I’m not sure I completely agree that the mission in Iraq is going to be the reason to vote for McCain. It’s going so well right now that by November we may be ready to wind things down regardless of who wins. Here’s more evidence, as reported in the WaPo this past Sunday. Best line of the story:

Over 16 pages, the al-Qaeda in Iraq leader detailed the organization’s demise in his sector. He once had 600 men, but now his force was down to 20 or fewer, he wrote. They had lost weapons and allies. Abu Tariq focused his anger in particular on the Sunni fighters and tribesmen who have turned against al-Qaeda in Iraq and joined the U.S.-backed Sunni Sahwa, or “Awakening,” forces.

If AQ’s back is broken by then, citing Iraq as a reason for McCain won’t be nearly as effective as it is now, or would have been six months ago.

But the IBD editorial raises another excellent point, one that has me rethinking whether to sit this one out, namely, appointments to the Supreme Court.

Assuming the WOT is won beyond the damage Obama or Clinton could do to it, Ted might have a point that we need shock therapy like high taxes and economic stagflation to get voters thinking right again. And it’s true that those policies came be overcome in time, once a conservative gets in the White House. To that extent, Ted’s right.

BUT could we roll back the effect a leftist President would have on SCOTUS appointments? No. This is what Ted overlooks. And given the left’s proclivity to try to get what they want by judicial fiat when the voters and their elected representatives disagree, I’m not sure we can risk letting Empty Suit or Hildebeest pack the court with Ruth Bader Ginsburg clones.

Just another angle to consider….

On both points, conservatives who support the war but refuse to vote for McCain are not effectively weighing costs/benefits and also lacking prioritization of cherished principles, in my opinion. I repeat: we are at war.

Hogwash.

In order to for America to survive this war we must be able to survive our own politicians first and foremost. This will not happen, especially if the status quo of the “socialist Republican” is maintained. It plays to the complacency of Americans, just like the Democrat’s socialist do. There is no difference.

You make the feable claim that we should support McCain because the GWoT takes priority yet fail to recognize the overwhelming disparity his Amnesty policies would have on the GWoT. It is a paradox- one simply can not support one policy and claim to support the other. “I repeat: we are at war.” has become nothing more than a Republican shill’s chant. Yes, we are at war, and it is with an entity who’s immediate danger is much greater than Al Queda: The American Politician. Unfortunately, the many Republicans are included in this, such as Juan McCain. They no longer represent conservative principals and the the vast gaping abyss that has formed between Republicans and Conservatives. It’s a damed shame IMO when the closest thing the Republicans had to offer to a Conservative is a Libertarian- Ron Paul (God help us).

I am sorry, but it is the folks who support McCain in this election who are lacking prioritation of Conservative principals, IMHO of course. At this point in time I will sit out if Obama is the Democratic nominee, but if sHillary is it then she gets my vote. America needs slapped in the face with high taxation and real economic wores, and she is the person who can do.

Boil down what he is saying and it comes down to is that I would rather see soldiers die than compromise some slight and unimportant principle. Worse, he’s saying that I’m willing to see those soldiers killed rather than to stop and think.

I’m actually saying a variation of that; that you think McCain’s domestic problems are more critical than finishing a policy that demanded such huge sacrifices – lives, money and the prestige of this country.

However you look at the conservative’s calculus of choosing a D over McCain – rationally, whether it’s the impact on Iraq policy or the unrelated issue of a democrat alternative appointing 3 Ruth Bader Ginsbergs to the SCOTUS, or just emotionally, thinking about the lives lost in this war, it’s wrong, in my analysis.

The latter example is specifically contingent on you having supported the invasion of Iraq in the first place and continuing to support the policy. If you didn’t and/or you don’t, this does not apply to you.

First, regarding this:

I understand that you and Bill believe that, but at least in Hillary Clinton’s case, it’s not supported by the evidence.

Go back and reread my comment. I said “especially Obama.” I actually think Hillary might be too cynical to do anything too drastic, though I am also confident that she would harm the overall policy. Obama has backed himself into a very tight corner on Iraq, however.

Second, it’s unfortunate that you are insulted. But there are two components to my argument: the first is a rational calculation about the fact that a McCain presidency is better for conservatives on a host of issues, most notably the war on terror.

