McCain And Palin Proud of Iraq war. Is It a war really to be proud of?
During an August 5, 2007 GOP Presidential debate televised on ABC Television, John McCain stated that, “it’s naive to say that we will never use nuclear weapons.” This objectively terrifying comment fell by the wayside as McCain plummeted in the polls and seemed an electoral afterthought after Giuliani, Romney and even Huckabee ascended as leading candidates. Now that the maverick Senator from Grand Canyon country has risen from the ashes to stand as the Republican candidate for President, this statement assumes a new and exigent relevance to the American people.
Even the most cursory examination of McCain’s pathology clearly indicates that he is both practically and ethically predisposed to do so. When asked about whether evil exists and, if so, how should it be addressed at the Saddleback Forum, John McCain answered without hesitation “yes” and “it must be defeated.” Trust me. He was talking in terms of military might, not effectual fervent prayer. This is classic John McCain. He tends to see things in black and white. He has neither the time nor the patience for nuance. As evidenced by the summary selection process by which he selected his running mate (not to mention his second wife Cindy), the former bomber pilot assesses the situation in short order and takes instantaneous action. Factor in a temper so volatile that McCain’s fellow GOP Senator and longtime friend Thad Cochran felt compelled as a matter of conscience to warn the voting public of his volcanic demeanor and you can see disaster looming just over the horizon.
Try as he may to assume the role of heir apparent to the Reagan legacy, make no mistake – McCain is no Ronald Reagan in matters of war and peace. For all Reagan’s public bluster, his actions proved time and again that he was committed at his core to winning the Cold war through economic and ideological means. In McCain’s case, it is just the opposite. At his core, he is still at war with both himself and his former captors. His attempts to dialogue about reconciliation with our enemies are at best strained. Yet his eyes dance with a manic glee and he is never at a loss for words when discussing the success of the surge. It is instructive to ask yourself how many times McCain has mentioned the word “war” while on the campaign trail. Then ask yourself how many times he has uttered the word “peace” during this same period. The result of this accounting is as lopsided as it is valid in predicting McCain’s bloody path as President.
As if this preexisting appetite for destruction wasn’t enough cause for concern, consider that the Bush administration has shepherded the development of a new generation of what they call “usable nukes.” According to former UN Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter, these new weapons are far more limited in scope than their Cold War predecessors. The existing policy governing their use provides that in the event of an imminent significant loss of American troops in the field, usable nukes may be delivered to stop advancing enemy forces. As Ritter points out, the potential consequences of letting the nuclear genie out of the bottle are disastrous. Our enemies would almost certainly retaliate in kind and we could expect the unthinkable – a nuclear attack on our nation’s soil. To most Americans, the concept of usable nukes is oxymoronic at best. To John McCain, this concept represents a more efficient means to achieve a swifter victory.
Moving on to McCain’s better-half, Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, we are presented with a commensurately combustible ingredient for our Armageddon goulash. Despite the fact that this self-styled “pit bull with lipstick” has been portrayed as a paragon of Christian orthodoxy, Palin is steeped in a particular brand of end-times theology that views a nuclear holocaust as not only inevitable, but a fulfillment of God’s plan for Christ’s return. Her pastor has spoken and written extensively on this topic, going so far as to proclaim that Alaska has a crucial role as a refuge for those believers caught up in the coming conflagration. As an Evangelical Christian, I have met, confronted and ultimately walked away in abject disgust from far too many such types.
Alaska Women Reject Sarah Palin Rally in Anchorage
Let me be clear – this cultic teaching has absolutely nothing to do with Christ’s call to his people to live in peace with their fellow man and love their neighbors as themselves. Quite the opposite, it is little more than a cheap charade to justify all manner of nonsense from radical societal separation along racial lines to a cottage literary industry that has spewed forth reams of mediocre futuristic fiction. Theology notwithstanding, it lends definition to Palin’s world view — a view that can be distilled down into the bumper sticker sloagan “kill’em all and let God sort it out.”
The unpalatable truth that cries out for telling is that end-timers like Sarah Palin share a uniquely disturbing similarity with the most maligned factions in the Islamic community. No less than Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has made it clear that he envisions a horrific conflagration with the West as the catalyst for raising the legendary “Twelfth Imam” out of the well in which he has been hiding for over a millennium. Upon the Imam’s return, the world will be shown the true path of Islam and order will be restored. The thought of two theological dead-enders like Palin and Ahmadinejad attempting to negotiate a peaceful outcome to the ongoing Iranian nuclear dispute is inconceivable. More likely, they would end up locked in mortal combat to see which one of them could best hasten God’s will for the destruction of humanity.
And in the mind of John Mccain as president is more wars
A McCain/Palin victory this November puts in play personal pathologies and theological imperatives that bring our nation closer to a nuclear holocaust than ever before. Paraphrasing McCain’s own broadside to Barack Obama’s patriotism, American voters must ask themselves the following question: whether a McCain/Palin administration would rather win a war they are losing than avert nuclear annihilation of a significant segment of humanity. In all honesty, I can’t answer this question in the negative with any degree of confidence. And that is one among many reasons why I cannot in good conscience give them my vote.