During the course of one speech John McCain went from being perhaps the strongest proponent for war in the U.S. Congress to saying that war may never be necessary again after he becomes President. This is
what McCain said in a town hall meeting in Denver yesterday morning:
My friends, I will have an energy policy that we will be talking about, which will eliminate our dependence on oil from the Middle East that will – that will then prevent us – that will prevent us from having ever to send our young men and women into conflict again in the Middle East," McCain said.
Let’s consider exactly what McCain said yesterday. He says that his energy policy will prevent us from
ever again needing to go to war in the Middle East. Clearly that can mean only one thing – that the only reason for us ever having to go to war in the Middle East is to get more control over Middle Eastern oil. Which also means that that’s why we went to war in the Middle East in 1991 and 2003.
But wait! When asked to explain his comments, and whether he meant to say that George Bush’s Iraq War was and is all about oil,
he backtracked. He said:
No, no, I was talking about that we had fought the Gulf War for several reasons (including Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait)…But also we didn't want him to have control over the oil, and that part of the world is critical to us because of our dependency on foreign oil…If the word 'again' was misconstrued, I want us to remove our dependency on foreign oil for national security reasons, and that's all I mean.
Regarding the current war, McCain said:
The Congressional Record is very clear: I said we went to war in Iraq because of weapons of mass destruction.
Well, John, that makes no sense at all. If we went to war in 1991 for “many reasons” and we went to war in 2003 over “weapons of mass destruction” (which weren’t there, by the way), then how is your new energy policy going to “prevent us from having ever to send our young men and women into conflict again in the Middle East”?
And especially if John McCain is elected president, how is it possible that merely decreasing – or even eliminating – our dependence on Middle Eastern oil is going to keep us out of war there? Those who might take issue with my statement that John McCain is perhaps the strongest proponent for war in the U.S. Congress should consider a few things before they vote for him. Though McCain, with a lot of help from much of our news media, likes to present himself as a maverick who frequently criticizes George Bush’s Iraq War policies, the record belies that claim:
McCain’s position on the Iraq War prior to the warPrior to the war, McCain was one of the biggest cheerleaders for war. He co-sponsored the
Iraq War Resolution that facilitated Bush’s plans for war. His
saber rattling was as aggressive as anything we heard from Bush, Cheney, or Rumsfeld:
I believe Iraq is a threat of the first order, and only a change of regime will make Iraq a state that does not threaten us and others, and where liberated people assume the rights and responsibilities of freedom.
And his claims (though he later claimed otherwise) of
how easy the war would be were also similar to those made by the Bush administration:
I know that as successful as I believe we will be, and I believe that the success will be fairly easy, we will still lose some American young men or women.
McCain’s unwavering support for Bush’s Iraq war policies during the warMcCain himself
announced just a few weeks ago on Mike Gallagher’s right wing radio show that “No one has supported President Bush on Iraq more than I have.” Indeed, that’s one statement of his that is absolutely true.
Despite the fact that George Bush’s “weapons of mass destruction” excuse for war turned out to be not only false but a
deliberate lie, McCain has
continually defended the decision to go to war. He said about George Bush and his war:
For his determination to undertake it, and for his unflagging resolve to see it through to a just end, President Bush deserves not only our support, but our admiration
And, at the
1-24-08 Republican debate, McCain said:
It was worth getting rid of Saddam Hussein. He had used weapons of mass destruction, and it's clear that he was hell-bent on acquiring them.
To prevent Americans from learning more about George Bush’s decision to go to war, McCain
voted against the creation of an independent commission to investigate how the use of intelligence by the Bush administration led us into war.
He has demonized those who criticize the war, with statements such as “I believe to set a date for withdrawal is to set a date for surrender” and by calling those who opposed the surge
intellectually dishonest.
And most ludicrous of all, he put on
a big charade to convince the American people of how safe we have made Iraq:
He (McCain) says one sign of progress is that the Republican congressional delegation he's leading was able to drive from Baghdad's airport to the city center, rather than taking a helicopter as prominent visitors normally do. McCain told reporters there are many other signs of progress…
The only problem with McCain’s claim of safety in Baghdad is that he forgot to mention that while doing his little tour he was wearing a bullet proof vest and accompanied by U.S. military air and ground support. So much for “Mr. Integrity”!
McCain’s failure to support our soldiersOne would think that with all his support for war that McCain would also show some support for our soldiers who fight in the war. Yet, just the opposite is true:
McCain was part of a large block of Republican Senators who repeatedly blocked the passage of Veterans’ health care bills. This is what
House Democrats had to say about this issue:
America's veterans fought for our freedom overseas. They shouldn't have to fight the government to get the benefits they deserve. But the Veterans Administration (VA) health care system is perennially under funded. Democrats believe that our troops should be taken care of when we send them into battle and that they should be given the respect they have earned when we bring them home.
Right now, more than 30,000 veterans are waiting six months or more for an appointment at VA hospitals. Last year, Democrats proposed to increase funding for the VA by $1.8 billion and to require the VA to pay veterans $500 a month when their claims have been left pending for more than 6 months. In contrast, last year, Republicans broke their promise to increase veterans' health care by $1.8 billion. This year, the President's budget fails to provide enough current services for veterans' health care and about $3 billion less than veterans' organizations agree is needed for their health care.
Then, when a $430 million emergency supplemental bill for veterans’ health care finally passed the Senate, McCain was
one of 13 U.S. Senators to vote against the measure.
And McCain also
voted against requiring mandatory minimum downtime for our troops between tours of duty.
McCain’s position on war during a McCain presidencyMcCain has made it quite clear that it is highly unlikely we will withdraw from Iraq during a McCain presidency. One point of evidence for that is that he has
consistently opposed any plan for the withdrawal of troops from Iraq.
McCain has taken some heat for saying that he thinks
we should stay in Iraq for a hundred or even maybe a million years. He says that
it is disingenuous to attack him for that because his comment referred only to the conditional situation in which Americans are not being killed.
But that defense is only minimally valid. McCain has made it clear that he thinks we should never leave Iraq until we have “won”. And he has
finally admitted that (should that event ever occur) it is likely to be a very long time:
This is going to be a long conflict. And we’re going to fight for a long time in Afghanistan. Because the Taliban is not going away. And we’re going to be in Iraq for a long time… My friends, it’s long and it’s hard and it’s tough and you’ve still got the Iranians exporting these explosive devices into Iraq which is killing brave, young Americans
The question of McCain saying that we’ll be there for a hundred or a million years is not really important (except that it shows how unbalanced the man is). McCain will be long dead by the time another 100 years has gone by. But it is quite clear that if McCain is elected President we will be fighting in Iraq at least for the duration of his Presidency.
And then there’s the question of extension of war to Iran. Few have shown as much belligerence to Iran, or as much willingness to use nuclear weapons against them as McCain has. He has repeatedly lied to the American people
that Iran harbors al Qaeda. Our national news media refers to such statements as “gaffes”. But they are not gaffes. They are lies. If they were truly gaffes he wouldn’t continually repeat them, despite
being corrected about his “mis-statements”. The truth is that McCain does everything he can to paint Iran as a grave danger to the American people – just as he did with Iraq.
His feelings on the matter couldn’t have been clearer when, in response to a question at a press conference,
McCain began singing “Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran” to the tune of the Beach Boys’ “Barbara Ann”. A press spokesman later
explained McCain’s odd behavior by saying that McCain “was just trying to add a littler humor to the event”. If that’s McCain’s idea of humor, our country is in for some real hard times if he becomes President.
McCain’s stand on war in generalIt’s not just Iraq and Iran. John McCain is one of our nation’s foremost war hawks, on virtually any issue of war and peace. An article by Matthew Yglesias in
The American Prospect, titled “
The Militarist – When it Comes to Foreign Policy, John McCain is More Bush than Bush”, sums up McCain’s views on war:
Having previously positioned himself on the extreme hawk side of debates over the Korean peninsula and Iraq, he secured the trifecta by assuming the same position on the Balkan situation. In all three cases, McCain rejected as inadequate outcomes that avoided open-ended warfare by settling for something short of regime change….
But despite McCain's loss in 2000, the strategic concepts he outlined back in 1999 came to be at the core of what we today term the Bush doctrine. Most significant is the emphasis on preventive war as a tool of policy. As outlined in McCain's disquisition on North Korea, the fact that some state does not, in fact, pose an imminent threat to the United States is no reason to refrain from attacking it. On the contrary, the fact that a state is non-threatening is a reason to attack it as soon as possible, lest it become more powerful over time. In Bush's hands, this concept has led not only to the fiasco in Iraq…
McCain has pushed this doctrine longer, harder, and more consistently than has Bush. In the spring of 2002, when the Bush administration was still formally committed to reinvigorating the inspections process in Iraq, McCain was planted firmly on the administration's right flank, offering a strident call for regime change in Baghdad….
Thus, John McCain advocates an extreme form of American imperialism, where preventive war against any nation that we believe to represent a
future threat to us forms the core of his foreign policy.
George Bush has essentially deleted from American foreign policy anything having to do with the Geneva Conventions, the United Nations Charter, or international law in general. John McCain, if elected President, will solidify that condition, continuing our course as an outlaw nation embarked on an imperial course that can only end in disaster.
Yet he says that his energy policy will prevent the necessity for any future wars – at least in the Middle East.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
