Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
DOES JOHN MCCAIN HATE WAR?
We can learn two things from John McCain's major foreign policy address. First, John McCain has a good speechwriter. Second, the McCain campaign is very, very concerned about the impact of his call for a 100-year occupation of Iraq.
That's what accounts for the first section, which reads like a Santa Cruz flower child's brief on why she, like, hates war, man. "I detest war," intoned McCain. "It might not be the worst thing to befall human beings, but it is wretched beyond all description. When nations seek to resolve their differences by force of arms, a million tragedies ensue. The lives of a nation's finest patriots are sacrificed. Innocent people suffer and die." And, similarly, the speech ends, "I hold my position because I hate war, and I know very well and very personally how grievous its wages are."
But if the mark against Obama is that he's all words and no record, McCain is a whole lot of record that he's trying to paper over with words. McCain may hate war, but like your buddy who professes to hate his ex-girlfriend, he sure does fall back into its arms a lot. He supported the grievously misguided war in Iraq, continually advocates its escalation, and professes comfort with a literally endless occupation. He wanted ground troops in Kosovo and an attack on North Korea. And however much he proclaims his hatred of war, his dip into song -- "bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran..." -- certainly wasn't a somber treatment of life's most detestable outcome. At a moment of high tensions with Iran, asked whether he would support a catastrophic war with a major Middle Eastern nation based on fearmongering about their nuclear ambitions that turned out to be false, McCain not only agreed that he would, but he broke into song over the idea.
McCain may say he "hates" war. But that's different than having an aversion, or even a reluctance, to go to war. As it is, what McCain has is a statesman's political persona and crazed hawk's policy positions. And that's, if anything, more dangerous.
COMMENTS (8)
With no immediate and solid threat to the US except our own hubris killing our people and draining our strength, he goes around saying there will be "more wars." Yeah, he detests war.
Posted by: John McCain: More of the Same | March 27, 2008 11:33 AM
Ezra,
The 'ex-girlfriend' analogy works well; run with it. He remembers, when he is calm and reflective, the bad parts and hates it then. However, when his temper is up, the pressure on, the adrenaline rushing, he remembers the exciting or good times, and he just can't resist 'making a booty call' or rejecting said 'booty call'.
Posted by: William Smith | March 27, 2008 11:37 AM
This is the beginning of McCain's march to the middle. From here on out, he will be emphasizing his more moderate views and hiding some of the more extreme positions he took in the primaries. Not surprising.
Posted by: MarvyT | March 27, 2008 12:44 PM
Yup. McCain hates war the way Ted Haggard hates gay sex--can't be seen to condone it but can't seem find a way to live without it.
Posted by: jlw | March 27, 2008 4:53 PM
McCain sees himself as Churchhill, which means he needs a Hitler. And his Neville Chamberlain? Bill Clinton - whom he constantly accused not only of weakness and vacillation, but of putting his own political gain above the national interest.
Posted by: Asp | March 27, 2008 10:49 PM
Assp brought up Hitler, so don't blame me: War is not at all "life's most detestable outcome." As terrible as war certainly is, it is preferrable to letting the Holocaust happen or letting slavery continue in Dixie. If some of you folks had been prez during WWII, old Adolf would certainly have won. Then, after the guy had killed 30 million or so (including the 9.5 million European Jews), then you'd make a nice cozy agreement with the Fuehrer von Europa und Nordafrika. Then the Nazis would come after you too--and guess what? No one left to defend you and no more skirts left to hide behind.
PS: McAncient is no Churchill, that's for damned sure.
Posted by: Mail Call | March 28, 2008 3:53 AM
Hey, dumbass Roosevelt was a liberal. Why are righties so damn stupid?
Posted by: merlallen | March 28, 2008 7:46 AM
Maybe the iron rule by (mostly conservative) economists over our legislative, regulatory, and taxing policies - principally associated with Friedmanomics - is being to be challenged. Certainly the walls of the fortress are under attack, and the hot oil to pour on the attackers is running low.
Like war, which is too important to leave to the Generals, national and international policy is too important to leave to the economists. Viva la revolucion!
Posted by: wow powerleveling | July 18, 2008 2:38 AM