Showing posts with label john mccain. Show all posts
Showing posts with label john mccain. Show all posts
Thursday, July 24, 2008
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Jack McCain Interviewed
By David Ausiello
GoMids.com
Posted Feb 13, 2008
A wonderful article about family, the Naval academy, and more - An Interview with Jack McCain at Scout.com.
Saturday, March 15, 2008
McCain Links
The first McCarnival for McCain ….. from McCainBlogs
Some people are saying they need a reason to vote for McCain. Well, if you are looking for a reason you can find several at Sanity102. Malia writes Give me a reason to vote for McCain, how’s this? She then cites several excellent reasons including his stance on entitlement programs, earmark and pork barrel spending and what I consider the most important reasons, our troops and the Global War on Terror.
If you need an enthusiastic reminder of why you are excited that John McCain will, in all likelihood, be our next Commander in Chief, then you might want to check out Colecurtis The McCain Monitor’s post titled: This Video Clip Never Ceases To Amaze But Inspire Me…He Is Still Here For A Reason. Vicki plays a video that most of us have seen before, but its good to see it again. She reminds us that sometimes we lose sight of the man when we get wrapped up in the politics and oration connected with a campaign. She gives us a reminder of who John McCain, the man, is. ‘Then from out of the crowd you hear a soft but confident voice …. ‘. Go read the rest.
Matt has The ad that is going to win the election. posted at McCainiac. He reminds us of the resistance that Churchill faces when he stood his ground against the Nazis. Its a good reminder of why we need to stand our ground against radical Islamic extremism.
The Marathon Pundit takes a hard look at Obama’s legislative record while he was an Illinois State Senator. In his post Obama’s state legislative record–he got a lot of help provides information on Obama’s starmaker, Emil Jones.
Fausta’s blog has a rather frightening comparison of the man Obama and the man McCain in The Great Non Sequitur. Do you really know who Obama is? What does Obama really offer us as opposed to what he says he offers us? Fausta has some thoughts and facts on that. Its pretty sobering.
The Median Sib gives a passionate and personal argument for why she hopes John McCain is the one who answers that now famous 3 a.m. phone call. In her post Clinton, McCain, Obama: Who do you want for president? she explains why she feels McCain has the integrity, experience, wisdom and courage to deal with whatever is on the other end of that phone call.
Pat at . . . With Both Hands writes a screenplay based on the tete-a-tete between John McCain and a New York Times reporter who apparently was trying to get an angry reaction from McCain. You remember the incident that was played repeatedly as McCain losing his temper. It was a non-starter. Pat plays it out as John McCain Beat the Press or A Man for All Snakes on a Plane
New York for McCain share the McCain profile on 60 Minutes…. Its really is a great profile and well worth watching and sharing with others.
You can find The First 5 of the Top 10 Reasons to be Leary of Barack Obama at the McCain Jewish Coalition of Illinois blog. This article is written from the perspective of why the Jewish community should be leary of Obama. Of course I can think of reasons for most communities to be leery of Obama. The reasons cited by Alan Weisz in this post are certainly applicable to all of us who are Jewish and Christian. Just as Neville Chamberlain believed he could talk to and work with the Nazis, Obama believes he can talk to, reason with and work with the Islamofascists. That naiveté is dangerous for us in the West in particular and for the world as a whole.
Lee Vogler offers us a very passionate and personal post in which he explains What John McCain Means to Me. Lee is a twenty-year-old who describes himself as a political guru (among other things). He uses his blog, Lee Vogler’s Political Points to give us ‘a campaign view from a college eye’. I found his post inspiring. I hope you will go read it.
Christopher Hedges wonders Could McCain Democrats Make The Difference? He relates to us that many Clinton supporters have said they will vote for McCain if Hillary isn’t the democratic nominee and compares them to Reagan democrats.
Still Stacy has a Lolobama for us to enjoy! She’s Still Stacy–Smarter Than The Average Blonde and calls her Lolobama OBAMAVELATION. If you frequent I Can Has Cheezburger? you’ll like this.
Over at 84rules, criticism of the 2005 “Gang of 14″ deal is under the microscope with The Base Is Wrong About The Gang Of 14, with the on-point reminder that if we Republicans lose the White House and don’t get back the Senate, the “nuclear” option will be used against us. (Remember the Coalition of the Chillin’? I was a charter member!)
Army wife (aka “Hooah Wife“) and real-life pal of mine Greta breaks out some video with Reason 7 gazillion to vote for John McCain, which she also posted at Louisiana Conservative. The video is funny, but it’s more realistic than I think the creators intended.
