I take it you have to replace the words 'enemy' and 'foe' with "Islam", to make any sense of this? O_o

Posted by: Rogster at January 9, 2008 1:24 PM

He's an idiot

Posted by: Elric66 at January 9, 2008 1:24 PM

I will not say "Islam"
I will not say "Muslim"

repeat after me......

Posted by: descendantofacrusader at January 9, 2008 1:26 PM

Maybe Mcain is afraid to offend them with the truth,a very unpopular thing in the U.S. today.

They're trying to throw out this case (below) by accusing the sharp Berkley County Officers who stopped thse two Islamic terrorists hiding behind school books.

TAMPA - A judge has scheduled a hearing for this afternoon to consider whether high-profile lawyer John Fitzgibbons may withdraw from representing an Egyptian student accused of trying to help terrorists.
Fitzgibbons has filed a motion asking to be released from the case of Ahmed Mohamed, a former University of South Florida student who was arrested Aug. 4 along with fellow student Youssef Megahed. The two were charged with illegally transporting explosives after deputies in South Carolina discovered explosive materials in the trunk of the car in which they were riding, authorities said.
Mohamed also was charged with trying to help terrorists by teaching or demonstrating the use of explosives in a video officials said he made and posted to the Web site YouTube.
Fitzgibbons states in a motion filed Monday that he tried to visit Mohamed on Sunday at Falkenburg Road Jail. Jail officials handed Fitzgibbons a note written by Mohamed.
"I don't want you to represent me anymore," the note read.
Megahed and Mohamed are scheduled to go on trial in March. Federal judges usually frown on lawyers withdrawing from cases, especially if their withdrawal could contribute to a delay in a trial.
There's no indication whether Mohamed has attempted to hire another lawyer. Fitzgibbons is being paid by the Egyptian embassy to represent Mohamed, who was in the U.S. on a student visa.
http://www2.tbo.com/content/2008/jan/09/mohamed-attorneys-exit-bid-be-heard-today/?news

Posted by: rocketman at January 9, 2008 1:27 PM

I want to believe that the identity of this "ENEMY" is implied--if Mac merely said "AlQaeda," then he would be grossly underrepresenting the "FOE" that we face, by implicitly omitting the larger menace.

I am, all the same, dismayed by any equivocation, and by any self-defeating desire to avoid giving offense.

Posted by: John C at January 9, 2008 1:35 PM

Thanks R.K. "He who must not be named."lol

Posted by: Kevin at January 9, 2008 1:36 PM

McCain supports the democracy adventure in Iraq, thus he cannot name Islam (or even Jihad) as the problem. If he did it would put him at odds with his support for democracy (without a western bill of rights)in Iraq.

GOP vs. DNC = Stupid vs. Soft

How come no one can be both strong and smart?

Posted by: greatcometof1577 at January 9, 2008 1:41 PM

Yes, but............since I am recovering from the media bitz that happens everytime we have a primary, I will point out that at least McCain knows we have an implacable foe.

Compare this with other candidates who seem to think we can "negotiate" our problems away.

Posted by: tanstaafl at January 9, 2008 1:41 PM

With his opposition to Gitmo and Torture, McCain would be al Qaeda's candidate for president if he wins the nomination.

All patriots out there - please vote ROMNEY!!!!

Posted by: Infidel Pride at January 9, 2008 1:42 PM

McCain has Hanoi Syndrome.

Posted by: TheOmegaMan at January 9, 2008 1:48 PM

"For its lack of specificity, the above paragraph could all but refer to the tussle between the NFL Network and the cable industry."
--Marisol--

And a vicious struggle it is, Marisol. Thanks for pointing that out.

McCain was simply leaving the ______ open to insert your own useless label or qualifier.

Posted by: awake at January 9, 2008 1:59 PM

"And as we confront this enemy"

...well, that could be the MSM, Michael Moore, or college professors....

