McCain the Mudslinging Grouch
By AndrewHyman Posted in 2008 — Comments (61) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Desperate to win the Florida primary in three days, Senator John McCain is falsely accusing Mitt Romney of having refused to stand by our troops in Iraq. Below you can compare and contrast McCain's wrongheaded accusation with what Romney actually said. Here's Senator McCain's statement today (emphasis added):
“Last April, Governor Romney said he supported ‘timetables’ for withdrawing our troops from Iraq and keeping them secret. When he suggested secret ‘timetables,’ General Petraeus’ new strategy in Iraq was just starting. Opponents of General Petraeus’ strategy all argued that we should not increase troop levels, but establish ‘timetables’ for withdrawing our forces from Iraq. It was clear at the time that some were hedging their bets on Iraq, positioning themselves politically by being deliberately vague on their support for General Petraeus’ new strategy.
“Governor Romney also said that there wouldn’t be any real difference on Iraq policy between the Republican nominee and Senator Clinton during the general election. Well, Senator Clinton advocates withdrawal from Iraq within 60 days. Should that be the policy of the Republican nominee in November? Would it be Governor Romney’s?
“I understand if Governor Romney has changed his mind given the obvious success of the surge. But the fact is, like on so many other issues, Governor Romney has hedged, equivocated, ducked, and reversed himself.
“The only people who are owed an apology are the men and women fighting for our country in Iraq, who have a right to expect their leaders to stand by them and their mission not just when it is easy, but when it matters most — when it is hard.”
And here's the actual transcript of the Mitt Romney interview last April (emphasis added):
QUESTION: Iraq. John McCain is there in Baghdad right now. You have also been very vocal in supporting the president and the troop surge. Yet, the American public has lost faith in this war. Do you believe that there should be a timetable in withdrawing the troops?
MR. ROMNEY: Well, there's no question but that -- the president and Prime Minister al-Maliki have to have a series of timetables and milestones that they speak about. But those shouldn't be for public pronouncement. You don't want the enemy to understand how long they have to wait in the weeds until you're going to be gone. You want to have a series of things you want to see accomplished in terms of the strength of the Iraqi military and the Iraqi police, and the leadership of the Iraqi government.
QUESTION: So, private. You wouldn't do it publicly? Because the president has said flat out that he will veto anything the Congress passes about a timetable for troop withdrawals. As president, would you do the same?
MR. ROMNEY: Well, of course. Can you imagine a setting where during the Second World War we said to the Germans, gee, if we haven't reached the Rhine by this date, why, we'll go home, or if we haven't gotten this accomplished we'll pull up and leave? You don't publish that to your enemy, or they just simply lie in wait until that time. So, of course, you have to work together to create timetables and milestones, but you don't do that with the opposition.
Seems like McCain is lying about Romney not standing by the troops. Come on Senator McCain, you know better!
And Senator McCain, no one thinks we should have remained in Iraq forever even if the Surge had been a complete failure.
P.S. Oh, and here’s McCain saying last February that we won’t be “able to maintain” our Iraq endeavor if the Surge fails, and saying that remaining in Iraq would not be a “good option.” And here's a link to Romney's completely innocuous remark about Hillary Clinton.
UPDATE ON FEBRUARY 29, 2008: At this point, Senator McCain is the inevitable GOP nominee, having won in Florida and on Super Tuesday. Mitt Romney has not only withdrawn, but has also endorsed John McCain. It's true that McCain was a bigger supporter of the troop Surge than just about anyone, including Romney. But that doesn't mean Romney was waving the white flag or that he owes the troops any apology. I'm strongly supporting McCain for President, because he'd be light years better than either of his likely opponents.
one would THINK that you would know better than to throw the word LIAR around.
In fact, I am sick and tired of having ANY of our candidates called liars.
You know what David? I am too. And I have never before called any of our candidates "liars" or accused them of "lying." I have chided senior editor Mark Kilmer for using the word promiscuously. I have several times thought of writing a little diary on how the word should be banned from Red State.
