Title: McCain On Reinstituting A Military Draft: ‘I Don’t Disagree’ Source:
Think Progress URL Source:http://thinkprogress.org/2008/08/20/mccain-support-draft/ Published:Aug 21, 2008 Author:by Ali Post Date:2008-08-21 00:33:30 by Robin Keywords:None Views:2786 Comments:41
Today at a townhall meeting, an audience member praised Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) for his vow to “follow bin Laden to the gates of hell.” After a long question about veterans’ care, the questioner said she believed we needed to reinstate the draft, to which McCain seemed to readily agree:
QUESTIONER: If we don’t reenact the draft, I don’t think we’ll have anyone to chase Bin Laden to the gates of hell.
[Appaluse]
MCCAIN: Ma’am, let me say that I don’t disagree with anything you said.
In June, McCain said it would take an “all-out World War III” to make the draft necessary — which seems to mean he’d consider it. In July 2006, when asked to react to Newt Gingrich’s claim that “You’d have to say to yourself this is in fact World War III,” McCain said, “I do [agree] to some extent.”
Asked about the draft last September, McCain said, “I might consider it, I don’t think it’s necessary, but I might consider it if you could design a draft where everybody equally could serve.”
AUDIENCE MEMBER: Senator McCain I truly hope you get the opportunity to chase Bin Laden right to the gates of hell and push him in as you stated on your forum. I do have a question though. Disable veterans, especially in this state have horrible conditions, their medical is substandard. They drive four hours one way to Albuquerque for a simple doctors appointment which is often canceled. Our VA hospital is dirty it is understaffed, it is running on maximum overload. The prescription medicines are ten years behind standard medical care we have seven hundred claims stacked up at the VA office in Albuquerque some of them are ten and seven years old waiting to be processed in the mean time these people are homeless. My son is an officer in the Air Force, and I am a vet and I was raised in a military family. I think it is a sad state of affairs when we have illegal aliens having a Medicaid card that can access specialist top physicians, the best of medical and our vets can’t even get to a doctor. These are the people that we tied yellow ribbons for and Bush patted on the back. If we don’t reenact the draft I don’t think we will have anyone to chase Bin Laden to the gates of hell.
MCCAIN: Ma’am let me say that I don’t disagree with anything you said and thank you and I am grateful for your support of all of our veterans.
If I were Obama, I'd make him deny it over and over and over. The draft is not real popular with Americans. Sorta up there with rabies and child molestation. Just play that clip over and over and make McCain actually discuss the issue. It's a no-win situation for him; either he looks like he favors the draft or he looks like he's lying.
They smelt of pubs...and Wormwood Scrubs...and too many right-wing meetings. The Jam
How else can he get the extra 90,000 troops he has called for?
By promising to not send them to stupid wars like Iraq, perhaps? By promising to get them armor, trucks that work and have armor to protect them, by paying them fairly and taking care of them if they are wounded? The armed forces are short of recruits because no one wants to go and get blown up in a stupid, illegal war.
As proof, note that the navy has NO PROBLEM getting recruits. Neither does the Air Force. It's the Army and Marines, particularly the former, that are suffering.
They smelt of pubs...and Wormwood Scrubs...and too many right-wing meetings. The Jam
How else can he get the extra 90,000 troops he has called for?
By promising to not send them to stupid wars like Iraq, perhaps? By promising to get them armor, trucks that work and have armor to protect them, by paying them fairly and taking care of them if they are wounded? The armed forces are short of recruits because no one wants to go and get blown up in a stupid, illegal war.
It's the AIPAC dominated Congress who holds that power. A leader like Obama is what they need to pull off a stunt like that. How many will vote against their new Democratic leader in time of war?
How many can they recruit for the Obama surge in Afghanistan combined with a new occupation in Pakistan's free zones and perhaps Sudan as well. I don't think improved armor is going to make getting blown up any more desirable. Obama's wars are every bit as illegal as Bush's.
I don't think improved armor is going to make getting blown up any more desirable.
well said
Obama's wars are every bit as illegal as Bush's.
I can only hope and pray you are proven wrong. Considering Obama was against the invasion of Iraq before it began I would say there is hope he will not be a warmonger. OTOH, there is no hope with McCain.
I don’t oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war.
What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other arm-chair, weekend warriors in this Administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.
What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income – to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.
That’s what I’m opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.
