Letter to the editor:

We don’t need another ‘war president’

Joseph J. Carbone, Las Vegas

Friday, Aug. 1, 2008 | 2:02 a.m.

As a former serviceman and as a proud American, I sincerely respect and admire that John McCain was a prisoner of war in North Vietnam. That said, I have to question whether that experience qualifies Mr. McCain as a hero or to be president and commander in chief.

A hero by definition is someone who performs a heroic deed. I am not minimizing the hardships Mr. McCain experienced, but we must not blow that out of proportion. Unfortunate, yes; heroic, hardly. He was not the only prisoner in Hanoi, and although he was imprisoned a long time, many, many others were imprisoned much longer than he was.

Mr. McCain implies that his military service has equipped him to be a strong and formidable commander in chief, but we are electing a president, and being commander in chief is only part of that position, not the position.

The people of this country and the world are sick and tired of war. We have incredible problems in the United States and all the effort and capital we have poured into war has exacerbated them. The United States needs a president who can work to solve our problems, not continue to maintain them.

The present administration has unequivocally stated that the reasons we went to war with Iraq were not substantiated. There were no weapons of mass destruction that could and would be imminently used against us or our allies. Saddam Hussein was not in league with al-Qaida. We, in fact, did not go to war. What we did was attack, invade and conquer a country. What in God’s name qualifies and dignifies victory in an unjustified war?

Mr. McCain would better present himself as an ideal presidential candidate by telling us how he will solve our national problems, rather than continuing a horrible mistake to eventual “victory,” whatever that means. We have had our fill of a “war president.”

Discussion: 15 comments so far…

By jfnance32

8/1/08 at 7:19 a.m.

Suggest removal

Both candidates want to keep troops in Iraq for many years. A key Obama adviser has recommend to Obama that they need to keep between 60,000 to 80,000 troops in Iraq.

The difference is that McCain wants to keep combat brigades and Obama does not want to.

To be fair to Obama, he has said that he will keep combat brigades if the general recommend it.

Obama has made threats to attack terrorist bases in Pakistan without the permission of the sovereign government of Pakistan.

Obama changed his mind and voted for FISA.

Every day Obama moves closer and closer to Bush's policies.
By NVMakz

8/1/08 at 7:41 a.m.

Suggest removal

Every day Obama becomes more bold in his woof and more comfortable with the results he never argued for - and wouldn't still - and that President Bush has provided for him.

The progress and the scattering of the terrorist element due to the successful surge are undeniable.

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles...

I don't like wars either, but like LOSING THEM a lot less. Mr. Carbone and the liberals who slither around here LOVE LOSING WARS if it means a few seats more.

MCCain IS a powerful force of political gravitas compared to the skinny, weak political puppy, Barry Obama.
By meek33

8/1/08 at 7:44 a.m.

Suggest removal

We need more options, these two candidates dont really encompass everyones Ideas. You have an old school war mongerer, who is well over his prime and then you have a far left Young inexperienced PC king. Then the attack ads.
To me these attack ads are unimportant, people have to be smarted enough to see through them. The candidate that will win will be the candidate that comes up with real answers despite these attakc ads. . Until they come up with solutions to fix our economy. McCain and Obama need better plans to fix our economy, and this energy crisis. The economy and energy go hand and hand. I mean it makes me sick to see these candidates getting side tracked when there are real issues to deal with. Did you see this video of Obama appearing with Ludicris the rapper? I understand that he is just trying to get the youth vote, but we are in such bad shape that candidates really shouldnt take time to pander about. The video is at http://www.TheObamaPlan.com Or take McCain for example. He took time off to have a whos who cook out. Not to mention the infamous viagra video moment. LOL, You can see that video at http://www.McCanes.com I dont think McCain is sharp enough to hold the office. I dont think Obama is realistic enough to hold the office. I guess we are just screwed. Unless you like Bob Barr or Ron Paul, there is alot of online talk of these two teaming up, their is even a website called BarrPaul08 its at http://www.BarrPaul08.com. Unless McCain picks Huckabee. I may vote for McCain then, Because I think Huckabee would have a very positive impact on this countrys economy.. Im still not sure who Im voting for, Maybe I will make my decision in the booth.
By NVMakz

8/1/08 at 8:26 a.m.

Suggest removal

"meek":

I'm still a Romney-man, but we need to play the hands the media influenced we all to have. Romney would be the only candidate of the four who actually HAS a resume of success and production in and out of government.

I certainly like Huckabee as well, but say at HHS or the EPA maybe.
By Teaser

8/1/08 at 8:27 a.m.

Suggest removal

We have options. They belong to Congress. All signs indicate clearly that the next Congress will have significant majority Democratic rule. Everyone keeps ignoring that in these discussions.
By mwh710

8/1/08 at 8:49 a.m.

Suggest removal

Thank God
By thebs

8/1/08 at 1:36 p.m.

Suggest removal

"Obama has made threats to attack terrorist bases in Pakistan without the permission of the sovereign government of Pakistan."

And in other news, President Bush has attacked terrorist bases multiple times without the permission of the sovereign government of Pakistan and the sky hasn't fallen.

