One year ago, Americans asserted by a 2 to 1 margin that things were going poorly in Iraq. As a consequence, Republicans lost the House, lost the Senate, lost the majority of governorships, and George Bush was forced to scrap the false choice of “staying the course” or “cutting and running” to embrace a third way: installing greater numbers of American troops in Mesopotamia to crush the opposition. This strategy was championed by Sen. John McCain, and thus was naturally rejected by the Bush Base as just another flawed strategy from the secular candidate that tried to deny them their evangelical president back during the 2000 primaries. Well, it’s November of 2007, and public opinion on Iraq is, shall we say, just a bit more favorable to Republicans than it was a year ago. Drumroll, please…
Pew Research Center for the People & the Press survey conducted by Schulman, Ronca, & Bucuvalas. Nov. 20-26, 2007. N=1,399 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.
“Now, thinking about Iraq — How well is the U.S. military effort in Iraq going . . . ?”
Very/Fairly Well: 48%
Not Too Well/Not Well At All: 48%
A year after some were calling for Americans to leave the green zone in helicopters, the unthinkable has happened. American public opinion is now evenly divided on Iraq. And this happened because neither Bush nor the Democrats got their way, but because John McCain, the sole voice of reason in this whole endeavor, was actually listened to for a change. If Bush had “stayed the course,” we would have lost the war. American public opinion would have continued to sour on the war, and we would have been forced to pull out. Why Bush presented America with this false choice is something I’ll never understand. Maybe it’s a class thing. I’ve never been an aristocratic WASP, but I imagine that someone like Bush, who grew up as one, is used to getting his way without being questioned. Whatever the case, Bush has been an abysmal war president, and the American people rightly intuit as much, which is why his approval rating remains mired at 30 percent despite the improvement in Iraq. Sorry Bushies, your man is not making a comeback. Americans have rejected him. He’s done.
But before Democrats take this opportunity to celebrate, they should recall their own recommendations on the Iraq situation just one year ago. Democrats calling for the withdrawal of American troops from Mesopotamia were willing to allow thousands if not millions of innocent Iraqis to be slaughtered via ethnic cleansing and sectarian struggles. Moreover, they were willing to let Iraq and her resources fall into the hands of al Qaeda, and thus be used in the terrorists’ war against us. And all for what reason? To prove George Bush wrong? Are American security and Iraqi lives worth less to Democrats than simply being able to say, “I told you so” to conservative relatives, friends, and coworkers? Only in a fat and happy (and spoiled and naive) society like ours do people have such petty priorities.
But John McCain, mature and empirical, studied the situation in Iraq, discovered that more troops would solve the problem, and then unwaveringly endorsed the logical path to victory. McCain was right where both Bush and the Democrats were wrong. That makes me feel a lot better about McCain’s judgment, and it makes me wonder what other things McCain has been right about that both Bush and the Democrats have been wrong about. With the Republican race tightening due to the GOP base’s response to the siren’s song of yet another southern evangelical promising to usher in Heaven on Earth, the fight for the nomination is still wide open, and anything could happen. I’d like to think that Rudy can’t fail, but he can, especially if Huckabee wins Iowa and South Carolina and McCain wins New Hampshire and Michigan. If Super Tuesday rolls around and we’re left with a McCain/Huckabee race, or a McCain/Romney race, or a McCain/Thompson race, or some combination thereof, I would have no problem enthusiastically backing Sen. John McCain for the Republican presidential nomination. He has proven himself to me by doing what even I thought was impossible: by changing history and preventing Iraq from becoming another Vietnam.
November 30th, 2007 at 10:46 pm
Speaking of which, do we have a recent Michigan poll? I thought that Guiliani and Romney were currently neck-and-neck there with McCain in third? Anyone know?
November 30th, 2007 at 10:49 pm
He might have been right on the war but he was wrong on the Gang of 14, wrong on McCain-Feingold, wrong on amnesty, and wrong as a crotchety, old, angry man.