But this is not an argument over how one might characterize one's position (is McCain's immigration plan (which I'll admit I actually like) "amnesty;" or whether some one can realistically keep a promise such an enacting a "fair tax;" or whether one wants to call something a "fee" or a "tax." And this is not someone misspeaking or making an honest error, which they admit was a mistake. No, the campaign of the Straight Talkin' Senator planned this - they had the quote ready to pass out and they have stuck by their claim. They specifically, with malice aforethought, accuse a person of saying something that he did not say, no matter you might charactize anything he did say.
Brad Smith
Professor of Law
Capital University Law School
Capital University website
Center for Competitive Politics website
too many of our candidate posters are anything buy sincere, as they shill for their respective candidates. There has been SO much of that -- so much of it disingenuous attack -- that I was struck by your post.
I am anything BUT a McCain acolyte. I briefly supported him in 2000 before he imploded -- but his actions in congress for the past seven years -- his OBVIOUS attempts to undermine this President at every opportunity -- have turned me completely off toward the man.
I still dislike the "liar" word -- but I won't challenge you on it again.
Being a law professor does not prevent one from identifying a "LIAR" (your all caps, David Hinz). If McCain did not lie (people who lie are called liars), what did he do?
I think the proper legal description for McCain's action is "practicing deception." Black's Law Dictionary describes "deception" as follows:
"The act of deceiving; intentionaly misleading by falsehoood spoken or acted. Synonymous withi fraud. Knowingly and willfully making a false statement or representation, express or implied, pertianing to a present or past existing fact."
By that definition, John McCain is practicing deception upon the American people.
Brad meant to say that McCain disingenuously prevaricated.
himself by not disabusing himself of the misconception that he was not abusing the truth.
Romney 2008
Plain to me what his position is. McCain is abusing the truth.
This was Romney's position in September. Has he already changed it? Does he now agree that the surge is working?
Democrat Senator Pryor supported Romney's statements:
«“At the end of the day, the president doesn't have an exit plan,” Pryor spokesman Michael Teague said in an interview. “We think he should be forced to develop that, and we’re happy to see Mitt Romney feels the same way.”
A handful of bloggers have lampooned the classified-plan-for-Iraq proposal as reminiscent of former President Richard Nixon’s “secret plan” to end the war in Vietnam. Teague, acknowledging that some lawmakers have rejected Pryor’s strategy, issued a challenge to its critics.
“When any [congressional] codel has gone to Iraq, we don’t make public their movements ... because we don’t want them to get killed,” Teague said. “Sen. Pryor feels we should take the same approach to our soldiers.”»
Has Romney ever clarified this issue after he got Pryor's support?
Mark Pryor has endorsed Hillary Clinton, and has not endorsed Mitt Romney. The fact that Pryor's spokesman is singing the same tune as McCain perhaps says something about McCain, and certainly says nothing about Romney.
McCain: “Last April, Governor Romney said he supported ‘timetables’ for withdrawing our troops from Iraq and keeping them secret."
Romney: "Well, there's no question but that -- the president and Prime Minister al-Maliki have to have a series of timetables and milestones that they speak about. But those shouldn't be for public pronouncement."
I'd say: Accurate.
McCain: "Governor Romney also said that there wouldn’t be any real difference on Iraq policy between the Republican nominee and Senator Clinton during the general election."
Romney: "Come the fall of '08, for all of Hillary's rhetoric, she's not going to be demanding a dramatically different course in Iraq than the Republican nominee will."
I'd say: Misleading.
McCain: "I understand if Governor Romney has changed his mind given the obvious success of the surge. But the fact is, like on so many other issues, Governor Romney has hedged, equivocated, ducked, and reversed himself."
Romney initially on the surge: "I'm not going to weigh in. I'm still a governor. I'm not running for national office at this stage. I'm not going to weigh in on specific tactics about whether we should go from 140,000 to 170,000. That's something I expect the President to decide over the next couple of weeks and announce that to the nation. I want to hear what he has to say."
Romney later on the surge: "I don't give that a high probability, I give it a reasonable probability."
I'd say: Accurate.
McCain: "The only people who are owed an apology are the men and women fighting for our country in Iraq, who have a right to expect their leaders to stand by them and their mission not just when it is easy, but when it matters most — when it is hard."
I'd say: Matter of opinion.
