Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Remarks By John McCain To The Los Angeles World Affairs Council (Today's foreign policy speech)
JohnMcCain ^ | March 26, 2008 | John McCain

Posted on 03/26/2008 10:26:42 AM PDT by calcowgirl

ARLINGTON, VA -- U.S. Senator John McCain's will deliver the following remarks as prepared for delivery today at the World Affairs Council in Los Angeles, California:

When I was five years old, a car pulled up in front of our house in New London, Connecticut, and a Navy officer rolled down the window, and shouted at my father that the Japanese had bombed Pearl Harbor. My father immediately left for the submarine base where he was stationed. I rarely saw him again for four years. My grandfather, who commanded the fast carrier task force under Admiral Halsey, came home from the war exhausted from the burdens he had borne, and died the next day. In Vietnam, where I formed the closest friendships of my life, some of those friends never came home to the country they loved so well. I detest war. It might not be the worst thing to befall human beings, but it is wretched beyond all description. When nations seek to resolve their differences by force of arms, a million tragedies ensue. The lives of a nation's finest patriots are sacrificed. Innocent people suffer and die. Commerce is disrupted; economies are damaged; strategic interests shielded by years of patient statecraft are endangered as the exigencies of war and diplomacy conflict. Not the valor with which it is fought nor the nobility of the cause it serves, can glorify war. Whatever gains are secured, it is loss the veteran remembers most keenly. Only a fool or a fraud sentimentalizes the merciless reality of war. However heady the appeal of a call to arms, however just the cause, we should still shed a tear for all that is lost when war claims its wages from us.

I am an idealist, and I believe it is possible in our time to make the world we live in another, better, more peaceful place, where our interests and those of our allies are more secure, and American ideals that are transforming the world, the principles of free people and free markets, advance even farther than they have. But I am, from hard experience and the judgment it informs, a realistic idealist. I know we must work very hard and very creatively to build new foundations for a stable and enduring peace. We cannot wish the world to be a better place than it is. We have enemies for whom no attack is too cruel, and no innocent life safe, and who would, if they could, strike us with the world's most terrible weapons. There are states that support them, and which might help them acquire those weapons because they share with terrorists the same animating hatred for the West, and will not be placated by fresh appeals to the better angels of their nature. This is the central threat of our time, and we must understand the implications of our decisions on all manner of regional and global challenges could have for our success in defeating it.

President Harry Truman once said of America, "God has created us and brought us to our present position of power and strength for some great purpose." In his time, that purpose was to contain Communism and build the structures of peace and prosperity that could provide safe passage through the Cold War. Now it is our turn. We face a new set of opportunities, and also new dangers. The developments of science and technology have brought us untold prosperity, eradicated disease, and reduced the suffering of millions. We have a chance in our lifetime to raise the world to a new standard of human existence. Yet these same technologies have produced grave new risks, arming a few zealots with the ability to murder millions of innocents, and producing a global industrialization that can in time threaten our planet.

To meet this challenge requires understanding the world we live in, and the central role the United States must play in shaping it for the future. The United States must lead in the 21st century, just as in Truman's day. But leadership today means something different than it did in the years after World War II, when Europe and the other democracies were still recovering from the devastation of war and the United States was the only democratic superpower. Today we are not alone. There is the powerful collective voice of the European Union, and there are the great nations of India and Japan, Australia and Brazil, South Korea and South Africa, Turkey and Israel, to name just a few of the leading democracies. There are also the increasingly powerful nations of China and Russia that wield great influence in the international system.

In such a world, where power of all kinds is more widely and evenly distributed, the United States cannot lead by virtue of its power alone. We must be strong politically, economically, and militarily. But we must also lead by attracting others to our cause, by demonstrating once again the virtues of freedom and democracy, by defending the rules of international civilized society and by creating the new international institutions necessary to advance the peace and freedoms we cherish. Perhaps above all, leadership in today's world means accepting and fulfilling our responsibilities as a great nation.

One of those responsibilities is to be a good and reliable ally to our fellow democracies. We cannot build an enduring peace based on freedom by ourselves, and we do not want to. We have to strengthen our global alliances as the core of a new global compact -- a League of Democracies -- that can harness the vast influence of the more than one hundred democratic nations around the world to advance our values and defend our shared interests.

At the heart of this new compact must be mutual respect and trust. Recall the words of our founders in the Declaration of Independence, that we pay "decent respect to the opinions of mankind." Our great power does not mean we can do whatever we want whenever we want, nor should we assume we have all the wisdom and knowledge necessary to succeed. We need to listen to the views and respect the collective will of our democratic allies. When we believe international action is necessary, whether military, economic, or diplomatic, we will try to persuade our friends that we are right. But we, in return, must be willing to be persuaded by them.

