Just to recapitulate (but it's timely to do so now), here are my thoughts on John McCain. And let me add that my opinions are mine; they do not represent the diverse views of IGF's many independent contributing authors, who speak for themselves:
(From A Few Political Thoughts): An upsurge for Giuliani...whatever his others failings, would have sent a message that the GOP nationally was prepared to embrace socially tolerant views. Huckabee and Romney at the forefront would send the opposite message, that hardline social conservatism is not going to give way in the Grand Old Party. John McCain comes out better than midway between the two-he opposed the federal anti-gay marriage amendment but supported a state amendment in Arizona (which, as it turned out, was the first in the nation to be defeated at the polls). In the past, he has called the leaders of the religious right on their intolerance, but this time round seems to have concluded that such honesty was a strategic mistake. Still, he's not really one of them, and they know it.
And:
(From Lies of the Times): Out of the presidential contenders who were serving in Congress in 2004, the only one who did risk political capital by speaking out forcefully and eloquently against the federal marriage amendment was...John McCain (CNN.com's coverage is here; read it).
More. I agree with Kevin Ivers that because Giuliani "by any reasonable account was the biggest gay rights supporter to ever have a decent shot at the GOP nomination," he was the most ferociously opposed by gay Democratic activists (remember this?). Much better for the one true party that the GOP should nominate the most homophobic candidate, rather than the least, after all.
As for McCain, I do think it's significant that Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter and friends are in a rage over his ascendancy. The hard-edge of social conservatives on the cultural right (allied with, although distinct from, the religious right) may at long last be in retreat. McCain, despite his flaws, represents the more tolerant center-right of the party. If he could move the GOP overall in that direction, gay Americans (if not gay Democratic hacks) would benefit enormously.
39 Comments for “On McCain”
posted by Bobby on
If McCain wins the nomination, the democrats will win this election. McCain isn’t conservative enough for most of my fellow republicans, he supported campaign finance reform which attacks the first amendment by regulating political advertising, he voted against the Bush tax cuts, he tried to give illegal aliens amnesty, he supports gun control, and he’s persecuted talk radio. There are already republicans saying that they’d rather vote for Hillary or Obama before voting for McCain, or they’d rather not vote at all. He’s a machurian candidate, an evil hypocrite, a liar, a freedom hater, an enemy of the people and a traitor. Read what Ann Coulter has to say about him.
http://www.anncoulter.com/
posted by Jorge on
If some Republicans are so fanatical about a narrow set of issues that have so little to do with this country’s well-being that they show Hillary Clinton to be more conservative and honorable than John McCain (which I’ll concede only about gay marriage, religion, and willingness to kiss the Republican party’s ass), then frankly they deserve what they get.
posted by KamatariSeta on
In retrospect, I think Giuliani never had as much of a chance as many of his supporters thought, as he seemed to have little in the way of a platform. He ran as the 9/11 mayor who would fight terrorists, but thats about all anyone really knew about him.
posted by Michael Thompson on
I think that the problems conservative pundits have with John McCain has nothing to do with whether or not he is willing to embrace traditional social conservative values or not – he is fiscally irresponsible, works with democrats on creating very liberal legislation (McCain-Feingold and the Dream Act, anyone?), and is just as duplicitous as any of the Democrats.
It can just as easily be said that Mitt Romney is incredibly weak on credibility, but at least the B.S. campaign rhetoric he is pretending to believe in publicly lines up more evenly with the position of a typical conservative.
When McCain refuses to answer whether or not he would have taken a different position on illegal immigration now knowing that Americans by-and-large oppose amnesty, and he gives some non-response justifying why his position has changed instead of answering the damn question, he comes off exactly like a typical double-speaking politician.
I think McCain has very little credibility and even if he did, doesn’t really represent the ideas that actual conservatives want to vote for anyway. And I’m not just talking about socially.
posted by Avee on
McCain opposed the Bush tax cuts because they weren’t linked to spending cuts. I disagreed, but his opposition was out of conservative principle, unlike the Democrats’ opposition.
McCain as the nominee would cause some conservatives to stay home. But he’d attract a large slice of centrist-indepdents who would otherwise go to Clinton or Obama. I think he has the best shot against either; plastic Mitt is a sure loser.
posted by Bobby on
Avee, Bush attracted a lot of centrist-independents without sacrificing conservative principles. If McCain is a pseudo-republican, we’re better off with a democrat that republicans can unite against once he or she is in office.
“If some Republicans are so fanatical about a narrow set of issues that have so little to do with this country’s well-being”
—Those narrow sets of issues are extremely important. Free speech is a lot more important than the war on terror, campaign finance reform is a violation of free speech, even the ACLU sides with us on that one. McCain is more interested in being liked by the New York Times than getting along with republicans. He’s a fake and a phony, and you don’t have to be a democrat or a liberal to hate his guts.
posted by Brian Miller on
John McCain is the Republican Bill Clinton (albeit without the communications skills). The queer GOPers who cling to him will get screwed just as nastily as the LGBT apologists for Bill Clinton who took the twin steel-toed-boots-to-the-groin of DOMA and DADT in the 1990s.
posted by Richard on
One thing you have to understand about election law and the USSC is that free speech has been given a low value and the justices have very conflicting opinions about the role of the 1st Amendment in elections.
McCain does not really have much to offer LGBT Republicans. I am not sure if he has every supported a gay rights bill.
posted by Hank on
Gotta tell ya, Bobby, anyone so hated by Ann Coulter must be doing something good. (Of course I’m voting tomorrow for Hillary, so I don’t imagine you and I would agree on much!)
I loved Ashpenaz’s comparison of Hillary to Hermione Grainger.
posted by Bobby on
“Gotta tell ya, Bobby, anyone so hated by Ann Coulter must be doing something good.”
—I doubt that, Coulter has been right about many things. She has a good eye of hypocrisy and dishonesty. What happens is that this country has too many people that get their dicks hard every time they see a POW, no matter what crazy ideas he has. It’s silly military worship and fake patriotism. Both the dems and the gops play it, Bill Clinton was called a “draft-dodger,” Bush was accused of joining the national guard as if that was a bad thing.
I agree with NOW on their condemnation against that Kennedy senator who endorsed Obama and not Hillary. How dare he endorses someone with no experience, especially now that a woman might have a chance to be president? I’ve even heard some women say that women can’t be trusted as president. So electing Hillary would be a major blow against sexism. And if she’s really a closet lesbian as some on the right allege, then she’ll have no trouble ending DADT, at least on her second term.
Besides, Obama is a fake. When Bush talked about being a uniter and not a divider, you could believe it because he was a nice friendly southerner, and to a southerner unity means “I’ll say whatever I want about homosexuality but I won’t blow up your gay bars.” You know, Christian love. LOL. But when Obama plays the same schtick, it just doesn’t come out right. Besides, a man who wants to close Guantanamo is not really a uniter, unless he just wants to unite the left.
So you’d be surprised, maybe there’s a lot we can agree upon.
posted by Jorge on
Those narrow sets of issues are extremely important. Free speech is a lot more important than the war on terror, campaign finance reform is a violation of free speech, even the ACLU sides with us on that one.
That whole campaign finance = free speech thing is even more ridiculous and overblown than that whole marriage is under attack by gays thing.
Oh, I’m sure there’s an even chance that when you split hairs campaign contributions are protected expression and campaign finance reform would be overturned. That’s called fair but dumb. Its impact on our lives, that whole life/liberty/pursuit of happiness thing isn’t worth much. Things like being randomly searched in subways, spying on Mosques, these are serious tradeoffs that clearly take away some of our freedoms. Campaign finance reform does not hurt people’s freedoms.
posted by Jorge on
I agree with NOW on their condemnation against that Kennedy senator who endorsed Obama and not Hillary. How dare he endorses someone with no experience, especially now that a woman might have a chance to be president? I’ve even heard some women say that women can’t be trusted as president. So electing Hillary would be a major blow against sexism. And if she’s really a closet lesbian as some on the right allege, then she’ll have no trouble ending DADT, at least on her second term.
