Diary of a Mad Voter: Joan McCarter
McCain’s Long War
By Joan McCarter, 4-29-08
 |
|
 | |
|
We’ve gone beyond the silly season that occurs every four years in American politics and fallen headlong into out and out surreality, with the traditional media, once again, missing the boat entirely. While they’re obsessing about ministers and flag pins, all hell is about to break loose, again, in that inconvenience of a war we seem to be hopelessly mired in.
Let’s just start out with a bit of a reality check. Four more Americans died near Baghdad’s Green Zone yesterday. We’ve lost at least 44 American troops this month, the deadliest since last September. There has been a step-up in attacks again on the Green Zone, suggesting that Americans are the target again in Iraq’s civil war.
Some other bits of news you might not be hearing: an audit of US reconstruction projects in Iraq has found that millions of the $100 billion you, the American taxpayer, has sent to Iraq have been wasted. Some 855 reconstruction projects have failed. That failure rate might have something to do with the fact the Pentagon has a bit of a problem in vetting those it awards contracts to. For instance, it does things like award $300 million contracts to 22 year-old felons.
All of this has been essentially endorsed by one of our presidential candidates, the one who thinks 100, 1,000 or even 10,000 more years in Iraq would be just fine. Though, once he let that cat out of the bag, he’s been trying desparately to walk it back. It looks like he’s got at least one traditional media outlet in the bag for him, as Josh Marshall discusses.
It seems the AP has fallen for the McCain campaign’s and the RNC’s effort to prevent anyone from using McCain’s own words against him during the 2008 presidential campaign. As noted earlier, what the McCain campaign is pushing for here is a standard in which any negative ad targeting McCain must be delivered with the McCain camp’s own spin included in order to be within bounds—a standard few politicians, to say the least, have ever been granted. And even though the political press has been highly indulgent of the McCain campaign on this issue, I don’t think I’ve seen any news organization so egregiously buy into McCain’s false statements as the Associated Press.
The AP article lede reads: “The Republican National Committee demanded Monday that television networks stop running a television ad by the Democratic Party that falsely suggests John McCain wants a 100-year war in Iraq.”
One little adverb tells the story. See, it’s the RNC asserting the ad falsely suggests John McCain wants a 100-year war in Iraq, which the AP seems to accept as gospel. Never mind that the DNC ad actually has McCain, on video, plainly saying that 100-year occupation in Iraq would “be fine wth me.” Or that in follow up interviews, including on Meet the Press, McCain has gone on to say that we could be there for thousands of years, and it would be OK. As Marshall says:
The rub here is this: McCain does not want to leave Iraq. Period. He wants tens of thousands of troops to stay in Iraq permanently. He made a big point of this during the primaries when it was politically advantageous to do so. And he followed up with a qualifier explaining that it’s okay because our occupation of Iraq will soon be like our presence in Germany and Japan where nobody gets killed. But there’s little reason to believe our occupation of Iraq will ever be like that. We tried this in Lebanon; the French tried this in Algeria; the British even tried it in Iraq. Western countries have a very poor history garrisoning Muslim countries in the Middle East. Iraq isn’t like Germany or Japan, not simply because of the history of the country but because both countries accepted decades-long US deployments as a counterweight to threatening neighbors. The relevant point is that McCain believes American troops should stay in Iraq permanently. His pipe dream about Iraq turning into Germany doesn’t change that. It just shows his substitution of wishful thinking for sound strategic judgment.
Marshall’s point that McCain’s use of this talking point during the primaries is critical, and it’s another nuance you’re not likely to see picked up by the traditional media. See, just three short years ago, as the Huffington Post’s Sam Stein reminds us, John McCain forcefully rejected a long-term occupation of Iraq in an interview with MSNBC’s Chris Matthews:
In fact, when asked specifically if he thought the U.S. military should set up shop in Iraq along the lines of what has been established in post-WWII Germany or Japan—something McCain has repeatedly advocated during the campaign—the senator offered nothing short of a categorical “no.”
“I would hope that we could bring them all home,” he said on MSNBC. “I would hope that we would probably leave some military advisers, as we have in other countries, to help them with their training and equipment and that kind of stuff.”
Host Chris Matthews pressed McCain on the issue. “You’ve heard the ideological argument to keep U.S. forces in the Middle East. I’ve heard it from the hawks. They say, keep United States military presence in the Middle East, like we have with the 7th Fleet in Asia. We have the German...the South Korean component. Do you think we could get along without it?”
McCain held fast, rejecting the very policy he urges today. “I not only think we could get along without it, but I think one of our big problems has been the fact that many Iraqis resent American military presence,” he responded. “And I don’t pretend to know exactly Iraqi public opinion. But as soon as we can reduce our visibility as much as possible, the better I think it is going to be.”
McCain, against the occupation before he was for it.
In politics, there really isn’t anything more important than war. The decision to take a nation to war, and to keep it there--to send citizens in to harm’s way and to keep sending them there--is the most profound one political leaders have to make. The fourth estate failed the nation in the run up to this war as much as our political leaders did. They bought the administration’s lies about the Iraqi threat hook line and sinker. Now we’re there, there’s little that’s more important to the health of our nation--its economy, its body politic, its standing in the world--than finding some way to end this Iraq debacle.
The war in Iraq and its major consequence--the near ruin of the nation’s economy--are at the forefront of voters’ minds this election season, as every public opinion poll done in the last few months proves, despite the fact the traditional media would have us all obsessing about how our candidates choose to accessorize their lapels, and what Barack Obama’s former preacher has to say about things (while conveniently ignoring the outrageous statements of another religious leader actively supporting John McCain).
Unfortunately, you go into an election with the press corps you’ve got, not the press corps you need.
Editor’s note: Joan McCarter’s weekly blogs are part of NewWest.Net/Politics’ “Diary of a Mad Voter” feature, a group blog, published in partnership with the Denver Post’s Politics West intended give a glimpse into the hearts and minds of several independent-minded voters and thinkers in the Rocky Mountain West in the ‘08 election cycle. For more columns check in with www.newwest.net/madvoter. And for more information on each of the bloggers, click here.
Joan, I would appreciate your thoughts reconciling your comments with Fact Check: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/smear_or_be_smeared.html
>>>>>>>
A 100-Year War?
The DNC's message portrays McCain as bent on fighting an "endless" war in Iraq.
DNC: We can't afford four more years with a President who fights an endless war in Iraq. ... On the war, McCain scoffed at Bush's call to leave troops in Iraq for 50 years, saying "Make it a hundred!"
That of course is a serious distortion of what McCain actually said to a town-hall meeting in New Hampshire back on Jan. 3. His actual words are posted in a video on YouTube. Far from advocating "endless war," he said the presence of U.S. troops in Iraq would be "fine with me" provided that they're not being killed or wounded. Here's the full quote:
McCain, Jan. 3: Make it a hundred. ... We’ve been in Japan for 60 years. We’ve been in South Korea for 50 years or so. That would be fine with me, as long as American, as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed. It’s fine with me and I hope it would be fine with you if we maintained a presence in a very volatile part of the world where al Qaeda is training, recruiting and equipping and motivating people every single day.
It should be noted that both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, despite their frequent talk of withdrawing from Iraq, have said repeatedly that they would maintain at least some troops in a combat role in Iraq for some time, possibly their entire term of office.
There's little doubt that McCain is less eager than either Clinton or Obama to bring troops home without further suppression of insurgent attacks. But it's a rank falsehood for the DNC to accuse McCain of wanting to wage "endless war" based on his support for a presence in Iraq something like the U.S. role in South Korea.
