What will you like most about the McCain Presidency?

I actually like and respect John McCain but president? I don't think he's the man for the job. AT ALL!

Hard to disrespect someone who spent years as a POW and came out okay.

McG, my post did give insight into his views on overseas bases, especially those in the ME.

I think we need to pull out of the ME entirely. Our presence there is what brought on 9/11 (per bin-Laden).

Yep. Let's just let Al Qaida or whatever terrorist group return Iraq to a despotic nation, encourage all moderate ME countries to knuckle under to the most extreme militants, ensure that the despots there will have full ability to bring the free world to its knees by withholding one fourth of the world's oil reserves, and let Israel fend for itself.

But at least we can be proud that we made bin Laden happy.

I wonder if John McCain will go for this plan? Somehow I don't think he will. Which is another thing that I like about him.

Just a couple of questions then...

Say we do pull out of the ME. How do we respond when the next Bin-laden attacks the US because we are in Europe? How would we respond to the next Saddam that decides to annex a ME country? Ignore it and let the UN handle it? What about the allies we have in the ME that do not wish to see the US leave the ME? Tell them too bad, Bi-Laden wants us to leave?

It's not a very practical solution really.

An interesting concept McG interested in

Foxfyre, good point. Fighting until we're bankrupt and Al Qaida is still killing all around the globe is definitely the answer. That way at least bin laden is unhappy. Oh wait, that's always been his hope since the beginning.

But never mind that, let's stick with what we're doing, because it makes the USA sound so charitable and benevolent.

Of course he won't, he wants to stay another hundred years. He will have his say as a US Senator (One of 100) but I don't think he will get anyone to along with it. OTOH I agree that we can't pull out of the Middle East entirely.

Well first my comment was a sarcastic rebuttal to Advocate's assumption that we shouldn't be in the Middle East because bin Laden doesn't want us there. Now if you think bin Laden is the one who should be defining U.S. foreign policy, you and Advocate should be getting along just fine.

I don't think McCain has any intention of fighting until we're bankrupt nor do I think he has any intention of fighting until we're badly bent. I think McCain sees the virtue and very real U.S. interest in achieving a success in Iraq and a peaceful U.S. presence there as we have in Germany, Japan, South Korea, and other places where there was once armed conflict involving the U.S.A. That may or may not be a viable long range plan, but I certainly don't see it as a sinister thing to contemplate or consider as a possibility.

I am not a strong McCain fan, but I at least can see what virtues might exist in a McCain presidency.

What, exactly, would a success in Iraq entail, aside from a peaceful US presence there, which I'm sure you would include as part of that success?

For me, success in Iraq would be an effective lawfully elected goverment who would adequately represent the varous Iraqi factions so that all felt that they were heard and included.

It would allow at least the most basic human rights as understood by the Iraqi people, sufficient free trade concepts to encourage entrepenourship and innovation and risk taking, and capitalism would be the driving force behind that.

And it would look to obtain diplomatic agreements rather than intimidation in its relationship with others so that it would be a good neighbor to all and a threat to nobody.

And men, women, and children could go about their daily business without fear of being shot or blown up.

It's a lot to ask. But they are getting closer to having a chance to accomplish all that all the time.

The Turks who were a pretty unruly bunch at one time have accomplished all that. There is no reason to believe that the Iraqis can't do it if they want to.

McCain's Sadr Moment

McCain Is AWOL On New GI Bill
April 3, 2008 10:48 PM
Sam Stein
The Huffington Post
In November 2007, Sens. Jim Webb and Chuck Hagel penned an op-ed in the New York Times advocating a reformed G.I. Bill that would provide Iraq war veterans with greater educational opportunities.

The idea was at once ambitious and benign. Adjust the current landmark law -- which requires members of the armed services to pay $1,200 in order to participate -- to better account for spikes in tuition and living expenses. Not only would there be a greater incentive for those considering enlistment, but the American economy would be bolstered by an influx of educated veterans.

"We must put together the right formula that will demonstrate our respect for those who have stepped forward to serve in these difficult times," wrote Webb and Hagel. "First-class service to country deserves first-class appreciation."

Flash-forward several months and Webb and Hagel's vision (after months of consideration) is on the cusp of codification. The 21st Century G.I. Bill may be included in the language of the next Iraq war supplemental. And while, if considered separately, it could require 60 votes for passage, more than 50 Senators -- including many Republicans -- have already signed on as co-sponsors.