-------------------------
""Boys," said the senator, "remember the words of Chairman Mao: It's always darkest before it's totally black." - John McCain
I haven't seen Obama propose any wars. He simply said he wanted to get the hell out of Iraq and transfer some of those troops to Afghanistan to smash Al Qaeda and its support network. Which is what Bush should have done in 2001.
McCain has a slightly different agenda. He wants to stay in Iraq for a hundred years, attack Iran, attack Russia, and of course walk through the gates of hell to get bin Laden if he has a few minutes left over.
I had no real problem with going after the Taliban and al Qaeda apart from the history of the Brits and Rooskies in Afghanistan. A limited war to eliminate the Taliban and make it impossible for the al Qaeda to operate there was not a bad idea. To abandon it halfway through to go after Iraq was a fatal and stupid mistake.
Our "ally" Pakistan has simply refused to close down the border with Afghanistan, which means we are fighting ghosts who jump across the border as soon as we attack them. We're going to have to shut down the border region and create a no-man's land there to effectively defeat the Taliban and al Qaeda.
That's "Obama's war," I guess. It's one we have been fighting poorly and ineffectively, thanks to our great Bush leadership.
They smelt of pubs...and Wormwood Scrubs...and too many right-wing meetings. The Jam
ABC News' Teddy Davis Reports: For the second presidential debate in a row, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., came under fire for an Aug. 1 speech in which he said he would go after high-value Al Qaeda targets in Pakistan if the country's president was not willing to act.
The border regions have been taken over by the biggest wackos this side of Israeli "settlers," only they're far more violent. The tribal leaders who have pretty much lived there for centuries were given a choice; go along with the Taliban or die. After enough died, the rest went along.
That area has to be cleaned out and turned into an unpopulated buffer zone. Give them 30 days to move out and then bomb anyone who's left. We had a high degree of support, but the Taliban has made it a death penalty offense to have anything to do with Americans. They've reestablished the heroin trade they effectively ended while in power (perhaps their one accomplishment that wasn't totally evil, although their methods were basically "stop growing poppies or die").
Just because they hate Bush doesn't make them good guys. They're about as evil as it gets. They make the Russian mafia look like cute little kittens.
They smelt of pubs...and Wormwood Scrubs...and too many right-wing meetings. The Jam
I'm not familiar with the history here, only that the poppy crops were almost eradicated under the Taliban (perhaps one of their few admirable traits).
""Boys," said the senator, "remember the words of Chairman Mao: It's always darkest before it's totally black." - John McCain
That area has to be cleaned out and turned into an unpopulated buffer zone.
Obomba's occupation will continue until he either commits genocide against millions of Pashtuns or negotiates peace with the rightful leaders, the Taliban. It is not his option to decide to cleanse the free zones. It is only criminal aggression. Obomba was the first to promote the idea of illegally violating Pakistan's sovereignty. Obomba has also been the first to promote the deployment of US troops to Sudan. These are all criminal actions.
To use a line from McCain, "I don't disagree". I don't think Obama has invasion on his mind, much more likely strategic strikes. IMO, we have no business doing that either; such strikes are often very deadly with a great deal of so-called collateral damage.
NATO just recently killed some French troops in a mistaken strategic strike.
The gulf between Obama and McCain over Afghanistan and national security, "reflects two different theories about the war on terrorism," said Edward Luttwak, a former Pentagon strategist and senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.
"Theory number one, which is the Obama theory, is that terrorism is caused by grievances and that the solution is to deal with those grievances," such as ending the American occupation of Iraq, Luttwak said.
"The second theory - McCain's - is that Islamic violence is about a fight over resources, morale and leadership," he added. "It holds that if you lose in Iraq it will be a tremendous boost for the extremists and you will bring the neighboring countries under the sway of Islamists."
But there is little question that the next president will have to deal with a growing crisis in Afghanistan.
Obomba? Gimme a break. If you think there's no difference between Obama and McCain, I really can't have a discussion with you. You obviously can't distinguish night from day.
The Taliban was no more the legitimate government of Afghanistan than the settlers were the legitimate government of South Africa. They both ruled through terror.
They smelt of pubs...and Wormwood Scrubs...and too many right-wing meetings. The Jam
what his own GOP colleagues have to say about McCain
GOP Sen. Thad Cochran: “The Thought Of His Being President Sends A Cold Chill Down My Spine.”
