Posted on 03/06/2007 2:08:07 PM PST by A. Pole
What a punch of crap. Unreason is bashing McCain for being too tough on terrorists.
There are plenty of reasons to be critical of McCain, but that is not one of them. If anything, given the al-Queda Bill of Rights, McCain is too soft on the jihadists.
What a load of HS, go to hell Matt
By enthusiastically endorsing McCain’s approach, the lame duck president all but finished the job of anointing the senator his political successor.
If the Iraq war is so unpopular among American voters, then the president basically put an end to McCain's political career.
I don't believe this to be the case, however . . . the purpose of the "surge" was to establish some semblance of order in Iraq so that most American troops could be brought home (or at least be taken out of harm's way) long before November of 2008.
McCain will never be president, but not for the reasons laid out in this article.
Borrowing a phrase from a basketball announcer,
I wondered why one would "fear a McCain presidency" - since there will never be one.
regards, Ivan
For the most part I think I agree with McCain's take on the terror war, at least his thoughts on fighting it. For the most part, otherwise, he seems to have wanted all his life to be a Democrat.
He has been groin kicking conservatives on salient conservative domestic issues for so long it's a reflex. Any Republican who thinks he can with without conservatives turning out in large numbers is a candidate for an insane asylum.
I hope for McCain's sake he doesn't measure his worth as a man by his ability to gain the Republican nomination. He won't succeed. If he does succeed he will be dragging another massive raft of good people down with him in the general election.
To choose between McCain as the Manchurian candidate or Hitlery Clinton the hardcore communist ultra-left scandal-ridden liar.
To choose between McCain as the Manchurian candidate or Hitlery Clinton the hardcore communist ultra-left scandal-ridden liar.
That silly "Straight Talk Express" and "Gang of 14" nonsense is the only thing that ever kept him in the news after 2000. Were it not for the excessive media coverage, he'd be no different than any other career political hack.
Neither one will be a candidate.
It's astonishing how short a period of time elapses between his statements on opposite sides of an issue (including one of 11 minutes!).
...with extreme prejudice!
I wondered why one would "fear a McCain presidency" - since there will never be one.
Having read this, I can state that this magazine is ill named.
He wouldn't run as a Democrat. These are some of his latest ratings from some famous interest groups: Citizens Against Government Waste, 92%; Americans for Tax Reform, 90%; Republican Liberty Caucus, 82%; NAACP, 5%; Planned Parenthood, 0%; and NEA, 0%. Many Republicans think that he's moderate or liberal, but they haven't researched his voting record. He's conservative.
I think you have to seriously ask yourself what the mission is in Iraq, when judging our success and predicting future developments.
Keep in mind that the minute stability was established back in '03, '04, '05, whatever, the left here and abroad would have voiciferously demanded a pullout.
Keep in mind our dilemma after 9/11 was having to defend the Saudi Royals from overthrow or invasion to retain dollar hegemony and Persian Gulf stability, but not be on Saudi soil to do so....
Keep in mind this dollar hegemony demands not only a steady flow of exports from KSA,but also that they not be surpasssed in output by a Euro baseed market. KSA controls OPEC because their output is #1, they are followed by Russia in worldwide production. I think a major factor is keeping Russia,France and China's paws off Iraq's oil,as much as ensuring we have first dibs purchasing it. (we still hold higher moral ground, they were set to rearm Saddam with us left to clean up the mess)
And of course keep in mind Al Qaeda is an organization of rats, you cannot chase them to kill them you must lay traps carefully and invite them.
My point is I believe our mission in Iraq now is to be in Iraq now. By 2008 it may very well go the way you say, but consider it may also do this: Bush may, despite added troops, allow the country to slip into further snd further violence because if an Obama was elected he'd pull the troops out in weeks. This could allow France and Russia, and to a lesser extent China, walk right in and resume those deals we interrupted. Making that easy for them would be irresponsible, a sure threat to the US economy- leave it in a full blown civil war and they wouldn't have the balls to go near the thing... and though we all know anti-war activists claim compassion for the innocent civilians we slaughter is their motivation, and we know what a farce that is, maybe even Obama would have no choice but stay and keep the peace.
Just speculating for thought, but if it seems too fantastic just repeat the words "we're only in Iraq for the welfare and good of the Iraqi pekil.
If you were thinking Bush is planning to use those 21k troops to win the war, mop up and get out to secure his legacy, I would offer he or you or maybe I need to review the enemy we are dealing with.
I can see no situation that can possibly allow the Bush haters to ever allow OIF to be published in any history book as a win. They set the bar, they will move it.
We saw the fascists even eat their own with Lieberman.
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.