Let the schooling begin

(CBS News) Republican John McCain on Monday sharply criticized Democratic rival Barack Obama for not having been to Iraq since 2006, and said they should visit the war zone together.

“Look at what happened in the last two years since Senator Obama visited and declared the war lost,” the GOP presidential nominee-in-waiting told The Associated Press in an interview, noting that the Illinois senator’s last trip to Iraq came before the military buildup that is credited with curbing violence.

“He really has no experience or knowledge or judgment about the issue of Iraq and he has wanted to surrender for a long time,” the Arizona senator added. “If there was any other issue before the American people, and you hadn’t had anything to do with it in a couple of years, I think the American people would judge that very harshly.”

Heh! I wonder what Senator Fluffy will do? Probably blame McCain for BHO being so inexperienced.

Evening Update: Little Man says no.

“John McCain’s proposal is nothing more than a political stunt, and we don’t need any more ‘Mission Accomplished’ banners or walks through Baghdad markets to know that Iraq’s leaders have not made the political progress that was the stated purpose of the surge. The American people don’t want any more false promises of progress, they deserve a real debate about a war that has overstretched our military, and cost us thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars without making us safer.”

OK, Little Man, McCain is offering you a debate, and you chicken out with standard surrender monkey talking points.

Oh, and does that mean Democrats have NOT been engaged in a “real debate” for the past 5 years?

U.S. Senator John McCain will deliver the following remarks as prepared for delivery at the New Mexico Veterans Memorial in Albuquerque, New Mexico, today at 10:30 a.m. MDT (12:30 p.m. EDT):

Thank you. I’m always grateful for the opportunity, and pleased to be in the company of Americans who have had the burden of serving our country in distant lands, and the honor of having proved your patriotism in difficult circumstances.

I was blessed to have been born into a family who made their living at sea in defense of our security and ideals. My grandfather was a naval aviator; my father a submariner. And it was nearly pre-ordained that I would find a place in my family’s profession, and that occupation would one day take me to war. Such was not the case for many of you. Your ambitions might not have led you to war; the honors you sought were not kept hidden on battlefields. Many of you were citizen-soldiers. You answered the call when it came; took up arms for your country’s sake; and fought to the limit of your ability because you believed America’s security was as much your responsibility as it was the professional soldier’s. And when you came home, you built a better a country than the one you inherited. It’s a privilege to be in your company.

The sacrifices made by veterans deserve to be memorialized in something more lasting than marble or bronze or in the fleeting effect of a politician’s speeches. Your valor and devotion to duty have earned your country’s abiding concern for your welfare. And when our government forgets to honor our debts to you, it is a stain upon America’s honor. The Walter Reed scandal recalled, I hope, not just government but the public who elected it, to our responsibilities to the men and women who risked life and limb to meet their responsibilities to us. Such a disgrace is unworthy of the greatest nation on earth. As the greatest leaders in our history, George Washington and Abraham Lincoln, instructed us, care for Americans who fought to defend us should rank among the highest of national priorities.

Those who have borne the burden of war for our sake must be treated fairly and expeditiously as they seek compensation for disability or illness. We owe them compassion, knowledge and hands-on care in their transition to civilian life. We owe them training, rehabilitation and education. We owe their families, parents and caregivers our concern and support. They should never be deprived of quality medical care and mental health care coverage for illness or injury incurred as a result of their service to our country.

Read the rest at John McCain’s website

From Operation Iraqi Freedom

While Americans enjoy the traditional summer kick-off weekend with vacations, backyard barbecues, pool openings and picnics, the White House Commission on Remembrance is asking them to take a moment on Memorial Day to remember the true meaning of the holiday.

The National Moment of Remembrance was created “to provide a time of remembrance for America’s fallen and to make a commitment to give something back to our country in their memory,” according to the White House Commission of Remembrance Web site. The moment gives Americans a way to “participate in an act of national unity and demonstrate gratitude and respect for those who died for freedom since the founding of our nation.”

Congress voted in December 2000 to set aside 3 p.m. on Memorial Day as the National Moment of Remembrance.

“The time 3 p.m. was chosen because it is the time when most Americans are enjoying their freedoms on the national holiday,” the site explains.

As the motto for the Army Corps of Engineers goes, “Can Do!”

Apparently, they do not find Islamic terrorist videos to be hate speech. You know, video’s that call for the destruction of, well, basically anything not to their liking. With violence. They are essentially telling us what they want to, and will, do. But, hey, they apparently have a constitutionalright to do this, as opposed to people who call someone a racial epitaph and, if the Liberals have their way, conservatives speaking on the radio, among others

Senator Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut is trying to pressure YouTube to pull down videos he does not like, and a recent Senate report and a bill pending in Congress also raise the specter of censorship. It is important for online speech to be protected against these assaults.

Mr. Lieberman recently demanded that YouTube take down hundreds of videos produced by Islamist terrorist organizations or their supporters. YouTube reviewed the videos to determine whether they violated its guidelines, which prohibit hate speech and graphic or gratuitous violence. It took down 80 videos, but left others up. Mr. Lieberman said that was “not enough,” and demanded that more come down.

The half vast editorial staff noticed this line at The Jawa Report

See when a US company hosts videos (or other propaganda) created by specially designated terrorist organizations such as Hezbollahand al-Qaeda with the goal of aiding their war against the United States, that is unlawful.