<<<<<<<<<<<<
If we were to write an equation (sorry Marion, I know that I'm getting over your head already) that described how long McSame wants to stay in Iraq, it would be as follows:
T(McStay) = number of years McSame wants to stay in Iraq
t(quagmire) = number of years American troops are getting killed and American budget is getting destroyed
Therefore:
T(McStay) = t(quagmire) + 100
The question McSame should answer, if he doesn't want people saying he is for a hundred years of war, is how long t(quagmire) is. Without this information I think it safe to claim he is for endless, or at least hundred-years war.
Joan, I know that ole Craig offered you a challenge, if you allow me I'll just let McCain answer Craig's question:
[from Charlie Rose 11/27/2007]
ROSE: Do you think that this — Korea, South Korea is an analogy of where Iraq might be, not in terms of their economic success but in terms of an American presence over the next, say, 20, 25 years, that we will have a significant amount of troops there?
MCCAIN: I don’t think so.
ROSE: Even if there are no casualties?
MCCAIN: No. But I can see an American presence for a while. But eventually I think because of the nature of the society in Iraq and the religious aspects of it that America eventually withdraws.
I guess we can reconcile what you said with fact-check (and with what McCain REALLY said) by establishing that:
1. He is on the record with two totally irreconcilable and contrary positions on an occupation of Iraq. Since McCain doesn't know what he thinks, it is okay to guess.
2. Once again, when it comes to foreign policy (i.e. his strong suit) the guy is an ignorant panderer, willing to say whatever pops into his mind first, and he doesn't know what he is talking about.
3. The press is so in the tank for him they never call him on his mumbo-jumbo.
I think it looks pretty certain that our next president will have been an ignorant panderer. Not one of the three will measure up to what is necessary...
Comment By Inky, 4-30-08If one actually watches the DNC ad about McCain's "100 years" statement, it is ambiguous as to what he's talking about -- occupation or war.
The trouble is that an occupation that's troubled by a vigorous insurgency looks very much like war to any of our soldiers who are getting shot at by snipers or getting blown up by an IED.
History tells us that occupations rarely go well, unless the natives welcome the occupation as preferrable to an outside threat. Germany welcomed the US occupation to counter the threatening Russians, while Japan and S. Korea felt they were threatened by China.
Iraq is such a cultural, religious mishmash between Sunni/Shia and Arab/Persian rivalries (and don't forget the Kurds) that a 100-year occupation may well look much like 2007 in 2107. How many lives and billions of dollars would be expended in 100 years? And for what? Refereeing neighborhood civil wars between rival militias?
The only ones benefiting from this misbegotten war and occupation are the companies that manufacture arms and the companies that waste and steal our money.
For futher insight, readers, please read Naomi Kline's "Shock Doctrine" or anything by Kevin Phillips.
I have no intention whatsoever of defending or advocation for John McCain. I just want an accurate and complete presentation of the facts. This column, in my opinion, and flounder's comment smacks of opportunistic politics and straight line projection of position. As we know from Obama's Philly speech on race and Rev. Wright, and his speech yesterday excoriating the reverend, politicians give us 180 inconsistent looks. McCain should step forward and affirm his Fact Check position or "framing" of his position by this column. THEN, Clinton and Obama should clarify their respective, murky, and conflicting positions pointed out by Fact Check. My objection to this column is the ignoring of what Fact Check publicly stated. That appears to be just spin politics by the columnist.
Comment By bear bait, 4-30-08Since the US has been engaged in Afghanistan and Iraq, over 700 souls have been murdered and three thousand or more wounded by gunfire but not killed, in Oakland, California alone. And during that time, not one soldier who calls Oakland, Berkley, Richmond or Daly City has died fighting in either of those two actions. There are over a million people in those burgs, in total. Over 400,000 thousand in Oakland alone, which had over 650 people wounded on its streets last year, and more than 150 murdered.
It is terrible that soldiers die fighting our wars. Soldiers die because that is part of that very dangerous and terrifying job, and our military does the best job in the world to minimize that probability. But many, many more young people die in this country daily to gang murder, senseless crimes, stupid accidents, than ever die in those two wars.
