John McCain is a hypocrite:

[Ichingcarpenter]

"How can we possibly find honor in using the fate of our servicemen
to score political advantage in Washington? There is no pride to be
had in such efforts. We are at war, a hard and challenging war,
and we do no service for the best of us-those who fight and risk all
on our behalf-by playing politics with their service.".


-John McCain.Congressional Record, 5/24/07

[Captain Angry]

1. That is awesome.

Do you have a direct link to the Congressional record's site?

[Ichingcarpenter]

3. No, but the person I got the quote from

is very reputable on their work. I'll see
if we can get a link together but I'm going to bed soon
and may have to wait until morning.

[Captain Angry]

5. I'll go digging as well.

I just wanted to see if you had it close at hand.

Thanks!

[SwampG8r]

2. about what i expect from him

his gi bill vote says it all imo

[Median Democrat]

4. McCain Has Made A Career of Second Guessing The Military & Contradicting Himself

You heard the phrase, "Even a blind squirrel occassionally finds a nut?" Well, this describes John McCain's inconsistent and contradictory approach to foreign policy. Indeed, the only "constant" is that John McCain will loudly second guess military strategy in order to draw attention to himself.

FIRST, ironically is criticism of John McCain appearing in a conservative magazine, which questioned his current pro-Iraq occupation policies. The magazing notes McCain's opposition to Reagan's commitment of American troops to Lebanon as a peace-keeping force in which a young John McCain sounded like Barack Obama:

http://www.amconmag.com/2008/2008_02_11/cover.html

"The senator first captured the media spotlight in September 1983, not long after he’d been elected to his first term in the House, when he voted against President Reagan’s decision to put American troops in Lebanon as part of a multinational “peacekeeping” force. One of 27 Republicans to break with the White House, the freshman McCain made a floor speech that reads as if it might have been written yesterday—by Ron Paul:

The fundamental question is: What is the United States’ interest in Lebanon? It is said we are there to keep the peace. I ask, what peace? It is said we are there to aid the government. I ask, what government? It is said we are there to stabilize the region. I ask, how can the U.S. presence stabilize the region?... The longer we stay in Lebanon, the harder it will be for us to leave. We will be trapped by the case we make for having our troops there in the first place.

What can we expect if we withdraw from Lebanon? The same as will happen if we stay. I acknowledge that the level of fighting will increase if we leave. I regretfully acknowledge that many innocent civilians will be hurt. But I firmly believe this will happen in any event.

Now insert “Iraq” where McCain said “Lebanon.” It’s as if McCain the Younger foresaw our present predicament and taunted his future incarnation, showing that wisdom doesn’t necessarily come with age.

In sketching out McCain’s political career alongside a timeline of American interventions abroad, one comes, at last, to a turning point. But his course was set much earlier, in his first visible venture into the realm of national-security issues at the time of the Lebanese events: Reagan’s request for U.S. troops and the subsequent attack on the Beirut marine barracks, where 241 military personnel were killed.

SECOND, during the 1999 Kosovo Air Strikes, John McCain heavily criticized Bill Clinton's "lack of an exit strategy" and asserted that the US would not be able to win without a ground war. This criticism may underscore why Gen. Wesley Clark hates John McCain's guts. Because McCain was back at home second guessing Gen. Clark at the time.

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/05/04/kosov... /

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/04/02/presi... /

NOVAK: Do you think that war can be won without sending in ground troops?

MCCAIN: I am very skeptical because all three of us, being students of history, know that the last time, I think, that air power won was when Zeus used to have an unlimited supply of thunderbolts.

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/stories/s20508.htm

US Senator John McCain, Arizona Republican:
The important thing here is that this is a very dangerous business that we've embarked on and there is no end game, there is no exit strategy that has been articulated and therefore I am incredibly skeptical...

http://thinkprogress.org/bush-in-1999 /

The criticism did not stop Bush from picking up key endorsements Thursday from U.S. Rep. Jim Nussle and New Hampshire Sen. Judd Gregg. Bush, in Austin, criticized President Clinton’s administration for not doing enough to enunciate a goal for the Kosovo military action and indicated the bombing campaign might not be a tough enough response. “Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is,” Bush said. Although on Wednesday Bush said that a victory was paramount, “even if that means ground troops,” he said Thursday any decision to commit ground troops ought to be made by the military

THIRD, we have present day John McCain who is all over the map, without any clear exit strategy in Iraq, and who has recently embraced Barack Obama's 16 month timeline. Ironically, McCain has calling himself Bush's greatest critic, which would be a good thing, except for the fact that John McCain has made a career of second guessing military action. With Reagan, it was too much. With Clinton, it was too little. With W, McCain's positions have been all over the map.

[Triana]

6. that's how you spell Republican: h-y-p-o-c-r-i-t-e. Hardly a surpise since McSame..

...is a Republican.

[Captain Angry]

7. FOUND THE FULL QUOTE. (3rd paragraph)

Page S6698 of the Congressional Record, Senate, 05/24/2007.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, our service men and women on the front
lines in the war on terror have been waiting too long for the funding
this bill provides. Our soldiers, airmen, and marines need this
appropriation to carry out their vital work, and we should have
provided it months ago. The Congress, which authorized the wars in Iraq
and Afghanistan, has an obligation to give our troops everything they
need to prevail in their missions. As such, I will vote for its
passage. But I do so with deep reservations. The legislation we are
considering now is the wrong way to fund this war, and it fails the
most basic tests imposed on us as stewards of taxpayer dollars.

This emergency supplemental appropriations bill contains $120 billion
in funding, approximately $17 billion above the President's request. It
is filled with billions of dollars in non-emergency spending that has
nothing to do with funding the troops. In a time of war, with large
federal budget deficits, we should be constraining our Federal
expenditures. Sadly, we have chosen, once again, to do the opposite,
and loaded this bill with billions of dollars in spending we don't
need, spending that was not requested, spending that will only add to
the already excessive size of government.

