After all, what is it if not compulsive after five years of
nonstop combat for a prospective commander-in-chief to say "I know how
to win wars." He'd better---at the rate of $10 billion a month! With
all the foreclosures, job cuts, the fall of Freddie Mac and Fanny Mae,
and predicted volatility in the banking industry, we may need that $10
billion a month just to bail out the FDIC.
So, save us from any
presidential candidate who claims to be strong on national security
while, at the same time, going along with an economic policy that is
bound to perpetuate an unstable housing, and financial market, as well
as an shaky global economy. How pray tell, can that possibly be good
for national security? Unless, of course, Sen. McCain's plan is for
economic isolationism. If so, someone ought to tell him it's a little
late for that---after all, we're not only dependent on the Middle East
for oil, we are China's biggest debtor after the second largest banking
failure in U.S. history, and a cash-eating bacteria is quickly
spreading from Wall Street to the global markets. If nothing else,
thanks to the past seven years, we've learned how to say "national
security" in Chinese---John McCain
Oh, and the Republican
candidate boasts of supporting the surge in the face of mounting
evidence it was effective. There's only one problem with his logic, as
Barack Obama has deftly shown, we're "winning" the war in the wrong
battlefield. Senator McCain doesn't want an exit strategy--he wants to
continue an irrelevant war, one that the puppet leadership itself now
considers an occupation.
And if, as Mitt Romney suggests, McCain
invented the surge, bragging about that is the equivalent of bragging
about inventing bait and switch!
To think you've accomplished
victory in combat when you're in the wrong battlefield is like a
surgeon who declares an amputation a success after being told he
amputated the wrong limb. Bottom line: can McCain say he knows how to
win wars if he needs a map to find them?
If you want good
foreign policy--show people some return for their money. What does the
average working man and woman have to show for the past eight years
we've had a Republican in the White House? The overwhelming majority of
us, 270 million, have seen our annual income decline while the upper
one percent has seen its income grow astronomically, by 650% since
1975. LBJ's "war on poverty" was transformed into GWB's "war on terror"
which, as Senator Obama rightly says, was never a war at all, but
rather a flawed effort to gain leverage in a region that contains what
is now the world's greatest asset.
Not that I think foreign
policy should come down to who is better at target practice, mind you,
but it would help if one didn't have to consult Thomas Guide before
taking the wheel. And, apart from his willingness to dialogue with
those who might otherwise harm us, Obama combines the charm, wit, and
eloquence of JFK with the political shrewdness, and dealmaker savvy, of
LBJ, an unbeatable combination.
But, don't let the mainstream
media fool you. This election isn't about who will make the best
commander-in-chief in Iraq, any more than it is about race. After all,
we're the progeny of another global adventurist, Christopher Columbus,
who didn't have a sense of direction either and who would, no doubt,
also be hunting down Al Qaeda in Iraq.
This election isn't about
photo ops, and comfort zones, either. It's as simple as this---are you
better off today than you were eight years ago? If your answer is yes,
then vote for John McCain, and give this executive, George W. Bush, the
privilege of claiming permanent incumbency and, guaranteed, you won't
be dancing in the streets eight years from now.
http://ladyjaynestahl.blogspot.com
Writings 
Subscribe to this comment's feed
