Posted 2 months, 20 days ago in 
Loading ...
An action request by VoteVets.com prompted me to write this letter. This week I attended a rally for Obama at Lincoln Park. The message there was to keep the campaign positive, and to limit comments in letters to the editor to positive things about the Democratic candidate.
The VoteVets request flies in the face of that advice. So, first, my apologies to the Obama campaign organizers in Mesa County. But McCain saying, in testimony to the Council on Foreign Relations, that we can just “muddle through in Afghanistan” without a large number of forces needs to be reported to Mesa County voters.
The plotters of 9/11 are in Afghanistan and/or the Pakistan, not Iraq. If we want to
fight terrorism, we need to go after the terrorists, who are building strength in both Afghanistan and Pakistan, not that you would know it by any broadcast news.
We can’t afford to muddle through this mess, and we can’t afford a president who thinks we can. This country can’t afford a John McCain presidency.
CLAUDETTE KONOLA
Grand Junction
26 Responses to “We can’t afford a McCain presidency”
Posted July 18th, 2008 at 1:55 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
This is a perfect example of a partisan taking something out of context in order to make something appear that it is not. The phrase she quoted was included in a video from 2003. Anyone who wants to see and hear McCain’s full statement can go here:
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/07/17/mccain-03-afghanistan/
Posted July 18th, 2008 at 2:39 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Oh, come now, Claudette, I don’t think an apology to the Obama campaign is necessary. I think they would be ecstatic with your letter, but then I am not telling you anything you don’t already know, am I? What a sacrifice you have made at disregarding your better judgment just to fulfill the wishes of a John Kerry type vet group. With conscientious citizens like yourself, how can we lose?
Posted July 18th, 2008 at 2:56 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
I am a registered dem but will NOT be told what to say, write, or do. How dare they?! Obama will still get my vote because he is hands-down the best man for the job, but he and his whole campaign had better get off this sanctimonious nanny kick or they are going to blow it.
Posted July 20th, 2008 at 3:18 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Ashhugger, “hands-down the best man for the job.” I’m guessing you don’t pay taxes. Or, if you do pay taxes are you aware of Obama’s tax plan? Guess you won’t miss 45% of your paycheck, huh?
Posted July 20th, 2008 at 3:18 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Oh, and that’s not counting state and local taxes. Better add another 5% for those.
Posted July 20th, 2008 at 3:40 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Freetobe: “Guess you won’t miss 45% of your paycheck, huh? Oh, and that’s not counting state and local taxes. Better add another 5% for those.”
OK Freetobe, if you make inflammatory statements like that on this forum, then you had better be prepared to back it up with evidence. Let’s see your evidence that Obama has a tax plan which will take 50% of the average American’s paycheck.
Posted July 20th, 2008 at 5:56 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Taxes ‘eh? I thought Obama was going to raise them too. until I did some research. turns out its just not true…if you make less then the richest guys around…I make around $45,000 and according to this article I would save about $1,000 under Obama’s plan. It sold me just thought ya’ll should know.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/06/09/ST2008060900950.html
Posted July 20th, 2008 at 6:04 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
obamacan, the Washington Post? C’mon now, that silly rag? Don’t you know the real truth can only be found on Fox News?
(just kidding!)
Posted July 21st, 2008 at 12:34 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Last week Senator Obama had his plan for Iraq editorial published in the New York Times. This week Senator McCain submitted his plan for Iraq editorial to the New York Times. The NYT refused to publish it. I guess this follows their motto “all the news that fit our views we print”. For those who are interested, you can read Senator McCain’s editorial here:
http://www.drudgereport.com/flashnym.htm
Posted July 21st, 2008 at 12:46 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Bullish, I found this hard to believe (even coming from you) but it does check out. Apparently the NYT’s “reason” is that McCain’s editorial offered nothing new and was juat a wall-to-wall criticism of Obama.
Still they should publish this and let it speak for itself. To reject a piece written by a presumptive major party Presidential candidate for ANY reason is abhorrent journalism in my opinion.
Posted July 21st, 2008 at 12:55 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Well Ashhugger, there should be wall to wall questioning of olbammer.
He attended 8 years of schooling in Indonesia, registered as a Muslim, under which curriculum he was give 2 hours per day of instruction in the Muslim religion, and, according to him, he never was, nor studied to be a Muslim.
Yet, both his natural father and step father were both stout Muslims, and his mother was an atheist.
Then, after he was all grown up and on his own, he sat in the same church with the same radical, hate whitey, hate America preacher, and never once noticed.
So this guy has a learning problem or the most severe case of ADD ever heard of, and in his case, as yet undiagnosed.
The oft repeated claim that he will be the next President has a somewhat hollow ring to it.
Politically, he is far to the left of Bernie Sanders, the sole professed Socialist in congress.
I do not believe that the majority of voters will move that far just to elect a ‘democrat’.
Posted July 21st, 2008 at 1:35 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
BFrog:”For those who are interested, you can read Senator McCain’s editorial here:”
Well i just read the Mccain submission and I would certainly have to agree with the NYT editorial board that it is nothing but a negative attack on Obama plans. Every single paragraph hs as its main subject something negative about Obama. we do not get any info about a positive plan which McCain might be in favor of. I think any fair minded person who read the McCain submission would come to the same conclusion regardless of party.
Posted July 21st, 2008 at 1:39 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Ash: “Bullish, I found this hard to believe (even coming from you).”
Even coming from me? Now Ash, that hurt.
Posted July 21st, 2008 at 1:40 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Bullish, that came out the wrong way! I meant, even though the info came from you, whom I consider a very honest and reliable source, I still found it hard to believe.
Posted July 21st, 2008 at 1:45 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Ash, I appreciate the clarification.
Posted July 21st, 2008 at 1:47 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Class: “Well i just read the Mccain submission and I would certainly have to agree with the NYT editorial board”
Gosh Class, why am I not surpised?
Posted July 21st, 2008 at 1:49 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
I too, have read both editorials in question.
Olbammer wants to admit defeat and shove our troops into a hole in the ground and leave them there in disgrace.
He has no desire for the United States to be able to claim a victory.
McKennedy, on the other hand is aware that the war can be ‘won’, inasmuch as leaving Iraq in a position that the government is in a position to, and capable of maintaining a secure future for Iraq.
The NYT editor wants Mr. McCain to submit olbammers editorial with his name at the top in place of the original writer.
In other words, the editor, another clinton era hack, wants everybody to agree to defeat of OUR military.
Posted July 21st, 2008 at 1:54 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
BFrog: “Class: “Well i just read the Mccain submission and I would certainly have to agree with the NYT editorial board”
Gosh Class, why am I not surpised?”
I give, why?
But if you feel differently why not point out the long list of positive things McCain said in his submission (as opposed to whining about Obama’s plans). Let’s hear from you the detailed plans and positive outlook for the future in McCain’s editorial which are even remotely comparable to what Obama wrote.
Posted July 21st, 2008 at 2:06 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Class, neither editorial had anything new in it. Obama states his position, and citicizes Bush and Mccain. McCain states his position, and criticizes Obama. I have no problem reading both and being reminded of each candidate’s position. An unbiased newspaper would publish both.
As to my opinion, I believe the surge is succeeding and McCain was correct in supporting it. I believe there is now a very good chance that this war will be won and that within a few years (hopefully sooner rather than later), the US will be able to withdraw its combat troops and Iraq will be able to defend itself agains enemies, both internal and external. The end result will be the first democratic country in the Middle East. That will be a victory for the US, but more importantly, for the Iraqi people.
I also believe that from a US presidential race political point of view, the Iraq issue now favors McCain. That is a big switch between where that issue was just 6 months ago. I believe the majority of American prefer victory to defeat and they see that victory is now possible.
Posted July 21st, 2008 at 2:16 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Just for the purpose of helping all to understand the position of the editors:
Recently, some may recall, Scott McInnis, submitted a letter to the Editor ( LTE ) that was a personal attack on yours truly. What you don’t know, is that it was preceded by an 800 word editorial submission by Mr. McInnis that was refused by the Free Press editorial staff because it was just a longer version of the same personal attack. Generally, most editors will not publish such personal attacks as editorials but will allow them as LTEs.
I watched an interview of Sen. McCain on NBC this morning that was as disappointing as his submission to the NYT. He appeared to be reading from a script and steadfastly refused to answer Meredith Vieras’questions, preferring to drone on and on with a litany of criticisms about Senator Obama. I am not defending Sen. Obamas’ decisions here, just pointing out how ineffectual is Sen. McCains’ proclivity for attacking his opponent.
I really hope he will stop listening to whichever stategists are telling him this sort of approach is a good one. I am rapidly losing respect for Sen. McCain.
Posted July 21st, 2008 at 2:21 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Well I cannot find a single sentence in the above with which I could agree, BFrog (except that Americans prefer victory to defeat). But we are all entitled to our opinions. We will just have to wait until November to see what the opinion of the American public really is.
Posted July 21st, 2008 at 2:33 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
dc, I must admit, that McCain’s delivery leaves a lot to be desired. I must tell you, that Fidel Castro was a great speaker. He would talk for hours on end and people were enthralled. He drew a lot of people to his side because people believed in him and what he p[romised them. I was in Cuba 3 years ago, and from the folks with whom I spoke, they got tired of his talk because they saw that he could not deliver.
I am not comparing Castro to Obama from the point of view of substance. But Obama does have a great gift for public speaking. And I believe being a good public speaker is a huge asset in promoting the speaker’s positions. I wish McCain could speak as well as Obama.
Posted July 21st, 2008 at 2:33 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Perhaps the last 4 paragraphs of Mr. McCains editorial submission will be of help.
