Andy McCarthy: McCain’s credibility as commander-in-chief is a “mirage”
posted at 6:39 pm on February 4, 2008 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
An attack from the right on Maverick’s most sterling credential. How much is resolve worth without a winning strategy behind it? Says McCarthy, not much.
In reality, a McCain presidency would promise an entirely conventional, center-left, multilateralism…
Much scorn deservedly came Governor Mike Huckabee’s way when, in his own Foreign Affairs piece, he scalded the “Bush administration’s arrogant bunker mentality,” so “counterproductive at home and abroad.” Yet McCain’s very similar (if less-bracing) riffs have drawn little attention. The Bush years, he says, have left us in desperate need “to restore and replenish the world’s faith in our nation and our principles.” “America” thus “needs a president who can revitalize the country’s purpose and standing in the world.” Even as such important European governments as France and Germany have become more conservative and drawn closer to American leadership, McCain laments that President Bush has “frayed” the “bonds we share with Europe” — thanks, no doubt, to “the kind of abusive tactics properly prohibited by the Geneva Conventions” that he intimates have been standard fare.
Close your eyes, and you can hear these same lines regurgitated by any conventional Democrat, whether it’s Sen. Clinton, Sen. Barack Obama, or even Sen. John Kerry — the Democrats’ last standard-bearer who, you may recall, entreated McCain to be his running mate, the extent of their common ground being patent. Contrary to the assurances of McCain’s admirers, his own essay tells us the senator is still the same guy who in 2000, upon being asked what he would do immediately upon being elected president, said he would turn, among others, to Sen. Kerry, Sen. Joe Biden, and Zbigniew Brzezinski (President Jimmy Carter’s national-security adviser) to “to get foreign policy, national security issues back on track.”…
In terms of the greater war on terror, which is the central foreign-policy challenge for the next administration, the surge is vastly overrated, and the rationale for it is confused at best. We are not just at war in Iraq; we are at war with radical Islam. We don’t need a Baghdad strategy; we need a global war strategy — or, at the very least, a regional one. Victory is not an Iraqi “democracy”; it is an America safe from Islamic terror.
Indeed, although an Iraqi democracy that’s crushed Al Qaeda under its bootheel would be a nice first step. Any reason to think Mitt Romney would be any better on any of this, incidentally? It’s fun to play presidential rotisserie league and imagine how Newt Gingrich, say, might game out a civilizational struggle with the Middle East’s more regressive elements, but we’re stuck wth Mitt as the alternative and the two pillars of his campaign have been social values and, lately, the economy. His own foreign policy plan ends with a long section advocating multilateralism, although it’s couched in terms more palatable to conservatives — blaming the UN’s failings instead of the Bush administration’s “arrogance” — than McCain’s is. In fact, Romney’s plan specifically envisions economic measures to help tamp down radicalism, something which Huckabee was bludgeoned for in his own Foreign Affairs essay. So who or what are we waiting for here? Who’s going to be the candidate to throw down the gauntlet to jihadism? Wait for the next post for that.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Fred Dalton Thompson.
RushBaby on February 4, 2008 at 6:44 PM
I can think of two things off the top of my head: A)A secure border is needed to keep terrorists from entering and teaming up with drug runners, B) Enhanced interrogation may be required to keep us safe.
McCain isn’t strong on either one.
amerpundit on February 4, 2008 at 6:44 PM
Andy McWhothy?
Vizzini on February 4, 2008 at 6:44 PM
McCain is about as eager to take credit for the surge as Al Gore was to take credit for inventing the Internet. Yeah, McCain had been critical of the old strategy and he was in the Senate when the new strategy was initiated (At least he was around - Gore wasn’t elected until ‘76, and the Internet was invented in ‘69).
ErikTheRed on February 4, 2008 at 6:46 PM
Mitt Romney “Jihad”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8OhvXaDk-4
mred on February 4, 2008 at 6:46 PM
McCarthy. Conservative attorney, columnist for publications such as National Review and Commentary, former Assistant U.S. Attorney, led the conviction of Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman and eleven other terrorists, helped prosecute bombers of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, senior member at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, and director of the foundation’s Center for Law and Counterterrorism.
amerpundit on February 4, 2008 at 6:48 PM
Bunker mentality?
