McCain Won't Rule Out Pre-Emptive War

WESTPORT, Conn. — Republican Sen. John McCain refused Wednesday to rule out a pre-emptive war against another country, although he said one would be very unlikely.

The likely Republican presidential nominee was asked Wednesday at a town-hall style meeting if he would reject "the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive war," a reference to Bush's decision to invade Iraq without it having attacked the United States.

"I don't think you could make a blanket statement about pre-emptive war, because obviously, it depends on the threat that the United States of America faces," McCain told his audience at Bridgewater Associates Inc., a global investment firm.

"If someone is about to launch a weapon that would devastate America, or have the capability to do so, obviously, you would have to act immediately in defense of this nation's national security interests."

McCain said he would consult more closely and more carefully "not with every member of Congress, but certainly the leaders of Congress."

The Iraq war was in the spotlight this week as Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander there, gave Congress a status report on the war. McCain argues for keeping troops in Iraq to capitalize on security gains, despite a recent outbreak of violence. His Democratic rivals, Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton argue for withdrawing troops.

Comments

[GOP4MoreTears]

"McCain refused Wednesday to rule out a pre-emptive war against another country,"

And exactly what did you expect from a guy that goes around singing Bomb, Bomb, Iran?

[CostaMesaJoe]

I pray this is mere lip service to make blood-thirsty war mongers like Sean Hannity feel a jingle in their pants....

[ErikW65]

This kind of Saber-rattling only serves to embolden and empower extremists like Hannity and Ahmedinejad!

[Ping]

We, The United States of America, have always reserved the right to bomb, nuke, attack, kill and destroy anything, anywhere, anytime. Even with Clinton, Obama, McCain this will still be true.

[mrdontplay]

sad but true.

Those in countrol of our country believe that they are god.

[ErikW65]

Just because it will still have been true, doesn't mean it won't no longer be true.

[Mark701]

McCain can say all he wants about preemptive war, war, defensive war, or any other war. The fact is, the United States cannot afford to pay for another war AND the citizens will not tolerate it, especially after Bush. Whoever the next president is, he/she will be completely absorbed in dealing with Iraq and cleaning up the disasters and mistakes of the last eight years. To even consider another war is delusional.

I am hoping McCain understands this and all his talk about war is just throwing some meat to all those Republicans who feel war is the answer to everything as long as they don't have to fight it.

[jaschrod]

McCain says preemptive war is ok if another country has the capability to launch an attack. I suppose we should launch an attack against the Soviet Union now then. Why would it not be ok for other countries to launch an attack against us, just because we have the capability to launch an attack against them? With leaders like John McCain, we are a threat to every country on earth because they think everyone is out to get us.

[kid5rivers]

"War"?

One side alone could fight a "war"? Since when?

Surely a "pre-emptive war" suggests that two sides are involved?

And, if so, what's the benefit of pre-emption?

Sigh! The madness never ends!

[kid5rivers]

Which reminds me of the quote: "Old men are dangerous, for they no longer care what happens to the world."

[ApolloSpeaks]

BARACK FOR PREEMPTIVE WAR WITH IRAN

Barack Obama is on record as saying that surgical strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities may be necessary to stop them from building the bomb. If this isn't exactly preemptive war it is preemptive strikes possibly leading to full scale war. We are a nation at war and no responsible leader can take preemptive war off the table.

[Ping]

Nice spin.

[ErikW65]

Just because something isn't removed from the table doesn't mean it is used. Thank goodness Barack knows more of the substance and nuance of foreign policy than you devil's advocates who look for faults unevenly.

[PierreLeClerke]

These statements were made prior to the release of the N.I.E. that clearly states Iran has STOPPED it's Nuke program. Be accurate with your statements or fall into the Joseph Gerbals school of propaganda.

[Ramirez]

Obama would never use military force. He would speak with the leaders of Iran, find out what they want, and provide it for them. And then say thank you.

[ErikW65]

Which is why you've suggested Hiilary pick him for VP?

[Rescisco]

"I don't think you could make a blanket statement about pre-emptive war..." Sure you can. How about saying that such a concept is contrary to the securitty interests of the United States because it creates dangerous instability in the international system, encourages the abandonment of collective security arrangements and proven collaborative tactics, and places the U.S. in the dangerous and unprofitable position of being perceived as a foolish aggressor thereby creating additional threats to our security. Perhaps Mr. McCain should have ended his statement after the words "I don't think."

[noamjunior]

McCain is the only candidate who can finally bring us victory in vietnam!

[Tom95134]

McCain... McCentury,,, McWAR!!! McWAR!!! McWAR!!! McWAR!!! McWAR!!!

[paixa3]

America had better wake up.

The world is getting very pissed off at you, and will be more so if you vote an asshole like this into the residency of the white house.

[desmirl]

Hitler used the idea of a preemptive war in the late 1930's. Bush used the concept of preemptive war to get us into Iraq. Both acts were based on lies. Let's see: Hitler, Bush. McBombBomb has chosen the kind of company he keeps.

[ApolloSpeaks]

Obama is on record as threatening preemptive surgical strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities to stop the mullahs from building the bomb. O-BOMB-A vs. McBomb. Which of the two would be the more credible when it comes to using force against our enemies? America will make that choice on November 4th based on the credentials of the candidates. Who has the best credentials for making a war time leader? O-BOMB-A or McBomb?