“Sen. Thad Cochran of Mississippi, who has known Sen. John McCain for more than three decades, on Wednesday endorsed Mitt Romney for president. Cochran said his choice was prompted partly by his fear of how McCain might behave in the Oval Office. ‘The thought of his being president sends a cold chill down my spine,’ Cochran said about McCain by phone. ‘He is erratic. He is hotheaded. He loses his temper and he worries me.’” [Boston Globe, 1/27/08]
Former GOP Sen. Bob Smith: “His Temper Would Place This Country At Risk In International Affairs, And The World Perhaps In Danger. In My Mind, It Should Disqualify Him.”
“Former Sen. Bob Smith, a New Hampshire Republican, expresses worries about McCain: ‘His temper would place this country at risk in international affairs, and the world perhaps in danger. In my mind, it should disqualify him.’… ‘I've witnessed a lot of his temper and outbursts,’ Smith said. ‘For me, some of this stuff is relevant. It raises questions about stability. . . . It's more than just temper. It's this need of his to show you that he's above you -- a sneering, condescending attitude. It's hurt his relationships in Congress. . . . I've seen it up-close.’” [Washington Post, 4/20/08]
GOP Sen. Pete Domenici: “I Decided I Didn't Want This Guy Anywhere Near A Trigger.” McCain’s “ire is all too real. This has prompted questions about whether his temperament is suited to the office of commander-in-chief... [AP, 2/16/08]
""Boys," said the senator, "remember the words of Chairman Mao: It's always darkest before it's totally black." - John McCain
And here I thought it was Obomber's troops that were "ruling through terror". What a powerful imagination it takes to imagine occupiers of many countries as legitimate, and resistance fighters as terrorists.
I think what we have here is someone trying to defend the warmonger McCain by trying to say, without any evidence, that Obama is worse. I have seen the juvenile Obomber stupidity before. At a certain site that I call FRetard City.
They smelt of pubs...and Wormwood Scrubs...and too many right-wing meetings. The Jam
I don't believe that is the case here. There are many who firmly believe it does not matter which of the two candidates win. I understand how they came to believe it. Obama's FISA vote and speech at AIPAC, for example. But when it comes to warmongering, no one can surpass McCain, IMO.
""Boys," said the senator, "remember the words of Chairman Mao: It's always darkest before it's totally black." - John McCain
Obomber is as stupid as it gets. This idiot is just concern-trollling. He's a freeper. There might be legit arguments (I doubt that) but this guy has no argument. Just hate. This is the line of argument at FRetard City and I think he is going back and laughing that the lieberals can't defeat his argument.
They smelt of pubs...and Wormwood Scrubs...and too many right-wing meetings. The Jam
1)Do you think an Al Gore presidency would have been the same as the last 8 years?
2)Wasn't 8 years of Clinton less harmful than 8 years of the Bush Regime?
1) No. The proof is in the selection of LIEberman as veep. The very same that is likely to be selected as McCain's veep.
2) No. It's a bi-partisan agenda. The themes differ, but the aims are identical. Clinton was the best to execute the destructon of welfare. Bush was more useful for the destructon of the currency. Clinton's administration set the stage for endless war by pioneering unilateralism (the freedom to aggress despite UN disapproval). Your quotes above tell the story well, Obomber offers rationales for militarism that are more palatable to liberals but the result is essentially the same. It's called marketing.
1) No. The proof is in the selection of LIEberman as veep. The very same that is likely to be selected as McCain's veep.
I had forgotten that unfortunate pick. Most Americans cannot tolerate Lieberman, not b/c he is an Israel Firster (most have no clue), but b/c he's such a whining, flip-flopping annoyance.
2) No. It's a bi-partisan agenda. The themes differ, but the aims are identical. Clinton was the best to execute the destruction of welfare. Bush was more useful for the destruction of the currency. Clinton's administration set the stage for endless war by pioneering unilateralism (the freedom to aggress despite UN disapproval).
Clinton also went after the paramilitary groups. Destruction of our currency with Bush is a conspiracy too far for me at this point (although I understand). I think avarice, greedy Dick "deficits don't matter" Cheney and the Bush Crime Family simply don't give a damn what happens to America. They are truly traitors, besides war criminals and sexual deviants (a trivial side note compared with all their evil).
