It's Official: McCain Will Fight To the End In Iraq . . . Now Likely GOP Nominee

By Big Tent Democrat, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Sat Apr 07, 2007 at 10:29:40 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

John McCain will run for President based on his record on Iraq. I kid you not:

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) will launch a high-profile effort next week to convince Americans that the Iraq war is winnable, embracing the unpopular conflict with renewed vigor as he attempts to reignite his stalling bid for the presidency. With the Virginia Military Institute as a backdrop, McCain plans to argue in a speech on Wednesday that victory in Iraq is essential to American security and that President Bush's war machine is finally getting on track after four years, aides and advisers said.

I think John McCain will be the GOP nominee if he promises that as President he will continue to prosecute the Iraq Debacle. And I think this is a political loser in the General Election. But will the Dem nominee recognize this? I have my doubts.

I fear the Democratic nominees will not stand firmly against the Iraq Debacle now and thus will be vulnerable to the Kerry "voted for it before I voted against it" tactic. More importantly, I do not trust any of the Presidential candidates to end the Iraq Debacle. These are politicians whose first concern will be the electoral prospects in 2012. Our best bet to end the war is THIS Congress.

And the thing to do now is to endorse and support the Reid-Feingold bill. Senators Clinton and Obama? Senator Edwards? Governor Richardson? You are all AWOL on this.

Senator Dodd has stepped up. How about you?

< Gonzo Justice: Gonzoites Smear Minneapolis Prosecutors | 14,000 National Guard Troops May Be Sent To Iraq >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

It's Official: McCain Will Fight To the End In Iraq . . . Now Likely GOP Nominee | 26 comments (26 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Don't think so. . . (5.00 / 1) (#3)
by LarryInNYC on Sat Apr 07, 2007 at 12:09:32 PM EST

I think John McCain will be the GOP nominee if he promises that as President he will continue to prosecute the Iraq Debacle.

The Republican Primary electorate, despite all the far-right hype, has generally shown itself to be quite capable of picking a general-election winner. They usually settle on candidates who spout popular mainstream views and then reverse course the day they take office.

I doubt they'll go with McCain because he espouses an unpopular view that will have little chance of prevailing in the general election.

I think McCain is suffering from the (5.00 / 1) (#18)
by mentaldebris on Sat Apr 07, 2007 at 03:02:00 PM EST

beginnings of political dementia. He lives in a bubble beyond the bubble now. It is truly a sad thing to watch.

Although I never would vote for the man, I did once respect him and feared his ability to fool enough people to win the presidency. His fall from grace has been sobering. When you sell out your integrity in a quest for power, there is no going back.

I doubt very much that he will be the GOP nominee. The base has never embraced him. So it seems to me he always had an uphill battle to look forward to in the primary. Bush backing him would be a boon except that Mr. Low 30's isn't exactly wowing the electorate at the moment and really can't seem to provide any juice to his chosen successor.

The base has disdain for the "maverick" but while they'll follow Bush over any handy cliff they seem intent on resisting cliff McCain. I suppose the irony would be the Bush destroying McCain in the primaries and McCain's initial bucking of the party line branded McCain as a traitor to the base for life despite his current fanatical loyalty.

I think McCain's hope was always that the independents and Reagan Dems would see him as a viable alternative to whomever the Dems put up and the repubs would vote for him as the most electable because of this. His stubbornness on Iraq is not going to bring in the independents or the moderate Democrats so he doesn't have that card to play any more.

McCain has another problem. The reality of instantaneous news has still not hit the old guard in Washington. They still operate like there will be a lagtime between their lies or misstatements in the hopes that no one will be watching or won't care by the time the illusion is parsed and the truth outed. They can't accept that those days are over.

Even the document dump on the DOJ fiasco (boy, those internet muckrakers sure made mincemeat of that dump quickly--that must have shocked the hell out of Bacon Boy)proves that they still don't get it.

McCain is over. I can't see any way for him to regain his balance. He lost it the moment he capitulated to BushCo. His continued loyalty to that lost cause will further his political undoing.

He sold his soul for that last shot at it (5.00 / 1) (#20)
by Militarytracy on Sat Apr 07, 2007 at 04:18:43 PM EST

I never thought it would ever happen. I used to have honest respect for the guy. It is a sad thing to witness a man lose his soul trying to gain the world.

At least he has one. (none / 0) (#23)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Apr 07, 2007 at 07:25:46 PM EST

: No, he had one. He sold it. (none / 0) (#28)
by Militarytracy on Sun Apr 08, 2007 at 01:31:40 PM EST

It belongs to SATAN now.

McCain Thinks The Iraq War Is Winnable Because... (5.00 / 1) (#22)
by john horse on Sat Apr 07, 2007 at 06:42:27 PM EST

re: "Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) will launch a high-profile effort next week to convince Americans that the Iraq war is winnable"

So Senator McCain thinks the Iraq war is winnable. That is why he did the dog and pony show at the Iraqi market. Only later did we find out that during his stroll to the Iraqi market he wore a bulletproof vest, and was surrounded by 100 American soldiers, three Blackhawk helicopters, and two Apache gunships. Of course he forgets to mention these security measures during his press conference in which he, ironically enough, accused the press of not telling the truth about the situation in Iraq. Now he says he mispoke. I guess he mispoke in the same way that George Bush mispoke when he said that Saddam had WMDs and was working with Al Queda. So much for straight talk.

