Falling behind in the polls and fund-raising, John McCain will try tomorrow night on 60 Minutes to recover from the fiasco of his recent visit to Baghdad by insisting that, although he did “misspeak,” he believes the war in Iraq is winnable.
The Senator, who was a POW in Vietnam, deserves respect for his convictions, but his judgment is another matter.
Ironically, his own Senate web site carries a story that tells it all--a piece from the Los Angeles Times of March 3, 2001 (seven months before 9/11) headlined “On Iraq, GOP Split Over Gaining World Respect or Enforcing It” that describes McCain’s differences with his fellow Vietnam veteran, Sen. Chuck Hagel, who had supported his 2000 bid for the Presidency:
“Hagel has repeatedly warned that the United States must disarm Iraq in a way that reinforces international alliances...McCain has become the champion of the hard-line neoconservative thinkers who want to move quickly against Iraq, no matter how many countries agree...
“In all, while Hagel argues that broadening international cooperation is the key to security in this new era, McCain believes ‘credibility’ in delivering military force is the top priority. The one is focused on winning respect, the other believes in enforcing it.”
McCain, the story noted, is “optimistic that the overthrow of Hussein will encourage a democratic chain reaction throughout the region.”
If McCain was so wrong about Iraq then, why should voters trust him now? And what does it say about his judgment that his web site is still carrying a story that makes a better case for putting Chuck Hagel in the White House than McCain?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment