Sunday, June 8, 2008

Election Question

Do any of you believe that McCain, if elected to the presidency, will follow up on President Bush's dire warnings that the United States will never allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons? Or, do you believe that McCain, if elected, is more likely to follow up on Bush's policy than Obama, if elected, is, and why?

Thomas Sowell has said that McCain is the "no-brainer" choice between the two candidates on this basis alone. And further that we don't have the luxury in this election of casting a vote for a third party candidate, or of writing in a candidate. LA disagrees with Sowell's argument and offers his counter-argument:

LA writes:

In a column last week, Thomas Sowell presents what he sees as an open and shut argument on the presidential election: Obama won't do anything about the Iranian nuclear threat, McCain will. Therefore electing McCain is a no-brainer.

But whoa--we've had Busherino as president for seven years, and after declaring in January 2002 that Iran was part of an "axis of evil," which sounded like a virtual declaration of war, and then making numerous grave statements that he would not tolerate the creation of an Iranian nuke, statements which led to the widely shared assumption that he would take military action against Iran before leaving office, he lapsed into several years of weenie EU-type negotiations, making the U.S. look weak and allowing the Iranians to continue their nuke development.

So if Mr. Axis of Evil himself ended up doing nothing, what makes Sowell so sure that Mr. Son of Axis of Evil will do anything?

Where is the basis for the belief that there is such a stark difference between McCain and Obama on the Iranian threat that McCain's election is mandatory

I took a shot at getting inside of Sowell's head and wrote the following comment to LA's article:

"So if Mr. Axis of Evil himself ended up doing nothing, what makes Sowell so sure that Mr. Son of Axis of Evil will do anything?"

This is just a theory, but somewhere deep down inside himself Sowell might believe that McCain, as a first term Republican with a "conservative" base, will do something about the Iranian nuke threat whereas Obama, as a first term Democrat, will feel no pressure from his base to do anything about it.

To which LA replied:

But Bush was supposedly under the ultimate pressure--that he either take action before he leaves office, or be succeeded by a Democrat who would not take action. Yet he has done nothing. After years of Churchillian talk, he ended up like Neville Chamberlain.

In a reply to LA's reply to me, which, at the time of this writing, LA has not yet posted, I admit that he makes a good point, but also ask the ultimate question: "Isn't it reasonable for Sowell to assume that McCain, as president, is going to be looking to establish his own "legacy" apart from President Bush, and that part of that legacy might involve McCain's actually following up on Bush's threat?"

I suppose, in hindsight, that any action taken by McCain on the Iranian nuclear crisis would technically be tied to Bush's policy, but McCain can't expect to establish his own legacy apart from Bush by simply continuing the "War on Terror" as it now exists, can he?

What do you think? Is McCain more likely, as a first term president, to take decisive action against Iran's nuclear program than Obama? I tend to believe that Sowell has a point. What say you?


Call Me Mom said...

I agree that McCain is far more likely to do something about Iran than Obama if the status quo is maintained.

I tend to think that Israel may act preemptively. We will then be required(by our treaties and agreements with Israel)to support/defend that action regardless of who is president.

However, if I were Israel and looking at the possibility that Obama may become president, I think I would do something about that before the election to ensure that the U.S. would stand by their agreements in that regard.

Or am I just paranoid?