What McCain said at Falwell's commencement makes no sense

"Americans should argue about this war," McCain said. While he defended his support of the Iraq invasion, he said people must engage in debate on the subject.

"If an American feels the decision was unwise, then they should state their opposition and argue for another course. It is your right and your obligation. I respect you for it. I would not respect you if you chose to ignore such an important responsibility.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/05/13/mccain.address/index.html



McCain's position is that the war is justified, and vital to US security, so why is he encouraging sentiments that would be detrimental to what he sees as "success" in Iraq.

If McCain fully supports the war, and thinks the US should "stay the course" for the best desired outcome, then how is this outcome helped by giving a thumbs up to criticism?

Calling on war critics to speak up and voice dissent is destrimental to what he claims is his position: that the US "support the mission," and bring democracy to the mid-east, or whatever.

If you're honestly opposed to the war, then encouraging dissent is perfectly consistent, but if you're a hawk, like McCain, why would you want to encourage dissent? It's a catch-22.

It just frustrates me when discredited hawks try to have it both ways.

End of story.

(This is IMHO, and I realize it's laconic, but I feel like that's what needs to be said, and that's it.)

Debating the war is not detrimental to success in Iraq, it is in fact essential. There will never be success in Iraq as long as our troops are there. Our presence there greatly strengthens our enemies, adds to instability and has derailed what could have been a very effective international attack on terrorism.

The idea that even arguing about the war is encouraging terrorists is a major pro-war meme.

He has become maggot-filled garbage IMO

supporter of the/a war, and recognize that dissent is an essential part of democracy.

SHOULD BE

i'm not a mccain fan -- his only redeeming quality is that he doesn't walk in lock-step with the rest of the banana republicans. but he's still one of THEM, not one of US.

having said that, the position you cite is the only one i can respect. to stifle dissent is just plain unamerican, regardless of who's doing it and why.

I just don't think it's consistent with his position.

"should we lose this war, our defeat will further destabilize an already volatile and dangerous region, strengthen the threat of terrorism and unleash furies that will assail us for a very long time. I believe the benefits of success will justify the costs and risks we have incurred."

If all this gloom and doom is true (I think it's crap), why encourage dissent? There's a difference between tolerating dissent and encouraging it, and McCain appears to be encouraging it, which is inconsistent.

moreover, there's nothing wrong or inconsistent with "allowing" the opposing view to be expressed. in fact, sometimes it merely strengthens your own side, because it adds the legitimacy of healthy debate to what would otherwise be a unilateral decision.

on it, to deflect from the growing numbers of louder voices saying 'Enough is Enough'.
It's not working though, because people are dying and becoming more desperate
and miserable than they ever thought possible.
And for the most part those suffering are correctly labeling the culprits of this fiasco.

Given that bushco could manufacture a major distraction, I'll gladly take McCain's spin.

Does it seem like McCain has been talking in riddles lately?

Don

kiss.