All About McCain

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Strangler Lewis

When both of you guys move to a state that's actually in play, then it will be a principled stand. You each have a possible worse outcome in mind between the two main candidates. Your principles are free riding on the efforts of others who make that outcome in your state unlikely.

This was actually rather thought provoking for me (not the usual just skip over want Strangler has to say ). You are indeed correct. I do have a possible worse outcome, but I think the victory of Obama is better in the long run for the conservative movement. I believe McCain will clearly be better in one area than Obama, being national defense, and that is the only reason I am not voting for Obama. I see Obama right out of the Jimmy Carter book of destroying the military, and in these times, that cannot be allowed to take place.

Convince me that Obama won't destroy our military capability, cut vital weapons programs, cut the size of our forces, or capitulate in the name of getting along.....and perhaps I'd vote for him. This is how far McCain has fallen in my view.

By the way, hell is still a very hot place, from what I understand, regardless of my last few posts, this one in particular.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

Convince me that Obama won't destroy our military capability, cut vital weapons programs, cut the size of our forces, or capitulate in the name of getting along.....and perhaps I'd vote for him. This is how far McCain has fallen in my view.

The case has been made, you choose not to believe the case. Biden made the case in the debate. Obama and the people who advise him have demonstrated time and again over the past decade that they understand the concept of consequences. They accurately predicted the result of the war in Iraq (sectarian violence, significant commitment and sacrifice on our part, and a bolstering of Al Quaeda in Afghanistan/Pakistan due to our resources being tied up elsewhere). Wheras McCain and those that advise him said it would be easy, that we could just ignore Afghanistan since we've already clearly won there, and that it would be a war against Al Quaeda.

So who's ideas have done more to weaken our military? The camp that seems to have a pretty good handle on where we should be fighting and what those fights might look like, or the camp that thinks war is a game that's won by running in as fast as you can and blowing sh*t up, who cares if you're actually fighting the right enemy, or if you're adequately prepared, or have any idea of what might be involved in running that war.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

The case has been made, you choose not to believe the case. Biden made the case in the debate.

Biden lied a few times regarding that as well (I can list them specifically if I need to). Obama was against the surge, poor judgement indeed. Biden was adament that Obama was not prepared to be commander in chief prior to joining the ticket. Politics then? Perhaps. But true nonetheless.

Weakening the military also includes cancelling weapons programs, which I don't believe McCain would do.

Choose not to believe them? Well, considering they are poorly presented arguments, yeah, I don't believe them.

[3894]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

Obama was against the surge, poor judgement indeed.

According to Bob Woodward's new book The War Within, so was the president's advisory committee, which included James Bakker, Lee Hamilton, Sandra Day O'Connor, some retired generals.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by 3894

According to Bob Woodward's new book The War Within, so was the president's advisory committee, which included James Bakker, Lee Hamilton, Sandra Day O'Connor, some retired generals.

Right (well I assume so. Bob Woodward isn't someone I necessarily take at his word, but that's another story). And Bush didn't support it either, for far too long a time. McCain, though my vote post still stands, got this exactly right and was pushing for a surge long before it happened.