Thomas: McCain has "guts" for demanding unfeasible troop surge
SUMMARY: On Imus in the Morning, Newsweek's Evan Thomas characterized John McCain's proposal to increase troop levels in Baghdad for the purpose of gaining control of the security situation on the ground as "having the guts to send in ... more troops." Neither Thomas nor Don Imus noted serious questions about the feasibility of McCain's proposal.
On the December 11 edition of MSNBC's Imus in the Morning, Newsweek assistant managing editor Evan Thomas characterized Sen. John McCain's (R-AZ) proposal to increase troop levels in Baghdad for the purpose of gaining control of the security situation on the ground as "having the guts to send in ... more troops." Neither Thomas nor host Don Imus noted serious questions regarding the feasibility of McCain's proposal given the current strain on the U.S. military.
When CNN's Wolf Blitzer baselessly claimed that McCain's position was "a Profiles in Courage kind of statement," Media Matters for America noted that on the November 20 edition of NPR's Morning Edition, National Public Radio senior news analyst Cokie Roberts stated that McCain's plan is "a somewhat convenient position, because he can always say, 'No one tried to win the war the way that I suggested to win it," adding, "I think that this is a position that is useful for Senator McCain." She added that the military is unlikely to adopt McCain's proposal to increase the U.S. troop presence in Iraq by 20,000 because, she said, referring to a comment by Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-MD), the "Army is so depleted." Additionally, as noted by Media Matters, McCain's plan to increase the number of troops has come under fire from conservative supporters of the war such as Frank Gaffney Jr., president and CEO of the Center for Security Policy. In an October 30 article, New York Sun staff reporter Josh Gerstein reported that Gaffney had argued that "McCain's approach was essentially unworkable." Gerstein quoted Gaffney as saying: "We'd be hard pressed to put 20,000 more people on the ground."
Additionally, as Media Matters has noted, General John Abizaid, head of U.S. Central Command, told McCain at a November 15 Senate Armed Services Committee hearing that he "met with every divisional commander" and asked them "if we were to bring in more American troops now, does it add considerably to our ability to achieve success in Iraq?" Abizaid added that "they all said no."
Thomas also claimed that his impression of McCain is that he sees "McCain as doing what McCain thinks is right" and added that "more than other politicians, that has been his track record." However, in a May 21 interview on Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday, McCain admitted to host Chris Wallace that he has "from time to time" done things "for political expediency," explaining that his 2000 decision to suggest that he supported South Carolina's decision to fly the Confederate flag above its statehouse was "an act of cowardice" because he did it so as not to "alienate a certain voting bloc."
From the December 11 broadcast of MSNBC's Imus in the Morning:
IMUS: I wonder what McCain, what's his -- I mean --
THOMAS: Well, he's still for this last -- I mean, there is a school of thought that says we should "surge," as they put it, you know, take one last shot at Baghdad with 20,000 more troops. But Baker says, and I agree with this, that all the evidence is that whatever we do -- we can go in, and our Marines and soldiers -- Army soldiers can clear a place and kill a bunch of bad -- you know, wrongdoers, but then, what do you -- then what? Because the Iraqi army is not able to come in and keep peace and stability. So yeah, we could surge some forces. We could probably bring a measure of peace to Baghdad for a little while, and then it would all collapse again, so why -- you know, why sacrifice more young American men when it's just not working?
IMUS: There's a cynical view of McCain's position in the current issue, I hate to mention this, of Time magazine. Well, I don't hate to mention it, but I know it irritates you guys when I do, but, sort of -- maybe not you, but --
THOMAS: No, it doesn't irritate me.
IMUS: -- to indicate that this may be more about politics, McCain's view. Although McCain's -- somebody who works for him says, "No, it's what the senator believes."
THOMAS: Yeah, no, I believe the latter. Look, McCain is a politician for sure. And he can get away with calling for more troops because he himself suffered in the prison camp, so he's on a high -- a kind of moral high ground where he can call for more troops in a way that you or I could not. So, yeah, I mean -- he could be cynical, but I just -- that's not the way I read McCain. I read McCain as doing what McCain thinks is right. I mean, that's been -- more than other politicians, that has been his track record.