America must be a model citizen if we want others to look to us as a model. How we behave at home affects how we are perceived abroad. We must fight the terrorists and at the same time defend the rights that are the foundation of our society. We can't torture or treat inhumanely suspected terrorists we have captured. I believe we should close Guantanamo and work with our allies to forge a new international understanding on the disposition of dangerous detainees under our control.

There is such a thing as international good citizenship. We need to be good stewards of our planet and join with other nations to help preserve our common home. The risks of global warming have no borders. We and the other nations of the world must get serious about substantially reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the coming years or we will hand off a much-diminished world to our grandchildren. We need a successor to the Kyoto Treaty, a cap-and-trade system that delivers the necessary environmental impact in an economically responsible manner. We Americans must lead by example and encourage the participation of the rest of the world, including most importantly, the developing economic powerhouses of China and India.

Four and a half decades ago, John Kennedy described the people of Latin America as our "firm and ancient friends, united by history and experience and by our determination to advance the values of American civilization." With globalization, our hemisphere has grown closer, more integrated, and more interdependent. Latin America today is increasingly vital to the fortunes of the United States. Americans north and south share a common geography and a common destiny. The countries of Latin America are the natural partners of the United States, and our northern neighbor Canada.

Relations with our southern neighbors must be governed by mutual respect, not by an imperial impulse or by anti-American demagoguery. The promise of North, Central, and South American life is too great for that. I believe the Americas can and must be the model for a new 21st century relationship between North and South. Ours can be the first completely democratic hemisphere, where trade is free across all borders, where the rule of law and the power of free markets advance the security and prosperity of all.

Power in the world today is moving east; the Asia-Pacific region is on the rise. Together with our democratic partner of many decades, Japan, we can grasp the opportunities present in the unfolding world and this century can become safe -- both American and Asian, both prosperous and free. Asia has made enormous strides in recent decades. Its economic achievements are well known; less known is that more people live under democratic rule in Asia than in any other region of the world.

Dealing with a rising China will be a central challenge for the next American president. Recent prosperity in China has brought more people out of poverty faster than during any other time in human history. China's newfound power implies responsibilities. China could bolster its claim that it is "peacefully rising" by being more transparent about its significant military buildup, by working with the world to isolate pariah states such as Burma, Sudan and Zimbabwe, and by ceasing its efforts to establish regional forums and economic arrangements designed to exclude America from Asia.

China and the United States are not destined to be adversaries. We have numerous overlapping interests and hope to see our relationship evolve in a manner that benefits both countries and, in turn, the Asia-Pacific region and the world. But until China moves toward political liberalization, our relationship will be based on periodically shared interests rather than the bedrock of shared values.

The United States did not single-handedly win the Cold War; the transatlantic alliance did, in concert with partners around the world. The bonds we share with Europe in terms of history, values, and interests are unique. Americans should welcome the rise of a strong, confident European Union as we continue to support a strong NATO. The future of the transatlantic relationship lies in confronting the challenges of the twenty-first century worldwide: developing a common energy policy, creating a transatlantic common market tying our economies more closely together, addressing the dangers posed by a revanchist Russia, and institutionalizing our cooperation on issues such as climate change, foreign assistance, and democracy promotion.

We should start by ensuring that the G-8, the group of eight highly industrialized states, becomes again a club of leading market democracies: it should include Brazil and India but exclude Russia. Rather than tolerate Russia's nuclear blackmail or cyber attacks, Western nations should make clear that the solidarity of NATO, from the Baltic to the Black Sea, is indivisible and that the organization's doors remain open to all democracies committed to the defense of freedom.

While Africa's problems -- poverty, corruption, disease, and instability -- are well known, we must refocus on the bright promise offered by many countries on that continent. We must strongly engage on a political, economic, and security level with friendly governments across Africa, but insist on improvements in transparency and the rule of law. Many African nations will not reach their true potential without external assistance to combat entrenched problems, such as HIV/AIDS, that afflict Africans disproportionately. I will establish the goal of eradicating malaria on the continent -- the number one killer of African children under the age of five. In addition to saving millions of lives in the world's poorest regions, such a campaign would do much to add luster to America's image in the world.