Posted by: exsgtbrown at January 9, 2008 2:03 PM

Cthulu!

Posted by: MP at January 9, 2008 2:09 PM

"And nothing should unite us more closely than the imperative of defeating an enemy who despises us, our values and modernity itself"

...well that could be the MSM, Michael Moore or college professors...

Posted by: exsgtbrown at January 9, 2008 2:10 PM

There is a need for an external enemy, as a point of focus for the rage which would otherwise turn into civil war. . . . To this day, the civil wars return to such areas whenever there is no external enemy, or no dictator to keep order by force. (There is a parallel to countries in Medieval Europe, which warred constantly unless they pointed their energies outward toward a Crusade against infidels.)

from Civil Disobedience or Civil War?
WHY WE MUST NAME OUR ENEMY
Islamic Danger FU

Posted by: unicorns62000 at January 9, 2008 2:18 PM

Here we have self-incriminating evidence provided by McCain himself that he would make a rotten president (as in possibly even worse than "old wobbly" Bush).

In a national emergency, the Commander-In-Chief will have to do a helluva lot better than THAT.

No on McCain's candidacy for president.

Posted by: pythagoras at January 9, 2008 2:20 PM

"And nothing should unite us more closely than the imperative of defeating an enemy who despises us, our values and modernity itself."
-- from the speech of John McCain

The sentence, while slightly ambiguous, suggests that that enemy, bearing the Hate Whose Name We Dare Not Speak, "despises us" because of "our values" and because of "modernity itself." These phrases do not help, but stand in the way, of comprehension. Which "values" is it that "they" despise us for? Is it, as Dinesh D'Souza would have it, the "values" represented by Britney Spears (and for that matter her new friend Adnan) and Lindsay Lohan and "ET" and "Access Hollywood" -- in other words, the crap of the age? Does he think that they "despise" less the Amish in their buggies in Lancaster, Pennsylvania,, or Orthodox Jews being careful not davening in a Lubavitcher synagogue on Ocean Parkway in Brooklyn, people whose "values" one might think would be just fine, in contradistinction to Britney, Lindsay, and all those wearers of midriff rings?

And as for "modernity" -- what part of "modernity" does that Unnamed Enemy despise? Not the Internet -- they use it all the time. Not satellite television -- see Al Manar, see Al Jazeera. Not those videocassettes, showing the decapitation of Infidels in Iraq. Not those audiocassettes, upon which the Ayatollah Khomeni registered his views while in exile in France, and his followers then distributed all over Iran. Not cars, not trucks, not planes. No, the "modernity" is really the same old list of the haram: almost all forms of music (save a bit of folk music, begrudgingly permitted), most forms of art, free and skeptical inquiry, equality for women, freedom of conscience, and above all, equality, in Muslim-ruled lands, for non-Muslims.

Why does this matter? Because his continued belief in the Bush Administration's colossal folly in Iraq is based on his recognition of a menace, but his misidentification of the precise source of that menace. Time wounds all heels, in the end, no doubt, but in Presidential races, the best orthotics, to help protect a candidate from a possible Achilles' heel, consists in the best orthoptics, which is to say, in seeing things straight, seeing things aright.

Posted by: Hugh at January 9, 2008 2:23 PM

pythagoras,

ditto that (No on McCain)

Posted by: unicorns62000 at January 9, 2008 2:27 PM

McCain is just another off the shelf, generic, no-name-brand, non-descript -- globalist.

Posted by: witness at January 9, 2008 2:29 PM

I think this criticism is off the mark. If you listened to the New Hampshire Republican debate over the weekend, McCain was very clear about who the enemy is. At various points he called them "islamofascists", "jihadists", "islamic extremists", and "islamic fundamentalists".

With the exception of Ron Paul, the Republican candidates are pretty straight about who the enemy is. The democrats are the ones that are vague.

Posted by: Ernie Banks at January 9, 2008 3:08 PM

Ernie Banks--

I did not watch the debate, but I stand by my criticism of the content of this speech; I think the post-primary speeches were an important opportunity for each candidate to set the tone for the near future of the campaign. There's also something to be said for consistency, especially on such a trademark issue as national security has been for McCain.

I don't harbor any ill will toward McCain (I'm also completely undecided on a candidate right now), but I think public scrutiny helps shape the discourse about the candidates, and makes for candidates who are more "on the ball."

Posted by: MarisolJW at January 9, 2008 3:38 PM

Before everyone starts hating on McCain, he did say just recently that me must stop Radical Islam:

http://www.voanews.com/english/2008-01-07-voa49.cfm

While I don't think McCain is the best person for President, he is only looking for votes at this point (the same with any other candidate) so right now everyone is not trying to offend anyone just yet. I'm not justifying anything, but at least he's not a tool like Mitt Romney. I'll definitely vote Democrat if he is the GOP candidate.

Posted by: Patriot_1/17 at January 9, 2008 3:51 PM

To get through to Senator McCain, one must associate the Viet Cong with Jihadis. Viet Jihadis!

Posted by: AmericanTiger at January 9, 2008 3:53 PM

McCain needs to realize that the only criticism he, or any other Republican candidate will face is the very low %age of Muslims who live here and their Leftist supporters. Neither of which will vote for any of them no matter what.

It really is one of those 70% issues, just like Closing the borders is.

The Population as a whole would be well served by a direct confrontation between the Truth and the Fabrications of the MSM.

Some of our greatest leaders have been the ones who took a position and refused to bend to the pressure of their poorly informed or agenda driven critics.

A confrontation of this nature would remove a great deal of inane fluff that passes for News.

The American People want a change alright. A change from Misinformation to something more closely resembling the Truth.

Posted by: flowerknife_us at January 9, 2008 3:55 PM

If the enemy is "extreme islam" then we can live with the satis-que of protecting the Gulf-states, National Oil addiction and Multiculturalism.

If the enemey is Islam itself then we need to fall back to Ethiopia and India. We deprive ourselves of any friends in the Muslim world. This is the way Bin Laden wants it.

We need to see how the "extreme islam" enemey stragy plays out. It's alot cheaper if we win this way. In my heart I know the enemey is Islam itself, but we are not prepared Nationaly to accept that.

Posted by: Ruebacca at January 9, 2008 4:16 PM

I didn't vote for McCain yesterday. I voted for Duncan Hunter. Just thought I would get that out of the way first.

None of the candidates on both sides will ever name the enemy directly, so we might as well not get our panties in a bunch over this crowd. We expected this.

First, let me address those Republicans who are distressed that John McCain won the NH Primary and who declare they would vote for the DhimmiCrap in November if he is the Republican nominee. You are making a huge mistake. I realize all of the issues you could bring up, related to McCain's voting record, words, and actions. I share a lot of those concerns. What most troubled me was his very public posturing over the "name, rank, and jihad number" approach he would favor with respect to the jihadis captured. Extending Geneva Convention rights to this enemy is a serious mistake. Any of our distinguished, public Muslim apostates would declare it madness, given the nature of this enemy.

Being emotional about voting and candidates is rarely a good thing. The DhimmiCrap opponents would lay us bare to this enemy in ways you don't want to imagine. Plus, they would be very bad for our military and economy. Are any of you old enough to remember Jimmy Carter? Before you fulminate over a RINO, keep in mind what The Party of Jackasses would have in store for us.

While not a John McCain supporter, I think he would be more aggressive in his posture towards our enemies than the current occupant of the White House has been and would be evermore. Remember that George Bush left in place many of the Clinton people in the State Department and the CIA who did horrible, treacherous, and treasonous things to undermine the President's policies. I think McCain would not make that mistake, and would be far more of a bulldog against his domestic enemies. He would use the bully pulpit more to go on the offensive against our domestic and foreign enemies. And if you want someone who would be utterly ruthless towards his enemies, please consider Rudy Giuliani.

Posted by: FredIsinglass at January 9, 2008 4:19 PM

I am reminded of a passage in the wonderfully ominous opening chapter of the Lord of the Rings.

"They [the refugees] were troubled, and some spoke in whispers of the Enemy and of the Land of Mordor.

"That name the hobbits only knew in legends of the dark past, like a shadow in the background of their memories; but it was ominous and disquieting. It seemed that the evil power in Mirkwood had ben driven out by the White Council [consider: the parallel might be the rollback of the Turks that followed the victory at Vienna in 1683] only to reappear in greater strength in the old strongholds of Mordor. The Dark Tower had been rebuilt, it was said. From there the power was spreading far and wide, and away east and south there were wars and growing fear. Orcs were multiplying again in the mountains. Trolls were abroad, no longer dull-witted, but cunning, and armed with dreadful weapons. And there were murmured hints of creatures more terrible than all these, but they had no name."

Our poets - Tolkien, that medievally knowledgeable Catholic, and J K Rowlings too, more recently, another writer who has some obvious acquaintance with medieval and renaissance literature - have been more perceptive than our politicians.

I think that both of them, consciously or perhaps unconsciously, in imagining their epic confrontations of good and evil, drew not on the obvious real-life examples of 'the battle with Nazism' or 'the Cold War', but on the much older template of the thousand-year-long Defence of the West Against the Jihad.

And both, in their different ways, teach the importance of knowledge, and of Naming that which one fears.

Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at January 9, 2008 5:02 PM

Patriot_1/17

McCain is al Qaeda's candidate: he's the one who opposes Gitmo & torture, supports the International Criminal courts, et al - you don't see that excrement out of Romney. I don't know what exactly Romney is a tool of, but as long as it ain't Islam, he's fine by me.

If McCain is the candidate, the US won't be worse off with HRC or BO - at least, he's then history, and the GOP can then return to its real conservative roots, instead of all those Left wing wannabes like McCain, Huckabee, et al

Posted by: Infidel Pride at January 9, 2008 5:10 PM

McCain won because he has integrity and was a war hero. Now all he needs are brains.

Posted by: jewdog at January 9, 2008 5:38 PM

Sounds good, lasts a long time, does nothing...

Posted by: duh_swami at January 9, 2008 5:47 PM

The "enemy," apparently, is named Voldemort.

Posted by: scaramouoche at January 9, 2008 6:04 PM

Fredisinglass:

Romney named the enemy on television: Jihadists and the global jihad.

He's our best hope it would seem.

Posted by: pythagoras at January 9, 2008 6:45 PM

President McCain? Open borders, no more Gitmo, no waterboarding--no matter if millions could die.
No thanks.

President Obama? Naw. Maybe in Kenya. Can you take the madrassa out of the candidate? Perhaps. Perhaps not. How 'bout that Afrocentric anti-Jew Church of his? As I said, "Naw".

President Rodham Clinton? Been there. Two for the price of one. The Clinton twins. Remember how Bill handled the jihad? Ask a Serb about what he did to Kosovo. The U.S.S. Cole. A couple of tomahawks into Afghanistan "to teach them a lesson." Some lesson. Bill left the door open for 9-11. Mentally challenged one that followed him couldn't recognize an open door if you led him through it.

President Hucakbee? Once said something strong against the jihadists. Not much lately on that. More about his faith, the poor poor. Compassion for illegal "immigrants" (aliens really).

President Law & Order? Says a thing or two, from time to time. Not much to hang your helmet on.

President Giuliani? Haven't heard much from him lately. Did a couple of good deeds. One very good deed (refusing the Saudi's gift). So far, haven't seen enough to annoint him as the man to lead us out of the darkness.

Let's see, who's left?

I'll pass over the fringe guys.

President Romney? Before anybody else dared say anything to possibly hurt the jihadists' self-image, he suggested listening in on mosques--see what they're up to in there. That sounded good. Lately this has been swept under the rug. Still-- But he has to run in Michigan next. You know who has a population there. But they wouldn't vote for him anyway, not after that mosque remark or two. So . . .

Still wide open. Who'll it be? Who amongst all the contenders thinks most like us (the people who watch the jihad and get more and more exasperated that nothing is being done to curb it)?

Posted by: unicorns62000 at January 9, 2008 7:31 PM

I called McCain's campaign office about two weeks ago and had a polite chat with an overworked campaign staffer about the 'temporary worker' program the Senator says we need to implement (despite all the ones we already have) and, of course, about Islam.

I asked her if he would be more comfortable if our enemy consisted of 'moderate jihadists' rather than 'radical jihadists'.

'Oh, that's a good point', she noted; telling me further that she had fielded many phone calls about and that I was the only one, among all the others, who knew much about the subject.

Later, in the conversation, she offered that for politicians, Islam is a 'touchy' issue.

When I asked her about our policy for handling a Gitmo detainee's Qur'an, she mumbled something about religious freedom and 'as long as the procedures aren't violating our constitution', etc. See the following for the 'procedures'.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/006589.php

The disease of ignorance knows no political boundaries.

Posted by: PRCS at January 9, 2008 7:53 PM

Flip flop.flip flop,flip flop,flip flop
sounds like another politician to me, not a leader!!!

Posted by: OLD SARGE at January 9, 2008 8:12 PM

Infidel Pride,

Mitt Romney is a tool of the Republican Party. He says exactly what Republicans want to hear. He criticized Huckabee because Huckabee criticized President Bush (which the last time I checked, dissenting is still allowed in this country). He was quoted as running "The most negative campaign of any GOP candidate." That is my main problem with Romney. He doesn't say why he is the better candidate, but why everyone else is worse. He did stick to his word about not getting involved in abortion matters while he was governor, and I admire that. Also, I do not have a problem with him because he is a LDS. I do have a problem with him attacking Huckabee for courting the Evangelical vote because Romney is doing the same thing out West where there is high LDS population. Not to mention, he is all for gun control. Anyone who supports gun control doesn't fully understand public safety. However, there are only few candidates that do support gun rights. So take your pick, none of the candidates are shining stars in my opinion, but I firmly believe Mitt is not the best candidate.

As far as "Left Wing wannabes" supporting Rudy and Huckabee, you say it best when you call them "Wannabes" because they are political activists wannabes. Huckabee might have some liberal ideas on economic goals and such. Oh well. Like previously mention, Romney isn't hardcore conservative. McCain doesn't support torture because he was a POW, but can you blame him? Ron Paul would be the ideal candidate if he would speak the truth about Islamic terrorism (and lay out his plan to put the Gold standard into effect.)He doesn't support amnesty for immigrants, he is Pro-Choice, Pro Gun, and is all about the Constitution. Like I said before, however, no candidate is a shining star.

Posted by: Patriot_1/17 at January 9, 2008 9:50 PM

"I'm not justifying anything, but at least he's not a tool like Mitt Romney."

Romney says islam, he says Jihad.

Mitt is it, if we don't get Mitt Romney, (and Tom Tancredo for V.P.), you are left with Duncan Hunter, and Fred Thompson as people that have a clue about islam, and border issues. Thats about it. Flip a coin on the others, you will not get what you think you see, or hear.

Bush was the best man the last two cycles, who was better is really not a issue.

And by the way, all funding for the border fence was removed in the budget last December, canceling the border Act of 2006.

John McCain has not said a word about that, not a single word. And he won't.

Posted by: Islofob IS-1 at January 9, 2008 11:26 PM

OT

http://galliawatch.blogspot.com/2008/01/acid-attack-in-subway.html
Another horror story in the subway. This time in the suburbs of Rouen. From François Desouche:

On December 31 in Saint-Etienne-du-Rouvray, a suburb of Rouen, a young girl, 16 years old, was alone in a subway car. Three "young people" who had been shopping got on. In their bags of provisions there was a bottle of chlorhydric acid, purchased at the supermarket.

Note: chlorhydric acid is another term for hydrochloric acid, a highly corrosive substance.

The three boys approached the girl who ignored them. They persisted, without success. They went into a rage and poured the chlorhydric acid on the seat, then, as they were about to leave the train they turned around and splashed the acid in the face of the unfortunate girl.

Seriously burned on the entire upper part of her body and her face, she is in danger of losing an eye. Two days later, thanks to the video surveillance cameras, the police were able to arrest the three individuals. The three "young people", ages 14 and 15, are under investigation for voluntary acts of group violence with a weapon.

French speakers can view the video of the same story here:
[-]

Posted by: Borg at January 9, 2008 11:33 PM

"Bush was the best man the last two cycles, who was better is really not a issue."

If by best you mean selling our port security to an Arab country, then Bush is the best. Congratulations.

Posted by: Patriot_1/17 at January 9, 2008 11:33 PM

I should have put "trying to sell our port security." Sorry.

Posted by: Patriot_1/17 at January 9, 2008 11:36 PM

Another OT

http://galliawatch.blogspot.com/2008/01/unworthy-of-paris.html
Yes, you are not dreaming.

The scene takes place in Paris, rue Myrha, in the 18th arrondissement, at the hour of prayer. The faithful kneel down on the street, even on the pedestrian crossings. They even put up two lightweight barriers so that cars could get by. Probably the community itself put them up.

This scene has been going on for several years.

And so I ask this question: Is this image worthy of Paris? Everyone knows, these faithful did not choose to be there; they are there because they have no house of worship. A situation that is at once undignified for them, and contrary to law, since public thoroughfares are "laïc" areas that must stay free so life in the neighborhood can proceed normally.

For my part, I clearly state that a large city like Paris must allow each one to practice his faith in dignity, in the strict respect of the rules and laws of our country. Paris must also be a city of dignity and respect.

It is true that the image above is unworthy of Paris, but not in the way she means. She also abuses the notion of "laïcité", which at the most was designed to separate the Catholic Church and the French State along broad lines, and not designed to perceive, in the absence of a mosque, an affront to the laws of the Republic. In fact, it is building the mosque that is contrary to the laws of the Republic.

The current mayor of Paris, socialist Bertrand Delanoë, has built up a reputation as a radical left-wing ideologue, with his pro-Islamic position, his pagan-style festivals, his penchant for naming streets of Paris after repulsive criminals such as Mumia Abu-Jamal, etc... It looks as though Panafieu has her work cut out for her. He's a hard act to follow, but she will try.

[-]

The photo shows the streets of Paris blocked by muslims praying. She is crying that it is not right. Not that they are blocking the street, but that they have no where to pray and so are forced to block the street and shouldn't taxes build them a mosque?

Posted by: Borg at January 9, 2008 11:38 PM

Patriot_1/17

Thanks for clarifying. Some of the things you mentioned about Romney are pretty valid, but none of them trump McCain on Gitmo and waterboarding. Normally, in a pre-9/11 world, I'd be looking at the whole portfolio of what a candidate has to offer - taxen, SS reform, Gun control, et al. However, since 9/11, I'll readily admit to you that I'm a single issue guy - the issue being Islam. I'm willing to hold my nose and support a candidate who promises higher taxes, high regulation, and opposes 99% of what I stand for, as long as that candidate is perfect on Islam. Of course, nobody is, so I generally look for who's closest, and pick on that criteria.

Tancredo was the best, in that not only did he support aggressive countermeasures against Islam (threatening to nuke Mecca), but that he also supported the JW position of disengaging from Iraq, and presumably allowing Islamic hellholes to fester in their internecine conflicts. Romney comes next, since as governor, he ordered mosques in his state surveilled for terror activity, and has been willing to call out the enemy by their proper name, albeit with the moronic qualifier. Giuliani follows. I don't like the stance of any of them on the war, but if I supported the Dems, we'd be allowing Iran to do what it likes, supporting Pakistan (it was HRC who had BJ break the impasse with Pakistan after their nuke tests) and allowing all sorts of Muslims into this country.

Only problems I have with Romney is that he advocates reaching out to moderate Islamic countries, and if that's anything like Bush, then you're right - one should be wary of him. Giuliani keeps calling Islam a great religion, and in an ad of his right now running in CA, he looks almost perfect, since the ad looks like a movie trailer of 'Obsession'; only problem with it is that it describes that activity as a 'religion betrayed'. All of us know of course that it isn't.

On Romney's negative campaigning, I've never had a problem with candidates running ads on their opponents describing what their record was on controversial issues, be it letting serial murderers loose on the streets, or raising taxes by $500m, or whatever. That is legitimate debate. I do dislike whispering campaigns highlighting Obama's supposed Islam, or Romney's LDS, or Giuliani's marriages - that genuinely is none of our business. I never had problems with Steve Forbes' ads either. It depends on what you call negative campaigning. I'm against intrusion into the private lives of candidates (unless of course you have a Gary Conduit like situation), but compare and contrast of records is perfectly fair game.

Anyway, let's see how it plays out. I believe that Super Tuesday is going to be when this is decided, and no earlier.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at January 10, 2008 12:26 AM

Are any of you old enough to remember Jimmy Carter? Before you fulminate over a RINO, keep in mind what The Party of Jackasses would have in store for us.

by FredIsinglass

Fred,

Oh, yes I do remember Saint Jimmy. Unlike you, I just can't see any difference between McCain and Clinton (for example). Sure McCain might keep a larger army, but what will he do with it? Feed the hungry of the world, maybe? You really think the guy who supports open borders is going to protect this country against Islamic terrorists? I don't care about his health care plan or what have you. What is he going to do to protect this country? Judging by his record, I don't think very much. New Hampshire voted for him. Big deal. New Hampshire is irrelevant. They voted for him before. He went nowhere.

When push comes to shove, if I can't find a Republican I can support with conviction, I'll vote for a third party candidate. No more strategic voting. No more lesser of two evils. No more voting against the guy I want to see lose, even if that means supporting someone who doesn't speak for me. Been there, done that. As of 2004, I've been voting for someone instead of against the other guy.

Posted by: PMK at January 10, 2008 12:26 AM

"Unlike you, I just can't see any difference between McCain and Clinton"

...hmmmm...McCain has served in the military....Clinton...nope

McCain has commanded military forces....Clinton...nope

McCain has combat experience....Clinton...nope

McCain has real experience with captivity and torture of POWs....Clinton...Nope

McCain knows about military planning and execution of battle plans....Clinton ...NOpe

McCain has experience in defying punishment by captors and has attempted suicide to defy to deny his captors the pleasure of making him submit....Clinton...nope

McCain has the support of large numbers of the military voting bloc...Clinton ...Nope

.....hmmmmm...well...Clinton does whine when things are not going well and cry a bit more than McClain when things are tough.,......

Posted by: exsgtbrown at January 10, 2008 6:30 AM

From McCain I wouldn't expect any better.

Posted by: joeblough at January 10, 2008 1:07 PM

"If by best you mean selling our port security to an Arab country, then Bush is the best. Congratulations."

Posted by: Patriot_1/17

Nope, best meaning simply he won the election. Trying to sell the ports security was a regretful action by him, and he is taking others right now.

Whoever is best this cycle will have to deal with what is being done now, and many fall short of even being ready to understand the issues.

Posted by: Islofob IS-1 at January 11, 2008 2:33 AM