McCain is in another awkward “I didn’t say what I said” moment with respect to his statement that “it doesn’t really matter” when American forces come home from Iraq.
In addition to hammering McCain on the fact that it is important to get the troops home, those opposed to McCain are taking the opportunity to tag him as “confused” and “befuddled.” I wonder which, if either, narrative will be more frightening to Americans voting for President: “scary black man” or “senile old man.”
Update Talking Points Memo has a good discussion of the McCain camp’s response to the “not important” statement.
Sometimes these references by McCain are treated as gaffes but they’re not. This is what McCain believes: that we should have a long-term troop presence in Iraq to guarantee the survival of a pro-U.S. government and assert power in the region. That’s not a crazy position. That’s the position of the current administration. That’s why we’re currently trying to secure an agreement with the Iraqis to ratify that goal. The problem isn’t that McCain’s position is incomprehensible. It’s just not popular. Most Americans think reducing casualties is important too. But they’d like to do both — reduce casualties and leave too.
The problem for the McCain campaign is that he keeps stumbling into clear statements of his actual policy, which is close to lethal since the vast majority of Americans disagree with his policy and Iraq is virtually the only thing he’s running on. The context the McCain campaign keeps trying to put forward after the fact is what they wished he’d said rather than what he did. And even that, when you push deep, isn’t that different from McCain’s actual policy, which is that he doesn’t think we should be leaving Iraq for years to come, most likely decades.
I heard the full speech when he said that. His point was that we still have troops in Japan, Korea, Guam, Germany, etc…
The issue is not “Bring 100% of the troops home”, or at least it isn’t to him, and I agree with that. The issue is getting our troops off the front lines and out of the killing.
If you feel that we must get 100% of the troops home, why there and not South Korea?
I don’t think the question posed to McCain referenced 100% of the troops.
With respect to Iraq, we’re losing a lot of lives, we’re spending a ton of money, and we’re not getting a damn thing out of it. Add to that the fact that we had no business going into Iraq in the first place, and there are a whole raft of reasons to get the hell out. McCain’s flippant “it doesn’t matter” or “make it 100 years” betrays a lack of any sense of urgency at all for stopping the digging of the Iraqi hole we’re in.
Rachel Maddow,a political analyst on MSNBC,commented tonight that McCain stated a year ago that he felt we cannot compare leaving American troops in Iraq with the post-war situation of Japan,Germany, Guam,etc,which is just the opposite of what he said today.It’s assumed all is recorded for proof of his changing positions.
I think Democrats must be busy compiling a dossier of McCains conflicting views.This is not his first changed position,and he seems to be unaware of what he used to believe.
They need to just start putting together McCain saying one thing, then saying its opposite, then tag it with his “That’s not change we can believe in” mantra from his unfortunate green screen performance.
Now, you’re on to something. If he is saying you can’t compare the those things, then compares them, he’s digging himself a very deep hole. No offense, but I’m sure the marketing pros will come up with an even better ad than the one Doug has in #4, good as it is.
However, what are the reasons for not having a base there? Even if you leave out the current war, it seems like a good place to have one, as it would make deployment easier.
If we’re going to bring everyone home, I could get on board with that, but let’s bring everyone home. We’re not going to destabilize South Korea or Japen more than we would Iraq.
If we’re not going to be the global police, and we want to bring the troops home to save money, then bring them all home.
I don’t know how compelling a reason it would be not to have a base in Iraq, but bases in Saudi Arabia is a purported reason by al Qaeda for its attacks on the United States.
I don’t know if we have them or not, but for the region, a base in Kuwait would seem more justifiable in that we gave them their country back. Or a base in Israel since, as I understand it, we’re a key component in their defense plans.
But, keeping a base in Iraq after initiating a “preemptive” war just looks bad. I suppose if there were some indication that anything like most of the Iraqis welcomed us, it might be justifiable.
Imo, Iraq is an American-enhanced,if not American-made, powderkeg. I buy into the rationale that as long as American forces are in Iraq,we will have to maintain order and protect Iraqis just because we are there.It’s one of those catch-22’s.
It’s long been our administration’s plan to stay in Iraq longterm ‘to assure democracy,peace and stability’ in the region,so we have always had a built-in hesitancy to leave.The American debate has been Dems vs Repubs with the goal of political gain.Our 2-party political system has collapsed in a time of great need.I get decent perspective on Iraq war by watching BBC, French or German news,which I get on satellite.The American ‘fair and balanced’ approach to news has left a lot of us in the dark,except as to what each party wants us to believe.
If we pull out there most likely there will be chaos,no matter when that is,so the Bush warning of civil warfare after withdrawal has merit, because the artificial order being maintained by our troops will crumble when we leave,whenever we leave.
Im also heavily influenced by listening to NPR,and our mistake of no return was ramming through the flawed Iraqi Constitution giving power to ex-patriate leaders who have little credibility in today’s Iraq.Our invasion in effect has made ‘today’s Iraq’ a mistrusting grouping of sectarian partisans posturing postively in public but waiting for American withdrawal to establish dominence by whatever means necessary.Their new Constitition is set up in a way that ensures sectarian fighting.
We must just get out,just as soon we can do so logistically.
This is just my view and I have no expertise in anything international,but I’ve long been appalled by how unwilling our administration has been to adjust to circumstances,which seem so obvious to the whole world.And McCain, war hero that is ,also seems to be in a political warp incapable of clear assessments.
That leaves Obama.
Good points. Isreal or Kuwait would be better, if we’re not bringing the troops home globally.