We also share an obligation with the world's other great powers to halt and reverse the proliferation of nuclear weapons. The United States and the international community must work together and do all in our power to contain and reverse North Korea's nuclear weapons program and to prevent Iran -- a nation whose President has repeatedly expressed a desire to wipe Israel from the face of the earth -- from obtaining a nuclear weapon. We should work to reduce nuclear arsenals all around the world, starting with our own. Forty years ago, the five declared nuclear powers came together in support of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and pledged to end the arms race and move toward nuclear disarmament. The time has come to renew that commitment. We do not need all the weapons currently in our arsenal. The United States should lead a global effort at nuclear disarmament consistent with our vital interests and the cause of peace.

If we are successful in pulling together a global coalition for peace and freedom -- if we lead by shouldering our international responsibilities and pointing the way to a better and safer future for humanity, I believe we will gain tangible benefits as a nation.

It will strengthen us to confront the transcendent challenge of our time: the threat of radical Islamic terrorism. This challenge is transcendent not because it is the only one we face. There are many dangers in today's world, and our foreign policy must be agile and effective at dealing with all of them. But the threat posed by the terrorists is unique. They alone devote all their energies and indeed their very lives to murdering innocent men, women, and children. They alone seek nuclear weapons and other tools of mass destruction not to defend themselves or to enhance their prestige or to give them a stronger hand in world affairs but to use against us wherever and whenever they can. Any president who does not regard this threat as transcending all others does not deserve to sit in the White House, for he or she does not take seriously enough the first and most basic duty a president has -- to protect the lives of the American people.

We learned through the tragic experience of September 11 that passive defense alone cannot protect us. We must protect our borders. But we must also have an aggressive strategy of confronting and rooting out the terrorists wherever they seek to operate, and deny them bases in failed or failing states. Today al Qaeda and other terrorist networks operate across the globe, seeking out opportunities in Southeast Asia, Central Asia, Africa, and in the Middle East.

Prevailing in this struggle will require far more than military force. It will require the use of all elements of our national power: public diplomacy; development assistance; law enforcement training; expansion of economic opportunity; and robust intelligence capabilities. I have called for major changes in how our government faces the challenge of radical Islamic extremism by much greater resources for and integration of civilian efforts to prevent conflict and to address post-conflict challenges. Our goal must be to win the "hearts and minds" of the vast majority of moderate Muslims who do not want their future controlled by a minority of violent extremists. In this struggle, scholarships will be far more important than smart bombs.

We also need to build the international structures for a durable peace in which the radical extremists are gradually eclipsed by the more powerful forces of freedom and tolerance. Our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan are critical in this respect and cannot be viewed in isolation from our broader strategy. In the troubled and often dangerous region they occupy, these two nations can either be sources of extremism and instability or they can in time become pillars of stability, tolerance, and democracy.

For decades in the greater Middle East, we had a strategy of relying on autocrats to provide order and stability. We relied on the Shah of Iran, the autocratic rulers of Egypt, the generals of Pakistan, the Saudi royal family, and even, for a time, on Saddam Hussein. In the late 1970s that strategy began to unravel. The Shah was overthrown by the radical Islamic revolution that now rules in Tehran. The ensuing ferment in the Muslim world produced increasing instability. The autocrats clamped down with ever greater repression, while also surreptitiously aiding Islamic radicalism abroad in the hopes that they would not become its victims. It was a toxic and explosive mixture. The oppression of the autocrats blended with the radical Islamists' dogmatic theology to produce a perfect storm of intolerance and hatred.

We can no longer delude ourselves that relying on these out-dated autocracies is the safest bet. They no longer provide lasting stability, only the illusion of it. We must not act rashly or demand change overnight. But neither can we pretend the status quo is sustainable, stable, or in our interests. Change is occurring whether we want it or not. The only question for us is whether we shape this change in ways that benefit humanity or let our enemies seize it for their hateful purposes. We must help expand the power and reach of freedom, using all our many strengths as a free people. This is not just idealism. It is the truest kind of realism. It is the democracies of the world that will provide the pillars upon which we can and must build an enduring peace.

If you look at the great arc that extends from the Middle East through Central Asia and the Asian subcontinent all the way to Southeast Asia, you can see those pillars of democracy stretching across the entire expanse, from Turkey and Israel to India and Indonesia. Iraq and Afghanistan lie at the heart of that region. And whether they eventually become stable democracies themselves, or are allowed to sink back into chaos and extremism, will determine not only the fate of that critical part of the world, but our fate, as well.

