More McCain Blunders - Iraq (again), Iran (again), and New Orleans

Because I've been away for awhile, I haven't been able to keep up with all of the recent John McCain goofs. Still, the last seven days have shown us that even upon reflection the best McCain can do is compound the errors with more mistakes.

On his least knowledgeable topic, the Middle East, his seemingly unending streak of misstatements, foul-ups, and lies continued last week with his assertion that troop levels in Iraq were below what they were before the Republican escalation of the war in January 2007. WRONG!

In fact, troop levels are higher now. So he tried to “correct” that the next day by saying he meant they would be below pre-surge levels by July.

Again, that simply wasn’t true. The ending of already Republican-extended troop deployments will force levels to reduce somewhat this summer, but they will still be a full 10,000 troops above what they were before the January 2007 troop escalation.

The week began on Monday with McCain speaking to the conservative Jewish group, AIPAC, and bashed Barack Obama for proposing to speak with other countries before beginning to bomb them. McCain made his point by speaking about the divestment campaign against South Africa and how that lead to the end of apartheid. If only he were president, he would begin a divestment campaign against Iran as well.

That was all good, except for three BIG problems.

First, the Senate already proposed an Iran divestment bill last year. It was written by Barack Obama. Oops. In case you think it was a democrat version, it wasn't. In fact, the bill was co-sponsored by conservative republican Sam Brownback.

Second, John McCain voted AGAINST the bill he's now proposing. Double oops.

Third, he had also voted years ago against the divestment bill against South Africa, the very example he held up as a basis for pursuing one against Iran!!! WHAT A MORON!!!

McCain continued his sightseeing tour of forgotten truths this week when he was asked why he twice voted against independent investigations into governmental failings before and after Hurricane Katrina. McCain said, I’ve supported every investigation and ways of finding out what caused the tragedy." WRONG!

In 2005 and in 2006, Democrats proposed an independent commission to look into the problems regarding the handling of the worst natural disaster in American history. It would have been comprised of non-federal-government analysts appointed by both Democrats and Republicans.

McCain and his fellow Republicans killed both proposals.

Again, McCain tried to later “correct” his misstatement by saying he voted against the bills because they were filled with pork barrel projects that had “billions for projects and programs that had nothing to do with the recovery of the city of New Orleans.”

Once again, McCain’s attempt to explain away his earlier incorrect recollection was completely wrong. The bills would have provided $3 million for the projects, but had no allocations for anything else.

McCain’s Magical Misery Tour continues.

McCain STILL Making Same Iraq Blunder!!!!!

You'd think by now John McCain would be humiliated into knowing the truth.

If the media wasn't his lapdog, the embarrassment would likely have caused him to admit to senior moments if not absolute stupidity.

Because no one is calling him on it, he continues to show his complete ignorance of reality in Iraq.

He actually doesn't have a clue who's fighting in Iraq. He doesn't know who's killing Americans - you know, his fellow citizens.

To recap, AlQaeda are Sunnis and Iran is Shiia. They aren't the same. They're as different as Red Sox and Yankees. Even more accurately, they're as different as Boston Red Sox and New York Giants - they're both sports teams , so in McCain's world they must be the same thing. After all, they both use a ball in their games.

AlQaeda and Iran - hey, they're both Arabic, right? and they both call God (the same one that Jews and Christians pray to, by the way), "Allah", right? They are all the same in McCain's world.

"So let's kill 'em all," McCain is basically saying, even if they fight along side us as Iran did in Basra last week against the Mahdi Army. And that is despite the fact that AlQaeda in Iraq wasn't there until we invaded, that they have no connection to the international terrorist group because they're just a tiny splinter organization, that they're just as happy killing Shiite Muslims as they are American occupiers because we're all infidels to them, and that they number about 1,000 out of some 8.8 million.

No, John McCain will never let facts get in the way of a good, but wholly incorrect propaganda story the media is only too happy to help him perpetrate on the American people.

So McCain continues to conflate AlQaeda and Iran. Even after being publicly corrected by a former Democrat.

Let's recap the repeated misstatements.

First came the speech in Houston in February when he said Shiia Iran was helping Sunni AlQaeda.

Then he said the same thing on Hugh Hewitt's right-wing radio show in March.

Then he said it twice to reporters on his trip to the Middle East before Joe Lieberman corrected him.

