#10. To: Rupert_Pupkin, a vast rightwing conspirator (#9)
Come now, vast. Wasn't Obama supposed to liberate US foreign policy from the Zionists? Or is appointing neocons just part of the big plan?
RP, you are cruel pulling vast's chain this way. However since I am crueller than you, RP, I will also remind vast telling us on November 4th that one of the big reasons she voted for Obama was to protect her 2 sons from conscription in 8 years to fight wars for Izzy and the MIC. Vast believed that McCain - who actually served in wartime at a time when conscription was in force and who knows the ravages of war up close and personal unlike Barry O who merely read about war in textbooks from his comfy stateside middle class home - would be more likely to invoke conscription. Enter Rahm Emanuel and Rahm's Book of War. Somehow I can't think of a greater neozio war monger that McCain could have chosen for Chief of Staff than Rahm.
Somehow I can't think of a greater neozio war monger that McCain could have chosen for Chief of Staff than Rahm.
It wouldn't have surprised me at all if McCain had given Bill Kristol a cabinet appointment. He already had Randy Scheunemann and Joe Lieberman as shoe-ins.
It's always heads they win, tails you lose with the Zionists, who know how to hedge their bets. Alan Dershowitz admitted as much:
I think that on the important issues relating to Israel, both Senator McCain and Senator Obama score very high. During the debates each candidate has gone out of his and her way to emphasize strong support for Israel as an American ally and a bastion of democracy in a dangerous neighborhood. They have also expressed support for Israel's right to defend itself against the nuclear threat posed by Iran which has sworn to wipe Israel off the map and the need to prevent another Holocaust.
McCain - who actually served in wartime at a time when conscription was in force and who knows the ravages of war up close and personal
I didn't really follow Mad Mac's politics much until he ran for President in 2000, but I do remember that he started out as somebody reluctant to send US troops abroad, probably as a consequence of his own experiences (a foreign policy moderate like Chuck Hagel). By 2000, he had sold out to the neocons and turned into our noisiest warmonger. Kind of like how Obama went from the "anti-war" candidate in the primaries to showing his true colors today.
I didn't really follow Mad Mac's politics much until he ran for President in 2000, but I do remember that he started out as somebody reluctant to send US troops abroad, probably as a consequence of his own experiences (a foreign policy moderate like Chuck Hagel). By 2000, he had sold out to the neocons and turned into our noisiest warmonger. Kind of like how Obama went from the "anti-war" candidate in the primaries to showing his true colors today.
While McCain would have continued the current 2 foreign wars for the benefit of the MIC and Izzy, I doubt McCain would have considered opening a new front with Pakistan or Iran or getting involved in African "peace-keeping" ventures or for that matter using conscription.
I've read that enlisted people who fought in Vietnam with conscripts are for the most part anti-conscription because they had to deal with the consequences of fighting alongside unwilling and poorly trained conscripts on the front lines.
McCain is more likely, imo, to have upped the numbers of mercenaries to handle Iraq and Afghanistan and just maintained the status quo with 2 current wars for 4 years and then he would have had his 4 years of glory as CnC and retired.
doubt McCain would have considered opening a new front with Pakistan or Iran
Are you kidding? McCain has been champing at the bit to start something with Iran from the get-go. When Obama chimed in with a "me too" in response to everything McCain said about Iran in the debates and press releases, I knew that eventual war and occupation of Iran would be an almost done deal no matter who won.
And remember McCain's biggest criticism of Clinton in the Kosovo war: he kept pushing Clinton to send ground troops instead of conducting the war from the air.
Kristol as cabinet minister or Chief of Staff - definitely I would not see that happening - Kristol is more useful to the neozios as the "respected" ( and well compensated) MSM pro-Israel agitator
Cabinet post or not, Kristol has been a sort of foreign policy guru to McCain since he first ran for President, and was probably behind the Palin pick as well (an Evangelical Zionist is a very useful front for their mideast agenda). In the end though, it's win-win for Kristol: he gloated about there being "no difference" between McCain and Obama on Iran
Are you kidding? McCain has been champing at the bit to start something with Iran from the get-go.
McCain is as good at rhetoric as W. No way would the GOP have allowed either W or McCain to shoot the party's electability chances by a strike on Iran, especially knowing the damage that 2 foreign wars had already done.
Actually if you look back a few months to read which party was the Strike Iran most vociferous cheerleaders, it was the Dems. American Jewish votes are key block voters and $ donors for the Dem Party.
No way would the GOP have allowed either W or McCain to shoot the party's electability chances by a strike on Iran
Not before an election. Afterwards, all bets are off. When you talk about McCain and the GOP, you're appealing to better angels that just aren't there. However, there is a factor that would make it more difficult for McCain to start a war with Iran than it would be for Obama, though it has nothing to do with any (now non- existent) decency or restraint on McCain's part.
Yesterday, bluegrass made an interesting point about Iran. It would be easier for Obama to get away with it politically than McCain. No matter how badly McCain might have wanted to bomb Iran, he would risk a much bigger backlash from Democrats who'd oppose it out of partisan spite. That won't be a problem for BHO. As BG said that it took a Nixon to negotiate with China, and it might take a Hussein Obama to get away with bombing Iran.
Actually if you look back a few months to read which party was the Strike Iran most vociferous cheerleaders, it was the Dems. American Jewish votes are key block voters and $ donors for the Dem Party
Most American Jews are either liberals or neocons, but it gets more complicated than that. The neocons (20-30%) vote GOP, the rest vote Democrat. Of the Democrats, some are on the far-left and oppose Israel almost as much as they hate America. Others are "Dershowitz liberals" who hate America and love Israel. The point being, those Jewish donors aren't monolithic.