McCain's Political Quagmire
MORE
Joe Conason
Within the next two weeks, the number of American troops killed in Iraq is likely to reach 4,000, assuming that the average number of fatal casualties per day remains steady. It is an arbitrary number, given meaning by the fact that the nation may briefly take notice, but a day will come in this presidential campaign when Senator John McCain must explain what he thinks we have gained by the sacrifice of those men and women.
Anticipating that prospect must make Mr. McCain uneasy, or so his latest remarks on the war seem to suggest. Speaking to reporters on his campaign bus the other day, he blurted out his concern that unless he can persuade voters that the current policy is succeeding in Iraq, “then I lose. I lose.”
Almost immediately he regretted his candor and asked for a quick rewrite. “If I may, I’d like to retract ‘I’ll lose.’ But I don’t think there’s any doubt that how they judge Iraq will have a direct relation to their judgment of me, my support of the surge,” he said.
As the presumptive Republican nominee—representing the continuation of a presidency that has fallen from favor with as many as eight out of 10 Americans—Mr. McCain has ample reason to worry. His forthright support of President Bush, the war, and the escalation of the past year is unlikely to endear him to independent voters who otherwise admire his maverick image and reform record. They still feel betrayed by the exaggerations and lies that led us into war. They want to spend no more lives or money on this misadventure.
Against that overwhelming public sentiment, Mr. McCain insists that he can see “a clear path to success in Iraq,” with American and civilian casualties declining and Iraqis assuming responsibility for their own security. The Arizona senator evidently realizes that his recent prediction of a century-long American occupation did not go over well. “All of us want out of Iraq,” he told the Associated Press on Feb. 25. “The question is how do we want out of Iraq.”
Yet even while he uttered those soothing words, the Pentagon was preparing a new deployment schedule that proved the path to success is far from clear. The “surge” in U.S. combat forces has not led to stability but to a terrible dilemma for American commanders in Iraq. The current level of combat troops is not sustainable, but reducing that level is likely to provoke increased violence. For the moment, the White House hopes to maintain enough force strength to forestall the inevitable reckoning until sometime after Election Day.
Certainly the troop escalation helped to revive Mr. McCain’s fortunes in the Republican primary contest, quelling any dissent among his rivals (except for the indefatigable, unelectable Representative Ron Paul). Yet the escalation appears to have had little political impact outside the G.O.P., despite all the promotional hype. If Mr. McCain is truly depending on the surge to elect him in November, he won’t find the data reassuring.
Many national surveys show significant numbers of Americans agree that sending more troops has improved conditions in Iraq. But those same surveys show that the temporary improvement has not changed their opinions about the war. A substantial majority believes that invading Iraq was a mistake, that we should bring the troops home within a year and that the Bush administration has handled the war badly or very badly.
For months we have heard little discussion of the war, as the primaries diverted us with the ephemera of push polls, plagiarism and Fred Thompson. Sooner or later, the debate over the war will intensify again, offering its leading senatorial advocate an opportunity to tell us why the invasion was justified, given the absence of weapons of mass destruction; what he expects the continuing occupation to accomplish; when those objectives will be achieved; and why the installation of a Shia regime so closely linked with the mullahs in Iran is worth the sacrifices that we all mourn.
So far Mr. McCain has preferred angry sound bites to substantive argument. He regularly accuses Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and the Democratic leadership in Congress of wanting to “wave the white flag of surrender,” a demagogic cliché that ought to be beneath him.
But it is important to remember that on the subject of military conflict, the venerable veteran is not always rational. He has said we should have pursued “victory” in Vietnam, although we lost 10 times as many Americans there as we have so far in Iraq. Perhaps someone will ask him a simple question: How many dead is too many in this war?
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Joe's just on the rag because his friend Sid the Squid is in jail on a DUI charge and his candidate Hillary is buggered.
The isolationist mantra by the Democrats and their supporters is getting very old and tired. Our military has defended our nation from more attacks, that is a solid fact which can not be debated. Does anyone think that if our soldiers are brought back before a murderous Al Quada is eliminated that they will not rise up again? Bill Clinton failed to defend our nation with a war footing after repeated attacks during his watch? Does anyone think treating those attacks on the World Trade Center in 1993 as crimes was the correct way to handle it? How about the embassy bombings in Africa in 1998? If you think Bill Clinton handled the USS Cole attack in Yemen correctly, then be prepared for more of the same with the Democrats in charge?
