John McCain: It’s “Not Important” Whether Our Troops Ever Leave Iraq Or Not
Tweet
You know, I’m wondering if maybe the GOP would have been better off nominating Mitt Romney.
(via)
45 Responses to “John McCain: It’s “Not Important” Whether Our Troops Ever Leave Iraq Or Not”
GOP Rep. Spencer Bachus Facing House Ethics Probe For Insider Trading
Jennifer Aniston Reportedly Pregnant With Twins
PHOTOS: Tamara Ecclestone At The Langham Hotel
Red Front? “Center For American Freedom” Logo Echoes Communist Style
Romney Calls For Defunding Planned Parenthood, Wife Was A Donor
GOP Fundraising Email Asks Supporters To “Knock Out” Obama
Romney Comes Up Limp In Nevada
Obama Opens Lead On Romney In New Poll
Latest Entries
Why Do Liberals Support Drone Strikes?
Weekly Standard Rolls Out The Iraq Argument For Iran
Equal Polarization, My Ass
Some Crazy Stuff That Happened In World War II
Maryland Republican Campaign Funds Used To Defend Voter Suppression
The Obama Jobs Record In One Graph
Martin O’Malley All In For Marriage Equality
Newt Gingrich, Filled With More Excrement Than Your Average Politician
New Year, Powerline Still Stupid
Thanks Again
Meta
Blogroll
Disclaimer
The views on this site are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect the views of my employer, Media Matters for America
© 2000-2011 Oliver Willis
And the McCain spin team retracts comments as “taken out of context” in 3…..2…..1…
and once the retraction is issued the LW media buys the retaction almost instantaneously
Just call me Lib-tradamus
You know, you would make a terrible witness in a court case because you get crap so wrong all the time. McCain did not say it was not important “whether our troops ever leave Iraq or not.” What he said was not important was the “better estimate” of when they could come home.
And he’s right especially when he talks about it in the context of Japan, German, Korea, etc. Hell, there were US Troops in Bosnia until 2004, for a total of nearly ten years.
when he talks about it in the context of Japan, German, Korea, etc. Hell, there were US Troops in Bosnia until 2004, for a total of nearly ten years
let’s not forget that the wars against Japan, Germany & Korea were all fought during the DRAFT ERA. in addition, we used MILLIONS of troopies to cauterize & dismantle any ‘opposition’ during our occupancy.
so, the use of historical military extrapolation really bears no consequence on today’s situation.
let’s run a draft, train a couple million or so new troops…then we can talk about japan, germany & korea as they relate to iraq today.
we can’t even keep 3 football stadiums full of troops in iraq without stretching our military to the breaking point!!
And he’s right especially when he talks about it in the context of Japan, German, Korea, etc. Hell, there were US Troops in Bosnia until 2004, for a total of nearly ten years.
I wish they’d stop using these comparisons. IT’S NOT THE SAME THING.
We have troops in Germany and Japan as conditions of their surrender. We have troops in South Korea as a condition of a now 50 year old cease fire.
Germany
Japan
South Korea
Iraq
One of these things is not like the other. One of these things just doesn’t belong.
They absolutely would have been better off with Romney. He’s younger, richer, and really an ideologically better fit. He’s Massachusetts’ version of Rick Perry.
But he’s a Mormon. Can’t have that. Only WASPs need apply for such a lofty position in the Republican Party.
The Republican Party is the party of envy and hate; McCain was the one they all hated the least.
BTW, Mormonism is not a Protestant religion to those people, it’s a weird cult.
Simple occupation. RIght. Which is why we have so many national guardsmen and their equipment deployed over there. Multiple tours, extended tours stop loss. Right. Asshole.
You don’t seem to have a shred of intellectual honesty when it comes to quoting people you don’t like Oliver. Whether or not you think the comparison to Korea/Japan/Germany is apt or not, that is obviously the comparison McCain is making, and has been making the whole time. This has been pointed out to you many times and you ignore and repeat. Pathetic.
