The Hagel Witch Hunt - The GOP Has Learned Nothing

This blog has published a number of posts taking to task politicians who claim that they "support the troops" while on the campaign circuit yet who betray the troops and throw away American lives - and also bankrupt the country - as they seek to go off on one foreign war fool's errand after another.  The totally unnecessary Iraq War and the continuing fiasco in Afghanistan are two prime example.  And in questioning today directed at Defense Secretary nominee Chuck Hagel, the biggest GOP objection to Hagel seemingly is that he (i) calls the Iraq War for the needless disaster that it was and (ii) isn't sufficiently reckless and willing to take the nation into un-winnable wars.    Indeed, one would think the GOP's only concern is to maximize profits to defense contractors.  The lives of American troops?  They simply are not an issue to these members of the GOP.  Perhaps because so many of these assholes don't even have family members in the military in harm's way.   The Daily Beast looks at the GOP effort to crucify Hagel because his isn't enough of a war monger.  Here are highlights:

The contentious Senate hearing for Secretary of Defense nominee Chuck Hagel divided starkly along partisan lines, with Republicans attacking their former colleague with the pitchfork zeal of heretic hunters.

Hagel’s calm recitation of consensus catechism on issues ranging from Iran to Israel to nuclear weapons didn’t seem to make any impression on his conservative critics.

This was personal. John McCain repeatedly interrupted his “old friend” and fellow Vietnam Vet with palpable anger, his fury directed at Hagel’s opposition to the Iraq War and the 2007 troop surge. The core offense appeared to be Hagel’s contention that the invasion of Iraq was the worst foreign policy “disaster” since Vietnam – a parallel that infuriates McCain.

Oklahoma Senator Jim Inhofe, a Republican, reinforced his reputation as possibly the worst U.S. Senator with bear-baiting questions like this: “Why do you think that the Iranian foreign ministry so strongly supports your nomination for Secretary of Defense?”

 
Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions doggedly focused on a report by the anti-nuke group Global Zero, which advocates the elimination of nuclear weapons. The report was co-authored by Hagel, four generals and a number of ambassadors. The organization itself has hundreds of international leaders who have signed on to its recommendations, including Reagan’s Secretary of Defense Frank Carlucci, Carter National Security Advisor Zbignew Brezinksi, 9/11 Commission Co-Chair Lee Hamilton and General Anthony Zinni. Sessions and other Republican senators kept cherry-picking phrases from the report and ignoring substantive subtlety, despite Hagel’s repeated assurance and demonstrated record in opposing unilateral disarmament and support for modernizing the U.S. nuclear program. This clarification by the authors might help calm any genuine concerns, if they exist.

It made me wonder what Sessions would have said to Ronald Reagan, who advocated for nuclear disarmament more than 150 times, according to his aide Martin Anderson, in statements like this: “I believe we’ve come to the point that we must go at the matter of realistically reducing… if not totally eliminating, nuclear weapons—the threat to the world.”

A Democratic President nominating a Republican to his cabinet is usually seen as bipartisan outreach. But not this time. The reason, I think, is threefold.

First, it reflects the polarization afflicting the Republican party and its intolerance of dissent. Hagel is a small-government conservative but a committed internationalist who is wary of unilateral American over-extension, views that extend from his experience as a twice-wounded enlisted infantryman in Vietnam.

Second, it reflects the tortured legacy of the Iraq War and the contradictions it creates for conservatives who feel compelled to defend that war of choice, predicated on flawed intelligence presented to the American people. Hagel earned the enduring anger of the neo-conservative crowd by openly criticizing the Bush administration for its prosecution of the Iraq war and subsequently opposing the Surge. Defenders of the Bush administration now often try to delink the decision to invade from the decision to double down with the surge as a way of reclaiming the high ground. It is now clear that Hagel was right at least on this count: the invasion of Iraq was an ideologically driven overreach that proved a costly distraction from Afghanistan in terms of both blood and treasure while further destabilizing the region. History, as Hagel noted, will be the ultimate judge.

Third, it reflects the deep animus that still exists for President Obama on the part of some conservatives–so much so that any Republican who consents to serve with him is seen as a traitor to the tribe, a dynamic also seen in the GOP’s primary rejection of Utah governor and former Obama China Ambassador Jon Huntsman, despite being arguably the most fiscally conservative candidate in the 2012 pack. By consenting to serve with President Obama–and therefore creating bipartisan cover for the Democrat’s defense strategy–Hagel has committed an unpardonable sin.

