In the latest ABC poll when people were asked about which candidate would make a good Commander-in-Chief, Senator McCain won in a landslide. 72% believe he would be a good Commander-in-Chief, and only 48% believe Senator Obama would be a good Commander-in-Chief.
Senator Clinton agrees, and explains why...
Monday, July 14, 2008
Commander-in-Chief test McCain Wins in a Landslide
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
19 comments:
Though good news, it's amazing and upsetting that almost one of two polled said they thought Obama would make a good commander-in-chief.
Have they any idea of what they've said?
To answer your question, yes. A good commander-in-chief is one who defines good strategies for good policy and leaves the tactics up to his generals. A good commander-in-chief is one who recognizes a stupid war before it starts and tries to prevent it. Those who are most eager to use the military are the least qualified to command it.
Adam you are obviously deluded, a man who has faced the horrors of war are the last to WANT war. No soldier wants war for he knows good & damn well that it may will be he who is having who has to do the killing and dying. While one is infinitely better than the other, both are tragic.
SSGT.Motley rt.
Then how do you explain the fact that McCain is more hawkish and destructive of prisoners' rights?
Adam,
McCain is more Hawkish because he understands the enemy better. Take Iran, a month ago Obama said Iran was no threat. This week, Obama said after they test fired missles that they were a grave threat. Leaders don't base decisions on polls, politicians do. Regarding prisoner rights, McCain has been against Guantanamo from the start. For obvious reasons he's also argued strongly against any sort of torture. You should get the facts before you post
McCain = Bush = Status Quo (Failure)
Obama = No Drilling = Even Higher Gas Prices
Obama = Hugging Iran = Iran gets a Nuclear Bomb = Even bigger catastrophe
Obama = Weak and confused leader = Out enemies dancing in the streets
Making Iran feel threatened only gives them an incentive to seek nuclear weapons. If McCain understood the enemy he would understand the intractable nature of war in the middle east, especially against a large and cohesive country like Iran. There is no reason to saber rattle. We can be diplomatic and no one will forget that we have the best military in the world backing us up.
McCain used to be against Guantanamo but isn't any longer. The Supreme Court recently handed the Bush administration its 4th defeat on Guantanamo, granting (yet again) the right of detainees to challenge their detention. McCain called the ruling "one of the worst rulings in the Court's history." I can think of a few worse ones (Dredd Scott for example). McCain has reversed himself on this issue, and you are right, he above anyone else SHOULD understand the importance of human rights.
If we drill offshore we won't have new gas for 5-7 years and will be out again in another 35. We could have alternatives on the way before the gas could even be drilled and have a much lessened dependence on oil in general in the future. By the time the new oil would be ready the gas price issue will have changed or disappeared. The real winners will be oil companies who get access to these new reserves.
McCain ia and always has been against Guantanamo. The reason for opposing the Supreme court ruling is that they basically granted enemy combatants citizenship rights. That creates a huge logistical problem. McCain and Graham worked together to put in place a system of tribunals so that detainees would have rights, but recognized that giving habeus corpus in a battle situations is unworkable.
Amendment V: "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury... (goes on to say that exceptions exist for American military personnel)... nor be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law..."
Amendment VI: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury [...] and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense"
Notice the laws refer to "people" and "the accused" not to "citizens." They are supposed to apply to anyone who is subject to or under custody of U.S. law and not only to U.S. citizens.
There is no precedent for granting constitutional rights to non-citizens. I think Bush is at least partially resonsible for putting the Supreme court in this position, as some prisoners weren't being granted basic human rights - and that is obviously wrong. However, even illegal aliens don't get full benefits Constitutional rights. Some how giving a terrorist more rights that someone crossing the border illegally seems skewed. Also, the idea that the military is going need to travel with lawyers and CSI investigators to find courtroom evidence in a battlefield situation is just terribly unrealistic.
The only precedent that I am aware of is the four recent ruling against the military/CIA detentions. Going back, there's not much else involving non-citizens, but regardless it is clearly stated in the Constitution that those rights are supposed to be applied. Immigrant rights is another issue, but immigrants are tried in the court system and hot held in secret without explanation by the military. Most of the Guantanamo detainees were not picked up on the battlefield. They are mostly civilians of Middle-Eastern countries, Europe, and yes the U.S. Many from Afghanistan were rounded up at random by the Northern Alliance because we payed them per prisoner. An estimate from within the military says that as many as one third to half of them are innocent. If they are guilty they should be tried. They can then be found guilty, punished and have their activities exposed in a credible way. If they are innocent then they should be released. No forensics is needed, just a simple explanation of why they are being held.
Actually Adam, I don't think we're that far apart on this issue. I completely agree that you have to charge detainees and can't just hold them endlessly. Also, I agree that it appears that the manner in which prisoners were rounded up, at least in some cases, has been terrible. The only point I really disagree on is that I think that the tribunals that McCain and Graham championed make more sense than a jury trial. I certainly don't blame anyone for being outraged by the way prisoners have been treated in the last eight years, and completely respect those fighting to make sure they have at least basic human rights. However, just think the court decided in a way that could create a logistical nightmare for the military.
We're really not that far apart. Logistically you may be right about the tribunals making more sense, and I would accept them so long as I were sure that evidence was presented and a defense was allowed in every case. My main concern is that an "enemy combatant" is defined as whatever the president says it is, so legally there is no barrier to an American such as you or myself being detained in this way, it just hasn't happened yet. That is why I think this program needs to be scrapped or totally revised to prevent it taking a more authoritarian twist. It is very nice to be able to discuss this respectfully and rationally without all of the hostility that is all too common in debates of this kind. Thank you for that!
Thanks Adam - Completely understand where you're coming from.
Post a Comment