Amen!
How shallow and selfish can a politician or pundit get, than to put other people's lives at risk for a photo op and political BS. If that's not impeachable, use of tax payer's money for personal/political gain, what else is?
I know let's start with the Commander-in-Cheep, who has made a career of putting the military at risk to cover his a.....

Amen!
How could a righteous commander in the field put his men at risk for such tripe?

How much did this photo op cost us anyway?

If this is your point of view, then you might want to look into the list of people who have visited Iraq and required security details. Are you willing to say the same thing about them all that you have said about McCain?

Mike7,

You discount what McCain has been up to lo these last 18 months.

In his quest for the Presidency he's done a 180 from the guy who ran The Straight Talk Express going so far as to kiss the asses of the two people he disdained most for a few years, Bush and Falwell. Instead of McCain the maverick, he's become McCain the panderer.

He's backpedaling from the comments he made recently on a conservative talk radio show where he exaggerated the change in Iraq since the surge. I think his backpeddaling is due to his interview on CNN where he repeated his exaggeration to Blitzer, who then interviewed Michael Ware, a correspondent who's been in IRaq for 4 years. Ware all but called McCain delusional. He has thoroughly demeaned himself to most rational people who can see right through his new face.

I see a guy who's desire to be President is stronger than the value he has on his reputation, an older guy who knows that due to his age, this is his last chance for his Holy Grail.

I'm sorry, I can't agree with you that McCain's trip to Iraq is altruistic as I see it as just another attempt to pave the road to the White House.

As to comparing McCain to others who have visited Iraq and had a security detail; these "others" weren't running for President and trying to repair a recent faux pas on the safety of Iraq since the surge, which he supported.

On April 2, 2007 - 7:55pm CVille Dem said:

OK, on to Fred Thompson! I heard Buchanan saying he was really tough because of his role in "Hunt for Red October." This may get traction with the mentally challenged, but I hope we are ready for it:

Buchanan the chicken hawk thinks movies are real. If we follow Bushanan's logic we should elect Sean Connery who stole the submarine..

Jan, can I have Sophia Loren? :-)

Well here's a good start:

I agree that photo-ops and political junkets are wrongful BS.

U.S. military resources are devoted to making propaganda.

...the US press does CAN and DOES affect the troops' morale while they fight in foreign lands.

OGD, You have once again, hit the nail on the head~! I got distracted, but you have brought this back where it belongs. Thanks!

Jan Knaus

I still think McCain is a war criminal from the Vietnam War, but that's of course so 1970s. He was shot down over the capital city of a sovereign nation while attempting to drop bombs on it. I have been to the neighborhood. That sovereign nation was attacked electively by . . . oh, hell, the deja vu is coming on strong again tonight. But I am so sick of the American fetish for military tough guys & the general hagiography of soldiers that has allowed a third-rate intelligence like McCain to make it as far as a safe seat in the US Senate. It's shameful.

You all misinterpreted the purpose of McCain's Baghdad visit.

It is his lifelong goal to stay in a Hilton hotel in every country where the US loses a war.

McCain's campaign is bombing, and he's doing everything imaginable to pander to the crazy wing of his party in an attempt to save that campaign. I wouldn't be surprised if we see another thing like this before he goes out in a blaze of ignominy. The real joke here is on the punditry, which spent years and years letting McCain's ass use their lips as toilet paper. And now the Great Man turns out to be a pandering, half crazy fraud. It couldn't have happened to a nicer, more honest group of people than our media, who, however, will doubtless quickly wipe McCain's shit off their lips, and find someone else to clean up after. If I were Fred Thompson, I wouldn't budget a lot of money for toilet paper in the next few months.

Crooked cops, crooked lawyers, crooked judges, crooked politicians, crooked doctors, crooked scientists, crooked clergymen -- but no crooked journalists. An amazing record for an amazing class of people.

Hilary visited Iraq, and you might say it was as a US Senator, however, how would anyone believe that was exclusive of presidential ambition?

Are you saying that no one else in today's presidential field has toured Iraq while harboring the presidential ambition?

Your premise also seems to assume that because a person is running for president, his/her motives of doing anything during the campaign cannot be altruistic. However, I'd expect a war vet from a war which disastrously impacted so many to have a better chance at altruism than a counterpart who dodged duty and then desired to be CINC.

I can't see inside McCain's soul, can you?

It's just that everyone is running on the blood, sweat and tears of US troops. One way or another, it is an indelible issue in this presidential campaign. Everyone is invoking the troops blood, sweat and tears. But who among the politicians other than folks like Buchanan and Kucinich stood tall vs. Iraqi 'freedom'?

McCain is one of many people who want to be the President. Whose motives can you feel in their heart with your mind?

Calling the observation that biased reporting causes grief for US troops (whether false optimism through FOX or excessive uni-pessimism through the plurality of other press outlets) a "meme" is unsupported. Propaganda barrages on either side of this partisan split-personality state that America has become would not be commenced if it was not expected that they would benefit the partisans lobbing them.

Where is the unified, bipartisan sacrifice that sets an achievable, intelligent objective that is in the troops' control (not the Iraqi insurgents or anyone else's control) to achieve and get out? Where is that specific plan? Why are we so busy attacking McCain or Hillary or Bush or Giuliani or Obama or whomever? They're not the point yet. The point is: how are we going to get the troops out in the safest, most secure and salvagable way? That is my point.

If you think McCain is crazy, then I'll bet you that you can make an issue of it. The candidate for President must be mentally competent to be able to knowingly take the oath of office. So push that issue for real if that's your point. Otherwise, I think it is valuable to consider what he is up to.

McCain's capitulation to GOP power brokers, at least by appearances, is the action of a person who sees partisan affiliation as the only possibility. Otherwise, he's running on a Ross Perot ticket without the bucks. Call him what you want, but doubting his altruism seems to be a partisan pot calling the kettle black where the critics themselves support a different partisan.

I don't know it all about Obama, and don't agree with all of his opinions, but I have to say, I am impressed with him as a democratic nominee, and I think he can win. He needs to stick to his guns and draw people together among the parties. The other candidates would do very well to study his apparent direction in leadership and follow it.

The other very impressive person is Dennis Kucinich. He's a straight talker, and thinker. I liked the way he engaged one of the partisan talking heads the other week.

Oh well, anytime there really is straight talk from a candidate, how often does she/he win? It's like a lunar eclipse.

I don't think he is crazy; he is past his prime, and his judgement is terrible. He is done (thank heavens).

Jan, I think you are ruling out crazy too fast. :-) I can't think of anything he has said or done on the campaign trail, or in Congress lately, for that matter, that isn't stark, raving-mad crazy.

Wasn't his last non-crazy act the attempt to stop torture? But he even blew that when he didn't object to Bush's signing statement on the actual bill. I think he's crazy.

War does not determine who is right - only who is left. Bertrand Russell

The time of the announcement is academic if it's made. Such decisions aren't made on a lark.

So are you going to be just as critical, or just say you would be? Name those candidates who have made the tour and had the photos made. You say you're going to carry the equal criticism banner, so do it.

The other very impressive person is Dennis Kucinich.

Mike, Kucinich is impressive. Check out these excerpts of his key issues in his opposition to the AUMF given to Bush on Oct 2, 2002. The italics are from the AUMF Resolution and the key issues in bold are Kucinich's findings:

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

Key issue: The Iraqi regime has never attacked nor does it have the capability to attack the United States. The "no fly" zone was not the result of a UN Security Council directive. It was illegally imposed by the United States, Great Britain and France and is not specifically sanctioned by any Security Council resolution.

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

Key issue: There is no credible intelligence that connects Iraq to the events of 9/11 or to participation in those events by assisting Al Qaida.

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens;

Key issue: Any connection between Iraq support of terrorist groups in Middle East, is an argument for focusing great resources on resolving the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. It is not sufficient reason for the U.S. to launch a unilateral preemptive strike against Iraq.

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001 underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;

Key issue: There is no connection between Iraq and the events of 9/11.

Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;

Key issue: There is no credible evidence that Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction. If Iraq has successfully concealed the production of such weapons since 1998, there is no credible evidence that Iraq has the capability to reach the United States with such weapons. In the 1991 Gulf War, Iraq had a demonstrated capability of biological and chemical weapons, but did not have the willingness to use them against the United States Armed Forces. Congress has not been provided with any credible information, which proves that Iraq has provided international terrorists with weapons of mass destruction.

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688, and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949;

Key issue: The UN Charter forbids all member nations, including the United States, from unilaterally enforcing UN resolutions.

Whereas Congress in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) has authorized the President "to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677";

Key issue: The UN Charter forbids all member nations, including the United States, from unilaterally enforcing UN resolutions with military force.

(From the House Congressional Record, Nov. 18, 2005)

And you are right about Kucinich's chances and a solar/lunar eclipse.

War does not determine who is right - only who is left. Bertrand Russell

it could be that he is trying to make statements that create a reality of expected success rather than those that create an expectation of failure with respect to the orders the troops are carrying out right now on the ground

That's what "flowers and chocolate" was about.

That's what "mission accomplished" was about.

How about leaders that tell the truth, instead of "creating a reality of expected success"? 

Dissent Protects Democracy.

C'mon give McCain a break.

He's not used to being right down there among the ahem natives. He's more comfortable looking at them through a bombsight.

On April 2, 2007 - 11:18pm Mike7Woodson said:

Hilary visited Iraq, and you might say it was as a US Senator, however, how would anyone believe that was exclusive of presidential ambition?

I see McCain's recent visit to IRAQ as his attempt to repair the damage he did when he made public his opinion stating how safe Iraq was. This was made obvious by what he did while there, visited an outdoor market. Film at 11:00.

Hillary's visits to IRAQ are part of her Presidential aspirations, and a way to ameliorate her vote on the resolution that got us there. Has she been there recently?

Are you saying that no one else in today's presidential field has toured Iraq while harboring the presidential ambition?

No, I'm not saying that; what I'm saying is, no Presidential aspirant recently made an ass of themselves by telling conservative radio audiences and Wolf Blitzer of CNN how safe Iraq is, and who may have discovered a need to go to IRAQ to repair the damage those comments caused.

Your premise also seems to assume that because a person is running for president, his/her motives of doing anything during the campaign cannot be altruistic

Nonsense, what I'm saying is after seeing how McCain has flipped flopped on so many issues since he decided to run for President again, leaving behind his Straight Talk Express etc., ass kissing the Falwells and Bush types who he used to criticize, I'm skeptical of his motives.

However, I'd expect a war vet from a war which disastrously impacted so many to have a better chance at altruism than a counterpart who dodged duty and then desired to be CINC.

Where is the altruism in his continually supporting an unjustified war and his continuing to support arguably the most incompetent/dishonest administration in our history?

And who is the "counterpart" you refer to?

By the way, the news of the day is how far behind the field McCain is falling in campaign contributions. He said in NH
that they wouldn't meet thier goal this quarter.

Some may see this as a reflection of something.