IMUS: He is kind of positioning himself, though, speaking about politics just for a second -- to try to win the nomination. And then, I guess, as they all do, then move back over toward the center and try to win the general election, is that --
THOMAS: Yeah, well, that's what's politics -- you have to do that. But look, McCain has been consistent. It's not like McCain has changed on this.
IMUS: Right.
THOMAS: He's always been a hawk. He's a hawk on everything. He's always a hawk on taking -- having the guts to send in troops or more troops. He was in Bosnia. This predates even Iraq. That's a consistent position for John McCain to take. I don't agree with it, but I don't think it's cynical.
From the May 21 edition of Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday:
WALLACE: Aren't you trying to pull off a pretty tough political challenge here, some would say it's even threading the needle, to be, whether you want it or not, the front-runner for the nomination, but at the same time to be the straight-talking political maverick?
McCAIN: Well, first of all, I haven't decided whether to run or not, but more importantly --
WALLACE: We don't care whether you've decided or not, Senator.
McCAIN: -- more importantly, I've found in my life that when I do what I think is right -- for example, on the marriage amendment -- it always turns out in the end OK. When I do things for political expediency, which I have from time to time, it's always turned out poorly. For better or worse, I have a pretty good compass as to what my political philosophy and base and beliefs are, and I have to stick with them.
WALLACE: Give me an example, since you bring it up. What have you done? What would you admit you did for political expediency?
McCAIN: I went down to South Carolina and said that the flag that was flying over the state capitol, which was a Confederate flag, was -- that I shouldn't be involved in it, it was a state issue. It was an act of cowardice.
WALLACE: Act of cowardice on your part.
McCAIN: Yes.
WALLACE: And you did it because you thought, "This will help me in the South Carolina primary in 2000."
McCAIN: Yeah, sure, this won't alienate a certain voting bloc. And I lost anyway.
WALLACE: Well, so -- and how did you -- I mean, did you sit there -- because I know you're a man of strong opinions. How did you sit there and say "You know, I don't believe this, but I'm going to say it anyway"?
McCAIN: Oh, we're all gifted, no matter how principled we are, with the gift of rationalization. But I knew it was wrong at the time, but I rationalized it: Well, you know, I can use this as a way to avoid a political, you know, downside. And it was wrong.
WALLACE: And how do you know that if you were to run and become president that you wouldn't do that again?
McCAIN: Well, I've learned a lot of lessons in my life. I'm older than dirt. I've got more scars than Frankenstein, but I've learned a lot of things along the way. And that was a very strong lesson for me. And there have been other times in my life. But I can tell you that I know the difference between right and wrong.
the guts to admit it was wrong to go into iraq .... we keep sending in more troops, and more of them are going to be spilling their guts for this illegal, unwinnable war.
I'm waiting for the day that someone...ANYONE...has the courage to publicly admit that. Even the press seems reluctant to state the obvious. They all just pussyfoot around the subject and wring their hands over what a mess we're in. Somebody needs to call it like it is...Bush has made the biggest foreign policy blunder since VietNam, and he should be held accountable. Who will have the balls to point that out?
Wasn't it "guts" that got us into this terrible mess in the first place?
McCain is making a vague call for vastly more troops because he is perfectly aware that this option will never be pursued. In an ideal situation raising the US troop level in Iraq to 500,000 (for at least a year) and cracking down on the sectarian anarchists perpetrating the violence makes perfect sense. It's too bad US military readiness doesn't allow for that possibility.
McCain can make this proposition because he knows it is not possible but plays well on cable news. It is similar to Putin's offer to help the US in Afganistan againts the Taliban in 2002, despite the fact that the Afgani border to the north is one of the most heavily mined in the world and Afgani's would regard Russian intrusion as a second invasion of their country. This is an old game in politics - appear to fight for something you don't really want in exchange for concessions on something you do really want, and making generous (but outrageous) promises for which you will never be called to live up to.