And what do these two positions have in common:

"Sen. John McCain of Arizona, close to clinching the GOP nomination, called Sen. Barack Obama 'naive' today and... blasted him for advocating a bombing of Al Qaeda hide-outs in Pakistan," the Los Angeles Times reports. "

AND:

"Of course, of course I would take action if we had actionable intelligence. We just acted on some actionable intelligence and apparently we may have killed eleven Pakistani soldiers. Um, and uh, that is, obviously arouses the anger of some in Pakistan... Of course you would, if you had actionable intelligence, you would take action." - John McCain

The answer: Nothing. McCain flip flops again on something as serious as attacking Al Qaeda? Or is he being naieve?

But it really doesn't surprise me that the neocons are all lathered up about Romney, the flip-flopper extraordinaire! The guy who had the look and money of a right-wing neocon, but couldn't seal the deal. And now the failed candidate may be on McCain's ticket?

With the countless flip flops between the two, they have all positions covered! Abortion? For and against and against but in cases of rape and incest and against against! Gay marriage? For and against and for, and for unions, and not for unions and against! Offshore drilling? Against and for, and against again!

I can see the debates...

Moderator: So are you against abortion?
McCain: No!
Romney: Yes!
McCain: Um, Yes!
Romney: What did he say? Oh, wait! No!
McCain: I forget, what did I say last?
Romney: What can I say to get your vote?
McCain: I voted for it before I voted against!
Romney: Maybe?
McCain: (uneasy smile)
By jfnance32

8/1/08 at 4:29 p.m.

Suggest removal

That is the weakest I have ever seen from theBS.

You must be off your game.

You are much better than that.

I expect better.
By jfnance32

8/1/08 at 4:39 p.m.

Suggest removal

I expect any good American President to attack our enemies without regard to other country's feelings or sovereign rights.

I think it is a good thing.

Bush did and does it.

Obama is promising to do it.

Obama is more and more like Bush.

Hell...I might even vote for him...if he turns into Bush when it comes to attacking our enemies.
By thebs

8/1/08 at 4:55 p.m.

Suggest removal

Again, you have it wrong. Bush has adopted Obama's plan. Obama's been talking about fighting Al Qaeda in Pakistan for over a year, well before Bush lobbed missiles into Pakistan.

If anything, Obama has made Bush look weaker on the actual War on Terror. His criticisms are hitting home, and Bush has been scrambling ever since.
By ksand99

8/1/08 at 6:17 p.m.

Suggest removal

Hahaha! That is funny thebs. Mitt Romney was a good Governor, but he kept changing his mind on everything. He was very liberal for a republican. He is from Massachussets.

I think they would not be good together on the ticket. John McCain kept lying about what Romney was saying. I remember in a debate they got very angry with each other. I do not think they will be on the same ticket.

And I am glad Barack Obama has gotten George Bush to attack the terrorist bases in Pakistan. Luckily, Pakistan is helping us and is sending in troops. We may need more help, but al quaeda is doubling their attacks, according to RAND, and we need to do something about it.

Barack Obama was talking about this a long time ago. He showed real leadership in threatening al quaeda and now George Bush knows how much of a problem they are.

Finally, John McCain said he will do something, but it is after he criticized Obama for the same thing! He changes his mind too much.

But I agree with this letter. We do not need another war president. I worry that John McCain is singing about bombing Iran. I guess he doesn't realize we are stretched too thin. Iran didn't attack us on 9-11, al quaeda did and we need to destroy them forever. They are doubling their attacks, but Iran has not attacked us for decades. They are not a real threat, unless John McCain keeps wanting to bomb them. They might get scared and attack us first. This is like Bush, the preemtive war. That is a bad idea, we see how badly that worked out in Iraq.
By jfnance32

8/1/08 at 8:24 p.m.

Suggest removal

Obama = Bush

Bush wants to keep troops in Iraq.
Obama wants to keep troops in Iraq.

Bush is for FISA.
Obama is for FISA.

Bush attacks without regard to international law.
Obama attacks without regard to international law.

I am loving Obama.
By ksand99

8/1/08 at 9:24 p.m.

Suggest removal

That is funny jfnance32. Can I play this game?

McCain = Bush

McCain wants tax breaks for the rich.
Bush wants tax breaks for the rich.

McCain thinks waterboarding is good.
Bush thinks waterboarding is good.

McCain wants to bomb iran.
Bush wants to bomb Iran.

McCain is a republican.
Bush is a republican.

I do not like McCain because he is too much like Bush, except that McCain wants amnesty for the illegal aliens. His supporters get really mad when they hear about amnesty.

But it would be like four more years of George Bush. That should be illegal.
By jfnance32

8/2/08 at 6:37 a.m.

Suggest removal

Good posting ksand99.
By neiman1

8/3/08 at 1:21 a.m.

Suggest removal

Let's really look at history. Democrat Clinton bombed Yugoslavia because? Europeans felt threatened. Democrats Kennedy and Johnson gave us Vietnam and 57,000 American combat deaths, Nixon actually got us out. Democrat Roosevelt gave us WWII and Democrat Truman gave us Korea. The peace party does not have a track record of peace except Jimmy Carter who sat in the White House with no idea of how to free our Embassy hostages because no one in the world respected him.
Obama will start WWIII with Israel being destroyed and/or his intention to bomb nuclear power Pakistan with nuclear India waiting to jump them. This is no time for amateurs with a dream , hope or audacity. We need some calm experience to guide these next years and we need to pray Israel doesn't go it alone and attack Iran any day because they have reason to be afraid.