That is the broad strategic perspective through which to view our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Many people ask, how should we define success? Success in Iraq and Afghanistan is the establishment of peaceful, stable, prosperous, democratic states that pose no threat to neighbors and contribute to the defeat of terrorists. It is the triumph of religious tolerance over violent radicalism.

Those who argue that our goals in Iraq are unachievable are wrong, just as they were wrong a year ago when they declared the war in Iraq already lost. Since June 2007 sectarian and ethnic violence in Iraq has been reduced by 90 percent. Overall civilian deaths have been reduced by more than 70 percent. Deaths of coalition forces have fallen by 70 percent. The dramatic reduction in violence has opened the way for a return to something approaching normal political and economic life for the average Iraqi. People are going back to work. Markets are open. Oil revenues are climbing. Inflation is down. Iraq's economy is expected to grown by roughly 7 percent in 2008. Political reconciliation is occurring across Iraq at the local and provincial grassroots level. Sunni and Shi'a chased from their homes by terrorist and sectarian violence are returning. Political progress at the national level has been far too slow, but there is progress.

Critics say that the "surge" of troops isn't a solution in itself, that we must make progress toward Iraqi self-sufficiency. I agree. Iraqis themselves must increasingly take responsibility for their own security, and they must become responsible political actors. It does not follow from this, however, that we should now recklessly retreat from Iraq regardless of the consequences. We must take the course of prudence and responsibility, and help Iraqis move closer to the day when they no longer need our help.

That is the route of responsible statesmanship. We have incurred a moral responsibility in Iraq. It would be an unconscionable act of betrayal, a stain on our character as a great nation, if we were to walk away from the Iraqi people and consign them to the horrendous violence, ethnic cleansing, and possibly genocide that would follow a reckless, irresponsible, and premature withdrawal. Our critics say America needs to repair its image in the world. How can they argue at the same time for the morally reprehensible abandonment of our responsibilities in Iraq?

Those who claim we should withdraw from Iraq in order to fight Al Qaeda more effectively elsewhere are making a dangerous mistake. Whether they were there before is immaterial, al Qaeda is in Iraq now, as it is in the borderlands between Pakistan and Afghanistan, in Somalia, and in Indonesia. If we withdraw prematurely from Iraq, al Qaeda in Iraq will survive, proclaim victory and continue to provoke sectarian tensions that, while they have been subdued by the success of the surge, still exist, as various factions of Sunni and Shi'a have yet to move beyond their ancient hatreds, and are ripe for provocation by al Qaeda. Civil war in Iraq could easily descend into genocide, and destabilize the entire region as neighboring powers come to the aid of their favored factions. I believe a reckless and premature withdrawal would be a terrible defeat for our security interests and our values. Iran will also view our premature withdrawal as a victory, and the biggest state supporter of terrorists, a country with nuclear ambitions and a stated desire to destroy the State of Israel, will see its influence in the Middle East grow significantly. These consequences of our defeat would threaten us for years, and those who argue for it, as both Democratic candidates do, are arguing for a course that would eventually draw us into a wider and more difficult war that would entail far greater dangers and sacrifices than we have suffered to date. I do not argue against withdrawal, any more than I argued several years ago for the change in tactics and additional forces that are now succeeding in Iraq, because I am somehow indifferent to war and the suffering it inflicts on too many American families. I hold my position because I hate war, and I know very well and very personally how grievous its wages are. But I know, too, that we must sometimes pay those wages to avoid paying even higher ones later.

I run for President because I want to keep the country I love and have served all my life safe, and to rise to the challenges of our times, as generations before us rose to theirs. I run for President because I know it is incumbent on America, more than any other nation on earth, to lead in building the foundations for a stable and enduring peace, a peace built on the strength of our commitment to it, on the transformative ideals on which we were founded, on our ability to see around the corner of history, and on our courage and wisdom to make hard choices. I run because I believe, as strongly as I ever have, that it is within our power to make in our time another, better world than we inherited.

Thank you.


TOPICS: Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 2008; ca2008; cfr; elections; globalism; globalwarming; internationalist; johnmccain; leagueofdemocracies; mccain; mccainforeignpolicy; mccainspeech; newglobalorder; nwo; socialism; wac; worldaffairscouncil
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-196 next last
To: flicker
While it's important to keep the terrorists from doing another 9/11 on us, how in the world is McCain ever going to do that when he refuses to secure the borders and leaves us dependent on foreign oil by not drilling in ANWAR? Nice try, but as with almost all of his other positions, his position on fighting global terror without taking those necessary steps is fraudulent.
101 posted on 03/26/2008 1:55:56 PM PDT by E. Cartman (Those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: calcowgirl

“Bush at least surrounded himself with a whole bunch of folks I respect. McCain is running around with whiners like Lindsay Graham and a bunch of dinosaurs like (oil-for-food scamster and Hugo Chavez loving) Jack Kemp and Warren Rudman. Bush was a bit stubborn, but nothing like the “I know everything” John McCain.”

