The 12 Steps of Highly Annoying Senators
Nick Gillespie | October 23, 2007, 9:25am
Over at Politico, former reason intern Jeremy Lott writes up former reason staffer Matt Welch's new book, McCain: The Myth of a Maverick. A snippet:
The new 12-step McCain became an advocate of invading countries for looking at us funny. He supported going into Iraq during the 2000 primaries, was the chief advocate for the troop surge in Iraq and is itching for a fight with Iran.
On the domestic front, Welch pointed out that "McCain is now one of the most robust regulators in the Senate." Car emissions, Major League Baseball, cable television, boxing, ultimate fighting - you name it, McCain wants to control it, ban it or, at the very least, fret about it.
"One of the ironies of this book," Welch said, is that it began out of his fondness for McCain. "He really is a charismatic fellow, he has a strange sense of humor and he's an American hero." However, Welch finds McCain's vision for where to lead the country to be deeply troubling.
"He has a militaristic conception of citizenship, inadequate respect for the Constitution and, most importantly, during a time when the military is overstretched and the world has painted a giant red target on our backs, his threatens to be the most interventionist presidency since his idol, Teddy Roosevelt. I don't think we can afford that right now."
More here.
Welch on McCain in reason.
John | October 23, 2007, 11:25am | #
From Foreign Affairs earlier this year.
Iran poses a long-term strategic challenge to the United States, our NATO allies, and Israel. It is the country that most practices state-sponsored terrorism, and it uses its surrogates to supply explosives that kill U.S. troops in Iraq. The Bush administration refuses to talk to Iran about its nuclear program, preferring to ignore bad behavior rather than challenge it. Meanwhile, Iran has enhanced its nuclear-enrichment capabilities, armed Iraqi Shiite militias, funneled arms to Hezbollah, and subsidized Hamas, even as the government continues to hurt its own citizens by mismanaging the economy and increasing political and social repression.
As a result, we have lost precious time. Iran must conform to its nonproliferation obligations and must not be permitted to build or acquire nuclear weapons. If Iran does not comply with its own commitments and the will of the international community, all options must remain on the table.
On the other hand, if Iran is in fact willing to end its nuclear weapons program, renounce sponsorship of terrorism, support Middle East peace, and play a constructive role in stabilizing Iraq, the United States should be prepared to offer Iran a carefully calibrated package of incentives. This will let the Iranian people know that our quarrel is not with them but with their government and show the world that the United States is prepared to pursue every diplomatic option.
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20071101faessay86601/hillary-rodham-clinton/security-and-opportunity-for-the-twenty-first-century.html
And is is not just Iran. She sounds a lot like how you portray McCain Matt.
Use our military not as the solution to every problem but as one element in a comprehensive strategy. As president, I will never hesitate to use force to protect Americans or to defend our territory and our vital interests. We cannot negotiate with individual terrorists; they must be hunted down and captured or killed. Nor can diplomacy alone stop the perpetrators of genocide and crimes against humanity in places such as Darfur. But soldiers are not the answer to every problem. Using force in lieu of diplomacy compels our young men and women in uniform to carry out missions that they may not be trained or prepared for. And it ignores the value of simply carrying a big stick, rather than using it.
Make international institutions work, and work through them when possible. Contrary to what many in the current administration appear to believe, international institutions are tools rather than traps. The United States must be prepared to act on its own to defend its vital interests, but effective international institutions make it much less likely that we will have to do so. Both Republican and Democratic presidents have understood this for decades. When such institutions work well, they enhance our influence. When they do not work, their procedures serve as pretexts for endless delays, as in the case of Darfur, or descend into farce, as in the case of Sudan's election to the UN Commission on Human Rights. But instead of disparaging these institutions for their failures, we should bring them in line with the power realities of the twenty-first century and the basic values embodied in such documents as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
