Thursday, November 29, 2007

McCain Telegraphs His Fear of Ron Paul

Ron Paul's opponents within the shrinking pro-war GOP base are intimidated by the success of his campaign.

During last night's CNN/YouTube debate [1][2] it was John McCain's turn to embody that distinction.

Readers might recall McCain's false bravado interjection during the CNBC debate on October 9, and how Paul brushed it off like one might do for stray chicken feathers. The jab was negligible — Paul didn't react to the edgewise remark — but blunt and intended to jostle nonetheless. [3]

Well, last night McCain managed to expand on his showing as a pompous bully. In the middle of explaining why he opposes getting rid of the federal income tax in favor of a "fair tax," the spiel came to an abrupt end — not unlike the last two seconds of a slow, 20-second, downhill train wreck.

"If Congress can't fix the tax code, give me the job and I'll fix it.

"I just want to also say that Congressman Paul, I've heard him now in many debates talk about bringing our troops home, and about the war in Iraq and how it's failed."


That particular ego spasm was preempted by what Paul said a few minutes earlier when he revisited a hackneyed McCain cop-out to why the Republican-majority Congress has sucked at being Congressional Republican all these years. (Note the decision not to call McCain out by name.)

"Yes, and I would like to state that, to the statement earlier made that we all went to Washington to change Washington and Washington changed us, I don't think that applies to me; Washington did not change me.


"I would like to change Washington, and we could . . . . [W]e can have a stronger national defense by changing our foreign policy. Our foreign policy is costing us a trillion dollars, and we can spend most of that or a lot of that money home if we would bring our troops home."


Picking up on McCain's response minutes later, we see him emerge from the caboose, scratched-up, with an imaginary M-16 firing errantly in the general direction of Paul's non-interventionist, Founding Fathers approach to foreign policy:

"I just want to also say that Congressman Paul, I've heard him now in many debates talk about bringing our troops home, and about the war in Iraq and how it's failed.

"And I want to tell you that that kind of isolationism, sir, is what caused World War II."


Sure, John, if what you mean by "that . . . isolationism" is "the . . . status quo": sanctions; asset freezes; trade and aid embargoes; other, general, economic and political shakedowns; support of enemies against other, common enemies, including the use of US-designated terrorist groups; occupying peoples of foreign states and confiscating their land and resources; and other military-industrial ventures costing lives and treasure here and overseas. You know: the stuff that is ushering in another world war. But of course it's only isolationism when they do it, right?

McCain continues:

"We . . . allowed Hitler to come to power with that kind of attitude of isolationism and appeasement."


No, John. He was an aggressive, preemptively-warring tyrant. But like our chosen enemies today, he was incited and engaged through the type of offensive and threatening rhetoric, interventionism, and unlawful isolationism displayed by this era's neoconnivers, only on a smaller scale. FDR and cronies found a way into the European conflict, and eventually got their pretexts. We're still looking for monsters to slay today; only now, we're waging war against ideologies and tactics, at the whim of the Executive and his advisors. Back then, we at least declared war against malignant states — not stateless bands of thugs and their m.o. — and therefore had the people's consensus through the Legislature as per the US Constitution. We therefore had the ability to claim an official "victory," thus allowing the troops (almost all of them) to finally come home.

That process is one of the ways the Constitution limits McCain, Paul, et al., in their legislative roles, thus empowering the people and preserving life, liberty, and property. But apparently, it's not McCain's cup of tea; he voted in favor of the unlawful Iraq invasion and continues to rubber-stamp the gratuitous funding for the occupation. And to reason away his defiance of the rule of law through undeclared wars and nation-building, he uses emotional exploitation of the already physically and politically exploited US troops in Iraq:

"And I want to tell you something, sir. I just finished having Thanksgiving with the troops, and their message to you is -- the message of these brave men and women who are serving over there is, 'Let us win.'"


Which is way too easy a pitch for Sir Paul:

"Absolutely. The real question you have to ask is why do I get the most money from active duty officers and military personnel?

"What John is saying is just totally distorted. He doesn't even understand the difference between non-intervention and isolationism. . . . I want to trade with people, talk with people, travel. But I don't want to send troops overseas using force to tell them how to live."