It seems as being an anti-war mouthpiece is a good qualification for a president in the minds of the Democrats. Sadly, neither Hillary or Obama will offer the strength needed in the next White House. Our nation will be at risk. MARK MY WORDS!!
Joe how do you attract these war mongering loony toons? Funny these bozos aren't in the service isn't it? As a US Army vet I dare these "Macho Men" to join up. After a few months in country I'll bet they'll stop jacking their jaws? Fascists talk a good war but when it comes down to it, just like Smirky they're all cowards!
Let's see: we need to stay on a "war footing" as long as....there are Muslims? Is 1,200 years long enough for you? That's how long Shiias and Sunnis have been fighting over some detail of their shared religion. If your definition of "success" is to place American soldiers in the cross fire between two religious factions, then yep we've got success alright.
Our nation will be at risk. Another big lie. Our nation is at risk only from within. From people like you. You wrap your failed policy in "patriotism" but you are in fact a corporate shrill, because the war machine is the only group that has profited from this fiasco.
There is a lot of yapping but I haven't seen any suggestions for long term solutions, yet. Or what might be the possible consequences of an early troop pull out. Nor have I seen what the possible scenerio's might be if we did pull out the troops before there is a stable Iraq. Don't anyone think these things through, and be realistic about it as well? Don't seem like it.
There has never been anything that was beneath the dignity of a Republican politician. McCain will never explain anything about Iraq. He will simply sling mud. It is the GOP way.
Not only was there no "Al Qaeda in Iraq" before we invaded, but Al Queda has no future in Iraq when we leave. The Shia are in charge now and they hate Al Queda as much as Saddam did. Have you noticed that there are no Al Queda in Iran? Moreover, the Sunni in Iraq are also opposed to Al Queda, just as they were when they were in control of the country, prior to our screwing it all up. Our occupation of Iraq has more to do with the Al Queda being there than any other factor. Al Queda has no future in Iraq when we leave. The whole fantasy of Al Queda taking over in Iraq when we pull out is just more fear mongering by McCain and friends. Obama will call him on it every chance he gets.
Joe is like all liberals in that they just love to stick their heads in the sand as if they are the only ones around. I don't think there any guts in all the liberals out there.
"Our military has defended our nation from more attacks, that is a solid fact which can not be debated." HUH? Or is Dave a member of the Bush Administration, the people who make up their own reality? Terrorist, by definition, are not people who engage with regular armies; they strike the enemy at the homefront. The notion that terrorists engaged in Iraq -- which, ut should be repeated YET AGIBN, had nothing to do with 9/11 -- rather in the United States is, charitably, a leap of faith. But here is is "a solid fact which cannot be debated": Al Queda has no presence in Iraq under Saddam, its sworn enemy; after the U.S. invasion, they now have a base there. There is protecting the country from terrorism?
Iraq was stable before we invaded. It was no threat to then. Iraq will become stable when we leave. The majority will rule over a horribly broken mess of a country with no capacity to meaningfully threaten anyone for decades. We have successfully destroyed nearly all of the cold war era military equipment that should never have been sent there in the first place.
There is violence in Iraq today, there will be violence in Iraq for a time after we leave, but the majority will rule, and likely form somewhat of an alliance with Iran. The notion that keeping our troops there will change this outcome is just as stupid as invading the country in the first place.
The outcome of a truly bad idea is never improved by repetition, endurance, or increased force. History is littered with examples of this fact.
Do you want to win the war in Iraq?
Enlist and shut your cakehole.
The reason we haven't "won" yet is because you're here (somehow without spellcheck) typing away and playing Call of Duty 4. It's that simple.
Enlist. Go Win the War, hero!
Otherwise you are (and you KNOW you are) a coward, to the bone.
What planet are you on? Let's review.
1. 1993 World Trade Center conducted by who? A group of arabs relying on training supplied by the USA for Mujahedin fighting the Soviet Union in Afghanistan with support from a Muslim cleric living in New York City and members of a group years later identified as al Qaeda. So, what country would you have had us send the army to invade? Please specify what exactly we should have done, given the situation as we knew it at that time to treat the bombing as anything other than a crime.