“What he said was not important was the “better estimate” of when they could come home.”
Sure. Maybe this year. Maybe in 2074. What difference does it make, really?
The Japan/Korea/Germany comparison falls apart if the security situation stays hellish (or tenuous, depending upon one’s preferred news source), Iraqis/Americans keep dying, and a majority of Iraqis continue to be unhappy with the presence of our bases.
How many Americans have died in Korea (the most dangerous situation for American soldiers in the three aforementioned examples) since the cease-fire with the north? Five? How many Japanese would call our bases there would call our bases an ‘occupation?’
So, I guess it’s okay that McCain is making a false analogy and it’s not okay for Oliver to point it out? Because, as it’s been shown, repeatedly, it IS a false analogy. If McCain keeps saying the moon is made of green chesse and Oliver keeps calling him on it, then I guess Oliver is at fault. Okay, got it. To quote the sage, pathetic.
“What he said was not important was the “better estimate” of when they could come home.”
That’s a stretch because McCain doesn’t have ANY estimates for when US troops should be withdrawn. McCain doesn’t think it’s important to have an estimate for withdrawal, period. Clearly the context for this latest comment is his “100 years” comment. If casualties remain low or reasonable, McCain doesn’t care how long our troops stay in Iraq. He doesn’t. It’s that simple.
Andrew,
What is not OK is the way he presents the comment.
Which paraphrases is in a very unfavorable way.
Respectfully,
The Squid
What is not OK is the way he presents the comment.
Which paraphrases i[t] in a very unfavorable way.
It’s interesting that you say “unfavorable” and not “inaccurate,” “distorted,” or “dishonest.” With your reluctance to use those terms, I will assume they do not appply.
Whether or not you think the comparison to Korea/Japan/Germany is apt or not, that is obviously the comparison McCain is making, and has been making the whole time.
And he’s still wrong. And you defend him. I don’t get that.
What is not OK is the way he presents the comment.
Which paraphrases i[t] in a very unfavorable way.
Boo. Hoo.
“It’s interesting that you say “unfavorable” and not “inaccurate,” “distorted,” or “dishonest.” With your reluctance to use those terms, I will assume they do not appply.”
I would say dishonest, since he knows the context and implication of McCains Statements.
Respectfully,
The Squid.
“I would say dishonest, since he knows the context and implication of McCains Statements.”
Do be so good as to further illuminate this “dishonesty” you see. What are the correct “context and implications” of McCain’s statement, and how does our host misrepresent them?
The Japan/Korea/Germany comparison falls apart if the security situation stays hellish
which is why McCain explicitly mentions that in his answer.
‘which is why McCain explicitly mentions that in his answer.’
So he does. When I posted earlier I was in a library and unable to watch the video. My bad.
What are the correct “context and implications” of McCain’s statement, and how does our host misrepresent them?
All anybody has to do is watch the video to see. I already pointed it out. Marc Ambinder at The Atlantic sees the same nonsense being played out:
“Democrats and allies are jumping on John McCain for telling NBC’s Matt Lauer that “it’s not important” when troops return from Iraq. Period. There’s no because. There’s almost never a because when one side seizes on the comments of another. The context makes it clear that McCain is reiterating his position that the presence of troops isn’t the issue; instead, it’s the casualties they receive. The differences between McCain and Obama are clear enough; Obama wants a bare-bones U.S. presence in Iraq, and McCain is willing to tolerate a much larger one; Obama believes that the presence of U.S. troops exacerbates the tension and gives Iraqis a crutch to delay political reconciliation. McCain does not. One would think that those differences are a sufficient basis upon which to launch a political attack. Instead, though, in a conference call with reporters, in remarks by Democrats like Joe Biden, in a blistering statement by Rep. Rahm Emanuel, McCain is being portrayed as, inter alia, not caring one whit about casualties and deaths and chaos and certainly not about the families of troops who dealt with deployment after deployment.”
http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/06/its_not_important_context_is_a.php
In other words Jay, McCain has just announced that he doesn’t plan to bring our troops home no matter what. Peaceful or Violent occupation, our troops are going to stay. And the only concern Americans should have is how many of them are dying.