The US suffered fewer than 295,000 deaths in combat in WWII. That was many people to a nation of 125 million people. It was a world wide combat situation. Two rogue nations were defeated in unconditional surrender. A terrible loss of life, but minimal considering the over 13 million who served in the Armed Forces for this country in that war.
In another perspective, 0.0000133 percent of US Citizens have died in Iraq and Afghanistan in our military. 0.00175 percent of Oakland residents have died in the same period by murder alone. And none have died in the military. 0.0000 percent. Any loss of life, prematurely, is sorrowful. But when you have the military, you must expect loss of life, even in training. There have to be more important reasons to not be fighting terrorism offshore than military casualties, especially in the murderous social climate of urban America. It is the death rate in Oakland, within our own country, that is terrible, a shame, a black mark on our society.
McCain is most likely tired of inane questions from a toady press, and his sensibilities might be producing answers that reflect the low level, the dumbing down if you will, of the press and its questions geared to selling newspaper or tv slots, and not aimed at advancing the dialogue. As my Dad used to tell me, "Son, you ask a stupid question, you get a stupid answer." His aspirations for me were higher than those of the media editors. McCain gets it. It is the press and the left that does not. After all, it was the National Press club that gave Rev. Wright a lengthy standing ovation knowing his record of mis-stating the the truth to make his point, to shine the spot light on his ego, his style, his pronouncements of how the world should be run. I have yet to hear McCain make those kinds of statements, nor have I heard them from Hillary or Obama.
This war and this president have run the economy into the ground. We can't afford to stay in Iraq. I remember when gas was 84 cents a gallon under Clinton. Bush has ruined this nation. We need to get out of Iraq and start repairing some of the damage done to our own country.
Comment By flounder, 4-30-08Another way to look at it is spin politics by FactCheck.
You'll notice that in their "analysis", FactCheck.org didn't do any research into what McSame's real Iraq position is. They cite their sources for the blog post, and I can't see that they did any research on how long McSame is willing to stay, except for reading a single speech.
Surely they could have at least as much research as Steve Benen has done at the following link:
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/15370.html
If they did research his war position and how long is he is willing to wage war, I predict they would have deduced first that the guy doesn't know what he is talking about, and second that he hasn't said how long he is willing to wage war, except that it is long enough to "win", whatever the heck that means. Long enough to "win" is the same as "endless".
Perhaps they go easy on mavericks. Just because you call yourself Factcheck doesn't mean all to you "facts" are created equal.
You'll notice that FactCheck is ran by D.C. insider Brooks Jackson. I bet he had too much BBQ sauce on his fingers from one of McSame's journalist BBQ's to look at McSame too hard.
The deputy director of FactCheck is Viveca Novak. She is widely credited with tipping off Karl Rove that the grand jury and Patrick Fitzgerald knew he was lying to them, causing him to return and change his testimony, citing faulty memory. That journalistic malfeasance caused her to get quietly fired from Time Magazine (i.e. permanent leave of absence) . Sounds like she is a Republican mole to me.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viveca_Novak
Bear bait, you need to quit hanging out with Marion. His lack of analytical skills is rubbing off on you. And since you are comparing things that don't merit comparison, 'm wondering if his dishonesty is rubbing off on you too. For example, you compare a murder rate for Oakland's population vs. a death rate for OIF/OAF service people that isn't calculated comparing it to the OIF/OAF population but to the ENTIRE U.S. population. If you can't find out why this is dishonest maybe you should show your work to a statistician.
According to the estimates I have found, around 1,500,000 U.S. servicemen and women have served in Iraq or Afghanistan. There have been 4558 killed in action, so if you serve there using you have a roughly 0.3% chance of getting killed [I'll note that this is a simplistic way to figure this, as it doesn't account for differences between say serving in the Marines vs. the Air Force and it also doesn't account for multiple tours].
U.S. wounded requiring evac. in Iraq/Afghanistan are over 30,000, thus the chance of getting killed or seriously wounded is 2.3% using this simple metric.
