"Democrats see the Iraq War as an issue that will hurt McCain. The war in Iraq is unpopular, and since the progress and success that is now being seen there is receiving little media attention, it is likely to remain so, at least until November."
Posted on 05/16/2008 3:09:29 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Recently on a talk radio show, the guest, a Democrat, said there was little difference in policy between John McCain and the two Democrats running for President. Many of those calling in agreed. Considering McCain’s recent comments on global climate change and his position on some other issues I can understand why some might have that impression.
If voters are convinced there would not be much difference in policy between a McCain and an Obama presidency, it is likely the majority will go for the young, charismatic candidate who would make history as the first black President. If they vote for Obama thinking he would be the same on policy as John McCain, though, they will be making a big mistake.
On some of the most important issues the country faces there are huge differences. On one issue in particular, national defense, McCain has demonstrated that he is the only candidate of the three we can afford to have as President at this time.
Democrats see the Iraq War as an issue that will hurt McCain. The war in Iraq is unpopular, and since the progress and success that is now being seen there is receiving little media attention, it is likely to remain so, at least until November.
McCain was not only supportive of the decision to go into Iraq, but he was a strong proponent for “the surge.” In fact, much of McCain’s criticism of the war was based on his belief that a larger force was needed.
McCain has not been an unquestioning cheerleader though. In addition to being a steadfast supporter of the mission, in his criticism of troop levels, McCain has also been an outspoken critic of policy failures there. This gives him credibility with many Americans who were not necessarily against removing Saddam Hussein, but rather have problems with how it was done.
The position popular with Democrats now is that we never should have removed Saddam Hussein and that even if there have been positive results of it, the surge should never have occurred because the war is ultimately unwinnable and the surge only prolonged it.
There is far from “little difference” between those positions. There is a huge difference between the two.
Putting Iraq aside, John McCain is the only candidate for President with military experience. (Hillary’s Bosnia sniper fire claim only highlighted that fact.) Some Democrats have now come up with an attempt to level the playing field against McCain based on the nature of his service. One argument now being floated by some Democrat Senators is that McCain did not learn the lessons of Vietnam because he was “sealed away” as a prisoner of war.
The New York Times reports that “in private discussions with friends and colleagues, some of them have pointed out that McCain, who was shot down and captured in 1967, spent the worst and most costly years of the war sealed away, both from the rice paddies of Indochina and from the outside world. During those years, McCain did not share the disillusioning and morally jarring experiences of soldiers like Kerry, Webb and Hagel, who found themselves unable to recognize their enemy in the confusion of the jungle; he never underwent the conversion that caused Kerry, for one, to toss away some of his war decorations during a protest at the Capitol.”
Ed Morrisey wrote in response, “[Senator Max] Cleland says that he didn’t know which heart and mind would blow him up, but McCain didn’t have to wonder at all which would torture him. He got a good, close look at the evil that totalitarians produce for over five years ‘on the ground.’”
Morrisey went on to note that later McCain studied the war in great detail at the National War College, served for over twenty years on Senate committees overseeing the armed services and their strategies and tactics and that “for almost 40 years, McCain has kept himself not just informed but critically involved in matters of national security and defense.”
On the other side of the aisle, Barack Obama has served just over three years in the U.S. Senate and in addition to making irresponsible statements regarding foreign policy he has shown a thin skin when those statements are criticized – and sometimes even when they aren’t.
Even with the problems many conservatives have with McCain on issues such as campaign finance reform and immigration, they must realize that on the issue of national defense John McCain vastly differs from his Democratic rivals. There are other issues, such as abortion and spending, where McCain’s policy is in line with conservatives and is 180 degrees different than either Obama’s or Clinton’s policies. National defense, though, is the area where the President has the most direct control and at this place in history it is the one area that we cannot afford to gamble on a careless, inexperienced, and ill-informed candidate – no matter how pretty he can speak.
What matters is not how well the candidate speaks, but what he says and time after time Obama has shown he is simply not qualified for the job. Even if it is on this one issue alone, national defense, conservatives must support John McCain in November. McCain spoke this week about the things he imagines seeing in the year 2013, at the end of a successful first term. If Obama is commander-in-chief those four years, I don’t think I want to imagine the result in 2013.