The second is an emotional consideration: those who supported the war, but are caught up on the “principle” of not voting for McCain, should instead consider the “principle” of wasting the sacrifice generated by the policy that they supported, which – as conservatives have argued since 9-11 – trumps domestic issues in a time of war.

On both points, conservatives who support the war but refuse to vote for McCain are not effectively weighing costs/benefits and also lacking prioritization of cherished principles, in my opinion. I repeat: we are at war.

Now regarding how I feel; given that people I know and care about have died in the two wars we are fighting, and that my brother is over in Afghanistan …

… I honestly don’t care whether you are offended at me being pissed that some war supporters plan to throw their vote and the policy they supported away, especially if it’s Obama in the general.

I bear no ill will toward you, but your offense really doesn’t phase me or change my feeling on the matter.

He does and I have no doubt that a true war hero and victim of the Fonda/Kerry veteran smear machine who turns on his defenders and fellow Vietnam War veterans, AKA SBVT, is politically ambitious enough to mouth any words needed without regard to his intentions or beliefs.

I wouldn’t trust the guy with any issue that I felt was important, including the Iraq War. He is the compromiser, remember? Clinton or Obama may be worse, but are unavoidable. Democrats are going to win the presidential election.

You got to hand it to the MSM and their gushing McCain coverage. They actually fooled a lot of Republicans that a MSM crossover might be achieved if only they nominated a “moderate” Republican. Now it’s a win/win for them.

Your post also assumes that Hillary will be the nominee. If she’s not, that leaves a clearly dovish Barack Obama in control of our armed forces. I’m not willing to chance either scenario by a no vote or a vote for the Dem candidate, or a write-in. There’s too much at stake in Iraq and beyond, and I will never trust Hillary or Obama, who will work hand in hand with Democrats in Congress who we all know are eager to roll back the progress that has been made in the GWOT, with control of our national security.

I think as someone who has been to Iraq twice as an embed and written extensively about what he’s seen there, Bill’s assertions are not merely from the heart, but logically sound as well. He’s just come to a different conclusion on the issue of a McCain vote than others who have said they won’t support McCain. That doesn’t mean he’s thought about it any less than anyone else.

My only request at this point is for conservatives who are still undecided about McCain to keep their minds open. We’ve got several months to go, and McCain’s got a lot of ground to cover with skeptical conservatives in order to try and win their votes – not only that, but we’re going to learn a lot more about Hillary’s and Obama’s foreign policy plans. Let’s see what happens.

I think that we all need to remember that we are conservatives, the folks who come to our decisions only after we have collected evidence and come to a reasonable conclusion. I’m confident that my arguments are coming from that point of view. I’m not sure that Bill’s is.

When I was a liberal, people were constantly trying to persuade me to think a different way and I pushed back every time out of spite. I don’t want that to happen here.

Your so mart Dear – Lorica

Both Hillary and Obama have both said it’s time for the war to be over and our troops to come home and have plans to start withdrawals within a couple months of their taking office. The Democrat Congress will eagerly help them every step of the way. This is a cold hard fact that none of us should ignore.

Nope, not a matter of “wishing” or “hoping” or “would rather” our troops died in vain, but nonetheless, a matter of reality – their deaths will be in vain if we sit back and do nothing. The arguments we made 2, 4, and 6 years ago haven’t changed. The only thing that has changed are the faces of the candidates.

This argument isn’t about principle, either, as we decide which principles are important to us each election cycle because no candidate ever matches up perfectly with our principles (this is an issue I addressed here).

These are all things conservatives need to think about going into the general election. We’re all grown-ups who can think through their decisions to their logical conclusions.

Forgive the language (and do feel free to edit as appropriately), but that is horseshit and it makes me very angry indeed. That’s anything but a cogent argument, Sister T. It’s lazy and it’s the same crap that the left pulls on the right all the time.

If that’s where the conversation on this matter is going to go, then I’ll be quite glad to walk away from folks who assume at best my ignorance and at worst purposeful negligence and believe that I wish our soldiers ill.

And it doesn’t wash away with “no offense intended”. There is no way that you can make that argument without following it to its logical, repulsive, and exactly wrong conclusion.