Perhaps the most revelatory tail-whoopings administered to John McCain were entirely self-delivered. In one instance, he blamed the American people for defeat in Vietnam. In another, he asserted victory in Iraq while equating the anti-occupation position of Ron Paul, "the Democrats," and ≈70% of Americans polled, with "surrender."

Mr. McCain,

"Surrender" assumes we're losing, yet you insist we're winning. Armies don't surrender when they're winning; they give control of the country back to the people and come home. In terms of the war in Iraq, that was four-and-a-half years ago.

One day you might come to realize that undeclared, aggressive wars, occupations, and gratuitous spending, are unsustainable; until then, however, I suggest that you step aside and let a more competent man lead. Ron Paul is so much your ethical and intellectual superior; you should consider an advisory position or retirement. You're certainly not fit to be a Legislator or Chief Executive.

Notes:

[1] cnn.com, "Part I: CNN/YouTube Republican presidential debate transcript," 11∙28∙7*
[2] cnn.com, "Part II: CNN/YouTube Republican presidential debate transcript," 11∙28∙7*
[3] youtube.com, "Ron Paul on supporting the GOP nominee," 10∙9∙7 by user WaxLionTV
(The remark of note, "You don't want me, pal," occurs at 00:13.)

*Footnotes 1 and 2 are the sources for all McCain and Paul blockquotes.

3 comments:

  1. Election I would like to see:

    Ron Paul v. Dennis Kucinich

    Election Americans are going to force me to suffer:

    Bush 40oz v. Bush Lite

    As much as I love America, there are times I can't stand Americans. I wish they'd all go back to where they came from. But that would be awful for all their moms.

    ;)

    ReplyDelete
  2. Oi, achei seu blog pelo google está bem interessante gostei desse post. Gostaria de falar sobre o CresceNet. O CresceNet é um provedor de internet discada que remunera seus usuários pelo tempo conectado. Exatamente isso que você leu, estão pagando para você conectar. O provedor paga 20 centavos por hora de conexão discada com ligação local para mais de 2100 cidades do Brasil. O CresceNet tem um acelerador de conexão, que deixa sua conexão até 10 vezes mais rápida. Quem utiliza banda larga pode lucrar também, basta se cadastrar no CresceNet e quando for dormir conectar por discada, é possível pagar a ADSL só com o dinheiro da discada. Nos horários de minuto único o gasto com telefone é mínimo e a remuneração do CresceNet generosa. Se você quiser linkar o Cresce.Net(www.provedorcrescenet.com) no seu blog eu ficaria agradecido, até mais e sucesso. If is possible add the CresceNet(www.provedorcrescenet.com) in your blogroll, I thank. Good bye friend.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hitler wasn't an "aggressive, preemptively-warring tyrant." He tried to make peace time after time, but the Allies, who were doing the work of the big banksters--killing off, as an example for the rest of the world, the sap who wouldn't pay his protection money,--refused to consider it.

    The information is out there if you look for it. Hitler had to invade Poland because the Poles (incited by war-conspirators) were killing, torturing , expelling, burning out, and marching on foot to concentration camps the ethnic Germans in the Danzig Corridor and elsewhere in Poland.

    Plus, the Poles were mobilized for war well before the Germans--and the "Gleiwitz incident,"--the Polish attack on the radio station in the German town of Gleiwitz the night of August 31, 1939--was real: not a false-flag by the Germans to have an "excuse" to invade Poland(the Germans already had international law on their side for several reasons,anyway).

    If you take a look at the judicial-inc.biz site, you can find a piece on Why Hitler Invaded Poland that's pretty accurate and very fast to read.

    I'm sure you know that it was England and France who declared war on Germany--not vice versa--using Hitler's invasion of Poland (which they had, in fact, helped to bring about)as the trigger.

    To understand today's situation you need to understand that the banksters fomented war against the original Hitler for the same reason they foment war against each "new Hitler" such as Saddam, Milosevic, and Amahdinejad--because they want to, and they can.

    WWII was just as much the result of a conspiracy to commit mass murder as Iraq is: only, of course, much much bigger.

    ReplyDelete