The number one reason John McCain should be President?
Because its a Democrats turn?
Not me.
The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, his C++ from the NRAila, any hope for judges and tax cuts all of that rests on McCain, there is not a chance that Obamao makes choices on those issues that line up with my values.
McCain's a RINO of the worst sort who speaks out of both sides of his mouth.
Do those “vast differences” include the International Criminal Court? Giving Geneva convention rights to unlawful combatants? Closing Gitmo? Or how about interrogating terrorist in comfort? A little fellet mignon will entice them to tell you where they planted that nuke...
Because its a Democrats turn?"
Better a moderate Democrat/RINO than a Communist, wouldn't you say?
There are exaclty two reasons why I am voting for this RINO:
Supreme court openings- Obama has said several times that Ginsburg is his favorite Justice, and Billary put here there nuff said.
I would much rather be fighting the war in Bagdad than in Boston.
There's a difference? Both are out to take away all our freedoms, one wants to do it all at once and one a little at a time.
The article is balanced and there is nothing in it to be disputed. Like him or not McCain is light years more preferrable at this time then Hussein.
And if Mc Cain nominates one or both Clintons for the Supreme Court to a Democrap Senate, what do we do then? After all, such a move would clearly show his desire to reach across the aisle!
Okay, then vote for Congressman Ron Paul or Bob Barr or Ralph Nader or Senator Barack Hussein Obama. It’s a free country, I’ve been told.
The closing of Gitmo is so purely a political position that I wonder that those calling for it cannot see the results of such a move. If the prisoners are all moved off shore their treatment will not be nearly as good and it wouldn't be long before they will be clamoring to go back there.
He hated Rummy, and opposed him and W at every possible turn. Rummy said you go to war with the army you have. It had been cut so much during the toon years. Did mccain do anything to stop those cuts?
I don't think the surge was possible when the war started. Having more troops at that time would have been hard to do. How much of mccain's opposition was sour grapes because he lost to W?
Now he claims he voted against the tax cuts because there were no spending cuts to go with them. Didn't he give another reason at the time?
He has said he did not like Alito because he wears his conservatism on his sleeve. Can we really trust him NOT to appoint judges the dims approve of? He claims he can work with dims - which he has shown over the years - but can he work with his own party?
The #1 reason McCain needs our support?
Because a Barac Hussein Obama presidency will ruin this nation.
Here’s one problem, among many, with Mr. McCain.
He will indeed fight the Islam terrorists. No doubt. Buy what will that gain us with his stupid global warming stance?
Setting up a cap and trade system will open the backdoor for the UN communists and federal fascist bureaucrats to come in and control and eventually destroy the economy.
Under global warming regulations, unelected bureaucrats will control every aspect of your life and make you pay, pay and pay.
The Wharton School of Economics wrote a report a few years back showing that this scam will cost every American family thousands of dollars in increased energy costs annually and destroy millions of jobs.
What good is it for the troops to fight Islamofascism in the Middle East, only to come home and find the fascists on their doostep at home?
This is a freedom killer. And Mr. McCain doesn’t have the intelligence to figure this out. Or perhaps he’s duplicitous in the scam.
"Democrats see the Iraq War as an issue that will hurt McCain. The war in Iraq is unpopular, and since the progress and success that is now being seen there is receiving little media attention, it is likely to remain so, at least until November."
At some point you have fall back and regroup because what you are doing isn't working. Trying to hang on to the last vestiges of power can reap more damage than simply letting go, regrouping and joining the battle again with a new plan.
Two reasons only why he should be president: The war on terror and Federal Judges. I can think of no other reason to vote for him, NONE.
Ah, McCain's immigration plans will destroy the country here, while attempting to protect it abroad. Securing the borders is actually more important than the Middle East. This is attempting to put lipstick on a pig.
McCain's national security policy.
Truman was president in 1945 when the US freed S. Korea. He was president in 1949 when the US prematurely abandoned the militarily weak and socially unstable country.
As president in 1950, he found it necessary to send US troops back to S. Korea to RE-win its freedom.
