John McCain Making Sense
By Erick Posted in War — Comments (31) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
I'd add something, but I think this speaks for itself.
« We need more COIN in the Afghan realm — Comments (0) | Baker's Abilene Paradox — Comments (3) »
John McCain Making Sense 31 Comments (0 topical, 31 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
who couldn't believe the bold words of Bush on Saturday trashing any idea of a withdrawal or serious dialogue with Iran? They truly don't understand the Spine of Bush.
My problems with McCain on the war go beyond his ridiculous policies on "torture", and "terrorists rights" incl. lawyers for detainees, but more to his refusal to not play armchair CINC and support the ONE CINC we have and will have for two more years. His buying into the MSM storyline memes on abu graib, Gitmo, torture and congressional roles in war-making undermined the US to our enemies and have prevented us from being much farther along toward our goals that we would have been, had he and his GOP clones closed ranks behind the President and denounced the bushlied Dems in blunt terms, shaming their unpatriotic emboldening of the enemy into silence.
Plus, his relentless I told you so's on troop levels that can never be proved or disproved, but that a defeat would make more palatable. In some ways he has invested in our defeat with his we gonna lose unless we do it my way bilge for 3 years.
Even in the video, he says that the ISG "will", not "would" cause us defeat. He assumes Bush will do what they say, which Bush will not. McCain seems to crave defeat for his purposes.
Hope I'm wrong, but having watched him for years, he seems to love McCain more than America.
I wonder if more troops could get him to do right.
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
http://gamecock.townhall.com
McCain certainly seems to be speaking from personal experience. Frankly, I find some of his latest comments very constructive and reassuring. No other potential candidate from either party has been this consistent on the most important issue of our day.
However, I currently believe there is a big hill to climb based on past issues such as Constitutional protections for enemy combatants and First Amendment issues.
Is this an election metamorphosis or conviction? Only time will tell, but I must say it would be hard not to support him in the general and that’s a huge personal change for me. Perhaps McCain has learned in order to get the maverick title you don't characterize issues important to other party members as spurious.
"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"
Love him or hate him, when it's come to Iraq, McCain has been there for us and for President Bush.
-------------------------------------
"As nations can not be rewarded or punished in the next world they must be in this."
- George Mason
That he’s been critical of the administration on some points (number of troops, failure to clarify our interrogation policies, etc.) doesn’t bother me in the slightest. If anything it gives support for those in the conservative movement who realize that victory not “peace with honor” is the only real security.
With friends like McCain, Bush and the troops don't need Murtha enemies.
McCain has consistently said he supports the war and has said good things related to the feckless ISG report. I also like the comment he made about outcomes, "in a war you only win or lose" is a loose paraphrase. For those things I will give him credit.
On the other hand, virtually every time he opens one side of his mouth to "support" the war, he quickly phases into criticizing the number of troops, criticizing Rumsfeld and calling for his resignation, or accusing our military of torturing detainees. Much to the glee of the Sunday hosts.
His criticisms, and especially his comments about torture which were completely unfounded and an affront to every serving member of the US military, should bother you. They feed the frenzy that the Democrats, the press and the international community loves over the war. His self serving mouthing off gives them cover.
I think he's right about the ISG. I just hope he manages to contain his need to stick it to Bush and is able to talk out of just one side of his mouth in this instance.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
http://gamecock.townhall.com
nt mean, nice try?
-Miles Christianus
The U.S. Constitution - It's in there; look it up.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
Cite please. Either provide a direct quotation from Senator McCain accusing our military of torturing our detainees (and no, sponsoring a bill to codify the military's already existing policy on detainee treatment doesn't count) or retract that comment.
and hell will freeze over before I retract it.
McCain's TV antics during that entire disgusting and dispicable "debate" spoke volumes. John McCain is a preening, self absorbed jerk. He is easily the second least qualifed non-candidate for POTUS, Hagel being #1.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
The man is a snake and CANNOT. EVER. BE. TRUSTED.
