McCain II

On Sunday’s Meet the Press I, for some reason, chose to tune in to hear McCain speak. While I overwhelming disagree with his stance on the war, not to mention tax, abortion and the environment, I somehow always find myself impressed by how strongly he follows what he believes is right, even if it means disaster for his political career. It gives me the upmost respect for him as a person, and also perversely enough, the most entertainment when he gets taken down.

In one of the best examples of making a politician eat their words, I hope you will enjoy:

MR. RUSSERT: Let me show you the kinds of things that are often said when soldiers are overseas, like this: “There’s no reason for the United States to remain. The American people want them home. I believe the majority of Congress wants them home. Our continued military presence allows another situation to rise, which could then lead to the wounding, killing or capture of American fighting men and women. We should do all in our power to avoid that. What should be the criteria is our immediate, orderly withdrawal. And if we do not do that and other Americans die then I” “say that the responsibilities for that lie with the Congress who did not exercise their authority under the Constitution. For us to get into nation-building, law and order, etc., I think, is a tragic and terrible mistake.”

You hear those kinds of words, right?

SEN. McCAIN: Sure I do. Americans are frustrated and saddened by the enormous sacrifice we’ve made and the gross mismanagement of the war. Now, my response to that statement is and what happens after we leave? Listen to all of the experts who will tell you that we can have a situation in the region which will, in, in the long run, entail far greater casualties, far greater dislocation, far greater threats to our national security than trying to give this an opportunity to succeed. That’s what the–my response to that heartfelt statement is.

MR. RUSSERT: Well, those are your words from 1993 about Somalia.

SEN. McCAIN: Mm-hmm.

MR. RUSSERT: And that’s the kind of thing we’re hearing about Iraq.

SEN. McCAIN: Mm-hmm.

[MY NOTE: I think he wants to say something else right here]

MR. RUSSERT: You felt that way about Somalia when you saw no end in sight.

SEN. McCAIN: Yes, I did, and…

MR. RUSSERT: And many Americans now are echoing your words about Iraq, because they see no end in sight.

SEN. McCAIN: Well, if you compare–want to compare Somalia to what’s at stake in Iraq, please feel free to do so. I don’t see any comparison except that there was chaos in the streets of Mogadishu, and this now is got to do with vital national security interests. I also said that we should get out of Beirut when we did, because a, a presence of a few Marines in a barracks was not going to, in any way, significantly impact what was going on in Lebanon. And I was right, and a lot of young Marines died because we–of the way that we put a presence in there without any chance of success.

MR. RUSSERT: You say we’re making progress. You’ve been on this program talking about Iraq. In 2003…

SEN. McCAIN: Mm-hmm.

MR. RUSSERT: …you said, “I believe we’ve achieved significant goals”; 2005, we view it as, as “hopeful,” we’re making “progress”; 2006, we’re on the “right track,” “I want to emphasize again” the “good things happening”; we’re “showing signs of success” in 2007. It’s upbeat, upbeat, upbeat.

SEN. McCAIN: I think…

MR. RUSSERT: And yet the reality is quite different than that kind of optimistic message.

SEN. McCAIN: You know, Tim, I think it would be fair also to put the statements that I made when I came back from Iraq that said it was a failed policy, that we had to have more troops on the ground, that we were not carrying out the right kind of effort at training and equipping the Iraqis, that the Iraqi government wasn’t–so it might be fair to flash some of those statements up, including the long speech I gave, after I came back from Iraq, to the Council on Foreign Relations, where I said if we pursue this failed policy, we will fail in Iraq. So I think that that might balance it out a bit. Do I think we had, we had made some progress? Yes. And do I think that we have had some significant setbacks? Yes. We– both is–are the case.

McCain’s response here, though abominable, has been included in the effort of balance. I don’t have time right now to really go into how much of a pathetic stunt his trip to Iraq was, but if you watch (read or listen) to the rest of the interview, Tim Russert makes the same point here.

Mission Accomplished

Dick Cheney in a speech March 12, 2007 to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee 2007 Policy leveled the following statement to the Democratic Party:

There is a third myth about the war on terror, and this one is also the most dangerous. Some apparently believe that getting out of Iraq before the job is done will actually strengthen America’s hand in the fight against terrorists. This myth is dangerous because it represents a full validation of the al Qaeda strategy. The terrorists don’t expect to beat us in a standup fight. They never have. They’re not likely to try. The only way we can win is if we lose our nerve and abandon our mission and the terrorists do believe that they can force that outcome.

At this point, America well knows that there were serious lapses in intelligence that was given to the White House, or taken even further, accurate intelligence that was flat out ignored, but regardless, the White House strategy from the beginning has been to get out as soon as possible. On May 1, 2003, Bush delivered a speech on an aircraft carrier in front of a banner that read mission accomplished. The White House argues of course that this shouldn’t be taken literally, that the mission being accomplished was the 10 years of service that the carrier had in operation. However, the administration was obviously setting itself up to walk away from Iraq, in the face of whatever turmoil was left there, much in the same way that they did in Afghanistan. And while terrorists still operate within that country and conflict abounds, these stories are largely ignored by the mainstream media. The White House’s true culpability in hiding the facts of the situation in Iraq could be argued, had they been successful in convincing the American people that it was time to leave, but what played out was much different.

Nearly four years after the speech, America is still in Iraq. As evidenced by Cheney’s speech, the rhetoric has changed considerably. The White House has made an enormous change in rhetoric to now admit to the complicated conflict we have put ourselves in the middle of in Iraq.

The second part of Cheney’s statement to the AIPAC refers to the rhetorical war that is being played out with al Qaeda. al Qaeda seems to be employing at least two strategies in Iraq: one is to make clear to the world that if the US leaves, we win. The second, lay low for now and keep the US in Iraq for as long as possible, building support and sympathy for al Qaeda throughout the region. It is sad to see the White House fall for a silly schoolyard trick as calling someone chicken to make them do what you want, but it seems that is what the administration wants to do.

Despite their best efforts to get in and out as quickly as possible, the White House may only settle on leaving until they can officially declare victory over an opponent who is hiding and wants them to behave exactly as they are behaving now.

powered by performancing firefox