Click to see the beacon journal online
Homes   Jobs   Cars   Shopping
Blog of Mass Destruction -- Community Blog

Previous post:

Next post:

Interview With Son of Surge

by The Reverend on July 25, 2008

in Uncategorized

KneePad Interviewer: Warrior and Ex-POW John McCain, can you tell us when the surge began?

Ex-POW McCain: The surge actually started in 1998. Some Republican Warrior Leaders who are NOT ex-POW's, like me, say the surge started in 1991, but I think 1998 is the correct starting date for the surge.

Knee Pad Person: Ex-POW McCain, does your experience as a former POW in Vietnam come into play in comprehending difficult questions, like, 'when did the surge begin'?

Ex-POW McCain: Yes, I have had to rely on my experience as a former POW to understand, and not just understand, but to lead out, as a former POW, in clarifying not only WHEN the surge began but also WHAT the surge was. Did you know that I'm a former POW?

Padder: I did Senator, but I always love being reminded. Respectfully, Mr. Straight Talk, can you tell voters why it is you say 1998 is the year the surge in Iraq started?

Former POW McCain: The year 1998 is when I co-sponsored the "Iraq Liberation Act". That law was pressed into being by that great warrior group, The Project for the New American Century (PNAC), who, also in 1998, sent a letter to then president Bill Clinton demanding an attack on Iraq. But Clinton wasn't a former POW, like me, so he didn't attack Iraq. You see, my friend, 1998 was the beginning of the surge. That's when warrior Republicans decided to take over, (or surge) into Iraq.

The surge consists of many things.

KneePad Media Agent: Now that's some straight talk. Thanks ex-POW McCain. Can you tell us, why would so many non-warrior, non-leader Democrats be saying that the surge in Iraq began in January of 2007?

McCain: That's an interesting question. I can't speak for the non-warrior, non-leader Democrats, say, like, Barack Hussein Obama….but I think, generally, and as a former POW, that Democrats have a hard time keeping track of, you know, time. We live in rapid times…and I guess it wouldn't be all that difficult to lose track of, say, 9 years. As a former POW, I can tell you I wished I could have lost track of 5 1/2 years myself…..that's how long I was kept as a former POW. Did you know I was a POW?

Padder: America is so proud of you John McCain for your POW service. Recapping the breaking news you've given us here….we've learned from ex-POW McCain that the Iraq surge began in 1998 when Republicans officially decided to attack Iraq. You really have cleared things up, Americans haven't heard this before….is that what you mean by 'straight talk'?

Ex-POW McCain: Yes, and I attribute my 'straight talk' ability to being held as a POW in Vietnam. That experience qualified me to speak the truth as I understand it.

Padder Interviewer: All of America hails your POW service to our nation. Could you explain to us, in your ex-POW 'straight talk' way, what part George W. Bush played in Iraq and the surge?

Warrior McCain: Certainly. Me and nine other congressional leaders urged W., in a letter dated Dec. 6. 2001, to target Iraq. I just happen to have a quotation from that letter. "It is imperative that we plan to eliminate the threat from Iraq."

The surge, as I said as a former POW, officially began in 1998…but because there are so many facets to the surge, so many parts, it was necessary to enhance the surge we started in 1998 by, you know, many different forms of military tactics. Republican Warrior Leaders, like my ex-POW self, had already launched the surge in Iraq in 1998…..however, the surge was a phased project with a thousand points of light. George W. Bush simply lit one of those lights in 2003….on the advice of GOP Patriots in a letter to W. December, 2001.

Interviewer: One final question, Mr. Ex-POW Warrior McCain. If the surge in Iraq began in 1998, and was only re-surged in 2003….pardon my flippancy…

McCain: Not at all. It's hard to do flippant when you're a POW…..can you understand that?

Interviewer: If the surge in Iraq began in 1998, and only re-surged in 2003…..was the troop escalation in 2007 simply a continuation of what already had been going on for nine years?

Ex-POW John: Yes, and let me give you some more 'straight talk'…..I was asked in December of 2001 whether Iraq would require 100,000 American soldiers as occupation troops. I responded, "Oh no, I don't think so at all." Do you know why I said that?

Padder Agent: No. But I'm sure there was a good reason. After all, America knows you. You are a true hero-warrior-leader.

McCain: I said that in 2001 because the surge had started in 1998, and in my ex-POW mind…..did you remember that I spent 5 1/2 years as a POW in Vietnam?…..in my ex-POW mind, by 2001 we had already been in Iraq for 3 years….winning. America's great military….did you know I served in the military?……could defeat anyone in less than three years, so there would be no need for 100,000 troops over in a land where we had already won.

Main Media Padder:
What then, Oh Great Straight Talk, happened in January 2007? What was it that George W. Bush ordered then regarding Iraq?

Straight Talk: From my recollection….W. began surging American troops OUT of Iraq starting in January 2007. And that was about right. We started the surge in 1998. Don't you think America's mighty military, of which I am a veteran, can settle a conflict in less than nine years?

