McCain: National Security Trumps 2008 Bid

[JLB]

http://newsmax.com/archives/ic/2007/1/6/73051.shtml?s=ic

Sen. John McCain's call for a substantial and sustained influx of U.S. troops in Iraq sets the Republican apart from other White House candidates - and it could help him or haunt him come 2008.

The Arizona senator's hawkish position that the United States must do what is necessary to win the war might appeal to hard-core Republicans, but it also has the potential to turn off most Americans whose support for the nearly 4-year-old war has diminished.

"I have presidential ambitions, but they pale in comparison to what I think is most important to our nation's security. If it destroys any ambitions I may have, I'm willing to pay that price gladly," McCain said Friday, brushing aside scenarios of political fallout.

A decorated Vietnam war veteran considered one of Congress' authorities on military matters, McCain has long said the United States did not send enough troops to Iraq for the 2003 invasion. He has been a vocal advocate of sending thousands more troops to the war zone to calm sectarian violence that has ravaged Baghdad and beyond.

Securing the country, McCain says, would allow for political progress and economic development that has been stunted thus far.

© 2007 Associated Press.

[emo]

The idea that the war hurts McCain is just plain dumb. Americans may regret the war, but most Republicans still hate the idea of admitting defeat. McCain’s hawkishness will help him secure the GOP nomination, perhaps the most difficult obstacle between him and the White House—and the reason for all the fundamentalist footsy with Falwell. And a still-roiling quagmire in Iraq would be huge boon for McCain in a run against soft-on-slaughter Democrats, including Hillary Clinton, his most likely opponent.

McCain isn’t any more responsible for the war in Iraq than Hillary, for one, so the idea of voters punishing him for supporting it makes no sense. And who do you think voters will trust to guide the country to an acceptable solution in an ever-worsening war, the celebrated ‘Nam POW or the smarty-pants feminist? Hillary has and will continue to talk tough about the war, but she just can’t win a bloodthirstiness contest against McCain.

By contrast, in the improbable event the Iraq mess is largely over by November 2008, McCain seems old and irrelevant rather than strong and reassuring. What issue does McCain really have without the war? Gay marriage? The ISG recommendation to pull out the troops by 2008 completely FUBARs McCain’s program, and that’s why he pulled the Popeye routine on Baker and Hamilton. McCain wants this stupid, pointless, sucker’s war to drag on, maybe even get worse. He needs something to rescue us from. He can’t win without it. And hey, what’s a few thousand more corpses if it means he gets to be president?

http://buffalobeast.com/112/mccains_mutiny_2.htm

[Meathead]

given that he is willing to risk a) his son and b) his presidential ambitions i simply have to respect his belief in his position on this

but i cant for the life of me imagine how he can take this position

first off, even if we sent in 100,000 additional troops what makes anyone think that would ensure victory? the latest numbers indicate SEVENTY PERCENT (!!!!!!!!!!!!!) of iraqis support attacks on american forces in their country!!! that number is UP from the first time we saw it several months ago when it was at sixty percent

that clearly means they see us as occupiers rather than liberators. in that climate it seems inevitable that if you increase troop numbers its ONLY GOING TO PUT MORE GUNS IN MORE IRAQIS HANDS. i am about as far away from a fighter as you will find but if i thought a repressive occupier was sending in even more troops to kill my friends and family i might pick up a gun and start shooting out my window

meaning that any troop increase is really committing to a slaughter of iraqis. the larger the increase the more iraqis you will be mowing down. the only way to get the guns out of their hands is to kill them. and i may not feel too bad about an iraqi who has been fighting for years but some father who finally cant stand on the sidelines anymore and takes up a gun to in his mind protect his family and his country, well thats another story entirely

not to mention that the entrenched iraqi insurgency is only going to laugh at 20,000 additional american troops. right now that sounds like nothing short of crazy

you better start flapping those lips often and loudly mr mccain. i want to beleive in you and your convictions but youve got some serious splainin to do

get going. right now

[emo]

mccain is a scumbag liar just like every other politician

[Meathead]

The idea that the war hurts McCain is just plain dumb. Americans may regret the war, but most Republicans still hate the idea of admitting defeat. McCain’s hawkishness will help him secure the GOP nomination, perhaps the most difficult obstacle between him and the White House—and the reason for all the fundamentalist footsy with Falwell. And a still-roiling quagmire in Iraq would be huge boon for McCain in a run against soft-on-slaughter Democrats, including Hillary Clinton, his most likely opponent.
forgive me but after all weve been through this sounds grotesquely naive

first of all, power in america for the foreseeable future resides in the middle. people are beyond weary of the partisan fighting the the utter destruction it has caused. winning either parties nomination will be useless if you cant capture the majority of the rapidly expanding middle

secondly, the soft-on-slaughter comment is offensive. not only is the concept of a slaughter just plain revolting and unacceptable, your implication that a democrat could not effectively wage war is blind partisan ignorance of the highest order. you better abandon that crap or you will be discarded on the upstart scrapheap of zero-credibility out-of-touch brainwashed party faithful

bottom line: if mccain backs this troop surge and it doesnt work, or simply doesnt yell loud enough that it wont work as currently planned, his campaign for the wh is finished

[JLB]

The stance has generated attention - and scrutiny - as President Bush prepares to announce a new Iraq strategy that's expected to include a troop increase.

