What would McCain have done differently?

brianthebard

We all know how different McCain is to G.W. Bush :rolleyes: So if in an alternate universe McCain had been elected and reelected in 2000, what would he have done differently? How would he have dealt with 9/11 and Katrina for instance? Would America still have engaged in two illegal, pointless wars? And any other policies you would like to mention.

Ponster

Firstly the McCain of 2008 seems to be a different person than that of 2000 but I doubt he'd have done things a whole lot different.

He would have gone to Iraq (vased on the intel that was available at the time) but I doubt the war would hav e been run in the wame way.

Stem Cell Research would probable have received more support.

He would have tried to limit wasteful gov. spending to as little as possible.

Pocono Joe

Hindsight is 20/20. I don't know if McCain, or even Gore for that matter, would have done anything different from Bush in the matters you described, although I think Gore might have run most of the war on terror in the courtrooms, which is what the terrorists where hoping would happen when they executed 9/11.

As for the implication that a McCain presidency would be an extension of Bush, then by that guilt-by-association argument, you can also say an Obama presidency would be an extension of Rev. Wright's philosophy (his spiritual leader for over 20 years).

FatherTed

He might have appointed a NSA who would have heeded warnings that a terrorist attack on the US was imminent.

brianthebard

Pocono Joe wrote: »

Hindsight is 20/20. I don't know if McCain, or even Gore for that matter, would have done anything different from Bush in the matters you described, although I think Gore might have run most of the war on terror in the courtrooms, which is what the terrorists where hoping would happen when they executed 9/11.

How do you know that's what the terrorists were hoping for? Anyways the question is about whether or not McCain is different than Bush, this is a big thing for republicans, surely you can do better than this?

As for the implication that a McCain presidency would be an extension of Bush, then by that guilt-by-association argument, you can also say an Obama presidency would be an extension of Rev. Wright's philosophy (his spiritual leader for over 20 years).

While we are at it, why not suggest he's a muslim because of a school he went to that sounds foreign? Oh wait....There's a difference between comparing a politician to the president he wants to succeed and with who he voted 95% of the time, and a man and his reverend, who afaik has never held the presidency of the US. Is he even a member of the democratic party? Must try harder Joe.

BenjAii

He has certainly come round to being little different from Bush now, though at least then he voted against the tax-cuts for the super-rich.

For one thing he would have been equally gung-ho for military action, ready to Attack Iraq soon after September 11th, on the grounds it was a "clear and present danger" to the US; how deluded that turned out to be - who knows if he would still have the US in that quagmire now.

He had made noises about health care reform back then too & who knows if he could have fixed it; instead waste and inefficiency grows and American society pays more and more than everyone else for a health service that only covers 2/3 of its people.

brianthebard

He wants to make the tax cuts permanent. Is it possible that as an ex military man he could've seen that Iraq was not a threat?

BenjAii

brianthebard wrote: »

He wants to make the tax cuts permanent. Is it possible that as an ex military man he could've seen that Iraq was not a threat?

From a quick google it seems he was a very strong advocate of military action and the quote is attributed to him.

Which makes you assume as an ex-military man was he was supporting the US's true military goals in the Middle East, securing its access to dwindling supplies of oil.

Presumably he was as aware, aw we know now were the President's inner circle, that all the evidence for Iraq being a threat was a fabrication.

brianthebard

BenjAii wrote: »

From a quick google it seems he was a very strong advocate of military action and the quote is attributed to him.

Which makes you assume as an ex-military man was he was supporting the US's true military goals in the Middle East, securing its access to dwindling supplies of oil.

Presumably he was as aware, aw we know now were the President's inner circle, that all the evidence for Iraq being a threat was a fabrication.

I didn't realise you were quoting someone in particular, and the question wasn't necessarily directed at you. But you are saying he would still have engaged in two pointless wars? That's all I needed to know really, thanks.

Sand

Probably still wouldnt have got Kyoto ratified - Even Gore wouldnt have done it.

Probably would have flown to New York on 9/11 - Bush listened to his handlers, McCain is more difficult to control.

Would have been more willing to directly commit US troops to Afghanistan early on. Particularly in the Tora Bora battles, reliance on Afghan fighters of variable loyalties to finish off the Al Queda/Taliban concentration there was a mistake.

Wouldnt have been interested in Africa and its development as much as Bush was.

Probably would have done a much better job handling Katrina - Bush's admin team were busy blaming the state government for being terrible [ which they were ] rather than helping as much as possible and saving the recriminations for later.

If he was going to invade Iraq, he would have listened to the Pentagon and made the decision on if the US could sustain the 500,000 troops the generals were saying they needed for the occupation. So, probably no he wouldnt have invaded Iraq.

He would have been too canny to get involved in the Old Europe - Texas love in. He would probably still have not accepted NATO aid in reaction to 9/11 as it would have invited along a lot of basically useless partners [ harsh maybe, but the cream of the EU militaries can sustain maybe 10-15000 combat troops abroad at any one time, and are so stretched currently that they cant find 10 helicopters for the Chad mission and have to borrow them from Russia - humiliating given all the grandstanding from NATO in the wake of the Georgia adventure.] who would have delayed decision making and not offered much material support. Afghanistan is an example where NATO is hampered by the fact many NATO members only want their troops there as a political gesture, not to actually get involved in combat with a risk of casualties.

He might have appointed a NSA who would have heeded warnings that a terrorist attack on the US was imminent.

Terrorist attacks in the US have always been iminent. No administration took them "War on Terror" seriously until 9/11. Clinton for example dealt with Al Queda attacks on US embassies by firing 10,000 dollar missiles at 10 dollar tents. Ineffectual, pointless photo-ops. Rest assured folks..."somebody" is doing "something".

The public simply wouldnt have accepted the security measures taken in reaction to 9/11 to a "theoretical" or "possible" attacks by some guys from some country no one has ever heard of. Many still dont, even after 9/11. It was only after 9/11 that people woke up to the reality that Jihadist groups had been fighting the US, even if the US hadnt realised it before.

Only after 9/11 did a serious response and the invasion of Afghanistan swing into action.