Tuesday, February 12, 2008

Why You Should Vote for John McCain

It was 1991 and Edwin Edwards was running for reelection as the Governor of Louisiana. Edwards' corruption was legendary and he had faced multiple trials and indictments. Now in 1991 he was running against David Duke and bumper stickers and signs went up reading, "Vote for the Crook. It's important."

Well this time around John McCain is running against either Barack Hussein Obama or Hillary Clinton. Either one is as bad as David Duke. Obama is a Farrakhanite with a Muslim background, membership in a racist church and is backed by the Soros wing of the Democratic party. Hillary Clinton is a dogmatic far left wing activist with a socialist agenda that would turn America into the EU before she was done.

Vote for John McCain. It's important.

I am not a fan of McCain and I am not going to write in praise of him. I think McCain is a deeply flawed politician, I believe he will be even worse than Bush in every respect in which we are critical of Bush, I also believe that to paraphrase Churchill on Democracy, McCain is the worst of all possible candidates, except for all the rest. And the problem we are dealing with here is democracy.

The game was played and now near the end we're down to three choices. To for the worst candidate, to vote for the next worst candidate or to sit out the game entirely.

Choice One -

Some people have indeed suggested voting for the worst candidate, for Hillary or Obama in order to wreck the country enough to insure a Republican victory in 2012. I'm sure the first part of that would be easily accomplished, but people are significantly underestimating both the amount of unrepairable damage that either of them would do in four years and the ease of moving them out. I'm sure the Republicans will have Congress in 2012 if only because the public likes some balance. But presuming an easy victory in 2012 is delusional. Hillary has served two Senate terms in New York and her husband before her served two Presidential terms. If we learn from history, that means once Hillary is in office, she'll be there for eight years and her VP will be an incumbent in the next race with good odds of turning 8 years into 16. Only one Democratic incumbent has lost an election in the 20th century and that was Jimmy Carter and he was running against Ronald Reagan. Those are not good odds.

That means betting on a Republican White House in 2012 with some ideal candidate is the equivalent of betting your savings at the blackjack table in Vegas. Go look back at the Clinton era and decide if you really want to risk 8-16 years of that again on the belief that a Democratic President won't be able to pass his agenda as well McCain will, something Bill Clinton managed to do quite well. And remember that with Obama still in the race and gaining, that might actually be the best case scenario if a Democrat wins. They don't make horror movies any scarier than that. Anyone counting on the Republicans generating an ideal candidate in 2012 when they couldn't do it in 2008 and beating a Democratic President need to start thinking straight because they're engaging in wishful thinking.

Choice Two -

Sit out the race and stay home entirely. It's not an unrealistic choice, I doubt a lot of people feel up to touting McCain and it's easy enough to just tune out the election until it's over. Political fatigue and electoral shock are reasonable excuses for just giving up. But make no mistake, there's nothing righteous about it. Not voting for McCain does not mean being better for it, it means taking yourself out of the contest and letting the Democrats have one more vote they don't have to contest, one more free ride.

Not voting for a bad candidate does not make you a good person. Democracy is not about voting for perfect candidates, it's about choosing the lesser evil. There are no perfect candidates, there are only less imperfect ones. McCain in many ways will be a disaster but voting for him means choosing to moderate the harm that Hillary or Obama would do with the harm that McCain would do. Triage is the overriding reality of democracy, we do our best to vote for the one who will do less harm to our freedoms, our struggle and our country. And that man, for better or worse is undeniably, John McCain.

Not voting in the name of self-righteousness is the piety of fools because there is no righteousness in bringing harm to the country through commission or omission. Doing the right thing means minimizing the harm that will come, rather than sitting on your hands and doing nothing.

Choice Three -

Voting for McCain. No it doesn't feel good but when politics feels good, that usually means it's not going anywhere. There won't be anything good about going to the voting booth and supporting McCain except knowing that it's an unpleasant duty discharged.

McCain is a bad candidate but then again what Republican President in the last half-century hasn't been? Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush Sr. and Bush Jr have all made their tremendous messes, some of them deliberately blurred by conservatives out of sentimentality. All of them have brought us closer to the problems we face today, the loss of individual freedoms and the Islamic terrorist threat. McCain will be no different. But as bad as they were in many ways, remember LBJ, Carter and Clinton and just how much damage they did. Now imagine Obama or Hillary as the fourth member in that deck of cards or imagine that one of those three had never been elected President. That's the power we have right now and that's why it's important to vote for John McCain.

