thoughts from a brokenSoldier

If we are meant to believe that John McCain’s motivations behind his support for the Iraq War are driven by his patriotic desire to see the Iraq develop into a democratic ally for the United States in an otherwise inhospitable area of the world, what are we to think about his suggestion in 2007 (in the midst of his reveling in the fact that he was the one that had originally advocated sending even more troops into Iraq) that we should cut ties with the fledgling democracy?  In an extremely thorough GQ article addressing that very topic, they describe the statements McCain made to that effect.  In actions following McCain’s perception that Iraq was "undercutting" America’s efforts in the nation (a view prompted by the fact that Iraq’s democratic, autonomous government had the audacity to disagree with our plans for progress and a way forward), the following occurred:

It suddenly seemed that the efforts of the surge might be for naught. And so, shortly after returning from Iraq, McCain and Graham visited President Bush at the White House. According to three individuals with knowledge of the July 11 conversation, the pair advised Bush to cut all ties with al-Maliki unless he showed immediate signs of engagement. Such a move on Bush’s part would be tantamount to encouraging a coup against Iraq’s first democratically elected prime minister, but McCain and Graham saw the situation as a desperate one. We’ve got a military strategy that’s working, they told the president. And it’s being undercut by an Iraqi government that’s dysfunctional.

So if he was simultaneously advocating sending more troops into Iraq and the severance of ties with that country’s democratically elected government, what does that say about his opinion of our operations there?  It seems to me that if we are there as allies in the fight to rid Iraq of the extremists that are causing its internal turmoil, as McCain has colored the situation numerous times, then common sense dictates that we should have a vested interest in maintaining positive relations with the very government of the nation we are allied with in that effort.  However, the only way that such contradicting stances can be reconciled is by arriving at the conclusion that McCain separates the two as not simultaneously necessary.

Advocating the increase of our military presence in a country while also advocating the severance of ties with said country’s elected government smacks of pure occupation.  It says to me that McCain does not recognize the autonomy of Iraq’s government and their right to govern themselves - which he previously held as central to victory in the country:

Although US troops are necessary to help ensure security and act as catalyst for these monumental changes in Iraq, McCain doesn’t believe America should be acting on its own to stabilize the country. McCain has called for more involvement for the international community, and as president, he will continue to seek assistance from America’s European allies to help secure the Iraqi government, and he will work with the international community to make trade with Iraq more attractive.

So what sort of viewpoint on Iraq would jive with the desire to flood the country with even more troops while at he same time advocating cutting ties with its government?  The only rational explanation for such motivations is one that says McCain has absolutely no regard or mutual respect for said government, but rather believes that our presence there is solely rooted in an agenda that seeks to advance the American sphere of influence, regardless of the opinions of the voters within that country. Whether or not this is rooted in the belief that we are acting in the best interests of Iraq, it remains an arrogant and frighteningly unilateralist viewpoint.

Again, this country - considering our diminished image around the world as a result of the last eight years rife with unilateral action and disregard for the opinions of the international community - can ill afford to have a President with such an arrogant and self-centered view of America’s authority and role on the global stage.  Such a stance betrays a world view that is diametrically opposite from the standpoint that views our country as a participant in world affairs, but rather sees us as a global puppeteer that has the ability - and even the right - to dictate to the rest of the world the ways in which it should and should not act.  Sound familiar?

What is the best way for a faction to protect its flashiest and most appealing protege from valid legal investigation?  The answer appears to be to inject said protege into a national political race.  Ever since she was tapped as McCain’s VP candidate, individuals from both sides of the aisle have publicly wondered why McCain would risk such a seemingly dangerous and unconventional pick.  I mean, what presidential candidate in their right mind would select someone currently under governmental investigation for abuse of power for their running mate, especially when said candidate is behind in the polls at the time of the pick, in part due to his connection with a similarly corrupt incumbent administration?

But as this article shows, the motivations behind such a pick are likely less driven by McCain’s desire for reform, and instead more driven by the neo-cons’ desire to protect their rising star.

A lawyer for five Alaska Republican legislators suing for a delay of the investigation known as Troopergate said he will wait _ but not too long _ to see what the Legislative Council, a joint bipartisan oversight panel, does before asking a judge for an injunction… Elton had previously refused to call such a meeting before panel investigator Steven Branchflower issued his report. In a letter Wednesday to House Speaker John Harris, Elton said circumstances had changed.

He said the situation had become so politicized it was difficult to imagine it could get any worse. Elton said he used to fear that any debate without a report would be "run through the prism of presidential politics and focus on motives." But now, he added, the debate is "taking place through press conferences and lawsuits."

So, instead of avoiding such a potentially toxic choice to begin with, the movers behind the Republican campaign for the White House pushed instead to insulate Palin from the investigation by putting her in a position that makes the investigation appear to be politically motivated.  By throwing her in the middle of a contentious election, they can project the perception that any investigation into her conduct is motivated purely by a desire to defeat the Republican ticket in November.  Nevermind the fact that the panel that originally approved the investigation was overwhelmingly Republican (the panel consisted of 10 Republicans and only four Democrats) - now that she is the VP candidate, any look into her actions as Governor - even one that began well before her selection as McCain’s running mate, no less - must be motivated by a pure political desire to see her defeated.

It is sadly ironic that such a political maneuver could succeed in asserting that the bipartisan investigation is some kind of a political ploy.  Yet another reason why my faith in the current American system - one that I fought and sacrificed a good deal of my health and well-being to defend - is slowly but surely eroding.

All the effort McCain has exerted to separate himself from the wildly unpopular current President may have just been undermined by spokesman Tucker Bounds in a discussion concerning McCain’s recent gaffe in saying that he would fire Chris Cox, the chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).  First, he grievously miscontrues the President’s role in the SEC Chairman’s employment, saying:

"The regulators were asleep, my friends," McCain said. "The chairman of the SEC serves at the appointment of the president. And in my view has betrayed the public trust. If I were president today, I would fire him."

He serves only following the nomination of the President, which only materializes if the President’s nominee is then approved by Congress - the true authority behind such governmental appointments.  He most certainly does not serve at the pleasure of the President, which was what McCain’s insinuation in his statement conveyed, considering that he asserted that he could fire the SEC Chairman based on his own evaluation of the official’s job performance.

Then, Tucker Bounds provided definitive proof that supports the idea that McCain’s way of doing business lines up nicely with that of George W. Bush.  This is his quote:

Asked how McCain would fire Cox if the president does not have the formal power to fire the chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, the McCain campaign pointed to former SEC Chairman Harvey Pitt who resigned in 2002 when it was made clear to him that he had lost the confidence of the Bush administration.

"Not only is there historical precedent for SEC Chairs to be removed, the President of the United States always reserves the right to request the resignation of an appointee and maintain the customary expectation that it will be delivered," said McCain spokesperson Tucker Bounds.

This logic is obviously flawed, because it was Pitt’s choice to resign - he was not legally forced or "removed" from office by those that installed him, but rather he succumbed to the pressuring of an elected official that had absolutely no authority to fire him.  President may very well reserve the right to request the resignation of such an official, but contrary to McCain’s assertion, the President most certainly does not have the authority to simply fire such an official should he think it necessary.  If the President did in fact have that power, he would not have requested the resignation - he simply would have fired him.  And because of that, he definitely does not have the right to maintain the "customary expectation" that such a resignation would be delivered.  I mean, what would your reaction be if you worked for a company and the HR executive in the personnel office told you that he personally expected your resignation, and that you should submit it regardless of whether or not your boss - the one with the actual authority to remove you - agrees with his request?

His statement betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of how our government works on the executive level, which is only enhanced by the fact that he has previously told voters that there will be multiple openings on the Supreme Court Bench in the next President’s first term.  Here’s the direct quote from the Huffington Post article from August 12th, 2008:

Earlier today, John McCain gave one of his famous Straight Talk Express Town Hall Extravaganza Applesauce Chat Revival Shows in York, Pennsylvania, and during the Q&A section, said something jarring with regard to his "conservative stance" on issues. Seeking to reassure the questioner that he has only the best intentions for fans of hardcore conservative judicial activism, he told the questioner that there were going to be two-to-three vacancies on the Supreme Court soon. This was, in McCain’s words, "According to people who decide these things."

Since SCOTUS justices serve lifetime appointments, the only entity that "decides these things" is the very entity that determines when we all will die.  I don’t know about you, but I don’t think our country can afford another term under a President who believes he speaks directly and specifically with his God - the only entity that I can think of that McCain’s "Judeo-Christian" centered mind would be referring to here - on political issues.

Back to the topic, McCain’s demonstrable lack of understanding of how our government operates would be alarming even if he hadn’t spent the last quarter of a century inside that very system.  Considering that he has spent that much time within the inner workings of our national government - not to mention being a senior member within it - his ignorance is not only astounding, it is patently dangerous.

Anyone want a couple of short, simple, concise reasons why the Republicans shouldn’t be trusted as honest arbiters of our national government?  Here you go:

Democrats, Florida Elections Officials Criticize GOP Mailing

Obama Campaign Sues Mighigan GOP Over Voter Challenges

Nevermind the fact that such actions are blatantly designed for voter deception and intimidation - the fact that the GOP would use foreclosures against potential Democratic voters is the epitome of hypocrisy, especially when it was the Republican push towards deregulation that caused this crisis in the first place.  It is the intellectual equivalent of an employer stealing an employee’s car and then firing them for being late for work.

I swear, I don’t think the GOP honestly knows when they’re crossing the line and hurting their own cause.  Either that, or - which I consider to be more likely - they simply think that the American voter just won’t care about such blatantly unethical conduct on the part of their elected officials.

I sorely hope that the electorate proves them wrong in November.

Ron Christie is not only a Republican shill, but a shameless, idiotic one at that.  His recent blog advances - and indeed makes the effort, however futile, to justify - the ridiculous assertion that McCain’s computer and technological illiteracy is a direct result of the injuries he sustained as a POW in Vietnam.  Now, I wouldn’t expect Ron Christie to actually parse this out for himself and really see how feeble an excuse it is, but I would expect him to recognize that there are plenty of other people - worse off than McCain physically - that use computers and the internet on a daily basis.  As a matter of fact, there are many individuals on this Earth who are so grievously disabled that the only way they can interact with the world is through the use of technological assistance.  This is simply because when the body fails, the mind can still persevere.  Also, in a bit of first-hand experience with this, I can tell you that due to my injuries received in combat in Iraq (which are both physical and cognitive in nature), the government’s policy is to offer things such as free BlackBerries and computers to veterans in order to allow us to use them to augment our quality of life and allow us to live - somewhat, at least - like we used to live.

A shining example that should be readily recognizeable to anyone is Stephen Hawking.  The man hardly has the ability to use his body at all, yet he is able to communicate ridiculously complex and cutting edge ideas to the scientific community using the technology that has been designed for him, and using that chair he sits in for the multiple functions he uses it for is certainly more difficult than signing on to check your email.  I would put money on the fact that Hawking certainly knows how to do that…

The glaring conclusion in this is that it is not the body that prevents someone from understanding and using the technology available to us today, because doing so is not a physical undertaking, but rather a mental one.  It does not take a fully functioning musculo-skeletal system to log onto the world wide web, and it certainly does not require that the user have full range of motion in their arms.

(And if anyone decides to take this criticism as a slight against McCain’s service record, you can take a flying leap off the tallest structure around.  His service record and his feeble excuses as to why he isn’t versed on common technology have absolutely nothing to do with each other, and the suggestion that they do is simply a thinly-veiled attempt to shield the candidate from any and all criticism by way of using his military service and experience as a crutch.  And being a disabled vet myself, if there is one thing I absolutely hate, it is the unjustified exploitation of injuries received in combat. Such injuries and disabilities already create plenty of genuine problems for those who are unfortunate enough to experience them without an ambitious and unscrupulous candidate inventing difficulties that don’t actually stem from them in order to cover his own personal inadequacies.)

So, there are two explanations here.  Either John McCain truly cannot lift his finger to get online because of his injuries, or the problem is not physical.  Since he obviously has the physical ability to hold a microphone, walk around under his own power, and write with his own hand, it is painfully obvious that the obstacle in this case is not physical.  (And if they are suggesting that he has cognitive - as opposed to physical - disabilities that prevent his understanding of such, then should he really be a viable candidate for the highest office in our nation?)

Also obvious are the McCain campaign’s motivations behind this vacuous, and frankly hilarious, excuse.  In today’s technologically advanced society, it would seem to be common knowledge that our leader should be able to use all the tools at his disposal to execute his duties as POTUS.  To admit that he has a lack of understanding concerning something that has become second nature to most citizens would - or at least should - be a death knell to his campaign.  But cast that lack of ability in a physical light and connect it to something as honorable as having survived enemy captivity, and you magically have an explanation that is seemingly unassailable by his opponents.

I’m not buying it, and neither should the rest of the country.

Okay, after all the recent ire I’ve spilled onto the virtual pages here, it’s time for a little aside on a lighter note.  There is a habit among our media - country-wide - that kinds of sticks in my craw.  (I am an English Major, which explains why I take issue with this…)

In recent history, I have noticed that many journalists, national and local, have taken to using the phrase "an historic" when describing significant events in our society.  While this seems very intellectual and proper, it is quite definitely an erroneous use of the language as we have come to use it in America.  (Before you accuse me of nitpicking, be advised that I know this is a minor thing, but I wanted to stray away from the political, even if just for a moment.) 

The use of this phrase can quite easily be traced.  When speaking in the British dialects of the English language, the phrase "a historic event" is most certainly incorrect, but only because in those specific dialects, the "h" is silent.  That means that the first syllable actually pronounced is the vowel "i."  And as we know, when putting an identifying article in front of an adjective, the "a" becomes "an" if the first pronounced syllable is a vowel, illustrated by the difference between saying something such as "a building" and "an event."  But when American journalists speak, they pronounce the consonant "h" in the word historic.  So what we end up with is the phrase "an historic event."  Try it in reverse and you’d get something like the phrase "an significant event in history."  Take away the fact that British speakers display this trait, and we have no reason to place the word "an" in front of a word that begins with a consonant.  As an example, do you ever hear anyone describe something large and heavy as "an hefty item?"  You do not, even though the British dialect, true to its form, would certainly mandate such a pronunciation.  The problem, though, is that British journalists rarely ever use that phrase. 

Hey, I told you it was minor!  I simply wanted to take a break from outlining the faults of the McCain-Palin ticket for just a hot minute.  I mean hey, you can only say something so many times before it becomes a bit boring, and boring is not something I take a lot of enjoyment in being.  At the risk of being branded sexist, I’ll use a well-known axiom to explain my momentary departure from my recent theme.  Trying to get a message across to hardcore Republicans about how unfit their nominees’ ticket is is like teaching a pig to sing - the only two things you’ll accomplish are to waste your time and annoy the fuck out of the pig. 

But don’t despair…  With all this recent material surfacing about the inconsistencies in statements and policy records/ proposals from the McCain-Palin camp, I’m sure I’ll be getting back to familiar topics fairly soon!