McCain's Conversation Changer: A Misleading Low Blow

"surrender and wave a white flag"

This, too, is transparent BS from McCain. Everyone who doesn't support indefinite occupation of Iraq favors "surrender"? To whom? Would al-Sadr take control of DC after we "surrendered"? Or is he a Freedom Fighter this week, fresh from being an Evil Doer? Because lord knows we have such a great long-term strategy there, along the lines of supporting the mujahadeen and Saddam Hussein in the 1980s.

John McCain is completely unserious about foreign policy.

He will say anything to slander his opponents, Republican and Democratic, as intentionally undermining the troops.

Both of these candidates are complete idiots when it comes to the Iraq war.

Come November, whether it's McCain or Romney, either of these guys' war position will severely hurt their chances in a general election. The American people want an end to the war and not what the Republicans are selling.

They are out of touch to the extreme and are so willing to out-macho each other in the primaries that it's going to close the door on the Republicans for years.

McCain is the last person who should be accusing others of flip flopping on Iraq. The only reason he does it is because he knows he can get away with it. If there is any truth to his latest accusation it will only make Romney more popular, not less.

Damn fine piece of analysis, there Scherer.

There are plenty of examples floating around the blogosphere today about when McCain did wave the white flag, though. It all happened, I think, on Bill Clinton's watch though.

Courtesy Crooks and Liars:

1994 — “The right course of action is to make preparations as quickly as possible to bring our people home. It does not mean as soon as order is restored to Haiti, it doesn’t mean as soon as Democracy is flourishing in Haiti, it doesn’t mean as soon as we’ve established a viable nation in Haiti, as soon as possible means as soon as we can get out of Haiti without losing any American lives.”

1993 — “Date certain, Mr. President, are not the criteria here. What’s the criteria and what should be the criteria is our immediate, orderly withdrawal from Somalia. And if we don’t do that, and other Americans die, other Americans are wounded, other Americans are captured, because we stayed too long, longer than necessary, then I would say that the responsibilities for that lie with the Congress of the United States who did not exercise their authority under the Constitution of the United States and mandate that they be brought home as quickly and safely as possible.”

What does that tell ya? Saint McCain is Johnny-come-lately to the war-mongering gig?

Here's more:

“Mr. President, can anyone seriously argue that another 6 months of United States forces in harm’s way means the difference between peace and prosperity in Somalia and war and starvation there? Is that very dim prospect worth one more American life? No, it is not.” -John McCain Senate Floor, 10/14/93

"There is no reason for the United States of America to remain in Somalia. The American people want them home, I believe the majority of Congress wants them home, and to set an artificial date of March 31 or even February 1, in my view, is not acceptable. The criteria should be to bring them home as rapidly and safely as possible, an evolution which I think could be completed in a matter of weeks.

Our continued military presence in Somalia allows another situation to arise which could then lead to the wounding, killing or capture of American fighting men and women. We should do all in our power to avoid that.

I listened carefully to the President's remarks at a news conference that he held earlier today. I heard nothing in his discussion of the issue that would persuade me that further U.S. military involvement in the area is necessary. In fact, his remarks have persuaded me more profoundly that we should leave and leave soon.

Dates certain, Mr. President, are not the criteria here. What is the criteria and what should be the criteria is our immediate, orderly withdrawal from Somalia. And if we do not do that and other Americans die, other Americans are wounded, other Americans are captured because we stay too long--longer than necessary--then I would say that the responsibilities for that lie with the Congress of the United States who did not exercise their authority under the Constitution of the United States and mandate that they be brought home quickly and safely as possible. . . .

I know that this debate is going to go on this afternoon and I have a lot more to say, but the argument that somehow the United States would suffer a loss to our prestige and our viability, as far as the No. 1 superpower in the world, I think is baloney. The fact is, we won the cold war. The fact is, we won the Persian Gulf conflict. And the fact is that the United States is still the only major world superpower.

I can tell you what will erode our prestige. I can tell you what will hurt our viability as the world's superpower, and that is if we enmesh ourselves in a drawn-out situation which entails the loss of American lives, more debacles like the one we saw with the failed mission to capture Aideed's lieutenants, using American forces, and that then will be what hurts our prestige.

We suffered a terrible tragedy in Beirut, Mr. President; 240 young marines lost their lives, but we got out. Now is the time for us to get out of Somalia as rapidly and as promptly and as safely as possible.