Yes, Democrats: Please, please PLEASE try to impeach the president during wartime.
That Anti-Torture bill he authored, and pushed through, says volumes.
McCain the RINO can sit on his horn of power and rotate til hell freezes over.
I will not only NOT VOTE for this RINO, I'll take note of EVERY GOP (or other) politician who does support him, and remember to never ever ever vote for any of them, either! EVER!
I agree with the Arizona GOP Caucus who unanimously censured him at his last election, which was only won by crossover DIM voters - and no telling how many of THEM were 37-voting card carrying ILLEGAL ALIENS, either.
I would cross the street by a country mile to avoid spitting on him even if he were on fire.
When Republicans had a 55-vote majority in the Senate, McCain had the luxury of distinguishing himself from other Republicans on some issues, with the idea of becoming a Republican for whom "moderates" could vote in 2008.
Since he will soon be in the minority, other Senate Republicans will have little appetite for McCain's dissent, and will want McCain to toe the line on filibusters of ultra-liberal legislation that might come out of the House that Nancy built. McCain is now angling for the GOP nomination for President, and needs to be seen as "more conservative than Giuliani", his major competitor for now.
McCain was always willing to "reach across the aisle" and work with centrist Democrats on some issues. But if he wants the GOP nomination from within a Senate minority, he can no longer try to pull Republicans left, but he can be effective by pulling a few Democrats toward the right.
The disastrous election of 2006 might force "metamorphosis" on lots of Republicans, possibly for the good in some cases.
McCain's position on Iraq is smart politics, for now. Jack Murtha's "cut and run" effort was repudiated even by House Democrats, soon to be in the majority. It also seems like the Baker commission report is getting the cold shoulder from lots of members of Congress of both parties.
As to what McCain would do as President, that's food for lots of thought and anybody's guess. Maybe somebody should ask him over the next two years!
The bad news: Conservatism is hard to sell. The good news is that it works.
The man likes to talk, and he is good at communicating to the media. That's one of the things that make McCain a good senator, and that's exactly where he needs to be on January 21, 2009 - the Senate. McCain's steadfast support for finishing the job in Iraq doesn't provide us with anything that we can't get from any of the other top presidential contenders, and there are plenty of things that he is deficient in compared to other candidates (specifically being a "maverick", campaign finance reform, detainee treatment, or anything else that can be demagogued on Sunday morning shows).
And since there is no more important thing a nation undertakes than war, the case for him grows more persuasive in 2008.
True, he can be a pain in the *$$, but he's OUR pain. And we wouldn't be electing him emperor, but president, with hopefully lots of Republicans to provide the checks and balances.
In wartime, it is better to disagree on non-war issues with a leader whom one respects, who has complete credibility as Commander-in-Chief and who can win elections, than to have an ideological love-fest with some companionable soul.
So it's McCain for me, or Rudi.
Well, OK he's been all sound. He's supported the Administration and in virtually every instance where he's supported the war he's immediately commented that we needed more troops and that Rumsfeld should go. And then there's torture.
McCain is a self serving, small man. He has no credibility as a military leader. He served and served honorably and I respect that. His tenure in Congress has been less than stellar and his so-called support for Iraq is so compromised as to be non-existent.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
In fact, a lot like Clinton. NOT presidential material in any way.
Yes, Democrats: Please, please PLEASE try to impeach the president during wartime.
And we wouldn't be electing him emperor, but president, with hopefully lots of Republicans to provide the checks and balances.
We've seen how well that has worked with the current President. Things the President wants, the President will often get, if there is any way his party thinks it can deliver them. If McCain was in the WH and wanted a new McCain-Feingold, terrorist bill of rights (wouldn't even need congressional approval for this), or anything else, he would probably get them. The President will often get what he wants, even if the rank and file wouldn't otherwise be interested (Medicare Part D and NCLB being good examples of this).
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
and on the need for more troops.
Where I find McCain persuasive is that he understands that the "small footprint" concept for our Iraq forces has not been successful. We have been able to win and control certain parts of the country but not all parts (especially Baghdad) consistently. This is because we don't have enough troops in the country.
I admire the President's consistency, but I deplore his unwillingness to question or challenge his generals. I too admire Rumsfeld greatly, but he was simply wrong to insist on a smaller force. The President was right to fire him, though it should have been done sooner.
Now, the President should relieve the "small footprint" generals Abizaid and Casey and give control of our magnificent military to generals who will win.
For the obligatory Vietnam analogy: Gen Abizaid would be the Westmoreland of Iraq, with Gen Petraeus (or whoever) as the Creighton Abrams (who would have won the Vietnam war had he been allowed to).
For ages we've been told that President Bush and Secretary Rumsfeld have overridden their generals. Now we're told he listened too well...
--
It is much more important to kill bad bills than to pass good ones. -- Calvin Coolidge
To make sure he doesn't make any fatal mistakes, this year, or before the '08 Elections.
Trouble for him is, he hasn't CHANGED - he is the same old same old - McCain Feingold, a usurper, the author of the ANTI-TORTURE bill that he slapped our soldiers with...
The same man that the Arizona GOP Caucus sensured UNANIMOUSLY.
He'll never get in that office - not as the Elected leader of the free world!
I don't understand the flocking to McCain based on one YouTube video. McCain has been hurting the war cause from day one when he decided that throughout the war he was going to take his concerns to the media instead of to Bush in order to score cheap political points.
He was critical of Rumsfeld right alongside all the Democrats during the war. He was critical of Bush right alongside all the Democrats - in the middle of a war. He went on natinoal television saying he could have done a better job in Iraq than our Commander in Chief, and that's inexcusable in my book. If he feels that way, fine. But to stand opposed to your commander in chief during war time in that manner is ridiculous. He's been on television saying our prewar planning wasn't good enough. Our postwar planning wasn't good enough. We didn't have enough troops. We aren't training enough Iraqis. Bush isn't listening to his generals. Rumsfeld's gotta go. Abu Ghraib was torture. Gitmo detainees aren't being treated well. They all need lawyers. We need a new direction. We're not winning. On and on and on and on.
And now, suddenly he says that the ISG report is bad, and he's okay to vote for?
McCain has never been behind us in Iraq, unless it was to try to stop us from moving forward.
--------
After the 2006 elections, al Qaeda released a statement saying they were happy Democrats won. That should tell you all you need to know.
Thank you for thet succint reminder.
A ship in harbor is safe, but that is not what ships are made for.
I still wouldn't vote for him for anything at any time or for any reason.
Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
The problem with McCain is he cannot be trusted. He sways with whatever wind makes himself popular. Can we say Bill Clinton anyone?
Whats going to happen if he's President and he appoints a SCJ that "everyone can support". BLEH!! Do you really want two more Sandra Day O'Connors on the bench?
before I saw your comment. They have MUCH in common! A scary thought indeed. Both totally feckless and untrustworthy.
Yes, Democrats: Please, please PLEASE try to impeach the president during wartime.
And even with that number, chaos might ensue:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/04/AR200611...
Now We have approximately 140,000 troops. McCain wants 20,000 or so more troops.
If McCain tried math, he would realize that 400,000-140,000≠20,000.
As much as I despise McCain, he's saying all the right things.
The most important issue post Bush will be the War on Terror and how the US handles Iraq. McCain has true convictions about achieving victory in Iraq, and has the ability to rally the country.
I still plan on voting against him in the primaries, but I don't think I'll be so upset if he ends up getting the nomination.
He may be a Media Whore, but putting up with him might be worth it to defeat Islamic-Fascism.
"Back in the thirties we were told we must collectivize the nation because the people were so poor. Now we are told we must collectivize the nation because the people are so rich. "
William F. Buckley, Jr.