Brooks sees Iraq situation as no-lose for McCain
On the December 17 editions of the NBC-syndicated The Chris Matthews Show and NBC's Meet the Press, New York Times columnist David Brooks suggested that no matter what happens in Iraq and the rest of the Middle East, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), who is expected to run for the Republican presidential nomination in 2008, will gain politically. On The Chris Matthews Show, after host Chris Matthews said that "[n]ew signs suggest that President Bush might actually increase the troops in Iraq, a step John McCain has long called for," Brooks said that even if McCain's plan to increase troop levels in Iraq "do[es]n't do the job," McCain would gain politically because "people look at his convictions." As the weblog Think Progress noted, when asked by Matthews if McCain would be "disproven" if "it turns out more troops don't do the job," Brooks said: "Not at this late date." Brooks added that in such a scenario, McCain will say, "with a lot of justice, it is too late." Similarly, on the same day's edition of Meet the Press, Brooks said that in 2008, "it's more likely than not that Iraq will be a complete mess, that Iran will be very close to nuclear weapons, that a government like Jordan or Syria or Lebanon could be falling." Brooks added: "It's going to look pretty nasty, I think. And I think that really raises [former New York City Mayor] Rudy Giuliani (R) and John McCain's record."
Brooks' assertion that McCain will benefit even if his plan makes Iraq worse offers another example of a tendency on the part of many in the media to interpret any event as positive for Republicans.
From the December 17 broadcast of the NBC-syndicated The Chris Matthews Show:
MATTHEWS: Escalation. New signs suggest that President Bush might actually increase the troops in Iraq, a step John McCain has long called for.
McCAIN (video clip): The situation, in my view, remains serious. It requires us to have an injection of additional troops on the ground in order to bring the situation under control, in order that the political process may proceed.
MATTHEWS: So let's say it happens. We get more troops into Iraq early next year, but the violence and the killing continue over there. If the troop surge doesn't turn things around, what would that do to McCain's political chances? I was thinking, by the way, of those old Road Runner cartoons where one guy chases the other guy, and then realizes he's off the cliff.
We put it to the "Matthews Meter" -- would a troop surge actually hurt or help John McCain? By 7-to-5, the meter says it helps and sets McCain up to lead the country. David, you think if Bush moves for more troops, following the Army's advice, McCain's on board, in fact his biggest booster. That's a doubling down for the bet for both those guys. What does it do to McCain's future?
BROOKS: Well, I think people look at his conviction. I mean, if you look at every analysis of the war, every book that's been written about it, it all comes back to three words: not enough troops. And John McCain has been saying that for three years. And the White House did not listen to him for three years. And people are going to remember that, I think.
MATTHEWS: But if it turns out that more troops don't do the job, is he disproven?
BROOKS: Right -- well, not at this late date -- I mean, then they'll just say, and I think he'll say with a lot of justice, it is too late. And he said that even this week. One more surge, and then we have to look at a new reality --
From the December 17 edition of NBC's Meet the Press:
TIM RUSSERT (host): How about the Republican side? John McCain; Rudy Giuliani; Mitt Romney, governor of Massachusetts; Newt Gingrich, who was just seated here. What do you think?
BROOKS: Well, I think they're -- they're -- the first three in particular are -- are strong. And I -- I just look at what the world's going to look like in 2008. I personally think it's more likely than not that Iraq will be a complete mess, that Iran will be very close to nuclear weapons, that a government like Jordan or Syria or Lebanon could be falling. It's going to look pretty nasty, I think. And I think that really raises Rudy Giuliani and John McCain's record.
Anything Walnuts says is brilliant, everything Hillary says is "calculated."
We let these kinds of shallow thinkers define the narrative in 2000, and look where it got us...
and that does absolutely nothing to "win" the war and this shows that mccain knows his stuff. we could double the number of troops and the result would be the same. more troops is exacly the same kind of illogical thinking that got us into this mess. the old saying is if you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.
