Jed Lewison on Why America Cannot Afford to Elect John McCain
My line used to be that John McCain was the best possible Republican candidate--he was, after all, the only one not enthusiastically in favor of torture. But Jed Lewison has now convinced me that McCain is worse than I could previously have imagined. How has he done this. By firing up the Wayback Machine and taking us back to 2002 to listen to John McCain on the virtues of preemptive wars:
McCain's chilling defense of preemptive war against Iraq - The Jed Report: If you're like me, it can be hard to get fired up about something John McCain says, but earlier this evening I spent twenty-something minutes watching John McCain's October, 2002 Senate floor speech in favor of launching a preemptive war against Iraq. It was chilling... his foreign policy judgment is both terrifying and dangerous.... [I]t's impossible to... [avoid] the conclusion that he is a trigger-happy war monger....
What stunned me most was that oil played a crucial role in McCain's rationale. Speaking of Saddam Hussein, he said: "his ambitions lie not in Baghdad, or Tikrit, or Basra, but in the deserts of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia." Explaining the reluctance of other powers to support the war, McCain said that Saddam had dangled "the prospect of oil contracts for friendly foreign powers." Finally, McCain said, "We contemplate military action to end his rule because allowing him to remain in power, with the resources at his disposal, would intolerably and inevitably risk American interests in a region of the world where threats to those interests affect the whole world."
Here are key quotations....
It is a question of...whether our morality and security give us cause to fire the first shot in this battle...
[Saddam Hussein's] ambitions lie not in Baghdad, or Tikrit, or Basra, but in the deserts of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia...
[Saddam Hussein] is using opponents of war in America, including well-intentioned individuals who honestly believe inspections represent an alternative to war, to advance his own ends, sowing divisions within our ranks that encourage reasonable people to believe he may be sincere...
The burden is not on America to justify going to war. The burden is Saddam Hussein's, to justify why his regime should continue to exist as long as its continuing existence threatens the world. Giving peace a chance only gives Saddam Hussein more time to prepare for war - on his terms, at a time of his choosing, in pursuit of ambitions that will only grow...
It's a safe assumption that Iraqis will be grateful to whoever is responsible for securing their freedom. Perhaps that is what truly concerns some of our Gulf War allies: that among the consequences of regime change in Iraq might be a stronger demand for self-determination from their own people...
We contemplate military action to end his rule because allowing him to remain in power, with the resources at his disposal, would intolerably and inevitably risk American interests in a region of the world where threats to those interests affect the whole world...
Failure to end the danger posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq makes it more likely that the interaction we believe to have occurred between members of al Qaeda and Saddam's regime may increasingly take the form of active cooperation to target the United States...
By voting to give the President the authority to wage war, we assume and share his responsibility.... We have a choice. The men and women who wear the uniform... and... might lose their lives in service... do not. They will do their duty, as we see fit to define it for them...
