Pharyngula: Warmonger McCain

#1

Posted by: Renier | September 10, 2008 1:56 AM

Will it never end?

#2

Posted by: Dagger | September 10, 2008 1:56 AM

Get this out of youtube and on to the networks. Everyone needs to see this.

#3

Posted by: Michael | September 10, 2008 2:04 AM

The Dems tried that back in 2004, with John Kerry and failed. McCain has a long history...In 1983, he fought against Ronald Reagan urging U.S. withdrawal from Lebanon. "I do not see any obtainable objectives in Lebanon, and the longer we stay there, the harder it will be to leave," he said. McCain also said the troops were sitting ducks for terrorists.

One month later, guess what? A terrorist attack killing about 241 troops in Lebanon. In 2004, McCain angry about how the war was being conducted declared; "no confidence" in Rumsfeld. McCain was first to suggest a troop surge in 2006. The surge has worked, troops are coming home around 8,000 this year, and more next year as progress rolls along...

#4

Posted by: Spero Melior | September 10, 2008 2:06 AM

He truly still is a prisoner of war.

#5

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | September 10, 2008 2:08 AM

"He'll make Cheney look like Gandhi" sez Pat Buchanan.
Nice.
Hey Michael: "the surge has worked"??? Are you insane? Ah, clicking on your name reveals the truth to be: yes!

#6

Posted by: Erica | September 10, 2008 2:14 AM

Love that last quote, "He'll make Cheney look like Gandhi".

Holy crap! eerr unholy crap?

#7

Posted by: SC | September 10, 2008 2:24 AM

It's the middle of the night and I just awoke and watched this. I wish I were still asleep and it a nightmare. Almost defies comprehension that this person could become President - it would be a disaster for the US and for the world. We're standing at the edge of a precipice in this election.

#8

Posted by: Erica | September 10, 2008 2:24 AM

On the upside, maybe he'll kick the bucket and leave Palin in charge so she can build bridges to nowhere and fire everyone that's ever 'intimidated' her.

#9

Posted by: Ali | September 10, 2008 2:24 AM

Wow, pretty powerful. It is sad to see in recent years that war is being considered among the first things to do in order to deal with "shaky" nations. I guess I'll quote Bill Clinton with what he said at the DNC, "People are most impress by our power of example, not our example of power".

#10

Posted by: tinyfrog | September 10, 2008 2:25 AM

There's no way we're going into Iran, and there's no way we're going to use nukes on them. Just think about the fact that Iraq has 27 million people. Iran? 65 million. There are 2.4 times as many Iranians as there are Iraqis. Think we have a problem in Iraq right now? And we won't use nukes - it would create a massive backlash in the Arab world, and every nation in the world would condemn the use of nukes on civilians. Not even the Republicans are stupid enough to think that going into Iran is a good idea.

#11

Posted by: Dagger | September 10, 2008 2:26 AM

Michael @ 3

Ah yes, the peace thru superior firepower mantra. You've never served a day in your life have you you pathetic toad.
People like you make me sick. I'd like to load all your kind into a cargo and drop you in the middle of the shit. Then we'd see how long you kept up your insane ramblings. But since that ain't gonna happen, I'll have to settle for;

1) F**k you
2) F**k your god
3) F**k the religious lying sacks of shit on both sides that got the world into this mess
4) And a big f**k you for anyone who thinks that continuing it is the right thing to do

#12

Posted by: Johnny | September 10, 2008 2:27 AM

To be fair (which is admittedly kind of foolish in this race), I'm sure most of us think that anything coming out of Pat Buchanan's mouth smells like the south end of a bull's digestive system. Should this be any different?

McCain's words do speak for themselves though.

#13

Posted by: Perturbed reader | September 10, 2008 2:31 AM

I don't like those ads. Displaying horrific pictures of mutilated children is unethical. Does anyone really know if any of those pictures are from the Iraq war? We're all scientists here (well, besides the obvious kooks) and we shouldn't be suckered by unreferenced images or partial truths. They could be taken completely out of context and now some child's tragedy is another's political stunt.......sickening.

#14

Posted by: Nibien | September 10, 2008 2:35 AM

Does anyone really know if any of those pictures are from the Iraq war?

Even assuming they're not, do you think that given all the Iraqi civilians that have died and been injured that those pictures aren't accurately conveying what a number of them have gone through and are going through?

#15

Posted by: raven | September 10, 2008 2:42 AM

Actually the chicken hawks have made the USA a sitting duck for any thugs that come along. The US military is overextended fighting two endless wars in the middle east, bled out and weary. We are also broke. Anyone reading the news knows two of the largest banks in the world failed yesterday, fnma and fre.

