The McCain Amendment
Do we need the McCain Amendment? Victor Davis Hanson believes we do; but not for the reasons commonly sited. Instead, he argues it is “a public reaffirmation of our country's ideals … reminding us that we need not and will not become anything like our enemies.”
I oppose the amendment. Historically, we are in the top ranks in terms of discipline and proper procedures. And we deserve to compare our tradition to the best—both that of our forefathers and other liberal democracies. Hanson’s comparison is to our enemies – the lowest rank of barbarity. This is inappropriate and surprisingly out of character for Mr. Hanson.
Having never served, I’m hesitant to micro-manage the military through the legislative process. Furthermore, this isn’t what will insure standards in the ranks. Our military derives its strength and ethos from its honor. Cultivating a sense of honor isn’t an external imposition competing with the requirements of effectively fighting a war. It is a source of the strength – especially when it is reality based. The challenge of discipline, honor and survival are constant concerns of our men and women. It is precisely this sense of honor that has initiated the investigations that were widely reported.
The ethics of our men and women reflect the ethical tradition of our society. The amendment is an insult to both our troops and our country.
posted by Jason Pappas at 10:55 AM
14 Comments:
John McCain, always the go-to guy for meaningless babbling bullshit, has the position of defending his "Torture does not ever work, but we only should use it in life-or-death situations."
Retire, Johnny. You're too stupid to realize you're a putz.
But you know, I honestly believe that if nominated he'd win the Presidency, over whoever the Dems nominate, hands down. He is a populist. He plays both sides against the middle when it is in his interests, to do so.
I know a lot of Republicans that like him and I know a lot of Dems that like him too. Sometimes I agree with him, other times not. But I could live with him over anyone the Dems will nominate, if they continue down this present path of reckless behavior.
Jason,
Well put.
LA Sunsett,
John McCain would have no chance of winning the Presidency. If the Republicans run him, Hillary Clinton will be our next President.
Our only chance is Condoleeza. That's it.
There are three factors which determine whether a person is Presidential material in the mind of the public,
1) the person must look "Presidential" (McCain doesn't)
2) The person's story must be the story the people of America want to tell themselves about themselves.
3) the candidates personality must tell the story. In other words, the person must be charismatic.
There are only three candidates on the horizon who have the first two qualities;
1) Hillary
2) Condi
3) Giuliani
Believe it or not, Giuliani, although a great choice, has no chance. Why? Because his personal magnetism does not translate to the national stage. He simply is not charismatic on camera. His beliefs, his persona, etc. do embody the story Americans want to tell themselves about themselves, but his demeanor does not tell the story.
He would be a disaster of a candidate, as would McCain.
The Republicans are in real trouble in 2008, if they don't get smart. I have seen far too much Republican triumphalism over the pathetic situation the Democratic party finds itself in these days.
Screw all that triumphalism. Hillary has played everything perfectly, so far. She will kick our asses, if we don't get smart.
If the GOP nominates McCain, not only will I not vote for him, I will actively campaign for Hillary Clinton.
Why?
At least admits she's a Democrat.
Leave it to Beamish: If the GOP nominates McCain, not only will I not vote for him, I will actively campaign for Hillary Clinton.
Why?
At least admits she's a Democrat.
I know that McCain has a personal take on torture, but I feel that his amendment is another attempt to begin his campaign.
I'm worn out with the never-ending campaign season.
"John McCain would have no chance of winning the Presidency. If the Republicans run him, Hillary Clinton will be our next President."
The latest polls show otherwise.
But I do understand the election is not being held today and is a long way off. I also believe that McCain would not get the nomination, so the argument is really kind of moot.
As for Hillary, the anti-war faction is gearing up to defeat her in the primaries, with who, is anyone's guess. But the party seems to be headed for a major party split, unless she smooths over the hard left. And like most militant philosophies, they don't like compromise. To win, she must not let the left suck her back into the MoveOn.Org mentality.
Also, I am not sure that Condi would make a good president. I would have to hear more about her stances on issues. Right now, she is on board with the Bush camp, so to know just where she stands on different issues is still a mystery.
I don't know who I will end up supporting. But since the best candidates do not want the job, whoever I vote for will be the lesser of the two evils, as always.
I actually don’t know that much about McCain. Obviously, there are other issues that make him a candidate that appeals to some and not to others. Of course, we’ll have our differences on some of those other issues. He might appeal to moderates on just those issues but disappoint those of us who want to see an increase in individual liberty.
Still, even with regard to foreign policy, I can’t get a sense of his ability to understand the threat we face today. But that’s the same for every candidate. Sadly, that means they’re all mere politicians and not the principled statesman that could provide the clarity and leadership we require.
I have a live Moodbat on another thread that prattles on about how Bush is waging a war against Islam and those poor peaceful Muslims. Feel free to stop by if you have the stomach. Subtlety and diplomacy not required. This may be a job for Beamish and Beak!
During the Republican primaries (2000) I paid close attention to both McCain and Bush, and ultimately decided I could trust Bush with access to nuclear weapons, and couldn't trust McCain with anything sharper than a pencil eraser.
There is nothing about McCain that you could stretch the definition of the word "coherent" to include.
Jason,
Sorry that I missed all that discussion with the moonbat. I'm too busy at this time of year to make my regular blog rounds.
This comes to mind: "Methinks [the moonbat] dost protest too much."
He (she? it?) isn't worth the bother at anytime of year. Some people have respect for reality and reason. Others are beyond reach.
Our military derives its strength and ethos from its honor....The ethics of our men and women reflect the ethical tradition of our society. The amendment is an insult to both our troops and our country.
Maybe, but your CIA derives its strength from unmarked bundles of cash and total deniability. Any leash of moral behaviour will cripple this string of Americas bow.
Sorry, Ducky, racist attacks on Condi Rice (or anyone else) will be deleted.
Whoa. If you deleted messages from racists all the time, we'd never know what leftist visitors had to say.
<< Home