There is no harm that McCain will do that Obama or Hillary will not do far worse. Betting on a Republican victory in 2012 is a case of optimism cutting its own throat and inaction is also a choice, a choice to let the Democrats win.

I am not a supporter of McCain. I am a supporter of managing harm by aiming for the least harm. Vote McCain to minimize harm. Do anything else to maximize it. I know it's not what people want to hear but uncomfortable truths are the only way to deal with reality.

Vote McCain. It's important.


Anonymous said...

"Obama is a Farrakhanite with a Muslim background, membership in a racist church . . ."

You lose all credibility right here.

LemonLimeMoon said...

Politics is rotten.

Sultan Knish said...

oh really, I lose all credibility for a recitation of the facts?

Obama had a Muslim father and spent time in a Muslim country. His Church is racist and honored Farrakhan. There are strong allegations that Obama had ties to the Nation of Islam

LemonLimeMoon said...

He loses no credibility. Obama's church awarded Farrakhan great honors. Farrakhan is an enemy of the USA and a friend of our enemies. At that point Obama should have ended his relations with that church, but he did not.
His campaign offices with Che flags show his campaign to be deeply muddy and dark.

Your anonymous name loses you credibility right off the bat also.
You can't even make up a handle for your comment record to be known by? Not good. Means you are ashamed of what you have to say .

The Town Crier said...

If you must insist on using the candidates' full names ('Barack Hussein Obama'), you should extend the courtesy to all, for the sake of consistency in your own writing. So just for your information its 'John Sidney McCain III' and 'Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton'

Yobeeone said...

Hitlery will turn us into the EU.

The muzlim will turn us into Iraq,Iran,(pick a muzlim country of your choice). Either way, we Jews will suffer.

McCain will probably turn us into a nation of deniers who refuse to believe we have soldiers anywhere on the planet but here, so why bring them home, they are already dead or don't exist. :]

Chicken anonymous: a racist church is the perfect place for a muzlim to hide. The O-muzlim can't run in the open as a muzlim because that would be against muzlim training. Where's the sport in telling who you really are.

It's more of a sport to surprise everyone in the end - when it's too late.

btw: once a muzlim, always a muzlim.

Sultan Knish said...

Rodham doesn't tell you anything more about Hillary, McCain's middle name doesn't tell you anything more about him, Barak Hussein Obama's middle name does tell you something more about him

but thanks for the feedback

Charlie Hall said...

Here is Obama's fact sheet on Israel:

Yes, you won't like it if you are of the NOT ONE SQUARE MILLIMETER OF LAND MUST EVER BE SURRENDERED EVER school. But McCain's position, and Clinton's position, is very similar. As is the position of the current President. And the preceding seven.

BTW, I have been a McCain admirer for a long time and may vote for him. See

But slander towards the opposition by a McCain supporter leads me to consider his opponent more favorably.

The lie regarding Obama's Muslim background has been debunked by, among many, the Orthodox Union. The church Obama belongs to, the United Church of Christ, is mostly white, says that God's covenent with the Jewish people is eternally valid, and opposes targeting Jews for conversion. (The United Methodist Church, to which Hillary Clinton and George W. Bush belong, say almost exactly the same thing.)

steve klein said...

While I would agree with you Sultan, Obama's associations are troubling, at most I may sit this one out. It is highly unlikely I will vote for McCain unless he miraculously removes this anti-Semitic language from our national party platform. I am sure you would agree with me, ethnically cleaning Jews from our land, only because they are Jews, is anti-Semitic.

Had any other nation done what Bush / Sharon did to the residents of Gaza and northern Samaria, ADL would be screaming and howling, "anti-Semitism." Abe Foxman was not only not silent, he applauded the ethnic cleansing of Jews from our land.

I am not sure of your comparisons (either Clinton or Obama) to David Duke. If by November, I am certain or even close to certain, I might vote for McCain.

At this point, my principle is this. I will not vote for the lessor of the two evils unless I believe the greater evil will kill me and my family. Adolf Hitler and David Duke are examples of the this greater evil.