My view?  The next time you encounter a GOP elected official bloviating about "supporting the troops," call them out.  I certainly plan on doing so. They are lying assholes.

Decorated Veterans Sue Over Ddon't Ask' Discharges

With the legislative repeal of DADT apparently going nowhere other than a slow death in the U.S. Senate, three decorated veterans discharged under DADT have filed suit in federal court seeking reinstatement under the so-called Whitt standard formulated by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The courts do seem to be the only forum in which the irrational and discriminatory purpose of DADT isn't upheld by political games and the bigotry of individuals like John "McSenile" McCain or the spinelessness of the Liar-in-Chief. The suit was filed on behalf of Air Force veterans Michael D. Almy and Anthony J. Loverde, and former Navy Petty Officer Jason D. Knight, and aims to show that their discharges harmed the military as opposed to protecting it. Here are highlights from the Los Angeles Times:
*
Three decorated military veterans discharged because they are gay filed suit Monday in San Francisco seeking reinstatement and another federal court judgment that the Pentagon's ban on openly gay and lesbian personnel in the military is unconstitutional.
*
The lawsuit should serve as "a shot across the bow" to put Congress on notice that if lawmakers fail to repeal the law, those who oppose it will turn to the courts for relief, said Aubrey Sarvis, executive director of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network.
*
Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, a Washington-based nonprofit committed to ending "don't ask, don't tell," and the law firm of Morrison & Foerster filed the suit in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of three men "who want nothing more than to put their uniforms on and get back overseas to serve their country," said M. Andrew Woodmansee of the law firm's San Diego office.
*
The suit was filed on behalf of Air Force veterans Michael D. Almy and Anthony J. Loverde, and former Navy Petty Officer Jason D. Knight. All three had been awarded numerous medals and commendations for their service before they were discharged.

McCain Exudes Bigotry At DADT Hearing

John McSenile apparently wants to be the poster boy for why there need to be mandatory retirement ages for members of Congress. The man is clearly losing his grasp on reality and action the exact opposite of how he once promised to act if the military brass found that it was time for DADT to be thrown on the trash heap of history. McCain is - in my view - a tad too hysterical on the issue and it does make me wonder once again if there might not be something to a friend's conjecture that McCain was sodomized while a POW in North Vietnam. Indeed, McCain's shrillness reminds one of self-loathing closet cases like Robert Knight and Peter LaBarbera. McSenile seems virtually obsessed with finding any flimsy reason to ignore the Pentagon report that blows his concerns out of the water. Here are highlights from Think Progress on McCain's shameless behavior as well as a video clip of McSenile's refusal to accept findings that run counter to his own bigotry:
*
From the very first DADT hearing in February 2010 to today’s session, the Senator refused to consider the views of the witnesses before him. This morning — after reviewing the overwhelming positive DADT report and listening to the pleas of the leaders to end the policy in the lame duck session — McCain went further, openly implying that Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Mike Mullen was not living up to the expectations of leadership because he did not ask the troops if they favored repealing the policy.
*
Significantly, all of the leaders in front of the commission — Mullen, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, and Working Group chairmen Defense Department General Counsel Jeh C. Johnson and Army Gen. Carter F. Ham — disagreed with McCain’s approach of polling the troops about the policy. “I can’t think of a single precedent in American history of doing a referendum of the american armed forces on a policy issue,” Gates said, asking, “are you going to ask them if they want 15 month tours, are you going to ask them if they want to be part of the surge in Iraq?” McCain didn’t name a single “great leader” who favored a referendum.
*

Smoke the Bigots Out of the Closet

I wish I could write with the flare of Frank Rich who has another great op-ed column in the New York Times that takes to task the opponents of the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell. While he may be premature in declaring anti-gay bigotry a political negative - certainly in states like Virginia and states in the Deep South - he is on point on the fact that among independent voters in many parts of the country open homophobia is less and less a lure to voters. Even Bob McDonnell worked to down played his extremely homophobic past during his recent campaign for governor. Rich also correctly notes that folks like Elaine Donnelly (why is it that she always look like just she smelled a foul odor?) and the Family Research Council are working harder to hide their true religious based agenda in supporting DADT. DADT is monetarily wasteful and hurts the military's readiness plain and simple - something the majority of Americans now seem to recognize. Here are some column highlights:
*

