Tuesday, February 05, 2008
|
|
The Unsound Knock on McCain's Security Creds (Updated)
|
|
Posted by:
Mary Katharine Ham at
12:00 PM
|
I love El Rushbo as much as the next conservative, but he appears to be going the Coulter route on national security, though he's a bit more reasonable about it:
On Mr. Limbaugh's program today, he said people should not be rushing to back Mr. McCain over issues of national security. The talk host said America's direction in Iraq would not be substantially different, even if Mrs. Clinton or Mr. Obama were elected. "They are not going to surrender the country to Islamic radicalism or the war in Iraq," Mr. Limbaugh said after mentioning the two Democratic senators by name. "They are not going to do that to themselves, despite what their base says." "The idea that we've only got one person in this whole roster of candidates, either party, who is willing to take on the war on terror is frankly, absurd," Mr. Limbaugh said.
The idea that a conservative who cares about the War on Terror and national security first, and calculates that Mitt can't win a general, gains nothing over Hillary and Obama by voting McCain in absurd. No matter what you think of him, McCain is very good on the war. He's not only committed to winning it, but he pairs a clear understanding of how dangerous the enemy is with a willingness to sacrifice his own aspirations to defeating that enemy. You show me a Democrat who boasts the same.
He also gets credit for being not only committed but, you know, right about the surge. And, the credit he's gotten for being right about the surge on top of his naturally positive relationship with the press could potentially be helpful to the war effort in general. If you've ever wished that Bush had been better at communicating his vision, taking the case for the war to the people, and building support, McCain's not a bad choice for doing just that. Rush often complains about being taken out-of-context, so I'll look for a transcript or recording, but I'm beginning to hear this general argument from a few conservatives. Knock McCain for his laundry list of misdeeds, but I don't get this particular attack.
Update: Obama, of course, has made it perfectly clear that he'll do everything he can to squander any gains made in Iraq over the last year by pulling out precipitously. And, unlike Hillary, he's probably actually sincere about that promise.
Update: Here's the full Rush quote (Thanks, Steve!), which was truncated by the source Michael Goldfarb was relying on:
RUSH: You know, ladies and gentlemen, I'm going to apologize here up front because reacting to this is going to require me to be repetitive. I like to bring originality to this program, but I guess the repetition is called for. You know, Senator McCain may be conservative on one thing or two things: the war on terror, the struggle against radical Islamic extremism. See, I happen to believe, ladies and gentlemen, that if the Democrats win the White House, they are not going to surrender the country to Islamic radicalism or the war in Iraq. They are not going to do that to themselves, despite what their base says. I do not believe the notion that there's only one candidate on any side of the aisle here that cares about the war on terror. I know that Huckabee may not be prepared for it, but you can't convince me that Romney is going to punt the war on terror. The idea that we've only got one person in this whole roster of candidates, either party, that is willing to take on the war on terror is frankly absurd. So, he's talking more about the idea that we don't absolutely have to settle for McCain to cover national security, not so much the idea that McCain and Dems are equivalent. He's right, especially about Mitt, but I think the idea that the Dems wouldn't punt the War on Terror is a bridge too far.
|
|
Deroy Murdock's smear piece against Romney: Deroy lied.
Murdock did NOT use the whole quote:
"I was not planning on signing up for the military," he said. "It was not my desire to go off and serve in Vietnam, but nor did I take any actions to remove myself from the pool of young men who were eligible for the draft. If drafted, I would have been happy to serve, and if I didn't get drafted I was happy to be with my wife and new child."
