« Could Webb's Writings On Civil War Hurt Veep Chances? | Home | Poll: Dem Senator Thought Vulnerable Might Be Safe After All »

McCain: Bringing Troops Home From Iraq "Not Too Important"

Uh oh. It's one thing to say we need to keep the troops in Iraq indefinitely because it's somehow central to maintaining our national security. But it's another thing entirely to suggest that bringing them home is "not too important."

Yet that's what John McCain appeared to do on The Today Show this morning...

Asked whether McCain could give us a good estimate when the troops might come home, McCain said:

"No, but that's not too important. What's important is the casualties in Iraq."

McCain went on to say that we have troops stationed at multiple other places around the globe. So, clearly, his point here is that the central question is not when they can be brought home, but when they can be moved out of harm's way.

Still, this is an awfully clumsy and inartful way to put it, and strikes us as a pretty serious gaffe. After all, one would imagine that the question of timing might have a bit of significance for the troops themselves and their families.

Late Update: Harry Reid hits McCain over the comment.

Late Late Update: The McCain campaign is arguing that he wasn't saying that the act of bringing the troops home is not too important; merely that the timing is.

That seems like a distinction that isn't terribly meaningful, but nonetheless one worth noting, because it's true that McCain was answering a question about the timing. More from the McCain campaign here.


81 Comments

| Leave a comment

I just posted this over at Dailykos. Hope this goes viral to show what a dumbass McCain is.

user-pic

My friends. At this rate, obama is pushing 400 electoral votes. Maybe mcbush should just keep his mouth shut until november and run on name recognition. The more he says the deeper the hole that he is digging. Also, the quote isn't surprising based on his past treatment of the troops like cannon fodder. He cares about the troops as much as he cared about his first wife. Thank you.

user-pic

I'm stunned at what a horrible candidate McCain is. Aside from his draconian policy perscriptions, he sounds awful. He looks awful. He confuses easily. His campaign comebacks are lame and dated.

I think the Republicans might be giving us a head fake to lull us into a false sense of security and then . . . POW! This great, well-spoken charismatic candidate will emerge after Labor Day and run away with the election. I know it sounds crazy but I simply can't imagine that the nominee of a major party could be this bad!

I'm guessing "Romney." By then, the arch conservatives and the evangelicals (who are the only ones who care about his Mormonism) will be so desperate for a viable candidate that they'll take Mitt and overlook his flip-flopping foibles.

user-pic

Dems are the only ones concerned about his Mormonism...just like y'all are the only ones that keep bringing up Obama's race...you are the ones who need to get a grip on that stuff.

Whatever, you William Henry Harrison wannabe.

Uh . . . did you pay attention to either Gore or Kerry as candidates? Both of them sucked, which is even more appalling when you consider how fervent a speaker both of them can be.

(Bob Dole, for that matter didn't exactly rate as a good candidate either, and I still don't see what people saw in George Bush, unless it was the Homer Simpson school of political identification . . .)

So, underestimating your opponent is the worst mistake possible. Maybe he sucks. Maybe he will still run an effective campaign. Assume you still have to do everything as best you can to win.

Just when I thought McCain would slow down on the gaffes, he drops this nugget.Goood going moron! I know of slightly over 4000 reasons why we need our troops home but this reckless buffoon does not think so. Looks like Obama will surf all the way to the WH. Thanks McBush!

NB: Good post Greg!

It's raining McCain youtube moments.

You guys have it all wrong. He didn't say that. AND he was misquoted. And the misquote he didn't say was taken out of context. If he said it. Which he didn't. Therefore, not a single media outlet will report on this.

You might wanna go back to the video and watch it more carefully at least five times sir.

I think rancheros comment was snark. Hard to tell sitting here in my underwear though.

Ya' think??

If that was a true denial, it was a brilliantly done!

Yep, methinks 'tis snark.

100% snark. And yet...

EERIELY PRESCIENT.

