"Maybe McCain's head was submerged in the rice paddy too long after bailing out of his crippled jet in Vietnam."

Perhaps it's just up his ass.

McCrazed?

Crooked cops, crooked lawyers, crooked judges, crooked politicians, crooked doctors, crooked scientists, crooked clergymen -- but no crooked journalists. An amazing record for an amazing class of people.

Imagine for a moment please... just one tiny moment if, oh... say Barak Obama or Hillary Clinton made a statement so disconnected from anything like reality as the statement McCain made about Iraq and featured in Larry Johnson's post above. Would that statement made by any Democrat (just name one because they would all get the same treatment)be seen only on the cable channel it originated on and the left blogosphere?

I'll give ya a moment to think about it.

Ready?

That's right friends, it would be on all the major networks, in every major newspaper and on every talk radio show for days if not weeks.

The entirety of Punditdom would be all asquawk with speculation about the judgement and probably even the sanity of the Democrat who would say such obviously stupid and uninformed things. Instantly, there would be speculation about the Democrat having to withdraw from the Presidential campaign. But this is no Democrat we are talking about friends, it is St. McCain who the media christened lo those many years ago back in 2000 so he is treated with kid gloves instead of being called out as the clown he is on this topic (not to mention many others). I say Larry's response hits the perfect tone of respect for McCain's laudable military service and derision for the idiotic statements on Iraq that he has made. Go Larry! Keep calling em like they are!

SeeDee

I just wish Blitzer, or any other 'interviewer' would ask McCain the following questions:

(1) Why is the U.S. spending G-D knows how many billions in Baghdad building what is called the largest U.S. Embassy compound in the entire
world?

(2) Why are we also spending billions of dollars more to build four huge permanent military bases in Iraq?

Of course we know that Bus/Cheney is pressuring Maliki to hurry up and give those 30-year oil windfall profits to Exxon-Mobil, BP, et alia...so, does this mean the U.S. is going to provide armed guard service for those greedy so-and-so's for the next few decades?

What does McCain (and, for that matter, Hillary, Obama, Rudy and Edwards) have to say about THAT waste of more money and lives for the profit of Bush's buddies?

...and he certainly should not be trusted to get anywhere near the White House.

Or sharp objects.

The man spent all those years as a prisoner. He lacks a sense of what the country went through, because he simply wasn't there.

End of story.

I had taken Michael Ware to be just another apologist for the war, perhaps competent but knowing what he must say to maintain access to events, but it seems he does draw a line somewhere on the mythology he is prepared to spin. I saw the interview and had the same reaction to McCain's statement that Ware had, a sort of you have to be kidding. I almost thought that I could sell McCain some shares in a new Baghdad Hilton on low cost land somewhere outside the green zone.

I think that the Republicans will find one or two more candidates quickly. They are not going to want all their eggs in the Rudy basket because he may any day reveal himself as a basket case too.

global citizen

McCain in 2000 is not the McCain of 2008. I think he's going to get a rude awakening in the primaries. Stick a fork in 'im - he's done.

His advanced age is now starting to show and he doesn't help his case by saying delusional stuff like this.

He's been a good soldier on my issue - higher auto gas mileage standards - I applaud him for being a Maverick, but I think when he sucked it up and embraced Bush, something died inside him.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/27/AR2007032701923.html
The government lacks dominance in every province, he added. One result is that "no Iraqi government official, coalition soldier, diplomat, reporter, foreign NGO [nongovernmental organization], nor contractor can walk the streets of Baghdad, nor Mosul, nor Kirkuk, nor Basra, nor Tikrit, nor Najaf, nor Ramadi, without heavily armed protection."
From McCaffrey's report

What does the GOP have? Mutt Romney, pander-dog. Goatman Giulani, for whom it is always rutting season. And Loony-Bird McCain. It's about time for McCain to climb back on the Flip-Flop Express, fire up the diesels, and lumber off into the sunset.

Mr Johnson, I always appreciate your postings and generally think you are dead on. However.....

We already have one President barely in touch with reality.

If you are talking about Darth Cheney I think you are mistaken. If you are talking about chimpy then you are way off base. Can you name any statements coming from him that show he has a grasp on reality? I will give you some time to research.

McCain's Cloud-Cuckoo land

has a population of at least two, the other being Independent(?) Democrat Joe Lieberman:

The effect of the timeline would be to "snatch defeat from the jaws of progress in Iraq," agreed Lieberman, who won a new term last fall in a three-way race after losing the Democratic nomination to an antiwar candidate.

But I don't think McCain was quite divorced enough from reality to offer a strong speech in support of the nomination of Sam Fox for Ambassador to Belgium, the swiftboater of John Kerry:

The Fox nomination became controversial in Connecticut because Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman, an independent, took the extraordinary step last month of appearing before the committee to offer strong support. Fox is highly regarded in St. Louis for his philanthropic and civic activities, and Lieberman praised Fox as an example of "what America is all about."

Lieberman's loyal Republican friends withdrew the nomination today.

aMike

SeeDee

As for expert diagnoses of what is the cause of McCain's obvious delusionary state, Terry, I must respectfully suggest that ljjohnson's idea could be as close to right as your own dismissal of 'long ago captivity and abuse in that status' of being a factor in McCain's mental state.

And, given the tone which prevails for political discourse and disparagement in this day and age (mostly the result of Repugnucan campaign tactics) I do not find ljjohnson's attacks on McCain particularly disturbing.

The GOP has proven time and time again with folks like Atwater, Rove, et al., that 'nice' does not work.

Perhaps we can all agree that McCain is delusional without deciding which one of several possible factors -- age, combat and incarceration, or reality-challenged sycophantic pandering (see, e.g., his bewildering statement that he'd have to ask Tom Coburn's opinion whether condoms help prevent STDs) -- is the primary cause.

I suggest this not out of any concern for McCain, but because I think our current batch of recent veterans ought to feel free to seek out care for their combat-related disorders without fearing that for the rest of their lives everything they say will be evaluated not on its merits but as PTSD talking....I'd hate to think that our criticisms of McCain contribute to an environment where vets feel marginalized as "crazies."

The GOP has proven time and time again with folks like Atwater, Rove, et al., that 'nice' does not work.

Exactly what does that have to do with attacking veterans and providing an excuse for McCain?

The Nixon Administration used the same sort of odious tactic in an even more repugnant way to attack Solzhenitsyn. Seemed his years in Soviet prisons had surely left Solzhenitsyn unhinged.

Let us at least not pretend that this is somehow damaging to Karl Rove and the memory of Lee Atwater but rather a compliment to the art of the smear.

Best, Terry

He was on CNN this morning and got what should have been a very obvious question on funding for cancer research and he was struck dumb. Couldn't even attempt an answer. If he's that tired already, he's never going to hold up to a long campaign.

This is so sad. Back when I was a Republican, I even voted for Senator McCain (2000 primary). I always thought of him as a man of integrity, humor, and sensibility in a world of idealogues, idiots and immorality. Although I have known for several months that the Senator is going all out to win the votes of social conservatives and the know-nothing right, I never imagined it would come to this. This is a position that it is impossible to respect.

"Better to find out now" is cold comfort at best.

I don't honor his service either. He dropped bombs on innocent people from thousands of feet in the air. Big deal.

Isn't this what you meant to say, Mr. Johnson, rather than the usual taunt after the obligatory disclaimer?

As a private in the Army when I went to Vietnam, I have some sympathy with the offensive lineman who was quoted saying the quarterback should pay to get in the stadium. The real soldier still today is the infantryman.

Jane Fonda astride the barrel of an antiaircraft gun in Hanoi while American prisoners are being tortured to death in the basement of the Hanoi Hilton is still a heroine today to many. John Kerry was too dumb to understand that Vietnam veterans were at a disadvantage in elections, held in contempt by the chickenhawks on the right as well as those on the left idolizing the draft resisters.

We have taken visitors to the site of the "Battle of Bloody Creek" [Oriskany Battlefield]. Not much of a creek really. Wouldn't take much to have the water running red. The ambush of colonialists on their way to relieve a besieged fort resulted in the very first taste of victory during the Revolutionary War. From that humble beginning a new nation was born with ideals like none other before that lit a fire that has not yet quite been extinguished.

It was so long ago.

Not many visit.

Too bad I think.

Best, Terry

Did any Americans kill innocent people? I thought not.

Why do you think there were not atrocities in the Vietnam War - and in all wars?

50,000 Americans dead, a million Vietnamese

Old men send young men - and now women - off to war. It is true of Vietnamese as well as Americans.

Why do you hate the young soldiers so?

Do you also hate the children soldiers of the Lord's Resistance Army in Africa that have sometimes been made to kill their parents and even cannibalize them?

I am done here.

I feel very, very old.

Best, Terry

Old men send young men - and now women - off to war. It is true of Vietnamese as well as Americans.

It was true of the Vietnamese as well as the Americans. But a large percentage of the Vietnamese casualties were civilians and non-combatants. Vietnamese civilians still continue to suffer the effects of Agent Orange or unexploded American munitions. It was a consquence of fighting a war in their country.

Why do you hate the young soldiers so?

I don't think its a matter of hatred, such that they went to kill. There's nothing noble or honourable about such work. At best, there is sometimes brutal necessity.

Do you also hate the children soldiers of the Lord's Resistance Army in Africa that have sometimes been made to kill their parents and even cannibalize them?

It is true that the situation of child soldiers is appalling and tragic. If such children can be rescued from their situation, guided back to humanity, then good. But no matter how horrid their suffering, if they grow up to be monsters, then it is the monsters we must deal with.

There was nothing noble or honourable about the Vietnam war. It was conceived in lies, fought for lies and ended in disgrace. Iraq is the same thing, first time tragedy, second time farce.

Come on, folks.

Hyperbole is commonly used in blogs to generate reader interest and make for a compelling story. I don't believe for a minute that Larry actually considers himself qualified to be a "psychic doctor" (ala Bill Frist) and able to make a definitive diagnosis with no exam.