November 30th, 2007 at 10:49 pm
Michigan polls have been literally all over the map this year, but that sounds about right. I believe the last one showed Romeny down by about four points.
November 30th, 2007 at 10:53 pm
Ray:
When a filibuster is the only thing standing between President Hillary Clinton’s signature and the Universal Health Care Act of 2009, then let me know how you feel about the Gang of 14.
November 30th, 2007 at 11:09 pm
Half of that Gang of 14 won’t even be in office come 2009. And, in my desire to be honest I will still stand opposed to the Gang of 14. It was wrong to begin with and it doesn’t all of a sudden become right just because it works in my benefit. The ends do NOT justify the means.
December 1st, 2007 at 7:26 am
#4
Are you pulling a Sampo? I’m sure you well know that there was no way in hell either party was going to let the fillibuster rules be overturned when it comes to legislation.
Sen. McCain wasn’t the only person who wanted more troops in Iraq. Hell, I thought the surge wouldn’t work not because it was a bad idea, but because I didn’t think there were enough troops being sent. A lot of people not named McCain were annoyed with Sec. Rumsfeld’s dedication to a smaller footprint going back to before the 2004 election.
December 1st, 2007 at 9:07 am
DaveG,
The Gang of 14 dealt with judicial nominations, not with filibustering generally. As far as I know, it was a constitutional objection related to one’s interpretation of the “advise and consent” function of the senate, and whether that rightly allowed filibuster’s. I oppose McCain/Feingold, the Gang of 14, and amnesty but I could happily back John McCain for president, for just the reason you’ve outlined; he’s a sober knowledgeable guy who was right when alot of other people were wrong. And he’s spot on, positionally, on most issues.
December 1st, 2007 at 9:19 am
Frankly, to be honest, I may not end up backing John McCain. Right now, he looks to have a tough hoe to the nomination, and with someone like Mike Huckabee a threat, it’s hard to justify backing someone without much of a chance. But, I think it’s a travesty that McCain’s poll numbers haven’t sufficiently moved as a result of the success in Iraq. Everyone else, Romney, Rudy, and Huckabee have been cowards on Iraq at various points. None of them promoted this strategy before Bush decided to implement it, though it was widely considered a possibility. I exclude Thompson because he didn’t enter the race until the surge was already succeeding, and therefore has always said positive things about it.
December 1st, 2007 at 9:26 am
When is anyone going to call McCain on perpetuating this misnomer that following WWII, the US executed Japanese servicemen that had waterboarded US citizen?? I’m tired of hearing this revisionist history for the purpose of political gain.
Fact: The US did prosecute a Yukio Asano and he WAS NOT EXECUTED.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/04/AR2006100402005.html
McCain – either get your facts straight, or quote your references.
December 1st, 2007 at 10:23 am
Borrowed from http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2006/09/torture.html
TM,
FWIW 25 years ago I underwent military waterboard training. It was a valuable experience. It was an immediate frantic sensation of drowning. Very effective. To young invulnerable military bucks who had NAFOD (No apparent fear of death) it was a good psychic slap in the face about one’s vulnerabilities and limitations. It helped you know yourself. Probably 75 percent of the guys I currently fly with are ex-military aviators, so they’ve undergone similar training. Being stuck for a week or 2 in hotels and cockpits with folks you have to rely on you get a pretty decent read on each other. Liberal/Conservative-wise these 300 guys/gals I’m talking about probably break out about 10% hard left, 35% hard right, and the rest fluxing in-between. They are a pragmatic bunch. My totally unscientific, unverified sense of this group (who have undergone waterboard training) is that their overall opinion is:
1) that it is idiotic to not be using this technique to get info out of the terrorists.
2) that it is idiotic in a time of war to even be having this discussion about giving these non-uniformed terrorists Geneva Convention rights.
3) that the argument that treating these terrorist prisoners politely will prompt them to reciprocate kindly to our soldiers is fatuous nonsense. Even the one’s who truely hate Bushes guts don’t use that as an argument tool.
Let me also say that I had 2 CO’s who both spent 5 plus years in the Hanoi Hilton, and have flown since with a few others. Of those guys who actually had been tortured, (excepting the one’s at POW training who’s job was to share their experiences with us), none of them ever said word one about any of it at all.
Posted by: Daddy
December 1st, 2007 at 10:44 am
#10, thanks for that post.
I think it’s downright anti-American to be against waterboarding, when we are facing a vicious enemy, and this disqualifies John McCain from Commander in Chief.
When journalists volunteer to be waterboarded on TV and come out fine, you know it’s not torture. Anyone who has seen this and thinks otherwise belongs in Code Pink, not in the GOP:
http://hotair.com/archives/2006/11/04/video-steve-harrigan-gets-waterboarded-on-fox/
December 1st, 2007 at 10:44 am
And I get called a liberal around here!
December 1st, 2007 at 11:21 am
I agree with MR? Whoa – I may need to rethink my outlook here!
December 1st, 2007 at 11:44 am
A small group of us were thinking about this last night and I asked two simple questions. 1) Is it possible that the person who is being waterboarded will drown? The answer, of course, is yes because some have died. 2) Is that murder? Yes.
December 1st, 2007 at 11:49 am
Looks like the Union Leader is going to endorse McCain tomorrow (Via Drudge). Not suprising if you follow the coverage.
December 1st, 2007 at 11:56 am
RayinNH,
wrong on McCain-Feingold – then so was Bush
wrong – then so was Bush
amnesty – then so was Bush
wrong on the gang of 14 – then you obviously wanted to lose the Iraq war
conclusion: You must have voted for Kerry in 04, if not him then maybe Nader.
Dave,
I agree with your assessment of McCain and Iraq. (I can almost hear the ghasps of shock). McCain didnt align himself with Bush, Bush aligned himself with McCain. When I look at the awesome success of the surge, It infuriates me to think how long Bush was wrong on Iraq. I remember his BS speach in the summer of 05 about how we’ll send more troops if the generals on the ground ask for them.
Bush owes so much… SO MUCH to McCain.
December 1st, 2007 at 12:01 pm
14 – please cite any documented circumstances where this interrogation technique carefully carried out could possibly lead to drowning. It is mere supposition to draw that conclusion otherwise.
Consider the jailkeeper who is responsible for delivering the food each day. Is it possible that the prisoner could die of starvation while in prison. Yes. Would it be the way in which the jailkeeper delivered (or didn’t deliver) food that caused his death? Yes.
Jump back to waterboarding. Could someone die from drowning as a result from a properly carried out waterboarding interrogation? Arguably not. Waterboarding is a technique of admistering fear and is not torture when carried out through controlled methods.
The illogical argument that someone might die as a result of an interrogation method and therefore the interrogation method is somehow flawed doesn’t hold water (pardon the pun).
December 1st, 2007 at 12:10 pm
I think it’s downright anti-American to be against waterboarding
How unbelievably depressing.
This country has survived for 231 years without resorting to legalized torture. We survived a vicious civil war, defeated the Nazis and won the Cold War against Soviet Totalitarianism without having to waterboard people. As Americans, we should be so much better than that.
December 1st, 2007 at 12:59 pm
I think it’s downright anti-American to be against waterboarding
It’s guys like this who in the same breath turn around and joke that it’s torture to hear Hillary laugh.
Lets see who has employed waterboarding:
Used (invented?) during the Spanish Inquisition
Used during the Amboyna massacre
Used by the Japanese and Nazis during WW2 which subsequently led to convictions of war crimes
Used by Pol Pot who killed 1.7 million of his own
Yes, Metro, waterboarding is as American as apple pie.
December 1st, 2007 at 1:19 pm
“please cite any documented circumstances where this interrogation technique carefully carried out could possibly lead to drowning.”
Waterboarding is drowning. It entails putting water in the lungs.
Jeff’s question is kinda ridiculous. Of course, the intention is not to kill the person, so if “carefully carried out”, they wont drown to the point of death.
So Fetlcher’s questions and answers are correct.
Waterboarding is unambiguously torture, and is illegal. Death resulting from an “uncareful” application is murder.
“I think it’s downright anti-American to be against waterboarding”
Then the entire JAG leadership, current and retired, must be unAmerican.
December 1st, 2007 at 2:59 pm
LJ/sampo: Irrelevant. If reporters are voluntarily subjecting themselves to something on TV and coming out fine, it is not torture.
To ignore that is to have the same non-thinking capacity as a liberal. It is precisely what they do.
December 1st, 2007 at 3:12 pm
Um, McCain also said winning in Iraq was going to be easy. This may be one of the chief reasons why people perceived us as doing poorly in Iraq. Personally, I don’t think we were ever “losing†in Iraq. We kicked terrorist butt, then they adjusted with a new strategy to fight against us. Now that we’ve adjusted to their adjustment, we’re kicking butt again.
Either way, McCain’s rhetoric on the Iraq war has only lead to damaging the Republican party in order to elevating himself.
December 1st, 2007 at 3:34 pm
Matthew (#8), do you realize that McCain is the only one out of the present frontrunners WHO HAS access to militarial information — the top secret stuff? He serves on the military committees, hence he has all of the access. Mitt, Rudy, Fred and Huckabee do not have first hand intelligence – period. What information they obtain, they obtain from experts working outside of military and from press. Remember, Mitt has said often that he needs to know the mileposts and access to generals. I am sure it’s the same for other campaigns. You cannot have strategies without the staff of generals.
It can be tremously difficult to stand up for something when you have nothing. So, yes, I appreciate McCain’s stand up for the surge, but do not say the other frontrunners are wrong. They simply do not have anything to stand up for something.
December 1st, 2007 at 3:47 pm
LJ (#18), where have you been all your life? We Americans treated our prisoners humanly? There are a whole lot of terrible things we have done, even during Revolution and Civil Wars. If you were a WWII solider in Pacific Threate, it is next to impossible to treat with respect the WWII Japanese solider when you saw your best buddy killed, with his groin cutted off and stuffed in his mouth. Wars have terrible impact on men – period. You cannot escape the horrible things. Sorry, you need to read a bit to see that yes, we have done horrible things, so have everyone who were directly in the war zones.
December 1st, 2007 at 3:53 pm
Genevue Convention? Forget it if you were in Pacific. Pretty much no one followed it there. If you captured the enemy soliders, you were ordered to shoot them anyway, because you cannot afford to shift your men around to guard over them, nor could you send them elsewhere on boats — with them being full of wounded. The fights there were almost all fierce. And Japaneses did not follow it in a least bit. So could not you in many of the fronts in Europe.
We have practiced torturing since the dawn of civilizations. It was only recent (last decade or two) when Americans started to make the effort to stop doing it. It is only because the recent wars were not as horrible as they were in the past. We did not lose as much of our humanity.
December 1st, 2007 at 5:06 pm
DaveG-
As the McCain site publisher, I continue to applaud the fact that you provided such a reasoned piece, per McCain and the war. Well done…
December 1st, 2007 at 6:40 pm
24, was it authorized by the highest levels of government, namely the president of the united states?
December 1st, 2007 at 9:28 pm
So how is Bush an abysmal war president if he’s the one that implemented the surge strategy that’s now winning the war and ignored the Democrats’ 4 years of demands to withdraw and surrender? Bush is the one who made the final decision on this. I like John McCain alot but this is a very ignorant post.
December 1st, 2007 at 11:03 pm
20 – Can you include any references (besides Wikipedia) supporting your assertion that waterboarding “entails putting water in the lungs”… ?
Didn’t think so…
December 2nd, 2007 at 12:01 am
Jeff,
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2007/11/09/nance/
December 2nd, 2007 at 1:26 pm
Tano -
No mention of lungs in that article..?