McCain's claims were for the most part accurate, but obviously misleading on the claim that Romney's plan didn't differ from Hillary's or the Democrats... he took that statement out of context. On the other issues it was pretty fair and/or matters of opinion.
Romney should respond that the timetables he suggested would have been greatly different than those proposed by Democrats that did not keep them secret nor did they necessarily rely on milestones. Instead he's arguing that he never supported a specific date... something McCain didn't suggest. It just makes Romney look like he can't address the initial claim to me or wants to avoid it. Romney did the same thing when Huckabee brought up the timetable issue in the debates. He denied it, but only in as much as it didn't involve a specific date for withdrawal.
He has never denied, because he can't, that he supported timetables. He always addresses a strawman issue of whether it was public/secret or a specific date(s) were involved.
Well put. Incidentally, Byron York over at The Corner agrees with your assessment of what Romney said.
"The Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions."
Do you read his blog? He's not a Romney fan. He has an agenda.
**"The issue of economics is not something I've understood as well as I should." - John McCain"**
If it isn't a specific date then it is no time table at all.
Have you ever wondered why McCain when discussing Iraq always says.... "the failed Sec. Rumsfeld strategy vs the successful Gen. Patraeus strategy"?
Why not the failed Gen. Abizad strategy vs the successful Gen. Patraeus strategy ....or keeping it in parallel......why not the failed SecDef Rumsfeld strategy vs the successful SecDef Gates strategy?
First ....Let's be clear and call them by what they really are .....Bush #1 strategy and now Bush # 2 strategy.
He made the final call on both.
Just an accident or no big deal you say......not hardly
The reason..... John's a petty man by nature.....he is spiteful and using this as an opportunity to get back at Rumsfeld.
McCain is after all a loser....low in his class at USNA '59 .....a small man in most every way ... a "Sandblower" if there ever was one.....kept in the Academy because his father and grandfather were highly successful Naval Officers and Admirals....most may buy the BS about war hero ....but many of my fellow grads particularly those of us who are Navy pilots don't.....you don't win by disobeying orders and getting yourself shot down.
But I digress.......
McCain hates Rumsfeld because Rumsfeld wouldn't buy McCain's BS.....Rumsfeld wanted to know why McCain stood around and agreed to let Clinton dismantle the military in the 90's under Cohen.....another one of McCain's senate buddys.
"What the hell were you thinking Senator McCain".....an exact quote.
So the Army went to war with 10 Divisions less and our intell in ruins. McCain waited for his chance to get even.He says the same thing every time about the surge.....not from fact but from spite.
Not a quality that I would want to see in a President.
I know McCain....I know Rumsfeld.....Don is all class....John is just a petty ass.
You would think that a conservative,graduate of Annapolis, Navy Pilot,war vet would be a sure voter for McCain if there ever was one.
Not a chance..... it's Joe Bagadoughnuts this year for me if McCain's the nominee.
For complaining about a guy with a grudge, you come off as having a much bigger and more apparent grudge.
And it's an odd one since Rumsfeld was afaik a fan of a smaller more streamlined and technologically advanced military. It doesn't seem to fit the story though.
Now I'm going to have to do some research as to what McCain did/didn't do, did/didn't say during the Clinton defense tear-down.
However, where in God's name was the rest of the GOP congress on this??? Or was it the pre-1995 GOP Congress???
Anyone who's flown for the Navy has eminently more right to comment on a fellow Navy pilot than I do.
My take on McCain is slightly different than yours. I respect what he did in Vietnam. I respect him for being pro-life his whole career.
But I do not respect him for teaming up with Feingold to silence me and every other American. I do not respect him for teaming up with 7 Democrats to sandbag Bill Frist and every other conservative on beating the democrats' filibuster strategy.
And I do not respect him for teaming up with Ted Kennedy on an amnesty bill that no one should have voted for.
Romney 2008
i would object to a post like this about any one of the gop candidates, including ron paul.
you seem to believe the slander you spew, but go spew it somewhere else. even if we get hot under the collar here, we like to attempt to stick to real arguments.
"Do the day's work."
