Howard Dean tried to defend their attack ad against John McCain on Fox news this morning and boy did the man look befuddled: (h/t Hot Air)
Around the two and half minute mark Wallace asks “you don’t have any problem with that [distortion]” to which Dean replied “our problem is that McCain is distorting what he [McCain] said.”
Wh-wha-what!
This man is a perfect posterboy for such a pathetic party in disarray.
See author page
In an article from Friday, Ron Brownstein investigates the primary theme underlying McCain’s position on Iraq: the fact that he has not explained the specifics of what his position is.
“McCain, under any interpretation of his words, is proposing another mission in Iraq–a long vigil–that would extend for decades. With the stakes so high, it’s not enough for him to accuse critics of twisting his meaning: He needs to more clearly explain it himself.”
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24426770/
Brownstein is absolutely right. McCain has fought back against the use of his “100 Years” statement stating it was in the context of a US presence similar to Korea. That is fine; personally, I haven’t any problem with that interpretation. —Yet McCain has also strongly warned of the dire consequences should US troops redeploy. That’s where the problem comes in.
You simply can’t have both stances at the same time. Either we are looking at a Korea/Germany (peaceful) presence —with evidence to support such a stance, or we are looking at a long drawn-out, volatile occupation with the hope that we get things stabilized in a decade or generation. You cannot argue for both stances. Therefore, he has failed to state why US troops should stay in Iraq, and what they hope to achieve.
Lastly, Brownstein methodically and clearly points out what many of us have been trying to say for a long time. If McCain expects to have a real debate on the most critical issue of our time, he needs to lay out what he intends to do.
Brownstein explains very clearly that you can’t just criticize people for them taking you out of context on the “100 Years” remark when you fail to explain what your context is!
(If anyone cares to read the article, I’d be willing to discuss it.)
We are an occupying force in South Korea, have yet to leave Germany, or Japan. When can we expect a exit date of these troops? If we can BARELY afford to keep soldiers in Iraq, if one were to take this idea a face value, what or whom is financing the US soldiers stationed in the countries listed above? Who on this forum can provide the precise details (dates of exit, logistics, and so forth).
There is no evidence to suggest that al-queda will have any kind of presence in the ME 100 year from now. Evidene now shows al-queda is fast becoming the modern day equivalent to the Barbary Pirates.
It would be a smart geopolitical move to have a nation(s) in the ME that are democratic and friendly to the US . It is the best way to secure the peace and quite frankly, energy reserves. Unless we start seriously investing in our own natural resources – drilling anwar, Florida coast, Gulf coast, and nuclear energy – we will always be heavily dependent on foreign energy markets and they know it.
Ironically, The same people who want to cut and run from the ME are the same people who have thwarted every attempt by this nation to become enegy independent.
Had Enough? Vote Republican.
I’m just going to repeat myself as it appears Doug is not paying attention:
Our forward basing strategy around the world has been the most remarkably successful military deterrent to aggression ever devised.
With it, we avoided the calamity of a nuclear war with the Soviets, kept North Korea from slaughtering South Korea and tied Japan and Germany to us in an alliance which shows incredible strenght and resolve considering what we had to do to subdue those former enemies.
I’ve also asked who you voted for? Obama or Hillary. Perhaps I should have included Ron Paul as one of the choices.
Mike,
That’s all fine and good about forward basing.
The problem is McCain hasn’t given us a policy for Iraq for a forward basing:
http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/fdeb03a7-30b0-4ece-8e34-4c7ea83f11d8.htm
He appears to be keeping much of his policy pretty close to his chest.
He states he wants to increase US troop levels in Iraq. Ok, fine …but how many people really know that? He’s been very quiet about it. I believe the last time he mentioned the idea was at the town hall meeting where the ‘100 years’ comment fell from his lips. Since that day we have experienced a McCain black-out on a troop increase for Iraq. As he still believes this, he needs to explain to the public this need to increase troops in Iraq.
Of course, the public will ask how many more? and how much longer?
The public will ultimately demand to know these and even more answers to his policy. Adding more years to 5 years in Iraq requires he defend his policy.
Yet, presently, there is no policy to speak of.
He’s got to do this sooner or later.
———-
I voted for Bill Richardson.
at least mccain has some plan, obama wants them all to be our neighbors and give al-quieda the keys to the white house. the dems are so freakin worried because they are acting and looking like the spoiled missguided childish morons they really are. they have to try and make mccain look bad, well when their spokesman can’t even complete a sentence without stumbling over his words and sounding like he’s been hitting the bottle.
Doug: I haven’t heard any calls recently from McCain to increase U.S. troop levels in Iraq. Have you? The web page you cite is clearly dated. The reference to halting sectarian violence in Baghdad should have given you a clue.
The U.S. government and Iraq are currently negotiating a long term strategic framework, similar to those we have with other nations where we have forces deployed. That agreement, which must be completed before the UN mandate expires will codify the U.S. role in Iraq for years to come.
I realize you and your fellow defeatists wanted us to pull out yesterday and damn the consequences, but the adults remain in charge for the time being.
Oh, voted for Richardson hunh? Didn’t it bother you that he permitted himself to be used as a propaganda tool by Venezuelan dictator Chavez?
Mike,
You mean the ‘Official McCain for President’ website, Iraq section, is out dated??
I guess we could then say that he hasn’t a stated policy then, yes?
Also, some one should tell The American Thinker, too:
You GOT to love the irony of Howard Dean claiming someone has no plan for future ops in Iraq or a plan for leaving when Dean himself promised a “New Direction In Iraq” if his party was given control of the House of Reps. They got all of Congress, and then it came out that the Dems never had a plan. They lied. They pandered to get the votess, and two years later…THEY STILL DON’T HAVE A PLAN. Oh, but they can rant about Sen McCain and claim he doesn’t have one as if it’s not a case of pot calling kettle black.
Scott,
Both Hillary and Obama have a plan to get us out of Iraq. Grampy McCain does not have one it is really as simple as that.
Vote Democat
Yes 55110, their plan is to keep the US in Iraq until 2013, and to remove all the troops who aren’t needed for the following missions:
fighting Al Queda in Iraq
protecting US civilians and forces in Iraq
training Iraqi Security forces
and deterring foreign intervention.
Problem with this plan is that the number of forces needed to do all that…is about 100-140,000; ie what we have there now.
Doug, when you said:
The problem is McCain hasn’t given us a policy for Iraq for a forward basing:
At this moment neither the Iraqis nor the US wants a permanent US base. And that’s the way it should stay until events and attitudes change.
However this decision does not require the meddling of Congress. The DNC led Congress keeps insisting they write legislation that absolutely forbids a US base in Iraq in the future. I have not heard McCain be a part of that “no no, never” crowd. But I could be wrong. Doesn’t sound like him.
To me, prohibiting today what may be needed in the future… tho not now… is nothing more than political posturing for votes. If, in the future, the US needs a base – permanent or temporary – and the Iraqis also want that presence, then the act should not be hamstrung by a 2008 Congress with anal vision.
Yes, the Obamessiah and sHrillary claim to have a plan.
The sad part is that they claim that they will listen to the generals on the ground.
Then they claim that they will pull out immediately (or within X number of months).
So, which story are you going to believe?
Which one of their stories is the lie?
If the Dims had such a great plan for ending the war then why haven’t they implemented it through a cut off of funding in Congress?
They have certainly had the majority for a sufficient amount of time to get that done.
Unfortunately, the Dims never had a plan. They never had any intention of ending the war. They are a bunch of gutless, spinless cowards who don’t have the courage or the decency to do what they say they are going to do.
What’s worse is that the Dims don’t have the chutzpah to support the troops and support their mission.
We tried the gutless, spineless approach beginning in the 70’s and how did that work out for us?
We tried appeasement, containment, diplomacy, and everything short of plying the enemy with falafel and Diet Coke.
What did that get us? Hundreds of dead service personnel in Beruit and elsewhere. The first WTC attack. Bombed out embassies. The USS Cole. 9/11. Finally we reached point where we had enough. Finally we had a President who wasn’t going to take the black eye and just stand there smiling sweetly.
Did you ever wonder how much faster this thing could be over if we had a united front against this ruthless enemy?
This kind of garbage never would have happened during WWI or WWII.
Of course, back then the meaning of treason and its resulting punishment was much more clearly and readily defined and applied.
“Logically” Dean cannot criticize McCain for Iraq if McCain hasn’t a stated policy.
As McCain hasn’t updated “Iraq” in the “Issues” section of his official website ‘McCain for President’ in over a year we haven’t any information to criticize:
http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/fdeb03a7-30b0-4ece-8e34-4c7ea83f11d8.htm
(McCain’s newly launched official *Spanish* website also has no stated policy on Iraq)
But, of course, this is politics, not logic.
Perhaps this is why McCain won’t tell us what his policy is:
http://pacificfreepress.com/content/view/2567/81/
But don’t optimistically expect the economy turning around anytime soon to change the publics’ thoughts on a demilitarizing, as the WSJ reported today that a celebration over the resurgence in the markets “may be premature” because it is “common in a crisis for markets to hit bottom long before the economy does.”
With a two strong majorities (withdrawal and demilitarization) now tied to the economy it simply is political suicide for McCain to detail his bold strategy in Iraq for us.
Doug, for current information, visit his “speeches” link. This is his 4/07/08 speech he gave to the Veterans of Foreign Wars.
http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/News/Speeches/3d837545-5ac8-4124-929c-33c3f0ee9fe5.htm
Thanks Missy, but I did see that; I found it a typically ‘generalist’ type speech i’ve read or heard before; it’s not a policy or strategy position with some detail falling from it.