A funny thing happened after Adm. Mike Mullen called for gay men and lesbians to serve openly in the military: A curious silence befell much of the right. If this were a Sherlock Holmes story, it would be the case of the attack dogs that did not
bark.
*
John McCain, commandeering the spotlight as usual, did fulminate against the repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell.” But the press focus on McCain, the crazy man in Washington’s attic, was misleading. His yapping was an exception, not the rule. Many of his Republican colleagues said little or nothing. The right’s noise machine was on mute. . . . His only prominent ally was the Family Research Council, which issued an inevitable “action alert” demanding a stop to “the sexualization of our military.”
*
The occasional outliers notwithstanding, why did such a hush greet Mullen on Capitol Hill? The answer begins with the simple fact that a large majority of voters — between 61 percent and 75 percent depending on the poll — now share his point of view. Most Americans recognize that being gay is not a “lifestyle” but an immutable identity, and that outlawing discrimination against gay people who want to serve their country is, as the admiral said, “the right thing to do.”
*
But that’s not the whole explanation for the scant pushback in Washington to Mullen and his partner in change, Defense Secretary Robert Gates. There is also a potent political subtext. To a degree unimaginable as recently as 2004 — when Karl Rove and George W. Bush ran a national campaign exploiting fear of gay people — there is now little political advantage to spewing homophobia. Indeed, anti-gay animus is far more likely to repel voters than attract them.
*
If gay Americans are to be granted full equality, the flimsy rhetorical camouflage must be stripped away to expose the prejudice that lies beneath. The arguments for preserving “don’t ask” have long been blatantly groundless. McCain — who said in 2006 that he would favor repealing the law if military leaders ever did — didn’t even bother to offer a logical explanation for his mortifying flip-flop last week.
*
[T]he most common last-ditch argument for preserving “don’t ask” heard last week, largely from Southern senators, is to protect “troop morale and cohesion.” Every known study says this argument is a canard, as do the real-life examples of the many armies with openly gay troops, including those of Canada, Britain and Israel. But the argument does carry a telling historical pedigree. When Harry Truman ordered the racial integration of the American military in 1948, Congressional opponents (then mainly Southern Democrats) embraced an antediluvian Army prediction from 1940 stating that such a change would threaten national defense by producing “situations destructive to morale.” History will sweep this bogus argument away now as it did then.
*
Those opposing same-sex marriage are just as eager to mask their bigotry. The big arena on that issue is now in California, where the legal showdown over Proposition 8 is becoming a Scopes trial of sorts, with the unlikely bipartisan legal team of David Boies and Ted Olson in the Clarence Darrow role. The opposing lawyer, Charles Cooper, insisted to the court that he bore neither “ill will nor animosity for gays and lesbians.” Given the history of the anti-same-sex marriage camp, it’s hard to make that case with a straight face (so to speak).
*
The debate could blow up in the Republicans’ faces. A protracted battle or filibuster in which they oppose civil rights will end up exposing the deep prejudice at the root of their arguments. That’s not where a party trying to expand beyond its white Dixie base and woo independents wants to be in 2010. Polls consistently show that independents, however fiscally conservative, are closer to Democrats than Republicans on social issues.
*
The more bigotry pushed out of the closet for all voters to see, the more likely it is that Americans will be moved to grant overdue full citizenship to gay Americans. It won’t happen overnight, any more than full civil rights for African-Americans immediately followed Truman’s desegregation of the armed forces. But there can be no doubt that Mike Mullen’s powerful act of conscience last week, just as we marked the 50th anniversary of the Greensboro, N.C., lunch counter sit-in, pushed history forward. The revealing silence that followed from so many of the usual suspects was pretty golden too.

Stocks Tumble 778 Points As Bailout Plan Fails

I am no fan of bailing out those who made bad business decisions, particularly when the top decision makers drew salaries and bonuses that border on the obscene and unconscionable. Nonetheless, allowing the economy to crash and burn is not a good idea either. A further irony, of course, is that it is the Republican Party in Congress and the Chimperator's White House, including John McSenile, who set the stage for the current debacle by seeking to strip away all regulation and oversight that might have constrained the greedy on Wall Street and also imposed some rationality standard to mortgage credit underwriting. Now, the very same politicians - other than the Chimperator who doesn't want yet another fiasco to happen on his watch - who allowed the crisis to come about are the ones who do not want to take responsibility and try to clean up the mess. Yes, Pelosi made a speech placing blame on the Chimperator and the GOP, but it was directly on target. They need to be held accountable. Here are highlights from the Huffington Post:

*

In an extraordinary gamble on the future of the global economy, the House of Representatives voted down the $700 illion Wall Street bill 205-228, as Republicans defied their president, their presidential nominee and the congressional leadership to vote nearly two to one against the measure described as crucial to the prevention of an economic collapse.

