No, I don't think he is, even though he has just endorsed Bush's surge.
I thought that McCain's support of Bush's policy in Iraq might actually be fatal to his presidential bid. He can't do any more damage there... BUT he can try to turn it into a strength. One of Hilary's big problems is her previous support for the war. She could stand by her vote to keep from looking like Kerry, but it's not clear how profitable that will make her with her party.
It's different with McCain. Standing firm on the war for him might just strengthen his base enough to win him the Republican primaries.
Some might be surprised to know that I have never been sure what to make of this surge. I don't trust Bush's foreign policy or military judgment any further than I can throw him. But I'm not sure that setting timetables for withdrawal is the right tactic either.
Long and short--I think McCain would be an infinitely better president than Bush. I don't think he would have gone to war with Iraq, if he had been in the hot seat at the time. And I think that regardless of what he might feel he has to say at this point of the game.
1 comment:
Although I voted for him before McCain is a big disappointment to me now. In 2000 he was the maverick with the moderate views, but now he panders to the same extremists who once rejected him. I wonder if his support for the escalation is a political gamble. If further military action leads to a victory then he has a solid issue to run on, an issue that sets him apart from the other contenders. But if it fails...
As for the escalation itself, it might make sense if the administration:
- demonstrated competence in waging war;
- sought to unify the American people and both parties, with honesty and sacrifice; and
- pursued international diplomacy to reach a political solution to accompany military victory
But as things stand there is little hope that the Bush administration is capable of a victory that leads to lasting peace, regardless of schedule or budget. I don't think that timetables are particularly good either, but they are better than any other viable option. And it bugs me when Bush complains that the funding resolution proposed by House Democrats means defeat, when what he really means is that, as commander in chief, HE cannot achieve sufficient progress towards victory. After four years of war and hundreds of billions of dollars, not to mention the lives of thousands of American soldiers and many more innocent Iraqis, we deserve more assurance than another plea for "just one more chance".
The Christian scriptures carry strong, clear messages for peace and truth. President Bush may have a strong personal faith, but his actions do not bear witness to the living Christ.
Post a Comment