Then there was three days ago at the General Petraeus hearing when he said, "Al Qaeda isn't just an obscure sect of the Shiites... (pause) ... or Sunnis or anybody else." Well they're definitely not Shiites, and not likely anybody else unless they've been recently adopted by the Baptists, or the Mormons, or the fundamentalist born again whatevers, or, as he said, "anybody else."

Finally, Fox Noise yesterday gave him the opportunity to clear up any confusion people may perceive that he has about the situation by hand-feeding him what to say:

Fox Noise: "Do you understand the difference between Sunni and Shiia, and how would you like to respond those who claim you don't?"

McCain: "I've been to Iraq eight times. I know the leaders. I know the situation on the ground. I know that Sunni and AlQaeda are closely tied."

CLOSELY TIED?????

Like buses and subways are closely tied to mass transit?

Like the shape of wheels is closely tied to a circle?

Like football, baseball, and basketball are closely tied to America's three most popular team sports?

I don't know whether to laugh or cry. HE STILL CAN'T GET IT RIGHT!

What a blithering idiot.

For the last time (I hope), allow me to explain.

AlQaeda is Sunni.

Saudi Arabia is Sunni.

15 of the 19 AlQaeda 9/11 terrorists were from Saudi Arabia under the leadership of AlQaeda in Afghanistan.

0 were from Iraq.

That's because Iraq had 0 AlQaeda until the US invasion.

Iran is Shiia.

AlQaeda's sworn enemy is anyone not Sunni, and Iran is not Sunni.

Got it, McCain? Got it, media?

We're not as stupid as you want us to be.

McCain's "plan" for Iraq - HA!!!!!!!!

John McCain said on April 7, 2008 - in between his humorously sad, consistent conflation of AlQaeda (Sunni) with Shiite Extremists in Iraq even after being corrected on camera by former Democrat Joe Lieberman - that we don't have to be in Iraq for 100 years or longer provided certain conditions are met.

Iraq merely has to secure U.S. interests by being a country that is:

1 - Stable;

2 - Prosperous;

3 - Democratic;

4 - Not a threat to its neighbors (exception - see number 8 below);

5 - A terrorism fighter;

6 - Happily entertaining international entities (i.e. allows foreign oil companies to remove Iraq's oil for no money whatsoever);

7 - Accepting of all religions; and

8 - Starts treating Iran like an enemy.

Gee, wouldn't it be nice if the United States could meet some of those criteria, too?

I'd especially like the USA to fulfill numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7 because we're sorely lacking in each of those under our current Republican dictatorship.

100 years, McCain? Under those conditions we're going to be there closer to 1,000 years.

And there's certainly no better strategy for accomplishing those goals than by having your country controlled and occupied by a foreign military.

Think for a minute - do you suppose the USA would be more stable, prosperous, democratic, neighborly, terrorist-fighting, and increasingly tolerant of religions if, say, we were occupied by the armies from Japan (enemy in WWII) or China (enemy in Korea), countries who now hold most of our ever-increasing national debt?

Naaaaaaah, i didn't think so either. Otherwise, we probably wouldn't have spent so many lives fighting them before.

Of course, those were Democratic presidents who fought those wars so maybe our Republican emperor and his puppet yes-men have a different idea of what democracy and America stand for.

Bush, McCain = Baghdad Bob

Do you remember the Iraqi Information Minister under Saddam Hussein, Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf aka "Baghdad Bob"? This was the guy who would tell the English-speaking press corp that the Americans were nowhere near Baghdad while American tanks were passing by in the street behind him.

This week, President Bush and John McCain both reached that level of unreality in speaking on the same subject - life in Iraq at present.

Friday saw a fifth straight day of rocket fire and mortar fire into Green Zone of Baghdad. Several Americans and Iraqis were killed in these attacks on this American-fortified "safe" zone.

Basra, the second largest city in Iraq, has been under siege for more than a week. Markets are closed. People can't go to work, can't get food, have no electricity, have no access to medicine, and can't even get fuel for generators.

Shiite extremists - misnamed as al-Qaeda three times last week by John McCain just before letting the world know that Purim is the Jewish Halloween - are led in Basra by the largest of these groups - the Mahdi Army led by Muqtada al-Sadr who control government, traffic, and killing.

On Tuesday, Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Malicki launched an assault on Basra, which led to more killing and a further spread of widespread violence in Shiite-held districts in Baghdad and other places in Iraq where Shiite militiamen hold sway over local and Federal governments.

President Bush said this week:

"The surge is doing what it was designed to do. It's helping Iraqis reclaim security and restart political and economic life." He said, "Normalcy is returning back to Iraq."