CHECK OUT MY BLOG FOR A REBUTTAL TO EVERY ANTI-ROMNEY SMEAR |
|
|
really don't care about "the party". We are primed for a fight and to vote for McCain would be like going for a 90-yard field goal trailing by 4 with 1 second left in the game. We have plenty of conservative Republican congressmen who will be prepared to fight for our principles from day one of any Democratic administration. To elect a Republican democrat would take the teeth out of the conservatism movement by forcing these congressmen to "play ball" with the party until they get stabbed in the back again as McCain keeps reaching across the aisle to ensure Democratic victories. It is absolutely essential to either win with a conservative or lose strong with enough energy to keep up the fight the day after the election. You have to make up your mind today if your precious party has a soul. Conservatives are the soul of the party, not the liberal country club Rockefeller bobbleheads. |
|
You simply CANNOT have national security if you will not defend your own borders or enforce your own laws. Foreign nationals numbering in the thousands are entering our country at will daily. John McCain has done and will do NOTHING to stop it. Don't believe me? Ask Juan Hernandez!
|
|
When I heard McCain's Hispanic Outreach guy was none other than Smiling Juan Hernandez, I knew John McCain has heard nothing we have had to say.
Smiling Juan Hernadez
We know who he is, we know his loyalties are to Mexico, we know he wants to erase our borders and immigration laws.
JOHN MCCAIN, YOU NEED A NEW HEARING AID
Smiling Juan Hernandez
In case you don't know him, he used to work for the Mexican govt., lately he has been shilling for "rights" for illegal aliens in this country. He has said he wants Mexicans to remain Mexicans even if they are living here. His loyalties are to Mexico, not U.S.
|
|
He is assuming that, when push does come to shove, either Clinton or Obama will step back from the abyss that is retreat-and-defeat. He may well be right with regard to Clinton; however, I strongly believe he is wrong with regard to Obama.
As for McCain, my personal calculus is whether he will defeat every last Islamist group in his 4 years (I highly doubt he's a 2-termer), and if so, whether that will be worth the solidification of liberalism's power for the rest of my lifetime. Given that he wrongly believes that the Islamists will obey the Geneva Conventions if only we didn't pour any water on their heads, and given whatever coattails he has will be on the left side of his jacket, I can't even answer the first half in the positive. |
|
The Anchoress defends McCain:
There has been some really shameful demagoguery against McCain from people who ordinarily would show some respect for a man who spent 6 years in a VietCong POW camp, too, which to my way of thinking says many more negative things about the sign-holders and aspersion-casters than it does about McCain.
UPDATE: Here is an except from ... the statement of a fellow POW of McCain’s who does not support him politically:
A friend, whom I know to be reliable, was across the hall and one door down, from McCain’s cell when McCain was first captured. He has told me that he saw Communist officers enter the cell where the wounded John McCain lay, incapacitated. He heard them offer McCain early release and heard John answer that he would go home when we all go home. He heard the voices of the officers rising until they were shouting angrily at McCain and threatening him. This was followed by screams of agony from John McCain, and a stream of obscenities from him. He could not see what they did to him and I never heard from John McCain what it was. This does not sound like a collaborator.
The man has a son in Iraq and one at Annapolis - he is undoubtedly a Patriot. To call him a “Benedict Arnold” as these people do is disgusting and out-of-line. It is, more than anything, what I find disturbing about the excesses of the far-right. - End Update
http://www.stephenbainbridge.com/punditry/comments/judging_ a_man_by_his_enemies/
http://theanchoressonline.com/2008/02/04/convince-me-of-the -merits-of-mitt/
The over the top attacks of McCain are disgraceful. Anyone who does this is no better than those individuals who attack Mitt's faith and the LDS Church. I know many of you do not do this (you just support Mitt and is ok to support your candidate), but some of you do cross this line and should be ashamed of yourselves. It needs to stop. |
|
|
Seems something of an oxymoron to proclaim war on an elusive, nomadic enemy while leaving unmonitored a 2,000 long backdoor into your nation. But if elected McCain would work an amnesty-for-military-service angle. |
|
Steriod John cannot claim to be the expert on Foreign Policy. It changes daily, hourly and minute by minute round the world, especially in the Middle East. Iraq and Afghanistan will be in the international picture long after the next generation of military warriors are born. Germany? Korea? Balkans?
