I have a couple of things to say about this video, please click continue to read what they are after you watch it.

Ok, I seldom discuss politics in this blog, but this is just too good to miss. I want to rip what McCain said on the video above to pieces, because I disagree with 95% of it. Just the fact that he uses the word cyberspace twice, while admitting of being “illiterate” on this subject, can tell you how authoritative he is on that issue. But he is making some progress on getting online, so it’s ok.

“I am sure that we’ve had something to do with it, with some action of ours.”

Why not tell it like it is (especially concerning the Iraq war)? By “some action,” doesn’t he mean a war started by manipulating facts and using constant propaganda through the mass media, to sell a war that uses peace as a rationale? It is a war through which 90% of all casualties are civilian? Even the words that he uses — “something” and “some action” hint that there is absolutely no desire for him to self-analyze the situation and is eager to put the blame on religion and ideology.

“Perverted adaptation of an honorable religion.”

This is the 5% where I tend to agree with him. Religion has and will be used by religious leaders to gain control over the populace to execute their goals. Even John Paul II said that “A clash ensues only when Islam or Christianity is misconstrued or manipulated for political or ideological ends.” So, in that train of thought I will add that just as Bush used the word God when fabricating the reasons for the invasion of Iraq, religious leaders use Allah to justify their actions. They are both “perverted adaptations of honorable religions,” even thought for McCain that argument works only one way.

McCain’s next words are truly remarkable. He says that:

“they” want to destroy “our” ideals, principles and “Bill of Rights” in governing not only in America, but in other places of the world.

Well, isn’t it common sense that if you want to apply your fundamental principles in other places of the world, you have to expect some resistance? Of course that they want to reject your way of thinking if it contradicts with their whole way of life and philosophy.

“They want to destroy it and it is very hard for us to understand.”

Again, he uses the words hate and destruction and for the second time he has made clear that a self-analysis is not needed, which gets him into a one way street, which he dodges by saying the next pathetic thing:

“It’s very hard for us to understand, but we better understand that they are making good use of cyberspace.”

So, it is very hard for us to understand what prompted that hatred and destruction, but we better understand that they hate us and want to destroy us using cyberspace. What? That doesn’t make sense. He is basically saying over and over again that we wouldn’t be able to determine the cause of the issue, so we should concentrate mainly on its manifestation. All that we know is that it might be something or some action that we have done. Is that enough?

So, this weird, untraceable disease can take even doctors in Glasgow to Denmark to Germany and, course, build Al Qaeda cells in America. But, all of the sudden, he says that:

“At the end of the day it is going to be an ideological battle just as the Cold War was.”

What?! What happened to the “perverted adaptation of an honorable religion?” An ideology is an organized collection of ideals. Well, that makes more sense. However, you might be at the losing end if you are fighting an ideological battle with a nation that you have occupied by false accusations of having nuclear weapons and ties with al Qaeda. All explanations concerning the spreading of democracy and ridding Iraq from a brutal, evil dictator came after the invasion. So we have an ideological battle, or in McCain’s words “struggle,” that exists because one of the sides broke all international laws to accuse and chase weapons that didn’t even exist in the other side. Hey, maybe that’s the “something” that McCain couldn’t find earlier! Maybe that’s the “some action” ?

“We have to make better use of the internet.”

Something tells me that McCain should really not talk about this when he has absolutely no knowledge of the “internet,” and has even recently used it to provoke compassion by self-irony. So, he is telling us what we must do better, but he himself has no experience whatsoever in that area. That’s maybe a poor argument on his part.

“We have to set up radio and television the way we did during the Cold War”

Wow. Just wow. It takes a lot of courage to admit the constant propaganda that the US government exerts on the mass media. Some example include the hiring of past and present military officials even before the war had started, in order to convince the public of how inevitable the war is, and the refusal to show dead US soldiers or in other words the war’s “sanitization”. I have to disagree with McCain again and say that radio and television have already been “set up” quite nicely just like the Cold War.

“Advocates for human rights and democracy.”

Sure.

“And all of those kind of things that you and I would be standardized approaches.”

That doesn’t make any sense and it is what he said, I am not making this up.

So, we went from a perverted adaptation of an honorable religion, to an ideological battle, to a war between the good force and the evil force (those are McCain’s actual words). I think that it’s pretty easy to see how outrageously stupid his arguments sound. It doesn’t stop there:

“We will prevail in a long…in many ways, as I said, military and diplomatic intelligence”

Again that doesn’t make sense, but I know that we make those mistakes; we try to say something, but end up saying something completely different. There is only one thing that disturbs me. Why the word “long?” Long war, long presence, long battle? Why does it have to be long and how does he know that. He did a good thing by changing the subject.

He ends with the most hypocritical thing that he has said so far (notice how he gets uncomfortable when he says it):

“It will be our ideals, our beliefs and the common values that all of us are created equal by our creator with certain inalienable rights. That will be the way we prevail”

He is basically saying that American, or western, ideals, beliefs and values will prevail in the so-called ideological battle and, of course, he has to tie everything up with the word “creator.” Well, wouldn’t his “creator” maybe prefer his “children” to have different ideals, beliefs and values? Also, I want to see him talk about inalienable rights to the innocent Japanese-Americans who were put into “war relocation camps.” Where were their rights as American citizens and where was his creator then? Just like it was then, our rights today can be taken away any time if it suits the government’s agenda.

By using God in that particular statement he shows that he is no better than the ones he accuses of “perverted adaptation of an honorable religion.” As idiotic as it sounds, he is saying that his western God is better for them than “their” fanatical, hating, destroying, distorted God. You might say that that’s taking it too far, but why in the world would he mention his creator when asked “how do we win?” Come to think of it, this doesn’t sound nearly as bad as his words about the good and evil “forces.”

As far as his ideological war argument I shall ask: if there is a battle between two ideologies and one of them wins, we are left with only one ideology, correct? I think that, that’s a fair assumption when keeping in mind  what he has said so far.  Well, if we look at what history has to say:
“Totalitarian regimes or movements maintain themselves in political power by means of an official all-embracing ideology and propaganda disseminated through the state-controlled mass media, a single party that controls the state, personality cults, central state-controlled economy, regulation and restriction of free discussion and criticism, the use of mass surveillance, and widespread use of terror tactics.” (source)

Interestingly enough, that covers a lot of what has been said so far. Maybe McCain should consider his “good” force to leave a couple of ideologies floating around just in case.

The truth, as always comes out in the end:

“And there are many aspects of it, which would take you and I a long, long time – such as economic developments”

I know what he wants to say, don’t get me wrong. Yes, this has been taken out of context and, yes , he uses it to strengthen his flawed argument, but I just wanted to say that : “McBush we can finally agree, it will take you and I a long, long time to discuss this particular aspect of the war.”

PS. Afghanistan is a different case. Although I don’t agree with the idea of having a war to promote peace, Afghanistan is where al Qaeda and Bin Laden are (or were). It also had more international support then the Iraq war. I am just saying that in case somebody wants to point it out. I am also aware that McCain does not mention Iran or Afghanistan, he doesn’t even mention the word “terrorist,” but interesting enough, he manages to say “faith” and “religion” many times. Hmm, I wonder why? I am just connecting what he says with the war in Iraq and his firm, educated, experienced stand on it.

Popularity: 88% [?]

Rate this:

3.0