If there are still conservatives out there fretting that John McCain (lifetime American Conservative Union voting record: 82.3%) is “too liberal,” they should check out this hit job from the house organ of the American left, The Nation. After reciting the tired clichés about what a terrible temper McCain supposedly has (something said about many other Presidents, including Teddy Roosevelt and Harry Truman), author Robert Dreyfuss recounts with horror McCain’s plans to “carry the ‘war on terror’ deep into the twenty-first century.”
He provides a brief overview of some ideas McCain has put forward, from reorganizing the CIA to creating a League of Democracies as a supplement to the UN. All of these come with a gloss of horrified quotes from the usual suspects, such as Larry Wilkerson (Colin Powell’s former chief of staff who has been one of the Bush administration’s most vociferous critics) and liberal foreign policy scholars Larry Korb and Ivo Daalder. Daalder is quoted as calling McCain “the true neocon,” which isn’t intended as a compliment–but may well be seen that way by some nervous conservatives.
Dreyfuss highlights McCain’s support for tough action to combat
Perhaps these other positions could be the subject of a future expose in The Nation. As a supporter of (and foreign policy adviser to) Senator McCain, I can only hope for more such attacks, which should help to solidify the Right around his candidacy without alienating any centrists.
“—-what is required in the months and years ahead in Iraq. If we learned anything in the past eight years, it is that you can’t hide the ball from the public and expect to sustain a costly war.”
Is this the same Iraq War that we won? Or is this another war that requires more American military resources to win? Can we still lose a war we already won? What are the indications that might show that our victory is indeed turning into a loss? Is the Iranian approval of SOFA,one of those indications? Jenn, please define what a Victory in Iraq might look like. Are we ready for Surge2?
I will critize the President when he is wrong and support him when he is right. That is all we all can do. It is unclear if he will do the right things on Iraq, but I doubt he wants a strategy that is clearly working to fail. Not now.
“Why not talk to the country about Iraq as “close to being won”?”
Perhaps he wanted to win the election?
#3,Shmuel Says:
January 19th, 2009 at 11:37 AM
“Why not talk to the country about Iraq as “close to being won”?”
Because the Neotrots have been harping that the war WAS won. If it hasn’t been won,what will it take to win? What exactly does “close to being won” mean? How does that relate to the SOFA? Is there anything more f—ked up than a Contensionsista trying to explain Victory in Iraq?
John McCain.
Someone please tell me why we nominated him?
Why did we do that?
#5,”5
Paul A’Barge Says:
January 19th, 2009 at 12:10 PM
John McCain.
Someone please tell me why we nominated him?
Why did we do that?
It’s real simple,this election was Obama vs Bush,McCain was the sacrificial lamb for W,and was literally thrown to the wolves:The MSM,The Leftists,and the old fashioned Conservatives.
#5,
Because Rudy Giuliani couldn’t be bothered to do the campaigning part of the campaign and Romney’s surge was too little too late. Huckabee was and is a buffoon in my opinion.
I still believed that McCain had a chance to win until the financial meltdown hit. He was not Bush and had been right about Iraq plus a lot more besides. His team mishandled the Sarah Palin rollout but the bank collapse doomed their campaign. He was nominated because he was the only Republican who had a chance. As to why we were in that situation, you could ask Mr Hastert who thought he could bribe his way to a permanent majority.
why would obama take advice from mcCain? he won. mcCain lost. man, you guys are competing with your bush inaugural topic for most depressing topic of the relatively new year!!
“Why not talk to the country about Iraq as “close to being won”?” — Jennifer Rubin
Clearly because those words — “close to being won” — are Graham’s and not Obama’s. Graham related the substance of the discussion and then added his own two cents.