300,000 U.S. OIF/OAF veterans also suffer from PTSD according to a study by RAND Corporation. That puts the rate of mental problems at 20% or 1 in 5.
In short, being in Iraq is way more dangerous than the most violent U.S. cities. In all honesty, I don't really mind you going around trying to convince people how safe Iraq is, maybe more chickenhawks will take the bait. Plus, I remember when McSame and his entourage of hundreds of soldiers and a couple helicopters went to that Bagdhad market and made the same argument. He looked really stupid (remember that Indiana congressman saying it was just like going to the market in South Bend--he sounded REALLY stupid). I won't tell you how you look, I'll let the jeering crowds who see you wearing a bulletproof vest to the swap meet do it for me.
Goodness flounder you need to get out more and away from the conspiracy theorists and McCain haters at Kos and Huffington.
Fact Check just posted an updated to the link I provided above regarding McCain and the erroneous claims by the DNC. http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/dnc_vs_mccain.html
They ain't backin' down as they slam the DNC.
Karl Rove mole Viveca Novak wrote the FactCheck update. No wonder they pander to McCain. Notice they didn't research his long history of saying nonsense when it comes to occupying Iraq.
Comment By Craig Moore, 5-01-08flounder, is OnTheIssues dot ORG part of your conspiracy theory as well?
http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/John_McCain_War_+_Peace.htm#Iraq_War
>>>>>>>>>>>>
John McCain on Iraq War
Quoting "100 years in Iraq" is out-of-context
Q: You said Obama "doesn't understand national security, has no background, no experience on these issues." Putting aside your differences on issues, straight talk, is Obama qualified to be president?
A: If the voters decide that, absolutely. I believe that my talent and my background and my experience qualifies me more. Let me just say again that was in response--when I said he was inexperienced and does not have the background--to the charge of this "100 years in Iraq." It was obvious when you read the whole quote: I said, "It could be 100 years, but it's a matter of US casualties, and we have presence in countries like South Korea, Japan," etc. So it's very clear. And Senator Obama and anyone who reads that knows that I didn't think we were in a 100-year war.
Q: But on the bigger issue...
A: You could make an argument maybe that Jack Kennedy was not "qualified" in 1960 as opposed to Richard Nixon. The voters decided on Jack Kennedy. So I can't dictate what the voters will decide.
Source: Fox News Sunday: 2008 "Choosing the President" interviews Apr 6, 2008
Staying for 100 years OK, if US casualties are low
Q: The latest survey says 32% of Americans believe the Iraq War was "worth it"; 59% believe "not worth it." You're saying the war was a good idea, it was worth the price, and we're going to stay forever or 100 years, you even suggested. Is that a winning formula in a presidential election?
A: I understand the frustration and the sorrow of the American people over the sacrifice that has been made. It was badly mishandled for nearly four years. And some people talk about the impatience of the American people. I'm proud, frankly, of the patience. But on the issue of how long we stay there, I think that's a false argument. The point is, how many Americans are going to be harmed there? Right next door in Kuwait, we have military bases. We have troops in South Korea & Bosnia. It's not a matter of American troop presence, it's a matter of American casualties. And I believe that by next November, I can show the American people significant more progress & significant withdrawals. We have to succeed there.
Source: Meet the Press: 2008 "Meet the Candidates" series Jan 27, 2008
Ok with American presence in Iraq for 100 years
Q: You were asked, "President Bush has talked about our staying in Iraq for 50 years." You answered, "Maybe 100. We've been in South Korea for 50 years or so. That'd be fine with me, as long as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed, then it's fine with me."
So you'd be all right with having US troops in Iraq for the next 100 years?
A: Most importantly, so would the American people if Americans aren't dying. We have a base in the neighboring country of Kuwait. We have a base in Turkey. We have a base in Japan, Germany. We've had bases there. It's not American presence that bothers the American people, it's American casualties. And if Americans are safe wherever they are in the world, the American people don't mind that. So what I believe we can achieve is a reduction in casualties to the point where the Iraqis are doing the fighting and dying, we're supporting them, and, over time, then it'll be the relation between the two countries.