Rather disconcerting that the closest thing to a conservative McCain has in his camp is democrat Lieberman.


102 posted on 03/26/2008 1:56:07 PM PDT by AuntB ('If there must be trouble let it be in my day, that my child may have peace." T. Paine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: AuntB

Kind of curious if you’ve noticed the new lie to equate the Clinton democrats with the Reagan democrats? Twice today I’ve had McQueeg socialists try to tell me it’s a good thing for the Clinton democrats to back McCain. They’re claiming its the same as the Reagan democrats backing Reagan.

Only difference I can find is that the Reagan democrats were conservatives and the Clinton democrats are socialists and marxists.


103 posted on 03/26/2008 1:56:51 PM PDT by cripplecreek (Voting CONSERVATIVE in memory of 5 children killed by illegals 2/17/08 and 2/19/ 08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: calcowgirl

Nice article ...thanks for posting. While one may not agree with everthing he says......he’s an honerable man with good intentions, a back-bone of steel, and will make an excellent Commander in Chief for our troops.


104 posted on 03/26/2008 1:56:51 PM PDT by HappyinAZ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek
Only difference I can find is that the Reagan democrats were conservatives and the Clinton democrats are socialists and marxists.

The outstanding majority of the Reagan Democrats were the Pro-life Christians who now make up the SOCON conservative faction- Now primarily Republicans, as we all know...

105 posted on 03/26/2008 2:00:16 PM PDT by roamer_1 (Conservative always, Republican no more.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: HappyinAZ
he’s an honerable man with good intentions

He's a traitorous bastard with visions of Globalism.

106 posted on 03/26/2008 2:02:25 PM PDT by roamer_1 (Conservative always, Republican no more.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: HappyinAZ

Good intentions pave the road to hell.


107 posted on 03/26/2008 2:06:25 PM PDT by cripplecreek (Voting CONSERVATIVE in memory of 5 children killed by illegals 2/17/08 and 2/19/ 08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: calcowgirl

Will you still be whining?


108 posted on 03/26/2008 2:11:53 PM PDT by MARTIAL MONK (I'm waiting for the POP!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: Dane

Good job Dane! Nice to hear a logical voice of reason!


109 posted on 03/26/2008 2:15:23 PM PDT by HappyinAZ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: MARTIAL MONK
Will you still be whining?

You didn't answer the question:

And when he signs us up for the new Kyoto and pushes a $5 trillion dollar amnesty, will you still be cheering?

Do you consider it "winning," if Republicans introduce the same leftist programs as Democrats?

You can bet that every time McCain pushes leftist programs, I'll be doing more than whining. I'll be fighting it as I hope all conservatives will do.

110 posted on 03/26/2008 2:21:22 PM PDT by calcowgirl ("Liberalism is just Communism sold by the drink." P. J. O'Rourke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: calcowgirl
I've been trying to make this connection to FReeper for one time only, to be shunned and ridiculed. (like that stops me LOL!)

Just now are people starting to realize there’s little difference in the top candidates and many commonalities. Two would be George Soros and CFR.

111 posted on 03/26/2008 2:26:01 PM PDT by wolfcreek (I see miles and miles of Texas....let's keep it that way.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: HappyinAZ

I love facetious humor


112 posted on 03/26/2008 2:26:43 PM PDT by SoCalPol (Don't Blame Me - I Supported Duncan Hunter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: AuntB

Inflamatory rhetoric instead of logic. Neither Dane nor McCain like the “invasion”...it IS a complex problem that is going to take some time, thought and consensus to sort out. There are 330 million people in the US, many with differnt opinions....we have to reach an agreement without “flamming” anyone that shows restraint or caution or offers differnt perspectives.

So save your “trash-talk” for the basketball court.


113 posted on 03/26/2008 2:28:39 PM PDT by HappyinAZ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Grunthor
I read this and near wept at the lows that this nation has be brought to. We have a nominee that is so disgustingly wrong and treacherous that the only way that he stands to be elected is because the other side is even worse. Hard to believe that is possible, but there it is. Lord forgive me, I hate the Democrat Party even more; this time for not giving America any choice at all.

