John McCain, in what can only be cynically seen as an attempt to cash in on the low public support for the Iraq war via political opportunism, has come out swinging at Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld today. After calling the war a “witch’s brew” and “terribly mishandled,” he went on to explain his disdain with two of the biggest conservative icons of this generation:
“The President listened too much to the Vice President… he was very badly served by both the Vice President, and, most of all, the Secretary of Defense.”
He then further dug his own grave by speaking these words:
“Rumsfeld will go down in history, along with McNamara, as one of the worst secretaries of defense in history.”
Ooh, a Vietnam reference! And if that wasn’t enough for you, McCain the eternal optimist completed his own burial by stating:
“There is only one thing worse than an over-stressed military, and that is a defeated military. And we are on the verge of that [defeat].”
What? Okay, if you want to spray paint “Cheney sucks” and “For a good time call Rumsfeld” on the walls, that’s fine. I disagree with you, and GOP voters disagree with you, and I think it’s political suicide, but you’re free to have your opinion. But saying that our men and women in the military are about to be defeated? Can you tell me how that helps anything in Iraq? Don’t we lambast Democrats for making similar statements that embolden the enemy and give hope and comfort to those fighting against us?
“Abdul, American Senator says we are on verge of defeating American troops!”
“Great news, Muhammed! Rally the mujahadeen!”
It’s hard to understand McCain’s strategy with this interview. It shows him as unbalanced, angry, and volatile as he was in 2000. He stands in support of the troop surge, seemingly tying his political future to the success or failure of the maneuver, but then blasts Cheney, Rumsfeld, our soldiers, and our administration – seemingly trying to tap into the growing anti-war sentiment in the country. Well, Johnny, I think the voters will show you in twelve short months that you can’t have it both ways.
January 23rd, 2007 at 11:12 am
Amen, and coming from McCain, it more emboldens the enemy even than when the whole Democratic party does.
January 23rd, 2007 at 11:14 am
That’s why Rudy is winning in almost all the polls.
Most conservatives recognize that only McCain or Giuliani can win 2008.
Who do you prefer?
I think the answer is clear, Rudy is the best man to lead this country.
Rudy, Rudy, Rudy!
January 23rd, 2007 at 11:21 am
GOP Activist, between Rudy and McCain, I’d take Rudy in a heartbeat.
I’m just glad those aren’t my only two choices.
January 23rd, 2007 at 11:33 am
To me, you are unfit to serve this country in a time of war.
*head explodes*
January 23rd, 2007 at 11:43 am
I’m probably the last person to defend McCain, but…last time I checked, Cheney’s approval ratings were even lower than the President’s. Also, despite Rumsfeld’s many renovations and countless hours of effort, he did goof on a number of things: low initial troop count, ‘go to war with the tank you have soldier!’, alienation of generals, etc… So, in essence, what McCain said can be construed as true by most of the electorate. Most polls echo this sentiment. Problem is, it reeks of political opportunism and most people will recognize a weathervane when the see one. There’s too many mixed signals with him. McCain needs to pick a direction and stay with it.
January 23rd, 2007 at 11:44 am
Well… I think what McCain is saying is that our troops were badly served by the people in charge of planning the post-war reconstruction in Iraq. At this point, he appears to be correct.
January 23rd, 2007 at 11:45 am
Assuming Rudy really does run for President, the race will come down to Rudy vs. Romney sooner than most people realize. McCain will blow up in Iowa and be damaged goods by NH.
The good news is, either Rudy or Romney would be an excellent nominee.
January 23rd, 2007 at 11:48 am
LJ, sorry for that… accident there.
In all seriousness, though, I’ve toned down the editorial tone of this piece – I had four family members serve in Iraq and I get a little emotionally driven when it comes to stories such as these. I have lost what little respect I ever had for John McCain now, but I’m glad that doesn’t mean you and I can’t still enjoy one another’s company.
January 23rd, 2007 at 11:53 am
Kavon, I agree to a point with what you said, but that doesn’t mean that we are on the verge of defeat. To publicly declare that in a time of war in inexcusable in my book. Speaking to my family members when they returned from Iraq, all of them said that the real Iraq was nothing like what you see on television and what the politicians talk about. They all reported so much progress being made that nobody ever hears about or knows about.
