McCain Wants to Start WWIII, Re-Institute Draft
June 26, 2008
Okay, so not really. But given the way some of McCain’s prior statements have been twisted, I can almost imagine the DNC running an attack ad based on that premise:
Only World War III would prompt Republican presidential candidate John McCain to bring back the military draft, McCain said on Tuesday.
Many Americans are fearful the U.S. government will be forced to reinstitute the draft given the prolonged Iraq and Afghanistan wars.
Asked about that possibility by a potential voter in Florida during a telephone “town hall meeting,” McCain said: “I don’t know what would make a draft happen unless we were in an all-out World War III.”
24 Comments
Comments are closed.
If George Will is correct and an Iranian invasion is all but inevitable with a McCain presidency, he just may get his WWIII.
McCain’s policy preferences, like Bush’s, reveal objectively a strong desire for war and other kinds of killing — whatever they might say
On a side note, how about the Supreme Court Catholic Conservative Quartet, in their dissent in yesterday’s ruling about the (un)constitutionality of capital punishment for non-murder crimes.
Shall we call them the new Doctors of Death?
Mark,
The four dissenting justices weren’t the only ones to disagree with the majority in that case. A certain presidential candidate has also stated his disagreement with the decision. (Hint: the candidate to which I refer is not John McCain).
BA,
You beat me this time!!!!
Mark,
Your man also supports the right of individuals to own guns:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/06/obama-camp-disa.html
Mark,
With all due respect to George Will and his thoughts on the Iranian invasion he did not exactly say where thr troops will be had for such a venture which makes all this kinda of mute
Unless Iran invades Iraq (so sort of have anyway) or drops the Bomb On Israel , or engages in direct action against the US there will be no Invasion
As to the Sumpre COurt case it should be noted that many people that are even against the concept of State executiuon find the Majority Opinion shoddy
I object in the strongest terms to the notion that McCain is somehow being mischaracterized for his “100 years in Iraq” statement. The issue is not that he desires anoethr 100 years war, but that he has no problem with a 100 year occupation by the US military of a Muslim country. Aside from the sheer illegitimacy and hubris of such an imperial action, why is he so keen to help Al Qaeda recuit many more generations of terrorists?
BA
Yes. It is very sad that he and McCain agree…And it’s maybe not just posturing…
with the Dem,,,
Unlike others here, I do not have a “man”, and I do not waste energy in defending what is wrong with the candidate I neverthelesss prudently weigh as the lesser of evils.
MM
Are we occuping Germany? Are we Occuyping South Korea?
We being that we were there I guess we are. But in the way the word is percieved by many we are not
I object in the strongest terms to the notion that McCain is somehow being mischaracterized for his “100 years in Iraq” statement. The issue is not that he desires anoethr 100 years war, but that he has no problem with a 100 year occupation by the US military of a Muslim country.
One may, of course, object to McCain’s actual position on Iraq. That doesn’t change the fact that the ad did not present his actual position.
JH:
The comparison is only apt if: (i) the US miltary felt free to ignore the Germans and South Korean governments, and to give soldiers and mercenaries total immunity, including for murder; (ii) the overwhelming majority wanted to get rid of the occupiers. If you deny the legitimacy of the Irqai people to take up arms against a foreign invader and occupier, then I assume as an American you regret the “war of independence” and yearn for the days of the British empire.
Mark,
Your logic is a bit suspicious. If we were to be invaded, why do you say that it would be McCain that gets us into WWIII? Wouldn’t have been the Iranian attack?
Oh, I think you are a bit biased, just not willing to admit it.
Blackadder: why is it inaccurate? The ad plays McCain’s words and shows images of carnage in Iraq. The implication is that McCain’s insistence on a permanent occupation will lead to more violence– a very likely event.
I find it hilarious that Republicans are outraged by this, when they built a whole system based on labeling and mispresenting their opponents by pouncing any any nuance whatsoever– look at how John Kerry’s statements were treated.