You are missing the point which is a very good one. Military service does not excuse McCain from adopting policies positions that are (1) pure fantasy, and (2) doing grave harm to the military. By asserting that he drank too much water from the rice paddy, Larry is spotlighting this point, not establishing a medical diagnosis.

If we really love our country and if we really appreciate and honor the service of our armed forces, we should all be mad as hell right now.

Well, there were isolated moments of nobility and honor, Valdron. While I was at the Saigon Post Engineers, a WAC Major upstairs became very upset because the Vietnames ladies would relieve themselves according to their custom, by squatting. They would actually stand on the toliet seats, since the compound only had western style johns. Tired of the footprints of the toliet seats, the WAC Major wrote an order requiring the Vietnamese employees to use a latrine located way at the back of the compound - quite a distance from the office building. Of course they were outraged, and I actually encouraged them to 'wobble the job' in protest. I felt noble in doing this, and I thought it was an honorable suggestion (they didn't follow my advice, however).

A rather flippant story, I admit, but I think on the ground there were some very noble and honorable acts by individual GIs - and many of them - that we should not lose sight of. While I agree with you on the level a general characterization of the war, there were many Americans there who genuinely cared for the Vietnamese people and their welfare.

Neoboho

McCain; "Well, I was talking about Baghdad, Arizona.

Yep, I caught that too.  But it was 20K per month - a fact ignored by Issa and co.  

Neoboho

Like Wonkette, I am hooked on "Walnuts!!!".

I've watched the John "Walnuts" McCain 2008 Campaign Ad more than a dozen times and each time I watch it, I crack up laughing. 

On March 30, 2007 - 1:51am RocketEngineer said:

Yup, Baghdad Arizona was a lot safer than Baghdad Iraq, until the wingnuts in the Arizona Senate passed laws allowing you to carry your gun into a bar...

Yes, they repealed Wyatt Earp's rule for Tombstone, AZ.

"No guns allowed inside city limits."

Fuck McCain. The sanctimonious prick voted to impeach President Clinton.

Senator John McCain, appearing on NBC's "Today" show Wednesday from Orlando, Fla., said the war "was badly mismanaged. But there are signs of progress everywhere. ... I am confident that given the opportunity, we can have success. The consequences of failure are catastrophic because if we come home, bin Laden and Zarqawi, they are going to follow us."

Thought I was kidding?

The idea that the boogey man will follow us if we leave Iraq ignores one fact; It took only 19 to attack us on 9/11, ergo, the boogey man can attack us whether we're in Iraq or not.

http://www.wunderground.com/US/AZ/Bagdad.html

Interesting site with lots of goodies, especially liked the astronomy, and pics of Arizona. 

On March 30, 2007 - 6:01pm CVille Dem said:

Anyone who misses this question should not go to college, and should figure out some way of educating him/herself to do menial tasks, and NEVER be in charge of anything,

I give her a 5 for Originality. :)

Joe Blow said:

People who post replies to other posters should start their comment with the name of the poster they're referring to; as in "Joe Blow said". It would make it much easier to follow the debate.

J. McCutchen

Journalists were incredulous at the Political Theater John McCain put on in Baghdad...

Things are just great..damned media!

Faces of The Fallen Portrait Gallery

Profoundly moving
Unspeakably tragic

The fact is, the troops are in Iraq. How you get them out is the issue.

I do not agree with your premise that John McCain is a clueless non-listener who doesn't understand the situation we are in. What I see in his comments is a desire to speak morale into the effort of achieving some lesser objective after which he can bring the troops home (assuming he believes he will be the next CINC). I do not see him continuing a neocon fantasy world. Do you? Is that how you read McCain?

Presidents have in the past engaged in morale building statements to make what they are saying come true. Where that saves more lives in the mid-run, I prefer it to the approach of someone who stands on the sidelines while the war is hot, and screams morale breaking headlines at the troops.

Criticize the hell out of the policy makers' contributions and be specific. But why not point out where the troops are making progress on the ground, and differentiate between what is possible for them with the right leadership and the current leadership's moves. Also, a responsible move would be to demand and advise this president on what to do to salvage the best possible result, not pile on for political demonization of the GOP.

Let the policy makers be confronted with the necessity of engineering a sound objective within the US troops' control that will trigger withdrawal and redeem the US effort in some sigificant way. But don't confront their ill-conceived ideologies through the ground troops' efforts -- rather come up with specific objectives which the troops could achieve and which the leadership must, if it would truly lead, do to make that possible. Perhaps you've done this elsewhere, but it really needs to be a constant effort from people like you who have a bit more cyber real estate than others. Think: if there's a leadership vacuum over the troops' heads and over the intelligence community, then other voices will tend to fill the vacuum -- if our voices are those voices, should they not consider the effect of what is offered on the troops' route of egress?

You must realize that there is a partisan element to the worst-case-scenario-is-with-us-all-the-time chorus to which you add your voice, even if several worst case scenarios have ambushed a president out of touch. This is an election year, and that always seems to add some warp to the public policy perspectives.