: All this talk about what Pelosi said to Assad... (5.00 / 1) (#26)
by annefrank on Sat Apr 07, 2007 at 08:37:54 PM EST

while John McCain and 2 other flying monkeys were literally looking into the camera and LYING about their stroll through Disney's Baghdad Main Street. We did not have...

NO!! Edwards supports Reid/Feingold bill (none / 0) (#1)
by annefrank on Sat Apr 07, 2007 at 10:39:30 AM EST

which is similar to Edwards' proposal, except he says their bill doesn't go far enough!
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/4/5/85053/75091
See Politico link at end.

LOL (none / 0) (#2)
by jarober on Sat Apr 07, 2007 at 11:41:26 AM EST

I think you completely miss just how much Republicans dislike McCain over McCain/Feingold. Contrary to the left's theories, we do care about the first amendment - unlike McCain and Feingold, who would just as soon flush it down the toilet as an inconvenient thing that incumbents shouldn't have to deal with.

Jarober: So there's no difference.... (none / 0) (#6)
by Dadler on Sat Apr 07, 2007 at 12:15:16 PM EST

...between cash and speech? Understand that this quite democratically illogical claim is a full and ethusiastic endorsement of plutocracy, government by the wealthy. When cash and free speech are considered equal poltically then all pretense to government of the people, by the people, for the people is automatically gone. It is of the monied, by the monied, for the monied. Robber Barons rejoice.

If this is what you despise McCain for, I must say I find it almost beyond rationality.

Meanwhile, McCain is obviously suffering from serious psychological problems. Only a man of profound delusion and egomania and malevolence at heart, having survived what he did in a useless, illegal, and immoral war, can wish more of the same upon others in this useless, illegal and immoral war.

It is a sickness and stomach turning to watch.


Also sickening to watch is McCain (none / 0) (#8)
by annefrank on Sat Apr 07, 2007 at 01:42:49 PM EST

downgrading his LYING to merely "misspeaking."
Oh - and according to him, he'll do it again. That should make a great ad, with body armor, vest and all the props.


Completely wrong (none / 0) (#11)
by Sailor on Sat Apr 07, 2007 at 02:32:45 PM EST

implicit in the ability of free speech is the ability to use one's resources to broadcast such speech.

Wrong, the airwaves belong to the people, not to corporations ... no matter how much bush has tried to change it to consolidate a selected few corporations control of it.

There's a reason the ACLU opposes the McCain Feingold bill.

In the first place it's just plain peculiar that a rethug is advocating an ACLU position, but not surprising that they completely distort the ACLU position.

For almost 30 years, the ACLU has been at the forefront of the effort to insure that campaign finance reform is consistent with the free speech and democratic values embodied in the First Amendment to the Constitution. For that entire period of time, we have insisted that campaign finance laws must serve two vital goals: protecting freedom of political speech and association and expanding political opportunity and participation. Unfortunately, the McCain-Feingold bill (S. 27, the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2001) recently passed by the Senate, and its Shays-Meehan counterpart (H.R. 380, the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2001) introduced in the House earlier this year, are fundamentally inconsistent with these goals. Rather, they are destructive distractions from the serious business of meaningful campaign finance reform which entails easing, not tightening, the legislative controls on the financing of our political campaigns.

Agree strongly with your last paragraph. (none / 0) (#13)
by oculus on Sat Apr 07, 2007 at 02:37:51 PM EST

Can't figure out how a man who was held the longest in the "Hanoi Hilton" could perserve in supporting the mess in Iraq.


: McCain will persevere ... (5.00 / 1) (#19)
by Sailor on Sat Apr 07, 2007 at 03:55:02 PM EST

... because he wants it so bad he'll compromise everything he's ever said and/or believed in to be president. Just like rudy ... and most candidates in recent history.

I think you disprove your own point: (none / 0) (#4)
by fiver on Sat Apr 07, 2007 at 12:13:05 PM EST

These are politicians whose first concern will be the electoral prospects in 2012.

Therefore won't they want to be out of Iraq ASAP as to avoid daily headlines of Iraqi/American death?

All of the contenders have supported a time table that ends the war well before they'd even be in office...

by all the contenders (5.00 / 1) (#5)
by fiver on Sat Apr 07, 2007 at 12:13:57 PM EST

I mean Democrats.


Hillary Clinton has stated that if she is (5.00 / 1) (#9)
by oculus on Sat Apr 07, 2007 at 02:22:32 PM EST

elected she will maintain U.S. military presence in Iraq, although not to intervene in the civil war. Makes no sense, but that's what she sd.


Must Mean (5.00 / 1) (#10)
by squeaky on Sat Apr 07, 2007 at 02:24:53 PM EST

All those permanent bases that she will claim to be US territory, Kinda like gitmo in Cuba.