HUH????

John McCain, who is looking to continue each and every George W. Bush policy down to the letter, commented this week:

 "Dramatic reduction in violence has opened the way for a return to something approaching normal political and economic life for the average Iraqi. People are going back to work. Markets are open."

ARE THESE PEOPLE INSANE?

WHAT FICTION ARE THEY READING??

ARE THEY CAPABLE OF SEEING REALITY???

DO THEY THINK WE ARE SO STUPID AS TO BELIEVE THIS GIBBERISH????

Fellow Americans, I give you Baghdad Bobs - George W. Bush and John McCain.

Sneak Preview of the Repbulican Debate

Names are hidden to protect the clueless, but here's a little bit of what we'll see this week...

Moderator: We went over our rules. Each of you will have 30 seconds and we'll allow a 15-second rebuttal from a second candidate. Question number one is for you, Candidate 1, the American presence in Iraq has lasted longer than World War II, we're on our third surge in a little more than a year to increas troop levels again, attacks against Americans are up, American casualties are up, Iraqi casualties are up... if you were president right now, what would you do?

Candiadate 1: We need to stay the course. We haven't given this latest surge enough time. Six months should do it.

Moderator: But in each of the previous surges, they were also accompanied by a six-month time estimate, and in each the situation worsened. Isn't six months really just an arbitrary time period in order to give the public enough time to forget the previous misstep?

Candidate 1: Obviously you're not paying attention to the new history. That's the old history you're talking about. The new history is that we're doing better every day. Just ask General Petraeus.

Moderator: Speaking of General Petraeus, Candidate Two, he said this week, "The level of horrific attacks like the one that killed nine US soldiers at a patrol base in Diyala province April 23 is still too high." What is the level of horrific attacks that is acceptable?

Candidate 2: Off the top of my head, I would say a level that kills fewer than nine Americans at a time. Of course, I don't want to go out on a limb and put words in the general's mouth. It's really all the democrats fault for trying to give soldiers money the wrong way.

Moderator: Doesn't the Iraq Accountability Act actually give more money than what the republicans are asking for by additionally funding hospitalization for soldiers and veterans?

Candidate 2: That's just a slick trick to pretend they support the troops. We know how to support the troops - by not pampering them with things like health care or body armor. We're already catering their meals through private contractors. Isn't that enough? Next they'll be wanting armored vehicles and night vision goggles, too.

Moderator: The sticking point with the democratic funding bill is that the president doesn't want any deadline to leave Iraq. What incentive will Iraq have to take over control of their own country if they have no deadline?

Candidate 3: You can't just give them a date for our withdrawal or else they'll simply wait and stop the attacks until we leave. Is that what you want - peace in the country for several months while Iraq brings their own people together?

Moderator: Candidate 4, Iraq has put the American economy into the worst national debt of any country in the history of Planet Earth. What will...

Candidate 4: What's with all these questions about Iraq? Don't you want to ask me about flag burning or the proper ways to hate gays and minorities, you know, our special areas of expertise?

Candidate 1: You don't hate gays nearly as much as I do.

Candidate 4: Are you kidding? I've been hating gays since before you were born. I hate them more than you and Candidate 2 combined.

Candidate 2: Well, you may have a great record on hating gays, but I'm really big on hating Mexicans. What have you done to hate the Mexicans?

Moderator: Could we please have some order?

Candidate 1: My record is very solid in hating Mexicans. Blacks, too!

Candidate 3: You love the blacks compared to me. In fact, I not only hate the Mexicans and the blacks, but I led the fight against women.

Moderator: Please, everyone, this isn't a free for all...

Candidate 2: You know, there's nothing quite as much fun as denying rights to women.

Candidate 1: That's true.

Moderator: Please calm down everyone, I have another question...

Candidate 4: Except, of course, for denying science.

Candidate 3: That goes without saying. If you have to deny anything, it's science. Unless by "science" you're talking about using taxpayer money to pay full price to pharmaceutical companies for old people's drugs. Old people - that's another group we're pampering too much.

Moderator: All right, Candidate 4, I'll change topics. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said 72 times to Congress that he didn't remember anything having to do with directing the Department of Justice to act without justice for all, but rather to direct attacks against democrats and show favoritism to republicans and their elections. Isn't that odd that he would have such a blank mind even forgetting meeting with the president?

Candidate 4: Certainly not. I've had many forgettable meetings with the president myself.