Is John McCain overrated on national security issues?
By Spiral Posted in 2008 — Comments (7) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
I have always believed that Senator John McCain was overrated on national security issues and have tended to attribute this to McCain's status as a former Prisoner of War. When it comes to selected candidates, I have never been one to dwell too much on a candidate's resume or biography.
I remember discussing the electability of John Kerry back in 2003, before Kerry won the Democrat nomination. I was told that Kerry would win a large share of the vote among military veterans. I didn't agree. I thought that Kerry's weak record on national security issues would more than offset Kerry's service during the Vietnam war.
I turned out to be only half-right. Kerry was not only served in Vietnam (which he never tired to reminding voters) but was an anti-war activist as well. His anti-war activities might have had as much to do with his defeat against President Bush in 2004 than any specific votes he had cast on defense related issues.
John McCain was certainly no anti-Vietnam war protester, being holed up in a North Vietnamese prison for years. But when I review McCain's actual record as a US Senator on national defense issues, I have to conclude that Senator McCain has one of the weakest national security records among Republicans (I wouldn't dare call his record weak compared to the Democrats). Conservative radio talk show host and National Review Online contributor Mark Levin summarizes Senator John McCain's weak defense record as well as anyone
In sum, John McCain has been weak on homeland security, joining with numerous liberal Democrats to argue for closing Guantanamo Bay, applying the Geneva Conventions to unlawful enemy combatants, extending certain constitutional rights to detainees, limiting tried and true interrogation techniques, and conferring amnesty on illegal aliens (which would include OTMs; that fact that Bush supported the same thing is no defense).
Yes, McCain has been steadfast on the Battle of Iraq. And yes, that's important. But Rudy Giuliani's strength is said to be his understanding of the Islamo-fascist threat, and he would be no slouch; nor would Fred Thompson or Mitt Romney.
So, when people say that John McCain is the strongest Republican presidential candidate on national security issues, is this more hype and hero worship than actual fact? Reviewing the record, the answer seems to be a resounding, "Yes."
a persons experience in this area is not nearly so important as their instincts, will, toughness, and leadership ablity.
Reagan had all that, but not foreign policy experience. Gore had plenty of FP experience but all of us are happy he is not president.
Rudy has what it takes IMO, but he will not get the nomination.
Let us pray it isn't Huckleberry Flim Flam.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
Yet another commentator replies to a 'bad things about Candidate X' post with 'But Candidate Y is worse!'. Can we get something like the Hinz Rule for this?
Rudy's understanding of the terrorist threat came about only after the SECOND attack on the WTC.
Him and about 99 percent of the country.
Much more effective to brand him as a gay loving gun grabber in the primaries.
Glad to see that you're upfront and honest about tearing down the candidate you oppose with lies and deception.
---
Finrod's First Law of Bandwidth:
A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it takes the bandwidth of ten thousand.
if you are not a milque-toast schmo, I do not want you to be president!
btw, are these overrated diaries overrated? We could have a complete series of them. There have been too many "Is _____ overrated on ______?" diaries in my opinion. The answer from the OP's point of view is always yes. So why frame it in the form of a question? Why not simply sayd "_________ is overrated on ______!" and be done with it?
Molon Labe!
You should compare what McCain was saying about Iraq in 2003 with everyone. Or let's compare what McCain was saying at the start of the surge when compared to the tentative candidates who were all too timid to attach themselves to the at the time controversial policy.
This is probably a waste of time to respond to, but what a shallow take on the war on terror. The items you mentioned are fringe issues - the main issue is determination to pursue the war and win it. McCain has shown more mettle on that than any other candidate and has made it clear that he will do so despite bad press opinion polls because he knows how important it is.
But he is a hero. And although I understand your disagreement with him over Guantanamo, I don't think it's fair to call McCain weak on defense because he wants to uphold the Geneva Conventions. Like he said to Romney in the debates, if you don't want to follow the Geneva Conventions, fine. But you better withdraw from the treaty then.
Without John McCain, we might not have the Surge Strategy. Name me one valuable thing--anything--that Romney, Giuliani, Thompson, or even my guy Huckabee has contributed to our war policy. There is nothing.
applies more to Rudy than it ever will to McCain. Rudy's understanding of the terrorist threat came about only after the SECOND attack on the WTC. He actually said so on MTP, but blamed it on the available "intelligence." As someone who commuted through the WTC, I can tell you that many New Yorkers were much more aware of the threat than he was for the majority of his administration.
If he actually wins the nomination he will be attacked on his supposed strong suit in a way that he hasn't to date. Much more effective to brand him as a gay loving gun grabber in the primaries.