Another good friend, Shannon Nicki (she’s gonna kill me) from The Birthplace of the Process of Illogical Logic, mulls over the “Hussein” question with What’s in a name?, and decides that it’s probably better to just stick with referring to him as the more appropriate B.O. Bonus: Photoshoppy goodness!
Jefferson Poole at Blue Grass, Red State takes a thoughtful look at the Man in the Arena and is struck by its message, saying “the strength exhibited by extraordinary leaders of the past is demonstrated to be a necessity of the present for the health of the future.” He sees a bold and courageous leader as we’ve seen in years past with Teddy Roosevelt and Winston Churchill. That leader is Senator John McCain, and he is the right man for our time.
Economy and health care are two critical issues in this election, says Haydee Florez at America’s Best Choice. We Republicans may not talk about those issues as much as they do on the Left, but we should, as our candidate has the right solutions, which she outlines in her post.
Indiana University student J Will at The Wi11is says John McCain needs an internet video girl for guys like him, like Obama Girl and the others that he showcases in Annihilation Tuesday–a, shall we say, unconventional look at the online campaigns.
Over at Right Wing Nation, Rightwingprof speaks to my inner political wonk with some excellent analysis of polling data in Americans First, Americans Last, Americans Always. If he’s right (and I think he is), we’ll be in good shape in November.
MV08 blogroll-keeper Michael Schuyler of Reality Bytes deconstructs the opposition’s arguments with The Real Deal on the Tanker Deal, an issue that few really understand, while the opposition demagogues it to death. I’m glad he’s explained it, because all I’ve seen is left-wing attacks on McCain thus far. Knowledge is power!
James Carder, who writes at ELECTION 2008: Do We Need Change for the Sake of Change?, left the Republican Party in 2003 but he’s come home for John McCain, as I’m certain others will. James says Don’t Fault John McCain on Iraq - Just Be Thankful That He’s Still Around!, a piece that should appeal strongly to others who are disaffected with the Iraq war. Even though he’s opposed to the war, he understands that since we’re there, we need to finish the job the right way. James, as an independent, has the vote that all the candidates want–and he has chosen John McCain.
Right Wing Squadron’s Boomer asks about The New York Times - Why did they endorse John McCain when they had alleged “dirt” on him? I think that’s a question to which we probably know the real answer, but it’d be nice if there would ever be some honesty from the New York Times. If there were ever doubt that they’re all in for the Democrats, they’ve erased it.
The Old Grey Lady just keeps on trying to find something they can pin on McCain to ruin him. Our good friend, William Teach at The Pirate’s Cove uses a sports analogy to keep score on how the New York Times is doing in their quest to bring McCain down. First they were ‘just wondering’ if McCain had an affair. Then they got to wondering if McCain might not be eligible to run for President since he’d been born out of the country while his parents were serving in the military. Now the Grey Lady Is Just “Wondering” About McCain Getting Cancer Again. The Old Grey Lady keeps playing the same game and keeps losing.
Beth of MY Vast Right Wing Conspiracy is looking for a new church and is wondering if it matters what they believe and preach there. She says, I’ve found a church! and even though they preach against every thing she believes in that’s okay because she’s not responsible for what they believe. Sounds like twisted logic doesn’t it? Why, yes it does! She goes on to debunk the arguments of the many apologists of the hate-cult church that Barack Obama has chosen to attend for the past twenty years. You know … if it quacks like a duck ….. Go read her post. Its enlightening.
Beth at Blue Star Chronicles says that Obama Could Put an End to Destructive Racial Politics if He Had the Courage. She wonders why he doesn’t show the leadership and courage to speak openly and with conviction to his followers about their insistence that Obama should not be submitted to the same scrutiny as every other politician. That’s not the behavior of a leader. Its certainly not the behavior we expect to see in someone who aspires to be President of the United States.
-----------
More useful links...
Broad Side of the Barn
Purple People Vote
NH 4 McCain
Broad Side of the Barn Blog
Broad Store
McCain States
McCain Victory
Blogs 4 McCain
Web Inquiry
McCain Blogger Resources
Blogs for Victory
McCain Online Volunteer
SC for McCain
IA for McCain
Circle the Web
Rambling Web
Linked the Web
Sunday, February 24, 2008
Saturday, February 23, 2008
NYT Attacks Giuliani and McCain
The few people that I have seen come to the defense of the NYT have stated that they didn't think it was fair to say that the article was written with the intent to undermine the Republican nominee. The fact that the NYT smeared Mayor Giuliani only a few months ago then burried a retraction in the back of their paper adds to this theory, and explicitly shows their lack of integrity and journalistic chops. Some have noted that this story is unifying conservatives, but I think it also needs to be noted that people across the political spectrum are coming to the defense of Senator McCain. This article is an affront to fair minded people of all political persuasions. The Times itself admits,
"Personally, I was surprised by the volume of the reaction (including more than 2,400 reader comments posted on our Web site). I was surprised by how lopsided the opinion was against our decision, with readers who described themselves as independents and Democrats joining Republicans in defending Mr. McCain from what they saw as a cheap shot."
The NYT has shown repeatedly that it lacks credibility and is more than willing to run unsubstantiated drivel to sell a paper. Just look at how their effect on the Giuliani campaign...
------
Relevant reading...
The New York Times Would Like to Hear From You
Why the Left and the Right Should be Upset About the NYT Story
------
From - http://blogs4mccain.com/
"Personally, I was surprised by the volume of the reaction (including more than 2,400 reader comments posted on our Web site). I was surprised by how lopsided the opinion was against our decision, with readers who described themselves as independents and Democrats joining Republicans in defending Mr. McCain from what they saw as a cheap shot."
The NYT has shown repeatedly that it lacks credibility and is more than willing to run unsubstantiated drivel to sell a paper. Just look at how their effect on the Giuliani campaign...
------
Relevant reading...
The New York Times Would Like to Hear From You
Why the Left and the Right Should be Upset About the NYT Story
------
From - http://blogs4mccain.com/
Friday, February 15, 2008
John McCain Bio
One of the reasons many people have been won over to Senator McCain even when they don't agree with him on all issues is his incredible personal story. While most people know of his military service, I think some forget what a remarkable life he has lead. The following video illustrates some of the characteristic of Senator McCain that inspires many people to follow him.
From: http://purplepeoplevote.blogspot.com/
From: http://purplepeoplevote.blogspot.com/
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
McCain Blogger Call 2/13
Much of this blogger call revolved around the current state of the race. Should Huckabee get out? Who would Senator McCain choose as VP? How would he unite the party? The short answer is; he respects and likes Governor Huckabee it's up to him to decide whether he wants out; he hasn't started the selection process for VP yet; and he's working to unite the party. He mentioned that it takes some time after a primary as many people have worked passionately for their candidate, and can't be expected to immediately accept a different nominee. His CPAC speech and his increased support among self-identified conservatives was also noted.
One of the major topics of the call was the difference between Senator McCain and the Democrats on Iraq. He noted that there is a new bill that was recently passed in Baghdad that addresses some of the concerns about the budget and elections. He said how this illustrates that the Democrats were wrong about both the military and political aspects of the surge. The new bill shows political progress that many said was impossible. This also is similar to many of the statements by Democrats that military progress was impossible, showing them to be wrong on both fronts.
Another major topic was that of earmarks. Senator McCain reitterated his support of illiminating earmark spending and his dedication to vetoing any bill with earmarks attached. He mentioned that the Bridge to No Where has become more famous than the Brooklyn Bridge as it has become an icon of government waste.
Several callers congratulated him on recent primary wins one noting his incredible, and almost unbelievable, comeback. One blogger thanked Senator McCain for continuing to do blogger calls even after he had become the presumptive nominee. Senator McCain noted that bloggers were the only people willing to listen to him a few months ago, so he certainly wasn't going to bail on us now.
From: http://www.broadsideofthebarn.com/purplepeople.htm
One of the major topics of the call was the difference between Senator McCain and the Democrats on Iraq. He noted that there is a new bill that was recently passed in Baghdad that addresses some of the concerns about the budget and elections. He said how this illustrates that the Democrats were wrong about both the military and political aspects of the surge. The new bill shows political progress that many said was impossible. This also is similar to many of the statements by Democrats that military progress was impossible, showing them to be wrong on both fronts.
Another major topic was that of earmarks. Senator McCain reitterated his support of illiminating earmark spending and his dedication to vetoing any bill with earmarks attached. He mentioned that the Bridge to No Where has become more famous than the Brooklyn Bridge as it has become an icon of government waste.
Several callers congratulated him on recent primary wins one noting his incredible, and almost unbelievable, comeback. One blogger thanked Senator McCain for continuing to do blogger calls even after he had become the presumptive nominee. Senator McCain noted that bloggers were the only people willing to listen to him a few months ago, so he certainly wasn't going to bail on us now.
From: http://www.broadsideofthebarn.com/purplepeople.htm
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Monday, January 28, 2008
The Orlando Sentinel: McCain Displays “Leadership, Political Courage And Integrity.”
“Mr. McCain has proved himself a leader over decades, in the military and then in Congress. He has a strong grasp of public policy, especially national security and foreign affairs. But he has made a name for himself in his willingness to buck the powers that be in Washington, D.C. — including leaders in his own party and powerful special interests — for such causes as campaign-finance reform and responsible budgeting.