I'm sorry you don't approve of the post. But McCain is way out of line here. A GOP candidate falsely accusing another GOP candidate of not standing by the troops is what's bringing us all down.
(btw, it's "i miss coolidge" - common mistake - maybe i need to change the name...)
"Do the day's work."
Rumsfeld is a real hardworker for the good of the country, a man who helped keep America safe from terrorism after September 11th. McCain is a media hound, a blow hard and a narcissist.
rumsfeld had no idea how to win the war after major operations were over (and i give him lots of credit for developing and executing the major operations extremely well).
mccain did.
what if we'd implemented our current strategy in late 2003 when mccain first called for it?
"To win in Iraq, we should increase the number of forces in-country, including Marines and Special Forces, to conduct offensive operations. I believe we must have in place another full division, giving us the necessary manpower to conduct a focused counterinsurgency campaign across the Sunni triangle that seals off enemy operating areas, conducts search and destroy operations and holds territory. Such a strategy would be the kind of new mission General Sanchez agreed would require additional forces. It's a mystery to me why they are not forthcoming. We cannot achieve our political goals as long as a strategic region of Iraq is in a state of fundamental insecurity." (Sen. John McCain, Remarks To Council On Foreign Relations, Washington, DC 11/5/03)
http://www.johnmccain.com/fie/timeline.htm
"Do the day's work."
Assuming I understand your argument (and with all the broken sentences and ellipses it's hard to say for sure), you are correct in asserting that relations between John McCain and Donald Rumsfeld became quite strained near the end of Rumsfeld's tenure. But the fact is it had nothing to do with the defense policy in the 1990's (when Rumsfeld was still in the private sector and had nothing to do with defense policy).
It had everything to do with Rumsfeld's unsuccessful policy in Iraq. As much as I admire Donald Rumsfeld for his work on technological transformation and his successful planning and operation of military operations in Afghanistan, it is a matter of record that Rumsfeld himself opposed a larger occupation force after our invasion, and opposed any troop "surge" in Iraq thereafter. [1][2][3]
Not surprisingly, the eventual troop surge, which so many of us celebrate for bringing some stability to the country, happened only after Rumsfeld was gone. By contrast, John McCain supported significantly increasing troop levels from the beginning. Say what you will, he was right about this and Rumsfeld was wrong.
Moreover, I find it curious that you eviscerate McCain for supporting a smaller military (which isn't really accurate, but let's leave that aside for the moment), when your apparent hero Rumsfeld is the one who envisioned and campaigned for an even smaller, lighter, and more technologically oriented military than the one we have now. Don't mistake me, I find much of Rumsfeld's "transformation" philosophy appealing and I don't dismiss it out of hand, but you seem not to understand what kind of military Rumsfeld stood for at all.
Lastly, neither you nor anyone else has any right to argue that John McCain is not a war hero. McCain spent nearly six years of his life being tortured and held in captivity by the North Vietnamese, and if you're going to randomly accuse John McCain of "disobeying orders" or suggest that somehow he's at fault for "getting himself shot down" you'd better be prepared to explain exactly what you mean and bring hard evidence to back yourself up. Being a veteran yourself (assuming I can trust how you represent yourself) does not give you the right to disparage anybody else's service, especially someone who has sacrificed so much of himself for this country.
[1] http://cgi.stanford.edu/group/wais/cgi-bin/index.php?p=6717
[2] http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1976021,00.html
[3] http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/12/05/news/assess.php
Hang all traitors and secessionists! Hang them high!
- Me
Your Title Split my Gut...ROFL
I don't think that McCain could have been better summed up, and yet Huckabee ranks right there along with him. Both mudslingers, both vindictive.
Huckabee: if Fred had gotten out sooner, I would have won SC... wah wah wah. Sure social cons maybe, but TriCons (Fis,Def,Soc), nhuh uh.
McCain: if conservatives would just shut up and elect me on "electability" this nomination would be mine! So let me throw some mud and try to confound the competions' supporters.
all sewn up. He leads all Republican primary voters who spend less than 5 minutes per week thinking about politics.
Only Romney can beat McCain at this point.
Giuliani is pretty much done. And Huckabee has no chance.