If I believe Barack Obama falls into the Hitler / Duke category, come November, I might vote for McCain.

You've got to make the case Barack Obama is a David Duke. As I say, his associations are troubling but then McCain maintains he will bring one of the "smart guys" back, either James Baker or Brent Scowcroft into his administration. Baker is a vicious anti-Semite. So is Scowcroft in a more "polite" way.

Haaretz journalist, who interviewed McCain, is willing to take a polygraph test because McCain is denying the truthfulness of the reporter. Have not heard a word from McCain. Have you?

Sultan Knish said...

Charlie, Obama's fact sheet is meaningless and it contradicts his earlier ties to folks such as Edward Said or his original positions on Israel

his individual Church is a specifically race based Church which honored Farrakhan

nothing has been debunked, the cries of "debunked" resemble the stuff that Ron Paul supporters were trying to pull when Paul's racist newsletters came out

crying debunked is easier than actually debunking it

finally Charlie if you had actually read the post you're replying to, you would have noticed that I said I'm not a supporter of McCain and the fact that soulless liberals like you support him, does nothing to boost his case

Sultan Knish said...


as I've already said numerous times, withdrawal from Gaza was Sharon's idea, not Bush's and the State Department was furious over it. Presidents do not want unilateral withdrawals, they want to have photo ops and appear as peacemakers. That's what this whole bloody process is about.

I have no doubt that McCain will do what Bush did, but Hillary at the least will do what her husband did, and it was Bill Clinton, more than anyone else who was responsible for the mess Israel finds itself in today.

As for Obama, if you don't think that a man with a Muslim background and close ties to Arab groups and the NOI, is a greater threat, I have no idea what to tell you

steve klein said...

Sultan, Obama claims he disagrees with his minister on many issues.

I guess you might retort, "Why is he a member of this racist church?"

Fair question. You might also ask, "Why is Steve Klein a member of this anti-Israel, anti-Semitic, pro-Palestinian terrorist state, Republican party?

I am convinced, George W. Bush is every much the anti-Semite as his close friend James Baker. How can I continue to associate myself with this Jew-hating party?

This would be a good question on your part. Why do I continue to identify as a Republican?

steve klein said...

Sultan, you wrote: "as I've already said numerous times, withdrawal from Gaza was Sharon's idea, not Bush's and the State Department was furious over it. Presidents do not want unilateral withdrawals, they want to have photo ops and appear as peacemakers. That's what this whole bloody process is about."

Just to clarify the record Sultan.

"Republicans agree with President Bush that Israel’s plan to remove all settlements from Gaza and several settlements from the West Bank is a courageous step toward peace in the face of continuing terrorist violence. This initiative can stimulate progress toward peace as laid out in the Road Map launched by President Bush.

"Republicans commend the government of Israel for its desire to pursue peace, even in the face of continuing terrorist attacks. This is demonstrated by steps Israel has taken, such as removing unauthorized outposts and improving the humanitarian situation by easing restrictions on the movement of Palestinians not engaged in terrorist activities.

2004 national Republican party platform

Sultan Knish said...

Why do you have to be a Republican? Just hold those values which are right and do your best to see them through. If you're inside a party, then work within that party to carry them through. But your identity is not the party and you obviously feel betrayed, but if you look at Jewish history, even short term American history, there shouldn't have been anything surprising about that.

Discover your core values and identify yourself by them, regardless of what party you work with.

The party platform endorsed Bush's endorsement of Sharon's plan. It's Sharon's plan in the end. You can see the difference now when Bush actually is pressuring Israel, it's not for unilateral withdrawals.

steve klein said...

You wrote: "Presidents do not want unilateral withdrawals, they want to have photo ops and appear as peacemakers. That's what this whole bloody process is about."

Maybe so. It seems to me however, you are either ignoring and / or excusing all the inordinate, immoral pressure this president and his secretaries of state have placed on Israel's leaders both publicly and behind the scenes - privately. Bush's road map was pretty much shoved down Sharon's throat. Powell rejected the exceptions Sharon's cabinet put forward.

Could this possibly have had anything to do with the title selected (The “Sharon Plan” — Disengagement) by Executive Director, Jewish Virtual Library, Mitchell Bard.

In the world to come, an innocent George W. Bush will plead, "I had nothing to do with it. It was all Sharon's fault! It was Sharon's idea! My hands are innocent. My hands are clean."

This seems to be your personal view. Were you his judge, you would absolve him of guilt because it was all Sharon's idea. Bush had absolutely nothing to do with it; neither he nor his "vision" nor his road map, nor his repeated lectures nor the numerous envoys Bush sent to the Holy Land, including his own visit. It was all Sharon.

Mearsheimer and Walt in their infamous "Israel Lobby" wrote: "Sharon began moving to wreck Bush's Road Map once and for all by pushing forward his own plan of unilateral disengagement."

If this is true, if this was Sharon's intent, as I wrote earlier is was sheer folly. Bush's Road Map is moving forward unimpeded.

Sultan Knish said...

bush pressured sharon on the road map and israel made formal statements about it, but the road map at that point had no practical application

I'm not excusing Bush, I simply hold him responsible for his actions and I hold Sharon responsible for his actions

unilateral disengagement was not in the road map, it was Sharon's own attempt to turn the situation around and create a palestinian state on his own terms

considering what is now going on in Egypt, he may have even had a larger plan to dump the whole thing in Egypt's lap, we'll never know

there's no doubt that the drive to force israel to create a palestinian state helped shape sharon's intentions, but that drive originated with Clinton, Bush is simply the carrier of it

steve klein said...

"unilateral disengagement was not in the road map, it was Sharon's own attempt to turn the situation around and create a palestinian state on his own terms"

That is all I am saying. I am not excusing Sharon. Sharon failed. He capitulated. Sharon obviously had great moral courage on the battle field, yet we know, with little to no faith in God, most Israeli prime ministers see their position vis-a-vis a giant like America, as virtually hopeless. Seems to me, one thing our prophets make clear, the nations are nothing in the eyes of the Almighty. But we Jews fear the nations. We are still in the ghetto, cajoling, compromising, negotiating for our existence. Paul Johnson in his chapter "Holocaust" wrote: "Their history, their theology (here I am guessing he is speaking of post exile), their folklore, the social structure, even their vocabulary trained them to negotiate, to pay, to plead, to protest, not to fight." With Hitler, there was no negotiating. I submit to you Sultan, nothing has changed. The nations (including this one) want to destroy the Jews. I don't trust Bush. I do not trust any of these leaders. They are all guided by self-interest. The Jews are in the way, so the Jews are expendable.

"considering what is now going on in Egypt, he may have even had a larger plan to dump the whole thing in Egypt's lap, we'll never know."

I am not so sure Sharon was this far-seeing. In his autobiography, "Warrior" Sharon indicated Gaza, Judea, Samaria and the Golan were all strategically vital. It was Sharon who pushed for settlements as a buffer and a barrier against invading armies. Sharon envisioned the settlement of Gaza. Ultimately I believe Israel is now in a weaker position. Egypt is an enemy. Egypt now has an ally in Gaza as well as strategic territory to launch a future invasion. Egypt is helping Hamas arm to the teeth. Then we have Hezbollah re-armed in the north with longer-range rockets and Olmert is negotiating the division of Jerusalem and a Palestinian state in the "West Bank." It seems to me -- and I am no military expert -- this does not bode well for Israel's security.

"there's no doubt that the drive to force israel to create a palestinian state helped shape sharon's intentions, but that drive originated with Clinton, Bush is simply the carrier of it"

I have said this many times, I expect this from leftists like Clinton. I do not expect this from conservative Republicans. Maybe I am expecting too much from conservatives. One of the biggest failures of my party, conservative activists, conservative radio talk show hosts, etc., is the absolute silence on this great moral evil. In a way, I feel like we are pre-Holocaust all over again. Silence. Historians I believe judge accordingly. Should these policies result in the kind of territorial compromise this administration envisions, we could conceivably see a terrible war with enormous Jewish casualties.

Everyone is asleep in Israel but for one or two. They are all boarding the cattle cars on the way to the death camps.

We Jews never learn from history.

Chana said...

Town Crier.. at least John Sidney and Hillary Diane are normal names.

Anonymous said...

What does it tell you about him? The root word in the name etymology means handsome and good looking.

Sultan Knish said...