Source: Meet the Press: 2008 "Meet the Candidates" series Jan 6, 2008
<<<<<<<<<<<
Yes they are obviously part of the Saint Maverick McSame fluffing board, or else they would have done some research before they interviewed McSame.
McSame quotes during those 4 years it was "badly mishandled":
“I’m confident we’re on the right course.” [ABC News, 3/7/04]
“I do think that progress is being made in a lot of Iraq. Overall, I think a year from now, we will have made a fair amount of progress if we stay the course. If I thought we weren’t making progress, I’d be despondent.” [The Hill, 12/8/05]
McSame (circa Jan. 2005) on whether Iraq is the new Korea:
Matthews: "You've heard the ideological argument to keep U.S. forces in the Middle East. I've heard it from the hawks. They say, keep United States military presence in the Middle East, like we have with the 7th Fleet in Asia. We have the German...the South Korean component. Do you think we could get along without it?"
McSame: "I not only think we could get along without it, but I think one of our big problems has been the fact that many Iraqis resent American military presence. And I don't pretend to know exactly Iraqi public opinion. But as soon as we can reduce our visibility as much as possible, the better I think it is going to be."
flounder, it is quite revealing that you rely on mangling John McCain's name as if that were some clever debate point. Even President Bill Clinton has stated that Senator McCain has given about all anyone can give to one's country without actually dying. Is it not possible for you to respect the man and merely disagree with his positions?
By the way, look a wee bit closer at the OnTheIssues dot ORG link and info and see where they quote remarks made in such places as Meet The Press this year. Is Russert part of your conspiracy as well?
factcheck.org is as partisan and one sides as World Net Daily, Fox News and Rush Limbaugh. That must be why Craig sites their work so much.
Comment By flounder, 5-01-08Tim Russert? You serious? He is a joke. He certainly isn't a journalist.
Tim Russert quote [trial of Scooter Libby]: "My personal policy is always off the record when talking to government officials unless specified." Would a real journalist say that? Really probing for the juicy stuff there (pun intended).
And during the Libby trial, a note by Dick Cheney Aide Cathie Martin was introduced into evidence. It was about attacking Joe Wilson and it read "1: MTP-VP", then listed the pros and cons of a vice presidential appearance on the Sunday show. Under "pro," she wrote: "control message." Cathie Martin then elaborated:
"I suggested we put the vice president on 'Meet the Press,' which was a tactic we often used. It's our best format."
Lately, Tim Russert has been blacklisting Arianna Huffington from any further appearances on NBC or MSNBC because she devoted 7 pages of her new book to how much of push-over he is. That's FOX News sort of stuff. If you can't stand up to Arianna Huffington how are you going to stand up to al Qaeda?
Did I mention that Tim Russert is a racist in the Marion sort of vein (actually when I imagine what Marion looks like I think Tim Russert-esque)? Random black musician Harry Belafonte once said that George Bush was the "greatest terrorist in the world". Two weeks later, black politician Barack Obama was asked by Tim Russert to denounce Belafonte. Guess who the ONLY other guest who had to field Harry Belafonte questions was? Colin Powell. Out of hundreds of guests, the black men have to denounce the random black person's opinion; Russert thinks African Americans in the USA are one monolith that all think alike.
I know this is old news by now, but Russert is a moron. This morning, when he was asked why Obama-Wright was a big deal, but McSame-Hagee wasn't. Little Timmy Russert said it was because there wasn't video of Hagee being hateful:
"There’s been a lot of chatter on that, you know, about Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson’s comments after September 11th. If there was video of Hagee, it makes all the difference in the world..."
Here is video of John Hagee engaging in some hate-speech:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uViQ0hVV57Q
Timmy Russert is not a journalist.