I used to like McCain, and I still do in some ways. When I lived in AZ, I said 'If that guy ever runs for president, I'm voting for him!' I liked how real he was, just a 'say-it-like-it-is-and-you-can-like-it-or-not' demeanor. But my opinion started to change during the Republican primaries. I saw a man who seemed to be boiling under the surface, like he was going to bust a vein any second but with great difficulty he was keeping it together. Remember that part in Fifth Element when the Mangalore morphed into a 'normal' looking guy to pretend to be Korben Dallas so he could get on the cruise ship to Fhloston? Kinda like that. His true Mangalore kept trying to come out. During the primaries, McCain's demeanor was condescending and arrogant and his sarcasm really bothered me. It just seemed unpresidential and I lost a lot of respect for him. I've listened to interviews since then, listened to speeches, and I just can't shake this feeling that this guy would lead us to war. Like he'd get pissed off about something and BOOM! ... my teenage son would be drafted.
I read a Steve Benen story on the NY Times site (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/08/18/mccain-judgment-and-a-response-to-the-attacks-of-911/) in response to David D. Kirkpatrick's story about McCain's foreign policy world view and his actions following the 9/11 attacks. McCain's knee-jerk reaction was to invade Iraq as early as one month following the attacks. And that was just one country on his shit list - Iran and Syria were mentioned as well. “He has the personality of a fighter pilot: when somebody stings you, you want to strike out,” said retired Gen. John H. Johns, a former friend and supporter of Mr. McCain who turned against him over the Iraq war. I tend to avoid people like that in my personal life and certainly don't want a hot-head for a president, not in these times.
Let me say this: I am not a pacifist. I believe in war, as horrible as it is. Ecclesiastes says there is a time for war and a time for peace. If we had not gone to war in WWII, where would the world be? I'm reading The Gathering Storm by Winston Churchill, the first book in the Second World War series. His premise is that WWII could have been prevented if the world had enforced its clauses against Germany after WWI, but everyone was so sick of war and wanted peace so badly that we let important things slide. During the Washington Conference of 1921, we even proposed a naval disarmament of Britain and the U.S. because we felt like we couldn't expect Germany to disarm if we weren't going to do it! WTF? Here is a passage I found very compelling:
'It is my purpose, as one who lived and acted in these days, to show how easily the tragedy of the Second World War could have been prevented; how the malice of the wicked was reinforced by the weakness of the virtuous; how the structure and habits of democratic states, unless they are welded into larger organisms, lack those elements of persistence and conviction which can alone give security to humble masses; how even in matters of self-preservation, no policy is pursued for even ten or fifteen years at a time. We shall see how the counsels of prudence and restraint may become the prime agents of mortal danger; how the middle course adopted from desires for safely and a quiet life may be found to lead direct to the bull's-eye of disaster. We shall see how absolute is the need of a broad path of international action pursued by many states in common across the years, irrespective of the ebb and flow of national politics....It was a simple policy to keep Germany disarmed and the victors adequately armed for thirty years, and in the meantime, even if a reconcilatiaton could not be made with Germany, to build ever more strongly a true League of Nations capable of making sure that treaties were kept or changed only by discussion and agreement...but this modest requirement..the victors were unable to supply.'
Pretty strong words but here's what I get from this: countries need each other to stand up to the bad guys and to keep them accountable for their actions. We need a leader capable of unifying not only the US but all the democracies of the world in order to accomplish this. Bush has struck out - we're no longer respected as we once were.
I don't want a loud bully shooting off his mouth or a pit bull with lipstick. I want a strong, rational, confident, uncompromising leader who does not react with his fist. I want a leader willing to sit down and talk to whoever, whenever, wherever, because I'd say by looking at the state of the world today, something is not working. Talking doesn't mean weakness and it doesn't mean we're going to compromise. The definition of insanity is doing the same things over and over again and expecting a different outcome. In the words of Dr. Phil, 'How's that working for ya?' Shittily, that's how it's working...adverb of the day.
No comments:
Post a Comment