It’s interesting how NOW (an organization of women) cares so much about electing one of their own kind, yet they say Kennedy is a “traitor” for (by their reasoning) sticking with his own kind. If they’re so separatist, aren’t they confident enough to win without any help from evil old boys clubbers? Typical of identity politics: stick with your own kind and shame those who are different into submitting to you. I’m just glad we live in a time where people are calling bigotry as it is.
posted by tristram on
McCain has pledged to make his appointments to the Federal bench exclusively from a pool of Scalia clones. And Scalia is relentlessly pursuing his campaign to overturn the Lawrence decision. For the first time in my long voting career, I am seriously considering going “D.”
posted by Avee on
tristram, McCain has said he’d pick justices like Roberts and Alito. That’s fine with me. Anthony Kennedy (and help us, Sauter) were GOP appointments (Reagan and Bush 1). I don’t buy the fear-mongering.
McCain can attract centrists and independents; Romney can’t. A Romney nomination makes the hard right happy, but puts Hillary or Obama in the White House
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Bobby thinks McCain is an enemy of the people and a traitor? Aren’t those rather incendiary charges to make without evidence? That statement is obscene in light of the man’s having endured torture on behalf of his country, quite aside from what one thinks of him politically.
Gays who are considering McCain should look at his record. For one thing, he made two commercials in 2006 endorsing the anti-gay ballot initiative in Arizona. His campaign commercial that has run in recent days tout him (among other things) as a social conservative who won’t waver. There is one decent thing that he did as a senator that I recall, though it is not gay-specific: he led successful efforts to repeal a ban on HIV-positive servicemembers which had been added to a defense authorization bill.
posted by Randy on
What would be very helpful is if the IGF would post something on all the remaining candidates their a) views on gay issues and b) their actual actions taken on gay issues.
This way, we can see if their rhetoric matches their actions, and we can determine who is actually the most progressive on gay issues.
posted by Bobby on
“That whole campaign finance = free speech thing is even more ridiculous and overblown than that whole marriage is under attack by gays thing.”
—It is a big deal. Now you can’t make a TV commercials that attacks a candidate by name 30 days before some types of elections, 60 days before other types. Why is that important? Because attack ads are part of free speech. You should have the right to say “Candidate X opposes the second amendment,” or “candidate Y wants to take away your abortion rights.” Of course, since McCain is politically correct and wants everyone to be nice to one another, why should he care about free speech?
“Bobby thinks McCain is an enemy of the people and a traitor? Aren’t those rather incendiary charges to make without evidence?”
–3 words. Campaign finance reform. I can ignore everything else he’s done, including his threats against talk radio because they turned against the amnesty bill he sponsored. Here’s the difference between Bush and McCain. Bush ignores his critics, McCain hires lawyers and sues them. He did that to the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, they also served their country, but alas, they had the wrong opinions on politics.
“That statement is obscene in light of the man’s having endured torture on behalf of his country, quite aside from what one thinks of him politically.”
—This is a perfect example of military fetish. What a man has endured means nothing if his politics aren’t in the right place. If McCain supported paedophilia, would you respect him? If he supported killing gays, would you say “oh, he’s a vet, we have to be nice to him.” Bullshit, there are plenty of people that served in Vietnam that didn’t use their POW status to get special treatment later on. Just like libs are annoyed by Giuliani saying “9/11” every 5 seconds, conservatives are annoyed by McCain playing the POW card. He’s almost as bad as Max Cleland.
posted by Jorge on
Because attack ads are part of free speech. You should have the right to say “Candidate X opposes the second amendment,” or “candidate Y wants to take away your abortion rights.”