2. "If you think Bill Clinton handled the USS Cole attack in Yemen correctly, then be prepared for more of the same with the Democrats in charge?" To borrow from the 9/11 Commision report:
"On January 25, Tenet briefed the President on the Cole investigation. The written briefing repeated for top officials of the new administration what the CIA had told the Clinton White House in November. This included the "preliminary judgment" that al Qaeda was responsible, with the caveat that no evidence had yet been found that Bin Ladin himself ordered the attack... in March 2001, the CIA's briefing slides for Rice were still describing the CIA's "preliminary judgment" that a "strong circumstantial case" could be made against al Qaeda but noting that the CIA continued to lack "conclusive information on external command and control" of the attack.[21]
According to Dr. Rice, the decision not to respond militarily to the Cole bombing was President Bush's. She said he "made clear to us that he did not want to respond to al Qaeda one attack at a time. He told me he was 'tired of swatting flies.'"
So, do you think Bush handled the Cole attack correctly?
You obviously seem to imagine we are somehow preventing attacks by our presence in Iraq where we went before we completed killing alQaeda when we had the bastards pinned. Do you think Bush handled that correctly?
Keep drinking the cool-ade
What planet are you on? Let's review.
1. 1993 World Trade Center conducted by who? A group of arabs relying on training supplied by the USA for Mujahedin fighting the Soviet Union in Afghanistan with support from a Muslim cleric living in New York City and members of a group years later identified as al Qaeda. So, what country would you have had us send the army to invade? Please specify what exactly we should have done, given the situation as we knew it at that time to treat the bombing as anything other than a crime.
2. "If you think Bill Clinton handled the USS Cole attack in Yemen correctly, then be prepared for more of the same with the Democrats in charge?" To borrow from the 9/11 Commision report:
"On January 25, Tenet briefed the President on the Cole investigation. The written briefing repeated for top officials of the new administration what the CIA had told the Clinton White House in November. This included the "preliminary judgment" that al Qaeda was responsible, with the caveat that no evidence had yet been found that Bin Ladin himself ordered the attack... in March 2001, the CIA's briefing slides for Rice were still describing the CIA's "preliminary judgment" that a "strong circumstantial case" could be made against al Qaeda but noting that the CIA continued to lack "conclusive information on external command and control" of the attack.[21]
According to Dr. Rice, the decision not to respond militarily to the Cole bombing was President Bush's. She said he "made clear to us that he did not want to respond to al Qaeda one attack at a time. He told me he was 'tired of swatting flies.'"
So, do you think Bush handled the Cole attack correctly?
You obviously seem to imagine we are somehow preventing attacks by our presence in Iraq where we went before we completed killing alQaeda when we had the bastards pinned. Do you think Bush handled that correctly?
Keep drinking the cool-ade
OK..let's win this war...any ideas how to go about it? A push of troops here and there for the next 100 years..50 years..even 10 years? Think that'll work before we bankrupt the military of our ground troops and the National Treasury!
Hell, after taking a look at the current deficet and decreasing value of the dollar it appears we don't even "own" our own country!
It must be great fun for you, Joe, parsing the political maneuverings of the elder senator, getting in your trademark cynical jab per paragraph. But how about a little analysis of what he'll actually do about Iraq if he's elected.
And, while you're at it, how about turning your critical eye on the possible war strategies of the new Messiah, Barack Hussein Obama, and Ms. Clinton, too. Yeah, I know, they'll "end the war in Iraq." But how might they do that, Mr. Conason? How will they deal with al Qaida? Will Obama take the war to Pakistan, carpet-bomb the mountains, as is his stated preference? Will Clinton lead the charge back to Afghanistan? How will they keep more soldiers and civilians from being killed as their policies play out?
If your concern for our troops and their sacrifice is as genuine as you make out, you'll check your partisanship and research the possible war policies of ALL these power hounds. You'll get bonus points for divining the possible results of their policies.
To Ross Odom:
I love the fact that you had to say "Barack Hussein Obama". You are such a typical right wing nut case that you sound like a talking point. All the other wing nut talk Radio pansies are doing that. You are so origianl Ross.Gee what’s the implication there? Do you call McCain “John Sidney McCain”? Did you call our last president “William Jefferson Clinton”?
We all know Mr. Obama’s middle name. The reason you and the other wing nuts constantly repeat it is because you want there to be a name association between Barack and Saddam HUSSEIN. Say something enough and it usually sticks. Fortunately, the rest of the country (outside of your little right wing bubble) isn’t falling for it. Even McCain himself rebuked that wing nut host William Cunningham for doing just that (among other things).
Didn't you get the memo sport? Karl Rove (your handler) said that the strategy of constantly repeating his middle name will backfire because it makes you right wingers sound like the bigots that you are.
