Top Comments - Questions for McCain

Quotations taken from this CNN article.

Republican Sen. John McCain has been forced to clarify his comments suggesting the Iraq war involved U.S. reliance on foreign oil. He said he was talking about the first Gulf War and not the current conflict.

Awww! That is soooo sad! But he has not been forced to clarify them ENOUGH. If you can’t stand the heat, Mr. McCain, perhaps the presidency is not for you. Word to the wise. And to you, too.

"My friends, I will have an energy policy that we will be talking about, which will eliminate our dependence on oil from the Middle East that will prevent us from having ever to send our young men and women into conflict again in the Middle East," McCain said.

Why not talk about it now, Mr. McCain? Is that because your energy policy doesn’t yet exist?

The presumptive GOP nominee sought to clarify his remarks later Friday after his campaign plane landed in Phoenix. He said he didn't mean the U.S. went to war in Iraq five years ago over oil.
"No, no, I was talking about that we had fought the Gulf War for several reasons," McCain told reporters.
One reason was Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait, he said. "But also we didn't want him to have control over the oil, and that part of the world is critical to us because of our dependency on foreign oil, and it's more important than any other part of the world," he said.

Isn't it true that OUR part of the world - where we Americans live - is more important? Why did you say the Middle East was more important? Did you misconstrue your own words, Mr. McCain? If the Middle East is more important to you, would you please consider moving? If possible, before the election? I don't think you would be missed.

"If the word `again' was misconstrued, I want us to remove our dependency on foreign oil for national security reasons, and that's all I mean," McCain said.

What would have been the proper interpretation of the word ‘again’ in your view. Mr. McCain? Didn’t you mean what you said? Didn’t you know what you meant? Or don’t you know now what you meant then?

"The Congressional Record is very clear: I said we went to war in Iraq because of weapons of mass destruction."

No weapons of mass destruction were there, none are there at present. So, why are we there now, Mr. McCain?

It was the second time in as many days that McCain had to clarify his comments. On Thursday, he backed off his assertion that pork-barrel spending led to last year's deadly bridge collapse in Minneapolis, Minnesota.
McCain is a staunch supporter of the Iraq war, although he criticizes the the Bush administration's early handling of the conflict.
His support for the war has drawn attacks from the Democratic Party, and on Friday, McCain defended himself against television ads that accuse him of advocating a 100-year war in Iraq.
The ads, run by the Democratic National Committee and the liberal group MoveOn.org., tie McCain to President Bush and cite McCain's comments that there could be an American military presence in Iraq for 100 years.
"One hundred years in Iraq? And you thought no one could be worse than George Bush," an announcer says in the most recent ad, run by MoveOn.org.
McCain brought up the commercials in Denver, saying they are lies. He doesn't deny saying "100 years" in connection with U.S. military operations in Iraq. But he said he was clearly referring to a possible peacekeeping force and not a centurylong war, as critics imply.

If you feel those are ‘lies,’ would you put a muzzle on lies spread by right-wing fanatics during the campaign? Would you stop conservatives from spreading lies like that and set a positive example? Would you repudiate them where and as you encounter them? Why do we think you wouldn’t, Mr. McCain? George Bush used those against you in South Carolina to defeat you in 2000. But isn’t it true that you would embrace them wholeheartedly if it meant you could be president? Isn’t it true that you would sacrifice every principle you ever held to have power?

"After we win the war in Iraq, and we are succeeding -- and it's long and hard and tough, with enormous sacrifices -- then I'm talking about a security arrangement that may or may not be the same kind of thing we had with Korea after the Korean war was over," he said.

What constitutes ‘succeeding?’ For all their ‘straight talk,’ Republicans never give benchmarks, so independent evaluations of success can be made, and they never say what constitutes ‘winning.’ The very definition of political cowardice, and you’re no different, Mr. McCain. Why not?

At issue is McCain's answer, in January, to a question about Bush's theory that troops could be in Iraq for 50 years.
McCain said: "Maybe 100. As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed, that'd be fine with me, and I hope it would be fine with you, if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where al Qaeda is training, recruiting, equipping and motivating people every single day."

Did you think you were participating in an auction, Mr. McCain? The ‘barker’ calls for 50, you go for a hundred? How determined are you to ‘win’ this bid? How many US troops are you prepared to keep in harm’s way in perpetuity?

Next. why would we want to maintain such a presence if we were not dependent on oil? You said that because in your heart you don’t BELIEVE we will be energy-independent. You have no intention of us being energy-independent, not now, not in 100 years, isn’t that true? Americans are being killed there now. Why would it be fine with you if they were not being killed then when it is fine with you that they are being killed now? What is the difference, Mr. McCain?

Why do you think our presence there for 100 years would not be viewed as a perfect, nearly permanent recruitment/motivational tool for al Qaeda and hundreds of other terrorist groups?

