Please vote John McCain out of office. McCain insists that Libya is a valid operation and that we should be involved even heavier with military force. McCain also insists that Iraq is a success, and that Afghanistan is following the same successful course. McCain patronizingly concedes that Americans are war-weary, but we simply don't understand the need for our armed forces in three Mid-East countries where nothing will change to our liking and everythinbg will unravel once we leave. No sir, I don't understand. Please explain.
Entries in McCain (13)
It amazes me the number of hawks on the Right. The tradition of the Right is non-intervention, but in the above link Ed Morrisey is making a case for staying in Iraq longer, and John McCain is urging more actions in Libya. Iraq will never be ready to institute the type of government which prevents dictatorship, and I'm not sure the people want anything but a strong interventionist type government, and in the Mid-East this has always meant the most ruthless gang of strong men. It's likely that Iran will control Iraq once we leave, whether we leave now or five years from now.
McCain visits Libya and in a day or two he's confident the rebels are "heroes", yet our own CIA has not reported back its findings on the rebels -- we've had intelligence, supposedly, on Libya for many years, but the CIA couldn't tell us what the rebels represent, good or bad, yet McCain visits a hospital and sees wounded rebels and tells us they are heroes. Bullshit. McCain doesn't know what would replace Qadaffi, but if history is any indicator, it will not be heroes for freedom. The New Right needs to take up the smart and noble cause of non-intervention -- the public is ready to not intervene, especially in the Mid-East. Bring the troops home now.
I can't tell you how diappointed I am in Marco Rubio's emergence as a John McCain/Lindsay Graham hawk. Rubio has more potential than anyone in the Senate but I can't support his foreign policy positions. Rubio can't say that America shouldn't interfere everywhere in the world then support our continued presence in Afghanistan and Iraq and our bombing in Libya. He's delusional if he thinks we can turn Afghanistan or Iraq or Libya into stable democracies which are anything different than "democratic" dressing for tyranny.
Rubio is right that America can have an influence in the world, but our military influence has been wrong-headed since WWI. I also want to be part of an exceptional America, but one that trades peacefully in economic freedom and becomes the model of non-intervention. It's past time to get over the idea of a void in the world if we don't send our military here and there overseas. We're all connected and space is not an issue. We can have all our troops home and still have a response plan to any emergency -- and we can also have international agreements that Europe and Asia will now defend themselves. We're not living in the Russian Bear world when military might was the macho thing -- it turns out that Stalin and subsequent leaders never had any real intentions of world dominance, just eastern Europe and a little here and there in other places, but they saw us as controlling the rest of the world, and in many ways we have -- now it's about economic freedom and efficiency. The best trader wins -- the most ballistic countries lose. Yes, there are still dangerous nations, and we should have the best intelligence and military possible, and we should stop any attack that threatens America, but we have to end futile and wasteful long-term engagements like Afghanistan and Iraq, and senseless "kinetic military action" like in Libya. Rubio should use his great mind to innovate in foreign relations, not follow the failed interventions of the past.
Meet the Press with David Greogory put on a good show this morning, and Gregory did a fairly good job of asking some tough questions, although in his interview with Scott Walker he fell into a liberal habit of asking the same question over and over to obfuscate the answer. Gregory asked Walker at least four times why Walker didn't just accept the union's agreement to contribute to their benefits and drop the restrictions on collective bargaining -- Walker answered each time that the system needs to change or the contributions will be temporary and the same budget problems will return. Gregory either couldn't fathom this reply or had no reasonable objection to it, so he just kept asking the question. Walker came off as calm and reasonable and determined to get the public union problem in his state under control so that lay-offs won't be necessary.
Gregory interviewed John McCain, who is in Cairo, Egypt, regarding the Egyptian situation, Libya and the Mid-East unrest. McCain was cautious when he talked about the progress in Egypt toward elections -- McCain gave the impression that the situation is up in the air, which probably means forces un-friendly to America are making progress in their attempt to gain political power. McCain proposed more US military involvement in Libya through a no-fly zone and military support for an alternative government, but stopping short of sending in American troops. McCain was asked about Secretary Gates comments that no president going forward should be advised to maintain military presence in Asia or the Mid-east. McCain, of course, said there are times we have to act and then justified Adghanistan, but the question unasked is if we have to stay there for a decade, and if so, why? What has been accomplished after the first two years?
The roundtable discussion was stacked to the Left, with Richard Trumka, Lawrence O'Donnell and Emanuel Cleaver, the representative who heads the Black Caucus, were there on the Left, and Kim Strassel, a WSJ person was there from the middle, and Haley Barbour, Governor of Miss., was there on the Right. The conversation surrounded Wisconsin, and Trumka repeated the charge of Walker attempting to destroy the union, as did O'Donnel. Gregory asked about the public unions' rigged game of negotiating with officials the union got elected, but Trumka ignored any questions which could put unions in a bad light and turned it on Walker, the evil Republican governor.
Haley Barbour was the only one who talked about the fundamental solution of fixing the system by restricting collective bargaining. Gregory failed to bring up the underlying reason unions are so active across the country, and that is because their money flow is being threatened. If states give freedom to public workers to join unions and pay dues or not, then this could threaten the union's money supply and lessen their power to affect legislation and benefit increases. The bottom line, and what Trumka didn't have an answer for, is the broken system which needs to change. Trumka knows that unions can give back some of their benefit gains temporarily then come back strong later when the clouds blow over.
Emanuel Cleaver accused Republicans in general of wanting to cut too much, which means he's a staunch supporter of tax and spend policies, a progressive who favors the government "investment" position. O'Donnel wants to tax the top earners. Liberals and progressives have no new answers -- they are protecting the status quo and the system in place. Trumka, of course, wants only what increases union power regardless of the consequences. Strassel just piddled around the center of the issues. It's amazing that Haley Barbour, a politician with which I have many problems, was the only one addressing an unsustainable public union system which is helping to bankrupt states across the country.
As John McCain and others herald President Obama as a centrist, and as many remember today Ronald Reagan's great libertarian speeches, it pays to remember that actions and results are all that count.
What we need is not more words, but serious actions to roll back State power and economy-killing regulations.