Let me draw an analogy for you: Roe v. Wade and the Hyde Amendment. The Constitution gives women the right to have an abortion. It does not give them the right to have abortions paid for with federal funding. But doesn’t withholding government funding for abortions make it impossible for some people who can’t afford abortions to exercise that right? It sure does, but try telling that to the Supreme Court. Welcome to capitalism.
But even to use your example, nothing’s preventing any politician from actually attacking other candidates. They all appeared on Letterman, the cable networks, and so on, so their free speech rights are in no danger.
posted by Brian Miller on
“doesn’t withholding government funding for abortions make it impossible for some people who can’t afford abortions to exercise that right”
—
I’d be much happier if you’d characterize it the proper way, which is “isn’t not mandating government funding protecting the rights of taxpayers who don’t want their income going towards another person’s birth control?”
If you cannot afford the consequences of sex (or to pay for stopping said consequences, i.e. an abortion), then don’t have sex. Your right to sexual activity includes your responsibility to accept and deal with the consequences of your own behavior.
If I don’t have a right to govern your sexual behavior, then you equally don’t have a right to demand I pay for the consequences of your sexual behavior.
posted by Karen on
Meanwhile, federal funds continue to pay for quality-of-life medical needs brought on by smoking, drinking, drug use, and overeating.
You don’t have a RIGHT to have federal funds pay for your abortion, but on the other hand, you also do not have a RIGHT to have your taxes not go towards something just because it could have been prevented.
posted by Bobby on
“But even to use your example, nothing’s preventing any politician from actually attacking other candidates. They all appeared on Letterman, the cable networks, and so on, so their free speech rights are in no danger.”
—That’s not enough, read this:
“All forms of advertising, including television advertising, are crucial means for communicating your ideas, values, and arguments. Election time is perhaps the most opportune time to broadcast political ads. Under the B.C.R.A.’s provisions, however, “issue advertising” on television is prohibited 60 days before a general election and 30 days before a primary.
B.C.R.A. strictly limits how much corporations and other organizations can contribute in “soft money” to a political party, but leaves political action committees, such as the environmentalist Green Power and Sen. McCain’s own Straight Talk America, relatively free to speak their mind. With this law, our government is effectively telling us: “Shut up. Sit Down. Listen.” And the only voices we’ll hear are those the government has approved. This law restricts in principle what you can say by restricting how much you can say–and when you can say it. The B.C.R.A. will ultimately create in America an entrenched ideological elite granted permission to speak by the government.
As Chief Justice Rehnquist correctly noted, “[It’s] not up to the government to decide there is too much speech coming from one place and not enough from another.”
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=3146
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Meanwhile, federal funds continue to pay for quality-of-life medical needs brought on by smoking, drinking, drug use, and overeating.
Among the poor and those over age 65, yes (although Medicare is partially defrayed by the taxes taken from the paychecks of those who are eligible for it).
Private health insurance plans generally charge more to those who choose to smoke or are overweight, and impose restrictions or requirements on what they will cover relative to drug use (as in, denying care outright for use of illegal drugs or requiring rehab).
What will be amusing to watch is when liberals get the nationalized health care they want with no denial of care, no restrictions, and no price differences allowed — and then realize that they now have to cover the costs of peoples’ choice to smoke, use illegal drugs, and be overweight, all without being able to raise premiums on them or charge them more.
posted by Richard on
The Supreme Courts rulings with campaign fianace are tied to their rulings on candidate/party ballot acccess.
It is really hard to tell where McCain stands on LGBT issues, or much less for t that matter. He been the ‘maverick’ and the ‘conservative’, the outsider and the insider so many times.
posted by David on
Yes, I agree totally. The media and the gay Left went after Giuliani because he was pro-gay. There is a victimhood mentality plaguing the gay community. It could not stand the idea of a pro-gay Republican being in the White House. You cannot be a victim without having enemies. The gay left needed to tear Giuliani down and vilify him so they can maintain their own biases and hatred for the GOP and to perpetuate being victims. Very sad.
posted by Bobby on
David, Giuliani was pro-gay, pro-abortion, pro-gun control. Those where too many “pro’s” for my party.
