McCain is an honest person...

[BernOrange]

On the subject of Iraq:
“I believe that the success will be fairly easy.” [CNN, 9/24/02]

“I believe that we can win an overwhelming victory in a very short period of time.” [CNN, 9/29/02]

“We’re not going to get into house to house fighting in Baghdad. We may have to take out buildings, but we’re not going to have a bloodletting of trading American bodies for Iraqi bodies.” [9/29/02]

“We will win this conflict. We will win it easily.” [MSNBC, 1/22/03]

“It was easy, it was easy. I said the military operation would be easy.” [MSNBC, 1/10/07]

Vs.

“The American people… were lead to believe that this would be some kind of a day on the beach which many of us, uh, fully understood from the beginning would be a very, very difficult undertaking.” [CNN, 8/22/06]

“I Knew it was probably going to be long and hard and tough. And those that voted for it and thought that somehow it was going to be some kind of an easy task, then I’m sorry they were mistaken. Maybe they didn’t know what they were voting for.” [MSNBC 1/4/07]
The Link

I look forward (not) to his statements about Iran, Pakistan and any other country his advisors encourage him to attack.

 

[Ag with kids]

The victory over Saddam Hussein's Iraq WAS easy...

Just because GWB screwed up the post invasion part is not a reason to damn McCain or anyone else for that matter...

 

[BernOrange]

If you are implying that McCain was honest with his statements above, then I should ask, are you OK with a potential Commander in Chief who can't see past the initial military objective when selling the idea of war to the American public?

Personally, I don't buy your argument that McCain was being honest with every statement.

 

[rivet]

If you believe McCain is being dishonest/deceitful then you may subscribe to the view that when McCain becomes president he may:

Nominate liberal judges
Withdraw from Iraq
Rescind tax breaks for the wealthy
Favor national healthcare
Grant amnesty to illegals
Scrap "no child left behind"
etc., etc.

I can see where John McCain just might want to "get even". After all, John McCain has been tortured by the Viet Cong and the Republicans!

 

[tropheus]

understandably an issue for you, but its not for me. Its easy to catch people in contradictory statements in situations like that. What you have to look at is voting record, platform positions and if there are any inconsistencies, the reasons. Saying I trust a politician is very much an undoable thing, but in that context, I trust McCain over every other candidate to push for my ideals.



John McCain on the Issues

 

[TexasDan]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[BernOrange]

I would prefer that McCain not win the GOP nomination and render this argument moot.

 

[washparkhorn]

The Ron Paul faithful are angry at the failure of Republicans to side with Ron Paul and his "complex" supporters. I think most look at the hope of a Hillary presidency with glee - imagining that will steer the Republican Party and Americans into the Ron Paul camp after one-term of Hillary.

The problem with Ron Paul, aside from his radical ideas, has always been his supporters and backers. That won't change with 4 years of Hillary, Obama, McCain or Romney. The Truthers, the Gold Bugs, neo-confederates, the black helicopter folk, . . . all stain his candidacy (and, by association with libertarianism). That's too bad. His ideas are lost in the sensationalist ravings.

If anti-war/anti-interventionism is the reason you are drawn to Ron Paul, you have fellow travelers who support Obama and Clinton and I suggest you consider the candidates other anti-war citizens support.

If the "vast government conspiracy" is what draws you to the Ron Paul movement, why do you care who is President anyway? If your beliefs are true, those "in control" wouldn't allow you to assume power and martial law would descend upon this nation.

As I get ready to go "caucus" in Colorado, I am thankful I didn't change my party affiliation. If I had, I would have to deal with the embarrassment of watching a handful of Ron Paul supporters wrecking the democratic process of electing a new President - all in the name of "libertarianism."

Anarchy isn't desirable and it isn't libertarianism.

 

[gecko]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[BernOrange]

washpark, I have read some insightful posts from you in the past, but that was just a bunch of marginalizing strawman blather.

I personally support Ron Paul because I believe he is the only candidate who will reverse the course of this "war on terror" assault on civil liberties (which I have posted about in the past). I believe government is heading in the direction of threatening the very freedoms Americans always say we are fighting wars to protect. I also believe that Ron Paul will force Congress to be more responsible with the budget and stop deficit spending.

In McCain, I see a man who thinks nothing of lying to people or suppressing dissent (see townhall meeting thread for an example) who will carry on what GWB and their shared neocon advisors have started.

 

[washparkhorn]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[BernOrange]

The second paragraph of your quote seems to indicate that McCain was actually listening to Ron Paul in those debates instead of just mocking him with laughter and silly faces. Unfortunately, I just don't trust him.

I also don't believe that the ACLU is or should be the firewall for our civil liberties. I would rather stab the hydra in the heart than slowly lopping off one head at a time (while more grow to replace it).