When Russia invaded Georgia, all we could do is have Bush mumble something forgettable and stupid. Putin laughed and called him a moron.

I'm a big fan of the Roosevelt/Reagan principle. No one ever lost a war by being too strong and prepared. We need a strong military and need to use it for legitimate self defense. Not for foolish cowboy adventures that accomplish nothing.

All empires overextend themselves and then collapse. Rome, USSR, UK, and on and on. As George Santayana pointed out, "those who ignore the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them." Already in the foreign European and Asian press, there are frequent references to the "former superpower." A country called the USA.

#16

Posted by: Kel | September 10, 2008 2:43 AM

And we won't use nukes - it would create a massive backlash in the Arab world, and every nation in the world would condemn the use of nukes on civilians. Not even the Republicans are stupid enough to think that going into Iran is a good idea.

That seems the odd thing about nuclear warfare. The whole purpose for having nukes is wholly as a deterant for others who have them. But of course that builds up the number of nukes that nations have, and leads us to Mutually Assured Destruction on an ever-increasing arsenal of devastating weaponry.

There's no way any nation would ever think of using a nuclear weapon these days because that would mean that almost instantaenously would bring about their swift demise. So looking to use military operations on countries that do have nuclear weapons in an aggressive manner could envoke that scenario. Maybe the US are looking for an excuse to use their nukes on Iran, get them to attack Israel and give the US justification in actually using one of the many thousands they have laying around.

#17

Posted by: Jim1138 | September 10, 2008 2:47 AM

Michael: John McCain is an unadulterated hot head who does not think before making decisions i.e. the non-vetting of Sarah Palin. Just what we need for president [/sarcasm] Mikey, your URL link reveals you for the fundie nut-case that you are. McCain's and Palin's records speak loudly, but fundies can only hear the lies.

Here is a good article on people like Michael and why they do what they do:
Jonathan Haidt "What Makes People Vote Republican"

#18

Posted by: amk | September 10, 2008 2:51 AM

The 93K Iraqi civilian deaths figure is presumably taken from Iraq Body Count. This is bound to be an underestimate, and does not count deaths caused by collapsing sanitation and medical systems or crime. The IBC is the lowest estimate I know of. Others are over a million dead.

There was an unsightly row between the authors of the (in)famous Lancet-published studies (98k and 650k) and the IBC.

#19

Posted by: SC | September 10, 2008 2:52 AM

The numbers given in the video of Iraqi civilians killed and dollars spent in the war are far too low.

#20

Posted by: Phil | September 10, 2008 2:53 AM

And what did Wesley Clark get for his troubles? The media raked him over the coals for criticizing their war hero, even though Clark is the only one who actually was a general.
When Dems criticize, they get roasted. When Republicans do it, their lies get repeated over and over.

#21

Posted by: John | September 10, 2008 2:53 AM

Michael told a cowardly lie:
"A terrorist attack killing about 241 troops in Lebanon."

Michael, you douchebag, no attack on any troops, particularly troops taking sides in a civil war, can EVER be termed a "terrorist attack."

It was a military attack and the US was defeated. Reagan retreated.

Let's see if you can get a basic definition straight. What is your definition of terrorism?

Was the attack on the WTC terrorism? Yes.
Was the attack on the Pentagon terrorism? No.

#22

Posted by: truth machine, OM | September 10, 2008 2:57 AM

Completely out of context? You are in deep deep denial. Unethical to show their pictures, but not unethical to cause their injuries?Sick.

#23

Posted by: amk | September 10, 2008 2:58 AM

I should say that the IBC does not include uniformed soldiers (not sure about police), whereas the Lancet and ORB studies do.

There was an IBC pdf which suggested that the IBC and Lanet I (98k) were in broad agreement with each other and other sources. I'm trying to find it.

Apparently IBC was unimpressed with Lancet II though.

#24

Posted by: raven | September 10, 2008 2:58 AM

The 93K Iraqi civilian deaths figure is presumably taken from Iraq Body Count.

Iraq is such a hellhole that no one really knows how many Iraqis have died. Most of them in sectarian violence between Sunnis and Shiites. Despite the propaganda, the vast majority of victims from Islamic terrorists are... other Moslems.

The best estimates I've seen are somewhere between 250,000 and 800,000. The wide spread is because really, in that sort of chaos, we just don't know.

#25

Posted by: BobC | September 10, 2008 2:59 AM

93,835 Iraq civilians killed, and probably many thousands more permanently injured. They probably wish we didn't liberate their country.

