Text of McCain’s speech to the Los Angeles World Affairs Council
An interesting speech. One commenter made the point that McCain seems to be branding himself as a non-black, non-female Democrat. I can see where that came from, with the numerous positive references to internationalism (the US deferring to the opinions and will of other nations, euphemistic references to open borders, and stated goals of forming a world government); support for "caps-and-trades" in the cause of failed and fraudulent claims of anthropogenic global warming; and McCain's ongoing diatribe about Guantanamo.
On the other hand, McCain did manage to paint an accurate picture of the causes and nature of radical Islamic terrorism, the results and costs of abandoning Afghanistan and Iraq before they can stand on their own; the need for China and India to rein in their rampant pollution; the need for African, and other, nations to gain respect for the rule of law and the will and needs of their people; the need for China and Russia to draw back from their imperialist ambitions; and the need for all nations to rein in the overtly, and often, expressed aggression and nuclear ambitions of North Korea and Iran. He also made an excellent point about not relying on autocracies to fight terrorism when they have been funding it under the table.
Overall, however, McCain's speech fails the stink test. His "League of Democracies" would include many that are democracies in name, only, being little more than kleptocracies with a democratic veneer. A very thin veneer, in some cases. The US subjecting its interests to the appeasement mentality of Europe, in particular, would result in little less than the holocaust McCain predicts from Democrat policies of the same stripe. "Caps-and-trades" policies to combat global warming (Anyone checked the sunspot activity lately? Compare and contrast with the Maunder Minimum which corresponds to The Little Ice Age.) are just another page from the elitist socialist power-mongers (including McCain) who believe they should run your lives. For your own good, of course, because you -- not being of the elite -- are too stupid do run it for yourself. (Just as you -- not being of the elite -- must be subjected to fines and/or prison terms for engaging in political speech within 90 days of an election.) We can also note that McCain has been consistently against enforcing immigration laws, in direct contrast to his drumbeat about the dangers of terrorism (see alliance between MS-13 and Al Qaida). His references to free trade throughout the Americas merely reiterates and enforces this duplicity.
I could go on for pages about the failings of McCain and his hypocrisy. He hasn't been known for years (decades?) as a RINO for nothing.
On to the other interesting points of the title blog -- namely, the abyssmal ignorance of the commentors.
Assertion: The war in Iraq is illegal.
Fact: The cease-fire agreement that ended hostilities in Operation Desert Storm provided that any member of the coalition, either unilaterally or in concert with other members, could, at any time, resume hostilities should Iraq violate the cease-fire. That none chose to do so during twelve years of constant violations does not in any way invalidate this provision.
Assertion: The Geneva Conventions guarantee rights to all combatants.
Fact: They guarantee rights only to those who meet the definition of lawful combatants. They are utterly silent on any combatant who does not meet those definitions. (There are some Conventions to which the US is not signatory and by which it is therefore not bound. What, exactly, those Conventions cover, I do not know. I have researched only the ones to which the US is signatory.)
Assertion: Iraq had nothing to do with Al Qaida.
Fact: Iraqi intelligence documents cast doubt on this assertion. The airplane body found in Iraq set up for hijacking drills casts further doubt on it. Iraq was not innocent of sheltering and funding terrorists: Abu Abbas, planner and leader of the Achille Lauro hijacking, was hosted in Baghdad for a decade or so. Saddam publicly awarded sums equivalent to $10,000 or more to the families of Palestinian terrorists who killed themselves in bombing attacks.
Assertion: "Enemy combatants" is a stupid Bushism.
Conditionally concurring opinion: It most definitely is one of the stupidest screw-ups to come out of the W. Bush White House.* The problem with this term is that It blurs the line between lawful combatants -- who are carefully defined in the Geneva Conventions, and whose treatment and rights are carefully delineated -- and those who do not meet those definitions and therefore are not entitled to the treatment and rights of lawful combatants.
*(Right up there with harping on hypothetical nuclear WMDs instead of the chemical weapons Iraq was well-documented as having, and the biological weapons it was well-documented as having the precursors and ability to make, or the legally established, well-documented right for any '91 coalition member or members to resume hostilities in response to any cease-fire violation.)
That the term never appears in the Geneva Conventions seems, in some people's minds, to mean that there is no such thing as a combatant who is not covered by the guarantees of the Conventions. Of course, if those people actually had a mind capable of anything more than parroting the latest soundbite from their elitist masters, they, too, could look up the Conventions and find out exactly who is covered. And who is not.
Just as they, too, could look up the terrorist connections of Saddam's regime, the particulars of the '91 cease-fire agreement, and a host of other information easily found in a multiplicity of sources.
