One thing is undeniable about Republican presidential candidate John McCain: You can judge him according to what’s going on in Iraq.
Whether you approve of it or not, John McCain is a big supporter of George W. Bush’s policies in Iraq now, and was a big supporter of George W. Bush’s policies in Iraq way back at the time of the rush to invade. McCain declared back then that the whole operation would be easy, and even said five years ago that victory had already been achieved. So, what’s happening now in Iraq is a good reflection of what a John McCain presidency would bring for the American misadventure in Iraq for another four years.
Here’s one particular facet of John McCain’s Iraq that McCain supporters need to come to grips with: American missiles raining down on ambulances.
This photograph shows a concrete result of John McCain’s support for George W. Bush’s rush into and refusal to leave from Iraq: That destroyed white vehicle with a red crescent on it is a hospital ambulance, and it was destroyed by an American missile. That’s not just my assertion. It’s what the American military itself admits to, and what the New York Times describes as follows: “The ugly daily fight for ground in the poor Shiite neighborhood of Sadr City unfolded Saturday at a small mosque next door to a hospital, damaging the hospital and a number of its ambulances, and near a group of children who were wounded as they gathered tin cans to sell for salvage. The missiles that hit close to the Sadr General Hospital were American.”
Children got hurt.
A vote for John McCain is a vote for more of this. John McCain thinks that attacking medical ambulances is worth it. He thinks that children getting hurt and killed is worth it, too. Do you?
My question is, What was going on at the mosque next door? The terrorist tactic (and their willing accopmlices in the press) are good at hiding behind innocent civilians, using them as human shields while they continue to spread their evil. How many children were killed by the a-bomb in Hiroshima? But how many more people would have died had we not ended the war decisively? I am grateful that the children were only wounded, not killed, but “collateral damage” is a fact of war. The idea is to limit that damage as much as possible while bringing the war to an end as quickly as possible. And by “end”, I mean nothing less than complete victory. We now have a moral obligation to leave Iraq in better condition than what we found it, and that means leaving them with a working government and the means to protect themselves. These things take time, and to expect full withdrawal within 6 months of a Democrat presidency is niave.
Wow. Children can be attacked and ambulances can be bombed because of what their neighbors are doing. What fast and loose, and violent, ethics you have, Sherman.
Sherman, you think that raining American missiles down on Iraqi ambulances is the path to “complete victory”?
You seem to agree with John McCain that hurting and killing children is worth it. That’s pretty twisted.