Besides, how many times can you mention 9/11? It was getting tiresome. Politics is theater, nobody wants an actor that keeps repeating the same lines.
posted by bill sandoval on
What I fear the most is a McCain/Huckabe ticket. Now that McCain appears to be the front runner. That duo would be a formidable team to beat in this year’s elections. Those Evangelicals aren’t happy unless they have a righty bible thumper to vote for…doesn’t matter who it is…look who we have in office now. You would think that they learned their lesson but they can’t think for themselves apparantly.
posted by Bobby on
Hey Bill, conservatives don’t like Huckabee, they see him as a christian socialist for the way he has governed Arkansas. McCain needs a real conservative VP, Huckabee is too divisive. Still, why fear such a ticket? The VP is usually a figurehead while the president is the one that makes all important decisions. Chenney is the exception though.
As for who we have in office now, he’s a great man. He has maintained the status quo, he hasn’t thrown the country in any radical directions (war doesn’t count, war is as American as apple pie). Next year we won’t be so lucky. I’m gonna miss Bush so much. He was fun, he didn’t give a shit about polls, about the stupid liberal media, he did what he wanted, he spoke his mind… Next year we’ll get our usual fare of bland politicians, you’ll see.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Bobby, are you a clown in your day job? “war doesn’t count, war is as American as apple pie” – that’s a good one.
posted by Bobby on
Randi, I expected you to agree with me, after all, how many leftists claim that this is a country that loves war? Well, you’re right. America loves war, America fought in WW1, WW2, Korea, Vietnam, Panama, Mexico, Grenada, Somalia, Iraq I & II, Afghanistan, and who knows what other countries we’ll fight in the future, like Sudan, your liberal friends will have no problem with US blood being spilled to save a bunch of people in Darfur. Your liberal friends didn’t mind our “boys” dying in Serbia so that your precious Kosovars could be saved from attrocities. However, if attrocities are being commited by a non-white, like Saddam Hussein or the Taliban, then it doesn’t matter, then it’s cultural imperialism to stop Saddam from torturing people. Luckily for me, most Americans love sending their military to war, most military men love going to war. They love electing presidents that where in the Army, the same liberals that bitch about Bush going to the national guard accused conservatives of bitching about Clinton dodging the draft. Can you deny any of this? Now I grant you, the city of San Francisco hates war, that city has banned ROTC from public schools, they hate military recruiters, and they’re not too crazy about the Navy’s fleet week. But that’s ok, because San Francisco is as American as Osama Bin Ladden. So yes my friend, Americans love war, europeans used to love it to, but now they suffer from imperialistic guilt, or imperialphobia, and instead this happens:
‘Don’t mention Islamic extremists’: Government phrasebook tries to avoid upsetting Muslims
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=512377&in_page_id=1770
posted by Brian Miller on
The media and the gay Left went after Giuliani because he was pro-gay.
Oh please. Giuliani never ran a serious campaign. His entire campaign involved running around screaming “9/11! Terror! 9/11! Terror!”
And he was so “pro-gay” that he advocated the overturning of NH’s “spousal unions” law — with federal legal force if need be.
Giuliani’s failure was assured the minute he decided not to campaign, and to try and play both sides of the fence. Say what you will about McCain (and I can say a lot of negative things), but he’s been consistent. Flip-floppers like Romney and Giuliani, on the other hand, couldn’t ever get traction because most people in the GOP simply didn’t trust them to keep a position for longer than 15 minutes.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Bobby, Bush didn’t go to war to stop Saddam from torturing people. A study by two nonprofit journalism organizations found that President Bush and top administration officials issued hundreds of false statements about the national security threat from Iraq in the two years following the 2001 terrorist attacks.