Romney 2008
LEFTISTS are the ones who claim that voters support other candidates because voters are dumb.
Conservatives (and others) respond to political positions without slighting the intellect or character of the voters.
So I thought, anyway...
"Do the day's work."
One of my close friends is the editor of the most widely circulated paper in my state. We both sit on the board of the United Way for our state. Anyway, I just got off the phone with him and called in an old favor to save space for my written rebuke of John McCain. I sold in a way that I won't write it if he gives a reasonable apology tomorrow.
I may share what I'm going to write but probably not, since it is my desire to remain anonymous on this site. If he doesn't apologize, it will be a stinging rebuke and despite how uninfluential I am on this site, I am influential in my state and particularly the primary service area of the hospital's, clinics and ASC's that report up to me as President and CEO. When you are the top employer you do hold some influence. McCain deserves what is coming. I am disgusted with him.
Yes, I realize I don't have the power to influence the primaries but I am not going to sit by and do nothing. I've also emailed McCain's campaign (and they have my real name and position) and I've told them what I believe should happen and what I plan to do if it doesn't.
Of course, McCain's never wrong so I'm going to start working on my article now so that my wife, an on again, off again, English teacher and editor, can get to work fixing my horrible grammar.
**"The issue of economics is not something I've understood as well as I should." - John McCain"**
No grudge just facts.....
But you still haven't answered the question......why is it bad strategy by Sec Rumsfeld and good strategy by Gen Patraeus according to McCain?
I think he is he being petty. It is a window into the man.
You decide.
The real problem in Iraq was Garner, Rumsfeld selection for Iraqi administrator wasn't in charge for very long.....Garner was replaced by Bremer in May '03 after less than 60 days.
Garner's initial plan was for elections in 90 days and letting the Iraqi's run their own country while the American forces withdrew to remote desert bases....looks like that would have been a good idea now doesn't it?
Colin Powell prevailed on Bush to have Paul Bremer replace Garner after 2 months......Powell ,the UN and State didn't like Garner, he was a hawk and Rumsfeld's selection...... and it all went south after that screwball J Paul Bremer the Viceroy of Baghdad took over.
The "Green Zone" and disbanding the Iraqi Army was dumb, not arresting Ai -Sadr was dumber and so what happened.....chaos ...."rent a rocket" shooters for $100 a shot...400,000 ex Iraqi soliders with time on their hands and no money in their pockets.....I'm shocked they turned to violence!!!....and once the shooting started ....we know rest of the story.
But maybe, just maybe it was because the Rumsfeld strategy that was considered a failure, and it was the direction suggested by and implemented by Patraeus that has been deemed far more successful?
Sometimes it is the simplest answers that make the most sense.
No one can know how Garner's strategy would have played out.
And you are guilty of chargine Paul Bremer with the lack of your omniscient hindsight.
That's not fair. That's like saying, "I could've done a better job than General Lee if I were in charge of the Confederate Army." Sure you could have. If you could fight all wars knowing the outcome ahead of time, you could do a lot better than those who don't have that magical power.
Romney 2008
The issue for you to look into is the friendship between Senators Cohen and McCain during that time frame....both somewhat liberal although they do have an R behind their names.
Clinton knew that having a guy like Cohen ....who was "all hat and no cattle" as Sec Def would be the perfect cover for cashing the end of the cold war "Peace Dividend". McCain went along with the deal..he was on the SASC. He should have known better......for pitty sake....he's a '59 grad just like his father '31 and grandfather '06 !! He and his family have bravely served this country for a century so why go along with the deal.....the Senate makes for strange bedfellows.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/2008/01/019642.php
Paul Mirengoff of Power Line has weighed in. (I do not believe he is a McCain supporter, by the way.)
Read the whole thing - it's not long and it's quite fair.
His conclusion:
"But the fact remains that, throughout the debate about Iraq, John McCain brought to the table an independence of judgment that Romney (and just about everyone else) did not. McCain refused to defer to the Defense Department when things were going badly in Iraq. Rather he kept advocating another approach – essentially the one that’s working now. And, though I doubt McCain would have advocated surging forever if the surge had been a clear failure, I think it’s fair to say that his commitment to the strategy ran deeper than Romney’s; certainly it was less tied to the judgment of the Bush administration.
