 |
|||
|
|
|
 McCain’s Political QuagmirePosted on Feb 28, 2008By 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 Sen. John McCain must explain what he thinks we have gained by the sacrifice of those men and women. Anticipating that prospect must make McCain uneasy. Speaking to reporters on his campaign bus the other day, he worried aloud that unless he can persuade voters that 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—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 don’t want to spend any more lives or money on this misadventure. Against that overwhelming public sentiment, 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 proves 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 some time after Election Day. Advertisement In national surveys, many 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, 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 to date in Iraq. Perhaps someone will eventually ask him a simple question: How many dead is too many in this war? Joe Conason writes for the New York Observer. © 2008 Creators Syndicate Inc. CommentsAre you a Truthdig member yet? Login now, or register with Truthdig. Add Your Comment |
Meet the Obscure Federal Regulator Who’s Not Helping Homeowners
Email
Print
Share
Digg
Facebook
TwitThis
StumbleUpon
Reddit
YahooBuzz
Email
BlinkList
del.icio.us
Fark
Furl
Google
LinkedIn
Mixx
MyShare
NewsVine
Propeller
SphereIt
Technorati
YahooMyWeb
Newsletter 
Become a Fan
Follow Us
Subscribe
Tags|Bazaar|Podcast|About Us|Contact Us|User Agreement|Privacy Policy|FAQ: Comments and Moderation
Copyright © 2012 Truthdig, L.L.C. All rights reserved.
By kath cantarella, March 3, 2008 at 4:51 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
War is the worst case scenario. When war comes to you, you fight because you have no choice. You don’t create war in order to avoid war.
There is only one way to create real change in any society and it is slow like a glacier, and may take generations, but it works if you don’t let the momentum die. You can use time to effect change for your children, or you can waste oceans of blood forever and change nothing but the names of the tyrants.
Report thisBy racetoinfinity, March 3, 2008 at 3:12 am Link to this comment
bachu wrote: “dems are going to lose because they dont have the balls to say bomb bomb iraq as mccain does.”
I doubt that. The polls show that 60% or more Americans are not on that atavistic lower level of consciousness, at least concerning the Iraq war (any more).
Report thisBy racetoinfinity, March 3, 2008 at 3:03 am Link to this comment
also, with the domestic economy worsening every day, the tremendous amount of money being spent on the war will be a potent argument to help the Democratic nominee and against McCain. I hear this argument every day from all kinds of people. We should be spending the money here for our economy and infrastructure, so many people are saying.
Report thisBy republicanSScareme, March 3, 2008 at 12:32 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
One of the hardest diseases to hide is the notorious Arizona “Foot-In-The-Mouth Bug”. John McCain was first disgnosed with this affliction soon after he ran for political office. After repeated attempts to disguise the disease…the problem is incurable unless you are willing to have your mouth zipped shut…John finally accepted his affliction (through a 12 step counseling approach, I understand) and now just lets it all hang out.
Have you ever had a crazy uncle but you liked him anyway? That explains McCain’s success.
“A guy can be a total A**hole when he’s a Senator, but you don’t want him President.”—Dick Tuck
Report thisBy tedeger, March 2, 2008 at 5:55 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
One thing that has not been overly mentioned is the fact that all those aircraft were equipped to be taken over from the ground as an “Anti-hijack” method. Remember that the Arabs who allegedly took over the planes were totally incompetent as single - engine fliers, that they allegedly flew all around Robin Hood’s barn for a half hour or so, and then came in on a bee-line, If, as is apparent, the explosives were timed, then the aircraft could not arrive too soon, and seismographic records show that the explosions actually started before the first plane arrived - and STILL some people believe the Gummint’s “Official” line?
Report thisBy bc41, March 2, 2008 at 10:57 am Link to this comment
There is more to the latest improvement in Iraq than the surge of US troops. Remember this improvement came following Pelosi’s threat of pulling funding and the result agreement of benchmarks. President Maliki may have said he doesn’t care if we leave but Iraqi leaders are acting as if they do care. A second point is the payment of wages for security duties by the awakening councils. I read an interesting article about the young unemployed middle easterner men:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/17/world/middleeast/17youth.html?pagewanted=all
There has to be something more in the dialogue than supporting the troops—there’s delay after delay to address the Afghanistan problem (largest opium crop in history enslaving many in heroin addiction), and Pakistan having limited consensus on solving terrorism. When we had the threat of “skyjackers” in the 70’s, some said that was the end of air travel, some wanted war. They brought in the sky marshals and it ended. After 911 we brought in the needed scanners to detect threats to air travel. That helped secure our country. Just a thought, sure we’d take a quick win if victory knocked on our door, but really, where is this all going?