The study was posted Tuesday on the Web site of the Center for Public Integrity, which worked with the Fund for Independence in Journalism.
The study counted 935 false statements in the two-year period. It found that in speeches, briefings, interviews and other venues, Bush and administration officials stated unequivocally on at least 532 occasions that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction or was trying to produce or obtain them or had links to al-Qaida or both.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080123/ap_on_go_pr_wh/misinformation_study.
And far from loving war Americans were extremely reluctant to get into World war I and World war II, not showing up until well after the conflicts started. If Americans were so into war then were were they in Rwanda when the genocide was going on? Making excuses for not intervening, that’s where. When it comes to black people with no oil Americans didn’t care.
In any event, that was a minor point. The truly idiotic statment you of yours was that war doesn’t matter. Tell that to the family and friends of people who died or were injured in the war. Think of what the billions of dollars the war is costing could do if put to humanitarian use. You’re not that dumb bobby, don’t make such idiotic statemenst like war doesn’t matter and that Americans were “lucky” to have Bush. You’ll be paying off a mammoth national debt for decades because of Bush, your economy is suffering now and will for decades to come because of bush.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
If Americans were so into war then were were they in Rwanda when the genocide was going on? Making excuses for not intervening, that’s where. When it comes to black people with no oil Americans didn’t care.
But oddly enough, when it came to millions of people dying under Saddam, liberals didn’t care — or supported “diplomatic” solutions that even the UN had to admit created a massive death toll in and of themselves.
The immediate why is pretty obvious; they were being bribed.
The second why is made most obvious by this statement.
Tell that to the family and friends of people who died or were injured in the war. Think of what the billions of dollars the war is costing could do if put to humanitarian use.
Similarly, Chamberlain and Deladier made their arguments; it would cost too much, we can’t risk any more lives on the battlefield, etcetera.
What people forget is that, when you are dealing with a brutal and genocidal regime that doesn’t care about nasty notes from the UN and who will gladly take out of the hides of its undesirables the cost of the trade it loses under sanctions, war IS a humanitarian measure. The United States learned that lesson the hard way from Rwanda; if you act, it will cost you billions and perhaps a few thousand soldiers, but if you don’t act, it will cost billions and a few HUNDRED thousand lives.
Hence the necessity of Iraq. Had we done the job we should have done in 1991, it would have cost billions less and spared hundreds of thousands of lives more. But instead we chose to ignore the obvious problems of leaving a brutal and genocidal dictator in charge, and now have to clean up a much larger mess.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
What the U.S. has done in Iraq in no way excuses the lack of action in Rwanda. The U.S. war machine whined about not having a plan available to stop the genocide and used that as an excuse for inaction when in fact Romeo Dallaire had provided just such a detailed plan and the americans refused to act because there was no oil involved and they didn’t care about black people.
And as to Iraq, over 600,000 people have died as a result of the war to this point
http://thestruggleforpower.blogspot.com/2006/10/johns-hopkins-iraq-mortality-study.html
And there is no end in sight. If we project this out to 10 years, the time period you gave for 500,000 dying from UN sanctions, over 2 million will have been killed as a result of this war, hardly a worthwhile tradeoff. Not to mention that in many cases Iraqis are worse off now than they were under Sadam.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/02/08/iraq.women/index.html
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
What the U.S. has done in Iraq in no way excuses the lack of action in Rwanda.
I totally agree. The US should have acted.
Then again, so should have the Canadians. You have your own military, don’t you?
And as to Iraq, over 600,000 people have died as a result of the war to this point
Not quite, according to a more recent study that surveyed five times more households and twenty times more areas.