I have said it before, long before, and I will say it again. Barring a major league fuck up by my man, Barack Obama, this election will be a lopsided affair, a la Clinton/Dole 1996.

McCain is a horrible candidate. Not insignificant is the fact that he was nearly dead in the water this time last year, and yet he somehow becomes the nominee--not by enthusiasm, but by default. Strike One.

McCain is also--and I don't mean to say this in an ageist way--too old for the job. I don't mean old in that he is physically and mentally too old to do the job--which he is--but he is too old in his ways, too set in old-fashioned notions of fundraising and advance work, and too long in his temperament (nasty as it is) to counter-balance what is an enthusiastic and expanding Democratic (and Democratic-leaning independents) base led by a once-in-a-generation candidate who just oozes competence, coolness, and inspiration. I mean, it's almost laughable. Strike Two.

Strike Three is he is simply not the guy to deal with the hip, razzy-dazzy, dap-doing internet. He believes--I think he sincerely believes--that he can say what he wants to whatever pool of chuckleheads are before him, and turn around and deny having ever said it without repercussions. He and his campaign are slow to grasp that every word uttered by a candidate in public is captured in amber by the joy of modern videotaping and internet distribution.

My friends, I think the man is fucked.

user-pic

Clinton/Dole 1996? Clinton didn't even get 50% of the vote...why not shoot for something worth while like Regan/Mondale 84 or Bush/The guy with the eyebrows 88.

user-pic

McCain has been a disaster for the republicans. Everyone thought he would be the most formidable, most electable guy but he's really turned in a bad performance. I actually feel kind of sorry for the guy.

The republicans should have gone with Mittens.

user-pic

I agree that Romney would have been a 'better' candidate for the Republicans. But I truly suspect that the Republicans so no chance at all at winning the White House in 2008, so they put their 'support' behind McCain to make his fall from the party ranks that much bigger. Think about it---when the Republicans get crushed in the fall, they can blame it all on that 'liberal' conservative, John McCain.

I'm fully expecting the Repubs to come to the conclusion at some point here that McCain is not the candidate he thought he would be and they will find an excuse to pull him before August.

user-pic

"Clarification" of McCain's comments arriving in reporters inboxes in 3, 2, 1...

If you turn up the volume high enough on the video, you can hear his publicist sobbing in frustration.

John McCain is connecting with younger voters!

"I want to stay in Iraq for - a millie - a millie - a millie - a millie..."

...I simply can't imagine that the nominee of a major party could be this bad!

Really? Did you forget Gore and Kerry already? Or Mondale, Dukakis, and Dole? Bad candidates really aren't that rare.

If you consider that George H. W. Bush and George W Bush beat three (or two depending on your perspective) of those candidates you might come to the conclusion that bad candidates are the norm.

His clumsiness speaks for itself.

In substance, though, it should be pointed out that we are WELCOME in Korea, Japan, and Germany. (Maybe not so much in Japan).

At the very least, we're not occupiers of those countries.

user-pic

And the historical dynamic of the relationships with japan, korea and germany are completely and utterly different from the US history in the arab world. Arabs have hated westerners for centuries, going back to the crusades. On top of that hate, throw in the isreal situation, add "stealing" their oil, supporting despots and top it off with the invasion and occupation of an arab country based on lies. There is no gd way in a million years that the situation in iraq could ever be remotely like what mcbush keeps using as examples. Mcbush has to be on some type of mind altering drug.

This is so wrong both from a geopolitical strategic sense and basic domestic politics.

Geopolitics:
These guys refuse to admit that resentment of US presence in the Middle East is part of our problem. It's easier to think the bad guys are just evil and any non-evil person just welcomes us there.

But then again McCain has a deeper understanding and appreciation for Middle east politics than anyone else. He's been to Iraq, you know.

Domestic politics:
Families want their sons and daughters and fathers and mothers home. Period.

How many hundreds of billions are we willing to spend to keep our people over there indefinitely?