*

While the economic consequences of the vote will be determined during the coming weeks, the outcome this afternoon was a major setback to John McCain, who had backed the proposal and portrayed himself as a party leader who would help win approval for the bailout. . . . Instead, members of McCain's own party voted 133 to 65 against the measure. Democrats, on the other hand, voted 140 to 95 for the bill.

*

In an attempt to shift blame for the defeat, House Republican Leader John Boehner of Ohio and Republican Whip Roy Blunt of Missouri charged that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi provoked the 'no' votes by angering Republican members with an excessively partisan floor speech. . . . In her speech, Pelosi did place some of the blame for the current crisis on Bush: "Today, we will act to avert this crisis, but informed by our experience of the past eight years with the failed economic leadership that has left us left incapable of meeting the challenges of the future.

*

There very likely will be an attempt to try to pass the bill again, although it is not clear how soon that would take place. Republican Congressman Joe Barton of Texas asked if he could move for reconsideration and if he did, how soon would it be taken up. He was told by House parliamentarians that it would be taken up immediately -- too soon for supporters to regroup -- so he put off his motion.

USA Today/Gallop Poll: Obama Did Better in First Debate

Like many, I watched the presidential debate on Friday evening. A group of us gathered at the home of a gay couple who are good friends and follow politics non-stop as I do. I thought Obama did well and in respect to McCain, his main plus was that he did not sounds a loopy as he during the rest of the preceding week. Several analysts have compared the debate to prior debates where the younger challenger's main task was to look competent and up to the task of being president. Obama more than met that standard. Apparently many other likewise believe Obama did a good job based on a new USA Today/Gallup Poll. Here are some highlights from ABC News:

*

A new USA TODAY/Gallup Poll shows 46% of people who watched Friday night's presidential debate say Democrat Barack Obama did a better job than Republican John McCain; 34% said McCain did better.

*

Obama scored even better -- 52%-35% -- when debate-watchers were asked which candidate offered the best proposals for change to solve the country's problems. . . . . Three in 10 said their opinion of Obama became more favorable after seeing the debate, compared to 14% who said less favorable and 54% who said it didn't make much difference.

*

Obama held a 5-percentage-point lead over McCain, 49%-45%, in the Gallup tracking poll taken Wednesday through Friday. Tomorrow's poll will be the first to include impact from the debate.

Just How Whacked Out is Sarah Palin? Very!!

Between the almost non-stop series of lies and the wingnut fundie views of her church, one can only wonder about just how extreme are the depths of Sarah Palin's whacked out religious insanity. Each new day seems to reveal some new whacked aspect to Palin's religious fanaticism. Now the London Times is reporting an even more bizarre account of just how crazy Ms. Palin seems to be. Apparently Ms. Palin believes in "witch hunters" and other religious kooks outside the mainstream of rationality. Here are some story highlights:

*

The pastor whose prayer Sarah Palin says helped her to become governor of Alaska founded his ministry with a witchhunt against a Kenyan woman who he accused of causing car accidents through demonic spells. At a speech at the Wasilla Assembly of God on June 8 this year, Mrs Palin described how Thomas Muthee had laid his hands on her when he visited the church as a guest preacher in late 2005, prior to her successful gubernatorial bid.

*
In video footage of the speech, she is seen saying: “As I was mayor and Pastor Muthee was here and he was praying over me, and you know how he speaks and he’s so bold. And he was praying “Lord make a way, Lord make a way.” "And I’m thinking, this guy’s really bold, he doesn’t even know what I’m going to do, he doesn’t know what my plans are. And he’s praying not “oh Lord if it be your will may she become governor,” no, he just prayed for it. He said “Lord make a way and let her do this next step. And that’s exactly what happened.” She then adds: “So, again, very very powerful, coming from this church,” before the presiding pastor comments on the “prophetic power” of the event.

*

An African evangelist, Pastor Muthee has given guest sermons at the Wasilla Assembly of God on at least 10 occasions in his role as the founder of the Word of Faith Church, also known as the Prayer Cave. Pastor Muthee founded the Prayer Cave in 1989 in Kiambu, Kenya after “God spoke” to him and his late wife Margaret and called him to the country, according to the church’s website. The pastor speaks of his offensive against a demonic presence in the town in a trailer for the evangelical video “Transformations”, made by Sentinel Group, a Christian research and information agency.

