As is well known, the Senate Select Committee last week issued a long-awaited report which found that President Bush and VP Cheney exaggerated and misrepresented intelligence information about WMD in Iraq, to fire up America's war on Iraq.
Some commentators have called for Bush and Cheney's impeachment.
That would indeed be justified - not only because of the deception, but the fundamental unconstitutionality of an undeclared war - but I'm wondering what John McCain's response is to all of this.
He says he opposes the way the war was waged, at first.
Does he also oppose the way the war was gotten into, via a President and Vice President deliberately misrepresenting facts to the American people?
Would McCain be in favor of Bush and Cheney's impeachment? If not, why not? Is it ok in his book to go to war based on lies?
The media should press McCain on this point.
4 comments:
trying to make McCain bush the third will not give your golden boy the election. If you want to be intellectually honest you have to admit that McCain is the polar opposite republican that Bush became. Otherwise your just an Obama Mesiah kool aid drinker ...
McCain the "polar opposite" of Bush? Then how come he supports staying in Iraq, and now supports Bush's economic policies?
And here's a free tip for you: try not to be insulting. Such nastiness usually correlates with a lack of rational argument.
McCain is being misleding when he says he opposed the ineffective way the war was fought at first. He supported going in (1)with too few troops on the tragically wrong premise that (2) we would be greeted as liberators.
on (1):
"I think we could go in with much smaller numbers than we had to do in the past. But any military man worth his salt is going to have to prepare for any contingency, but I don't believe it's going to be nearly the size and scope that it was in 1991." John McCain, September 15, 2002.
on (2):
"There's no doubt in my mind that we will prevail and there's no doubt in my mind, once these people are gone, that we will be welcomed as liberators."
John McCain, March 24, 2003.
This is the great man of military experience and wisdom? No thanks.
TO Anon: On John McCain not being Bush the 3rd . . .
You could make that argument for John McCain circa 2000. Eight year ago McCain was a true maverick on the free-wheeling Straight Talk Express. But the 2008 John McCain has done a 180 on himself. He's smart to cling to his old image (it plays better than the raggedly, soiled Republican brand) but the reality is that McCain has gone against his true nature on various fronts: immigration, catering to the religious right, torture & Gitmo, Iraq (we'll be there for 100 years and lately has recoiled to a 'by 2013 we might start bringing troops home' ... my head is spinning) , lobbyists are now prominent in his campaign, etc. I say that John has realized (it took him a while to wise up - the guy is in his 70s) that he needs to compromise values and principles to get to the ultimate prize, the White House.
John McCain is almost unrecognizable from his 2000 political picture (he seems to be channelling John Kerry in the flip-flop department). Here's the clincher: in 2007, McCain as a senator voted the Bush agenda 90% of the time. That's on the record. You can't sugarcoat it, spin it, refute it. Just look it up.
/jimy_max
Post a Comment