Steriod John lying and losing his charm!
http://youtube.com/watch?v=-CazKanlYDg
Documented truths about McCain's Hanoi Hilton coverup! http://eclipptv.com/viewVideo.php?video_id=954&title=John_ McCain_in__quot_Missing__Presumed_Dead_quot _ http://eclipptv.com/viewVideo.php?video_id=956&title=Vietn am_Veterans_Against_McCain&vpkey=62acaf320c
McCain's very disturbing journey after the Hanoi Hilton.
http://www.usvetdsp.com/mcaindiv.html
Steriod John caught lying about Bush tax cuts.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ioy90nF2anI
John McCain meets Tim Russert on Meet The Press.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ajm5JTf7jZs&feature=related
Juan Hernandez, Mexico's Minister of Illegal Aliens. McCain's DHS Sec.? http://www.diggersrealm.com/mt/archives/002666.html
Another Hispanic, Geraldo Rivera endorses McCain.
http://www.diggersrealm.com/mt/archives/002680.html
The astounding costs of ILLEGAL ALIENS to American taxpayers!http://www.usillegalaliens.com/
Honest John trying to dodge his McCain/Kennedy Amnesty Bill.
http://www.diggersrealm.com/mt/archives/002668.html
Honest John gets caught by Club for Growth.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OlJw_by290s&feature=related
Mexico's TEXAS Senator.
http://www.diggersrealm.com/mt/archives/002673.html |
|
MKH, I'm not 100% convinced that McCain will be all that good on the war. First, I don't equate war hero with good on the war. Second, his past war experience actually concerns me in context with all that I've heard from him. McCain sounds to me like he'll micromanage every aspect of the war from Washington, believing that he is smarter than all the people on the ground and the commanders. Bush let the military run the war, leading them as a good commander in chief should. I don't think McCain will do that.
The argument to allow Hillary to win over McCain is based more on the concept of not allow the Republican party to be taken over by liberals, which I agree with Rush, will happen if McCain wins. I'd rather show liberal/moderate conservatives that McCain types cannot win. Then we band together and we shut down Hillary. I think she'll fail miserably and get no more done than the last "first lady" got done (Pelosi). |
|
Give me about an hour on that. The local Limbaugh affiliate has him on an hour delay, so I'll be able to record that for you. I think the setup and settings are better than they were in October.
I guess I should also clarify the "may well be right with regard to Clinton" remark. She is the less-polished image of her husband, and as such, will do whatever is best for Hillary Clinton. If she determines that it is in her personal best interest, not only will we not pull out of Iraq, but the missiles will fly into Iran. Of course, the flip side is also equally-true. If she determines that it is in her personal best interest, she'll offer terms of America's official surrender to Al Qaeda.
The question is, which Hillary Clinton will we get when it matters? I have no idea. |
|
McCain isn't that great on the war outside of the surge strategy in Iraq. THE MAN WANTS TO CLOSE DOWN GITMO!!! Call his national office and see what they say about his position. Here is the response my friend got: "When I called his national office I asked why and what was he going to do with the suspected terrorists. The answer I received really bothered me. I was told that since there was no due process for them they should be released. I asked how McCain who claims to want to limit government spending could spend millions of dollars having court trials. I received no answer. I then was told there are children in those prisons. I asked if that meant that there were no terrorists under the age of 18. Again they could not answer me. I then asked again why they should be released and was told because they were only "suspected terrorists" that were rounded up by our military. I asked what was meant by that and received the answer that our military might have been over eager in the round-ups and some of these suspected terrorists could have actually been tortured by our CIA and military. We then moved on to a discussion of water-boarding and the response I was given was that I should be tortured because then I would see how easy it was to give the interrogators any facts they wanted. My response was that I don't consider myself a terroist who kills the innocent and how could he explain verifiable information that led to us getting valuable information. I felt like I was talking to a Democrat instead of someone who Rudy endorsed."
This is not someone who is ***fully*** conservative on the war on terror. Good on Iraq, yes. On the war on terror? No, Rush is right we might as well have Clinton or Obama.
|
|
That was on yesterday's program. Since I'm no longer a Rush 24/7 member, I don't have access to the tape.