And yet, surprisingly, one of those Senators who has not yet offered his support is John McCain. How could a veteran of Vietnam and someone widely touted as Congress' foremost champions of veterans' affairs not sign on to a largely bipartisan, uncontroversial measure? (Both Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are co-sponsors).

A member of the organization Student Veterans of America asked the presumptive GOP nominee that very question several months after Webb and Hagel wrote their op-ed.

"I have not had the chance to examine it carefully," he said. "It seems to me that it is a good thing to do. But I haven't examined it with the care that it needs. But we obviously need to do something along those lines."

To this day, however, McCain has not signed on. Those committed to the legislation say they hold out hope and some expectation that he will ultimately back the measure (whether it be through co-sponsorship or a simple 'yes' vote). But the Senator's lack of leadership on the topic has been telling.

"John McCain needs to be on this bill," Webb said in a statement to The Huffington Post. "I have said to him several times that this is not a political issue -- this is about providing a fair, deserved benefit to our troops. Based on his own military history and how strongly he speaks about the positive contributions of the people who have served, I hope that he will get on board and support this new GI bill."

Indeed, opposition to the measure in the Senate is limited at best. There are those who argue that the cost -- roughly $2 billion more annually than the current bill -- is prohibitive. But last fall, Congress appropriated $19 billion or education grants on the basis of financial need. Moreover, the price tag for the Webb-Hagel measure is about the same as the cost of just a week at war.

The real hang-up for McCain may be the fact that the Bush administration has resisted the legislation. White House officials say that giving soldiers such an strong incentive to leave the armed forces would result in low retention rates. Soldiers sign up and -- after two years -- leave the army in droves to get their free education.

But as The American Conservative pointed out, it is "creepy" that defense officials would assume that "every enlistee should want nothing more than a life-time career as a professional soldier." Moreover, what's more of a retention killer: a violent and lengthy war in Iraq or the promise of education should you serve?

In the end, the bill, political observers say, is likely to pass with or without McCain's support. After all, it is tough to vote against a measure that gives veterans tuition, room and board, and a monthly stipend in exchange for their service. As The Washington Post editorialized: "Mr. Webb is right when he argues that the education of the nation's veterans must be considered a cost of war and one that the nation can't afford not to pay."

McCain is generally opposed to entitlements in any form. He may not be the brightest bulb in the chandelier when it comes to either semantics or fine points of the economy, but he's smart enough to see that it is entitlement programs that are straining our budget to the breaking point and heaping more and more of them on top of what we already have is pure folly if we want to stay economically sound well into the future.

So, opposition to additional entitlements is another thing I would like about a McCain presidency.

John W. "I voted for the tax cuts for the rich bill before I voted against it" McCain?


Of course, it's not the half trillion we are pissing away in Iraq, it's the "entitlements." If the righties didn't have buzz words, they would all be deaf mutes.

Foxfyre, so that's how you and McCain support the troops.

No, its the way McCain and I look at entitlements. Two separate things. Try to focus dear, and I think you might even be able to catch on to that concept instead of building a straw man or throwing red herrings into the mix.

McCain and I would probably oppose giving a Mercedes to all A2K members with Blue in their name too. That does not automatically extrapolate into a prejudice against the color however or that people with Blue in their name should be deprived of owning a Mercedes. It's all in the concept of what is prudent for the government to guarantee to anybody.

Foxfyre, haha. Yeah make that excuse to the troops. They'll understand?

Troops who have to live in a country that is financed by the people actually can understand that concept. Sure it is a great thing to promise all sorts of wonderful benefits to our people in uniform. But should two years of service entitle somebody to a free college education financed by the taxpayer? We already have attractive signing bonuses and re-enlistment bonuses and education benefits for X number years of service plus a number of other government financed benefits. What is the cost to the taxpayer, which would include former servicemen and women, to add another huge entitlement for the benefit of a particular group of people for a minimal term of service?

These are the things that must be factored into such policy and McCain is quite wise to understand all the ramifications instead of just doing the typical kneejerk emotionally appealing thing just because it looks like a wonderful and magnamimous thing to do.

Funny, I haven't noticed anything from either of you two staunch "conservatives" with respect to the Bear Stearns charity event. Could have missed it though.

AS opposed to your laughing,cheering, and calling the troops stupid when they get killed?