  • http://politics.ohio.com/ Ben Keeler

    Credit for the effort I guess. I laughed, but probably not the in way you intended.

    Kind of an exaggeration. I have trouble believing that you think the media prefers McCain over Obama. I know thats what you think, but I still cant fathom it.

  • Da King

    Ditto, Ben. I laughed at the absurd nature of this post. And yes, our befuddled Reverend really does think the media favors McCain over Obama, and Bush over Democrats too. That pretty much says it all right there about the Rev's judgement.

    Rev, I could waste a lot of my time ripping every aspect of this post to shreds, but I don't feel like wasting too much time rebutting unworthy tripe like you laid out, so I'll comment on only one thing to set the record straight and to save you from too much embarassment.

    Rev says, "Former POW McCain: The year 1998 is when I co-sponsored the "Iraq Liberation Act". That law was pressed into being by that great warrior group, The Project for the New American Century (PNAC) who, also in 1998, sent a letter to then president Bill Clinton demanding an attack on Iraq. But Clinton wasn't a former POW, like me, so he didn't attack Iraq. You see, my friend, 1998 was the beginning of the surge. That's when warrior Republicans decided to take over, (or surge) into Iraq".

    Here, the Rev would have us believe the Iraq Liberation Act was some type of partisan construct of the Republican party. NOT TRUE. The Iraq Liberation Act was passed in the House by a vote of 360-38. It passed by UNANIMOUS CONSENT IN THE SENATE, and it was SIGNED INTO LAW BY DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON. It had near total bipartisan support. The small PNAC couldn't have "pressed" anything into existence that Congress and the President didn't already support. Not to mention the fact that the Iraq Liberation Act was signed by Clinton about six weeks AFTER CLINTON BOMBED IRAQ.

    Kaboom, there goes another Rev lie, blown to smithereens by the facts.

    Seriously Rev, you should do a little fact checking before you go repeating the deranged spew from the far left websites. In case you haven't realized it yet, and judging by your posts you haven't, those folks are raving loons.

  • The Reverend

    My post was meant to be satirical.

    Of course Clinton was president in 1998 and of course he signed the meaningless resolution about Iraq.

    None of that has anything to do with the flashpoint of the satire.

    McCain is simply allowed to have his own facts about Iraq, the surge, winning, etc. In this he is just like Codpiece, who has had his own facts for so long that the U.S. is in shambles.

    Surely, you guys must appreciate the straight talk judgment of Johnny Mac back in 2001 when he made fun of the suggestion that we would need 100,000 troops in Iraq to handle the aftermath. But hey…he's the great, experienced, seasoned foreign and military affairs expert with all those years of sitting on his ass in the Senate.

  • larry d.

    Speaking of sitting on derrieres in the Senate, what's happening with Obama's key piece of legislation aiming to give the UN billions of U.S. tax dollars so it can solve the world hunger problem?

    I heard Miss Universe 1978 is suing due to a copyright infringement.

  • The Reverend

    Nothing will change until next year….if then.

    Miss Universe of 1978….whaaat?

  • larry d.

    She had the exact same idea, Reverend.

  • The Reverend

    Now I get it.

  • http://politics.ohio.com/ Ben Keeler

    I understand it was satire…..what I dont understand is how you think the media favor McCain over Obama.

  • The Reverend

    Take for example the use of the word "presumptuous" to describe Obama's trip. That liberal media used it across the board. Andrea Mitchell was so bitter as she reported on Obama's trip, I thought she was going to swear. David Gregory had nothing good to say about Obama's trip and sought out ways that it could be spun negatively. Kitty Pilgrim on CNN called Obama's position on the surge, "outrageous".
    Brian Williams, the wimpass, represented the McCain campaign…. interrogating Obama about McCain's lone campaign plan, the surge. "Senator Obama, isn't it time for you to say that you were wrong about the surge?"

    I don't know what news people are watching. The stuff I see is all done in a severely critical…. even in minute detail…..towards Obama while at the same time McCain's many, many flips, errors, mistakes, contradictions and hypocrises are barely examined.

  • Da King

    Rev,
    Where are you getting your news from, where you think every detail of Obama's overseas trip was criticized ? What I heard the news media saying was that Obama did well, he looked presidential, the Europeans like him, and the foreign leaders like him. Even Fox News has been saying this. The only actual criticism I heard was about Obama bypassing that trip to visit the wounded troops, and that was only because McCain brought it up. Even then, the consensus there was that McCain was being petty (which I agree with).

    Is it at all possible that your own biases are preventing you from assessing the situation accurately ? You seem to view anything other than flat out Obama worship as some type of media bias, when it clearly isn't. You must be about the last person in the country to think the media favors McCain over Obama.

Previous post:

Next post:

 

© The Akron Beacon Journal • 44 E. Exchange Street, Akron, Ohio 44308

Powered by WordPress
Entries (RSS) and Comments (RSS).