More than 1/2 trillion dollars of American taxpayer money spent, more than 4,000 American soldiers killed, many thousands more Americans without their limbs or their eyesight or worse. A few years ago I read about an American soldier returning to his small town in Illinois without his nose and without both of his hands. Did Bush care? I doubt it.

Maybe we shouldn't be starting wars without a plan to end it. Our two religious wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have lasted longer than World War II and there's still no end in sight.

#26

Posted by: SC | September 10, 2008 3:06 AM

Joseph Stiglitz puts the cost of the Iraq war so far at $3 trillion:

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/2/29/exclusive_the_three_trillion_dollar_war

http://bravenewfilms.org/blog/32453-the-true-cost-of-the-iraq-war

#27

Posted by: amk | September 10, 2008 3:18 AM

This is the report I was looking for on IBC and Lancet I, plus others. It's IBC's response to a quarrel between IBC on one side and the Lancet paper's authors and MediaLens on the other. It's quite old now though.

#28

Posted by: Karl | September 10, 2008 3:20 AM

That video seems slightly...unfair.
Don't get me wrong, I'm totally against McCain.
But you guys always complain about quote miners, And a lot of the quotes from McCain in that video seemed as thought they could very well have been taken out of context.
Maybe they weren't, maybe he really was saying he wants to "Bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran" But I don't trust that video.
And showing a heap of war photos ending with a picture of McCain pulling a retarded face?..That doesn't do it for me.

Again, I'm completely on your side, But I don't like the way that video was edited.
Oh, and Kronos Quartet rocks :)

#29

Posted by: Schubertiad | September 10, 2008 3:21 AM

I think the bombastic music in the ad is unfortunate. It's a bit manipulative in a Hollywood way, and at least for me undermines the truth of the ad. Yeah, I don't want McCain in the Oval Office. Bad, bad idea.

#30

Posted by: mayhempix | September 10, 2008 3:59 AM

#13 is a fucking concern troll I and even doubt it is a scientist. Thousands of innocent children have been killed and maimed in Iraq. And it looks like we just killed 60 more in Afghanistan.

I can't even comment on a sick fundie war nut like Michael... like he even represents the teachings of the Jesus he professes to love.

And to all the others who are "concerned" about the images and music:
it says much about your priorities if that is what you respond to instead of the insanity of the mass human suffering inflicted by these wars. The video is meant to wake people up, it is meant to shock, because the public is so inured to the never ending slaughter of innocent people.

#31

Posted by: MTran | September 10, 2008 4:01 AM

Ya know, I loathe McCain and will be voting for Obama but that video did nothing for me aesthetically or politically. If anything, it was a turnoff. I would never have watched the entire thing except that most of the time the videos on Pharyngula are well worth watching.

I can't imagine that video swaying any fence sitters away from McCain. If anything, it may have a boomerang effect.

#32

Posted by: Rob J | September 10, 2008 4:03 AM

Does anyone not completely tune out political commercials (or immediately change the channel)?

The dems need to buy 5 min ad slots and play this video as is rather than their stupid stereotypical "i support this message" political ad spots that nobody gives a damn about.

#33

Posted by: AndrewG | September 10, 2008 4:07 AM

Sorry - wholly OT, maybe PZ can start a thread : As I speak, the largest physics experiment ever undertaken has started at the LHC in Europe. They're getting the proton beam about half way around the 27km ring at the moment, and should have it all the way around in the next hour or so...

Two things struck me this morning - the first was the way the BBC anchors on the breakfast show just said that the Collider will be looking at the conditions of the Big Bang, 13.7 billion years ago... I actually had to stop and marvel at how lucky we are over here in Europe. there was no 'Some scientists think that the universe was created...', or 'The theory supposes that the universe was created...', etc, it was just said, straight, as an accepted fact... Wonderful.

Then I got to wonder how this might be reported in the US - given the subject matter, and the beliefs of the majority of the population.

The thing I worry about most though, is for the future of science in the US. If science is stifled, and muddied up with myth and nonsense, in a hundred years, what scientific breakthroughs will the US be making? If all children are brought up to believe creationism as fact, or god as fact, then where will all the great US scientists come from... Europe, China, Russia, etc I suppose.

Oh, and I'm a Brit, who loves, and fears for, America.

#34

Posted by: Kel | September 10, 2008 4:08 AM

That video was pretty poor tbh

It would be better if it were less alarmist.

#35

Posted by: Dan druff | September 10, 2008 4:09 AM

Is no one worried that as we speak, The LHC is colliding gravitons and graviolis into each other, (inevitably) creating a portal to a dimension of pure chaos?

#36

Posted by: Kel | September 10, 2008 4:14 AM

Is no one worried that as we speak, The LHC is colliding gravitons and graviolis into each other, (inevitably) creating a portal to a dimension of pure chaos?

No, because if those kinds of collisions were to cause problems, the earth would have been long dead given they happen in our atmosphere all the time... The only difference is now we can measure it.

#37

Posted by: natural cynic | September 10, 2008 4:17 AM

For better or worse, the negative reactions to the video demonstrate the values of a large segment of the left side of the political spectrum. There is a question whether what is presented is fair or accurate. The reaction to many of the images and the use of the background music is negative because we use our heads and try to live in the rational world, not with gut feelings and limbic reactiveness. To many, it seems to be over the top. The video does not look for complexity or rational argument - it is much more visceral. And therefore anathema to many who still strongly oppose McCain.

Will this kind of ad work? Virtually all McCain supporters will whine and react adversely. Big deal, that's expected. But will it have the desired affect on the fence-sitters?

#38

Posted by: Dave Godfrey | September 10, 2008 4:24 AM

Is no one worried that as we speak, The LHC is colliding gravitons and graviolis into each other, (inevitably) creating a portal to a dimension of pure chaos?

Actually its lead ions. We don't know if gravitons exist, and the LHC isn't big enough to see them anyway.

McCain is running at 50% in the poll the last I heard. Aren't we already in a dimension of pure chaos in that case?

#39

Posted by: negentropyeater | September 10, 2008 4:39 AM

natural cynic #37,

But will it have the desired affect on the fence-sitters?

No !
I think this vdeo is an example of what not to do to sway in the independent voters and other fence sitters, because it appears partial.

An efficient video would only include McCain talking, nobody else.

When will these amateurs in communication learn ?

JUST LET McCAIN TALK ! That will do the job marvelously.

#40

Posted by: Robert Byers | September 10, 2008 4:44 AM

I am a Evangelical conservative canadian. Yes this unwise McCain is totally in the grip of the neo-conservative Jewish agenda to use american soldiers, wealth, prestige to get Israels will and whim. Just like Bush.
The whole interest of the establishment in america is from a passion in the establishment for Israel. Jewish influence in the establishment and groups galore pushes the rest toward this passion for this obscure place of six million people.
Neither Iraq or Iran is about American morality, interests, or basic attention -worthyness.
Israel is the bad guy and those who secretly or openly place Israel's cause as the important agenda for America are the bad guys friends.
This hugh great world of billions is not affected by the very small circles of trouble in third world countries like Israel, Iraq, Syria or even bigger Iran.
It is all from the over represented and unpatriotic and unjust influence of ethnic Jews with foreign identity in their hearts if not passports in high but small circles in the american establishment.
Pat Buchanan penned the most important analysis of motivations for the iraq war called "Whose war". America didn't listen to him then but should now about Iran. truly before its too late.
Can the Admirals kid or the Kenyan really deal with the American establishments passion for Israel and apathy for America?
For the record if dropping nukes on Iran watch out for downwind.

#41

Posted by: Blake Stacey | September 10, 2008 4:49 AM

It's been mentioned here, so I should note that as of 10:23 Geneva time, the LHC has achieved first beam.

#42

Posted by: negentropyeater | September 10, 2008 5:06 AM

If you want to see a really powerful video about McCain and his multiple positions on the war :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ieHwOm4ljA

(a 9 minute video of just McCain talking about the war)

Just let McCain talk ! That will convince all the fence sitters not to vote for him.

#43

Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | September 10, 2008 5:25 AM

Why do people vote Republican?

Not sure about the accuracy of it, of course, but it gave me a laugh.

#44

Posted by: Trish | September 10, 2008 5:44 AM

@ Perturbed Reader #13: No, not everyone here is a scientist or a kook. Some of us simply enjoy the company of people who make sense. You can be sure that your elitism has not gone unnoticed.

I don't particularly care for the use of fear tactics in politics, and this video is alarming. But I will have to agree with #30 that the time has come to shake the general public out of a disassociated delirium.

#45

Posted by: Clemens | September 10, 2008 5:53 AM

You guys should have got the Poe-hint on the LHC post: Graviolis. This, I presume, would then be the FSM's god particle.