If we project this out to 10 years, the time period you gave for 500,000 dying from UN sanctions
That was 500,000 – plus children. We should assume that the number of adults killed was at least double that — plus the number of Shi’ites Saddam killed outright, plus the number of Marsh Arabs killed by Saddam, plus the ecological devastation caused by Saddam’s diversion of the rivers to destroy the Marsh Arabs, plus the number of political dissidents executed, plus….
And as far as “worse off under Saddam”, just say outright that the Iraqi people should have been left under Saddam and that it was just fine for things to continue as they had been.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
The Marsh Arabs don’t count. They would have been fine if the U.S. hadn’t of encouraged them to rise up against Sadam
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
And the point in the first place was that Bush never justified the war in Iraq based on humanitarian reasons. A study by two nonprofit journalism organizations found that President Bush and top administration officials issued hundreds of false statements about the national security threat from Iraq in the two years following the 2001 terrorist attacks.
The study was posted Tuesday on the Web site of the Center for Public Integrity, which worked with the Fund for Independence in Journalism.
The study counted 935 false statements in the two-year period. It found that in speeches, briefings, interviews and other venues, Bush and administration officials stated unequivocally on at least 532 occasions that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction or was trying to produce or obtain them or had links to al-Qaida or both.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080123/ap_on_go_pr_wh/misinformation_study.
If Bush had tried to sell the war in Iraq based solely on humanitarian reasons it never would have flown. He undertook the war on false pretenses
posted by ILoveCapitalism on
“The Marsh Arabs don’t count. They would have been fine if the U.S. hadn’t of encouraged them to rise up against Sadam”
Wow Randi, you’re all about blaming America first, aren’t you?
“And the point in the first place was that Bush never justified the war in Iraq based on humanitarian reasons”
Bzzzzzzzzzzzzt. Wrong answer. For those of us who were paying attention all along, Bush always and consistently offered a 3-prong justification:
1) That Saddam was still stalling the U.N. weapons inspectors.
2) That Saddam had many links to assorted terrorists, even including a few slowly-growing links to al Qaeda.
3) Humanitarian reasons.
All of which were true. As for your “study” of alleged “false statements” on national security… other, more credible studies have found Bush didn’t knowingly make any false statements on national security. But, I suspect that anyone who seriously quotes that 600,000 figure as remotely near reality – and while, again, blaming America first; not assigning the moral responsibility for Iraqi civilian deaths where it lies, with the agents of Iran and al Qaeda and those who would encourage them – is a religious believer in his/her own viewpoint, and impervious to evidence. Which means there is no point in my going on about it. Which means I’ll stop. Because none of this has anything to do with what I came to say. What I came to say, was something on-topic, for Stephen Miller.
Stephen Miller, you said: “McCain, despite his flaws, represents the more tolerant center-right of the party.”
You appear to be evaluating McCain through a single prism: where he stands (or is perceived to) on a narrow set of “gay” issues. It’s a pity that the “tolerance” you are vaunting here for the author of McCain-Feingold would not include more tolerance for free speech. McCain is an authoritarian at heart. McCain thinks that he, in his wisdom and heroic credentials, has the moral right to restrict others speech. And gays and lesbians, of all people, ought to be deeply troubled by that.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
“Ilovecapitalism” – you’re funny. The idea that bush’s justification for war didn’t include false accusations of weapons of mass destruction is a laugh riot. Its a well known fact that that was virtually entirely his excuse for starting a war the public would never have gone along with if it had known the truth.
posted by Richard on
The Iraqi War is a good example of how most Americans — Democrats and Republicans — understand little to nothing about the Middle East.
Iraqi women and gays are probably worse off today, then they were under Saddam.
Iraq is becoming much more theocratic in its politics.
The Marsh Iraqi-Arabs had rebelled, but Saddam hated them before that. Same thing with the Kurds.
The bottom line; Few humanitarian objectives will be successful in Iraq at the present level of resources and troops.
The only possible way that the stated objectives could be succesful is with a large military presence (500,000+) on the ground for a very long time (10-20yrs) and a massive economic-social development plan.