Poligazette contributor Kevin Sullivan critiques “infantile arguments” targeting McCain’s foreign policy plans.
Kevin Sullivan: We do have troops all around the world, and if you start making infantile arguments based on the presence of American troops around the world, you’ll begin to give fodder to McCain’s campaign.
Read the rest of this article.
PoliGazette Comments Policy
PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree.
Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate
these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors.
Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue
publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.
(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly
or blatantly misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that
respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should
not be posted.
(2) Comments should avoid vulgarity as well as racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual bigotry.
(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional
reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.
(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not
include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement
the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.
(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements.
Comments that present objectively false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim") or
that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat
slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.
Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors
by email only.
On Twitter
I can’t speak for the whole article, but one aspect in particular that may not be so infantile, is the limited resources argument. Even if everyone in the US agreed that we should have a military presence there for more than years, how do we pay for this? Some may argue that the "cost" of us not being there is greater, but well intentioned opinions don’t pay the bills. If my company can’t afford something and our credit lines are maxed, If I am a good businessman I shouldn’t sign up for another credit line. I need to make cuts, get my finances in order and go from there. Since the president just approved our welfare checks, I mean "stimulus package", it doesn’t look like we are looking to cut costs anywhere anytime soon.
I wouldn’t mind (*as much*) if McCain said 100 years in the War on Terror, hopefully it doesn’t take that long. But 100 years in Iraq? Why, so that we can further stretch our financial resources to support Iraq “in defending its democratic system against internal and external threats.” The Bush administration is insisting that the government in Baghdad give the United States broad authority to conduct combat operations and guarantee civilian contractors specific legal protections from Iraqi law. Regardless of their political motives, I agree with Hillary and Obama that the White House is sponsoring negotiations that will set into law a long-term security relationship with Iraq. I also agree with Senator Delahunt that what the administration was negotiating amounted to a treaty and should be subjected to Congressional oversight and ultimately ratification. It appears that the Bush administration either doesn’t see that this action walks and talks like a treaty, or they just want to change the words around, repackage it, and sell it as something else. Most importantly Delahunt added, “Where have we ever had an agreement to defend a foreign country from external attack and internal attack that was not a treaty?” he said Wednesday at a hearing of a foreign affairs subcommittee held to review the matter. “This could very well implicate our military forces in a full-blown civil war in Iraq. If a commitment of this magnitude does not rise to the level of a treaty, then it is difficult to imagine what could.” Defending the White House, Defense secretary Robert gates added “We have no interest in permanent bases. I think the way to think about the framework agreement is an approach to normalizing the relationship between the United States and Iraq.” No permanent bases? Ok, we will just have OUR troops living, fighting and dying in Iraq for a really, really, REALLY long time.NY times story:http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/25/world/middleeast/25military.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5124&en=95f1f19ffcbe38a2&ex=1359003600&partner=delicious&exprod=delicious