Questions for McCain ended. :) Always ask tough questions for the opposition. Do it in a diary, do it in an open thread, do it in a Keith Olbermann diary. Perhaps the question that will make the difference will reach the candidate and reveal him as the loser he is and will always be.

At the very least the question could plant a seed in the mind of someone who otherwise might consider supporting him. Maybe it will start a thinking process which cannot again be arrested. Maybe that person will speak with another person! It could happen!

On to Top Comments!

From Crashing Vor:

Morning Open Thread's a bit early to call a Topper, but David Kroning's description of the Stephanopolus/Clinton show is zen-archer accurate.

From SarahLee:

Probably already nominated a dozen times, but this thread on the Soprano Presidency has several top comments in it starting with Lisa Lockwood’s here, and the replies make it doubly delicious.

From ...? :

This comment submission is, sadly, without attribution since the kos handle of the submitter was not included. In any case, the comment is out of recommendability this evening.

My submissions:

This is a thoughtful comment from eltee which discusses 'elitism' and some of the factors pertaining to it.

My (BeninSC here) answer to the comment would be that it is the kind of thing you get when a religion contrasts 'faith' with reason, and suggests that employing the second fatally betrays the first.

I'll trade you one Wright for a Hagee! That seems to be what brentmack is thinking with this comment!

Jampacked starts a two comment discussion of Obama and the Wright issue.

LNK is no more impressed with McCain than BeninSC is!

Top Mojo - excluding search-identifiable tip jars and first diary comments (top 22 tonight of each plus ties):

1 So long as folks say... by Sharon Jumper - 126
2 Simple answers... by DelicateMonster - 125
3 If she were to do that by Parallax857 - 122
4 New York Times Magazine by Septima - 114
5 I'm so very tired of this woman by jiordan - 113
6 My relatives in Germany can attest to the pain by beachmom - 112
7 Yes, I spoke to some evangelicals by icebergslim - 110
8 Considering that her first act as nominee by bwintx - 105
9 In memory of by monkeybiz - 97
10 Americans are spoiled and they don't want... by David Kroning - 95
11 I like the way Mark Shields put it on Newshour by jim bow - 90
12 In the late 1940s by noweasels - 89
13 Gun Gaffe by oak510 - 88
14 I Dispute That Premise by State Rep Mark Cohen Dem PA - 85
15 I refuse to say I won't vote for the Dem by sheddhead - 80
16 it IS dogs playing poker by lisastar - 75
17 this is what happened by bigforkgirl - 75
18 I don't think its teflon, I think it's by Blogvirgin - 74
19 Because they're individuals? by Nulwee - 73
20 Simpson, Siegelman's Family, And Lawyers by webranding - 72
21 This is one surge I can support. by Namtrix - 71
22 good point on SDs and by ksquire - 69
23 From what I've heard on the ground about IN by poblano - 69
24 You cannot dismiss Jim Clyburn's by DWKING - 69
25 I Have Followed The Siegelman Story by webranding - 67
26 I hope he can take NC and IN and close this deal by Wanda517 - 67
27 Not when we're still in the era of the by Lisa Lockwood - 65
28 HRC was worse than Lieberman on Iraq by peraspera - 65
29 Today You've Made Me Hopeful Too by Empower Ink - 63
30 lol, thanks! by NCDem Amy - 62

Top Mojo - everything included:

1 Tip jar (n/t) by BruinKid - 552
2 many have given by kid oakland - 461
3 I need Tips and Rec's by Granny Doc - 427
4 tips for my mom. by rb137 - 421
5 NYT by lizardbox - 368
6 Tip Jar by turneresq - 336
7 Tips for standing in a two hour line... by NCDem Amy - 323
8 Tips for the truth: by dansac - 309
9 Tips for the Teflon Candidate and Don by Engine 08 - 275
10 Tipped by GregMitch - 275
11 Tip Jar by State Rep Mark Cohen Dem PA - 266
12 tips for fighting back by newyorknewyork - 241
13 Tip Jar, please :) by karpaty lviv - 241
14 Tip Jar by NickB - 234
15 This thing can be over in 48 hours, folks by poblano - 199
16 I know its "projection" but I'll... by JeffLieber - 180
17 Tip Jar.... by Knoeful - 143
18 Tip Jar - 4 May by Jerome a Paris - 139
19 So long as folks say... by Sharon Jumper - 126
20 Simple answers... by DelicateMonster - 125
21 Let's hope by jaywillie - 125
22 If she were to do that by Parallax857 - 122
23 New York Times Magazine by Septima - 114
24 Offered in the hope that it may help by teacherken - 113
25 I'm so very tired of this woman by jiordan - 113
26 My relatives in Germany can attest to the pain by beachmom - 112
27 Yes, I spoke to some evangelicals by icebergslim - 110
28 Questions, comments, and cusswords n/t by Sir Walter Raleigh - 109
29 Excellent diary, give yourself a tip jar! n/t by Blogvirgin - 108
30 Considering that her first act as nominee by bwintx - 105

Please submit your comment finds below!

Thanks for reading! :)