Just Doesn't Matter?
What a mess of trouble John McCain's campaign is in this morning after the candidate told NBC's Matt Lauer that it's "not too important" to define when American troops will be withdrawn from Iraq.
"What's important is the casualties in Iraq," McCain said.
As Dems seize on the GOPer's comments, here's the McCain camp's spin:
"The Obama campaign is embarking on a false attack on John McCain to hide their own candidate's willingness to disregard facts on the ground in pursuit of withdrawal no matter what the costs. John McCain was asked if he had a 'better estimate' for a timeline for withdrawal," spokesman Tucker Bounds told NBC/NJ's Carrie Dann. "As John McCain has always said, that is not as important as conditions on the ground and the recommendations of commanders in the field. Any reasonable person who reads the full transcript would see this and reject the Obama campaign's attempt to manipulate, twist and distort the truth."
Readers: Does McCain's comment today reinforce his earlier 100-years remark about keeping troops in Iraq? That was one talking point Team McCain was likely thrilled to have finally battle back. Might today's statement renew that conversation?
Yes it does. He appears to suggest we will garrison Iraq for at least as long as we have garrisoned Korean and Europe which is in excess of a half century now.
Why does he keep going on those liberal shows? Now he is seeing that kissing up to the liberal media all those years won't help him now. Just ask Hillary.
Just out of curiosity, what are the Democrats saying about what McCain said? You mention them really briefly before you trot out the pro forma response from the McCain spokesdroid, but you don't give the Democrats' response. Are we just supposed to imagine what the Democrats said?
Something magically happens to the casualties once you withdraw troops from an impossible political situation in a country where you're viewed as a hated occupier: they go down to zero!
Let's be perfectly clear, folks.
This is *NOT* a verbal GAFFE.
This is what he actually believes.
He believes is a PERMANENT presence in Iraq. He has mentioned it many times.
Could there be any policy that is more reckless and irresponsible than permanent occupation of an unfriendly country? Pick a topic: national security, economy, military readiness, taking care of our troops, diplomatic relations, terrorism... It is just exactly the WRONG policy.
This man's ideas are literally just as bad or worse than Bush.
Curious: here are Majority Leader of the Senate Harry Reid's comments on McCain's insane statement:
"McCain's statement today that withdrawing troops doesn't matter is a crystal clear indicator that he just doesn't get the grave national-security consequences of staying the course -- Osama bin Laden is freely plotting attacks, our efforts in Afghanistan are undermanned, and our military readiness has been dangerously diminished. We need a smart change in strategy to make America more secure, not a commitment to indefinitely keep our troops in an intractable civil war."
>>>Why does he keep going on those liberal shows?
He is supposed to be a "moderate" remember? You and the radical right keep treating him like one of your own. It only reinforces the image that this is MORE OF THE SAME. Bush III.
Heckuva job flyover. Keep it up. Thx.
The actual question and comment:
"Do you now have a better estimate of when American forces can come home from Iraq?"
"No, but that's not too important."
He says later that Gen. Petraeus will have a better estimate in July.
On the whole, not the "sky is falling" kind of comment some seem to have heard.
Um, Pining, if you are going to post the "actual comment" you should post the whole comment. That's NOT the whole comment.
He tried to turn the issue by saying that the truly important issue is troop casualties.
His whole argument was that bringing the troops home doesn't matter as long as they aren't dying.
It is totally ludicrous argument for many reasons. Conditions in Iraq are not even REMOTELY like conditions on the ground in Post WWII Germany and Japan.
There is a religious Civil War raging in Iraq as we speak. The only way for there to be peace is for the USA to get the hell out and let them sort it out politically.
Either John McCain DOESN'T KNOW that, or he REFUSES TO ADMIT IT because he is pandering for votes on the campaign trail.
Either way is DISGUSTING.
Sorry you disagree, Ethan, but that's not unusual, I guess. You are, shall we say, not shy.
"The only way for there to be peace is for the USA to get the hell out and let them sort it out politically."
That is one possibility, but certainly not the only one. What if, by leaving American troops there, we could guarantee the peace? No way that could happen, you say! But Koreans might disagree, after their own secular civil war. And there have been violent anti-American demonstrations in Korea for decades. Perhaps also Taiwan, where the two combatants are, in fact, in the throes of "sort[ing] it out politically" after the most violent of secular civil wars.
What if, by American troops leaving, they could "sort it out" by the worst type of violence, murder, political indoctrination, and so on. Wouldn't happen, you say? Vietnamese might disagree with you.
American troops currently serve in more than 100 countries right now, many of them engaged in hot combat roles (albeit described as training). Should we pull them all back until they "sort it out politically" in those countries?
This is a very slippery slope argument you are pushing, Ethan. Even if you disagree with McCain, it is not disgusting for someone to consider other views.
>>>This is a very slippery slope argument you are pushing, Ethan.
It's not a slippery slope. STAYING and building 60 permanent bases in Iraq IS a slippery slope.
>>>Should we pull them all back until they "sort it out politically" in those countries?
How many of those countries necessitate an American troop presence of 140,000 troops?
In how many of those countries are U.S. troops dying regularly?
In how many of those countries has there been sectarian conflict for over 1,000 years?
In how many of those countries is there a NATO or UN peacekeeping force as opposed to a full-blown U.S. occupation?
In how many of those countries is there a huge amount of OIL underground?
>>>Even if you disagree with McCain, it is not disgusting for someone to consider other views.
It IS disgusting for someone running for President to say that it doesn't matter when the troops come home. Especially in light of the issues I mentioned above.
This war is not about troops. It is not about John McCain.
It is a SCAM.
Get it?
It has to end. Immediately.
Ethan my friend, who do you want me to be for, Barak F. Obama? I am so glad I provide entertainment for you and your friends on the collective farm.
>>>who do you want me to be for
AMERICA
I am for America, that's why I am doing everything I can to ensure Barak F. Obama does not win. I am looking forward to having you visit us in the real world soon. Don't they spell America Amerika where you live?
>>>that's why I am doing everything I can to ensure Barak F. Obama does not win
Why? Make your case. Are you FOR John McCain? Or are you just anti whatever Democrat?
>>>Don't they spell America Amerika where you live?
Guess what, flyover. We are all Americans. Nobody can claim to be any more American than anybody else. Statements like this are why Barack Obama is the person who is going to lead this country back to greatness. People are sick and tired of these petty partisan games.
And that's really what people like you are about: gamesmanship. Everything is a big, fun game to you.
Truth is, we need to GET TO WORK. All of us. There simply is NOT ENOUGH TIME in the day to sit here and talk about "don't they spell it Amerika..."
That kind of childish and pathetic partisanship *diminishes* not only the hard work that needs to get done (on a bipartisan/non-partisan basis), but it diminishes the AMERICA that you are supposedly trying to protect with your "humor".