Saying that we are on the verge of defeat is not only a lie, but it harms America public perception of the war, weakens Americans’ will to stay and fight until we win, and emboldens our enemy there. If that’s what he meant, he should have said it better instead of trying to get a leg up on the current administration by destroying our troop morale.
January 23rd, 2007 at 11:54 am
Maybe we could have a Giuliani/Romney ticket?
January 23rd, 2007 at 12:25 pm
HeavyM,
Speaking to my family members when they returned from Iraq, all of them said that the real Iraq was nothing like what you see on television and what the politicians talk about.
I can definitely understand your emotional connection to the war in Iraq. But the problem is, in the court of American public opinion the war is already lost. Technically, we won military in Vietnam, but still lost the war. Bush’s poll numbers have nosedived (I don’t know how that’s even possible) since he’s come out with the surge plan, currently he’s at 28%. Large majorities of the country oppose the surge. There is almost nothing short of a complete end to the violence in Iraq that will turn the public opinion around. In 3-6 months, if things don’t change, you will see a mad dash by Republicans of all strips for the exits. Almost 33% of conservatives are already against the war.
he should have said it better instead of trying to get a leg up on the current administration by destroying our troop morale.
Sorry, but this really, really irks me. There has been no one in the country, other than Bush, more supportive of the Iraq War than John McCain. He’s been advocating deposing Saddam since the mid-1990′s. Even now, he goes out and defends the surge on TV and in every interview he gives, when most other politicians can only manage to muster a statement (Rudy and Romney come to mind) and then never bring it up again. McCain is putting his presidential career on the line in support of the war and President Bush (he’s even beginning to lose some Republican support too) and yet he gets accused of “destroying our troop morale.” Unbelievable.
January 23rd, 2007 at 12:25 pm
I would love to see a Rudy/Romney ticket, but I don’t think it will happen. Would the GOP nominated two Northeastern Republicans? As much as I would love it, I just don’t see it happening. I like both candidates, and wish it would happen, but it will have to be either Rudy or Romney, not both.
January 23rd, 2007 at 12:30 pm
I knew a lot of people were not so big on McCain, but it surprises me how much outright hatred there is for him. HeavyM, I disagree with your editorial that basically states criticism of Cheney/Rumsfeld amounts to giving ammuntion to the enemy. Setting aside McCain for a moment, let’s make clear: only the Iraqis can win in Iraq. We can surge, we can withdraw, we can spin around in circles, but it ultimately comes down to the Iraqi government. So frankly, when we talk about the US winning and losing, that’s a misnomer. There is not some secret solution that “if only the US does this, we’ll win!” We’ve done nearly all we can do.
I don’t agree with McCain on everything, but you have to give him credit– he is essentially staking his whole run on this surge. If he were trying to be more “political” one might think that he’d be more cautious about it like the other candidates. The only conclusion to draw from that is that he believes in it.
And no matter how hard-core republican you are, I don’t see how anyone can think this war is anything but a negative for the country as a whole. So why is it a big deal to criticize Cheney and Rumsfeld? They bear a great deal of responsibility for it (along with the President).
And before some of you question my republican credentials, I have been republican all my life and am currently serving overseas. My morale is not shattered by hearing McCain’s criticism.
January 23rd, 2007 at 12:33 pm
Ok, how about a Rudy Giuliani/Tim Pawlenty ticket?
T-Paw rocks as the Minnesota Governor, and the national 08 GOP convention will be in MN.
What a great way to build on local momentum to capture the Midwest vote.
For more information about T-Paw, visit his Website:
http://www.timpawlenty.com/
January 23rd, 2007 at 12:50 pm
Al, first of all, thank you for your service to this country. I appreciate you and the sacrifice you and your family have made. And I am glad to hear your morale has not been weakened by McCain’s comments.
The portion of McCain’s interview I had in mind when mentioning strengthening and emboldening our enemies was him stating that our forces are on the verge of defeat – not the criticism of Cheney and Rumsfeld. Like I said, if McCain had left it at just the criticism, this would have been an entirely different article. However, when he looks at our able men and women of the military and echoes what the MSM have been saying for years now, that we are on the verge of defeat, it only serves to accomplish a small handful of things, including strengthening the resolve of our enemy and possibly demoralizing troops. Hearing statements like that from leaders in America certainly can’t do anything to help the war effort.
If we lose Iraq (read: we fail to bring enough stability and train enough Iraqis so they can hold their own country), it will be because of one reason and one reason only: the media, backed up by the Democrats. They are directly responsible for the public opinion of the war and have chosen, time and time again, to ignore real progress being made in Iraq and report instead the problems with the country. Their reports of failure in Iraq are becoming self-fulfilling prophecy.
I am a firm supporter of Bush’s plan to send 20,000 more troops, and an even firmer supporter of the changes in the rules of engagement. In fact, this shift already seems to be paying off in huge dividends. But of course, the average American voter doesn’t know that Maliki has finally removed his protection of Sadr, and doesn’t know that we have handed yet another division of the Iraqi army over to Iraqi control, and doesn’t know that Iraqi forces have recently nabbed over four hundred insurgents because – why? Because the media doesn’t report facts like that. And because people like John McCain make pronouncements -in the middle of this streak of victories in Iraq!- that we are on the verge of defeat.
We are not on the verge of defeat, we have never been on the verge of defeat, and the only way we will get to that precipice is if people like John McCain keep opening their mouths to make opportunistic statements against the war.
We sure have come a long way since World War II, and I fear it is for the worse.
January 23rd, 2007 at 12:51 pm
McCain isn’t my first choice for President, but this criticism really crosses the line.
Let’s keep something in mind here: If it weren’t for McCain, the Democrats would cut off funding for the war. The reason the Democrats are instead pushing for the non-binding resolution opposing the surge is that McCain is seen as the Republican frontrunner and the Democrats don’t want to be tagged with the blame for losing Iraq(I think Dems are smart enough to know that McCain is probably innoculated from criticism of Bush’s handling of the war).
However, by backing and defending the surge, McCain is now personally on the hook politically for the success of the mission. Like LJ noted, if the surge fails, McCain’s presidential ambitions are over. If McCain was as willing to put his ambition above the good of the country, as he’s being accused of here, he’d be echoing Chuck
Hagel and Sam Brownback. Instead, McCain is putting his political reputation and career on the line to salvage a mission he knows is essential to our security. So disagree with McCain if you must, but give him credit for giving Bush this chance.
January 23rd, 2007 at 1:01 pm
LJ,
I agree – we have lost the battle of public perception in Iraq. The poll numbers supporting the war have plummeted, and Bush’s job approval has plummeted with them. However, what you see as a cause, I see as an effect.
The low poll numbers are directly related to the media’s coverage of the war, which has been, dare I say, disappointing, as well as pronouncements like, “We are on the verge of defeat in Iraq.”
If enough politicians and news anchors start echoing statements like that, eventually the American people begin to believe it – despite the progress that is really being made in the country.
14 out of 18 provinces in Iraq are relatively peaceful. A vast majority of violence comes from only 2 provinces – Anbar and Baghdad. How many Americans know that? I’d venture to guess less than 20%. Probably less than 10%. We just handed over another division of the Iraqi army to Iraqi control. How many Americans know that? Even less than the first question, I’d guess. And how many people understand the rules of engagement that have been changed that opened up neighborhoods in Baghdad to our forces that were previously unreachable, and how many people know that because of that hundreds of insurgents have already been captured or killed? Very, very few. And how many Americans know that Maliki was protecting al Sadr and preventing our forces, or Iraqi forces, from taking him out – but that through “negotiations” of sorts, he has now agreed to remove his protection of the man? Again, somewhere in the single digits I would imagine.
That’s what upsets me. And what upsets me even more is that John McCain knows all of these things – or has zero excuse not to know them at least – and in the midst of these victories has pronounced that we are on the verge of defeat. Statements like that endanger the war mission because it endangers the public will the continue this fight. If all Americans hear is about how we are losing and about to be completely defeated, then of course polls show they want us out of there and oppose troop increases.
If someone were to be brave and stand up to announce the victories we are accomplishing in Iraq, the poll numbers might just shift. If someone with guts were to show the American people that we are actually winning this war, have been winning this war, and will win this war, it would make the path to victory all that much easier for our troops. There is no excuse for McCain’s pronouncement that we are on the verge of defeat.
January 23rd, 2007 at 1:26 pm
I could vote for Rudy, even though I prefer Romney, but I don’t think I could vote for McCain. The war is winnable. All is not lost. McCain is seeking political gain here nothing more.
Looks like Hastert is now set to endorse Romney. How could he endorse McCain?
January 23rd, 2007 at 1:35 pm
Pete,
I agree, most conservatives recognize that Giuliani is our best hope in 2008. That’s why he is polling so well.
January 23rd, 2007 at 1:39 pm
John McCain is being John McCain. He is his own worst enemy. He has a hard time criticizing anyone without going for the jugular. It is his biggest problem.
Can you imagine having someone with as short of fuse as McCain at the head of the Arm Forces of the United States with his finger on the button? Can you imagine having someone with the power, respect, prestige, and authority of the Presidency lashing out at anyone whom he thinks has crossed him?
I don’t want him anywhere near the Oval Office.
January 23rd, 2007 at 1:58 pm
“Assuming Rudy really does run for President, the race will come down to Rudy vs. Romney sooner than most people realize. McCain will blow up in Iowa and be damaged goods by NH.”
As long as there are comments like that, I shall continue to belabour (what should be) the obvious, as I already posted earlier today:
With respect to the eight-state Republican Primary Poll numbers released by American Research Group (ARG) on 22 January 2007, and set forth elsewhere in this space, let’s analyze the numbers.
My tally of place finishes:
Rudy: 7 first 1 second
McCain: 1 first 5 second 2 third
Newt: 2 second 4 third 2 fourth
Romney: 2 third 1 fourth 3 fifth 2 sixth
_______________________________________
My tally of average race-by-race percentage:
Rudy: 31.9
McCain: 22.9
Newt: 12.0
Romney: 04.9
_________________________________________
My tally of these 8 States’ 2008 Electoral Votes:
Rudy: 161
i.e., 59.6% of total needed to win the General Election
McCain: 11
Newt: -0-
Romney: -0-
________________________________________________________
My tally of the Newt-Romney Match-up:
Average Percent: Newt 12.0 Romney 04.9
Higher ranking: Newt 6 Romney 2
Electoral Votes: Newt 134 Romney 28
Double figures: Newt 5 Romney 2
Second Place: Newt 2 Romney 0
Third Place: Newt 4 Romney 2
Fourth Place: Newt 2 Romney 1
Fifth Place: Romney 3 Newt 0
Sixth Place: Romney 2 Newt 0 Gilmore 2
Don’t forget: Newt isn’t even running! Yet!
____________________________________________
Now, if I understand the litany of the MSM, the “Conventional Wisdom”, the Beltway Punditocracy, and indeed some regular contributors to this space, all this means that: (1) Rudy’s numbers will go down, but Mitt’s numbers will come up. (2) At worst, Romney is the third of the “Big Three” Republican candidates. In a word: Hogwash! In a phrase: Utter Hogwash! In a sentence: These people are deluding themselves!
My ultimate conclusion: Run Rudy Run!
My penultimate conclusion: Newt for Veep!
______________________________________
January 23rd, 2007 at 2:28 pm
One thing, HeavyM, that I disagree with you on: the problems with Iraq are not just poor media coverage. Whatever problems there may be with coverage, the media did not just make up that 25 American soldiers were killed the other day or that 100+ Iraqis died in Baghdad. And even though the problems are largely in 2 provinces, within those provinces live a huge portion of the Iraqi population. While there appears to be some progress at this time–let’s keep our fingers crossed– it is not because of the media that Iraq has had so many problems. If the media only reported good news, do you think that would stop bin Laden or al-Qaeda? Iraq is a complex problem. It cannot be reduced to simply being a matter of media coverage.
January 23rd, 2007 at 3:13 pm
Luther,
The “conventional wisdom”, beltway punditocracy, and regular contributors to this site all claim to have something which the general public in your poll does not.
Interest, experience, and knowledge. The general public is not paying serious attention, it is innexperienced in politics, and it has a depressing lack of knowledge about the candidates and their platforms. Granted, the public are also the ones casting the votes, but I think a more reliable indicator of where the public will eventually go is where the people go who have interest, experience, and knowledge.
January 23rd, 2007 at 5:18 pm
In this electoral cycle, on this issue, the people to whom I refer have, in my judgment, given up their “interest, experience, and knowledge” in favour of self-delusion. My great frustration is that it is physically impossible for me to reproduce in one space al the hard evidence, including sophisticated push-polling, that shows that poll respondents are not ignorant of Rudy’s past positions, and that they are not reacting merely to name recognition. As for Romney, the oft-repeated notion that his anemic poll numbers will inevitably come up is somewhere between self-delusion and wishful thinking. Your response actually reminds me of what Kathering Graham is reported to have said after Jimmy Carter was elected President: “How could he be elected President? I don’t know him! None of my friends know him!”
January 23rd, 2007 at 5:26 pm
HeavyM, I think you are dead-wrong in your analysis of John McCain’s statements here, for several reasons.
First off, this all has to be taken in context of what Senator McCain has been saying for several years now: we need more troops on the ground, which is something that America has been loathe to do in *any* situation since the Vietnam War, for what would seem to be obvious reasons.
McCain is perfectly within his rights to criticize Cheney and Rumsfeld and compare Rumsfeld to McNamara: both took on a mission, that while it wouldn’t have been easy, should not have degenerated into the debacle it became. Johnson and McNamara insisted on fighting the Vietnam War with “one hand behind our back”. Why did McCain and his fellow POWs cheer when the city they were imprisoned in started being bombed by B-52′s in the early 70s? Because it showed, at least to them, that the US (read: US Government) was done with half-measures and was now serious about doing what was necessary to win the war. The problem was that by that time, the American public were *not* willing to do what was necessary to win the war. Vietnam was not lost in the jungles of Southeast Asia – it was lost on the streets of American cities and in the halls of the US Capitol. The same is exactly true for Iraq, and Senator McCain knows this because he was there the first time.
Now, flashforward to present times. Over the protests of the Army Chief of Staff, General Shineski (who resigned/was fired over this issue) Rumsfeld disregarded the estimates for the 300,000 troops that the senior Army command said would be necessary to do this properly and relatively quickly. Instead, Iraq was invaded with just over a third of that number. Sure, the regular Iraqi army crumbled. But then, no less clearly than now, men like Senator McCain knew it was only an illusion of success. A good secretary of defense does not hamstring his generals, or ignore their advice. How does a man like Donald Rumsfeld become more knowledgable about military matters than the Joint Chiefs of Staff?
So is he right to criticize the Vice President and the former Secretary of Defense? Absolutely. Now, what about the other part of the statement you took such offense to: “There is only one thing worse than an over-stressed military, and that is a defeated military. And we are on the verge of that [defeat].” You take that statement completely out of context. He originally said the first part of that statement in response to criticisms that an increase in troops in Iraq would “over-stress” the Army and Marine Corps. And as far as being near defeat now? Senator McCain knows – as you should, since I don’t think you’re stupid by any means – that there are more kinds of defeat than just outright military. Our troops are doing a fine job in Iraq, and I think every reasonable American knows it. But, without ever losing a single battle, we will be defeated, because public opinion is already against the war. And if this is an alien concept, think back to WWII. This was *exactly* the Japanese strategy. They knew that they couldn’t actually beat us in the long haul. Their plan was to wear us down and make beating them so costly that we would give up and go home. It didn’t work for them, but it worked for the North Vietnamese and it’s working for the terrorists now. Military defeat? No. But defeat just the same. If it wasn’t for men like John McCain, I’m sure we already would be in the process of running from Iraq with out tail between our legs, with every honorable soldier who was there saying “Why are you pulling the plug? If only you’d let us do our job and given us the help we needed, we would have finished this long ago”.
And that is, in short, why I believe John McCain is perhaps the only man who can save our great Republic.
January 23rd, 2007 at 5:34 pm
Luther,
Actually, she was talking about Richard Nixon.
Do we really need to provide “hard evidence” that the vast majority of people aren’t particularly paying attention to the 2008 Presidential race yet?
But if thinking Romney is not going anywhere gives you comfort, be my guest.