It is only going to get worse. This corrupt "Two-Party Cartel" has been hijacked by the elites. The cartel only allows 2 of their puppets to emerge via the government media complex. What I think is that these pols know we're in for a big collapse & they might as well grab some dough before it becomes useless.

114 posted on 03/26/2008 2:30:50 PM PDT by Digger (If RINO is your selection, then failure is your election)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: roamer_1

Name calling shows an inabilitly to have or maintain a logical discussion...it appears that mcCain has a much better command of the English language that many “Fringe Freepers.”


115 posted on 03/26/2008 2:31:14 PM PDT by HappyinAZ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: Antoninus; All

FYI, here is a video of the speech (RealPlayer)

rtsp://video.c-span.org/archive/c08/c08_032608_mccain.rm

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) Foreign Policy Speech at L.A. World Affairs Council (March 26, 2008)

Presidential candidate Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) delivers a speech on foreign policy to the L.A. World Affairs Council in Los Angeles, CA.

Los Angeles, CA : 53 min.


116 posted on 03/26/2008 2:32:53 PM PDT by calcowgirl ("Liberalism is just Communism sold by the drink." P. J. O'Rourke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: HappyinAZ; AuntB

STFU, you do not belong here. You are the kind of people who have destroyed the party and you are complicit in the destruction of our country.

Shame on you for saying what you did to AuntB.

You disgust me. I might add, you are no conservative, so go away.


117 posted on 03/26/2008 2:33:36 PM PDT by dforest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: wolfcreek

Well, many of these guys are the same ones screwing up California.
Yet they think they’re qualified to run the country—and the world.

Go figure.


118 posted on 03/26/2008 2:35:33 PM PDT by calcowgirl ("Liberalism is just Communism sold by the drink." P. J. O'Rourke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: HappyinAZ; roamer_1

Yeah, McTroll, McLamer is better at saying “Fu*k You”.

Ain’t that high and mighty?


119 posted on 03/26/2008 2:36:05 PM PDT by dforest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: HappyinAZ
Name calling shows an inabilitly to have or maintain a logical discussion...it appears that mcCain has a much better command of the English language that many “Fringe Freepers.”

That isn't 'name calling'. It is a direct accusation, easily backed up with evidence from his history and his own mouth.

120 posted on 03/26/2008 2:45:48 PM PDT by roamer_1 (Conservative always, Republican no more.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: HappyinAZ; AuntB
You are yet another arrogant newbie who is telling posters here where to post. FYI, this is a discussion board and views other than yours prevail.

Of course McCain likes the invasion. He wants to reward illegal aliens with amnesty and other stuff. He voted against barring terrorists from the US. He was one of only ten Rep. to do it. McCain looks, talks, and acts like he has serious mental issues.

121 posted on 03/26/2008 2:47:30 PM PDT by Jane Austen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: Grunthor; cripplecreek

I’m writing in Thomas Sowell.


122 posted on 03/26/2008 2:47:58 PM PDT by Sunnyflorida (Drill in the Gulf of Mexico/Anwar & we can join OPEC!!! || Write in Thomas Sowell for President.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: HappyinAZ; AuntB
we have to reach an agreement without “flamming” anyone that shows restraint or caution or offers differnt perspectives.

No. We need to build the fence and enforce the law.

We are a nation of laws, not men- For the reason that is the exact opposite of your statement.

123 posted on 03/26/2008 2:51:06 PM PDT by roamer_1 (Conservative always, Republican no more.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: HappyinAZ; AuntB; indylindy
Name calling shows an inabilitly to have or maintain a logical discussion.

Cheerleading does nothing for "logical discussion."

McCain gave a speech that would have made John Kerry proud. Nuclear disarmament, global warming, league of democracies, closing Guantanamo, treating terrorists humanely, a "common destiny" with other countries, and generally pandering to the international community instead of looking out for our own country. This is global socialism at its finest, yet all you can offer is "Nice article ...thanks for posting. While one may not agree with everthing he says......he’s an honerable man with good intentions, a back-bone of steel, and will make an excellent Commander in Chief for our troops."

Here's a thought for you--most of us disagree with almost EVERYTHING he says and don't see anything honorable about a man who stomps on first amendment rights, puts the "global community" above that of the United States, and would destroy our sovereignty under the guise of "international cooperation."

Those that you call "fringe freepers" (was that namecalling?) are conservatives. By comparison, you and McCain seem to have fully embraced the liberal agenda.

