On the regressive stance of the current conservative movement: The most common conservative refrain is to undo many of the changes of the past 60 or 70 years. In that context, my remarks were right on target. I won't withdraw them. I actually prefer to call them regressives. You can't call them progressive, because it is completely counter to their desire to return to a former time that they idealize. There is also the fundamental connotation: regression and progression carry some time references. I have chosen the label carefully...more so than "compassionate conservative" was chosen for example.

Quote Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
You have nothing to back this up other than your own opinion.
Oh, really?
1. McCain warned before the Iraq war started and many times since that the plans were not realistic for the occupation. He has been proven right.
2. What are the chances that McCain would have let Osama get away once found? Remember Tora-bora? That was a high order bungle.
3. What are the chances that McCain would not have followed through on Afghanistan? The efforts to rebuild never did take off as needed. Dubya failed to sieze the post-war initiative while he could. Instead, he was moving on, leaving unfinished business.
4. McCain has not been in favor of Dubya's budget wrecking. There are clear facts and numbers to show what damage Dubya has done. He can't say he wasn't warned--and the effect of unforseen crises like 9/11 was also a common state concern in opposing his plan! Instead he claims the problem doesn't exist, or he couldn't have known, and that this giant shortfall is not his fault...yeah, right.
5. McCain has opposed the religious extremism that is dividing the country. It cost him the primaries and effectively ended his candidacy. Dubya embraced it and uses it to divide the nation rather than unite it.
6. McCain's lack of religious fervor would have served us well in maintaining the focus on terrorism, and not on religion. There is no doubt that comments about "Axis of Evil" and calling our war against terror a "crusade" (Dubya's own words, and addressing Muslim's no less--literally it translates as "followers of the cross" if memory serves) have hurt our ability to fight this world cancer. Dubya squandered our moral capital.
7. It is hard to imagine that McCain or anyone else could do such a poor job on the diplomatic scene as Dubya has done.
8. I also doubt McCain would have had the absent, run-away, run-away approach that Dubya had in the early hours of 9/11. (Yes, I noticed that at the time, it was one of the poorest showings of emergency leadership I've witnessed.)

Being as McCain has a true military background, survived some badly broken bones, and a long stretch in a POW camp while Dubya was an AWOL draft dodger; I reckon the chances of Dubya outperforming McCain in the prosecution of a war are incredibly small. (Better to try for that winning $10,000 dollar scratch off ticket.)

Taking it further. Even Al Gore could have done no worse than Dubya (and perhaps better, for a few of the reasons already given.) 9/11 was a modern Pearl Harbor. It was a certainty we were going in, the only serious question that arose immediately was where, then whether we should use nukes to get Osama if needed because of the remote aspect and terrain.

Maybe a better president could have kept us out of it.
Doubtful unless we decided to let Europe and Asia fall and tried to acheive a separate peace. As in most European affairs we are too far removed geographically to prevent the wars from happening. History has repeatedly shown that if you can't pose an immediate direct military threat to an ultra-aggressor, then you cannot hope to contain them with diplomacy. Besides there was Japan to contend with, and they struck first.