Chuck Hagel is upset with McCain...

[GO CATS]

What exactly do you mean when you say maverick? Someone who crosses political boundaries?

 

Yes.

[Hatz]

Americans generally do not oppose war - they oppose losing wars. It is getting increasingly difficult for Obama and other liberals to convince voters that things we are losing the war or that Democrats would quickly withdraw from Iraq as they have promised.

 

I would go one further and say that we have a trouble with protracted wars and conflicts. This is particularly true in the 20th century. Vietnam was not as much about the ground war but the portracted involvement that seemed never ending and constant. Had we stayed as occupiers after the Persian Gulf War of '91 I think public opinion would have probably turned then as well.

[AcesFull]

I would go one further and say that we have a trouble with protracted wars and conflicts. This is particularly true in the 20th century. Vietnam was not as much about the ground war but the portracted involvement that seemed never ending and constant. Had we stayed as occupiers after the Persian Gulf War of '91 I think public opinion would have probably turned then as well.

I agree. The Vietnam War might have turned out much differently if JFK had not been assassinated. Wartime presidents need leadership skills to rally public opinion behind the troops and they need to use those skills effectively.

 

That has been GWB's biggest shortcoming IMO. Al Qaeda in Iraq is being destroyed and relatively few voters will ever know.

[cch5432]

Yes.

 

IMO McCain falls on the left on the issues of immigration, gay rights, and the McCain-Feighnhold act, as well as some others. And back in 2000 he criticized religious leaders, calling them "agents of intolerance"

 

Certainly more of a maverick than the far-left Obama and Hilary. (Not that I really like him being a maverick, I'd prefer he would be on the right).

[The Professor]

Maybe I am missing something....is Hagel is a minister? I thought he was a Senator.

 

Anyways, he wouldn't mind running as the Democratic VP, so I guess it is good for McCain to disassociate himself, if he wants to get conservatives to vote for him. Then again, having an anti-war person on the ticket could get some votes, but I doubt it.

I'm sorry. I mistook this thread for the one about the recent one with John Hagee. I didn't read the link (which I should have). My mistake.

[H]

That has been GWB's biggest shortcoming IMO. Al Qaeda in Iraq is being destroyed and relatively few voters will ever know.

 

 

It's a good thing for the Republicans that few voters will ever know--as a result of their "leadership", it has taken five years, 4,000+ lives, and half a trillion dollars to get us close to the point where we were before we started the war--no al Qaeda threat in Iraq.

[leatherneck]

Simple statements of fact: 1) A sizable majority of the American public is against the Iraq War and 2) The war has come to define the Bush presidency. Regardless of McCain's other policy departures from Bush, his stubborn insistence on continuing the war ad infinitum (and clearly ignoring the wishes of the American people, a la Bush), renders him an easy target for the "third Bush term" tagline.

 

 

I agree the tagline will be effective for those Americans that are either too stupid, too close minded or too lazy to not understand the considerable differences between McCain and Bush.

[H]

Americans generally do not oppose war - they oppose losing wars. It is getting increasingly difficult for Obama and other liberals to convince voters that things we are losing the war or that Democrats would quickly withdraw from Iraq as they have promised.

 

 

I didn't say Americans oppose war in general. I said they clearly oppose the Iraq war and have for several years now. I say that it will be increasingly difficult to convince voters that the party that led the country into this morass (and to this day refuses to admit the mistake) has the sense to extricate our forces from the mess Bush made. McCain the the Republicans in general will ride the issue of staying in Iraq until they decide they are tired of losing elections.

 

As for the promise of a quick withdrawal, I believe the American public is reasonable enough to recognize that a commitment to end our involvement in Iraq (even if the process is long and arduous) is infinitely better than the tired "stay the course" rhetoric they have been getting from obstinate Republicans.

[75center]

It's a good thing for the Republicans that few voters will ever know--as a result of their "leadership", it has taken five years, 4,000+ lives, and half a trillion dollars to get us close to the point where we were before we started the war--no al Qaeda threat in Iraq.