Much like generals of old who are constantly fighting the last war only to lose the current one, McCain is waging the last campaign (2000) putting himself in place of Bush. There are no more troops to send, or even tours to extend, yet by putting forth the option McCain can claim to have had a plan for victory long after the memory of America's military impotence has faded from the public's memory.
On numerous occasions, I have suggested we send 100,000+ cyborgs to control the region. I know it sounds crazy, but it's just as realistic as McCain's proposal. And when it doesn't happen because it's impossible and if we "fail" in Iraq (in my opinion, we failed when we invaded), I can point and say, "Well, things might have worked if we tried what I wanted to do!"
... in a way that would have made the PRESIDENCY a possibility for him. It was when he went up against BUSH, and got "swiftboated" by Bush's people.
Did he "fight"? Did he muster more force? Did he redouble his resources? Nope. He folded like a cheap suit, and the next thing we saw was his puckered lips kissing Bush's ring, and Bush's butt.
Nope. This man HAD a time to be Presidential, and he FAILED. His day has passed, and no amount of saber-rattling or "TOUGH TALK" will revive his chances.
Ok, enough already. Let the guy off the hook for a moment. Why all this effort to discredit him when we all know very well that the right-wing talking heads hate this guy with a passion? If McCain pulls the Republican nod considering their animosity, he deserves to be President. Tex is just mad cause he knows McCain can beat his idol, Hillary C. (;-P) Don't worry friend, the matchup won't happen. The nutty-talk-a-lot-about-nothings: Rush, Hannity, Quinn (if you live in PA/OH) all portray McCain as somewhat left of Lenin, despite his ridiculously conservative voting record. What they really fear, without doubt, is that his Campaign Finance Reform platform will evicerate their economic political advantage. Hell, I think they are right, and as such a McCain Presidency could be the best thing to happen to the left in decades if he could muscle through some serious reforms. Besides, if Dems can hold both houses, troop increases are pretty much out of the question even if he gets through the primaries and into the White House. Something tells me, however, that even with a Dem as President we are going to be in Iraq through 2008 and beyond. Unless, that is, you guys think Kucinich is going to win . . . lol
NO if McCain gets the republican nod that only means he deserves the republican nomination NOT the Presidency. McCain is my Senator and he is very conservative, he is also willing to sometimes stand up to his own party when he believes they are wrong before folding like a cheap suit (Tex is right about that) like he did on the torture amendment. The GOP has an electoral problem when they run for president. They are NEVER going to carry California, New York, Massechuttsets and so on so they really need to turn out the neandrathal vote to win. McCain wont turn them out. He is not so without integrity that he is 100% in conformist lockstep to the rightwing cause, that means they dont trust him. He MIGHT win the nomination but I doubt seriously he would win the election.
It's easy to have the "guts" to say, "we need more troops." The real guts is to say this whole Iraq thing has been a disaster and we need to get out before things become infinitely worse.
Es-ca-la-tion. It's what everyone is calling for. The Dems, the Repubs, the ISG, all of them. More troops is the only thing anyone in DC is offering these days. More troops. More targets. More dead bodies. More dead babies.
Peace is not an option for serial killers. And our country is ruled by the Sons of Uncle Sam, all intent on killing as many as possible before their own time is up.
But not my fault, I voted Green, remember? I didn't put the killers into power.
have the "guts" to want to send in more troops, why don't they have the "guts" to support a draft to get those troops?
anyone into power". And you did not elect one Senator or Representative that might have voted against the war. What you're yelling is the same as McCain, "My way was not tried!" Great because you could not get the support. And I am not even saying your or McCain's way is not the best way -- why cause they weren't tried -- however we don't have time to field every idea. So we pick the one most agree on or the one of the guy in power -- that most agreed on the previous election day. It sucks but it is about hard decisions and here is the hard one we are there now and now what?
Look Bush is a chimp in a suit. However, that fact is no longer the dispute. Saddam was a bad man and he was one of ours -- homegrown to kill Iranians -- and we were responsible for him so he was our issue to deal with. We did it at a bad time, under circumstances that were a joke, and in a way to destory our diplomatic standing w/ everyone but Poland. And even that is not the point. The question is how do we do the responsible thing from this point cause there is no going back with "the way back machine"?
Frankly, I don't think we can just pull out and let the situation sort itself out. It may save lives in the short run but it well guarantee we will have "operations" in the region probably longer than we would if we stayed from this point on. I have no desire to lay the groundwork for the next war -- which with the "improved technology will only be bloodier than this one. Our choice a this point is a firm international diplomatic stance w/ real 1st world allies which includes dealing with Iran, Syria, and Palestine/Isreal. Or going for broke, literally, and manning up for a real conflict complete with draft and a lot of boots on the ground. What's more one can't be be done without the very real threat of the other and the more horrible of the two can't be done just to dismiss the other out of pride.
I am not saying you should not vote for your choice of whatever. However, if you want to change the world you have to be realistic -- unless your a neo-con with your own military force. Realistically, you've accomplished nothing - except electing a Republican depending on the political race who voted for the war I guarantee. McCain accomplished not a thing because he gave his votes away (he was against torture but voted for it and has spoken out against our approach in Iraq but votes the party line).
"But not my fault, I voted Green, remember? I didn't put the killers into power." It is all our fault we act as a country not individuals in this matters -- we deceived, failed to realize we were bing deceived, if we did we did nothing, or if we did do something we were not looking at the reality at the time and were left with our good intentions in the dust. It's our fault, now what? There are several ideas on the table now is the time to pick one or some hybrid, unfortunately the one most would want I think is the worst in the long run for us and everyone. Don't I wish we could just go home with no ramifications.
Here were the choices in Pennsylvania....Rick Santorum, warhawk extraordinare and Crusader....or Bob Casey, another warhawk who wants the US to keep killing Moslems.
I voted for the ONLY Anti-War candidate, Green Party candidate Carl Romanelli...even though the Democrats undemocratically ran him off the ballot. I tried to change things.
And still people whine about that.
OH! So you're not at fault are you? I have a news flash for you. I agree with all you Greenies on the issues, and I would have voted Green but like everyone else, I knew it was simply a Vote For Bush.
Your vote for Green put Bush in office. We needed your votes to defeat Bush. Can't you see what you're doing? Your vote was wasted because Ralph Nader did not have a chance in hell to win!
Please continue promoting the GREENS but please don't waste you votes in the future. Do you see where it has got us now?
I didn't vote for Bush. I voted for the Green candidate. If you can't distinguish between two entirely separate people with two entirely different ideologies, then you need your eyes examined.
I refuse to vote for Democrats or Republicans. I have watched them commit war crimes, fund war crimes, bomb children, and shaft the American public.
Maybe it's you who need to start voting Green and stop throwing your vote to those who are screwing us over.
Oregon(R)Sen. Gordon Smith:........ says he's tried to be a "good soldier" for his party and his president, but has reached "the end of his rope" supporting the Bush Iraq policy and wants to bring the troops home whether it's "cut and run or cut and walk." (R)Sen. Smith: "And I, for one, am at the end of my rope when it comes to supporting a policy that has our soldiers patrolling the same streets in the same way being blown up by the same bombs day after day. That is absurd. IT MAY EVEN BE CRIMINAL. I cannot support that any more. (R)Sen. Smith: I, for one, am tired of paying the price of 10 or more of our troops dying a day. So, let's cut and run or cut and walk, but let us fight the war on terror more intelligently than we have, Those are my feelings, Mr. President. When the highly thoughtful and respected Republican from Oregon labels the handling of the Iraq War CRIMINAL, was that moving Left Too? NO! It was telling the TRUTH from his heart of hearts. Is that an Oxymoron? A Republican who's telling the truth? I respect this man. I also understand that many of his colleges are praising him too, for finally speaking out. He is right on. Bush will not let our troops Cut & Run, because he want to make sure they STAY & DIE.
Senator Smith also said, now is the time to make your stand. I salute him for the correct stand he has made.
All McCain is doing is posturing for his upcoming Presidential bid. But he did serve our country. He was brave for that and I respect him for it. But President McCain?........NOT!