#46

Posted by: negentropyeater | September 10, 2008 6:21 AM

Emmet,

want to see a quasi perfect correlation ?

go to :

http://religions.pewforum.org/maps

choose tab "beliefs and practices", then "interpretation of scripture"

National average of those who believe that the bible is the word of God, litteraly true word for word : 33%

All states >= 35% are now on McCain's safe or likely list
All states All states in between are the battleground states.

#47

Posted by: negentropyeater | September 10, 2008 6:24 AM

sorry screwed up

All states sup.or equal to 35% are now on McCain's safe or likely list
All states inf.or equal to 28% are now on Obama's safe or likely list
All states in between are the battleground states

#48

Posted by: JasonTD | September 10, 2008 6:35 AM

Typing this will make me run a bit late, but I just couldn't wait until there were 200+ comments later this afternoon.

As natural cynic pointed out in #37, this video and its responses here don't show much rational debate. All this will do is show people that you are reacting with your emotions and ideology rather than actual analysis.

John @ #21,

The attack in Lebanon may or may not be 'terrorism' by your definition. That, I suppose, is debatable. But we weren't in an armed conflict, nor did we have troops 'taking sides' in any armed conflict, with any nation or group represented by Al Qaeda on Sept. 11, so calling any of those attacks less than terrorism is silly.

#49

Posted by: foxfire | September 10, 2008 6:41 AM

PZ, just a comment

I'm writing without even looking at what you posted because I want to bitch about the fact that our species will NOT survive unless we use our reason (however it evolved). I'm sick and tired of the political crap and that's what we get when we are too fucking lazy to read a couple of history books about the thought process that brought us our constitution. Much less take the time and effort to vote when you have to decide between the best of "none"

Denigrating one another because of fear keeps us in the Paleolithic mindset from which we evolved.

To those who are thinking about NOT voting. Thinking you have no alternative and you won't therefore vote is a cop out. It's your responsibility. Use it or lose it (notice the write-in potential)

#50

Posted by: amk | September 10, 2008 6:42 AM

@Emmet: Well, it made me laugh. One of the alleged problems though with IQ tests is that they are culturally biased.

#51

Posted by: Shane Killian | September 10, 2008 6:51 AM

And then, what? Vote for Obama, who went along with all of this, consistently voting in lockstep with what the Bush administration wanted? INCLUDING the 2006 Military Commissions Act and the suspension of habeas corpus? That alone is enough to lose my vote!

It's Bob Barr for me. Enough is enough!

#52

Posted by: pfft | September 10, 2008 6:59 AM

Is Ralph Nadir still running?

#53

Posted by: Trish | September 10, 2008 7:02 AM

Rational debates are surely preferable. But how do we debate with the irrational?

We need to define the stark reality of the situation. This video may not be nice, but who says we have to be nice about it?

Personally I'm done being nice. If that's an emotional response so be it.

#54

Posted by: negentropyeater | September 10, 2008 7:05 AM

#52

Apparently Yes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Nader_presidential_campaign,_2008

#55

Posted by: negentropyeater | September 10, 2008 7:13 AM

It's Bob Barr for me. Enough is enough!

And vive McCain !

If all people who consider that Obama is not good enough to become President, but still better than McCain, end up voting for Barr or any other 3rd party candidate or not voting, McCain will be the next President, and not Barr.

#56

Posted by: Tolga K. | September 10, 2008 7:20 AM

This needs to be posted without the music. If we showed this to die-hard Republicans in its current form, they'll dismiss it as propaganda.

#57

Posted by: Y. Lin | September 10, 2008 7:25 AM

Sorry, I keep posting off topic comments, but if you haven't seen this yet, I think you'll find it amusing:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/30336855@N02/2843905157/

#58

Posted by: Mike Haubrich, FCD | September 10, 2008 7:25 AM

Oh, How CUTE! Protest voters for Bob Barr and Ralph "Nadir!" Oh, Momma, aren't they just so precious! Gonna save America from the evil two-party system. I just want to give them a hug.

I don't care what the independents do. We are going to have a two-party system until big money is taken out of the election. And when is that gonna happen? NEVER. Face it. I don't think that Barack Obama is the cat's pajamas, but a Deomcratic president scares me less than a Republican one. So vote for Barr and Nader and be all smug about it. It reminds me of those baseball purists in 1987 crying about the World Series because the Detrot Tigers weren't in it. Guess what? The Twins won it anyway, without an asterisk. Either McCain or Obama is going to win the election, and the Barr-Nader story will be about a small percentage of idealists who voted their conscience.

In the meantime the Supreme Court is going to be appointed either by a former editor of the Harvard Law Review, or a guy who ranked 895th in his class and is running with a woman who thinks that The Founding Fathers wrote the pledge of allegiance with "under God."

