2008
8:23 p.m.
Suggest removal
Charles_B writes:
This says it all about Gene, Gene, the Ignorance Machine:
"Sorry, I never open anything you guys offer as your proofs"
July 8, 2008
8:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
Sweetpickle writes:
We all knew where the "angry white guy" vote was going before this "discussion". The real question is will the "fed up" voters actually go to the polls?
July 8, 2008
9:43 p.m.
Suggest removal
me2 writes:
Now this will be an interesting election for people who love cliches.
Will the Great White Hope beat the Change Man, will the Proof of the American Dream win? Will Family Man With Wife Born Into Poverty win?
We all have a history with McCain, remember The Keating Five?
McSame, Hussein, etc. Wow how clever we all are.
Wouldn`t mind hearing something funny or new, but we need a young, strong president who can stand up to the long hours and intense problems that will come on to them from Bush and Company.
Age matters this time, but so does knowledge of foreign affairs, and an ability to understand the Middle East, which the Republics surely do not have.