<p>"1. Do you agree with Pastor John Hagee that war with Iran is the fulfillment of biblical prophecy?
In February, you shared a stage with Pastor John Hagee and said you were “very proud” to have his endorsement. You also called the Reverend Rod Parsley, a man who said of Islam “America was founded, in part, with the intention of seeing this false religion destroyed”, your “spiritual guide.” Do you believe America’s mission is to destroy Islam? Do you join Pastor Hagee in believing the United States must attack Iran to fulfill the biblical prophecy of Armageddon in Israel in which 144,000 Jews will be converted to Christianity and the rest killed? Is that why you joked about “bomb bomb Iran?” If not, why will you not renounce the support of Hagee and Parsley?</p>
<li>Doesn’t your confusion regarding basic facts about the war in Iraq, including repeatedly citing a nonexistent Al Qaeda-Iran alliance, make you unfit for command?
On four occasions in one month, you confused friend and foe in Iraq by describing Sunni Al Qaeda as being backed by Shiite Iran. Then you showed a misunderstanding of the U.S. chain of command when you claimed you would not back shifting forces from Iraq to Afghanistan “unless Gen. [David] Petraeus said that he felt that the situation called for that,” a decision which Petraeus himself told you and your Senate colleagues only the week before rests not with him but with his superiors. Doesn’t your lack of understanding and judgment when it comes to basic facts of America’s national security disqualify you as commander-in-chief?</li>
</ol>
<p>Don’t think I’ll be holding my breath. They haven’t challenged him on <em>anything</em> since that NYT story about him and the lobbyist. I figure the NYT threw the salacious gossip in just to get people to read the rest of the article (which was complicated). Considering how they welcomed McCain at the recent AP shindig…with Donuts and Coffee just the way he likes 'em…I doubt we’ll see anything substantive until he threatens to blow up Liechtenstein.</p>
<p>“McCain: Maybe a hundred. Make it one hundred. We’ve been in South Korea, we’ve been in Japan for sixty years. We’ve been in South Korea for fifty years or so. That’d be fine with me as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed. Then it’s fine with me. I would hope it would be fine with you if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where Al Qaeda is training, recruiting, equipping and motivating people every single day.”</p>
<p>This is just clear evidence of how little he understands foreign affairs, especially policy in the Middle East, where the very presence of American troops is an invitation to ongoing violence. Yes, 100 Year War is, given his lack of understanding, is precisely what the implications are.</p>
<p>But maybe he can wear his vest and walk through the Baghdad markets as they shower him with flowers and bonbons.</p>
<p>Retreat and defeat in and of itself has foreign policy implications. We’ve won the first war in Iraq against Saddam Hussein. McCain’s victory policy in this [second</a> war](<a href=“mypetjawa.mu.nu”>mypetjawa.mu.nu) against Al Qaeda is the best foreign policy.</p>
<p>I am for the moderators delving deeper, lets get the candidates off their pat answers by asking them a question they didn’t expect, then we will see what they really believe.</p>
<p>I’d like to see more reporters/talking heads doing follow-up questions when some politico throws off an airy statement or contradicts him/herself within the space of five minutes. Usually the interviewer just lets the statement lie there, even if they know better.</p>