Sharon was a complicated figure, there was Sharon the career soldier and there was Sharon the shameless careerist and it was not always possible to know which Sharon was speaking at a given time

as for what can be expected from republicans, what do you think Reagan did in Lebanon or Eisenhower in Suez or Bush Sr in Madrid?

The difference is scale and ruthlessness. Democrats used to be friendlier toward Israel back when they depended on the Jewish vote and before they went too far left wing. Carter broke the mold with open hostility toward Israel and lost reelection. Clinton learned from him and played a double game.

In the end though it's the career bureaucrats in the State Department and the CIA and the lobbyists for big companies who set US policy and they remain the same no matter who's in charge at the top. I give Bush credit for not listening to them for four years. Then he proceeded to fire his closest advisers, elevated Condoleeza Rice and began leaning on Israel in hopes of repairing what went wrong in Iraq and that I damn him for.

Mike said...

is feedback like backwash?

steve klein said...

"In the end though it's the career bureaucrats in the State Department and the CIA and the lobbyists for big companies who set US policy and they remain the same no matter who's in charge at the top."

Many remain and many / most / if not all are anti-Israel / pro-Arab. This is where you and I fundamentally disagree.

President George W. Bush is setting policy as Chief Executive. Everything I have read so far indicates he is a hands-on administrator and Commander in Chief. I subscribe to President Harry Truman's adage. "The buck stops here (in the Oval Office)."

Wed., February 13, 2008 Adar1 7, 5768

U.S. Secretary Rice plans March visit to Israel, Palestinian Authority

By Reuters

U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said on Wednesday she planned to visit Israel and the Palestinian Authority early next month to help both sides narrow their differences in Palestinian statehood talks.

The administration headed by U.S. President George W. Bush is trying to get both Israel and the Palestinians to agree on a peace deal before Bush leaves office in January 2009.....

Sultan Knish said...

regardless of where the buck stops your average president is a regional governor who gets his information about the world from his advisors and gets policy advice and reports from the CIA and the State Department

regardless of who to hold responsible, that is how the system works and it works against us because those reports invariably blame israel and suggest that the middle east could be stabilized by bringing peace etc

Keli Ata said...

Great article, Sultan. And toah for using the magic word--triage--that woke me up from my dreams of sitting the election out.

As a good nurse I employee triage in the voting booth :)

McCain it is. I'm not a supporter but he'll inflict the least amount of damage compared to the other candidates.

Sultan Knish said...

with obama looking like the democratic nominee, the alternative to mccain is the worst nightmare in American history

a man who makes Carter look like Ronald Reagan

steve klein said...

My view of G. W. Bush is that he lacks moral courage. He is not a strong moral leader or a statesman.

If he has moral convictions, they soon evaporated early on into his first term.

His first test came within weeks of his swearing in when an American spy plane flying over international water was downed by the Chinese. At the time, I thought his handling of that standoff was less than stellar. The Chinese demanded an American apology and an admission of guilt. They got a carefully couched apology of sorts. Then I watched this president condemn and scold Israel after each and every bloody suicide bombing prior to the September 11, 2001 atrocities.

I remember Arie Fleischer (Bush's court Jew) day after weary day urging restraint on Israel's part. Bush's Secretary of State and his State Department accused Israel of "excessive and disproportional" responses to bloody terror. Bush was troubled when Sharon responded by bombing empty PA buidings.

It was then, I realized we had a real live mouse from Texas in the White House. Was it LBJ that told Abba Eban, "I'm a lion. I'm not a mouse from Texas." (?)

I'm listening to Richard Clark's "Against All Enemies," on audio. Clark indicated Bush appeared less than reassuring to him on the day Islam visited American soil as it has done so often to the Jews in Israel. I will never forgive Bush for his callousness and his cowardice in the face of an implacable enemy to this nation.

Palestinians are part and parcel of the global jihad -- they are America's enemies -- yet Bush has done nothing but appease them.

steve klein said...

Keli Ata said... As a good nurse I employee triage in the voting booth...McCain it is. I'm not a supporter but he'll inflict the least amount of damage compared to the other candidates."

I'm not so sure that he will inflict the least amount of damage. My primary concern is Israel. How can we say McCain will inflict the least amount of damage to Israel? McCain appears to have it in for the Jews.

Sultan Knish said...