Perhaps his point is true in respect to our domestic politics, but he shows he doesn't take into account any broader perception of our actions. Once again, it's myopic tactics w/o strategy.

Strategy requires understanding, and understanding requires a degree of empathy (calculated, academic empathy, if you're averse to the squishy, emotional variety). McCain displays none of that. It seems to be Obama's starting point.

Again, who's naive?

It's not popular to say so, but we ARE occupiers in Japan and Germany. It's a relic of the Cold War when the leaders in those countries had only the choice of which of the two powers would occupy them.

And not so much in Korea, either. We've had major problems there and anti-US sentiment. Koreans on the street by-and-large are not unhappy with Americans, but rather grudgingly accept the military presence as a deterrent to any precipitous action by the North. There's still plenty of unhappiness among large segments of the population, though.

Funny Jolly but we disagree why this newest McCain gaffe won't get any media play. Contrary to Republican talking points, the media has a conservative bias!

user-pic

LMAO!...Stop!! You're killing me!!!

This is a tremendous gaffe, but even put fully in context, and viewed in the most favorable light possible, it is still indicative of how McCain just does not understand the Muslim world. This guy doesn't see the difference between a permanent American presence in a Germany, or South Korea, and a permanent American presence in the heart of the Muslim world??!! That is simply amazing to me. This moron actually believes American troops, tanks, aircraft, guns, etc., can live happily alongside some of the holiest sites in Islam, and not be a target, and not be the greatest recruiting tool our enemies ever could have hoped for?

Even people who support the War think we should eventually leave. Right?

I think McCain is just stupid enough to try and make this election about Iraq. Thank God.

I hate to beat that poor, old horse - but it's the same tired rationale that Bush has been peddaling. The Iraqi's want us there - "greeting us as Liberators and throwing roses at our feet."

To me, it's not just that he would seem to believe that we might be wanted there, but that might believe that the American public will still buy this rationale and agree to support another 100 years of our military there.

user-pic

Well, years ago McCain DID say we wouldn't be able to stay in Iraq because it's a Muslim country.

Hmmmmmmmm.

Exactly. Look at the reaction in Pakistan (Bush's ally on war on terror BS) for the long distance bombing yesterday. Even Saudis - Bush's buddies- kicked the US bases out. So, why would Iraqi's accept them ?

Sorry, here is the link on the recent Pakistan attack.

US MSM will not be reporting this.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/south_asia/7447608.stm

user-pic

To be fair, it's right on the front page in Yahoo:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080611/ts_nm/pakistan_attack_dc_4

user-pic

The follow up question for any time McCain says something like this would have to be something like:

"What changes would need to occur for American troops in Iraq to not be under constant attack by insurgent forces?"

I don't think many American's believe that there is any such thing as safety for our American troops in Iraq so McCain's entire point is just naive and idealistic (kinda like what he calls Obama).

Wow, imagine a family member over there and hearing this. Compassion is just overflowing. Who IS this guy, he has lost it.

wonder why no one ever mentions that we're paying Sunnis to be on the Awakening Councils. So, as long as we keep bribing one sectarian group, and al Sadr keeps his people on the sideline, everything's nice and secure.

it would be interesting to see how much we're actually paying the Sunnis . . .

On top of all this, he is implying that they will stay forever, just like Japan, Germany, etc. How many?? Again, "The Dementia Candidate". That is not said to be disrespectful, that is just the blatant truth.

Yes, that's the plan. Permanent military presence. 100 years, 1000 years...whatever. Timeline for bringing the troops home - not important. Protecting our regime there - important.

Exactly his position. And that's the one he's going to run on. He's saying he's going to "win" in Iraq by the end of his first term. The first debate should be very exciting.

the one thing i admired of the clinton campaign was how quickly they exploited a gaffe and made it so seroius that the news would carry it for weeks, even against a dem.

obama needs to pounce on this big. PLEASE!!!

Put the shovel down, Senator...

...we have a shiny new Backhoe that we think will fit down there with you!

We believe in your dream of plunging the Straight Talk Express into the earth's molten core.

Don't be fooled. He's not really this bad. He's just trying to fill us with a false sense of confidence.

Make no mistake, McCain has us right where he wants us.

TOP HEADLINE ON HUFF POST.

Haven't read a comment in the thread yet because I'm doing a "happy dance" in my chair here at work!!! Love to see this idiot work his "magic" on the trail!

McCain cant read well off of a prompter, but when he does he ISNT gaffe prone, its when he is talking off the cuff that he puts his foot in his mouth. thats why i dont think town hall style debates are to his advantage.

Even worse, he promises to veto beer.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lrvLsnV7No8

100 MORE YEARS! 100 MORE YEARS!

I'm not sure there is much difference between this one and the hundred years comment. McCain seems to be comfortable with the idea that American voters won't care whether we stay in Iraq and project power in the Middle East as long as the number of casualties we take is tolerable. He's going to keep making that point and we're going to keep objecting to it, and, finally, the voters are going to decide. The charge he's going to level at Obama is that the surge worked and Obama would have pulled out of Iraq when we didn't have to. McCain will say that pulling out of Iraq will be the first step in our getting run out of the Middle East. "Surrendering" the Middle East. It may not work, but it's consistent.

And this is exactly Bush's policy there - thus, McSame. It's clear that America is done with this plan. What is McCain offering that Bush wasn't able to achieve? Success? What exactly might that be? Obama's gonna push him hard on this.

Totally agree. What is McSame's evidence that the surge has "worked"? Violence is back to about where it was before the troop escalation, and the Iraqi government is more intransigent and resistant to our dictates than ever.

I don't know. I have the feeling I get when I can see checkmate coming in a chess game and can't see a way out of it. I just have this feeling that McCain is a throwaway. That they needed to run against an "anti-war" candidate, which they got to do, and we will withdraw from Iraq, and the Middle East will go to hell in a handbasket, which it would do no matter what, but we'll be stuck holding the bag, and here they'll come in 2012. Or maybe McCain can make his case that Iraq can be "won" and they hold off the collapse for four more years. Either way, we lose. At least we get to protect the liberal seats on the Supreme Court.

Billy: You think the Middle East hasn't ALREADY "gone to Hell in a hand basket"? Also, I think you may be underestimating the American public's dislike of this war. Correct me if I'm wrong, but upwards of 70+% of respondents say it was a mistake to invade and that we should get out.

I think you're right about that, but wrong about the post-surge level of violence, and especially about the level of attention the violence is getting in the US right now. McCain's argument is simple, really. Bush screwed up the occupation. When he started listening to me -- ie the "surge," our casulaties went down and we started winning the occupation. I'll finish the job by 2012. Most troops home victorious, our place in the ME secure. We'll keep taking some casualities, but that's the price of winning the war against the global Islamic jihad. Or words to that effect. I don't buy it, but I didn't vote for Bush ever.

Brilliant - It's not the war that's the problem, it's all the damn killing! If we can get that under control then we'll all be able to see just how well this war is really going. And THEN we'll finally realize the deep seated genius that put us there and kept us there for the last five plus years.

McCain is sniffing for vindication like a pig sniffs for truffles.

Yeah. These guys come out of the belief that it was a failure of the will of the American people that caused us to give up in Vietnam. You've probably seen that in Petraeus's field manual. And the received wisdom on that is that it's American casualties that cause us to get fed up with these occupations. He might get by with it if he could occupy with the regular forces. But the Guard and Reserves didn't sign on for that kind of duty. They're the draftees of the occupation, and it's hard to defend the idea of them taking casualties, no matter how few.

Well considering that the US is going to build 58 perminent bases in Iraq, I guess McCain is just toeing the company line.

This will just be a misspeak and shouldn't be attacked, of course bitter/clinging is already being used by the GOP.

I wonder why Obama isn't really attacking any of these McCain gaffes. Maybe he's saving them all up for one whopper of an ad closer to the election. I mean McCain has his "I hate war" ad that hasn't been rebutted yet as far as I know. You could take many of his previous statements, along with this newest one and juxtapose it with that ad very effectively, but there is nothing. Is there some smart youtube attacks that I am missing?

Mcfool may just develop a "health" issue before too long and pull out and give the GOP cover for the failings of putting together a credible campaign this fall. I put nothing beyond them and they will need a huge "cover" for why they lost the White House and gave the House and Senate huge majorities.

What a train wreck of a candidate this clown is.

My instinct is to want to deride the actions but respect the man... But I keep losing the battle with myself.

A question that might sound flip, but is not:

If these dimwitted gaffes by McCain continue to accumulate before the Republican Convention, is there even a chance that the GOP will toss him over the side in favor of another candidate?

user-pic

Two thoughts on that and it depends what the gop strategy is.

1. In answer to your question, yes. He could bail for "health" reasons and the gop could nominate someone else. This could happen if for some stupid reason the environment for republicans changes dramatically before the nomination, which I doubt, or the gop keeps buying their own bs about iraq and they believe that things are going swimmingly, possible.

2. No they won't. Mcbush will be the sacraficial lamb for this election and will get slaughtered. When he gets slaughtered any pull he has in the gop, which is minimal, will evaporate and the gop will be able to purge itself and become more "purely conservative."

I want to say something about this,...I really do! But what can you say about this old coot?

No surprise here. McCain didn't get where he is by being smart, he is after all a Republican. He advanced using a time-tested G.O.P. method... fellating the scaly peter of Beelzebub.

Obviously it's not too important. We haven't even been there 100 years yet. I don't see why everyone's getting so testy.

I've been saying the exact same thing for weeks now. McAnus will suddenly get sick. Too sick to continue. The RNC will intervene. And unless they have a say in his choice for VP, it probably will be some younger, (of course, that won't be too difficult), "electrifying" candidate that hasn't been fully vetted yet by the public.

Gaffe or not, I think that this is an attempt at shoring up the support of his military industrial complex lobbyist & donors, many of which donors have been getting tepid in their support. It says to them, "your no-bid contracts will remain secure throughout my presidency once I get in there." The heartland voters will construe his statement to mean that he is not a "quitter"...even if their own sons and daughter are dying fighting. That attitude is part and parcel of the American frontiersman DNA. That is why this country voted for Bush TWICE.

Anyone one who "knows the facts" or anyone who "ignores the facts"? Casualties are down ONLY because it coincided with Sadre's cease fire. As for the original mission of the surge, there is ZERO progress along that front.

I wonder why the media no longer points out what the original goals of the surge were. Kind of like how the media forgot the original reasons for the war.

user-pic

Couple other additions why it's down:

1. The us military bought and armed the sunni sheiks in anbar, which was occurring before the troop escalation. The us military basically gave control of anbar to the sunnis, which is what the sunnis were fighting for.

2. Baghdad neighborhoods have been ethnically cleansed, which was finished about mid escalation last year. The shiites drove the sunnis out of mixed neighborhoods and those that didn't leave were exterminated.

3. The us has ceded control of southern iraq to the shiite militias, financed and controled by iran.

Bottom line there are a host of reasons for the violence to be "down," but down is a relative term. It still is astronomically high, we just don't hear about it anymore. We need to get the f out of there yesterday.

That WHOLE interview is a ticking time bomb.

Kevin Drum said that Obama would ONLY ever be 5 points ahead of McCain though-out the entire election. Really! If McCain keeps giving answers to interviews like this one, he is going to be toast before he even out of the gate at first town meeting.

And this interveiw was stack because the Reporter says the "surge is working" (since when?) - and McCain's horribly cheap comment about "the facts on the ground," because most of us know the facts in Iraq are they are leaning heavily toward Iran for help these days. Straight talking McCain is beginning to show a severe and fateful penchant for lying, embroidering, exaggeration, whatever we called when Bush told these lies too. If only Republicans could do more that just lie all the time, Jeebus.

Oh and the casualties comment, wow - oh my gosh! "If Americans weren't dying - we could simply stay and pump the oil in Iraq fa EVER, ha ha, so funny - and Iraqi death tolls are what? Irrelevant I guess! I mean, WTF? If we aren't fighting how does McCain hope to attain Victory? What are we doing over there in Iraq?

Humpty Dumpty is seriously cracked and the GOP will NOT be able to fix this bad egg, if he keeps falling off the wall like he did with this interview. Are Republicans scared - well, they should be.

Bad as McCain is on Iraq, Obama has no standing to speak on the matter. None. It's not a good issue for him, because of all the policy areas on which Obama has no experience, Iraq is the most glaring. His qualifications consist of a single speech he made in 2002, a speech followed by--nothing.

Obama should give perfunctory attention to Iraq and try to run on the economy. (By the way--Barack himself is no stranger to gaffes. With their Hillary pinata in mothballs, troublemakers in the media will be looking to highlight a few of them.)

user-pic

Gee, I didn't realize there was a rule that candidates aren't allowed to speak about something unless they have "experience"! If only we'd known, we would have nominated Biden!

I know that in GOP circles, expertise is considered to be "just another opinion," no more valid than whatever Bush pulls out of his nether regions, but those of us who want good government know that you can actually learn about an area to become knowledgeable and make good policy about it. Better still, if "experience" isn't your only teacher, and you rely on advice from people with deep knowledge of the area rather than ones who like to think they're action heroes, you don't have to go through mistakes that get thousands of people killed in an unnecessary war to figure out the right answer, you actually have a good chance of figuring it out in advance.

user-pic

I wonder if it doesn't really matter who the GOP nominates. Daniel Pipes says that if Obama wins the election, Bush will attack Iran in November. And all the current administration needs is some counter-attack -- either by surprise or "look the other way" with a wink to the 9-11 truthers -- and Bush will declare Martial Law. You know he's got enough signing statements and executive orders to make such a move by mere whim.

Isn't Pipes some kind of nut job? I seem to associate him with the Obama is a Muslim crap.

user-pic

Yeah, he's a nut job. But by inference Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rice... geez, there's no end to it.. they're ALL nut jobs.
If you're a neoCon, you are by definition a nut job.
Pipes writes for the Jerusalem Post, and he's a bigshot at the Hoover Institution.

McCain is definitely a complete train wreck of a candidate, but make no mistake, the republicans are well aware of this as well.
Their strategy now is actually not to talk about what McCain WOULD do. It's to talk about what McCain WON'T do! It's not an attempt to make McCain look good, but rather to make Obama look bad. What's their economic plan? No one is really sure, but they just branded Obama as someone who will raise taxes. Romney was on CNN this morning repeating this several times, painting McCain as someone who will not raise taxes.
What is their strategy for Iraq? They don't have one, but big bad Obama will put the troops out and surrender, while McCain won't.
Even my mother, brainwashed by republican radio supports McCain... why? She doesn't actually have a clue about where he stands on anything... but she's been told that Obama is bad.

They are counting on the fact that they can scare enough people not to vote for Obama. I have a feeling that we have enough people who know the truth to sink this strategy, but just in case Obama has to reach out to these people and quick.

user-pic

McCain keeps trying, in his clumsy way, to declare "we're going to win and everything will be peaceful, and then our troops being there for decades will be just like Germany and Japan." But since no one but his hardcore supporters actually believes Iraq is going to be peaceful while we're occupying it, it keeps coming out sounding like he wants to keep fighting the war forever.

Of course, to get away from that, the question he really needs to answer is "what will you do if it doesn't get better," which he never will. He doesn't seem to realize how badly he's painted himself into a corner.

Leave a comment

Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address