What's your read on the non-intervention part? (none / 0) (#12)
by oculus on Sat Apr 07, 2007 at 02:35:51 PM EST

Pull Back (5.00 / 1) (#15)
by squeaky on Sat Apr 07, 2007 at 02:40:27 PM EST

To the bases and let the war continue. Of course the part she is missing, if this scenario will be the case, is that our presence there is what is flaming the war. 90% or more of Iraqis want us out of their country NOW.


I don't see the point in staying in "green (none / 0) (#16)
by oculus on Sat Apr 07, 2007 at 02:47:49 PM EST

aone" configurations. Yes, yes, I know, "triangulation."


where are you getting your information? (none / 0) (#25)
by fiver on Sat Apr 07, 2007 at 08:29:53 PM EST

NY Post:

Hillary Rodham Clinton emphatically pledged yesterday that if she were president, she'd sign into law a House measure definitively withdrawing all combat troops from Iraq by the end of the summer of 2008.
...
"We have to leave a smaller contingent of troops to deal with al Qaeda because they are in Iraq and we can't afford to let them have a staging ground," she said, echoing her calls for a long-term American commitment in Iraq from earlier this month.
The House plan allows for Americans to swoop into Iraq to hunt for al Qaeda terrorists only for "targeted special actions limited in duration and scope."

Which is no different than Obama:

The plan allows for a limited number of U.S. troops to remain in Iraq as basic force protection, to engage in counter-terrorism and to continue the training of Iraqi security forces. If the Iraqis are successful in meeting the 13 benchmarks for progress laid out by the Bush Administration, this plan also allows for the temporary suspension of the redeployment, provided Congress agrees that the benchmarks have been met.

The itilicized part seems like a complere loophole to me.

Edwards:

The first step is by immediately withdrawing 40,000-50,000 troops from Iraq, with the complete withdrawal of all combat troops from Iraq within 12-18 months

Does that sound all that different? From what I can tell, all 3 supports removing all combat troops and presuming an advisory/anti-Al-Quada role. It'd be wrong to single Hillary out.

Also where do you get your "90% of Iraqis want us out of their country NOW." from?

The growing negative attitude toward the Americans is also reflected in two related survey questions: 53% say they would feel less secure without the coalition in Iraq, but 57% say the foreign troops should leave anyway. Those answers were given before the current showdowns in Fallujah and Najaf between U.S. troops and guerrilla fighters. USA Today:

So assuming you take out the Kurds, that leaves you with 2/3rds wanting us out. Obviously the polling techniques can be very skewed, but I don't think it's fair to say 90% want us out now, and the poll's should be nuanced, asking whether they want a complete pull out of all Americans, or just combat troops.


: Yes (none / 0) (#27)
by squeaky on Sat Apr 07, 2007 at 09:09:05 PM EST

Hard to imagine how a poll can even be conducted today. The poll you linked to is from April '04. In my 90% figure I wasn't even thinking about the Kurds, and am surprised that only 75% support US troop presence. I would have thought that figure closer to 95% Here is a current poll.

*A 51% majority, including one-third of Shiites and 94% of Sunni Arabs, say attacks on U.S. forces are acceptable political acts. Only 7% of Kurds agree.
*In all, 83% of Shiites and 97% of Sunni Arabs oppose the presence of coalition forces in Iraq; 75% of Kurds support them. By more than 3 to 1, Iraqis say the presence of U.S. forces is making the security situation worse.
In terms of moving to permanent bases, it was speculation on my part responding to oculus' statement that Hillary said she will maintain U.S. military presence in Iraq. Bush has sunk big bucks in large military bases in Iraq, I am sure Hillary would love to keep them going.

So... (none / 0) (#14)
by jarober on Sat Apr 07, 2007 at 02:38:16 PM EST

Here's the kind of thing McCain/Feingold lets happen:

O'Reilly, or Hannity, or Colmes, or Olberman venting their spleen on a political item, within 60 days of an election? Just fine

Me getting together with 100 (or 10, or 1000, pick your number) like minded people to run an ad on the same political item within 60 days of an election? Banned

There's your free speech being blocked, right there. If you think your freedom isn't being infringed by that law, you aren't paying attention. I find it fascinating that the left is highly concerned with the "rights" that enemy combatants in Gitmo have, but doesn't care a whit about the First Amendment freedoms their hero Russ Feingold has burned. Feingold is anti-war; he can burn down the rest of the Constitution, and the left just won't care.

The fact that McCain supports the war as I do doesn't matter to me - his willingness to pee on the Constitution is a far bigger problem.

: What is your main reason for supporting the war? (none / 0) (#24)
by annefrank on Sat Apr 07, 2007 at 08:27:17 PM EST

McCain is being consistent (none / 0) (#21)
by Al on Sat Apr 07, 2007 at 06:31:08 PM EST

He's trying to look good to the far right, once Bush is gone. It is consistent with his proclaimed views of late on creationism, or sexual abstinence.