McCain just got done talking about how Obama "missed an opportunity" in Iran . . .

[shiftless]

@El_Kabong

Meh, if the Republicans want to invade Iran and Syria, let 'em say so.

That is what I thought I heard McCain saying should be done. I haven’t listened to much of the convention but I heard part of McCain’s speech and I would swear he was faulting the president for failing to intervene in Iran and Syria when he had the chance. The reaction from the audiance was very light so either they didn’t like what McCain was saying (please be the case) or nobody was listening.

My take away from the convention so far is: A Republican would have intervened militarily in both Iran and Syria. Vote as you will.

[adaher]

McCain’s foreign policy views are not shared by many in the party and no one really knows what Romney thinks.

I think mcCain would have intervened in Iran, Syria, and Libya, but I don’t think Romney would. I think Romney and Obama will be very similar in terms of foreign policy.

[Sitnam]

@adaher

McCain’s foreign policy views are not shared by many in the party and no one really knows what Romney thinks.

I think mcCain would have intervened in Iran, Syria, and Libya, but I don’t think Romney would. I think Romney and Obama will be very similar in terms of foreign policy.

McCain certainly knows military sacrifice, but his father was a Naval commander and he was a pilot. I wonder if his opinion on military intervention in those counties would be different if he had ground experience.

[BrainGlutton]

@Ibn_Warraq

I thought Chris Christie was the keynote speaker of the convention.

Eh? Nonsense! Perish forbid! Og help the GOP if they should ever be reduced to that . . . What?

[BrainGlutton]

@adaher

Letting a civil war drag on for months then intervening after tens of thousands are dead is not decisive, it’s dithering.

Obama should not intervene in Syria for the simple reason that he didn’t do so when it would have done the most good. If he was going to do it, it should have been a long time ago.

That is the most pathetic, lameass military-strategic analysis I’ve ever read.

[Martin_Hyde]

@BrainGlutton

:rolleyes: :dubious: MCain is a former presidential nominee and a keynote speaker at the Republican National Convention; it is not unfair to take him as speaking for the party. Especially when the crowd cheers his every remark. And no, the party does not oppose involvement in Syria . . . nor support it, so far as I can figure . . . But it the party, or at least the RW voices on the Intertubes, do seem pretty consistently to bash Obama WRT to Libya and Syria; and pointing out the dissonance between that and the remarks McCain got cheers for just now is not unfair either.

I actually meant to say “did McCain oppose involvement in Libya”, not Syria. The answer is no, while some of the GOP opposed our involvement in Libya McCain appears to have been a major supported of that involvement, and he appears to have taken legislative steps to streamline approval for our involvement in Libya.

Your point is simply incoherent and meaningless. Some Republicans opposed our involvement in Libya, and McCain wasn’t one of them. That by its nature shows the GOP was never in lock step on that issue. In the echo chamber, absolutist world of the SDMB most people simply lack the ability to view any issue with nuance, and assume if one prominent Republican does or says something all Republicans do and say and think the same thing.

So there really isn’t any hypocrisy, not by McCain since he has always supported intervention in Libya–and in fact in general McCain has always been an interventionist politician in regard to foreign policy. There also isn’t necessarily any hypocrisy from the GOP at large, since there was never a consensus GOP position on Libyan involvement.