McCain’s Middle East policy: “Keep fighting the bad guys. Someday we’ll figure out why.”

This from MSNBC:

Mr. McCain said at a news conference in Amman that he continued to be concerned about Iranians “taking Al Qaeda into Iran, training them and sending them back.” Asked about that statement, Mr. McCain said: “Well, it’s common knowledge and has been reported in the media that Al Qaeda is going back into Iran and receiving training and are coming back into Iraq from Iran. That’s well known. And it’s unfortunate.”

It was not until he got a quiet word of correction in his ear from Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut, who was traveling with Mr. McCain as part of a Congressional delegation on a nearly weeklong trip, that Mr. McCain corrected himself.

“I’m sorry,” Mr. McCain said, “the Iranians are training extremists, not Al Qaeda.”

This exchange doesn’t give one any confidence that Mr. McCain, running for the highest office in the land, has any grasp of the basic facts regarding the U.S. military presence in the Middle East (I refuse to call it a “war”).  

Perhaps McCain should bone up on all of the previously-given false reasons for risking the lives of U.S. soldiers in Iraq and Iran before giving any more press conferences.   The Bush Administration has excelled at giving false reasons–there’s no reason to invent new ones:

1. WMD in Iraq (and now, allegedly, in Iran)
2. Saddam Hussein behind 9/11
3. Saddam Hussein connected with al Qaeda
4. Fighting terrorists there so we don’t have to fight them here
5. Spread democracy
6. Saddam Hussein (and now, the President of Iran) was (is) a bad man.
7. Iraqi violations of UN Resolutions
8. The 1993 assassination attempt against GHW Bush
9. Defend Israel
10. Bad intel
 
[Thanks to Hugh’s Comprehensive Bush Scandal List for the above false reasons, the tip of the iceberg regarding Bush Administration scandals].

New York Governor Eliot Spitzer fails the sex test. Who’s next?

It’s plainly evident that a person can no longer do the work of a politician unless he or she has the right kind of private sex with the right kind of person.

Proper sex is a rigorous test here in the U.S. Yep, you can tell bald-faced lies that drag a nation into a needless war that kills thousands of soldiers and kills hundreds of thousands of civilians. You can torture and you can spy and you can hang out with all kinds of corrupt assholes. If you do these things, a minor-distribution newspaper might raise a question or two several years down the road. No biggie.

But God help a politician who has an orgasm in private with a person to whom the citizens of New York haven’t given their stamp of approval.

Elliot Spitzer had sex, in private, with a woman who wasn’t his wife? “Gad, how could he possibly be qualified to be governor?” chant all of the holy and moral politicians on the sidelines. Those protesting “holy” politicians are the ones who feign lots of anger in public while, in the privacy of their homes they lap up the salacious accounts of Elliot’s young and beautiful consensual sex partner; they virtually lick the words off their newspapers as part of the process of working up more faux rage for tomorrow’s press conference. They practice their horrified expressions in their mirrors, so that they can make it clear to the People how awful it is for two adults to have consensual sex where money is exchanged instead of a diamond ring.

Let’s write it into the federal and state constitutions that the People need to be well-informed about the sex practices of all politicians and that these politicians should only engage in “proper” sex. If not, we’ll destroy their careers so that some morally superior political hack, the kind that practices only missionary-position-half-dressed-in-the-dark-with-his-spouse sex, can take over and enact the superior kind of government policy that is only understood by those who politicians who practice “proper sex.” Continue reading

Explore the sub-structures of a modern Republican’s brain.

This is rather shameless promotion of some work I originally posted at Dangerous Intersection.   Here’s the diagram, which is the fun part.   If you want more explanation, check out the DI post.

                                            republican-brain-lo-res.jpg

Snopes on Barack Obama and the Pledge

Here’s a claim the ignorantia are busy barking on the streets:  Barack Obama allgedly refuses to say the Pledge of Allegiance.   

Snopes demonstrates that this claim is clearly false.   Obama does say the Pledge and he often even puts his hand over his heart while saying it (as the photos accompanying the Snopes article demonstrate).

Those who get worked up over the Pledge probably don’t know that there was no Pledge of Allegiance until it was written by a Christian Socialist in 1892.   The words “under God” were not inserted in the Pledge until 1954.  

Therefore our Founding Fathers did quite well, thank you, without any Pledge at all.  If those who are accusing Obama of not holding his hand over his heart want to be consistent, shouldn’t they declare all of the Founding Fathers morally and politically suspect?

I thought not.

Or how about this?  Is it OK for a President to give false evidence to the citizens in order to start a needless war, to torture prisoners and to spy on his own citizens, as long as he consistently puts his hand over his heart when he says the Pledge of Allegiance? 

I thought not.

Whether a politician ”properly” says the Pledge of Allegiance doesn’t say a damned thing about that politician’s character.   Honorable people and chumps are equally good at saying the Pledge.  This simple and undeniable fact makes a willingness to say the Pledge utterly worthless as a test of character.  Why is this simple fact so hard for so many people to grasp?  Must be those eight years of brainwashing . . .

Is the Iseman smear job on John McCain fair?

You’ve probably read the reports that John McCain has put himself into situations suggesting that he had an sexual affair with a 40-year-old female lobbyist.  Can this politically devastating information possibly be relevant to the current presidential campaign?

Not unless McCain has long-embraced and supported a political party that has consciously decided to make sexual moral pronouncements a major and unrelenting part of its political existence, all the while conflating the U.S. Constitution with the Ten Commandments and spewing this mentally stunted version of democracy in a holier-than-thou piss-on you-if-you’re-different-than-who-we-claim-to-be sort of way.  McCain, of course, is also a prominent member of the Republican serial polygamy club, another manifestation of Republican hypocrisy when it comes to alleged Republican sexual purity.

Those conservatives who get angry at seeing political smear tactics involving sexual innuendo need to shut up and take this medicine because they’ve all earned it by voluntarily associating with the modern day Republican party, a party that specializes in hypocritical villainizing (sexual, racial, immigration status, religious beliefs, you name it).  If those who are troubled by these smear tactics want these sorts of incidents to become irrelevant, they need to tell the Republican Party (by voting) to get government out of America’s bedrooms, for starters.

The next step toward redemption (for those who currently support the GOP) is to consider the real problem.  Remember, it’s not Vicki Iseman the lobbyist, it’s Vicki Iseman the lobbyist.   The problem is not that Iseman has a purportedly accessible vagina; rather, it’s that she hands out lots of corrupting campaign contributions on behalf of her clients.  Who accepts those contributions?  That’s the other part of the real problem: there is an immense amount of political/financial/campaign-cash whoring going on with regard to Mr. McCain, who claims to be Mr. Campaign Finance Reform Savior.  I’ve expounded on this more interesting issue over at Dangerous Intersection.

Do Do Fun Coffee? Dick Shoes? Distractions to my western eyes.

Spanky, I believe your claim that Bich Nga exists. Your post inspired me to share a couple photos I took while I was in Changsha (Hunan Province), China in 2001. Coffee or shoes, anyone?

do-do-fun-coffee-changsha.jpg

Yes, I prefer my Do Do to be fun.

mei-dick.jpg

I didn’t go into the above store. I was a bit apprehensive that I wouldn’t know how to make proper use of the products they sold.