Kini on February 4, 2008 at 6:52 PM
Was that the version you intended to link to? That version of the ad claims that the “only thing we have to fear is fear itself” and the Romney is “fearmongering” in order to get elected. There is no real threat from jihad, according to the ad. And that’s just nuts.
TX Mom on February 4, 2008 at 6:53 PM
This is getting silly. Didn’t McCain speak out against Bush’s blind “resolve” in Iraq, and stand up as an early proponent of a change in the way that war was being fought? Well-placed resolve is worth a hell of a lot in wartime, and poorly-placed resolve can be suicidal. McCain’s claim is that he is not only steadfast on defense, but that he has been right as well. I understand that McCarthy’s new to this whole Romney thing, and is itching to get in the game, but he’ll have to do better than this to take the shine off McCain’s wartime credibility.
Big S on February 4, 2008 at 6:58 PM
McCarthy told to “grow up”, accused of MDS in 5, 4, 3, 2 …
thirteen28 on February 4, 2008 at 6:58 PM
I clicked the link. Sounds like Mitt is expressing Robert Spencer’s “Blogging the Koran”. You Juan McCain supporters gotta stop lying about Mitt. The only thing to fear is: Juan McCain.
mred on February 4, 2008 at 6:59 PM
His premise neglects that Iraqi “democracy,” or at least stability, can abet a strategic victory in two ways:
1. The neocon ideal that pluralism and a measure of political freedom associated with reduced terror. Or, if you find that too starry-eyed …
2. The fact that a stable, democratic Iraq will discredit both the jihadist ideology working against it and the autocratic regimes that oppress their own populations and thus help breed radicalized strains Islam. In that way, recognizing Iraq as a central theatre puts McCain (and many others on the R side, at least) light years ahead of the D’s.
Regarding this sentence fragment from his article:
I’ve done 3 months of research on Iraqi politics. The Iraqi government, by most accounts on the ground, is run by a fractious coalition of Shias, Kurds and the odd Sunni and secularist, though being Shia-dominated. And to the extent the Shia dominated, most (but not all) of the ones in the positions of power are not anywhere close to fundamentalists. Don’t believe me? Women compose about 25% of the representation in Iraq’s parliament, and one of Maliki’s closest advisors is a woman. Doesn’t exactly sound likely in a government run by Islamic theocrats.
BillINDC on February 4, 2008 at 6:59 PM
I’ve already decided, that tomorrow I’m going to vote for Romney, not that it’s going to help. The Press is shoving McCain and you McCainiacs down our throats, and we’re going to be stuck with him in a couple months.
Now, later when he’s trailing by twenty points to whomever the Democrats run, you’ll all blame us who won’t support McCain. I should start a betting pool about how many people whine later about the press turning against McCain.
Snake307 on February 4, 2008 at 7:01 PM
Once people can say “Islam isn’t that great” anywhere in the world without fear of criminal prosecution, then we can start re-thinking American values.
locke on February 4, 2008 at 7:02 PM
Also the winner of an email debate with Mansour Ijaz on why Islam sux.
Connie on February 4, 2008 at 7:03 PM
Ditto. Pointing out the credibility of a track record is now drawing lectures on how we should all enjoy the KoolAid.
Starlink on February 4, 2008 at 7:04 PM
Kinda late to start worrying about these issues fellow conservatives, We already threw out the best guys to deal with it!
Now we determine if we want liberal bush or bush lite.
conservnut on February 4, 2008 at 7:06 PM
Romney would Keep GITMO open and allow enhanced interrogations, while McCain would not, but would be pandering to the Europeans over Global Warming.
Buy Danish on February 4, 2008 at 7:16 PM
Fred! was that man, but apparently Republicans want an older guy with a horrible temper.
I’d say South Parks 25% numbers are a GROSS UNDERESTIMATE.
omnipotent on February 4, 2008 at 7:32 PM
Shame to see McCarthy putting forth lies and misleading statements:
No he didn’t.
No it isn’t. We needed more troops in Iraq and Afghanistan for the beginning and McCain has been arguing this right since the beginning. The effect on breaking al-Qaeda and reducing troop casualties has been dramatic. Hillary/Obama were NOT saying the same thing. Now the good work by our troops threatens to be undone.
