Home › National
Paulson: McCain has the strength to ensure nation's safety
Choosing a commander
Download this story as a podcast!
ELECTIONS '08
Check out our elections coverage page for the latest news, editorials, polls and voter information.
Enter now »
Timm Herdt's blog from Sacramento »
STORY TOOLS 
More from NationalIn endorsing Barack Obama, Al Gore listed problems ending with the same mantra: "Elections matter!" Yes, elections do matter, and clarity on key issues is critical.
Our Founding Fathers enshrined in our Constitution our government's commitment to "provide for the common defense," designating the president as the "commander in chief." Defending and preserving our country is a responsibility every president must fulfill. One's fitness for that role should be a key factor in your presidential choice.
Last October, Obama provided a concise statement of his defense priorities in a video for Caucus4Priorities. Obama's major points include:
"First, I'll stop spending $9 billion a month in Iraq. I'm the only major candidate who opposed this war from the beginning. And as president, I will end it."
"Second, I will cut tens of billions of dollars in wasteful spending. I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems. I will not weaponize space. I will slow our development of future combat systems. And I will institute an independent Defense Priorities Board' to ensure that the Quadrennial Defense Review is not used to justify unnecessary spending."
"Third, I will set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons. To seek that goal, I will not develop new nuclear weapons; I will seek a global ban on the production of fissile material; and I will negotiate with Russia to take our ICBMs off hair-trigger alert, and to achieve deep cuts in our nuclear arsenals."
"I don't switch positions or make promises that can't be kept."
He ended with a questionable assertion: "As president, my sole priority for defense spending will be protecting the American people."
In a world "without nuclear weapons," one country with nuclear weapons could control the world. Consider three small planes circling New York City, Washington and Los Angeles flown by Islamic terrorists threatening immediate destruction — "Surrender or millions will die!" Improbable?
Adolf Hitler used overwhelming military strength attempting to break the will of free nations. For Hitler, Denmark was a border nation he needed to control. While Germany was attacking outmanned Danish troops at the border, the German ambassador to Denmark, dispensing with diplomatic niceties, demanded that the Danish foreign minister end all Danish resistance.
As frantic diplomats pleaded, several formations of German bombers roared over Copenhagen dropping leaflets promising to bomb civilians. With no way to resist or fight back, the Danish government surrendered, retaining political "independence" over domestic matters.
Military weakness has always been provocative. Unchecked evil advances until someone stops it. In a post-World War I era, Denmark found a strong military unnecessary. It took the combined will and forces of the English-speaking Western world and Russia to put an end to Hitler's dream of world domination.
They say that the winners write history. They do, unless they have "politically correct" schools that refuse to provide an accurate history of the positive role war has played in securing freedom. Whether Obama acknowledges it or not, war is a reality of the human condition and, sometimes, is the answer!
With more rogue countries and terrorist groups capable of attacking our homeland and vital global interests, America must be ready to defend freedom here and abroad. Secure peace comes most often through strength and diplomacy.
John McCain realizes that the Iraq war is a war we must win. When victory and a secure Iraq are within our grasp, Obama's preemptive retreat is not the answer.
As former Secretary of Defense Cap Weinberger warned, "You don't just go out to the store and buy high-tech weapons on the day you need them." We must continue to walk softly in diplomatic circles but continue to carry a technologically advanced stick that keeps us one step ahead of our worst enemies. Such strength requires a significant investment and committed leadership.
Our Founding Fathers knew the importance of military strength. When, at the Constitutional Convention, it was proposed to limit the U.S. standing army to 5,000 men, George Washington responded, requesting a clause that would limit the size of the invading army to 3,000 troops. Laughter followed, and the proposal was dropped.
McCain is the leader America needs to handle the security challenges we will face in the years ahead.
He'll work with Iraqi and Afghanistan leaders to maintain momentum, win the war and send a lasting message to our terrorist enemies. The United States wants no empire. It wants to stand for freedom and with countries that want to secure it. When should our men and women come back? When the job is done and they want us to leave!
McCain is the only candidate committed to doing just that.
Elections do matter.
— Terry Paulson is a psychologist, speaker, author and host to the politicaltalk.org blog. Contact him at terry@terrypaulson.com.
Posted by mikeb6804 on June 23, 2008 at 12:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Give Obama a chance. He'll change his stance in a week or two. Just as soon as he appreciates the stupidity of his original statement(s).