I don't see that McCain has it in for the Jews, I do see that Obama as the likely nominee is a terrorist supporter with a Muslim background backed by the far left wing of the Democratic party

I don't doubt that McCain will pressure Israel to make concessions but that's candy and flowers compared to what an Edward Said fan like Obama would do with the Presidency

steve klein said...

One thing John Bolton made clear at the Herzliya Conference, if Israel does not take out Iran's nuclear capability, Iran will get the bomb.

Israel keeps hoping against hope, waiting on Bush to save her from a nascent nuclear Iran. Same will hold true with McCain.

Is there any question where Israel will stand with a President Obama? Obama wants intimate heart to heart parleys with Tehran.

Will the Jews ever learn Sultan? Will we?

Sultan Knish said...

with a President Obama, Israel would have to fight its way through the US air force to get to Iran's reactor, all the while his administration would be busy providing nuclear technology to Iran

Keli Ata said...

I understand what you're saying Steve, really I do, but the bottom line is whether we abstain on election day or not someone will end up in the White House for four years.

All things considered I view Obama as the ultimate threat. BTW as an aside, I'm not too thrilled with the sincerity of his distancing himself from a Nation of Islam employee on his campaign.

And I can totally see Obama and his band of liberals deciding to "improve" the image of the US in the Arab world by turning on Israel and schmoozing with Muslim nations.

I agree with you on Bush--a total turncoat.

steve klein said...

Keli Ata said... And I can totally see Obama and his band of liberals deciding to "improve" the image of the US in the Arab world by turning on Israel and schmoozing with Muslim nations.

I agree with you on Bush--a total turncoat."

The problem is, Israelis do not agree with me on Bush. They see him as the best friend ever when in fact he is an outright enemy. Maybe it is better to have a known enemy like Obama in the White House. Why should we fool ourselves? When I go to vote next November, should our 2008 national party platform call for Israel to give up Judea, Samaria and east Jerusalem, for the establishment of a Palestinian-killer state, why should I vote for an enemy like McCain, only to have Israelis think they have another friend in the White House?

It's better to have a known enemy than a friend. King Solomon wrote, "deceitful are the kisses of an enemy." This is George W. Bush and John McCain.

Yobeeone said...

Keli, what you said the muzlim would do is what bush is already doing. the muzlim would take it to the level bush had hoped for and possibly beyond.

I've seen and read the newspaper clippings from bush's early years, he's accomplishing his plan with no resistance from anyone, which would open the doors for the muzlim to complete the task.

Sultan Knish said...


Some Israelis distrust Bush, others like him. Plenty of Israelis will love Obama too, just like they loved Clinton and media propaganda in America and Israel favors appeasers and liberals.

Calling McCain an enemy of Israel is a statement with little basis. McCain's positions on Israel are not different than that of any other president.

Obama by contrast is the equivalent of electing Hamas to the White House. There is no middle ground here.

steve klein said...

I am not saying Obama will be good for Israel. No American president has been good for Israel; some more blatantly anti-Israel than others.

Carter had to be amongst the worse. Bush, though a smooth talker, has been a disaster. I could be wrong, my guess is the Israelis who will like Obama will predominantly be on the left of the political spectrum. My guess is, there will be less Israelis in the defense establishment who will like or trust Obama than have trusted Bush and later, McCain.

Let's face it, Republicans "generally" have a well-deserved reputation being strong on national security compared to Democrats. But that is American security; not Israel's security.

Maybe you are right. Maybe I should not call McCain and enemy of Israel just yet.

Things stick in my mind. I will never forget this local caller, Bruce, on our central Fla. talk radio station. I believe it was just after 9/11 when Bush pledged to establish a Palestinian state and Sharon was not fully cooperating; he made his Czechoslovakia comparison. Anyway, there was a lot of bloody terrorism around this period.

Bruce is a military guy with a deep, gruff voice. Bruce calls in and says something to the effect that Sharon needed to salute Bush and fall into line.

I called in telling the host Bruce is an anti-Semite. The host -- who is a friend of Bruce's -- denied it, but truth is truth. I remember McCain saying something similar a few years back on television. I don't forget these things. When ever I hear an American official, in a patronizing manner, scold Israel about what is in the Jews' best interests -- with the implied threat that is behind it -- my blood boils.