Report thisBy bachu, March 1, 2008 at 6:30 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
dems are going to lose because they don’t have the balls to say bomb bomb iraq as mccain does.
Report thisBy cognitorex, March 1, 2008 at 4:45 am Link to this comment
Then there was McCain’s: “We’re winning in Iraq. We’re winning big time in Iraq. But not so much that we’re actually going to defeat the two to three thousand foreign Jihadists and domestic thugs that call themselves Al Qaeda in Iraq and stop America’s bleeding
We win,
troops stay,
spend big money,
our kids’ll pay.
For what, we pray?
Report thisNot much, I’d say.
By charb08, February 29, 2008 at 6:08 pm Link to this comment
*sigh* I really really hope this guy doesn’t win. Though I fear the Bush Admin might help him rig voting machines in his favor like they did in FL in 2000 and OH in 2004.
Report thisBy Maani, February 29, 2008 at 7:15 am Link to this comment
JTE:
“I find it alarming that we let the Republicans can continue to justify going to war for the acts of nineteen individuals on 9/11. We were buffaloed and hoodwinked.”
I’d take this a step further: “I find it alarming that we let the Republicans continue to justify going to war BASED ON a PHONY claim that the acts of nineteen individuals were responsible for 9/11.”
Had the “war on terror” simply been a cynical response to the “act of nineteen individuals,” that would be bad enough. But if, as many people believe, the “war on terror” was a FOLLOW-UP to a “false flag operation” on 9/11 - one in which individuals and agencies of the U.S. government were complicit in the planning and/or execution - then this DRAMATICALLY changes the picture.
Peace.
Report thisBy Frostedflakes, February 28, 2008 at 3:29 pm Link to this comment
No experience, as you say, is better than an old fool who has nothing but more, and worse, of the same old crap to offer. What experience did the “shrub” really have? And he was “selected” twice. All he did was give great aspirations to mediocre students and failed businessmen everywhere.
Report thisBy Frostedflakes, February 28, 2008 at 3:22 pm Link to this comment
You are correct. McCain is an incompetent old coot, who will do or say anything in his quest for power before he “kicks the bucket”.
Report thisBy John Thomas Ellis, February 28, 2008 at 12:01 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
I find it alarming that we let the Republicans can continue to justify going to war for the acts of nineteen individuals on 9/11. We were buffaloed and hoodwinked. The right response was to use diplomacy and invite international police co-operation. Instead, Republicans have been allowed to use executive power to lie, cheat and steal without consequence. McCain was complicit and deserves to be tarred and feathered . . . they all do.
John Thomas Ellis
Report thisBy ocjim, February 28, 2008 at 10:23 am Link to this comment
One should note that the McCain experience in foreign affairs is one related to failure on all fronts, being tied to the feckless Bush star. Doesn’t anyone see this?
Once again the LA Times poll that puts McCain ahead of both Clinton and Obama is a complete downer—downers that have occurred time and time again with the arrival of the incompetent and illegitimate Bush.
Report thisBy Hammo, February 28, 2008 at 10:21 am Link to this comment
The Iraq War and the Dem primary in Ohio are explored in the Feb. 28 article:
“Obama faces Ohio hearts and minds” (AmericanChronicle.com) ...
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/53747
Report thisBy May, February 28, 2008 at 9:40 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
I wish the “experience” argument would die a natural death. McCain’s experience is certainly not, in my humble opinion, what qualifies him to lead this country. If he even is qualified. We’ve been living with what “experience” gets a politician for the last 7 years. Maybe not Bush so much, but his older and seasoned advisors all had experience and it apparently did not serve them, or us, so well. Voters need to pay attention to McCain’s hawkish demeanor. This hold over from the generation of WW2 needs to go away. We, as a country, need to move on, adopt more peaceful, diplomatic ways of dealing with our problems. The “I’m bigger, stronger, more powerful (and have more money) therefore I’m right” attitude just doesn’t cut it in this age. It may have functioned in a time of nation building, but it comes across as a little overbearing and egotistical these days. I fear a man like McCain in a position of power with his need to always be winning some war.
Report thisBy Douglas Chalmers, February 28, 2008 at 8:58 am Link to this comment
Joe Conason: “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…”
Does Experience Matter in a President?