Sent from Army Reserve Col. Rick Waddell to Power Line
[link to powerlineblog.com]
Excerpt: More troops will increase the US casualty rate, as 20% of all of our deaths are related to accidents. More troops means more accidents, and more targets for the enemy. More troops, though, will buy the Baghdad government some time, and will weaken al-Qaeda and the insurgents as we wipe out cells. This will only matter if al-Maliki takes the supremely difficult decision to turn his new Army against the Shia militias, and deal with the inevitable Sadrist response. Whether we cut-and-run, or stand-and-fight, more bloodshed is inevitable.
Anyway, this Col. isn't in Iraq, he's just giving his opinion like everyone else.
more of the same old same old. "cut and run" vs "stand and fight" kinda lets you know what he's thinking.
Until the body bags start filling.
Ouch. McCain must really be hirting since he hitched himself up to the Bush wagon train two years ago. He made the politically expedient decision to support Birdbrain Bush and his Iraq policy and has stuck with it only for political purposes: he's looking to inherit the Bush political machine. All those Bushies will be without jobs in 2008 unless they find a nother candidate to cathc onto. McCain figured he could get an instant campaign machine up be merging himeself with the remnant of the Bush team. That decision now looks similar to the fight the remaining Nazi power brokers had when Hitler killed himself and the second tier Nazi leaders were all fighting each other to be the Chancellor. Its over for McCain. He absolutely blew it by hitching himself to Bush.
As for Brooks, you might recall in August he falsely told Chris Matthews (on the spot at the end of the Sunday SHow where Matthews asks the panel to tell him something he doesn't know) Senator Dewin had regained the lead in the polls and was going to win. The actually polls that week showed DeWine trailing handily--why Brooks decided to say that is a mystery. His comments that McCain wins regardless of how the troop surge turns out is like the certain Kiss of Death.
MATTHEWS: "But if it turns out that more troops don't do the job, is he disproven?"
1. So we send in more troops and it doesn't fix things.
2.Send in more troops.
3. Repeat #1
What's that? Some America-hater's pointing out that we already have "more troops" over there?
No we don't.We have the exact number that we have over there. We need to send more troops.
How can anyone in their right mind still be hawkish on "victory" in the Iraq quagmire? I suspect there are some business interests that are frightened mostly about income loss with an Iraq pull-out. So get their politicians and pundits on the phone to start talkin' more troops. Everybody's talkin' at me.
The only winners in Iraq are the big contractors. How much of a kickback are Bush and Cheney getting? Let's find out. I hope the White House gets buried in subpeonas come January. If it's not, the Democrats don't deserve to be in power.
McCain's fantasy of 20,000 more American kids to Iraq is the latest, sickest idea to come down the pike. Strictly an '08 presidential gambit, it won't make a whit of difference. Not any more than sending another 70,000 troops into Vietnam would have mattered to the outcome of that fiasco.
With this sick ploy, McCain cynically strategizes that -if troops aren't sent- that he tried very nobly but was stymied. Or -if they are sent and, inevitably, fail to make a difference- that it's the Iraqis fault, not ours.
of ignorance with his basic intelligence, which allows articulation of uninformed opinions sound "right."
What McCain and the entire war machine overlooked was what was known before the war and is what made intelligence experts here and in Britain say "don't go." Most recently, in revealing information long-silenced by the Blair administration by threatening prosecution under the Official Secrets Act in England, Carne Ross, a "key negotiator" at the UN, is quoted in this:
" He also reveals that British officials warned US diplomats that bringing down the Iraqi dictator would lead to the chaos the world has since witnessed. 'I remember on several occasions the UK team stating this view in terms during our discussions with the US (who agreed),' he said.
" 'At the same time, we would frequently argue when the US raised the subject, that 'regime change' was inadvisable, primarily on the grounds that Iraq would collapse into chaos.' "
See: [link to news.independent.co.uk]
In other words, it didn't matter how many we sent over, it was not a question of the troop strength we sent over, it was the knowledge of the likelihood that taking down Sadam would cause chaos. The more the numbers of "infidels" we send, the greater the incentive for chaos among elements of the populace. Nothing we can do short of what Sadam was already doing will stop the chaos.
He will be convicted by the American people, of having no scruples in his run for the WH, and that SHOULD prove his undoing.