By Katharine Mcintosh" 

At moments like the current Egypt crisis, I will sit and wonder what a President McCain might have done. How differently might have America faired under McCain? Well, McCain’s tax cuts would have been a bit steeper, and BP might have gotten a free pass after the Gulf Oil Disaster, rather than being forced into compensation. But what would have been McCain’s forte?

Clues can be found in those last two Presidential debates in October 2008, when it was fairly clear that Obama was going to win this thing. McCain had to riff, had to improvise. It was obvious in those debates that he loved talking foreign policy. “Watch what happens in Georgia,” he’d warn (the Georgia south of Russia, presumably), “. . . and Ukraine, and Ossetia.” Then he’d look into the camera and remind us that Iran’s President Ahmadinejad was a very dangerous man, and close his statements with his time-tested, “When I look into Putin’s eyes, I see KGB” taunt.

It’s clear that candidate McCain looked forward to foreign policy challenges, and that his response to America’s economic meltdown and continued unemployment would have been to divert our attention. That path would make sense for him, because the Republican magic bullet of lower taxes is no more effective in a recession than the Democrat magic bullet of stimulus spending. But a Republican president need not sit and take his lumps for a poor economy. There’s always war.

The Republican establishment has long favored some sort of attack on Iran, Republican commentators talk openly of military action against Ahmadinejad, and in McCain’s America, these voices would have been much more prominent than they are now. In McCain’s America, rather than talking about putting America back to work, pundits would be debating how to put Ahmadinejad in his place. Should we bomb? Should we provoke an insurgency? In McCain’s America, as job losses mounted here at home, rhetoric against Ahmadinejad would increase. The War Drumbeat that America endured under Bush Jr. in 2002-2003 would be mirrored under a McCain Presidency.

Of course, the wisdom of opening a third front of war in the Middle East would be questioned. President McCain would not have an easy time selling his ideas. But a President McCain would deeply welcome the current Egypt Uprising, a ready-made crisis ripe for any Republican Administration to exploit and call for war. You’ve heard of The Muslim Brotherhood, right? A gentlemen’s club of Islamic activists that have not at all taken a major role in Egypt’s current uprising. Historically, The Muslim Brotherhood is the granddaddy of Islamic fundamentalism in the Middle East. Historically, without the Muslim Brotherhood, there would have been no Bin Laden. But since President Obama has no stake in fanning the flames in Egypt, the media has felt free to report the truth:  The Muslim Brotherhood is not out in front in the current uprising.

Under McCain, the news from Egypt would’ve come to us highly biased.  We’d be browbeaten with reports of fundamentalists taking over in Egypt. Under McCain, every obscure Egyptian Mullah with anti-American sentiments would suddenly find himself in the camera eye. A McCain White House would amplify any connection between fundamentalists in Egypt, however tenuous, and their counterparts in Iran. And there you have it: McCain would have his Weapons of Mass Destruction, his case for Going In. Perversely, President Ahmadinejad in Iran would enjoy McCain’s sabre-rattling. The more he became the target of McCain Administration tirades, the more popular he’d grow at home. And just like regular people in America, the Iranians now demanding something be done about the economy would be called unpatriotic, in the face of such open American aggression. For his part, McCain would explain how the suffering of regular Americans deeply pains him, but at this moment, we must once again, rise and face the aggressor in the Middle East, and blah, blah, blah.

And the people of Egypt, currently rejoicing over the removal of Mubarak, would instead be chanting “death to America,” in the face of McCain’s aggression in the region. McCain would point to these marchers as justification for taking up arms, and McCain would have his war. And most importantly, nobody would be talking about the economy. We’d be jobless and debating the wisdom of McCain’s battle plans.

So when you watch the news tonight, ask yourself, when was the last time you saw televised throngs of Middle Eastern protesters who aren’t seething with anger at Americans, protesters who are not itching for a chance to get at us? President Obama has wisely distanced the USA from all sides, allowing the people to sort things out on their own. And for that you can thank your lucky stars that it is he, and not John McCain, who is your President.

McCain and Gingrich Lash Out At ElBaradei, Accuse Him Of Secretly Being In Cahoots With Radical Islamists

GOP Senator: US Needs to 'Neuter' Iran | Common Dreams

Bolton: Mubarak’s Downfall Would Mean We Need To Bomb Iran Sooner

Jamal Abdi: Resolution Green-Lighting Israeli Strikes on Iran Introduced by House Republicans

Jamal Abdi: War With Iran by Any Other Name

Lindsey Graham Makes The Case For Strike On Iran

AFP: US senator sees 'confrontation' with China, war with Iran

Mubarak v. the Brotherhood - By Andrew C. McCarthy - The Corner - National Review Online

Levin interviews Frank Gaffney on Egypt | The Right Scoop

Turmoil in Egypt :: Daniel Pipes

Ground Zero Mosque | Secret Jihad | Fox News | Frank Gaffney | Mediaite

Center For Security Policy

US Republicans: Iran must not have nuclear arms | Reuters

2008 Republican Presidential Candidates Back Nuclear Strike Against Iran

A Period of Consequences | The Weekly Standard

Petraeus says strike on Iran could spark nationalism | Reuters

Iran hawks step up pressure on Obama — some see echoes of Iraq | National Security Network

Barack Obama’s Egypt Failure: He’s Becoming Carter Faster Than Carter Became Carter | RedState

By Katharine Mcintosh"