Posted on 07/19/2014 10:25:52 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, made a surprising suggestion Thursday night: If he had been elected in 2000, there might not have been a war in Iraq.
The Vietnam veteran and former prisoner of war, who lost his race for the GOP nomination that year but went on to become his partys nominee in 2008, made his comments in a far-reaching interview in CNN and National Journals Politics On Tap event, after this reporter asked him what would be different if he had won either in 2000 or 2008.
On 2008, McCain said national security would be different, and he delineated the many ways he would have done things differently from the victor, President Barack Obama. But when asked about 2000, McCain made the most surprising remarks. Youll find this surprising, he said, but I think I wouldve been more reluctant to commit American troops.
(Excerpt) Read more at thelead.blogs.cnn.com ...
Glad somebody besides me remembers that.
Some one give him his meds and send him to bed
Um, no. Saddam saw such groups as a threat to his power and suppressed them. If you are head of a state that is composed of different ethnic and religious groups, you might be hostile organizations that claim to speak for one religious group in your country and want to join up with people of the same religion outside your borders. They threaten your authority and your power base, so if you're a ruthless tyrant, you deal with them ruthlessly. Is that really so hard to understand?
McCain is saying he's like a lot of people. They went along with Bush and the war, but they wouldn't have conceived of the idea of a war of choice to replace Saddam on their own if it were up to them. I don't know if McCain is really being truthful about this: he likes military engagements an awful lot more than most people. But if what he's saying "doesn't make sense," that can be said about a lot of people when it comes to the Iraq war.
Shut up Juan, you POS.
Saddam kept the Islamists in prison, brutally repressed, or executed. That’s why Osama Bin Laden hated him. When Saddam was removed, the jihadist - both shias and sunnis - were free to go wild, with a civil war in which they slaughtered each other - and in which they jointly went after the country’s Christians, who had been relatively safe during Saddam’s years.
The big winner from the Iraq war: Iran. Saddam had been their enemy. the new gov’t that we put in, is their friend.
A-1 truth.
I’m with you. I learned my lesson. No more voting for liberals, no matter what letter follows their names.
I think of it every time I see his face on my TV screen. It makes me want to leap through it and throttle him.
Good, now I can blame his losing for every wrong since 2000.
This crap from the man that was yelling for ground troops in 1999 in Kosovo.
I hope his mother outlives him.
The Iraq war may not have started, but WWIII most likely would have.
I never seen a war or potential conflict that he did not enthusiastically support.
Had he won in 2000, Gore might have been President, so I kind of see his point about the Iraq War may not have happened.
I would imagine that a President McCain would have nuked half of western Asia about three days after 9-11. Thus he’s right, there would have been nothing to invade in Iraq.
Somehow, one suspects, towards 2003 the U.S. under McCain would have started an even bigger war with China and/or Russia. Most of us would probably be reading this in heaven although some maybe somewhere else.
Ya John, and if you’d just gone senile a lot sooner, we’d be much better off than we are now.. oh wait, you were senile then? and that’s why the powers that be wanted you in... ohhh, I get it nooow...
McLame reminds me of the Ned Beatty character in “Shooter”. Where is Bob Lee Swagger when we need him?
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.