124 posted on 03/26/2008 2:55:39 PM PDT by calcowgirl ("Liberalism is just Communism sold by the drink." P. J. O'Rourke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: Digger; Grunthor
It is only going to get worse. This corrupt "Two-Party Cartel" has been hijacked by the elites.

Not necessarily. There are deep rumblings in the conservative electorate. Don't be surprised to see a Reagan Conservative on your ballot this November, albeit running from a third party.

125 posted on 03/26/2008 2:57:55 PM PDT by roamer_1 (Conservative always, Republican no more.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: calcowgirl
By comparison, you and McCain seem to have fully embraced the liberal agenda.

Evidenced by the attemps to claim that Clinton democrats are the same as the Reagan democrats. These people would run to vote for Hillary if she switched parties.
126 posted on 03/26/2008 3:08:03 PM PDT by cripplecreek (Voting CONSERVATIVE in memory of 5 children killed by illegals 2/17/08 and 2/19/ 08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: TLI
"And much more likley to screw things up because of it as well."

Talk about your "foreign entanglements", there will be a plethora of those. He'll probably set up UN branch offices in each state...

127 posted on 03/26/2008 3:18:28 PM PDT by Czar ( StillFedUptotheTeeth@Washington)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: calcowgirl
"Bush was a bit stubborn, but nothing like the "I know everything" John McCain."

I'm afraid we can expect him to be far worse than Bush in just about every respect.

128 posted on 03/26/2008 3:22:03 PM PDT by Czar ( StillFedUptotheTeeth@Washington)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: calcowgirl
To be quite honest with y'all, I am no longer interested in discussing McCain with anyone who supports him. The communists have achieved their goal by infiltrating both political parties in the US. THIS is indeed a fact.

Those who cannot see that are complicit with them. McCain is no commander of the troops, he is a socialist that will use our sons and daughters to fight for a nation that no longer exists. I can't stomach the thought. They will be sent merely to keep the global elites in power and living the good life. The little guy, well...he gets the puny, meager fruits of their socialist policy, and we are supposed to think that is good.

A pox on all of these stinking candidates and their corrupt and power hungry parties. They may well end up with something they never thought would happen or bargained for. Just desserts. I may no longer be here to see it, but, hey, They deserve the evil fruit of their deceit.

Vote for any of these evil clowns? Hah, forget about it. They are commrades in arms.

129 posted on 03/26/2008 3:31:06 PM PDT by dforest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek
Here are some of McCain's "Clinton Democrats," proudly wearing their Che Guevara t-shirts and holding the signs produced by the communists at Answer International. Note that these are the same protesters that McCain praised and encouraged in 2006.


130 posted on 03/26/2008 3:32:34 PM PDT by calcowgirl ("Liberalism is just Communism sold by the drink." P. J. O'Rourke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: HappyinAZ
"Nice to hear a logical voice of reason!"

You left a letter off of "treason."

131 posted on 03/26/2008 3:38:33 PM PDT by MizSterious (The Republican Party is infected with the RINO-virus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: TitansAFC; meandog; onyx; MARTIAL MONK; Kuksool; freespirited; Salvation; furquhart; mossyoaks; ...
The full text of John McCain's broad foreign policy address delivered in Los Angeles earlier today.

The McCain List.
Common sense conservatism

132 posted on 03/26/2008 3:38:44 PM PDT by Norman Bates (Freepmail me to be part of the McCain List!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HappyinAZ

Who are you calling a fringe freeper, newbie? Been working for the McCain campaign long?


133 posted on 03/26/2008 3:40:31 PM PDT by MizSterious (The Republican Party is infected with the RINO-virus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: Norman Bates
Here is the CSPAN video that includes the Q&A session. The speech lasted 30 minutes--Q&A another 20 minutes.

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) Foreign Policy Speech at L.A. World Affairs Council (RealPlayer)
(March 26, 2008)

Presidential candidate Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) delivers a speech on foreign policy to the L.A. World Affairs Council in Los Angeles, CA.

Los Angeles, CA : 53 min.

134 posted on 03/26/2008 3:45:42 PM PDT by calcowgirl ("Liberalism is just Communism sold by the drink." P. J. O'Rourke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: MizSterious; HappyinAZ
Who are you calling a fringe freeper, newbie? Been working for the McCain campaign long?

Happy is a McTroll, here for one purpose. He/she is the fringe on a conservative site.

Happy can take his happy ass back to Arizona.

135 posted on 03/26/2008 3:46:19 PM PDT by dforest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: Norman Bates

For the record, it’s not quite the full transcript—be sure to watch the video at the link on post #116, where he continues to outrage us in the Q&A session.


