Sunday, January 6, 2008

McCain Defends the War on Iraq Even Absent Weapons Excuse.


Being interviewed on Meet the Press this morning, Senator John McCain was asked by host Tim Russert, “If you had known that Saddam Hussein had no biological, chemical, or nuclear weapons, would you still have supported the invasion?”

McCain replied unequivocally “yes”. He went on to say that Saddam was not a nice person and the problem with Iraq was not the invasion but the failure to invade with sufficient forces.

I like John McCain. He is an honorable person and I admire his service to our country. I admire his independence. I respect him for actually answering the question he was asked. However, I do not want John McCain to be President.

I cannot understand how anyone could justify the invasion of Iraq unless they actually believed at the time that the country had weapons of mass destruction. I am not a pacifist. I think wars are sometimes necessary. If we are attacked we cannot turn the other cheek. We have to be engaged in the world and sometimes that leads to honoring our commitments to our friends and stopping international bullies. If Iraq had attacked us, if Iraq had invaded a country with which we had a defense treaty, if Iraq had in fact had weapons of mass destruction, then I could have supported the war. I cannot not subscribe to the view that we can make war on any country we like without a valid reason. That is not the kind of country I want America to be.

I wish every candidate could be asked as bluntly the same question that Russert asked McCain. I would like to know with the same certainty who else I do not want to be President.

Stumble Upon Toolbar
My Zimbio
Top Stories

1 comment:

  1. Ouch. McCain thought we could invade another country because it's leader was an asshole? With that kind of reasoning, we'd have the entire European Union on our borders at this very moment.

    ReplyDelete