Posted on 05/12/2008 10:43:34 AM PDT by Bob J
The anti-McCain crowd consistently state that there is no difference between McCain and Obama/Clinton, which is simply ridiculous. There are points where the difference is less stark than others but to make a sweeping claim such as that, IMO, demonstrates the hsyterical lengths some will go to try to get others to stay home or vote third party on election day.
Now McCain wasn't my #1 candidate as he wasn't for most FReepers, but he will be the GOP nominee and a realistic analysis of his positions free from rhetoric and hysteria is important to gaining a full understanding of what to expect from him if he were towin the election.
In the interests of having a rational discussion and attempting to soberly define where McCains stands on the issues and whether or not there is a "difference" between him and his opponents, I will post one new McCain issue standpoint a day.
To those "one issue" voters, please don't muck up these threads by bringing up the other issues not being discussed this day, you're chance will come.
They forgot to list “Close GITMO”
So you want total surrender and withdrawal with Obama? Fine. It sucks to have only two choices, but I’ll go with McCain. Pick your choice.
Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Pace, wants Guantanimo closed but what does he know about things military compared to you. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates wants Guantanimo closed but he’s pert near a communist.
I'm a bit uncomfortable with explaining Iraq in those terms. It sounds like "Saddam did 9/11" and "War for Oil." This is exactly what the liberals frenzy upon.
Just explain Iraq for what it is and that it was a Regime that never honored the cease fire agreement which kept us a war with them throughout the 1990s and into 2003.
The only thing you got right in your comment.
McCain's Iraq policy is sound and solid. He had it right on the surge, while most here were still cheering Rumsfeld/Casey (two honorable men, with bad strategies) for whatever reason.
Despite all deficiencies he is on all counts better than Obama. Wake up! We have no other choices! If you think Obama's foreign policy will do any good, go ahead. Some will stop short of nothing to justify their passive handing over of power to Obama, won't they?
When a military position or operation becomes a liability for your side and a great propaganda asset for the enemy, it is expendable.
The Gitmo thing bothers me as well. What I would need to know bfore I decided on it was what he expected to do with those being held. If his plan was to tansfer them to other facilities, say in Irag or Eastern Europe, that many be okay, but we don’t want them on US soil where the ACLU can get a hold of them.
And eliminate interrogation techniques that have already saved American lives.
“Also, McCain wants amnesty and open borders.”
Would you please comply with the reasonable requests of discussing this thread? We’ll get to immigration.
90% of McCain critics are so because of immigration...I don’t blame them but it is one issue among many and is the reason for so much misinformation being put out.
You mean he didn't memorize the newspapers from Monday through Wednesday?
Back in 2006, when everybody was floundering about what to do in Iraq, McCain was almost alone of anybody, in either Congress or the White House, in steadfastly advocating the path that is now winning the war.
You do not win wars by memorizing and trying to micromanage every detail like Jimmy Carter did in Desert One and Clinton did in Somalia. You win wars by defining your objectives, giving your commanders the resources to accomplish them and allowing your commanders in the theater to sweat the details.
Your post #49 at the thread you linked is very important. Thanks for bringing it back up again!!!
Using the reason that it is okay simply because it gets vital information to protect the US could be extended to any “interrogation” technique. Where do we draw the line, or should one be drawn at all?
It never has been a "standard interrogation technique for the US military" and no one has proposed that it should be.
And eliminate interrogation techniques that have already saved American lives.
Once an issue becomes a propaganda bonanza for the enemy to the point that 50% plus one vote of the Home Front is ready to voluntarily vote to lose war because of it, it also become expendable in the public discussion arena.
"We never water board anybody. I am sure that our Iraqi allies that we hand our prisoners over to do not use it either. We would be shocked, shocked, I tell ya, if we ever find out otherwise."
Here is the bottom line:
Barack Obama has PROMISED that he WILL bug out and lose the war.
You can either spend your time between now and November working to ensure that Barack Obama does not become Commander-in-Chief or you can spend your time trashing McCain at every opportunity to get conservative voters to stay home in November to help get Obama in the Oval Office and have America lose the war.
One man, a candidate for the Presidency, risked his political future with a major address at VMI outlining the risks of defeat, the strategies necessary, and the possibilities for victory. John McCain. I wish I had saved a copy of the speech. It was calm and plain and Presidential. A solitary voice risking all for a cause he believed in.
Well then I’m confused. Maybe you could enlighten us.
Your options are, apparently, very limited. Mine are not.
We could use the same strategy here in Los Angeles where we have been invaded.
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.