I love the fact that all of the wing nuts have their panties in a bunch because McCain isn’t conservative enough.
Pathetic.
Oh and Obama never said he would carpet bomb Pakistan what he said was that he would respond to a threat in Pakistan if it warranted it. You know kind like McCain saying we should bomb Iran as a preventative measure.
Please Ross remove your head from you ass and stop lying.
Bob
To James, Bob, or whatever name you're hiding behind:
I'll admit my use of Barack's middle name, Hussein, was a cheap shot. But, if you're going to be upset over someone's using his middle name, you might as well also be upset over their using his last name, which sounds like and is often confused with the name Osama.
Whatever, the man's name isn't the issue here. The issue is how he will conduct himself as commander-in-chief.
I won't quibble over what exactly Obama said regarding his desire to act in Afghanistan. The message was clear and, in my opinion, reckless, given the precarious state of our alliance with Musharraf.
Point of business: I don't care for any of these current candidates. I care about my country. If you do, you'll be asking some of the same questions I am.
Regarding the American public's attitude toward exiting from Iraq, the latest Gallup poll, done from February 8-10 (http://www.gallup.com/poll/104398/Majority-Still-Favors-Timetable-Troop-...), shows that a 56% majority favors a timetable for withdrawal. But within that 56% majority, 67% favor a gradual withdrawal of troops while only 33% favor a more immediate withdrawal. Thus, out of all Americans, 18% favor removing troops from Iraq as rapidly as possible.
Yet Joe Conason writes that "national surveys" show that "a substantial majority believes that... we should bring the troops home within a year..."
This claim has no support in the Gallup poll above, nor have I found other reputable polls that support it. To which surveys is Mr. Conason referring (and I assume there is more than one since he used the plural)?
Sincerely,
Josh Levy
Charlottesville, VA
www.win-the-war.com
Excuse me Josh, but withdrawing the troops "within a year" IS gradual, you twit. Of course, I'm sure your idea of gradual is 3 to 5 years. Or is it a Hundred years, like John McBush?
My ultimate dream would be to dismantle the Pentagon and use the savings in other areas.
You people are wrong, history will be kinder to George Bush, it always happens to presidents.
Now that we are stuck with Barack Hussein Obama, there are going to be some tough times ahead. Watch your wallet.
MC-CAIN STRATEGY IN THE PRESIDENTIAL BATTLE OF THE AMERICAN CULTURAL WAR
McCain, with Neo-Lib Hillary now burnt at the stake by Kennedy Liberals, is the presidential candidate of the desperate Podhoretz Neo-Cons and Leiberman Neo-Libs. His puppeteer, that shrewd political trickster Charlie Black, to compensate for McCain’s core values being notoriously subversive to traditional Reagan Conservatism and Kennedy Liberalism, shall presumably follow Marxist strategy and tactics, to get McCain a date for the presidency or date for the Republican firing squad.
This strategy shall be to miraculously transform Podhoretz Neo-Con McCain into a Reagan Conservative, to buy betrayal from Judas ministers for 10 pieces of silver, to buy betrayal from turn-coat Conservatives for promises of pork, to suppress internet freedom of speech by hook or by crook, and to orchestrate political collusion among the millions of Neo-Cons and Neo-Libs.
Then slanderous propaganda attacks shall be made against Obama’s youthful mistakes, his mother, his father, his religion, and his friends; and hate-baiting attacks shall be made against selected religious and political groups within his broad spectrum of supporters. These deception strategies are all based on the belief that the majority of American voters are sufficiently gullible to be fooled.
But this strategy is flawed, because the leading Conservatives and Liberals have long recognized that their enemies in the American Cultural War are the Neo-Cons and Neo-Libs in the government, colleges, schools, news media, and Hollywood. Their incessant subversion of traditional Christian culture and the Constitutional government has been intensifying since the McCarthy Era, when defeated as Marxists they evolved into crypto-Marxists, Neo-Marxists known as the Neo- Conservatives and the Neo- Liberals, to resume their relentless ideological struggle to gain political control over the social and economic resources of the America People.
But it is well within the powers of the Reagan Conservatives and Kennedy Liberals, fighting shoulder to shoulder, to defeat McCain and expel the Neo-Cons and Neo-Libs, for the common goals of restoring their traditional Christian culture and Constitutional government.
