Here comes the double talk express:

* McCain criticized TV preacher Jerry Falwell as “an agent of intolerance” in 2002, but has since decided to cozy up to the man who said Americans “deserved” the 9/11 attacks. (Indeed, McCain has now hired Falwell’s debate coach.)

* McCain used to oppose Bush’s tax cuts for the very wealthy, but he reversed course in February.

* In 2000, McCain accused Texas businessmen Sam and Charles Wyly of being corrupt, spending “dirty money” to help finance Bush’s presidential campaign. McCain not only filed a complaint against the Wylys for allegedly violating campaign finance law, he also lashed out at them publicly. In April, McCain reached out to the Wylys for support.

* McCain supported a major campaign-finance reform measure that bore his name. In June, he abandoned his own legislation.

* McCain used to think that Grover Norquist was a crook and a corrupt shill for dictators. Then McCain got serious about running for president and began to reconcile with Norquist.

* McCain took a firm line in opposition to torture, and then caved to White House demands.

* McCain gave up on his signature policy issue, campaign-finance reform, and won’t back the same provision he sponsored just a couple of years ago.

* McCain was against presidential candidates campaigning at Bob Jones University before he was for it.

* McCain was anti-ethanol. Now he’s pro-ethanol.

* McCain was both for and against state promotion of the Confederate flag.

* And now he’s both for and against overturning Roe v. Wade.

SKELETOR!!! ol'wristwatch...

John McCain is a fully political hack, willing to switch his principles to fit his career, I find his views on the surge dis-speakable even though hes a veteran of the Vietnam war.

I like McCain's surge plan better than GWB's, although I am losing hope that a surge could really accomplish much for Iraq. For Iran, on the other hand . . .

I love it when candidates are attacked for shilling to the primary voters. It is a fun part of the American political game and I don't begrudge McCain for playing the game to win. If he wanted to be principled, then he could be the right's version of Dennis Kucinich. And never get out of Iowa.

Jon Stewart's line about the Straight Talk Express still rings true, though. "Has John McCain's Straight Talk Express been rerouted through Bullshit Town?"

ARG!!! I accidentally clicked downvote!!! Is there even a command to fix this?

Sorry

I don't see how any surge could work when Iraqi polls show that more people now view US forces as occupiers. You are simply exposing your troops to more enemy fire. There is no concrete plan about what these extra troops will really do. Are you going to simply impose curfews and fight it out with the insurgence? Will they force a negotiation to end sectarian violence between Shi'a and Sunni?

There is simply no plan for what these extra forces will do.

Ohh what does this sound like that happened during the cold war? Only substitute terrorism for Red Menace.

Oh, I'm with you on all of your questions. It seems like the Bush philosophy is that more bodies will yield more results, but McNamara already illustrated the fallacy of that.

The United States has never committed to its occupation. It seriously treated fantasies such as "We will be greeted as liberators" and "The Iraqis will embrace freedom" as coherent and finished policies.

What a large troop surge could do (50,000-75,000) is provide cover for all of the humanitarian, engineering, and infrastructure projects that need to be accomplished. A surge of 15,000-20,000 is completely useless and only provides, if anything, weak political cover for the scoundrels that dreamed their way through this war.

The U.S. needs to figure out the best way to re-deploy as to place diplomatic, economic and political pressure on Iran and Syria. And then actually use diplomacy for the first time in nearly 8 years.

I believe even a larger then necessary troop deployment of around 150,000 to 200,000 would not really yield beneficial results, the region would become more destabilized, America will look more like an occupier radical islamic people could then easily sell their case to the population and you'll have the entire middle east against US forces.

I think McNamara's rule of understanding your enemy needs to be explored here, concussions made for strategic purpose. What would the Iran leadership really want? A costly and self destructive war against the largest super power or economic help to appease their own population so they can stay in power.

The fact is that this is not the 1960s where the USA could endorse a totally unilateral stance, the globalization of the world means that more and more nations are co-dependent on economic well being. It's no longer that economic shocks effect one nation but they effect all. Because China relies on import sales to everyone, and in turn the first world become the innovators of new technology.

The last thing the USA needs to do is push OPEC further in considering a switch to the Euro via aggressive action in their area. That would lead to a depression and a total collapse of the economy.

The costs are far more now then ever before.

yes farhad, beyond the pep rally hoopla, there is the here and now of the world as it is...

today's problems, as they come, mop as you go......ignore distractions, the goal is the diversion


anyone??

I can't even talk about the guy anymore. Bastard made me think I had a candidate I could at least nominally get behind, and then he became a simpering idiot, and utterly betrayed his own stated principles. What an ass hole.

A couple comments.

As Rickegee said, McCain is in the race to win. His shift to the right in order to make it through the primaries can only be expected after what he experienced at the hands of the Bush campaign in NC in 2000. At any rate, his compromising of principles in order to get elected is the exact same behavior displayed by his chief opponent: Hilary.

q[I find his views on the surge dis-speakable even though hes a veteran of the Vietnam war.]q

He's been for more troops since the rioting after the fall of Baghdad. The fundamental element of any counterinsurgency operation is security. Since the enemy is unconventional you cannot destroy him outright, but with sufficient security you can deny his ability to operate freely. The denial of free operation is the foundation from which an insurgency can be defeated; without it, the insurgency will only grow. McCain's position since 2003 has been that there are not sufficient troops to provide that essential level of security, and accordingly additional forces should be deployed to Iraq.

At this stage in the game, the 21,000 troop surge is all the extra manpower we have to commit. It probably won't be sufficient but it's worth a try. The National Intelligence Estimate released today makes it pretty damn clear that a withdrawal conducted over the next 12-18 month would cause the situation in Iraq to worsen precipitously, further destabilizing the region. In the face of that we have to find some way to stabilize Iraq, possibly through a soft partition or by some other means. Having 5 additional brigades in Iraq at the very least will give us additional flexibility. If they are able to improve the security situation sufficiently to allow for political and economic developments, so much the better. If not, the additional forces provides flexibility for whatever different strategy we attempt to pursue.

On the plus side, he ain't Hilary-bama.