I don't like those ads. Displaying horrific pictures of mutilated children is unethical. Does anyone really know if any of those pictures are from the Iraq war? We're all scientists here (well, besides the obvious kooks) and we shouldn't be suckered by unreferenced images or partial truths. They could be taken completely out of context and now some child's tragedy is another's political stunt.......sickening.

Spare me your crocodile tears. The reason that people are allowing this war to continue is because we never see these pictures; all we hear about the war is that the Surge is working.

#59

Posted by: Mike Haubrich, FCD | September 10, 2008 7:29 AM

sorry about screwing up closing the blockquote tag.

#60

Posted by: Ian | September 10, 2008 7:50 AM

"The surge has worked, troops are coming home around 8,000 this year, and more next year as progress rolls along..."

And sending the same number right back into Afghanistan.

That's a return on success? No, it isn't.

#61

Posted by: sailor | September 10, 2008 7:53 AM

Unfortunately, I think McCain is quite likely to win. Why? "Liptick on a pig". He manages to take a remark made by Obama and make the campaign about whether Obama called Palin a pig the issue of the day. The superpower is crumbling, health care is shot, the US in a recession and all the press can talk about is lipstick on a pig. I have to say those republicans are brilliant strategists. Keep distracting the public about inanities, and the will forget the issues. And guess what? It is working.

#62

Posted by: John C. Welch | September 10, 2008 7:54 AM

No, 8,000 troops aren't coming home. 8,000 troops are leaving Iraq, because we need more troops in Afghanistan. Sending about 4,000 there, with more to come. They only come home if they stay home.

#63

Posted by: MissPrism | September 10, 2008 7:54 AM

Kel #34 - Alarmist? Well, it certainly alarms me that within a few months this foul-tempered warmonger might be in a position where he's capable of destroying the world if his piles are playing up, or that he might die and put that ignorant loon Palin in charge.

#64

Posted by: The Chemist | September 10, 2008 7:55 AM

"I don't like those ads. Displaying horrific pictures of mutilated children is unethical."

Unethical? UNETHICAL? Why? Is it because it grates on your pathetic conscience.

In the context of the American people deciding the course of this war it is not only ethical, it is NECESSARY.

It is NECESSARY that Americans understand the nature of their actions, and the effects they will have.

It is NECESSARY that Americans see what the Iraqis see firsthand.

It is NECESSARY that if we decide to continue this war, we face the consequences head on. There can be no democracy without collective accountability.

To answer your incredulous question, yes those pictures are from Iraq, you see them every day if you read anything other than American mainstream media. They don't want anything unappetizgin next to the Pringles ad.

Denial. Go figure, the moment someone decides to show you something like you're not a child, you go and act like one.

#65

Posted by: Joel | September 10, 2008 8:01 AM

The only thing missing in this video is the Democrats voting for war.

#66

Posted by: negentropyeater | September 10, 2008 8:05 AM

And the trend for 3rd party candidates doesn't look very good :

Sum of all votes for another candidate than the GOP or the dems :

1996 election : 10.0% (Highest : billionaire Perrot 8.4%)
2000 election : 3.8% (Highest : Nader 2.7%)
2004 election : 1.0% (Highest : Nader 0.38%)

For 2008, right now it looks like alltogether they can do 4 to 5 % according to the polls, but as with all previous elections, the actual result was much lower than poll results at the end of the conventions.

So, let's see if they can beat the 3.8% of the 2000 election. Anyway, there's no billionaire running is there ?

#67

Posted by: Nick Gotts | September 10, 2008 8:07 AM

Excellent video for the most part, though weird to see Buchanan in there - my immediate inclination is to say that anyone Buchanan hates can't be all bad. Still, Obama's campaign should be shouting the message of this video, and the desperately serious nature of the financial crisis, from the rooftops. Surely, also, time to break out the old anti-Goldwater slogan: "in your guts, you know he's nuts!" or an update. I think what some people are missing in saying ads like this would look too partial, wouldn't appeal to independents etc., is that the first aim in politics is to mobilise your own supporters.

Interesting to see Robert Byers@40 reveal the depths of his anti-semitism. Mr. Byers: many Jews are not Zionists, many who are, do not support current Israeli government and US neocon policies; and many Zionists, including many of the most hardline US Zionists, are not Jews. The US-Israel alliance is strategically vital to the elites in both countries.