However, I found the transcript - http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_020408/content /01125108.guest.html.guest.html
Let's roll with the extended quote:
"You know, ladies and gentlemen, I'm going to apologize here up front because reacting to this is going to require me to be repetitive. I like to bring originality to this program, but I guess the repetition is called for. You know, Senator McCain may be conservative on one thing or two things: the war on terror, the struggle against radical Islamic extremism. See, I happen to believe, ladies and gentlemen, that if the Democrats win the White House, they are not going to surrender the country to Islamic radicalism or the war in Iraq. They are not going to do that to themselves, despite what their base says. I do not believe the notion that there's only one candidate on any side of the aisle here that cares about the war on terror. I know that Huckabee may not be prepared for it, but you can't convince me that Romney is going to punt the war on terror. The idea that we've only got one person in this whole roster of candidates, either party, that is willing to take on the war on terror is frankly absurd." |
|
|
Once again you have the most rational analysis. I'll vote for Romney or McCain. The backlash against McCain reminds me the libs who were disenchanted with Gore and voted for Nader. It's certainly their right, but it lacks (in my mind) political realism. The disagreements with McCain are real and driven by issues. But the tone of the disagreements sounds more personal. |
|
Big difference. So McCain won the bet that we couldn't win with a small footprint...does any rational person believe he is right about:
1. The importance of extracting information from terrorists
2. US sovereignty
3. Border security
4. guantanamo
5. ANWR
6. Taxes
Every one of these issues is vital to our national security, but McCain doesn't get it. Like Dr. Bennett, I could never vote for John McCain. |
|
|
|
I'm sick of people saying to take it easy on Non-Republicans who are running as Republicans in the Republican primaries!
That's what this process is all about!
Keep giving McShame hell, Rush!
CasualConservative.com
|
|
IF McShame gets the nomination we (including Rush) will have to decide whether we'll hold our noses, or stay home. I can tell you this; McShame won't get ANY MONEY from the regular folks!
Instead of going after Rush, Mary should try to get McShame on the record and talk about the issue (War on Terror) and defend his ideas of closing Gitmo, and stopping tough interrogation tactics of terrorists, not defending the borders, etc.
He won't go on any shows with opposing viewpoints...which is another example of how he's just like Hillary!
CasualConservative.com
|
|
Most of the hijackers overstayed their visas.
Immigration is the key issue to national security. Blanket Amnesty/de facto amnesty would create a system that would not properly vet illegals. (see problems with the z visa.). It is unworkable. See Cato's post for all the other problems with McCain's national security policies. |
|
|
One of my concerns (thought it isn't a popular topic) is Romney's record on appointing judges. This is a big one. McCain has been criticized for not being strong enough on this issue. But he did vote for Alito and Roberts. Romney bypassed several conservatives and made appointment that I can't believe conservatives would agree with. |
|
|
Of course, but Hillary and Obama aren't going to throw a war that everyone understands is largely going our way. Trying to paint McCain as our only hope in these matters is disingenuous. |
|
"I think the idea that the Dems wouldn't punt the War on Terror is a bridge too far."
Is it? How many of them voted for the war? How many voted to fund it over and over? How many voted for the Patriot Act (and again to extend it)? How many voted to give retroactive immunity to telecoms for illegal wiretapping assistance?
The Democrats more terrified of appearing weak on terrorism than they are of appearing weak against Republicans. I don't think a Democratic President changes that.
People, generally, think of the war like this: they think it's going poorly, but they want to win. Their sense of loyalty and pride requires that they think winning is an inevitability. But because it doesn't match what's happening, they place a date for winning at 12-24 months. The vast majority of Americans want us out of Iraq within two years. So what happens in two years? Do all those people start demanding that we withdraw? No, because then they'd be "giving up." So they'll punt it for another two years. And as long as this mentality dominates, Democrats aren't going to grow the gonads to get us out of there. Ergo Rush's comments. |
|
|
|