Politics Mike McGavick: Debating the War is Inappropriate While Troops are Still in Harm’s Way
As he continues to campaign across the state, GOP U.S. senate candidate Mike McGavick spoke to the Lewiston Tribune. Here’s part of their report:
Lewiston Morning Tribune, July 20, 2006, By DEAN A. FERGUSON of the Tribune. McGavick: It’s wrong to debate war. McGavick is a fierce supporter of the “War on Terror.” Just as previous generations fought fascism and communism, this generation must battle terrorists, he said. “The paramount job of the federal government is to keep us safe and secure,” he said. In an earlier stop at the Lewiston Tribune, he said it is wrong to debate the war. Despite a “large” list of mistakes, the war debate needs to happen when the war ends. “We’ve got lots of time and we’ve got lots to learn,” McGavick said.
Quips Washington State Democratic Party Spokesman Kelly Steele: “What if the war never ends? When should citizens start debating it?”
Table-pounding State Democratic Party Chair Dwight Pelz was a bit more harsh. In a press release Pelz said: “After more than 2,500 American casualties and a failed Bush strategy with no direction or end in sight, the fact that Mike McGavick believes citizens shouldn’t be debating the war in Iraq is simply un-American. If my position were to blindly support Bush’s failed strategy in Iraq and stay indefinitely, I wouldn’t want to debate it either.”
This is a good gotcha on McGavick from the Democrats. Although, I’ve talked to McGavick about his position on the war, and it’s not radically different from Cantwell’s. Yes Cantwell voted for the Levin amendment—which called on President Bush to come up with benchmarks for a troop phase out. But Cantwell has also made it clear that she’s against withdrawal until the situation on the ground is stabilized. That is fundamentally McGavick’s position as well. He just doesn’t want to superimpose withdrawal deadlines. And quite frankly, if you believe, as Cantwell does, that the situation on the ground needs to stabilize before hard and fast decisions are made about withdrawal, it seems to me she would oppose the Levin amendment—as McGavick did.
More to the point: I’m still confused about Cantwell’s position. Didn’t her new outreach staffer, Mark Wislon, support the Kerry amendment…which not only called for establishing withdrawal benchmarks, but named them: Troops out by July 2007?
Having said that, at least she still believes in thinking and talking about it.
"at least she still believes in thinking and talking about it."
And there is this November's election in a nutshell. Do you like the Republican strategy of sticking your head in the sand, or would you prefer to talk honestly about what's going on and some strategies to end the U.S. occupation of Iraq?
Nothing will change if Republicans keep control of both chambers of Congress.
Change can only occur by voting Democratic this November.
Just the facts.