There are two strategies to defeat the Neo-Cons and Neo-Libs. The first is a coordinated offensive, where both Reagan Conservatives and Kennedy Liberals vote for Obama. The second is for the Kennedy Liberals to vote for Obama; and for the Reagan Conservatives to vote for Ron Paul, Huckabee, and Romney as their write-in candidates. The first strategy offers the additional benefit of quickly re-unifying the Republicans and Democrats spiritually, under their shared love of Christian culture and Constitutional Law, against the Neo-Cons and Neo-Libs who have so bitterly divided them.
To Ross Odom
I'm not hiding behind multiple names there sport. I go by Bob but for some reason when I put Bob in the name field it says that the name Bob is already registered. I use James just to post.
Trust me I'm not hiding form you sport. I'm right here ready to beat you in any debate you want.
Let me know.
Bob
I hate to conclude that the war supporters are STUPID, but how else can it be explained that they get all their enemies MIXED UP??? The ones who attacked 9/11 and USS Cole have NOTHING, zilch, to do with Iraq or Saddam, yet they blindly wave their flags and support ANY WARS. If they care so much about going after "the enemies who attacked us", surely it isn't too much to ask that they be EDUCATED about who this enemy is and where they are located.
Ross Odom:
"I won't quibble over what exactly Obama said regarding his desire to act in Afghanistan. The message was clear and, in my opinion, reckless, given the precarious state of our alliance with Musharraf."
This just in, sport. We convey meaning through words. If you don't get the words right, you can't possibly know what the message is. The only thing that's clear is that the message you got was in your head to begin with. The proof? You've got your countries wrong. Obama was talking about acting in Pakistan, where al Qaeda has reconstituted itself, and is now as strong as it was before we almost destroyed it in, wait for it, AFGHANISTAN.
Joe, you're just another left-wing hack, and you're not very good at math either. The 58,000 men we lost in Vietnam is nearly 15 times the number of American dead so far in Iraq. Also there is no Shia Regime, as you so glibly claim. Rather, the Iraqi people are, for the first time in history, enjoying freedom under a democratically elected government, which, by the way, is endeavoring to share power as equally as possible among the Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds.
I for one hope that Senator Obama keeps on shooting off his mouth about how fast he's going to bring home the troops, because that is the surest way to piss off and energize the conservatives to vote for McCain. Maybe when John McCain is elected in a landslide next November we can finally put to rest the left-wing lie that the majority of Americans oppose the war.
Haha....FREEDOM??? You call being occupied by foreign soldiers who invaded your country and killed your people, (1.2 million at least, including the deaths inflicted by a decade of inhumane sanctions) "freedom"???? Let's reverse the situation - some country decides that the American people hate their government ( 20% approval ratings, anybody??? Saddam had higher ratings among his folks) and decide to "liberate" them by dropping hbombs all over the cities, killing millions of Americans and sending hundreds of thousands of troops to "free" them, while draining the country of oil and treasures. Either you're so stupid and deluded, you can't see the ugly murderous aggressor that you are or you're so cynical, you think you can fool the people all of the time.
Yeah the "right" to vote for the government stamped and approved by the invader and occupier is indeed "democracy". What a laugh.
Once again it was Clinton's fault for 911. Do you remember a memo that Bush ignored titled "Bin Laden determined to attack America while Bush was on a month long vacation, and they had no meetings on terrorism that summer. Do you remember how hard Bush fought investigating 911, and that Bush and Cheney would not testify under oath (but baseball players are forced to go oath for steroid use). Did you know that the power behind the 911 commision was a neo-con and an associate of Condoliza Rice.
Conasan's article on McCain is right on, however, he fails to offer an alternative. He, like the vast majority of political pundits fail to give Mike Huckabee a closer look. He is electable. He could beat Clinton or Obama. McCain had his best chance for the presidency in 2000. He wimped out in South Carolina and look what we got stuck with. Take a closer look at Huckabee. Forget the evangelical slant. That's not the story. When you write an opinion piece you have to cover all angles in order to hold your reader's attention. Get with it Joe. Check out Mike.
Thank you for your fine-toothed interest in my comments, but you missed something. You're right, I meant Pakistan in my second post. But train that brain on my prior post, where I spoke of Obama's ingenious plan to invade (yes) Pakistan, a country with which we are allied in the war on terror. Now, if that alliance goes to hell, then President Obama can continue George Bush's policy of killing terrorists, and he'll have my support. Yours too, apparently. Which is weird, but nevermind.