” But I have also said that any draw-downs must be based on a realistic assessment of conditions on the ground, not on an artificial timetable crafted for domestic political reasons. This is the crux of my disagreement with Senator Obama.
Senator Obama has said that he would consult our commanders on the ground and Iraqi leaders, but he did no such thing before releasing his “plan for Iraq.” Perhaps that’s because he doesn’t want to hear what they have to say. During the course of eight visits to Iraq, I have heard many times from our troops what Major General Jeffrey Hammond, commander of coalition forces in Baghdad, recently said: that leaving based on a timetable would be “very dangerous.”
The danger is that extremists supported by Al Qaeda and Iran could stage a comeback, as they have in the past when we’ve had too few troops in Iraq. Senator Obama seems to have learned nothing from recent history. I find it ironic that he is emulating the worst mistake of the Bush administration by waving the “Mission Accomplished” banner prematurely.
I am also dismayed that he never talks about winning the war—only of ending it. But if we don’t win the war, our enemies will. A triumph for the terrorists would be a disaster for us. That is something I will not allow to happen as president. Instead I will continue implementing a proven counterinsurgency strategy not only in Iraq but also in Afghanistan with the goal of creating stable, secure, self-sustaining democratic allies. ”
There now, does that help clarify the differences in the two positions?
However, with either of these candidates, America loses by default.
Both support amnesty for all 20 plus million illegals currently in this country.
Posted July 21st, 2008 at 5:12 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Bullish,
I went back and reread the Drudge Reports’ release of Sen. McCains’ piece and I will say that I got more out of it on second reading ( I admit that I pretty much skimmed it the first time). Sen. McCain is a good man and I have, in years past, had respect for the man for many reasons.
His greatest weakness, in my view, is his insistence on hammering on what would’ve happened ( the old shoulda, woulda, coulda principal ) if we had listened to Sen. O’bama. This is dwelling on the past and that doesn’t sell very well. It also smacks of the old ” N’yah, n’yah, n’yah, told you so ” playground admonition. That is dangerous territory to tread. There are many, including some journalists on the ground in Iraq, who will tell you that the “surge” was not quite the watershed event that the Bush administration claims. One reporter ( can’t remember the name ) pointed out that the biggest shift in the conflict occurred because the locals got tired of the heavy-handed tactics of Al-Quaeda (sp?)and because the Americans started paying the Sunnis who were fighting us. This shift of thousands of fighters from their side to ours is what really made the difference.
In any event, it will be interesting to see how things develop in the next couple of weeks. Blackwater is getting out of the security business in Iraq (jeez, I wonder why.)and the Iraqi leadership seems to be more in tune with the point of view of the taller of the two Senators. I have a feeling that the next month or so will see an enormous amount of pressure on Sen. McCain to change his position on a timetable for withdrawal. I am sure Halliburton will be lobbying heavily for the status quo. If American forces leave Iraq, the Iraqis won’t waste any time giving the Big Oil boys that have been getting fat on Iraqi oil the heave-ho. Without 130,000 private security forces that are subsidized by the American taxpayers and our 150,000 troops, they, Halliburton, Bechtel, et.al. will have to play by Iraqi rules.
Posted July 21st, 2008 at 5:30 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
DC: “His greatest weakness, in my view, is his insistence on hammering on what would’ve happened”
It seems to me that Obama’s victory over Senator Clinton in the primaries was based on his constant hammering that he was against the war in Iraq while she voted for it. Other than that, I don’t believe there was much sunlight between any of their other positions. So, when it comes to hammering on the past, I don’t believe Obabma gets a pass.
Obama does not have much of a track record. He likes to talk about his “judgment”. He was against the surge. He wanted to pull out immediately and wanted the troops out by March of 2008 (he later changed that). Had we pulled the troops out on his schedule, Iraq today would be a total calamity. You may not believe that, I do.
Now that the situation in Iraq, booth militarily and politically, has improved dramatically over what it was in mid-2007, we see light at the end of the tunnel. We WILL be able to pull our troops out now, whther it takes 16 months or 26 months, and leave a Democratic Iraq as the first free Arab nation. That is a good thing.
Obama’s timetable is no longer needed. When the Iraqis themselves believe they are ready to take command, we will go. I do not want us to stay one day longer than needed.
Obama’s timetable will go out the window should he become president. I may not agree with him, but I know he is not stupid. He will take his time and do what needs to be done in Iraq. All he needs to do now is admit he was wrong on his surge vote.
Posted July 21st, 2008 at 5:44 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
DC and Bullish you are both right that Obama and McCain dwell on “What Ifs” but Obama’s “What If” is much more compelling … not what if we hadn’t have had the surge, but what if we hadn’t gone into this horridly stupid war of choice to begin with.
I think either would handle the “What to do about it now” reasonably well, but I do not trust McCain to not take the side of war profiteers as much as he can get away with; and I do not forgive him for supporting Bush and his dismal choices.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.