 

 

And no attacks on US soil either as al Qaeda has been tied up in Iraq. What is that worth in dollars in lives? I truly don't know the answer and I don't believe anyone else does either.

[H]

And no attacks on US soil either as al Qaeda has been tied up in Iraq. What is that worth in dollars in lives? I truly don't know the answer and I don't believe anyone else does either.

 

Many ways to respond to these remarks.

 

First and foremost, there is no evidence of causality between our invasion of Iraq and the lack of attacks on U.S. soil. There have certainly been numerous attempts at domestic terrorism since 9/11 that were thwarted by federal law enforcement. If we are indeed "fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here", why are we still fighting them over here? That line of reasoning has never made sense--given the choice of engaging heavily-armed U.S. military in a war zone or terrorizing the U.S. homeland directly, why would they choose the former?

 

Second, we could have tied up al Qaeda in Afghanistan for a lot less blood and treasure and would have had the resources to successfully prosecute it to its conclusion. We created the situation in Iraq--it did not exist before we started the war. Consult your World War II history books on the wisdom of starting a two front war (look under "Germany").

 

Third, if we rationalize bankrupting our country, in the belief that we are saving lives and that any expenditure is justified, we have played right into the terrorists hands.

[AcesFull]

It's a good thing for the Republicans that few voters will ever know--as a result of their "leadership", it has taken five years, 4,000+ lives, and half a trillion dollars to get us close to the point where we were before we started the war--no al Qaeda threat in Iraq.

Al Qaeda decided to engage US troops in Iraq because we chose the battleground. They came, they saw, they lost - just as they lost in Afghanistan. Liberals seem determined to find defeat in the midst of a victory, but it is getting harder all the time. I remember the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, when most of us wondered which building would be targeted next.

 

I am thankful for the anti-terror efforts that have made this country safer, including our military's efforts in Iraq.

 

A dead Al Qaeda terrorist is a good Al Qaeda terrorist, no matter where the battleground on which they draw their last breath is located.

[75center]

Many ways to respond to these remarks.

 

First and foremost, there is no evidence of causality between our invasion of Iraq and the lack of attacks on U.S. soil. There have certainly been numerous attempts at domestic terrorism since 9/11 that were thwarted by federal law enforcement. If we are indeed "fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here", why are we still fighting them over here? That line of reasoning has never made sense--given the choice of engaging heavily-armed U.S. military in a war zone or terrorizing the U.S. homeland directly, why would they choose the former?

 

Second, we could have tied up al Qaeda in Afghanistan for a lot less blood and treasure and would have had the resources to successfully prosecute it to its conclusion. We created the situation in Iraq--it did not exist before we started the war. Consult your World War II history books on the wisdom of starting a two front war (look under "Germany").

 

Third, if we rationalize bankrupting our country, in the belief that we are saving lives and that any expenditure is justified, we have played right into the terrorists hands.[/quote

 

Of course there's no proof that fighting them over there has prevented an attack here but it is very logical that tying up their resources has led to that fact. If I recall correctly there was some type of communication from their leadership alluding to that very thing. The FACT remains that there has been no attack and I do not believe that is coincidence.

 

We are not WW 2 Germany. In fact WE have already fought a war on multiple fronts in the past, we just didn't start them. How is that different?

 

We are not bankrupting our country. Not even close.

[75center]

Al Qaeda decided to engage US troops in Iraq because we chose the battleground. They came, they saw, they lost - just as they lost in Afghanistan. Liberals seem determined to find defeat in the midst of a victory, but it is getting harder all the time. I remember the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, when most of us wondered which building would be targeted next.

 

I am thankful for the anti-terror efforts that have made this country safer, including our military's efforts in Iraq.

 

A dead Al Qaeda terrorist is a good Al Qaeda terrorist, no matter where the battleground on which they draw their last breath is located.

 

Good to know that some people get it.

[Pancake]

I agree the tagline will be effective for those Americans that are either too stupid, too close minded or too lazy to not understand the considerable differences between McCain and Bush.

 

Spoken like a true republican...

[shooter]

Spoken like a true republican...

 

Should I interpret your response to mean that there is no difference between Bush and McCain on the Iraq War?