Posted by shaver_one on June 23, 2008 at 7:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Give McCain a chance.
He'll keep us in Iraq for 100 years, whether we are needed there or not. He'll invade Iran, unless Bush has already done so, by January 19, 2009. He'll continue to let Big Oil rape the American pocketbook with $200 per barrel petroleum. He'll send social progress back 150 years, outlawing everything that isn't based on 'white-bred'. He'll form a United States "under God", as long as that God is Christian. He'll hold the world hostage under the threat of nuclear annihilation, forcing our foes to create even more terrorism by developing even more destructive weapons. He'll walk lock-stepped with the likes of Hitler, Stalin, and Bush '43', until George Orwell's vision of the New World comes to pass.
Yes...give John "100 Years' McCain a chance. Then, bend over and kiss your backside good-bye.
Posted by cassandra2 on June 23, 2008 at 7:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)
What war? Isn't it over? I don't notice much information about it anywhere gee whiz. Certainly nothing messy or graphic. It could get . . .real.
http://www.truthout.org/article/repor...
Posted by mikeb6804 on June 23, 2008 at 8:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Shaver--I hope we can kiss your backside goodbye. You once claimed to be an Independent. You're not. Just like all the Dems, you keep repeating the 100 years crap. You and some of your radical ideas were a giveaway a long time ago.
Posted by cassandra2 on June 23, 2008 at 8:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)
We can't afford McCain. No doubt the corporate media will soft sell it but look where the Repugs have already got us.
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2...
Posted by mikeb6804 on June 23, 2008 at 9:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)
jw---once a drip, always a drip. You never change --it's just more than you can handle.
Posted by marketrealist on June 23, 2008 at 9:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Have you heard Bush III sing "Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran" to the Beach Boys tune? He thinks that is funny. Sick humor from a guy who'll keep us in perpetual war.
We spend more on the military than the rest of the world combined. We are among 5 coutries that won't ban cluster bombs or landmines. Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo mar our human rights record. Bush III is more of the same policies.
Posted by hemlock1262 on June 23, 2008 at 9:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I can't believe it -- Terry Paulson is a knee-jerk theocon. What a shock.
Memo to Terry: Americans DON'T HAVE A COMMANDER!
We are not a military dictatorship (though Terry would undoubtedly love it if we were).
We don't elect a Captain-General or a Corporal-Captain or an El Commandante or a Jefe or a Fuhrer or a Czar or a Kaiser.
We elect a President, whose duties, AS A CIVILIAN, include exercising civil control over the armed forces.
Unless you are a member of the uniformed military, you HAVE NO COMMANDER IN CHIEF!
But it's obviously far too much to expect Terry Paulson, Motivational Speaker, to understand something as subtle, nuanced, and sophisticated as "democracy."
Posted by sslocal on June 23, 2008 at 2:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Obama would have us on our collective knee's licking terrorist/Russian/Chinese boots. No thanks.
Posted by hemlock1262 on June 23, 2008 at 4:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Worse for sslocal (I assume the ss stands for "schutzstaffel"), Obama would force people to learn how to write plural nouns.
Posted by marketrealist on June 23, 2008 at 5 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Interesting comment by someone who does not even pretend to know or care who we are fighting. He states "Obama would have us on our collective knee's licking terrorist/Russian/Chinese boots". Never mind - as long as we have someone to fight, we're OK.
I got a better enemy to worry about - people who never learned their geography. That would pretty much take care of anyone who listens to Terri Paulson for his sharp political commentary.
Thomas Jefferson said that the price of democracy was eternal vigilence. Perhaps he had too high expectations for the citizenry.
Posted by high_society on June 23, 2008 at 6:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)
All you people on here are ignorant.
Stop stereotyping about libs and cons. Instead of pointing to issues, you bring up stereotypes.
When you don't like a candidate, bring up ten issues why they should vote for YOURS, instead of calling each other names.
I've been to high school debates and I can say, they are much more intelligent than some of the responses I have read here.
I hope you all get what you deserve as a political leader.
Posted by Tom_Johnston on June 23, 2008 at 8:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Once again..Paulson is blinded to the light...he probably should spend some time on his couch...
Hitler may have crushed Denmark, but he pretty much crashed thru and around the Maginot Line in France, a heavily foritified frontier meant (like the "Star Wars" Missle play) to keep bad guys out. The "bad guys", i.e. Hitler, just went around the fortifications. NO one cold say that missile defenses could be any better....all you need is a rental truck, or a plane..or a container ship. Hitler was on the verge of crushing the Russians until "Father Winter" weighed in.
