• Gay BlogAds

  • Gay News Watch

  • Chris Tweets

  • « Obama's gay press snub? (II) | Main | GNW 5: Obama, Clinton and the gays »

    April 10, 2008

    A DSM-IV for McCain Mania?

    Posted by: Andoni

    John_mccainListening carefully to John McCain state his position on the Iraq War over the past few months, I have have concluded there is a huge problem here that the MSM is missing.

    McCain repeatedly asserts that if he is president, America cannot and will not lose in Iraq under any circumstances -- even if we have to stay there 100 years or more. When I listen to McCain talk about the "winning the war," I wonder exactly which war McCain has in his head –- Iraq or Vietnam?

    It may well be that McCain has never gotten over what happened to the U.S. (and him personally) in the Vietnam War and is transferring his feelings to Iraq. In McCain’s mind, Iraq represents Vietnam. And McCain’s positions on Iraq are simply the emotional manifestations of his trying to achieve closure (and victory) in Vietnam.

    Georgewbush This is something that has no doubt eaten away at him for over 35 years. Now he's stuck living in the past and his intransigent view about Iraq is actually an attempt to change the result in Vietnam -- at least in his head.

    If it sounds familiar to have a president using a new conflict to re-fight a previous war, trying to change the outcome, it is.

    President George W. Bush believed  his father President George H.W. Bush blew it by not going all the way to Baghdad and finishing off Saddam during the first Gulf War. With that gnawing at him for years, W’s emotions were primed for the 2003 invasion.

    Similarly, there was a young German corporal who in 1919 could not accept the outcome of World War I for his country, and so over 20 years set himself up to lead his country to avenge that loss, trying to achieve a different outcome. The result -- Nazi Germany and World War II -- was disastrous.

    AdolfhitlerThe DSM-IV stands for the Diagnostic & Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th edition. That is the psychiatric medical text that began listing homosexuality as a mental illness in 1952 in its first edition. Homosexuality was removed as an illness in 1973 for the fourth edition.

    In light of my observations about Hitler, Bush and McCain, I am going to write to the American Psychiatric Association to suggest they add a new category “Paleo Guerre Disorder” (PGD): whereby a person is so distraught over the result of a previous conflict that he confuses the events and emotions of the old conflict with the current situation.

    If America is stupid enough not to see that McCain is trying to undo and avenge the result in Vietnam, then it gets what it deserves if it elects him. Getting fooled twice by a president with the same emotional mental disorder, would be quite stupid on our part, devastatingly stupid.



    TrackBack URL for this entry:


    1. KLAUS on Apr 10, 2008 6:17:37 PM:


    1. Tim on Apr 10, 2008 6:32:55 PM:

      Andoni, I find your article pointless mere speculation and you come off as suffering more from “Paleo Guerre Disorder” than any of your subjects. neither the president nor McCain exhibit anything more than decency concerning the world population yet you treat it as a vice.
      On the whole the left's lessons from Vietnam were all forgotten, after all wasn't communism and socialism suppose to usher in a new age of enlightenment? Cambodia and vietnam did so well. Tell me again how deserting your fellow humans in Iraq, Vietnam, Russia, eastern Europe, and cambodia benefited humanity? The lesson of all these places is that when dictatorships route the forces opposed to them and are left to their own devices horrible massacres will result that will blight generations. Pacifism is a blight on our race and a bloody one at that.

    1. Tim C on Apr 11, 2008 11:27:40 AM:

      Andoni, I believe you are way off on this one. I prescribe to Colin Powell's Pottery Barn rule -- you break it, you buy it. We broke it. Regardless of how or why we got there, we're there. Recriminations about what happened five years ago are for academic consideration. Bugging out at this point, and all the "out in a year" prescriptions are variations on bugging out, would, I believe, lead to a disaster. I supported for President Bill Richardson who was one of the "out in a year" believers, but as I said here, political realities would soon change that plan even if he did get elected. I have no problem with Hillary waffling on when US troops would leave Iraq or how many should be there, because that's the true situation. Anyone remember the footage of the last days of the US presence in Saigon? That's what it will look like as we remove the last few troops and the Sunnis, Shiites, militias, al Queda, etc. go at each other hammer and tong. So McCain saying we could be there for another hundred years isn't much of a surprise. He didn't say the war would last another hundred years or that we would be in combat for another hundred years. He said we could be there another hundred years. We've been in Germany and Japan since 1945 and in South Korea since 1952 or so, so having a long term presence is nothing new.

      What do the bug out crew think will happen upon the quick removal of US troops? Is there any reason to believe it won't look a lot like the Balkan Wars of 1991-2001? Is there any reason to believe we won't be watching CNN in horror once the lid comes off? Yes, we need to be tougher on the al-Maliki government. Their parliament needs to deal with issues like oil revenue distribution. They need to get serious about crushing the militias. Iraq will go nowhere until the Iraqi government has the monopoly on violence. McCain is not being crazy, he's being realistic.

    1. Joe the Dog Lover on Sep 4, 2008 4:48:17 PM:

      We definatly broke it.

    The comments to this entry are closed.

    © Citizen Crain - All Rights Reserved | Design by E.Webscapes Design Studio | Powered by: TypePad