Poor judgement on McCain’s part
Advertisement
Text size: small | medium | large
Larry Liesner
Published: July 27, 2008
John McCain said he was more concerned with the war in Iraq and that we could “muddle through in Afghanistan.” He showed poor judgment and forethought, which is disturbing given that he says this
area is his strong suit.
McCain’s strategy for launching a war in Iraq and staying there indefinitely, unlike Senator Obama’s, is a policy of retreat in the war on terror. There is no “muddling through” in Afghanistan. There is either
taking the fight to the enemy, or not. He chose not. That was a grave error in his judgment.
LARRY LIESNER
Sterling
Post a Comment
The commenting period has ended or commenting has been deactivated for this article.
Can't find what you're looking for? Try our quick search:
Reader Reactions
Posted by ( jVA ) on August 08, 2008 at 12:12 pm
“Sen. Obama is also planning a big increase in the rate of tax on capital gains. How many people, who are not millionaires will have capital gains while that increase is in effect? “
How many regular working class people even know what capital gains taxes are? I don’t see a lot of working class people being affected by capital gains taxes. Most average people aren’t playing the stock market every day.
Did you like McCain’s newest negative ad on Obama today? Still playing that tired “Obama is a celebrity” line. He sounds like a grumpy old man: “Life in the spotlight must be grand, but for the rest of us, times are tough.“
Yeah right. The toughest part of McCain’s life these days is deciding which of his eight homes to visit in his private jet. Woe is me.
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( willow703 ) on August 07, 2008 at 6:52 am
jVA,
Obama has changed his mind on the war in Iraq. He nows says he will consider the situation on the ground. He also says he will leave troops “in the area” to protect our interests & of course, provide targets for the jihadists.
I didn’t benefit as much from the tax cuts as the millionaires, but I did benefit. Sen. Obama is going to slap a tax on the oil companies “windfall” profits. Who is going to decide what is “windfall”? Who is really going to pay that tax? - Yes, Virginia, there are stupid questions; I just asked one. -
What will that do to the value of the oil stock owned by millions of Americans, individually & through pension plans?
Sen. Obama is also planning a big increase in the rate of tax on capital gains. How many people, who are not millionaires will have capital gains while that increase is in effect?
Sen. McCain has voted with the president 95 percent of the time? So which Republican senators have been less cooperative?
I can only do what I believe is right, knowing that I will survive this next president as I have survived every president since 1940.
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( jVA ) on August 06, 2008 at 3:58 pm
“I’ll just refer you to the ads that say that Sen. McCain will just continue the policies of President Bush. “
But how is that a negative attack? Its not a personal attack. And isn’t it true? McCain is promising to keep Bush’s millionaire tax cuts and continue the war in Iraq. That’s not disputable. So what exactly about Obama’s ads are negative or untrue?
“Sen. McCain is no more a clone of George W. Bush than Sen. Obama is a clone of Jeremiah Wright. “
No, McCain’s not a Bush clone. He only voted in line with Bush 95% of the time over the last eight years. What a maverick.
“Oh, yes, I see that Sen. Obama is for off-shore drilling for oil. But that’s ok, he was agin it afore he was fer it, so that makes everthin’ just jake. “
John McCain was also against offshore drilling until June 13th. So? Both of these guys have basically said they are willing to change course on off shore drilling if its part of a broader alternative energy package. But of course, politicians are apparantly never allowed to change course or god forbid, make a compromise.
“I never heard anyone other than Sen. Obama make such statements. “
I can point you to those kinds of statements in this very newspaper. Are you really trying to argue that people don’t write in here and make defamatory comments about Obama’s name and lie about his religious background? That Vic Poilluci guy wrote into this paper a few weeks ago and published a total lie about Obama plucked from some right wing smear email campaign.
“He went before another audience and said, “I am the moment the world has been waiting for…” “
Actually his statement was “This is the moment that the world is waiting for. I have become a symbol of the possibility of America returning to our best traditions.“
I guess its kind of a goofy statement, but not sure what it has to do with Obama’s ability to lead.
Anyway… I was mostly just curious if McCain’s new campaign team had soured you on him at all. Thanks for the comments!
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( willow703 ) on August 06, 2008 at 1:08 pm
jVA,
I’ll just refer you to the ads that say that Sen. McCain will just continue the policies of President Bush.
Sen. McCain is no more a clone of George W. Bush than Sen. Obama is a clone of Jeremiah Wright.