Your quotes above tell the story well, Obomber offers rationales for militarism that are more palatable to liberals but the result is essentially the same. It's called marketing.
But you are a step ahead here, Obama hasn't bombed anyone. If he is just a con man then why do Israel and TPTB prefer McCain? Couldn't Obama be playing a necessary political game to get elected? Am I being too optimistic? Possibly.
""Boys," said the senator, "remember the words of Chairman Mao: It's always darkest before it's totally black." - John McCain
Andrew Bacevich is a conservative historian who spent twenty-three years serving in the US Army. He also lost his son in Iraq last year. In a new book titled The Limits of Power: The End of American Exceptionalism, Bacevich argues that although many in this country are paying a heavy price for US domestic and foreign policy decisions, millions of Americans simply continue to shop, spend and satisfy their appetite for cheap oil, credit and the promise of freedom at home. Bacevich writes, “As the American appetite for freedom has grown, so too has our penchant for empire.”
This man would agree with you to a point. His background (above) gives him a unique perspective.
AMY GOODMAN: So how is this narrowness taking place? I mean, yes, you have McCain saying we’ll be in Iraq for a hundred years. You have Obama speaking out against the war, but he votes with McCain for funding for the war all through the years—
ANDREW BACEVICH: Right, right, right.
AMY GOODMAN: —as a senator, and then he says we’ll send thousands more, we should send thousands more troops to Afghanistan.
ANDREW BACEVICH: Right, right. I think there are differences between the two, but I think we should see the differences as differences in operational priorities. McCain insists that Iraq is the central front in the war on terror and that it must be won, and it’s clear that if we, the American people, elect him, that we will be engaged in Iraq for a long, long time. Senator Obama says, “No, Afghanistan is the central front in the global war on terror. Elect me and will shift our military effort to Afghanistan.” It’s a difference, but it’s a difference in operational priorities; it’s not a difference in strategy.
Both of them—McCain explicitly, I think Obama implicitly—endorse the notion that a global war on terror really provides the right frame for thinking about US national security policy going forward. A real debate would be one in which we would have one candidate, and certainly it would be McCain, arguing for the global war on terror and an opponent who was questioning whether the global war on terror makes sense. I don’t think it makes sense.
AMY GOODMAN: Talk about this, the global war on terror.
ANDREW BACEVICH: Well, I mean, the phrase itself is one that really ought to cause people to have their heads snap back a little bit, because President Bush and others around him—Rumsfeld was certainly very clear on this—it’s a war, it’s global, and how long is it going to go on? Well, they said from the outset it’s going to go on for decades. In the Pentagon, there’s a phrase that gets used, “generational war,” a war that lasts a generation or more.
""Boys," said the senator, "remember the words of Chairman Mao: It's always darkest before it's totally black." - John McCain
Both Amy Goodman and Andrew Bacevich ignored the fact that Obama brought a bill to end the Iraq conflict. And furthermore, voting to keep the troops equipped does not necessarily translate into wanting a war to continue.
Any second guessing about motivation or what Obama might do is just that, guessing, IMO.
""Boys," said the senator, "remember the words of Chairman Mao: It's always darkest before it's totally black." - John McCain
you are a step ahead here, Obama hasn't bombed anyone.
Yes he has, through his voting for every war funding bill that has passed since he became a Senator. It is also his avowed policy. The Bush tactic of home invasions is actually much more compliant with humanitarianism. Obomber proposes to use air power to enforce the security of US bases in Iraq, the green zone etc...
Had he not voted to keep the troops with the supplies and equipment they needed Obama would have been politically cooked. OTOH, he presented a bill with a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq. And he spoke out against the war before the invasion, as I noted earlier.
""Boys," said the senator, "remember the words of Chairman Mao: It's always darkest before it's totally black." - John McCain
1)Americans simply continue to shop, spend and satisfy their appetite for cheap oil
2)“No, Afghanistan is the central front in the global war on terror. Elect me and will shift our military effort to Afghanistan.” It’s a difference, but it’s a difference in operational priorities; it’s not a difference in strategy.
1)Bacevich promotes the baseless thesis that American interests are served by the occupation. In fact, gas is three times what it was before the invasion and the purchasing power of the dollar is practically cut in half. Americans need to realise that the "global war on terror" is anti-American.
in my opinion if the US Congress passes a resolution clarifying that government money is NOT available for the Iraq conflict, then the president would be responsible for an orderly withdrawal. and if he were to fail to facilitate this under such circumstances, then it would be the president who would be at fault. and everyone would understand it to be so.