The President submitted his supplemental funding request on February
5 nearly 4 months ago. The Senate finally passed a very flawed version
of a bill on March 29 a bill that everyone knew was nothing more than a
political stunt, one that was dead before arrival to the President.
Instead of putting our country first and providing the troops with full
funding as expeditiously as possible, we let partisan politics rule the
day. While some may believe that they scored political points by
forcing meaningless procedural votes, I would ask them to reflect for a
moment. What gain inheres in playing partisan politics with the lives
of our honorable warriors and their families? How can we possibly find
honor in using the fate of our servicemen to score political advantage
in Washington? There is no pride to be had in such efforts. We are at
war, a hard and challenging war, and we do no service for the best of
us--those who fight and risk all on our behalf--by playing politics
with their service.

So now, nearly 4 months after the supplemental funding request was
submitted, here we are, with money literally running out to fund this
war. We are about to pass a bill that while better than the last
version, still contains billions of dollars that have nothing to do
with the war on terror. We can do better than this. The American
taxpayers deserve and expect more.

As my colleagues know, I have been meeting with citizens across the
country, and let me assure you, they are not happy with the workings of
Congress. There is a reason that the poll results on Congress's
favorability rating are at such lows the latest at 31 percent. It is
because of partisan politics having a greater priority in Washington
than doing the people's business. It is because we are not making the
tough choices to halt deficit spending and fix the out of control
entitlement programs. It is because we seem to care more about our own
reelections than about reforming government. This is not the way the
American public wants their elected officials to behave. What will it
take for that to sink in?

Let me mention some of the unrequested and unauthorized items
contained in this bill: $110 million in aid to the shrimp and fisheries
industries; $11 million for flood control projects in New York and New
Jersey; $37 million to modernize the Farm Service Agency's computer
system; $13 million for the Save America's Treasures program; and, $3
billion in agriculture disaster assistance, including $22 million to
support the Department of Agriculture in implementing programs to
provide this un-requested and unauthorized funding.

There are also several items in this bill that seek to legislate on
an appropriations bill rather than allowing such items to move through
the regular legislative process. Examples include language that: raises
the minimum wage; restricts the Department of Transportation from
implementing the North American Free Trade Agreement's, NAFTA,
provisions expanding cross-border trade between Mexico and the
United States with the introduction of a pilot program that would allow
a select group of Mexican trucking companies to make deliveries into
our country beyond the 25 miles that current law permits; extends
several tax credits, while setting forth new Internal Revenue Service
definitions and exempting some programs from taxation; and, amends the
Food Security Act to make adjustments to the Department of
Agriculture's land and soil conservation program.

Another provision that seeks to legislate on this appropriations bill
is a provision that would end-run the Defense Base Realignment and
Closure, BRAC, process. The 2005 BRAC commission decided to close the
Naval Air Station at Willow Grove, Pennsylvania, and the Department of
Navy was in the process of closing the base in accordance with the law.
This bill, however, would transfer the land and facilities to the Air
Force even though the Secretary of the Air Force stated on April 12,
2007, that there is not a military need for the land it will be forced
to receive. This provision was not requested by the administration, is
not an emergency, and is not a responsible way to legislate. It was not
reviewed or debated in any committee, and the committee of jurisdiction
has had no say in the matter. Yet the American people will now be
forced to continue to pay for the maintenance of this unwanted land
when the Air Force receives it.

Despite these unacceptable earmarks and legislative language, I am
pleased that this bill does not contain a timeline for the withdrawal
of American troops from Iraq, regardless of the conditions there. Such
a mandate would have had grave consequences for the future of Iraq and
the security of Americans. The President was right to veto the first
iteration of this legislation.

I do have concerns, however, with the way in which this measure
conditions aid to the Iraqi Government by requiring the government to
meet benchmarks. Although I support benchmarks for the Iraqi
Government, and I believe that we should encourage the Iraqi government
to move ahead as rapidly as possible on a number of fronts, some of the
benchmarks contained in this bill are beyond the control of the Iraqi
leadership. One of the benchmarks, for example, mandates that there
will be no safe haven for ``any outlaws.'' This should of course be an
aspiration, but if terrorists or insurgents hang on and hole up in
Baghdad, should this constitute a reason why the United States
withholds economic aid to the government? Similarly, another benchmark
requires the Iraqi Government to reduce the level of sectarian
violence. But if sectarian violence does not decline as rapidly as we
would like, does this suggest that the answer is to cut off
reconstruction aid? It's not at all clear to me that it does.

I believe that, instead of legislating a list of benchmarks that must
be met by the Iraqis, and imposing statutory penalties for
nonperformance, it would be preferable for the administration to reach
agreement on a series of benchmarks with the Iraqi government, a
timeline for implementation, and consequences attached to each. Such an
approach would make clear to the Iraqis that they must make progress,
but would do so in a way that is specific, flexible, and realistic.

If this bill is to have benchmarks at all, it should be a benchmark
that Congress may not approve any earmark, no matter how valid the
cause, without an authorization, an administration request or inclusion
in the budget. The national debt grows $75 million an hour and $1.3
billion a day. Congress should benchmark its spending sprees on zero
debt, but it won't. This body would rather set benchmarks for others
around the world than take responsibility for its own actions. For
these reasons, this bill is flawed and irresponsible, but I will vote
for it nonetheless in order to support our brave men and women fighting
for freedom in Iraq and Afghanistan.

[Ichingcarpenter]

8. Thanks......n/t

[RedShoes]

9. The pope is Catholic.