So McCain has the better record, but that doesn't justify trying to make Romney’s record sound worse than it is."
(1) How long could we have sustained the troop levels that McCain said he wanted in 2003?
(2)Would they have been the right kind of troops with the right equiptment and training? Or would we have taken a lot of unnecessary casualties?
(3)Would the "awakening" happen with the Sunnis or would a huge lumbering force let AQ convince the tribal leaders that we were indeed the occupiers?
(4)#3 is vital because no matter how many we kill and no matter how long we stay we could not have won without local support.
We will never know for sure but maintaining troop levels has been a problem with the force Bush went with on the surge and McCain wanted more.
McCain has the luxury of second guessing now with no way of knowing what would have happened if it was done his way.
He is taking to much credit for the success of the surge that was a Petraeus/Bush plan that McCain roundly criticized at the start as not a large enough force.
McCain gets to criticise everything that hasn't worked well without having to prove he could have done better.
I might only add to this that the IAF and INP added over 100,000 security forces during the "surge" period when we added 30,000. Doubtful the Iraqi's could have done this much sooner. Cowboy is right that "clear and hold" is the right counter-insurgent strategy, and that it is much more effective when the "holding", at least, is done by the natives.
Obviously, this could not have been done in Dec, '03. McCain is getting much too much credit for proposing what would have been, at the time, an immense commitment of US forces to a long-term occupation- cum- counter-insurgency. "Disbanding" the defeated army, that had pretty well scattered to the winds by that time anyway, had plenty of historical precedent. As did de-baathification. That the AQ would choose to concentrate their efforts in Iraq was not predictable at the time, and a good reason to keep US reserve forces available and not all committed to Iraq. Give AQ some credit that they recognized their opportunity, but they were not smart to think that they could succeed mano-a-mano against our guys.
Every day McCain gets closer and closer to painting a picture of being at least partly responsible for the success of the surge in terms of strategic input. IE. MTP today
He deserves credit for his support of keeping the funding going and vocal support for the troops and continuing their mission.
I didn't like the public bashing of Bush and Co. during wartime.
He looks like he is trying to run the ball in from the one yard line after Petraeus/Bush and the TROOPS put it there after an 90 yard 15 play drive.
... is the extremely muddled thinking of Mitt Romney on Iraq. There is nothing in McCain's statement that could be construed as a lie. Just as he said, Romney clearly supported setting "secret timetables" for troop withdrawal from Iraq, largely because he believed that such secret timetables had already been agreed to by the U.S. and Iraqi government. As your own post shows, this is what Romney said:
Well, there's no question but that -- the president and Prime Minister al-Maliki have to have a series of timetables and milestones that they speak about. But those shouldn't be for public pronouncement. You don't want the enemy to understand how long they have to wait in the weeds until you're going to be gone.
Now, in fairness to Romney, it seems like he actually believed that he was supporting the administration's policy when he said this. So maybe McCain was wrong to assume that Romney actually knew that what he had proposed was a divergence from current American policy on Iraq. Either way, the responsibility for the confusion rests with Romney.
In fact, the Bush administration has repeatedly denied any intention to set a timetable, secret or otherwise, for withdrawing troops from Iraq. When the media has suggested that such timetables might have been set secretly, the Bush administration has dismissed such talk as "speculation." [1] Most certainly, the U.S. and Iraqi governments have set "milestones" - benchmarks for progress that they and the Iraqi government must achieve before any troop withdrawal begins - but that is not the same thing as a "timetable" which says that this many troops must/should be out by this date. I don't know how well Romney understands this, and it may be that he made an honest mistake, but if so then McCain also made an honest mistake in assuming that Romney knew what he was talking about.
Likewise, Romney showed equally poor judgment when he predicted that by the fall of '08 Hillary Clinton would not be advocating a substantially different approach to Iraq than the GOP candidate. (I would provide the link, but the diarist already has) In fact, as McCain pointed out, she has taken a substantially different position on that issue.
[1] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/11/AR200508...
Hang all traitors and secessionists! Hang them high!
