McCain sold out his integrity to the nutty Bush/Cheney Neocons a loooong time ago, he's not fooling anyone anymore.

WASHINGTON � Senator John McCain likes to present himself as the candidate of the "Straight Talk Express" who does not pander to voters or change his positions with the political breeze. But the fine print of his record in the Senate indicates that he has been a lot less consistent on some of his signature issues than he has presented himself to be so far in his presidential campaign.

Mr. McCain, who derided his onetime Republican competitor Mitt Romney for his political mutability, has himself meandered over the years from position to position on some topics, particularly as he has tried to court the conservatives who have long distrusted him. His most striking turnaround has been on the Bush tax cuts, which he voted against twice but now wants to make permanent. Mr. McCain has also expressed varying positions on immigration, torture, abortion and Donald H. Rumsfeld, the former defense secretary.

The article points out that McCain has reversed course on several key issues as he has tried to gain the support of the Republican Neocon base. To summarize the article:

On tax cuts...

In 2001, McCain voted against Bush's tax cuts, saying "I cannot in good conscience support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us, at the expense of middle-class Americans who most need tax relief." He also voted against additional tax cuts in 2003, later saying that "I just thought it was too tilted to the wealthy, and I still do."
Today, McCain wants to make those tax cuts permanent.

On immigration...

In 2005, McCain supported comprehensive immigration reform, which included a pathway to citizenship.
Now, he claims that "if his original proposal came to a vote on the Senate floor, he would not vote for it."

On abortion and Roe v. Wade...

In 1999, McCain said that he would not support overturning Roe v. Wafe "int he sort term, or even the long term," because that would "force X number of women in America" to undergo "illegal and dangerous operations."
Today, McCain has campaigned on overturning Roe v. Wade.

On his revisionist history regarding Donald Rumsfeld...

In 2004, McCain refused to call for Rumsfeld's resignation, saying that Bush "can have the team around him that he wants around him." In 2006, retired generals called for Rumseld's resignation, but McCain did not.
Now, while running for president, McCain has claimed that "I�m the only one that said that Rumsfeld had to go." The article notes that "[t]he campaign has since acknowledged that Mr. McCain was incorrect, and more recently the senator has stopped short of claiming he called for the defense secretary�s ouster."

On torture...

McCain has traditionally been against torture, citing his experience as a POW for his decision.
Now, McCain voted last month "against a bill that would require the Central Intelligence Agency to abide by the restrictions on interrogating prisoners outlined in the Army Field Manual."

In his decades in office, McCain has an average party unity score in the low 80s. Since he has campaigned for president, his party unity score has skyrocketed (link, link).

2005: 81%
2006: 76%
2007: 90%

It's refreshing to see members of the press taking a closer look at John McCain's disparate record instead of taking his "maverickness" at face value. And while it was expected that McCain would pander to the right to get the GOP nomination, the sharp turns on the "Straight Talk Express" listed above are sure to be a problem for him in the general election.

McCain on war:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0nqtL-P8kzo

McCain on the economy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tu-tg1kQ8dk

"Do not yield, do not flinch, stand up,'' McCain says in the ad where Churchill's words meld into McCain's and McCain's meld into Teddy Roosevelt's.

LOL!

I've got nothing.

That's too funny to even comment on.

Thanks, Demos. That dance by President Bush was delightful and demonstrates what a fun guy he is. Oh, didn't Bama do a dance recently? But, I forgot, he is the untouchable. Anyway, go to it Mr. President. A little humor is welcome in this liberal landscape of doom and gloom.

The McCain Web-ad opens with Winston Churchill: "We will fight on the beaches... We shall fight in the hills. We shall never surrender.''

"Do not yield, do not flinch, stand up,'' McCain says in the ad where Churchill's words meld into McCain's and McCain's meld into Teddy Roosevelt's. "We're Americans. We will never surrender. They will.''

I guess that say's it all.

Ideas from the 1940s and a reference to fighting a military war when even the military themselves stress that in the long run it is not the answer. I hope John McCain realizes soon that we are living in the 21st century!!!

Jeff before you get in a snit remember I do like McCain in spite of myself. (Hahaha)

Anyway for some real solutions Jeff please pass these along to Mr McCain.