Oh, yes, I see that Sen. Obama is for off-shore drilling for oil. But that’s ok, he was agin it afore he was fer it, so that makes everthin’ just jake.
Sen. Obama went before an audience & said “They’re going to try to scare you. He’s got a funny name. And did I mention he’s black?“
He said to another audience, They’re going to try to scare you. He’s got a funny name. He doesn’t look like all those other presidents on our dollar bills and five dollar bills. I never heard anyone other than Sen. Obama make
such statements.
He went before another audience and said, “I am the moment the world has been waiting for…“
Well, he is not the moment I have been waiting for, nor is Sen. McCain. But I’m not ready for another Jimmy Carter.
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( jVA ) on August 06, 2008 at 8:34 am
“I agree that the tone of the advertising
has been untoward on Se.n McCain’s side, but also on Sen. Obama’s side. “
I’d love to see an example of “untoward” advertising on the part of Sen. Obama recently. Can you share any examples, Willow? I can give you three from McCain last week alone.
Not trying to be snarky, I just don’t think its happening on the Obama side right now. A lot of Dems are actually upset with Obama for not coming out with some tougher (read: negative) ads to counter all of the garbage the McCain camp has spewed recently.
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( RonCharest ) on August 05, 2008 at 5:42 pm
Willow703,
To answer your question “Who is going to organize this revolution?“
I would say “We, the People.“ I firmly believe we get the government we deserve. Perhaps we start getting a decent government by letting the media know we don’t like them aiding and abetting smear attacks on political candidates - but do expect that the media provide honest appraisals and analysis of their positions.
As a side commentary on getting the government we want: In 2000, we wanted a president we would most like to drink a beer with. We got Bush - who does in fact remind me a lot of former beer drinking buddies. You know, the ones who always let other people buy the rounds, act the loudest and most obnoxious when they’re drunk, constantly hit on the bar maids, and start fights for others to finish.
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( willow703 ) on August 05, 2008 at 3:47 pm
Ron,
I agree that the tone of the advertising
has been untoward on Se.n McCain’s side, but also on Sen. Obama’s side.
But this is the fault of the people. As long as we don’t complain, it will continue. As long as we don’t complain about the deceit and dishonesty of our elected representatives, they will not change.
So, I guess the question is: Who is going to organize this revolution?
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( jVA ) on August 05, 2008 at 2:04 pm
“If wealthy people are too “good” to join the military, then IMHO they can pay extra to support those who do. “
Amen to that, Ron. Bush’s tax cuts are a slap in the face to everyone who has served or is serving in uniform.
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( RonCharest ) on August 05, 2008 at 10:57 am
Willow703,
Your statement “Calling those who disagree with you “idiots” is not responsible.“
Given the tone of Sen. McCain’s attacks against Sen. Obama, would you consider that Sen. McCain is responsible in his use of free speech, and in the process, conducting an honorable campaign as he promised several months ago?
Actually, I got my stats incorrect on Sen. McCain’s veteran voting record (I’m getting old also). According to the nonpartisan “Disabled Americans for America.” McCain has voted only 30 percent of the time in support of veterans funding bills. I don’t know why he might have voted against these bills, and you are correct that there could be valid reasons. But his reason for not supporting the Webb/Hagel Ed Bill was bogus. I also do not accept that “funding issues” should be the primary driver in determining veteran benefits.
If Republicans can find the money to start a war that creates tens of thousands of combat veterans, injured or not, they can G-D well find the money to take care of those veterans afterwards. And yes, the rich do have all the money. Over the past 20 years, taxes on the wealthy, and wealth concentration, have shifted to reflect the economic structure of the turn of the 20th century “Gilded Age.” Interestingly enough, those very wealthy people tend not to volunteer for military service. (Go figure).
If wealthy people are too “good” to join the military, then IMHO they can pay extra to support those who do.
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( jVA ) on August 05, 2008 at 10:51 am
“To say a legislator opposed a bill, means nothing without stating the reason for that opposition. “
Willow, clearly you’re right about this, but who can afford to play that game? The public isn’t informed enough to know the fine print or understand the nuance. And no politician can expect that his political opponent is going to play fair with these issues.
Just look at John Kerry’s famous “I voted for the $87 billlion before I voted against it.“ He voted against it the second time, because Republicans tacked on some extraneous garbage to the bill. (Additional tax cuts for the wealthy, I believe?) But how many people know that? How many reporters allowed for this reasonable clarification?
You’re totally right. But both parties play that unfortunate game, and the result is a lot of gridlock.
Report Inappropriate Comment