- Me
This controversy is nonsense. No thinking person would take Romney's comments as a Time-table Withdrawal as the Democrats were advocating. Romney is clearly arguing for a benchmarks first then time table linked withdrawal. If this what President Bush was saying when we said "As Iraqis stand up - we will stand down". Obviously, Romney was saying as the Iraqis take control sometime after that we will stand down. This has been American policy from day one. Remember the troops before the Invasion saying our ticket home is through Baghdad. If the Iraqis are capable we don't need to be there. A suitable time after the Iraqis are capable we will draw down is not a timetable as the word as been used in current political discussion. McCain is being deceptive, again. He says he is responsible for the surge - deceptive. McCain treats the surge as equivalent to more troops - deceptive. This is not the full story of the surge. While it is true that McCain has always supported more troops the present success of the surge is not supportive of his strategy. The main component of the success of the surge is that the Iraqis were ready for more American troops and a closer better relationship with those troops. That almost certainly wouldn't have been the case prior to 2004. McCain should know this but it doesn't fit his narrative so he leaves it out. I used to like McCain but the more I hear from him the more troubled I am by him. I really hope he is not the nominee. I don't how I will vote if he is.
To spin for McCain, one must now argue there is somehow a vast gulf between timetables and benchmarks--that there is a possibility that one can exist without the other.
That is to say: "I support benchmarks; we must have these goals met--but I won't set a date, that would be a timetable." Which is the good/McCain position.
VS.
"I support timetables; we must have something done by this date--but I won't say what, that is a benchmark." Which is the bad/Romney position.
But this Clintonian spin for McCain requires an additional step--one must "read between the lines." Oh, sure the exact phrase was "series of timetables and milestones" but, don't you go believing your lying eyes! What he really said was "series of timetables for withdrawal and milestones for retreat."
Oh, did I mention John McCain was a war hero and has a lifetime ACU rating of 83?
You can fool all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time, but it doesn't mean that you can fool all of the people all of the time ...
k_cp2008
If you remember back in the spring of 2007, there's no question that there was a huge difference between a "timetable" and "benchmarks." Timetables meant the very same thing as withdrawal in our vernacular. Benchmarks meant goals to be met. It is highly unlikely that anyone, especially a major Republican candidate and one as polished as Mitt Romney wouldn't understand the rhetorical difference (especially when the question he was asked referred to a timetable for withdrawal).
I don't think anyone is suggesting that Mitt was in favor of announcing to the world that "we will withdraw on this date." However, I think a fair reading of the quote would lead someone to believe that he thought it'd be a good idea for Bush and the Iraqis to agree on a private timetable to get out if certain goals weren't met. Frankly that might be a reasonable position.
While it might require one to understand what certain words meant (and continue to mena) it doesn't take "reading between" any lines to know what Mitt said.
"The Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions."
Jeffrey Toobin just flat-out called McCain a "liar" on CNN. Brit Hume on FOX did the same in so many words. I would give McCain a pass here, but when Romney said he would veto congressional timetables that erased the benefit of a doubt. Given he denied at the last debate a verbatim quote he made about his lack of economic experience, we really shouldn't be surprised.
when the war was at its lowest point, John McCain went to VMI and gave the war its most eloquent defense. This was when no one was supporting the war. Mitt Romney didn't. Rudy Giuliani didn't. No one but John McCain did. John McCain is not falsely accusing anyone of anything. He was the only one to forcefully stand by the war when everyone else was distancing themselves from it.
Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor
Of course McCain is lying, and most sensible voters will read Mitt Romney's remarks and know that he wasn't advocating a withdraw date from Iraq.
Why is McCain resorting to this now? Simple - He's losing in Florida and he knows it. Rasmussen has Romney up 6 points from 4 a few day ago, Zogby has a tie (McCain had lead by 3 on the last one), and Insider Advantage has Romney up by 2 whereas their last polling had McCain up by 1 or 2.
The voter trends are going Romney's way as Conservatives remember all the betrayals at the hands of McCain. Just check out the blogs, listen to talk radio and look at the dynamics of the various polls.
This lashing out on a non-issue by McCain shows desperation and once again shows us the true character of the Arizona senator.