“Attempting to destroy terrorist networks is ultimately meaningless unless we can replace them with something better.

We must replace an ideology of hatred with an ideology of hope,” Crumpton (Ambassador-at-Large for Counterterrorism Henry A. Crumpton)
told participants at the 2006 International Counterterrorism Conference in Washington.

In his speech, the ambassador addressed many of the same points he had raised in congressional testimony earlier in April. (See related article.)

Although governments can use diplomacy and military operations to eliminate safe havens for terrorists and bring their leaders to justice, Crumpton said, the private sector is essential for promoting economic development and the rule of law through trade, training and investment in areas where terrorists seek to “make local conflicts their own” by exploiting historical, political and economic grievances.

Crumpton highlighted several effective public-private counterterrorism partnerships including:

• The Overseas Security Advisory Council, an advisory committee of 3,500 member organizations worldwide which promote security cooperation between American business and private sector interests worldwide;

• The Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism, through which 5,800 U.S. businesses are working to upgrade security in the global supply chain;

• Businesses Building Bridges, an initiative to support Afghanistan’s development by forging relationships between American and Afghan businesses; and

• The Russian Federation’s effort to host an ongoing dialogue among governments, businesses and civil society on ways to fight terrorism.

“The private sector offers enormous potential, such as economic might and efficiencies reflected in fast and flexible responses to market and security conditions. We need to find better ways to harness this power, to aim this energy at the enemy,” Crumpton said.

http://usinfo.state.gov/dhr/Archive/2006/Jun/07-159323.html

http://fpolicy.america.gov/fpolicy/security/counterterrorism.html

For the past five years, U.S. Army and Marine Corps officers have been operating in highly complex combat environments in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Uniformed decisionmakers realized early on that these wars required a wide array of skill sets and areas of expertise beyond those traditionally taught to junior officers. Army chief of staff Gen. Peter Schoomaker has stressed the need for a new kind of Army leader "skilled in governance, statesmanship, and diplomacy" and able to understand and work within different cultural contexts. The question, then, is to what extent the education given to future ground component officers at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point and the U.S. Naval Academy at Annapolis is working to produce such leaders. Specifically, to what extent are the traditional engineering-based curricula at the nation's service academies producing leaders with the requisite language and cultural skills necessary to be effective officers on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan?

http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC05.php?CID=2559

The US-led and British-backed war on terror is only fuelling more violence by focusing on military solutions rather than on root causes, a think tank warned Wednesday.”The ‘war on terror’ is failing and actually increasing the likelihood of more terrorist attacks,” the Oxford Research Group said in its study, titled “Beyond Terror: The Truth About The Real Threats To Our World.”

It said Britain and the United States have used military might to try to “keep the lid on” problems rather than trying to uproot the causes of terrorism.

It said such an approach, particularly the 2003 invasion of Iraq, had actually heightened the risk of further terrorist atrocities on the scale of September 11, 2001.

“Treating Iraq as part of the war on terror only spawned new terror in the region and created a combat training zone for jihadists,” the report’s authors argued.

It pointed out that the Islamist Taliban movement is now resurgent, six years after it was overthrown in 2001 by the US-led invasion in the wake of the September 11 attacks.

“Sustainable approaches” to fighting terrorism would involve the withdrawal of US-led forces from Iraq and their replacement with a United Nations stabilisation force, it said.

It also recommended the provision of sustained aid for rebuilding and developing Iraq and Afghanistan as well as closing the US prison camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where most suspects are held without charge or trial.

And it called for a “genuine commitment to a viable two-state solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.”

The study warned that military intervention in Iran over its nuclear ambitions would be “disastrous,” calling instead for a firm and public commitment to a diplomatic solution.

Iran insists the programme is peaceful, despite claims from Washington that it masks a drive for nuclear weapons.

The study also said the British government’s plans to upgrade the submarine-based Trident nuclear deterrent could produce international instability.

“Nuclear weapon modernisation is likely to serve as a substantial encouragement to nuclear proliferation as countries with perceptions of vulnerability deem it necessary to develop their own deterrent capabilities,” it said.

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/04/11/466/

Chinese military hackers have prepared a detailed plan to disable America’s aircraft battle carrier fleet with a devastating cyber attack, according to a Pentagon report obtained by The Times.

The blueprint for such an assault, drawn up by two hackers working for the People’s Liberation Army (PLA), is part of an aggressive push by Beijing to achieve “electronic dominance” over each of its global rivals by 2050, particularly the US, Britain, Russia and South Korea.

China’s ambitions extend to crippling an enemy’s financial, military and communications capabilities early in a conflict, according to military documents and generals’ speeches that are being analysed by US intelligence officials. Describing what is in effect a new arms race, a Pentagon assessment states that China’s military regards offensive computer operations as “critical to seize the initiative” in the first stage of a war.

http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/the_web/article2409865.ece

After two years of steady violence, a new Army War College analysis concludes that, instead of fighting a ragtag army, American troops in Iraq are dealing with an enemy that more closely resembles sophisticated, violent street gangs, similar to powerful Central American groups spawned more than a decade ago in Los Angeles.

Challenging the conventional approach of the US military and its allies of relying on firepower to defeat guerrillas, the study argues that the current anti-insurgent strategy can't succeed without tough police work and social programs addressing the root causes of street conflict -- poverty, injustice, repression, lack of opportunity.

''We traditionally think of insurgency as primarily a military activity, and we think of gangs as a simple law enforcement problem," according to the study by Max Manwaring, a professor of military strategy. ''Yet insurgents and gangs are engaged in a highly complex political act: political war."

http://www.boston.com/news/world/articles/2005/03/23/in_iraq_army_takes_lesson_from_a_us_battle/

Mr. Bush is the most dangerous terrorist this country has ever had, but with his uncontolled temper flares and hasty decisions Mr. McCain may well be far worse than Mr. Bush.

We face today nothing even remotely similar to what Britain faced in 1939-40.
Not even close.

Our national survival is not even a little bit threatened. We do not have an obsolete, under prepared military.

But you know what? We could probably whip the terrorist here, in our own hedgerows, our own beaches.

I know... It's hard to figure out to the looney left that fighting a terrorist war takes more than a computer keyboard.

The Neville Chamberlain's at 'The Swamp' will go by the wayside .... leave this war up to real men!

....and I don't mean Barack "Hussein" Obama or ....

Paulo

"... leave this war up to real men!"

The ones like you Paolo, who courageously persevere despite the risk of carpal tunnel? Who heroically type nonsense without fail? Who suffer and sacrifice to support the war by spending $1.99 on a "support the troops" magnet? You can rest assured that we're eternally grateful you're a GOP supporter.

And there's no liberal media conspiracy? Right!

I'm not a McCain supporter. I support Libertarian Wayne Root for President. But c'mon guys. You had to run the McCain ad with another YouTube video making fun of McCain?

Wonder if you would have done the same to Hillary or Hussein Obama?

All's fair. If you're going to do this to McCain, I'll expect the next time we see a positive video here of BHO or the Hill, it will be accompanied by a YouTube video from Newsbusters, or Michelle Malkin, or some other conservative or libertarian Blogger making fun of them.

Please..McBush is no Churchill.
Maybe more like.......
Venimus, Vidimus, Vicimus.

The Neville Chamberlain's at 'The Swamp' will go by the wayside .... leave this war up to real men!

....and I don't mean Barack "Hussein" Obama or ....

Paulo

Posted by: Paulo | March 8, 2008 10:09 PM

Whatever you say Paula.

Posted by: April | March 8, 2008 5:14 PM

"Fight them there or fight them here."

That's the real doom and gloom. Republicans don't want peace. They live for confrontation. They are the real party of "defeat", because the terrorists have gotten them to turn their backs on the constituion and the freedoms and principles America should believe in.

"Fight them there or fight them here."

That's the real doom and gloom. Republicans don't want peace. They live for confrontation. They are the real party of "defeat", because the terrorists have gotten them to turn their backs on the constituion and the freedoms and principles America should believe in.

Posted by: syj | March 10, 2008 10:12 AM

How true. Never allow the always fight your battles at a time and place of your choosing. The Bush admonistration and the GOP have let the terrorists dictate the rules of engagement from day one. They have conducted this so called war in the most haphazard and reckless way possible. I really believe Iraq is a huge money scheme. A boondoggle or at best an excuse to establish a military footprint in the Middle East. Either way it is an illegal war in many ways. That said we are where we are.