Comments on: McCain: "I Know What's Right For America"

GOP Presidential Hopeful Says He Is Happy With His Campaign's Performance

[brianbwb-2009]

"I''m the most qualified to take on the transcendent issue of the 21st century: radical Islamic extremism,"

Wrong, the "transcendent issue of the 21st century" is US government corruption, it is the catalyst for all the extremism existing today.

Because Mr. McCain chooses not to see and recognize this, he is only more of the problem...

[clestes-2009]

Continuing the war in Iraq is right for America??? I don''t think so and neither do most Americans either.

[lochlan-2009]

If McCaine knows what is best for this country than why is he running as a Republican. The whole party is the main source of the problem, not that the Democratric representatives fair much better in the free for all corruption in D.C., but they don''t seem to look at the American people and family as cattle.

[brianbwb-2009]

Hey CBS, why does our apostrophe ('') become quote (")? or is this just my computer?

It tends to diminish the clarity of our posts...

[brianbwb-2009]

Posted by toldyouso21,

Not only has USAisdway not answered, but more importantly the big boys responsible for getting us into this mess have not answered it.

In fact this question wasn''t answered before we got into it. Bush''s reasons were, and I quote "to disarm Iraq" (they had no WMDs) "to free its'' people" (by kidnapping, torturing, murdering, and otherwise occupying the country and stifling dissent) and finally, "to protect the world from grave danger (from an Iraq that Bush Sr. had bombed back to the middle ages)

There was no other reasoning given, contrary to what the "religious war" proponents now advocate.

That is why our effort cannot succeed, there was no actual goal that would stand legal scrutiny.

[abbe91]

"We have got our opponents wanting to go back to a strategy that failed for four years, and abandon a strategy we have really only been pursuing for about four months, which is succeeding,"

... a strategy which failed for four years ? Strange, who chose that strategy ? I wonder ...
Go for a walk downtown Bagdad without having the army cleaning the place a few miles away just before, if you want to prove your point.

[toldyouso21]

. The surge unfortunately for them is working. Posted by USAisdway189

No, I''''m much worse dude. When you say it is working, what do you mean? Do you mean that the Iraqis are finally accepting an American puppet government, and given up their power struggle? Do you mean that they have stopped killing each other, or killing American soldiers?

Just what do you mean by working, that they won''''t just wait until the right time and then throw out the sham government we installed? Or do you mean that they have agreed to let us kill their brethren and steal their oil without resistance? Just what do you mean by "working"?
Posted by brianbwb at 07:34 AM : Aug 20, 2007
********************************

this bears repeating, and USAisdway still has never answered it. Just WHAT IS MEANT BY IT IS WORKING? The surge is working just like a finger in a ****. It does not stop the water, it diverts it and builds up pressure elsewhere--and if the true hole is never fixed--as soon as that finger is gone, or maybe even despite that finger, the pressure and power of that water means the flood is coming, inexorably, the finger just buys time, but it is time wasted if the problems are not fixed. Google the GAO in Iraq, lost money and arms, poor utilities, loss of food, gas and power and still mayhem in Iraq. Bagdhad is just a part of Iraq just like a hole in a **** does not mean other places can''t spring a leak and still do the same damage.

[brianbwb-2009]

"But since Dems want to being troops home, they don''''t have to deal with the "never served" argument. Is it clear to you now?
Posted by Rafterman1"


chrrrp...chrrrp,........chrrrp, (crickets getting tired)

I think he (or she) blew a gasket trying to figure how to answer my questions.

[toldyouso21]

Posted by briannorwood at 08:20 AM : Aug 20, 2007

McCain was always a pandering schmuck. When he was deemed a maverick and a refreshing voice of change and truth, he was pandering to the American need for that, even then, it was not who he was --he just had handlers who helped him give us what they figured we wanted. And judging by your almost vote--some of us were fooled. When Bush won, McCain and his handlers rethought what we wanted and tried to give us a Bush clone, they kept the parts that challenged just enough, but blended them with parts that pandered to the base. so what did we get? A man who ostensibly opposed torture, but then caved in to endorsing torture. A man who claimed to care about POW rights, then parroted and endorsed the view that Gitmo detainees were not POWs, even the immigration stance is based on the realization of the need for cheap, underrepresented labor pool and the demographics of a lot of former illegals in his home state.

He always pandered, and I doubt he was ever really honest. No man who spends time in a POW camp, comes home to a faithful wife with health problems and decides to dump her for a moneyed and supposedly prettier wife is honest. Like Rudy and Gingrich his true colors showed in how he treated his family. Even then, he did what was best for him, scrrrr.ew everything and everyone else. Just say it right and the suckers will overlook what a person actually does, right?

[brianbwb-2009]

Posted by starleo146

nah, I couldn''t be president, I inhaled, and I liked it, and I don''t believe that the current war will make anything better, so the war profiteers would have me killed.

And I am a Black man from Detroit...