[ErikW65]

In your over-simplified world, refusing to take something off the table is the same as a threat to use it? Get real.

Do you support a candidate, or just blog against one?

[floridagurl]

Not lies, misinformation that even your left leaning buddies believed. And to compare Bush and Mcain to Hitler is utterly disgusting.

[hartkid]

I'm understand your sentiment with respect to the comparison to Hitler. I hate it when people resort to the nazi card. I think it illustrates maybe a weak vocabulary or poor rhetorical skill or something. Anyway, I also think the comparison, if you believe that Bush was not acting on misinformation, but was rather propogating misinformation to manipulate public sentiment, is apt. A whole lot of people, maybe more than half the country, have come to the conclusion that the administration wasn't just "misinformed." I think there's ample evidence supporting this conclusion. Time will tell. If I were an odds-maker in Vegas, I'd say the money was even that down the road members of this administration will be indicted and perhaps convicted for their crimes. So, while I can empathize with your reaction to the Hitler comparison, I can certainly understand the revulsion driving the hyperbole. As you know, hyberbole is just a matter of degree, n'est pas.

[Ramirez]

Hitler liked chocolate chip cookies. Just like McCain.

[Shannon2008]

The foreign policy expert. McSame as McBush. 9/11 changed everything. Apparently so. We lost our common sense, our morals, and our integrity all in Iraq when we should have been chasing the terrorists in Afganistan. How much more appropriate was our response to Pearl Harbor? Man, would I like to see the kind of leadership we had back then now. All we need is a senile imbecile with his finger on the red button.

[Zhonni]

McCain won't rule out pre-emptive strike?

McCAIN WILL NEVER BE ELECTED PRESIDENT!!!

[fayted]

SO CAN SOMEONE EXPLAIN TO ME WHY THIS IDIOT OF JOHN McCPAIN, McCWAR, McCRAYZY, McCANYTHING, DOES'NT WANT TO BE CALLED WARMONGERER, IF IT SMELLS LIKE WAR, THEN IT PROBABILY IS, SIR YOU SHOULD BE ASHEMED OF YOU'RE SELF, YOU'RE PARTY, AND YOU CALL YOURESELF A HERO, I THINK YOU DID'NT LEARN YOU'RE LESSON WHEN CAPTURED AND FOR 5 YEARS ENDURED THE WOST, YET YOU ARE STILL BENT ON WAR, SHAME ON YOU. ANTI AMERICAN ANTI PATRIOTICIM IF YOU ASK ME, LOST ALL OUR VALUES I WE REALIZE IN TIME WERE THIS COUNTRY IS HEADED TO. MY HEART IS AKING. SOME OF THOSE PROTESTER LETS START LOOKING TO OUR ONE BACKYARD, AND LETS RETAKE OUR BEAUTIFUL AMERICA BACK

[Ramirez]

I always click posts like yours as "Favorite." It's perverse, I know.

[tumblewind]

This preemptive war strategy is the most asinine policy I have ever heard of! We were in a cold war with the Soviet Union for years. But, if this bunch of nut jobs would have been in power we would have hit the Soviet Union with everything we have to start it first. That's what the word preemptive means. The planet and civilization would no longer exist. Because they would have destroyed it years ago with their stupidity! The Soviet Union would have instantly retaliated with it's nuclear warheads. And after the mushroom clouds cleared if the planet survive it would have been inhabitable. As it turns out it wasn't necessary to go to war with the Soviet Union. They destroyed themselves before it was all over. So where is the real logic behind this preemptive war BS??????

I am so sick of these people's 'gung ho cowboys ' philosophy I could scream. They see compromise, appeasement and negotiations as dirty words. I hear it from the right wing lunatics all the time. What do you want to do slap their hand? What has ever possessed American's to go with this insane strategy of preemptive war. Only leaves me to wonder what has happened to us. It's an insane path to take that can only lead to our own destruction in the end.

[floridagurl]

It has been proven that you can not negotiate or talk sense to some people. So, if they won't talk or listen to reason, what's left? For us to sit back and wait for Iran to bomb us with a dirty bomb??

[robeson]

What?

[SonnyBono]

Louis Black put it best when he said that the Iranians are getting ready to make a bomb, put it on a missile and then have 500 Iranians pick it up and throw it in our direction. That mushroom cloud over Toledo is a little dated - Secretary of State Rice already wore out that piece of garbage and yet some people still hide under their beds in fear - you have more to fear being hit in the head by a meteor than the so-called Iranian nuclear program.

But you are right about not being able to talk sense to some people - heck, people have been trying to talk sense to Bush for years and it hasn't worked - maybe we should nuke Crawford, TX?

[ErikW65]

It wasn't proven in NKorea's case, and it hasn't been proven in Iran's case.

Considering we overthrew Iran's democratically elected leader with Operation Ajax just 55 years ago, I'd say we're fortunate that so many Iranians are pro-USA, and that the diplomatic channels are open, if relatively unused.

We didn't blame Saudi Arabia for 9/11, but you are supposing an AQ-type threat from the state of Iran because artillery from that country has moved across it's borders.

[robeson]

Central and South America have a strong case for attacking the U.S. pre-emptively under the PNAC right wing aggressive war doctrine. Can you think of others?

[noamjunior]

apparently- cons think the criteria for invasion is the ability to produced manufactured evidence that the country to be invaded is intending to acquire WMD- oso on that basis any country that can forge some documents is justified to attack any other country