136 posted on 03/26/2008 3:46:58 PM PDT by MizSterious (The Republican Party is infected with the RINO-virus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: Dane
Good afternoon.
“...English is the “lingua franca” of the world.”

Except in many parts of southern California, of course. Or Arizona, or New Mexico, Texas, Georgia ,either of the Carolinas. Probably Wisconsin, too.

But then you knew that, eh, Dane.

Michael Frazier

137 posted on 03/26/2008 3:53:50 PM PDT by brazzaville (No surrender, no retreat. Well, maybe retreat's ok)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: indylindy

I see your intellectual capacity for a good discussion is pretty limited.........


138 posted on 03/26/2008 3:56:01 PM PDT by HappyinAZ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: Jane Austen

Perhaps you need to look in the mirror and adjust your tin hat......


139 posted on 03/26/2008 3:57:34 PM PDT by HappyinAZ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: HappyinAZ

You are limited and your time on Free Republic should be limited. If I had my way, I would kick your happy ass right out of here. You ARE a liberal troll. My best guess, you are a Democrat.

You have no capicity my friend, you are a freaking liberal moron.

Hows that? I discussed your many failings. You need viagra as much as the old man you troll for.


140 posted on 03/26/2008 4:00:45 PM PDT by dforest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: HappyinAZ

Is that you Dane?


141 posted on 03/26/2008 4:05:16 PM PDT by Jane Austen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: scory

I got to agree with you. Obama would be beyond a disaster. We may have a disaster if he loses also. (riots)


142 posted on 03/26/2008 4:07:24 PM PDT by dalebert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Norman Bates

Thank you for the ping, but I see the thread is a veritable clown carnival of McCain haters.


143 posted on 03/26/2008 4:12:05 PM PDT by Cinnamon Girl (McCain calls it "radical islamic terrorism," the dems don't refer to it at all)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: MizSterious
For the record, it’s not quite the full transcript—be sure to watch the video at the link on post #116, where he continues to outrage us in the Q&A session.

Ya mean this part? ;-)

"we have to have a temporary worker program with tamper proof ID... humane and compassionate fashion... god’s children... humane and compassionate fashion... I think that is the will of the majority of the American people "

144 posted on 03/26/2008 4:15:53 PM PDT by calcowgirl ("Liberalism is just Communism sold by the drink." P. J. O'Rourke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: indylindy

I read this speech, and no I am not a RINO nor I am a globalist,or an open borderista, nor Am I seeking the vice presidency. The only thing that he said that made my eyes role, was “global warming” and he emphasizes that we should approach it in a “economically responsible manner”.

He has changed his position away from Leavenworth by saying he wants to dispose of them within a multilateral framework which could mean giving them back to a country that will treat a terror suspect worse.


145 posted on 03/26/2008 4:16:21 PM PDT by Perdogg (Reagan would have never said "She's my girl")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: SoCalPol

I don’t have any illegals hired but realize that asking a politician to do anything about it is useless. No US President will do anything about our borders. We have law to protect the borders but the politicians won’t let anyone enforce them.


146 posted on 03/26/2008 4:22:22 PM PDT by dalebert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: HappyinAZ
"......he’s[McCain] an honerable man with good intentions..."

And no politician ever had intentions as good as Jimmy Carter.

147 posted on 03/26/2008 4:30:23 PM PDT by E. Cartman (Those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: Cinnamon Girl
The big problems is that McCain posses no positive traits. He is a leftie, has bad character, is stupid, looks ill, acts crazy, wants to harm this nation, lies like Hillary, and on and on and on. You must admit him voting against barring terrorists from entering the US was over the top.
148 posted on 03/26/2008 4:34:45 PM PDT by Jane Austen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: indylindy
A pox on all of these stinking candidates and their corrupt and power hungry parties. They may well end up with something they never thought would happen or bargained for. Just desserts. I may no longer be here to see it, but, hey, They deserve the evil fruit of their deceit.

Good point. One wonders how taken by surprise were Charles I, Louis XVI and Nicholas II. As they were about to meet their maker, did any of them think to himself, "How in the hell did I ever get here?"

149 posted on 03/26/2008 4:36:16 PM PDT by E. Cartman (Those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: Jane Austen
Unfortunately, everything you said is a lie. Consequently, you have marginalized yourself completely with regard to the discussion of John Sidney McCain III.
150 posted on 03/26/2008 4:39:01 PM PDT by Cinnamon Girl (McCain calls it "radical islamic terrorism," the dems don't refer to it at all)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-196 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson