McCain seems almost gleeful about provoking Russia. At first blush, you'd think he'd be more nuanced, since many of the foreign policy gurus he says he talks to emanate from the old-school Nixon-Kissinger circle of détente-niks, including Henry Kissinger himself, Lawrence Eagleburger and Brent Scowcroft. Their collective attitude is that as long as Moscow doesn't threaten US interests, we can do business with it. But there is little evidence of their views in McCain's policy toward Putin's Russia. "I think it's fair to assume that he's most influenced by his neoconservative advisers," says the GOP strategist.

"He's the true neocon," says the Brookings Institution's Ivo Daalder, a liberal interventionist who conceived the idea of a League of Democracies with Robert Kagan. "He does believe, in a way that George W. Bush never really did, in the use of power, military power above all, to change the world in America's image. If you thought George Bush was bad when it comes to the use of military force, wait till you see John McCain.... He believes this. His advisers believe this. He's surrounded himself with people who believe it. And I'll take him at his word."

Not surprisingly, the center of McCain's foreign policy is the Middle East. "He's bought into the completely fallacious notion that we're in a global struggle of us-versus-them. He calls it the 'transcendental threat...of extreme Islam," says Daalder. "But it's a silly argument to think that this is either an ideological or a material struggle on a par with [the ones against] Nazi Germany or Soviet Communism." For McCain, the Iraq War, the conflict with Iran, the Arab-Israeli dispute, the war in Afghanistan, the Pakistani crisis and the lack of democracy in Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan are all rolled up into one "transcendent" ball of wax.

More than any other politician, McCain is identified with the Iraq War. From the mid-1990s on, he and his advisers were staunch supporters of "regime change." Scheunemann helped write the Iraq Liberation Act in 1998, which funded Ahmad Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress; joined Bill Kristol's Project for the New American Century; and helped create the neoconservative Committee for the Liberation of Iraq in 2002, with White House support. Together with Joe Lieberman, Sam Brownback and a handful of other senators, McCain emerged as a major cheerleader for the war. Like his fellow neocons, McCain touted what proved to be faked intelligence on the threat posed by Iraq. Echoing Vice President Cheney, McCain said on the eve of the war, "There's no doubt in my mind, once [Saddam] is gone, that we will be welcomed as liberators." He pooh-poohed critics who argued that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's war plan was too reliant on technology and too light on troops, saying, "I don't think you're going to have to see the scale of numbers of troops that we saw...back in 1991." When Gen. Eric Shinseki warned, a month before the war started, that occupying Iraq would require far more troops, McCain was mute.

Yep, he sure is! I can't believe that he is even a member of the Senate! That is too much power for such a hot head! Now he is a candidate? I know he is only wanting to become president so he can rule the world. What do you think TedN5?

Can't you use anything more derogatory than Neocon? I know that it by itself isn't derogatory, but when used in the context that it is used, you are trying to use it as a "four letter word". Besides, does that include the likes of Hillary, Rockefeller, Biden, Daschel, Dodd, Edwards, Feinstein, Harkin, Kerry, Lieberman, Schumer? I would hate to leave these and other Democrats out of the list of people that "led us into Iraq".

Not any more than if anyone else that voted for the war would.

1. Is McCain too much of a hothead to be trusted with the control of nuclear weapons?


As I said in another thread, there is no OJT program for presidents. I am going to give McCain the benefit-of-the-doubt on pushing "the button," while questioning his broader approach to foreign policy. We got through the Cold War, when international relations were quite strained, without some firing off a nuke. A bigger concern for me is whether McCain would carry on the failed Bush legacy in foreign relations. Preliminary indications are that he'd do just that.

BTW: Scubatim one of the best traditions on is to at least try to start a thread from a neutral position. I'm sure TedN5 will chime in at an appropriate time without your coaxing.

2. Does McCain's close association with the very Neocons that led us into Iraq disqualify him to be President?


He's been endorsed by the likes of Joe Lieberman. "Neocons" are real. They are not like Halloween ghosts or gobblins. If you object hard enough, maybe Mike or Jaime will add "neocon" to the profanity filter.

3. Does his support of the invasion and backing of the "easy war" myth similarly argue against his election?


That's too simplistic. McCain seems to want to perpetuate the war, while Obama and Clinton want to figure a way out.

By this "logic," I assume you are an Obama supporter.

(scubatim)
Can't you use anything more derogatory than Neocon? I know that it by itself isn't derogatory, but when used in the context that it is used, you are trying to use it as a "four letter word". Besides, does that include the likes of Hillary, Rockefeller, Biden, Daschel, Dodd, Edwards, Feinstein, Harkin, Kerry, Lieberman, Schumer? I would hate to leave these and other Democrats out of the list of people that "led us into Iraq".

(quick)
McCain never backed anything about the Rumsfeld "light" approach. McCain was a Powell Doctrine man from the beginning and he has stated for years the war has been mismanaged.

Like his fellow neocons, McCain touted what proved to be faked intelligence on the threat posed by Iraq. Echoing Vice President Cheney, McCain said on the eve of the war, "There's no doubt in my mind, once [Saddam] is gone, that we will be welcomed as liberators." He pooh-poohed critics who argued that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's war plan was too reliant on technology and too light on troops, saying, "I don't think you're going to have to see the scale of numbers of troops that we saw...back in 1991." When Gen. Eric Shinseki warned, a month before the war started, that occupying Iraq would require far more troops, McCain was mute.

But to buy into the McCain-knows-best version of the Iraq war, you have to ignore a lot of history. McCain was among the most aggressive proponents of a preemptive strike against Saddam Hussein, cosponsoring the resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq. He also expressed full faith in the way it would be executed -- a war plan conceived and executed by Rumsfeld.

He did call for more troops in Iraq sooner than some, but later than others who made the same argument before the first shots were even fired. And McCain's support for Rumsfeld only evaporated over time, as it became painfully clear that the war in Iraq was going south.

McCain's real failing, however, was in helping to lead the charge into war, something quite different from those who exhibited political cowardice by not opposing it.

BTW: Scubatim one of the best traditions on is to at least try to start a thread from a neutral position. I'm sure TedN5 will chime in at an appropriate time without your coaxing.

He's been endorsed by the likes of Joe Lieberman. "Neocons" are real. They are not like Halloween ghosts or gobblins. If you object hard enough, maybe Mike or Jaime will add "neocon" to the profanity filter.

3. Does his support of the invasion and backing of the "easy war" myth similarly argue against his election?


That's too simplistic. McCain seems to want to perpetuate the war, while Obama and Clinton want to figure a way out.

By this "logic," I assume you are an Obama supporter.

"Today in Iraq, America and our allies stand on the precipice of winning a major victory against radical Islamic extremism. The security gains over the past year have been dramatic and undeniable. Al Qaeda and Shia extremists -- with support from external powers such as Iran -- are on the run but not defeated."

On Tuesday, the senator, appearing in Israel, made a nearly identical assertion that al-Qaeda was leaving Iraq to retool and regroup in Iran.

It was, he said, "common knowledge and has been reported in the media that al-Qaeda is going back into Iran and receiving training and are coming back into Iraq from Iran, that's well known. And it's unfortunate."

Sen. Joseph Lieberman, who was accompanying McCain on the trip, was forced to lean over and whisper in McCain's ear that it was Shiite extremists, not Sunni al-Qaeda, that was going to predominantly Shiite Iran.