*

According to accounts of the witchhunt circulated on evangelical websites such as It was during that these sermons that Mrs Palin, who was then preparing for her gubernatorial run, was anointed by Pastor Muthee. His intercession, she says, was “awesome”., after Pastor Muthee declared Mama Jane a witch, the townspeople became suspicious and began to turn on her, demanding that she be stoned. Public outrage eventually led the police to raid her home, where they fired gunshots, killing a pet python which they believed to be a demon. . . . Pastor Muthee has frequently referred to this witchhunt in his sermons as an example of the power of “spiritual warfare”.

*

It was during that these sermons that Mrs Palin, who was then preparing for her gubernatorial run, was anointed by Pastor Muthee. His intercession, she says, was “awesome”.

A European Reader's Thoughts on McCain/Palin

In response to my earlier post today about the importance of the U.S. presidential election, I received an e-mail from a reader in Europe who is aghast that there is even a possibility of someone like Sarah Palin being elected as Vice President of this nation. I agree with him - it is VERY, VERY frightening and says nothing good about America. Here's a portion of his message to me:

*

I'm one of your European readers (living in Germany and Denmark) and I want to tell you, that I'm particularly interested in your political commentary, the way you put gay politics into the frame of party politics and church politics and make it to the crucial point of liberal and humanistic politics in both areas.

*

It is so difficult not only for me to understand what is happening in the USA. Take for example Charlie Gibson's interview of Sarah Palin, about which I was really shocked. One of Scandinavia's leading newspapers, Politiken in Copenhagen, characterized her answers as those of a poor student who is falling through the exam, but it is still possible, that she will be elected! And it is not only her cranky Christianity, but her shocking incompetence, which I fear. Do the American electors have sense for their world-wide responsibility?

*

It is very hard to explain to residents of other advanced nations how it can be that the USA is both a country of great knowledge and power and yet also a nation inhabited by many ignorant - often by their own choice - people who are utterly clueless on a host of issues and areas of knowledge. Part of the phenomenon may be due to the USA's great size - Texas is a large as France - and it's lack of proximity to other nations other than Canada (which in many ways is similar to the USA) and Mexico. Unlike Europe which has been much more outward looking for centuries and had much more movement between countries, too many within the USA look inward and really have no interest in the concept that there ARE other legitimate perspectives on issues.

*

I hate to say it, but I also believe that religion is also an insidious cause for the ignorance and/or lack of curiosity on the part of many Americans. Europe for the most part has never had the fundamentalist and evangelical religious traditions that grew up out of the uneducated masses and often times self-styled "preachers" who had questionable levels of education themselves. For all its huge faults, at least the Roman Catholic Church historically had a somewhat educated clergy. It is no coincidence that today fundamentalists and evangelicals are most populous in the states that have the lowest levels of overall education and the poorest public education systems. In my view, it is difficult to believe in the literal interpretation/application of the Bible and the teaching of creationism if one has a modicum of quality education.

*

The public education system in the USA is also woefully lacking when it comes to educating young people about (1) accurate history so that they cannot be duped by Christianist demagogues, (2) how government works and the interactions between the branches of government, and (3) patriotism not being an excuse to not question one's government. I was first drawn into politics due to my frustrations with public education which offered far too little for my intellectually gifted children. While myself and like minded people did force through some improvements in the Virginia Beach school system, so much more is need across the country. With the GOP and the Christianist depending upon the ignorance of voters, it is a constant battle to stem efforts to "dumb down" the system even more.

*

Will McCain and Palin be elected? I truly hope not. If they are, I foresee further declines in the USA both in terms of knowledge and personal freedoms and liberty. I believe that gay rights are intertwined with both religion and politics in this country because anti-gay legislation and homophobia have one root cause: the desire to punish those who do not conform to the Christianist religious beliefs. But gays are not the only targets of these folks. Jews, Muslims, Hindu's and non-believers all are at risk if someone like Sarah Palin, an obvious religious fanatic is elected to high office. I hope and pray that Obama/Biden is victorious on November 4, 2008.

Anchorage Daily News: Questions Palin Needs to Answer

Who knows a candidate better than their hometown newspaper where they have lived and worked and in the case of Sarah Palin been mayor of a small neighboring town. With John McSenile's VP designee, Sarah Palin, her hometown newspaper is the Anchorage Daily News (Wasilla with only 7,025 residents doesn't have its own daily newspaper). Rather than being flattering of Ms. Palin, the Anchorage Daily News is hitting Pali with some hard questions and it is increasingly becoming clear that McSenile was either having a senior moment when selecting Palin or he was following the directives of Christianists in the GOP like James "Daddy" Dobson. Here are highlights from the Anchorage Daily News that it believes Ms. Palin should be required to answer:

*

There's no polite way to say it: Sarah Palin has been hiding out from hard questions. It took 10 days from when John McCain announced his pick until the McCain campaign agreed to schedule Palin an unscripted interview with a serious journalist.

*

Palin has accused Barack Obama of being a me-first celebrity candidate for president. At least he has been facing media questions for the past 18 months. Here are some of the questions Palin should be answering, for Alaskans and the rest of the country:

*
• You present yourself as a Republican maverick who took on your own party's corrupt political establishment. In November's election, your party is running an indicted U.S. Senator, Ted Stevens, who is awaiting trial on charges he accepted more than $250,000 of unreported gifts from the state's most powerful lobbyist. Will you vote for his opponent? Will you urge Alaskans to help you change Washington and vote him out of office? If not, why not?

*

• Sen. Ted Stevens' trial is still pending; he has declined to say whether he would accept a pardon from President Bush before Bush leaves office in January. Do Alaska voters deserve an answer to that question before they cast their vote for or against Stevens in November? What is your position on a president pardoning a public official before a jury has ruled on guilt or innocence?

*
• Alaska Congressman Don Young appears to have won his Republican primary, even though you endorsed his opponent. Will you vote for your fellow Republican Don Young, who has spent over $1 million on legal fees without telling his constituents what sort of legal trouble he is in?

*
• Why have you reneged on your earlier pledge to cooperate with the Alaska Legislature's investigation into Troopergate?

*

• In spring of 2004, the Daily News reported that you cited family considerations in deciding not to try for the U.S. Senate: "How could I be the team mom if I was a U.S. senator?" What was different this time as you decided to run for vice president?

*
• As governor of Alaska, you have not pushed for laws or regulations that put your personal views on abortion, same-sex marriage and creationism into public policy. As vice president, will you push to outlaw abortion, restrict same-sex marriage and require the teaching of creationism?

*
• If you were a fully qualified vice-presidential candidate from the get-go, why did you wait more than 10 days to face reporters?

*
• McCain spokesman Rick Davis told Fox News the media didn't show you enough "deference." How much deference do you expect to get from Vladimir Putin or Hugo Chavez?

*

• You have said victory is in sight in Iraq. In July 2007, when you visited Kuwait, you said, "I'm not going to judge the surge." In the March 2007 issue of Alaska Business Monthly, you were asked about the surge and quoted saying: "I've been so focused on state government, I haven't really focused much on the war in Iraq. . . . While I support our president, Condoleezza Rice and the administration, I want to know that we have an exit plan in place." Define "victory" in Iraq? What is the exit plan?

*

BOTTOM LINE: The nation deserves to hear Palin's unfiltered answers to serious questions.

John McCain Agrees With Statement About Need to Reenact the Draft

No doubt John McCain's handlers will be working to try to make this gaffe - assuming it was a gaffe and not McCain's real view about bringing back the draft - go away since it will no doubt not sit well with many voters. Sadly, this kind of statement is all too typical of "100 years in Iraq" McCain. Listen to the video below or read the text below from Think Progress and reach your own conclusion. Is the man senile, incompetent, or in favor of a draft? I don't know about others, but I surely do not want my son drafted so that McCain can launch some reprise of the Iraq War disaster. Note too, the anti-immigrant language.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: Senator McCain I truly hope you get the opportunity to chase Bin Laden right to the gates of hell and push him in as you stated on your forum. I do have a question though. Disabled veterans, especially in this state, have horrible conditions [...] My son is an officer in the Air Force, and I am a vet and I was raised in a military family. I think it is a sad state of affairs when we have illegal aliens having a Medicaid card that can access specialist top physicians, the best of medical and our vets can’t even get to a doctor. These are the people that we tied yellow ribbons for and Bush patted on the back. If we don’t reenact the draft I don’t think we will have anyone to chase Bin Laden to the gates of hell.

JOHN MCCAIN: Ma’am let me say that I don’t disagree with anything you said and thank you and I am grateful for your support of all of our veterans.(Town Hall; Las Cruces, NM 08/20/08)