Comments on: A Bizarre Change http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2008/11/01/a-bizarre-change/ n. the principle of good order<br /><br /> "Observe the strange inversion of all order and sense! Dignity debased; how vilely is the function of a consul prostituted!" ~The Craftsman Fri, 19 Mar 2010 18:07:30 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: BarryHatesLogins http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2008/11/01/a-bizarre-change/comment-page-1/#comment-16894 BarryHatesLogins Mon, 03 Nov 2008 18:54:47 +0000 http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2008/11/01/a-bizarre-change/#comment-16894 I'd second that - McCain swallowed the 'hyperpower' or 'sole power' theory, and figured that whipping the Ruskies cleared the field to take on everybody else as we pleased. I’d second that – McCain swallowed the ‘hyperpower’ or ’sole power’ theory, and figured that whipping the Ruskies cleared the field to take on everybody else as we pleased.

]]> By: Charlie http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2008/11/01/a-bizarre-change/comment-page-1/#comment-16756 Charlie Sun, 02 Nov 2008 00:36:14 +0000 http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2008/11/01/a-bizarre-change/#comment-16756 <i>No one denies that there has been a shift in his views, but as far as I know what no one seems to be able to account for is why, aside from opportunism or perceived political advantage, he came to side with the very kinds of people who would not only have wanted to go into Lebanon and Somalia but who also regularly decry the subsequent withdrawals from those places as invitations to attack.</i> It seems possible to explain this as a product of McCain's militarism and his generally confrontational personality. Earlier in his career his militarism found an outlet in anti-Communism, which may have made him reluctant to get the military bogged down in missions that had little to do with confronting the Soviets. But in the absence of a clear threat his militarism and self-righteousness eventually sought an outlet in any place where the US could claim to be defending a noble cause, demonstrating its strength and determination, etc. McCain's like a drunk guy who started off the evening mixing it up with another confrontational drunk, but who finishes the night looking for any pretext to sucker-punch the closest convenient target. No one denies that there has been a shift in his views, but as far as I know what no one seems to be able to account for is why, aside from opportunism or perceived political advantage, he came to side with the very kinds of people who would not only have wanted to go into Lebanon and Somalia but who also regularly decry the subsequent withdrawals from those places as invitations to attack.

It seems possible to explain this as a product of McCain’s militarism and his generally confrontational personality. Earlier in his career his militarism found an outlet in anti-Communism, which may have made him reluctant to get the military bogged down in missions that had little to do with confronting the Soviets. But in the absence of a clear threat his militarism and self-righteousness eventually sought an outlet in any place where the US could claim to be defending a noble cause, demonstrating its strength and determination, etc.

McCain’s like a drunk guy who started off the evening mixing it up with another confrontational drunk, but who finishes the night looking for any pretext to sucker-punch the closest convenient target.

]]>