#68

Posted by: Nick Gotts | September 10, 2008 8:12 AM

Part of the reason for the IBC/Lancet difference in Iraqi death estimates is that IBC is only trying to count those shot, bombed or otherwise directly killed in the war. The Lancet studies try to estimate total excess deaths. Most of those who have died as a result of the invasion have done so because of the breakdown of medical, social, sanitary, electricity and other systems.

#69

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT | September 10, 2008 8:12 AM

And then, what? Vote for Obama, who went along with all of this, consistently voting in lockstep with what the Bush administration wanted? INCLUDING the 2006 Military Commissions Act and the suspension of habeas corpus? That alone is enough to lose my vote!
It's Bob Barr for me. Enough is enough!

Wait

What?

Am I missing something here?

#70

Posted by: negentropyeater | September 10, 2008 8:25 AM

Am I missing something here?

Nice catch Rev !

A Barr suporter who propagates lies about Obama.
Why am I not surprised ?

#71

Posted by: Nick Gotts | September 10, 2008 8:28 AM

raven@15,

You're right about the US's overextension and the seriousness of the financial crisis (for anyone who doubts the latter, would Bush have nationalised two of the biggest banks - if he'd had any feasible alternative way to prevent a full-scale crash?). However, the US has faced such overextension and apparent decline as a superpower before, in the 1970s, and recovered. Invading Iraq was risky with the war in Afghanistan unfinished, but was far from a "cowboy adventure": it was and is aimed at effective US control first of Iraq, then of mid-East oil supplies, and may yet succeed. While many people are still dying in the Iraqi war, there's no doubt the US and its puppets currently have the upper hand (unlike in Afghanistan). Even if there had been no wars in Iraq or Afghanistan, I can't see the US having being able to prevent the Russian counter-attack against Georgia, unless possibly Georgia had already been in NATO - which would have been incredibly risky.

#72

Posted by: Lilly de Lure | September 10, 2008 8:29 AM

Sailor said:

I have to say those republicans are brilliant strategists. Keep distracting the public about inanities, and the will forget the issues. And guess what? It is working.

Sort of like "Bread and Circuses" isn't it - except with a more frenetic circus in the hope that the punters don't notice that the bread's running out.

However, given how close the polls are in the immediate aftermath of the RNC I don't think it's fair to say that "it's working" just yet - although the dems really need to go back on to the offensive if they're going to win this.

#73

Posted by: Snitzels | September 10, 2008 8:45 AM

That man is flat-out terrifying. I wish the popular vote counted for something more in this country than simply making people feel like they are participating. Let's just hope the electoral college votes against McCain, since they're the ones that make the decisions anyway. *sigh*

#74

Posted by: Ryan Cunningham | September 10, 2008 8:47 AM

The surge has worked, troops are coming home around 8,000 this year, and more next year as progress rolls along...

Apparently you haven't been paying attention. That's a scaled back number. They're being redeployed to Afghanistan. No more withdraws will happen in the Bush presidency. There are currently 146,000 troops there. The surge added around 30,000 soldiers. We haven't even started to decrease our presence in that country.

So when do we bring them home? When do we tell those young men and women they've done their job and they can come home to their families? What's their mission? Why are they there? If you can't answer those questions (our president has stopped trying,) we shouldn't be asking these soldiers to fight and sacrifice.

Bring our soldiers home. Political hacks have failed, mistreated, and abandoned them long enough.

#75

Posted by: Rob | September 10, 2008 8:50 AM

There's no way any nation would ever think of using a nuclear weapon these days because that would mean that almost instantaenously would bring about their swift demise

You make one very large assumption. That the leaders necessarily care about the country being destroyed. Any theocratic wackaloon that thinks they're doing god's work won't think twice about it if they have a delivery mechanism. That's why Iran is scary. That's why Palin is scary.

#76

Posted by: Julian | September 10, 2008 8:54 AM

I call shenanigans on that Why People Vote Republican article.

#77

Posted by: negentropyeater | September 10, 2008 9:13 AM

Sailor,

I think McCain is quite likely to win.

So is Obama.

I have to say those republicans are brilliant strategists. Keep distracting the public about inanities, and the will forget the issues.

Sure, it will have worked for a week. They're not brilliant strategists, they just know that they can count on a stable base who'll now vote for their ticket just because Palin is a small town working mum, Evangelical Christian, and pro-life.

And guess what? It is working.

I'll wait a few more days to get an idea of whether it's working to convince a sufficient % of independent voters, if I were you.
That there's a bump in the polls is very expectable, just points to the methodological problem of polling when people have been focussed for a whole week on a convention.
When people get called on the phone, some people will just say McCain/Palin because it's the last thing they heard about.
Politicians (who need to sell their useless megaconventions to the public) and pollsters (who need to sell their polls) know that but prefer to leave so many idiotic press commentators talking about swings in the polls thinking those are trends.

#78

Posted by: Joel | September 10, 2008 9:15 AM

So when do we bring them home?

How about when we've fixed what we've broken?

#79

Posted by: Rick Schauer | September 10, 2008 9:16 AM

I call it exploitation of natural resources via human sacrifice all in the name of gawd! (!--insert body-shaking spirit movements here-)

#80

Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | September 10, 2008 9:34 AM

I'm sure most of us think that anything coming out of Pat Buchanan's mouth smells like the south end of a bull's digestive system. Should this be any different?

Buchanan is a stopped clock.

Displaying horrific pictures of mutilated children is unethical.

No... not at all, no. Publishing what war looks like is crucial. Not displaying them would be unethical.

When Dems criticize, they get roasted. When Republicans do it, their lies get repeated over and over.

"Liberal media".

That video was pretty poor tbh
It would be better if it were less alarmist.

The video is great. First it lets Fearless Flightsuit speak for himself, and then it lets McSame speak for... for himself, for Fearless Flightsuit, where's the difference.

"Less alarmist"? How harmless exactly do you think McPain will be?!?

Is no one worried that as we speak, The LHC is colliding [...] [protons] into each other, (inevitably) creating a portal to a dimension of pure chaos?

You keep using the word "dimension". It does not mean what you think it means.

We are going to have a two-party system until big money is taken out of the election.

No, you're going to have a two-party system until you amend the Constitution to introduce separation of president and government.

The only thing missing in this video is the Democrats voting for war.

Or Obama voting against it.

This is an election for a person, not for a party.

#81

Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | September 10, 2008 9:39 AM

So when do we bring them home?
How about when we've fixed what we've broken?

The Reptiles are not even trying, and the Iraqis themselves are beyond trusting any American for the next generation or two anyway. Get out now, get the UN in instead, and pay for it. I'm serious.

#82

Posted by: Nick Gotts | September 10, 2008 9:43 AM

Get out now, get the UN in instead, and pay for it. I'm serious. - David Marjanović, OM

That would be the morally right thing to do, certainly. Whether it is the course of action that best serves to preserve and enhance the power and wealth of those making the decision, is another matter.

#83

Posted by: raven | September 10, 2008 9:48 AM

Is no one worried that as we speak, The LHC is colliding gravitons and graviolis into each other, (inevitably) creating a portal to a dimension of pure chaos?

Why? We wouldn't notice any difference. If anything has something to worry about, it's the dimension of pure chaos.

#84

Posted by: David | September 10, 2008 9:48 AM

What about Obama the fool?
In 2004 at the height of the war and lies Obama said:
"I'm not privy to Senate intelligence reports. What would I have done? I don't know," in terms of how you would have voted on the war. And then this: "There's not much of a difference between my position on Iraq and George Bush's position at this stage."

SEN. OBAMA: Now, Tim, that first quote was made with an interview with a guy named Tim Russert on MEET THE PRESS during the convention when we had a nominee for the presidency and a vice president, both of whom had voted for the war. And so it, it probably was the wrong time for me to be making a strong case against our party's nominees' decisions when it came to Iraq.

I'm sorry, but did he just say the only reason he refused to stand by his principles (opposing the war) was because his party's nominees had voted for the war resolution???? This is not the bold change we have been waiting for

#85

Posted by: negentropyeater | September 10, 2008 9:50 AM

Joel,

The only thing missing in this video is the Democrats voting for war.

So did an immense majority of Americans who supported the authorization for this war, and never paid any attention to the vehement opposition of a certain state senator from Illinois, or the arguments that the french de Villepin was putting forward in the UN.
BTW all these arguments became reality : de Villepin and Chirac (who knew far more about Iraq for historical reasons than all of America's intelligence community) explained that there weren't any WMDs and that you'd easily win the invasion but would completely destabilize Iraq and the region and would pay a dear cost to solve that problem. Your failure was not a military one, but a conceptual one.
That's what French politicians predicted, but most Americans concluded that the French were anti-american, were only thinking of their own interests and that we were assholes because we didn't want to help those who had liberated us from tirany.

You know, I'm French and have many American friends and lived a long time in the USA. But that period, which I remember very well, was very difficult for me personally.

Pharyngula

Search this blog

Profile

Random Quote

Recent Posts

A Taste of Pharyngula

Recent Comments

Archives

Blogroll

Other Information

Subscribe via Email

Warmonger McCain

Comments