We do need a strategy for reducing Islamic extremism as a whole, and we can begin by weaning ourselves off Middle Eastern oil which pumps our money into the worst regimes.
Pax americana on February 4, 2008 at 7:33 PM
You forgot member of Mitt Romney’s Advisory Committee on the Constitution and the Courts.
Not that that matters or anything.
John from WuzzaDem on February 4, 2008 at 7:46 PM
McCain wants to fiddle for a hundred years in Iraq.
There’s a plan.
With no evidence of his grasping the fact that the Iraqi Constitution was compromised with Sharia Law.
Corrupted to the point that the entire enterprise has been rendered moot.
Since all we are now doing is propping up a future Islamic state.
With a majority of Shi’ites, the more radical of the Mohammadens, in control.
Go John.
100 more years!
And no understanding of Islam’s intolerant dogmas or aims.
profitsbeard on February 4, 2008 at 7:53 PM
John from WuzzaDem,
Yeah, McCarthy is backing Romney… and he’s explaining why. If Romeny’s supporters are to be automatically dismissed from criticizing McCain’s positions, I guess we didn’t need McCain-Feingold in the first place.
Karl on February 4, 2008 at 8:37 PM
Why are all these conservative pundits throwing themselves off the cliff like lemmings?
Mister Ghost on February 4, 2008 at 9:10 PM
Snake307 on February 4, 2008 at 7:01 PM
Of course the press will turn against whoever the GOP nominee is. How is that relevant? And since when does the press dictate who the GOP nominee is? Stop blaming the media. Rush and the rest have more influence on the GOP primaries than the MSM does, and McCain is winning anyway.
packsoldier on February 4, 2008 at 9:22 PM
I haven’t dismissed anyone who criticizes McCain’s positions - I’ve done my fair share of criticizing him myself - but in the brief bio someone left in one of the comments above there’s no mention of McCarthy’s affiliation with Romney’s campaign.
I don’t consider calling to his association with Romney to be dismissive, do you?
John from WuzzaDem on February 4, 2008 at 9:39 PM
Er, calling attention to, that is…Sorry, me not rite good.
John from WuzzaDem on February 4, 2008 at 10:42 PM
Why, McCain actually has a Marine Son Serving in Iraq.
Chakra Hammer on February 4, 2008 at 11:58 PM
If Mitt wants to win the war why doesn’t he urge one of his 5 sons to enlist.
Chakra Hammer on February 4, 2008 at 11:59 PM
There were 59 million people who voted for Bush in 2004. Rush’s audience is roughly 20 million a week. So even if we say that every one of his listeners is a complete robot, following his marching orders to the letter, and judging from history, they aren’t. Rush can only turn out about one third of what voted for Bush in 2004.
Wait, 9 million people watch NBC news every night, when you factor in the other mainstream media, you’re looking at half again as many people as listen to rush in a week. Each night, the political hacks on broadcast TV have more viewers than Rush has listeners in a week.
Now, factor in the internet, and how many pundits on here are in favor of McCain? Just today Medved was singing McCain’s praises as he did his show. So if I’m going to take marching orders, who am I more likely to hear?
You McCainiacs are handing the election to the Democrats, which is fine. If someone is going to push a Liberal Agenda in the form of Amnesty, and don’t pretend you expect McCain to stay by his enforcement first pledge, then it should be a Democrat. If someone is going to pull the troops out of Iraq, and don’t think McCain won’t negotiate on that, he said himself he’ll negotiate anything, it should be a Democrat.
Like I said before, if we get McCain and Hillary running in the general election, how are we supposed to highlight Hillary’s liberal record? Other than pointing to all the Liberal issues she’s voted the same as our guy on, how are we going to do that? Voted against the tax cuts, great, our guy led the way. Voted for more firearm restrictions? Great, our guy led the way.
What’s our slogan going to be? John McCain, the Liberal Conservative?
Snake307 on February 5, 2008 at 1:02 AM
Wow, you truly are a liberal troll, aren’t you? I had my doubts before, but you’ve laid them to rest.
Nineball on February 5, 2008 at 8:49 AM
To fail to secure the border is to repeat the military blunder of the Maginot Line!!!
You MUST secure your flank!!!
(So much for the “superior commander” argument…)
landlines on February 5, 2008 at 12:25 PM