But that would require them to actually think for themselves. Which they, being well-indoctrinated, sound-bite-parroting, herdbeast slaves of their elitist masters, would never conceive of doing.
On the other hand, McCain did manage to paint an accurate picture of the causes and nature of radical Islamic terrorism, the results and costs of abandoning Afghanistan and Iraq before they can stand on their own; the need for China and India to rein in their rampant pollution; the need for African, and other, nations to gain respect for the rule of law and the will and needs of their people; the need for China and Russia to draw back from their imperialist ambitions; and the need for all nations to rein in the overtly, and often, expressed aggression and nuclear ambitions of North Korea and Iran. He also made an excellent point about not relying on autocracies to fight terrorism when they have been funding it under the table.
Overall, however, McCain's speech fails the stink test. His "League of Democracies" would include many that are democracies in name, only, being little more than kleptocracies with a democratic veneer. A very thin veneer, in some cases. The US subjecting its interests to the appeasement mentality of Europe, in particular, would result in little less than the holocaust McCain predicts from Democrat policies of the same stripe. "Caps-and-trades" policies to combat global warming (Anyone checked the sunspot activity lately? Compare and contrast with the Maunder Minimum which corresponds to The Little Ice Age.) are just another page from the elitist socialist power-mongers (including McCain) who believe they should run your lives. For your own good, of course, because you -- not being of the elite -- are too stupid do run it for yourself. (Just as you -- not being of the elite -- must be subjected to fines and/or prison terms for engaging in political speech within 90 days of an election.) We can also note that McCain has been consistently against enforcing immigration laws, in direct contrast to his drumbeat about the dangers of terrorism (see alliance between MS-13 and Al Qaida). His references to free trade throughout the Americas merely reiterates and enforces this duplicity.
I could go on for pages about the failings of McCain and his hypocrisy. He hasn't been known for years (decades?) as a RINO for nothing.
On to the other interesting points of the title blog -- namely, the abyssmal ignorance of the commentors.
Assertion: The war in Iraq is illegal.
Fact: The cease-fire agreement that ended hostilities in Operation Desert Storm provided that any member of the coalition, either unilaterally or in concert with other members, could, at any time, resume hostilities should Iraq violate the cease-fire. That none chose to do so during twelve years of constant violations does not in any way invalidate this provision.
Assertion: The Geneva Conventions guarantee rights to all combatants.
Fact: They guarantee rights only to those who meet the definition of lawful combatants. They are utterly silent on any combatant who does not meet those definitions. (There are some Conventions to which the US is not signatory and by which it is therefore not bound. What, exactly, those Conventions cover, I do not know. I have researched only the ones to which the US is signatory.)
Assertion: Iraq had nothing to do with Al Qaida.
Fact: Iraqi intelligence documents cast doubt on this assertion. The airplane body found in Iraq set up for hijacking drills casts further doubt on it. Iraq was not innocent of sheltering and funding terrorists: Abu Abbas, planner and leader of the Achille Lauro hijacking, was hosted in Baghdad for a decade or so. Saddam publicly awarded sums equivalent to $10,000 or more to the families of Palestinian terrorists who killed themselves in bombing attacks.
Assertion: "Enemy combatants" is a stupid Bushism.
Conditionally concurring opinion: It most definitely is one of the stupidest screw-ups to come out of the W. Bush White House.* The problem with this term is that It blurs the line between lawful combatants -- who are carefully defined in the Geneva Conventions, and whose treatment and rights are carefully delineated -- and those who do not meet those definitions and therefore are not entitled to the treatment and rights of lawful combatants.
*(Right up there with harping on hypothetical nuclear WMDs instead of the chemical weapons Iraq was well-documented as having, and the biological weapons it was well-documented as having the precursors and ability to make, or the legally established, well-documented right for any '91 coalition member or members to resume hostilities in response to any cease-fire violation.)
That the term never appears in the Geneva Conventions seems, in some people's minds, to mean that there is no such thing as a combatant who is not covered by the guarantees of the Conventions. Of course, if those people actually had a mind capable of anything more than parroting the latest soundbite from their elitist masters, they, too, could look up the Conventions and find out exactly who is covered. And who is not.
Just as they, too, could look up the terrorist connections of Saddam's regime, the particulars of the '91 cease-fire agreement, and a host of other information easily found in a multiplicity of sources.
But that would require them to actually think for themselves. Which they, being well-indoctrinated, sound-bite-parroting, herdbeast slaves of their elitist masters, would never conceive of doing.
posted by Silverdrake at 22:07
1 comments
