He had a good shot at the Pub nomination, then. If he had got it, and beaten Gore in the general, what would he have done? Based on his rhetoric I’m thinking his approach to the post-9/11 situation would have been very similar to W’s, but what would he have done differently?
I don’t think his response to 9/11 would have been very similar to Bush at all. Bush didn’t invade Iraq because of 9/11, and McCain wouldn’t have seen the same reasoning for the invasion that Bush did (assuming Bush saw any kind of reasoning at all. I’m still not buying the “for the oil” claims).
I think McCain would have tackled the Taliban and been much, much more persistent in finding and capturing Osama. There might be lots more American troops in Pakistan whether the Pakistanis liked it or not. The war in Iraq might have ended up being the war in Pakistan instead.
Remember that Bush and his counselors deliberately intercepted any kind of information proving that Iraq had no WMDs or ties to Al-Qaida. If McCain had been in charge, and seen that same information, I don’t think he would have been willing to trade American soldiers’ lives for whatever it is Bush and his crew wanted there, whether it was oil or reconstruction contracts or whatever.
I agree with Mosier. Except I don’t think there would have been a war in Pakistan.
Based on everything I have heard McCain say over the years, he wants to invade just about everyone. The difference is that he wouldn’t have lied to get us to go along with him (and I don’t think we would have invaded Iraq if we were fully informed) and he wouldn’t have taken his eyes off the ball in Afghanistan.
It is very clear that he would have invaded with overwhelming force instead of what this adminsitration did (in which case, there is a good argument that we would balready be out of Iraq with fewer casualties and at lower cost).
I think it is pretty clear there would not have been any administration supported torture, Guantanamo would not have occurred and I doubt Haliburton would have picked up so many no-bid contracts.
I doubt we would gone into Iraq. Pakistan & Iran however, we might have rolled through, but only after McCain gave his Secretary of State a chance to actually build a real coalition army and his Secretary of Defense a chance to plan the occupation.
He is a hawk, but not a Neo-Con and not stupid.
His supreme court appointments would probably have been about the same, so this would still be bad.
The soldiers that were sent into danger would have had proper body armor and the health care for the vets would have been better. On the other hand, McCain would have considered the draft as a serious option.
I agree he would have hunted Osama down.
I think he would have handled Katrina better, but the bar is pretty damn low on that one. I doubt incompetent cronies would have been in the two key positions for Fema and Homeland Security. In fact, I doubt there would be a Homeland Security.
We would have made far more progress on Global Warming legislation & changes.
I guess I am trying to say things would be a lot better, but largely as the bar was set so absolutely low. Gore or Bradley would have also been as much of an improvement, just different.
Oh one more, McCain would not have gone into hiding on 9/11.
Jim
Then he’d be an idiot. The President has a responsibility to the country, being foolish during a major terrorist attack and ignoring the advice of pretty much everyone in the know would have made him stupid. This is a cheap shot, Bush did absolutely nothing wrong on the day of 9/11. Whatever you may think about what he did in the days before or after, on that day he acted in an entirely appropriate manner.
Simple question, why? Why was it the right thing to run and hide and for Cheney to also disappear?
Can you calmly explain why? What was the threat to their lives at that point that the Air Force and Secret Service could not handle?
Jim
He could have ordered Cheney into hiding and then boldly gone into Washington himself in a manner that would send a message of reassurance to the American people and of defiance to the terrorists. Instead he ran off to Nebraska. His duck and run maneuver was a lost opportunity at best.
Here’s a news flash - Washington was under attack. I was at the Navy Yard there at the time, so I remember that well.
I went to the roof of our building and watched the smoke rise over the city. I listened to news reports (that later turned out to be happily false) that the State Department was under attack. My actual office at the time was in northern Crystal City in Arlington, right across the highway from the Pentagon, and it reeked of smoke for weeks.
The President was elected by and is an official of the whole damn country, not just Washington. I see no problem with what he did that day, and had it been Clinton or Gore or Kerry, I’d say the same thing. Dead presidents don’t do much good.
As for McCain, I’d like to make a point - I think detentions may have taken a different form at Guantanamo, but I have no doubt he would have detained people there - just as Clinton did, and Bush I, and Reagan. And they all did it for the same reasons - to prevent a detainee of whatever stripe access to an American court.
How do you figure? I mean, the “not a Neo-Con” part. I agree he’s not stupid. But McCain was the neocon candidate in 2000.
“Neocon” is a term that has little real meaning anymore, abused as it has been by lots of people with little notion of what it actually meant.
Read some websites, and it seems to be nothing more than just another mean synonym for Jew.
Don’t be silly. The SS already made a huge blunder by allowing the pres. to stay one second longer in Booker elementary school in Florida. The country is under attack, and the president is sitting, largely undefended, in a publicly announced event? He should have done just what he did (bugging out to the Midwest), only a hell of a lot sooner.
Nah…Jewish Republican.
Nobody knew. That’s the point.
On Stormfront, maybe. In this forum, I think most of us know that American neoconservatism is a real movement with a definite history and well-known players – and that W and McCain are not among them. W has allowed himself to be heavily influenced by neocons; whether McCain would is an open question.
If we go with Irving Kristol’s five basic policies of neoconservatism (lifted from Wiki)
McCain is not in lockstep on 1. He disagrees with 2 and still believes in smaller government. He is at some odds on 3, but he has sadly pandered on this one over the last 8 years.
He does check out on 4 & 5, but that is as Hawk traditionally would.
Jim
It was? Seriously? Thanks.
One building was hit. Not quite the burning by the British in the War of 1812 was it? And it doesn’t matter anyway as that is not the reason Bush went to Nebraska. He went there because of a perceived threat to Air Force One. They thought that somehow the terrorists were going to ram the plane with another plane. This sounds pretty ridiculous, but surely we must be used to that by now with this administration.
If there is a similar attack in the next administration, no matter who is in office, I bet there will a different reaction from the president.
Well, I don’t think McCain would have frozen up for seven crucial minutes while generals were desperately asking for orders from the Commander in Chief. So, that might have been something different.
I would have assumed that whatever W did that day he did on the Secret Service’ advice of the moment (the most prudent course, perhaps the only conceivable course, for a president dealing with any unexpected and potentially dangerous situation). Is there any reason to think otherwise?
That and the military officers controlling the airspace. But in general yes.