I, along with many others, will have an amendment that says exactly that. It does not give any date certain. It does not say anything about any other missions that the United States may need or feels it needs to carry out. It will say that we should get out as rapidly and orderly as possible."
-John McCain Senate Floor, 10/19/93

What a maverick!

That's a good one Titus. I'll bet none of the Express tanksters are going to ask their man about that.

very nice post, Michael!

Any chance you could clone yourself, or maybe find a mad scientist to transplant your DNA into a few others here?

Yeah, I should have thanked Michael for this good, substantive post.

It looks like McCain's support for the troops is directly correlated to the party the President belongs too. One would think a straight talking maverick, who always tells the truth, would be more consistent on that point. In fact, given his predilection to accuse others of being inconsistent on the troops, it is hard to believe just how contradictory he is. Once again I imagine he does this because he knows no one in the mainstream press will ever point these things out.

Excellent post, Michael Scherer.

Thanks for doing your job, and telling us what the truth of the matter was with respect to what was actually said.

It is clear what Romney meant.

McCain is showing his true colors, willing to deceive to win.

Haha, atrios suggests Michael Scherer will be sacked for not showing McCain the love.

"Is McCain suggesting than any American who opposed the surge was somehow not supporting American troops?" Yes. Yes he is.

"Is he saying that it is unpatriotic to debate American policy in Iraq?" Yes. Yes he is.

Thank you for these simple questions. Here is one for you:

Is any of that appropriate for a presidential candidate or even a high ranking senator?

No. No it is not.

Heck, McCain's been lying about lots of stuff--this is just the first time I've seen an MSM reporter call him on it. McCain's got a commercial running here in Florida which makes him sound like he was the only politician in the whole world who said, "Hey, this Iraq thing is a bad idea," when he was one of the biggest cheerleaders for it and only changed his tune when he realized it was killing him politically.

And it's absolutely not surprising that Timmeh is having McCain on for a second fluffing this month on Meet The Press. The Beltway Media is trying their best to pull it out for old man McCain.

Michael, that took guts! Most of the MSM are in love w/ ST John. If more people understand that the only honest Republican left-Paul- is unelectable, discourse should improve.

It think Atrios has a point. James, it's interesting that the king of political gotcha, Little Russ, never uses this ammo during the debates whenever the Maverick waxes poetic about our impending glorious victory in Iraq and the traitors who would have us leave.

Straight talk.
If you are going to discuss McCain and his war "straight talk" it would be useful for you to go back and watch an old episode of Hardball that occurred a few months before the surge (you could also dig up some 2005 McCain statements on Iraq to see how misguided and sleazy this guy is while you are at it).
Here is the Hardball transcript:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15330717/
McCain was saying we needed 100,000 more troops there, Matthews starts asking McCain about details, and points out that Gen. McCaffrey says we don't have enough troops to do this right, and McCain starts whining:
"Your bias is showing...your bias is showing."
[I'll note the transcript I linked to doesn't portray just how whiny and pathetic McCain was sounding when he was trying to throw out his idea that made him sound like a tough guy; then got it pointed out to everyone in that room that the idea we could send that many more troops was pure fantasy (with the end result that McCain was either stupid, pandering, and/or a liar for not knowing that his straight-talk plan was fantasy)].

McCain gets scarier and scarier. Does he really think he can win on a stay in Iraq forever platform?? The American people will learn more about the billions this war is costing and the lack of accountability for much of that money. McCain is as delusional as his good friend Bush. Now I see that he has neocon war mongers Woolsey and Kristol as supporters. Two good reasons not to vote for him, as if I needed more. Hearing him say "my friends" for four years would be enough.

Titus Pullo and James, Los Angeles: It's one thing to withdraw after a failed attempt to intervene in someone else's civil war. It's another thing to withdraw after your horribly botched invasion causes a potential civil war. Yes the seeds were already there, but Iraqis are dying in the streets because of America and because we didn't handle the post-invasion properly. As a nation, when you go in and mess up someone else's country you incur a moral obligation to fix things before you just pack up and leave.

Some of you will say "I never supported the war, this isn't my fault." That's little consolation to the Iraqi mother who just lost her son on his way to school. National responsibility is national responsibility.

Oh, wouldn't it be easier to attack Romney using his specter of Washington and Churchill quote?
http://www.mittromney.com/News/In-The-News/MKH_Townhall
'I go back and think about George Washington. Can you imagine how different our nation would have been if, when the troops were having a tough time at Valley Forge, he just said, "well, we've lost." Or, if Winston Churchill, when the British citizens were hiding in subway tubes, if he said, "Well, we've lost." That is not the American way.'
I mean, what would Washington and Churchill think of a guy who goes around the country claiming we are in an "existential" war while his five military-eligible sons cruise around in RV's and blow through trust funds? I have a feeling they might think we were dealing with a family of yellow bellied cowards and con artists.

I agree that we have terribly botched up another country, but there is no way the American people are going to be willing to continue throwing billions at the problem. Moral responsibility or not, how long can that financial burden be born before Americans say enough? Look around we have serious problems in this country, including an aging infrastructure, that could use those dollars. More and more Americans are going to realize that.

Peter, that's quite a big pile of straw man you're knocking down, there. Nice try.

Is John McCain no longer linearly loquacious? After all those years of honesty, testified to by hordes of fawning journalists, this saint of a man has told a lie? I blame the media. If they hadn't been so adoring of him for so long, he wouldn't have gone soft on us and actually told a lie, and attacked one of his opponents. Even as great man as McCain, who is the very best humanity can offer -- in fact, I think it's insulting him to call him a man at all, although it is a compliment to humanity -- even this great being, then, can be worn down by years of swooning adoration. I'm sure that, once this factual error is pointed out to him, he will apologize to Romney and never do such a thing -- a first for him, remember -- again.

According to his own biography, if I remember correctly, even Gandhi had a few faults. In his youth he ate some meat a couple of times, and lost his temper once or twice. So in having a fault, Saint John is in the very best of company -- where he belongs, of course.

Peter, if that's the case, why don't we show Iraq we are acting in good faith by holding the people responsible for screwing up their country accountable? I noticed that Wolfowitz just got a new job. Kristol too. One person has gotten fired over this (Rumsfeld), and how long did that take?
Report came out detailing the how the lying elevated towards invasion day. Maybe you start calling for the liars and the war profiteers that work counter to our interests to be held responsible and I'll start taking your concern for your fellow human beings seriously.

The "straight talker" recently on climate change:

http://climateprogress.org/2008/01/25/mccains-double-talk-express-on-global-warming/

Is McCain suggesting than any American who opposed the surge was somehow not supporting American troops? Is he saying that it is unpatriotic to debate American policy in Iraq?

Of course that's what he's saying. It's what Republicans have been saying about anyone who opposes anything the administration and Congressional Republicans do since 9/11. Where the heck have you been, you pinko?

Peter, the problem is that it is not within our power the "fix things up." What Iraq needs is a thorough grass-roots political reconstruction without outside pressure to achieve a solution that happens to work for interested third parties (i.e., the US). ANy solution imposed or brokered by Americans is going to be unpalatable for most Iraqis and contain the seeds of future discord, Even if our intentions going forward were totally benign, a wide swath of Iraqis are already predisposed to believe the worst about our government and would see any deal facilitated by us as illegitimate. We currently have no idea who to support or what the end game in Iraq is supposed to look like. Blundering about in that kind of situation hoping for a positive outcome is a formula for disaster. At some point you have to cut your losses and hope to recoup them when the dust settles and the winners are forced to start dealing with the outside world once again. We've been playing realpolitik for the past 5 years without acknowledging it; it's about time we started playing properly.

Ha. If I was Romney, I wouldn't fight back very much and hope that some of McCain's accusations actually stick.

I wonder if the McCain people realize (or care) that violence in Iraq is cyclical - things will get worse as summer approaches - just like last summer.

I suppose they have a bunch of new narritives already in stock for that event and this rhetoric is merely tactical to get rid of the Morman.

Meanwhile americans and iraqis die for nothing other than to satisfy the political needs of selfish policians in America. tragic, really.

James, thanx for the McCain Somalia quote.

Lets keep in mind that in Somalia at that time, it was Islamic radicals supported by bin Laden that were reportedly behind the "black hawk down" attack, and other attacks on US peacekeepers -- and that bin Laden declared "victory" after the US withdrawal from Somalia.

In other words, McCain wanted to "wave the white flag" in Somalia, a nation where al Qaeda posed a far greater threat than it does in Iraq.

good point, ms. I hadn't connected that dot. I wonder if anyone on the Straight Talk Express will notice that.

Martin Gale:

LOL!

Peter, that's like saying, "the dude in the bulldozer knocked down the house, so he has to stay here on the lot and drive the bulldozer around in circles until he builds the house back up again."

We are not part of the solution there.

We're an occupying force, distrusted by most of the politicians and a good portion of the public. Our presence is a distraction and a hindrance to political progress.

I wish I were wrong about this. But al Qaeda is hated there, and we just tamped down some violence with the troop escalation, and it produced zero strategic results. Are we supposed to spend a $3 billion a week and a few hundred soldier's deaths per year just on the 2% chance that we can wait around long enough for things to magically get better sometime in the next five or ten years?

“I believe my party has gone astray,” McCain said [in April], singling out GOP stands on environmental issues and racial set-asides.

“I think the Democratic Party is a fine party, and I have no problems with it, in their views and their philosophy,” he said.

(Source: NewsMax, Friday, April 2, 2004 McCain Praises 'Fine' Democrats, Blasts 'Astray' GOP and Bush)

MCCAIN FOR GAY MARRIAGE

“I think that gay marriage should be allowed, if there‘s a ceremony kind of thing, if you want to call it that. I don‘t have any problem with that, but I do believe in preserving the sanctity of a union between man and woman.”

(Source: MSNBC, Highlights from the College Tour with McCain, Oct. 19, 2006)

Peter, what you are suggesting can't be done w/o a draft...bottom line. I agree w/ you to a degree, we broke it, unfortunately we don't have the wherewithal to fix it and the people who think we do are frankly living in a fantasy world.

I don't get a lot of you--for years, nobody stood up to King George the Fool or Wormtongue Cheney, and their doomed-to-fail strategy/execution in Iraq, including and especially the Dems. In that context, McCain looking to get heroic troops out of harms way to avoid wasting more lives is pretty heroic itself--given McCain's clear preference to not fight battles you're not willing to win.
Then, in 2005, the ONLY guy who stood up and shouted down the crazies to get rid of the deluded Rumsfeld was McCain. The voters chimed in during the 2006 election, and the war management vacuum was filled in by courageous generals who finally told the Administration what it would take to get out of that quagmire with the minimum loss of life and threats to global stability/national security. Still, though, NOBODY else stuck their neck out--least of all Mitt, who has disavowed military service, by the way--to push for a risky, but essential pathway out.
If Lee Atwater had never been born, if the loonies in South Carolina had been contained in 2000, imagine what a McCain administration over the past seven years might have changed? For the next eight years, this nation cannot afford to leave its tenuous fate in the hands of change-with-the-polls shape-shifters (Clintons or Mitt), risking further accommodations to the blowing wind, nor can it withstand another eight years of insular fantasizing about the perceived need to save the American people from themselves in blind, distorted and ossified beliefs.
McCain is the ONLY candidate in my memory who has the clarity of vision and security in his beliefs to alter his sense of what can be done as conditions change and information merits, and the track record to act on those insights with courage and truthfulness. And McCain won't cave into war-mongers or appeasers, and he won't sell-out to Wall Street, the oil industry, or the other big beneficiaries of the Bush-Clinton-Bush era in the process. McCain is about values, and truth, and getting things done--which make all of these out-of-context partial quotes in this thread seem like the artifacts of bloggers who have no grounds to complain, other than some implied "purity" of discourse that somehow serves as a litmus test of qualifications for the Presidency.
Imagine if you took all the of the duplicitous, two-faced, niggling, parsing, self-aggrandizing comments Billary and Mitt have made over the years and put them in blog? It would go on for near-infinity. The time for a fundamental change IN CHARACTER has inexorably come; it's eight years too late, but you can't stop it now...! ;o)
Best to all,
Steve

Saint John's halo is gone. St. John of Arizona's crooked-talk claim in Florida was that Mitt Romney wanted to "surrender and wave a white flag, like Senator Clinton wants to do" in Iraq because Romney "wanted to set a date for withdrawal that would have meant disaster." This was unequivocally a lie.
George Will, Running Against Clintons
http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080129/OPINION/801290304/-1/LOCAL17
http://politicaljunkyfood.blogspot.com/

CNN & New York Times say McCain's claim is a lie since Romney never supported any date for withdrawal. Bob Bennet also repudiated McCain's lie as 'below the belt', quite an understatement! "honor has been McCain's watchword — he should admit that was wrong to do." Washington Post give McCain "three pinochios" or pinocchio's
http://elderscapes.townhall.com/Default.aspx?mode=post&g=e2d4a8e9-609b-41fc-9aaf-e77f0d81b6a1