I see this bullying / patronizing tendency in Bush, in Powell, Rice and McCain. I see military people do this, especially in the higher ranks. There has been much anti-Semitism over the decades in the officer corps. I am sure you are aware. General George Patton was a vicious Jew-hater as were many of his friends in the officer corps.

If you can accept this behavior from public officials, given that Israel is on the front lines in the battle against the global jihad, then you and I are very different. I will not accept this sort of paternalism, patronizing, whatever you call it. I don't care who it is.

steve klein said...

Sultan, you have an ally; and a powerful one. I greatly respect this woman and her courage:

Sultan Knish said...

the current Israel defense establishment was recreated by Sharon and answers to Olmert. It is left wing and before it was left wing, it was socialist. The American defense establishment may have right wingers but in the Israeli one, careerist moderates are the best you can get. If you don't believe me, take a look at where these people go after they go into politics.

as for Bruce, that's the problem with being a client state, you do wind up saluting and falling into line. Israel's dependency on America is the heart of the problem, the dependency is actually much lighter than most Americans or Israelis think, but the psychology is there.

As for the military, the protocols used to be required reading back before WW2. Enough said. Patton was just the most obvious, Marshall was just as bad but less obvious.

I don't "accept" this behavior, I'm dealing with the reality of the situation and picking the best outcome of a number of bad outcomes.

Yobeeone said...

I was just reading the article from Steve's link.

I find it amazing that no one questions why the muzlim's mother purposefully married muzlims. If she was actually an x-tian, they would have been the last pile of crap she would have ever considered marrying. Which goes back to solid reason to distrust muzlims entire background.

Danny Vice said...

I have a question for Conservatives who claim that there is something honorable about not voting for McCain. Who spend more of their time beating down a fellow Republican, while ignoring the extreme liberal forces that are about to kick their butts completely out of every branch of government.

This is not just about who will be President for 4 years. There is a movement afoot to wipe conservative thought completely from all aspects of public life.... While conservatives sit home and complain.

You'll trade 50% of McCains ear for zip out of the liberal who is convinced any kind of conservative thought is archaic. Great strategy!

What is honorable about sitting on your butt at home, refusing to vote – allowing all branches of government to be swarmed by RABIDLY liberal opponents who have vowed to undo everything conservatives have fought to achieve over the past decade?

I hear endless whining and griping from Conservatives – while the extreme liberals, who are bent on reversing every conservative principal – out number us at the polls nearly two to one. Is that principal or is that do conservatives just have a death wish to see our country turn to the extreme left (who has no problem getting their hind ends to the polls)..

What is so conservative about beating down the (soon to be) nominee who supports our troops, instead of the extreme liberals who insult our troops and degrade them every single day in front of the entire world?

By punishing John McCain for not being conservative enough – you are really punishing all conservatives by making absolutely sure they will be governed by radical, rabid liberalism for the next 4 to 8 years.

By stomping your feet and refusing to help, you in turn assure that the laws of the land will have few conservatives in a position of power to stop a runaway liberal train that will further infiltrate our school, explode your tax burden and socialize every part of your life it can.

If you must be dragged to the polls, then don’t bother complaining when our courts are swarmed by the liberals who will put judges in power.

Please think twice before punishing the rest of us conservatives, who may not love McCain, but are smart enough to realize the living nightmare that will ensue, if things continue on the path they are going.

I see nothing conservative about being so focused on the anthill, you completely ignore the volcano that’s about to wipe your entire cause out. That is not principal. That’s political suicide. Will conservatives ever learn?.

Danny Vice

Keli Ata said...

Yob, until 2005 I really didn't pay much attention to Israeli politics. As for Bush, while he was running for president I assumed as most other conservatives did, that he was Pro-Israeli.

The only voice of dissent I heard was in a chat room, and even then it was only one person speaking up to say Bush was not Pro-Israeli.

I think a lot of Republicans assume the Conservative party is pro-Israel, largely because of its Christian Zionist/Evangelical factions.

LemonLimeMoon said...

Conservative 'values' are not conservative anymore.
McCain will hurt America, just not as quickly as Obama or Hillary.

I do not think Bush is anti Israel at all. He just does not base his views on tanakh(bible)He is a secular man looking for secular solutions but then so is Olmert and the Knesset.

Post a Comment