The Constitution is not a suicide pact. Furthermore, the Constitution does not apply to people who are not US citizens.

While it is fortunate that Mr. Lieberman does not have the power to tell YouTubethat it must remove videos, it is profoundly disturbing that an influential senator would even consider telling a media company to shut down constitutionally protected speech. The American Civil Liberties Union has warned that the “Homegrown Terrorism” bill and related efforts “could be a precursor to proposals to censor and regulate speech on the Internet.”

Notice, this is an editorial. There is no by-line. It is the official position of the NY Times that terrorist video’s by people who are not US citizens, but are intent on destroying America, are A-f’ing-OK with the NY Times. Disturbing. Here is the kicker, though

Terrorism is a real concern. All Americans know that. They also know that if we give up our fundamental rights, the terrorists win. If people use speech to engage in criminal acts, they should be prosecuted. Cutting off free speech is never the right answer.

Getting beyond the point that the NY Times cares about opposing terrorism so much that they have been against every measure that the Bush administration has tried to stop it, and have released severalanti-terrorism programs for the world to see, this video’s are “speech to engage in criminal acts,” as per US law. See the The Jawa Report link above.

Oh, and if terrorism is such a concern to the NY Times, why is Frank Rich taking shots at Operation Iraqi Freedom and the people who are and have been fighting in it through the discussion of “South Pacific?”

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove and Right Wing News

One of the things I do over on my site every Sunday is post a patriotic pinup, the painted types. This one is a few years old, added in the flag background. Never been able to figure out who the artist is, though

Memorial Day, originally called Decoration Day, is a day of remembrance for those who have died in our nation’s service. There are many stories as to its actual beginnings, with over two dozen cities and towns laying claim to being the birthplace of Memorial Day. There is also evidence that organized women’s groups in the South were decorating graves before the end of the Civil War: a hymn published in 1867, “Kneel Where Our Loves are Sleeping” by Nella L. Sweet carried the dedication “To The Ladies of the South who are Decorating the Graves of the Confederate Dead” (Source: Duke University’s Historic American Sheet Music, 1850-1920). While Waterloo N.Y. was officially declared the birthplace of Memorial Day by President Lyndon Johnson in May 1966, it’s difficult to prove conclusively the origins of the day. It is more likely that it had many separate beginnings; each of those towns and every planned or spontaneous gathering of people to honor the war dead in the 1860’s tapped into the general human need to honor our dead, each contributed honorably to the growing movement that culminated in Gen Logan giving his official proclamation in 1868. It is not important who was the very first, what is important is that Memorial Day was established. Memorial Day is not about division. It is about reconciliation; it is about coming together to honor those who gave their all.

Everyone seems to have hit on Monsieur Kerry’s Washington Post editorial, which would probably more at home on the Huffington Post or the Daily Kos, and it looks as if he is pulling a #7 on The 8 Stages Of Liberal/Progressive Discussion When They Are Busted: 7. Declare victory! Those dastardly Conservatives have been proven wrong again, and why do you keep asking so many questions?

Which is what he does, as well as, as we have seen time and time again (though Waffles is about a week late in this contraversy, much like he was late with his Iraq plan, and still hasn’t released his From 180’s in full), ignore the central position, that the President of the USA should not engage in one on one talks with no preconditions with the president of Iran, or any other dictatorship

Lost in the rhetoric was the question America deserves to have answered: Why should we engage with Iran?

In short, not talking to Iran has failed. Miserably.

Bush engages in self-deception arguing that not engaging Iran has worked. In fact, Iran has grown stronger: continuing to master the nuclear fuel cycle; arming militias in Iraq and Lebanon; bolstering extremist anti-Israeli proxies. It has embraced Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and spends lavishly to rebuild Afghanistan, gaining influence across the region.

Instead of backing Bush’s toxic rhetoric, McCain should have called George H.W. Bush’s secretary of state, James Baker. After years of stonewalling, the administration grudgingly tested the Baker-Hamilton report’s recommendation and opened talks with Iran — albeit low-level dialogue restricted to the subject of Iraq. Is James Baker an appeaser, too?

Pardon me, John, since you missed it while you were insulting our troop as morons, we have been engaged in talks with Iran for years, along with the UN and the EU. We just do not send our president over there to talk to him.

So, A for spin effort, John, F for Fucktard. Seriously, why do the Dems keep trotting out these loser Demtards?

Over at cBS, they pull this one out of their asses

What’s it got to do with the price of gas? Would some reporter with access to the Republican presidential candidate please ask John McCain why he wants to continue President Bush’s Mideast policy when it has proved so ruinous for American taxpayers? Because McCain is determined to ignore our economic meltdown and shift the debate to foreign policy, shouldn’t he have to explain why an open-ended military presence in the Mideast will make us economically and militarily more secure when the opposite is clearly the case?

Let’s not waste too much time on the military side of the equation. The argument that troops on the ground have made us militarily more secure is absurd on its face. American resources and lives have been squandered in an inane effort that McCain aptly criticized before becoming a presidential candidate. As a Senate watchdog, he distinguished himself by sharply denouncing one defense contractor boondoggle after another in cases involving hundreds of billions for modern weapons that had nothing to do with fighting cave-based terrorists. But as a presidential candidate, McCain now unabashedly apologizes for every twist of the downwind spiral of the Bush Administration foreign policy, from wasteful weapons to inhuman torture.

Whew!