Dan,
Ha ha. I should have gone to the writing center first: “invasion of Iran”; not “Iranian invasion.
MM,
I think you will find the mispresentation of statements and the political systems and now the medai that does it is not exactly a Republican only thing. It has been with us forever.
It is just one of the occupational hazards
BA:
Obama and the majority yesterday both cite the rights of the States to pass laws in this area. While I do not believe in the death penalty, gun control, abortion, criminalization of recreational drugs, etc it is at the State and local levels where these laws should be made – as they were in the past. People should be able to decide there own community standards. It is much easier to make your desires and wishes known to your state legisator who lives down the street from you (and/or to vote him out of office) than to people who live and breath and think life revolves arround the beltway.
If there were only consistency in the applicaton of states rights – but everyone wants to federalize their pet issue so they can force their way of dealing with a problem down everyone elses throat.
jpf,
so the interpretation of “cruel and unusual punishment” , along with capital punishment, is a local “pet issue”?
That should be “Obama and the minority”. Of course today, the minoirty was the majority and stated that states and cities have no right to restrict gun ownership.
MM,
McCain is talkng about the future. What eveer happens as to American Forces in Iraq long term will be a result of a common agreement.
We have even seen even the Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani give indications that if the IRaq people approve that some arrangement was not out of the qqestion. This is why the Iraqi Govt is sending delegations to places like Korea and Germany to see how the that arrangement works.
Now it might happen and it might not. There needs to be a lot of water under the bridge for both sides to assess the benefits.
We shall soon see what the IRaqi people want in more clear detail. It appears their leaders are in no hurry for the US to leave at this point. See the interview of Iraq’s foreign minister that was in the United States just like week
Even the Washington Post is concerned about the mindset as to this possible development and is at a loss why people have it
GO see
A Partnership With Iraq
The Shiite government signals a desire for an alliance with the United States. Shouldn’t that be welcomed?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/14/AR2008061401448.html
Indeed!!!
Again a lot is still unknown. Much as to IRaqi wants will be shown when we have the new elections. Much will depend on a even a more dangerous Iran that mike try war to get their collapsing State out of peoples minds.
In the last few weeks the news has not been so much Mass Demostrations against US Troops or “Tribe America” t but against IRAN where two million Shia signed a petition asking IRAN to get the heck out of Iraq.
SOmething that is being accomplished with great success right now with Iraqi led troops backed up by the U.S.
What will happen in the years ahead is unknown. However it is wise to keep options open and keep dialouge with our Iraq allies
Mark:
It was a local issue before the court began interpreting the 14th Amendment in an expansive fashion – applying the Bill of Rights to the actions of the States instead of just the Federal government.
But, now we depart from the original post.
I find it hilarious that Republicans are outraged by this, when they built a whole system based on labeling and mispresenting their opponents by pouncing any any nuance whatsoever– look at how John Kerry’s statements were treated.
So lying about McCain is OK because other Republicans lied about Kerry?
Blackadder: why is it inaccurate? The ad plays McCain’s words and shows images of carnage in Iraq.
The ad portrays McCain as desiring American soldiers to stay in Iraq in the precise context (more violence) as to which McCain had EXPRESSLY disavowed wanting soldiers to stay in Iraq. A more blatant flat-out lie could hardly be imagined. An analogy would be, say, if Obama said, “I’m open to one-on-one negotiations with Iran, as long as Iran doesn’t hand off a nuclear weapon to terrorist groups,” and then Republicans produced an ad portraying Obama as actually HOPING to encourage a nuclear attack by Iran (the very thing he had disavowed).
why is it inaccurate?
Maybe because it cuts him off mid-sentence, for starters.
Two unrelated reasons to vote for McCain:
1. The eleventh commandment of Lord Obamessiah is: Thou shalt do nothing to lower the price of oil.
2. The lord Obamessaih would wreck the best health care system on earth.