If the congress passed a resolution withdrawing money from the Iraq conflict and especially instructing the president to withdraw the troops, and then the congress were to witness that the president was not following their will, then it truly would be congress' responsibility to immediately remove the president from power. and per the constitution they can do this as well.
As we learned in the past the language in the constitution that the president can be removed for is quite open-ended. It says 'high crimes & misdemeanors'. that means it takes a 50% vote by the House and a 2/3's majority in the Senate to remove him. If the president were to irresponsibly disobey congress' will on spending, then this would be considered gross negligence and willful obstruction.
The Democrats have a strong majority in Congress. Yet 90% of the democrats vote to fund the war. And they say the reason they do this is because they must agree with minority republicans. That is an insane rationale.
If Congress were to remove funding for the war and the President were to leave the troops in Iraq, then there would have to be a 2/3's majority in the Senate to remove the president. That would require some republican votes. Don't the republicans support our troops enough to want them to be removed from harm's way if they're not going to receive the weaponry & supplies that they need to safely exist in Iraq? Don't the Republicans support the constitution enough so that a rogue president spending billions of dollars in a manner that congress prohibits would be naturally removed?
If the answers to these questions are 'yes', then we as a people are succombing to an aggressive minority of fascists who love war and we just don't have the courage to tell them 'no'.
Whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad with power. (Charles Beard, American Historian)
A better way to remove these monsters is by impeachment, both Cheney and Bush. Another way would be to charge them with war crimes and treason.
But seemingly placing troops at risk w/o proper equipment & supplies, something that has already happened and outraged Americans, is not good policy, IMO.
""Boys," said the senator, "remember the words of Chairman Mao: It's always darkest before it's totally black." - John McCain
A better way to remove these monsters is by impeachment, both Cheney and Bush.
The Congress should not be sympathetic to Bush or his agenda. I don't think the Congress should avoid impeachment. They shouldn't hesitate to remove him through impeachment. I am glad that Kucinich introduced that legislation. and I think I documented here in a post that Ron Paul was one of the 9 Republicans who voted for that legislation. 238 congressmen voted to send that issue to the Judiciary committee.
I don't see why Pelosi & Conyers are stretching that process out. They should let Kucinich speak for a few minutes on it and then vote. any politician who fails to vote 'yes' on it should be removed by the people in the next election. Thats how it should be done.
Some people say that Bush didn't do anything criminal and that therefore Congress should respect him. He started 3 wars (afghanistan, iraq, somalia) with no provocation. He sent troops to Haiti who then overthrew the elected president of Haiti. He ignores the law, he oversteps his powers. If thats not enough reason to remove him, then we will never have enough reason to remove anyone.
and then when the issue got to the Senate they would not get the 2/3's votes needed and Bush would stay in office. Then the people should begin to remove all those (regardless of party) who voted 'no' on that removal in the senate. thats how it should be done. We don't need politicians who make excuses.
People like Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, etc., these people are facilitators of the agenda of the fascists who rule. We should not tolerate them. We should ignore what these politicians say and only watch what they do. Failures to act appropriately should be treated as failures.
after that we should elevate Citizen Red Jones to be in charge of the execution committee and really clean house. Anyone who opposes should go to the top of the list. (just kidding on this, but if 'we' are in charge, then we must assert ourselves). The French Revolution idea is extreme and not wise, but if we don't vote the bums out, then we're letting them walk on 'we the people', and how can we be loyal to the constitution if we let that happen?
Whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad with power. (Charles Beard, American Historian)
1)the majority of their representatives voted for the funding of the war
2) Cutting off funding is not politically savvy for a presidential hopeful, nor is it a good military strategy.
3) do you consider McCain a better choice for the WH?
1) Which prooves that they answer to AIPAC and not their constituents.
2) I beleive if I'm not mistaken, that Congressional purse strings played a significant part in forcing Nixon to reduce US presence in Vietnam.
3) Yes, though I would never vote for the "lesser evil". McCain is the least competent for the tasks at hand, thus from my perspective he is the best possible winner. Yesterday's broadcast of INN World News Report on Free Speech TV included an interview with a Pakistani on which candidate Pakistanis prefer. His answer: "there's no difference".