Paulson's view of military history is suspect. Miniscule European nations with no chance of besting the War Machines of larger Nations are no example or comparison to the United States. The US is no comparison to Denmark (with all respect to the Danish, they proved their courage when the refused to give up their Jews) and other small nations.
The analogy is phony and misleading.
Another point....Iraq would not even conceivably be a war we "have to win" if we hadn't stepped into the big muddy all by ourselves. We painted ourselves into this corner and the inept and even corrupt leadership of this Bush II administration has consistently failed to provide leadership or positive decision making, not for the war, but for the Occupation of Iraq.
There is nothing "Politically Correct" about this failure of leadership. Bush Jr. inherited weapon systems, a professional military, and an overall superior military from Presidents Reagan, (Ford?), Bush the 1st, and Clinton. Then he bogged it down in a way it was not designed to fight for, with leadership not capapble, and an Ideology that at best is iffy.
In that McCain seems to hew to the "stay the course" mentality, he proves to be no better than that Bush II would do, and it would seem to have been a poor student of not only his studies, but his experiences in the service of this Country.
Posted by mikeb6804 on June 23, 2008 at 8:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)
high_society--your points are well taken. However it might be very difficult to come up with 10 reasons to vote for either Presidential candidate. But please, please, PLEASE, don't wish Obama off on me.
Tom J--your statement about Bush inheriting a superior military from Clinton is flat out wrong. If you were in any way connected with it, you would know this. And your last statement about McCain stinks; doesn't even merit much response.
Posted by marketrealist on June 24, 2008 at 9:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)
At what point do we have more weapons than we need? The US spends more on the military than the rest of the world combined. We have a huge advantage in all classes of weaponry.
What we seem to be lacking is a realization that weapons is all that it takes to win a war. The Bush Team talked about winning the hearts and minds of the Iraqis. Instead, that was quickly abandonded and soon the war machine took over to try and find a military solution.
When will we realize that it takes more than weapons to be strong. The ugly pictures from Abu Ghraib has done more the hurt US security than any lapse in military weapons. In fact, it has created hundreds of millions of people who now believe Americans are cruel and mean-spirited. Its time to show the world that those actions do not reflect the values of this country and prosecute Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld for war crimes.
Posted by leahb78_1999 on June 24, 2008 at 12:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Bill Clinton cut military capabilities by a full third while in office. I remember in the 90's the huge fight Ventura County had to put up to keep Point Mugu and Port Hueneme open. Bill wanted to close them both down, along with dozens of other bases. To this day the U.S. military is still not back to the level of operating capacities that it was at pre-Clinton.
Posted by marketrealist on June 25, 2008 at 10:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)
leahbh78, as you imply from your post, we are totally addicted to the military dollars. Communities want bases open because of the jobs they generate. Its really not about military capability anymore.
Despite the fall of the Soviet Union, we still want the most expensive military systems. Our so-called enemies in Afghanistan wear leather sandals and use rifles. Our soldier has about $400,000 of weapons and equipment. We are not going to win by force alone. This was the lesson from Vietnam.
Its time to go back to basics and ask "Why are we fighting?".
Posted by leahb78_1999 on June 26, 2008 at 8:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Those "so-called enemies" in leather sandals use more than just rifles. They have also used commercial jets as missles to take out the Twin towers. They blow up embasies, and commit murder and horrendous acts which kill hundreds or even thousands of people at a time. To downgrade the threat our enemy poses, and to make them seem like no big deal is either really naive on your part, or simply stupid. You should remember that the enemy is well-funded, very clever, and they ARE a threat to the United States.
Posted by marketrealist on June 27, 2008 at 6:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)
leahbh78, its a strange feeling to be called "stupid". Perhaps you may be having a problem appreciating numbers. Our military budget is $600 billion a year. The total GNP of Afghanistan is $6.96 billion. So, can you explain what you mean when you say "You should remember that the enemy is well-funded, very clever, and they ARE a threat to the United States."
(Requires free registration.)
Article discussions on this site are to support community debates of issues related to our stories and editorials.
Discussions should not stray from the subject of the story or editorial.
We do not allow the following:
We reserve the right to delete threads and/or ban users for these or other reasons we deem necessary.
Opinions are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.