That’s a stretch because McCain doesn’t have ANY estimates for when US troops should be withdrawn.
Nor should he. Senator McCain has always maintained that ground conditions and our commanders would be the one to inform any timeline for drawing down U.S. forces in Iraq.
McCain doesn’t think it’s important to have an estimate for withdrawal, period.
Perhaps because he understands the complexity of the situation and knows you can’t just throw out dates on a whim.
If casualties remain low or reasonable, McCain doesn’t care how long our troops stay in Iraq. He doesn’t. It’s that simple.
Oh shut up. Now you’re taking pages from the CS playbook.
Shorter John McNovocain: I have no fucking idea and I don’t want to talk about it.
The Japan/Korea/Germany comparison falls apart if the security situation stays hellish.
which is why McCain explicitly mentions that in his answer.
So, just so I got this straight; if the situation remains hellish, we stay. And if the situation stops being hellish, we stay.
Have I got that right?
>>Whether or not you think the comparison to Korea/Japan/Germany is apt or not, that is obviously the comparison McCain is making, and has been making the whole time.
>And he’s still wrong. And you defend him. I don’t get that.
Actually I’m pretty tepid on McCain’s comparison because I’m not convinced that the Cold War mode of thought that made us want bases all over the world is still applicable. I can, however, see a plausible argument for having a long term presence in Iraq that looks kinda like Germany or Korea, if the Iraqis want us there, only because the Middle East is the epicenter of most conflict these days, and has been for the last 30 or so years. But one can also plausibly argue that an American base there wouldn’t necessarily make conflicts there less likely, or easier to resolve.
What I am against is the consistently dishonest way that Oliver has framed this discussion. It’s valid and useful to argue about whether Korea/Japan/Germany is an apt comparison, and its valid and useful to argue about whether a long term presence in Iraq is a good idea. It isn’t valid or useful to claim that McCain just can’t wait to get as many soldiers killed as possible, which is what Oliver’s framing has amounted to. It’s just plain childish.
In other words Jay, McCain has just announced that he doesn’t plan to bring our troops home no matter what.
Yes and McCain also said in the same sentence that there are these little men dressed in green with big pots of gold at the end of rainbows.
I mean, if you’re going to just make shit up, do it in grand fashion!
Nor should he. Senator McCain has always maintained that ground conditions and our commanders would be the one to inform any timeline for drawing down U.S. forces in Iraq.
See, that’s funny, because when Obama says the exact same thing, people call him naive.
if the Iraqis want us there,
Which they pretty clearly don’t, otherwise they wouldn’t keep hooting at us.
“Oh shut up. Now you’re taking pages from the CS playbook.”
Jay, McCain is using Japan, Germany and Korea as his examples. Leaving aside the ridiculousness of the analogies, those are all situations in which US troop presence has become, for all intents and purposes, a permanent condition. It is not “making shit up” to say that McCain is advocating a prolonged, if not permanent US military presence in Iraq.
McCain’s only stated reason for withdrawing troops, in the past and in this comment, is the level of US casualties. If casualties are low, he says, it isn’t important to have an estimate for withdrawal.
I have yet to actually see a conservative defend the incoherence of McCain’s comments. If casualties remain low, we can stay in Iraq for 100 years, just like in Germany and Japan, says McCain. If casualties go back up, then what? We stay until casualties are low again? Does McCain have a ballpark figure for acceptable casualty rates? Is he actually advocating that we’ll leave if US troop casualties reach those levels again? If so, isn’t that “surrender”? If not, what exactly is the point of making casualties a criteria for anything?
It isn’t unreasonable to look at McCain’s criteria and his logic and come to the conclusion that he wants us to stay in Iraq indefinitely, no matter what the conditions on the ground.
What is McCain’s stance then Jay. On the one hand he says he won’t leave before Iraq is peaceful, on the other he says if Iraq is peaceful, we can stay for 100 years. So the only green men around are the ones in your head.
I’ve said it before the war, and I’ve been proven right: one main reason for the Bush invasion is to plant 75,000 US troops in Iraq to dominate the politics of the region. Unfortunately, with the botched occupation, it’s twice that and they’re more hostage to our politics.
Jay,
Look at the passage you bolded above:
“The context makes it clear that McCain is reiterating his position that the presence of troops isn’t the issue; instead, it’s the casualties they receive.”
How does this actually explain McCain’s position on Iraq?
If there were zero American casualties in Iraq, god willing, starting today and going forward to infinity, what would McCain’s position on our presence be? According to him, it wouldn’t matter how long we stayed because no troops were being killed.
What if the opposite happened? What if US casualties shot up radically starting today, god forbid, and stayed very high for x number of years. What McCain’s position be then? Begin esitmating withdrawal times or stay until the casualties were reduced or brought to zero? And when they reached acceptable levels then what? See above, lather, rinse, repeat.
I don’t think it’s fair to say that McCain doesn’t care about troop casualties. Of course he does. The point is, however, that casualty rates actually have no impact on McCain’s stated policies: We’re staying in Iraq no matter what the casualties are. There is no other way to reconcile McCain’s contradictory statements on Iraq.
In short, it may not be fair to say McCain doesn’t care about the troops. It is fair to say that casualty level would have no real influence on his Iraq policies.
Leaving aside the ridiculousness of the analogies
Why are they ridiculous? Don’t make such statements without any support.
It is not “making shit up” to say that McCain is advocating a prolonged, if not permanent US military presence in Iraq.
It is “making shit up” when you claim McCain “has just announced that he doesn’t plan to bring our troops home no matter what.” Ok? That’s what Midderpidge wrote. Unlike what others are doing and taking McCain’s comments out of context, that’s an actual word for word quote.
McCain’s only stated reason for withdrawing troops, in the past and in this comment, is the level of US casualties. If casualties are low, he says, it isn’t important to have an estimate for withdrawal.
Wrong again. He said nothing about “low” casualties. He said NO casualties. In fact, his statement on this is exactly where the “100 years” lie was drawn from:
“…as long as American, as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed. It’s fine with me and I hope it would be fine with you if we maintained a presence in a very volatile part of the world where al Qaeda is training, recruiting and equipping and motivating people every single day.”
That’s where the comparison to Germany, Japan and Korea makes sense. Do you think we have troops stationed in Japan because we’re afraid of another Pearl Harbor attack (If so, then somebody’s been reading one too many Tom Clancy novels)? We’re there because it’s a strategic position in those regions and it would be in the Middle East.
I have yet to actually see a conservative defend the incoherence of McCain’s comments. If casualties remain low
Because he never made such comments. You’re either mistaken or you’re purposely being misleading. The rest of your comments are built around the same nonsense, so it’s not worthy of a response.
My goodness, I am SO confused.
OW wrote: “John McCain: It’s “not important” whether our troops ever leave Iraq or not.”
Then the Squid: “What is not OK is the way he presents the comment.
Which paraphrases it in a very unfavorable way.”
Then Jay, channelling Ambinder: “The context makes it clear that McCain is reiterating his position that the presence of troops isn’t the issue; instead, it’s the casualties they receive.”
And finally, Haplo: “It isn’t valid or useful to claim that McCain just can’t wait to get as many soldiers killed as possible, which is what Oliver’s framing has amounted to.”
Face it, boys. McCain said it. What’s his estimate of when we get out? Answer: “It’s not important.” OW quoted him–briefly and without interpretation–and linked to the actual videotape!
Where’s the “dishonesty” that’s making you boys cry?
Well here’s a big, fat news flash: that’s not what’s happening on our planet. Right here on earth, Americans ARE being injured and harmed and wounded and killed. If you want to insist on reading Mr. McCain’s remarks with strict literalism, then you also have to accept that he’s describing a fantasy world, not the actual world we live in (and Iraqis and Americans are dying in).
Quaker, is there some mist or something in front of your screen that’s making it hard for you to read? Show me exactly where John McCain said the following:
“It’s not important whether our troops ever leave Iraq or not.”
Pinocchio was more honest.
The problem is, TPM, Oliver and the other Democrats harping on this are trying to make it seem as though McCain is talking about fighting a continually endless war for decades and decades and that the same guys are going to be heading over there every six months and that’s just BS and they know it.
We have military at 820 installations in 39 countries around the world and nobody raises an eyebrow. McCain talks about maintaining a strategic presence in Iraq and suddenly everybody goes into pants shitting hysterics.
“McCain talks about maintaining a strategic presence in Iraq and suddenly everybody goes into pants shitting hysterics.”
Let’s start again.
McCain is indeed advocating for a prolonged military presence in Iraq.
Agreed.
He thinks this prolonged presence is a good idea as long as there are zero US casualties.
Agreed.
Here’s the question: What is McCain’s position on the US military presence if casualties continue and never reach zero?
Can you answer that question?
Jay is an idiot. Under what conditions does McCain say he will bring our troops home? None. If it’s violent we have to stay until it’s peaceful, if it’s peaceful we should all be happy to have our troops there for 100 years. And according to McCain’s statement that started this post, his objective isn’t bringing the troops home, it’s reducing the casualties.
Jay spends so much energy trying to say McCain isn’t saying he won’t bring the troops home, then he goes out and defends leaving them there in permanent bases. Which is exactly what MCCain is advocating. Again.
For starters, Jay, that’s not what Mr. McCain said. I haven’t claimed that he did. That is what OW wrote. It is not a literal transcription. It is a paraphrase.
If you are unable to acquire your own literal transcription, I’m happy to oblige:
Please explicate the difference between the literal transcription and the paraphrase.
You are far too hard on yourself. Or is it Mr. McCain you indict with this clever mot juste?
Turnabout is fair play, Jay.
Show me exactly where OW said the following:
“McCain is talking about fighting a continually endless war for decades and decades”
>>What he said was not important was the “better estimate” of when they could come home.
Jay, but it’s not the statement by McCain that is the issue (casualties vs. length of time) it’s the way it will be spun in the “information age.” That’s a soundbite that he may not recover from. Think of the DNC ads that will be flying.
McCain for all his great personal attributes, most of which his strength of character, we may find, he’s a soft political animal.
I love the guy. He’s got my vote. But he and his team need to be smarter. The point is that people like you and I shouldn’t have to defend statements like this in the blogosphere.
Q: How long
A: It’s important, BUT…..
OK?
JK
Good to be on the same side…..:) Who knew?
McCain for all his great personal attributes, most of which his strength of character,
Heh.
Ya…Duros…
Damn those guys who suffer for years in a Vietnamese prison camp….they’re weak.
I’m sure McCain is concerned that people like you don’t think he has character.
JK
Wow, a vote for McCain’s character. And I thought he didn’t have any left after the fire sale.
“You don’t seem to have a shred of intellectual honesty when it comes to quoting people you don’t like Oliver. Whether or not you think the comparison to Korea/Japan/Germany is apt or not, that is obviously the comparison McCain is making, and has been making the whole time. This has been pointed out to you many times and you ignore and repeat. Pathetic.”
No it’s not, Haplo.
What you fail to understand is reality. In reality Iraq is not like Japan, Germany, or Korea and therefore when McCain makes a comment about staying in Iraq for 100 years, he means staying there for as long as it takes till the situation becomes like Iraq.
Got it?
Of course not.
I’m sure McCain is concerned that people like you don’t think he has character.
Oh, I never said he didn’t have character. It’s the strength part I was referring to. You know, as in sticking to principle, which he hasn’t really been able to do since 2005.