The polls you mention were taken before both the Martinez and Crist endorsements. Romney, by his own admission according to Mark's wrap up of the Sunday morning shows, did say he supported a timetable. Furthermore, it is Mitt who HAS to win Florida, not McCain. February 5th is a block of states that McCain is leading in, including winner-take-all states in Connecticut, New Jersey, and New York. If Mitt loses Florida, he will not stop McCain. If he wins, he just gets to stick around for a few more weeks, and arguably he has a better shot at winning the nomination. In either case, I think the Republican party wins. I think Mitt did support a timetable verbally, I think he knows that was stupid, and with either of these guys we are going to win in November.
"I believe in grace, because I have seen it. In peace, because I have felt it. In forgiveness, because I needed it."
-George W. Bush
Someday I will get that right.
"I believe in grace, because I have seen it. In peace, because I have felt it. In forgiveness, because I needed it."
-George W. Bush
And anyone who says that Romney supported a time table is playing dumb. Supporting a time table, in the only context that matters at this point, means supporting the public timed withdraw of our troops from Iraq. Romney clearly did not support this. It is that simple.
Go ahead, make your jokes, Mr. Jokey... Joke-maker. But let me hit you with some knowledge. Quit now.
-White Goodman
Get over it. McCain can win in November. And thats what is important. Defeat Hillary !!!!!!!!!!!
And is part of a larger 'rope-a-dope' strategy that has it's origins with the mainstream media and liberal pundits.
The reason they are pushing a McCain win in the primaries by advancing the "McCain is the best Republican to win" line is because they know that Social Conservatives (like me) and otherwise loyal GOP voters will stay home in November 2008 if McCain is on the ballot.
Now, if you and others on here want to let the Democrats, left-wing media pundits, the New York Times and the mainstream media of ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC and NBC decided the GOP race, then by all means run out vote for Senator McCain.
You McCain supporters advancing the "We just want to beat Hillary" meme are just a bunch of sheep being led over the cliff. Go that way if you wish. I won't be joining you.
I don't listen to the liberal media! I vote with my brain. and my brain tells me McCain is not perfect but one heck of alot better than Clinton. Sit this one out if you must but that is as good as voting for Hillary. We need all the republicans to unite this year. Hey if Romney does win he has my vote. Get off your pitty party parade Haley and step up to the plate. We need you!!
BINGO Pro America!
Its all about winning to me! I don't see any of the other candidates winning.
McCain would do well in all the suburbs with all the moderate voters and thats key for us
Yes!
We need to hold one branch of government in DC.
McCain will do very well!
defending this {lie that is not a lie because we're not supposed to accuse anyone of lying} prevarication to Russert this morning.
What I heard McCain say was: Well he said the word timetable so I'm not lying. (and it took him a lot more words to say it)
But McCain knew that Romney was only talking about having a plan while the democrats were voting on a law requiring troop withdrawals. There is as big a gulf between Romney's position and the D position as there is between McCain's statement and the truth.
I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.
Thanks for your input. You expressed in a few words what has taken me many posts on other diaries to explain. You did it very succinctly and with great passion.
Interesting comments from McCain supporters but I can tell from them that you have never worked around the Pentagon or the Hill and have seen your "Johnny Boy" up close and personnal.
Next time you see him....ask McCain about his role in the Admiral Stan Arthur or Captain Bob Stumpf debacles.....just to name a few interesting stabs in the back of his fellow Naval Aviators on the alter of female political correctness.
Or ask him.... why would he go along with Clinton's gutting of the military in the 90's.....could it be that DDG -56 was named the USS McCain.....hmmm.....I wonder?
Naw....those things just happen by accident in Washington.
McCain supporters .....keep writing in about your man....it's always good to hear from "mavens".
What's a "maven" you ask .....good old Navy term for ....
"An avowed expert, on a subject they know nothing about".
BD
"McCain the liar" would be a better title for this post. Romney very clearly says the exact opposite of what the "straight talking" Senator from Arizona claims. The Romney quote McCain offers to defend his claim is one in which Romney specifically rejects the idea of a timetable.
Brad Smith
Professor of Law
Capital University Law School
Capital University website
Center for Competitive Politics website