30,000 Americans lost their lives in Korea in the remaining 2 1/2 years of Truman's presidency, because we had pulled out of South Korea prematurely.
Democrats are stupid to rely on re-deployment.
Cheney and Rumsfield had all the experience in the world, and yet they were incompetent failures in their most important undertaking: the prosecution of the war in Iraq. Experience does not equal good judgment, and can lead good men astray into thinking they know it all.
Obama would not ruin our country, slow it down a bit yes.
McCain would be a first John Kerry term.
John McCain shouldn’t be president.
That he’s the “best” of what’s left is only evidence that we’re careening down “the slippery slope”.
McCain is a wildcard, but I KNOW what Obama is.
First I do not believe him about his SC picks, second the liberals will make him pick judges they can vote for.
And then he’ll say this is why I was elected because I can reach across the ailse.
Problem is he is on the same side of the ailse as they are.
As a vet with a son in the military, I agree.
I'll admit that mcpain has too many liberal traits, i.e. anwr drilling, illegal immigration, etc. but when viewed against osamaobama, it's no contest.
Bingo
You hit the nail on the head. Great post.
I always thought he supported the surge because it ran counter to what President Bush was doing.
Had we “surged” at the beginning, I suspect he would have thought we had too many troops over there.
“This is a freedom killer. And Mr. McCain doesnÂ’t have the intelligence to figure this out. Or perhaps heÂ’s duplicitous in the scam.”
I think he is “duplicitous”.
Hugh Hewitt, within the last two years, said of John McCain: “great American, marginal senator, terrible Republican.” Yet when it was obvious that McCain would be our nominee, he gave seven reasons to vote for him - the war/national security, and six SCOTUS judges.
Two of the reliable Constitutionalists are in their early 60s, and the other is in his mid 70s, and the two new ones are 52 and 55 this year. The swing vote is in his mid 60s, and JPS is 85, maybe 86. Ginsburg is old and has personal and family health issues, and the other two...well, they’re leftists.
Of course, there might not be a way to get a constitutional judge through the Senate if the Rats have a fillibuster proof majority...if the lefties resign or otherwise leave, maybe McCain should just leave their spots open. Of course, his “wanting to work with both parties” crap might render my line of thinking moot.
True as that is, one of them is going to be President in eight months and four days from now.
Yes, he did. And it was something about "tax cuts for the rich".
I won’t vote for McCain. I’ll vote against Obama or Mrs. Clinton.
So much of what he says is dim-lite.
McCain left men in the field. There is no forgiveness for that.
I agree on the judges. Even if McCain were to appoint decent conservatives, I doubt he would be able to get them thru the Senate, esp. if Republicans are down in the 40-42 seat range, which is very possible. Even if he appoints “moderates” we can expect Scummer, Teddy, Leaky and Feingold to be screaming that they are extremists. Then all that “reaching across the aisle” by McCain will have been of no use.
I have made the decision recently (and with much thought) to vote the way my conscience tells me.
I will not vote for McCain. I can't.
I will not vote for McCain to prevent Obama from becoming president.
I will, therefore, vote for any candidate who respects the people, respects our borders, and respects the greatest document ever written (after the Bible), the US Constitution.
Or I swear I will not vote at all.
I see him trying to force the Pali state on Isreal with Jerusalem as it's capital and 2 million pali's in Isreal exercising 'right of return'.
He will cut off Isreal if they refuse and what's left of Isreal's support in the world will go with it.
Number one reason....he is NOT hillary or obama!
Or
Number one reason.....he is the lesser of three evils.
Or
Number one reason.........It is like we have a choice!
Or
Number one reason............Dear God please help us the Republican party really messed up this time.
As a veteran, the issue that trumps everything else is immigration and amnesty. McCain is loser on this issue along with Hillary and Obama. It is a Hobson’s choice. I won’t vote for any of them.
Survival. I don’t see this country making it 4 yrs. otherwise. One thing I will give McCain credit for is recognizing we need to take the fight to our terrorist enemies.
Despite all I dislike about McCain, the alternatives to him as President, Obama or Hillary, would be so much worse. I would trust McCain to answer that 3 am phone call.
Cut. Print. Wrap.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.