McCain is "staking out a position as a hawk on this war - that it's winnable and we're going to move forward and do this. Certainly it's a risky strategy," said Fred Solop, a political science professor at Northern Arizona University. "But right now his sights are on winning the nomination for his party. And that's a position that's going to get him a lot of support as he pursues it."

Of McCain's most serious potential challengers for the Republican nomination, former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani has largely resisted wading into the Iraq debate. Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney has said that while withdrawing "would be a mistake," decisions on troop levels should be left to the military.

[Meathead]

:link:

[JLB]

:link:



The original link I started the thread with sorry Meathead.

[Meathead]

oh and i read the whole article the first time too and still didnt notice lol

[JLB]

The stance has generated attention - and scrutiny - as President Bush prepares to announce a new Iraq strategy that's expected to include a troop increase.

McCain is "staking out a position as a hawk on this war - that it's winnable and we're going to move forward and do this. Certainly it's a risky strategy," said Fred Solop, a political science professor at Northern Arizona University. "But right now his sights are on winning the nomination for his party. And that's a position that's going to get him a lot of support as he pursues it."

Of McCain's most serious potential challengers for the Republican nomination, former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani has largely resisted wading into the Iraq debate. Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney has said that while withdrawing "would be a mistake," decisions on troop levels should be left to the military.



It's high stakes by McCain could go either way.

[FamousAmos]

Honestly, I think John McCain is a down-to-earth individual and I applauded him for going after the steroids problem with Baseball and his convictions seem as strong as his principles.

But this stance is illogical and is definetely going to be unpopular come election time!

This country is thirsty for leadership and between Mrs. Clinton and Sen. McCain, I have to believe that Sen. McCain will display more leadership than Mrs. Clinton.

Mrs. Clinton appears to be moving towards the center than staying to the left. She supported the war in the beginning. Will she still do so when it comes to persuading millions of Americans to vote for her in '08? I believe she will waver in her beliefs which tells me her convictions aren't worth the corn in my crap and I don't want my president to waver when it comes to making an important decision.

I still maintain that I am impressed that President Bush has not changed his position on the war, in regards to public opinion and scrutiny. Doesn't mean he is right or smart, but it's commendable that he sticks to his guns.

McCain is a good man and has good ideas. I hope he does well.

[JLB]

Honestly, I think John McCain is a down-to-earth individual and I applauded him for going after the steroids problem with Baseball and his convictions seem as strong as his principles.

But this stance is illogical and is definetely going to be unpopular come election time!

This country is thirsty for leadership and between Mrs. Clinton and Sen. McCain, I have to believe that Sen. McCain will display more leadership than Mrs. Clinton.

Mrs. Clinton appears to be moving towards the center than staying to the left. She supported the war in the beginning. Will she still do so when it comes to persuading millions of Americans to vote for her in '08? I believe she will waver in her beliefs which tells me her convictions aren't worth the corn in my crap and I don't want my president to waver when it comes to making an important decision.

I still maintain that I am impressed that President Bush has not changed his position on the war, in regards to public opinion and scrutiny. Doesn't mean he is right or smart, but it's commendable that he sticks to his guns.

McCain is a good man and has good ideas. I hope he does well.


It's extremely risky if they increase levels substantially and things fall apart he's through. However if thats what they needed to do right from jump street and it starts to control this situation. He will be viewed in a much different light. Risky you bet high risk big reward or failure. It is surprising but could he possibly be right?

[JLB]

This country is thirsty for leadership and between Mrs. Clinton and Sen. McCain, I have to believe that Sen. McCain will display more leadership than Mrs. Clinton.

Mrs. Clinton appears to be moving towards the center than staying to the left. She supported the war in the beginning. Will she still do so when it comes to persuading millions of Americans to vote for her in '08? I believe she will waver in her beliefs which tells me her convictions aren't worth the corn in my crap and I don't want my president to waver when it comes to making an important decision.

Mrs Clinton has effectively placed herself in a box.

She has to sing from three sides of her mouth at the same time.

She loses the endorsement to Edwards from the former Naral leader is just the start of it.

The far left can not view her as appealing in any sense of the word.

This middle, right, now left, now back again strategy will not pass the smell test with the voting public.

She will be forced to take to many unpopular positions.

[FamousAmos]

Mrs Clinton has effectively placed herself in a box.

She has to sing from three sides of her mouth at the same time.

She loses the endorsement to Edwards from the former Naral leader is just the start of it.

The far left can not view her as appealing in any sense of the word.

This middle, right, now left, now back again strategy will not pass the smell test with the voting public.

She will be forced to take to many unpopular positions.


agreed, good post JLB

[Meathead]

I still maintain that I am impressed that President Bush has not changed his position on the war, in regards to public opinion and scrutiny. Doesn't mean he is right or smart, but it's commendable that he sticks to his guns.
why

[Meathead]

I still maintain that I am impressed that President Bush has not changed his position on the war, in regards to public opinion and scrutiny. Doesn't mean he is right or smart, but it's commendable that he sticks to his guns.
why

[nehemiah]

dear saint john mccain.

go **** yourself, you piece of crap.

sincerely,
nehemiah

[г]

http://www.masters-of-photography.com/images/full/karsh/karsh_de_gaulle.jpg

[JLB]

why

why?