Yesterday morning I woke up to find a third Tory writing in the Telegraph in support of Barack Obama. I emailed the Comment Editor to ask if he would like a case for McCain...
My case is published here.
I've focused on my belief that John McCain is much better placed to be Commander-in-Chief at this crucial stage of the war on terror. This is the my main argument:
"The progress that the unloved President Bush has made in the war on terror is under-reported. Who, on September 11, 2001, did not think that we were on the verge of a new age of horrifying attacks?
Seven years later, al-Qaeda is on the run across the world. Although Osama bin Laden is still at large, many of his accomplices have been eliminated. The Iraq war was badly mishandled, but the surge of troops has brought significant progress.
Under General David Petraeus, the US armed forces have greatly improved their anti-terrorist and anti-insurgency capabilities. Opinion polls find declining support for extremism throughout Muslim nations.
I don't pretend that the war on terror is won. That's why we need the 44th President to be as strong as the 43rd. We need another "Dark Knight" who will take the unpopular decisions that will keep us all safe. That includes the widespread use of surveillance, a willingness to work outside do-nothing multilateral institutions such as the UN, and pursuit of the doctrine of pre-emption. Churchill defined the doctrine of pre-emption half a century ago in characteristic style: "You must never fire until you've been shot dead? That seems to be a silly thing to say.""
Last night I noted some of the other arguments for McCain.
> And if you're wondering what I mean by 'The Dark Knight'...