Well, it will when blaming GWB or John McCain is no longer enough….... See McCain’s Fighting Words to Obama
A story is often told at times like this - times when American voters are choosing among candidates richly seasoned with political experience and those who are less experienced but perhaps more exciting alternatives. Once upon a time, the torch was passed to a new generation of Americans, and a charismatic young President, gifted as a speechmaker but little tested as an executive, was finding his way through his first 100 days. On Day 85, he stumbled, and the result for John F. Kennedy was the disastrous Bay of Pigs.
For scholars of the presidency, Kennedy’s failure to scuttle or fix the ill-conceived invasion of Cuba is a classic case of the insufficiency of charisma alone. No quips, grins or flights of rhetoric would do. Kennedy needed on-the-job training, as he later admitted to a friend: “Presumably, I was going to learn these lessons sometime, and maybe better sooner than later.” Unfortunately, when a President gets an education, we all pay the tuition.
Barack Obama basks in comparisons to J.F.K., but this is one he’d rather avoid. In the run-up to what could be the decisive contests for the Democratic nomination, Obama’s relatively light political resume - eight years as an Illinois legislator and three years in the U.S. Senate - continues to be the focus of his rivals’ attacks. Hillary Clinton advertises her seven years in the Senate and two terms as First Lady, saying “I am ready to lead on Day One.” And the message has gotten through: by clear margins, voters rate her as the more experienced of the two candidates. The fact that this hasn’t stopped Obama’s momentum doesn’t mean he’s heard the last of it - not with John McCain, who has spent 26 years on Capitol Hill, the likely Republican nominee. “I’m not the youngest candidate. But I am the most experienced,” says McCain. “I know how the world works.”
Obama’s credentials would be an issue in any election year. He would be sworn in at age 47, making him one of the youngest Presidents in history, and would arrive in the Oval Office with less executive experience than most of his predecessors. Depending on what your leanings are, you could compare his work history - lawyer, state legislator, Washington short-timer, orator - to Abraham Lincoln’s, or to a thousand forgotten figures in politicalgraveyard.com. The question of experience takes on added bite this year, though, because the next President will inherit a troubled and menacing satchel of problems. From the Iraq tightrope to the stumbling economy, from the China challenge to the health-care mess, from loose nukes to oil dependence to (some things never change) Cuba policy - the next President will be tossed a couple dozen flaming torches at the end of the inaugural parade, and it would be helpful to know that this person has juggled before….
But interesting that yet again Truthdig has come up with an “Action Denied: Blacklisted Item Found” regarding the link for this story on Yahoo! Why?
[url=]http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20080228/us_time/
doesexperiencematterinapresident;_ylt=AoDWMBe76f7doWnABT6mQiKs0NUE[/url]
Report thisBy Expat, February 28, 2008 at 8:26 am Link to this comment
^ but who’s listening. Hello, is anybody home? McCain is a bankrupt old bastard (as I’ve stated before) and I’m hoping Americans just aren’t that stupid. If the dems lose this one, America is finished. I just hope the dems are not that consummately stupid. But anything is possible. They did blow it twice. They say threes a charm.
Report thisBy George, February 28, 2008 at 8:19 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
I can answer this one.
Report thisWe have gained wealth and power beyond my wildest drunken dreams.
1. Wealth for our friends at hell-a-burton.
2. More new oil fields than I can count.
3. Iraq is like our old wild west. Ya don’t like em, ya kill em. Nearest Sheriff is thousand of miles away.
4. More trophies than i can mention.
5. Dearest friends rolling in money.
6. Many new wealthy friends in the oil business.
7.
Come on you know its been worth it. I was struggling when gas was only $1.30 a gallon. I feel bad about the 4000 lives, but dammit, if you would just quit mentioning it, no one would even notice.
By omop, February 28, 2008 at 7:55 am Link to this comment
A 3 Trillion dollar cakewalk into Iraq and Afghanistan, the US on the way to a depression; a world community that is increasingly anti American; along with the 4000 dead Americans an additional 70/80,000 crippled for life as well as a million and a half dead Iraqis. Added to the above the possibility of another influx of 12/15 million illegals by 2012 and voila McCain’s world.
Continuing to claim that he has vast “foreign affairs” experiences is an oxymoron given the present state of NATO not wanting to stay in Afghanistan; Turkey’s incursion to Iraq continuing; and his cronies [Podhoretz, Lieberman,Kissinger, etc,.] demand to nuke Iran and the quagmire in Iraq. All the above represent the claimed level of experiences in foreign affars.
If 300 million Americans want to continue their delusion that Israel and the USA have equal, similar and co dependent interests then McCain is their man. They also better expect that the quagmires created and supported by Sen. McCain in the past 8 years will not only continue but also expand for at least another 4.
Report this