In this primary campaign, Mr. McCain has stuck by politically risky positions in favor of immigration reform and mandatory steps to fight global warming. His opposition to federal ethanol subsidies and support for phasing out all farm subsidies probably cost him any chance to win the Iowa caucuses.
Mr. McCain’s rejection of subsidies is rooted in his commitment to free trade, a key issue for Florida. Trade supports hundreds of thousands of jobs here and generates billions of dollars in sales for state companies and farmers.
As last week’s presidential debate in Boca Raton showed, Mr. McCain is not the most polished Republican candidate on the stump. That title goes to former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. But Mr. Romney’s evolution in recent years from a moderate to a conservative better aligned with GOP presidential primary voters raises doubts about his core beliefs and commitment to principle.
Like Mr. Romney, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee have executive governing experience that Mr. McCain lacks. But none measures up to Mr. McCain’s level of leadership, political courage and integrity.”
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/opinion/orl-ed28108jan28,0,4161101,print.story
First Posted at http://blogs4mccain.com/Friday, November 30, 2007
Curt Shilling Appearance Manchester, NH December 5th
Curt Schilling is coming to Manchester next Wednesday night to campaign with Senator McCain! Get your sports and politics questions fielded by a World Champion pitcher and Presidential candidate.
Wednesday, December 5th – 5:30pm
The Derryfield School Auditorium
2108 River Rd. – Manchester, NH
--------------------
Source: http://nh4mccain.blogspot.com/2007/11/curt-shilling-john-mccain-rally.html
Wednesday, December 5th – 5:30pm
The Derryfield School Auditorium
2108 River Rd. – Manchester, NH
--------------------
Source: http://nh4mccain.blogspot.com/2007/11/curt-shilling-john-mccain-rally.html
Thursday, November 29, 2007
McCain Debate Performance
From: http://politicomafioso.blogspot.com/2007/11/what-theyre-saying-about-mccain-at.html
"The bottom line is that I think McCain got his
message out tonight -- that he has the experience needed at this time in
history. In short, he was 'Presidential.'" -- Townhall's Matt
Lewis
Watch John McCain Tonight: "Let Us Win!"
John McCain Declared Debate Winner, "Most Presidential," "Awesome! Awesome! Awesome! Fight On!"
Townhall's Matt Lewis: "The bottom line is that I think McCain got his message out tonight -- that he has the experience needed at this time in history. In short, he was Presidential.'" (Matt Lewis, Townhall Blog, 11/28/07)
· Lewis: "I'm reading David McCullough's excellent book on Truman, so a lot of what McCain said rang true tonight. McCain's comment to Ron Paul about WWII and the danger of isolationism rang particularly true. In addition, his comment about the importance of America taking the high-road when it comes to torture also reminded me of the book." (Matt Lewis, Townhall Blog, 11/28/07)
CNN's David Gergen: "I think that the most presidential tonight were John McCain, who's found his voice again ... especially I thought on the issues of Iraq and on torture ..." (CNN Post-Debate Coverage, 11/28/07)
Redstate's Erick Erickson: "McCain won on scalps. He got Mitt Romney and he got Ron Paul. McCain was the adult in the room all night. He was stable, composed, and mature." (Erick Erickson, Redstate Blog, 11/28/07)
· Erickson: "McCain kicks ass on taking out Ron Paul. Awesome! Awesome! Awesome! Fight on!" (Erick Erickson, Redstate Blog, 11/28/07)
National Review's Jim Geraghty: "Is it just me, or is McCain dominating the debate tonight?" (Jim Geraghty, National Review's Campaign Spot Blog, 11/28/07)
CNN's Jamal Simmons: "I thought that John McCain clearly won this thing." (CNN Post-Debate Coverage, 11/28/07)
The Politico's Jonathan Martin: "McCain is really starting to look strong now that the conversation has moved onto national security. Beyond his answer to torture, his response about what really happened in Vietnam (contrary to what those blame-America-first types would have you believe) was red meat to every conservative in the crowd and at home who is over the age of 50." (Jonathan Martin, The Politico, 11/28/07)
Ankle Biting Pundit's Bull Dog Pundit: "The 'winner' tonight was John McCain with Mike Huckabee in second." (Bull Dog Pundit, Ankle Biting Pundit Blog, 11/28/07)
· Bull Dog Pundit: "McCain continues to impress the hell out of me with his assessment of Iraq and how it fits into the larger war on terrorism. I also wonder if he paid Ron Paul to make his usual stupid comments because McCain brilliantly played off of them to make his larger points on why the war in Iraq is necessary, and why it's necessary we win. His 'let us win' retort to Paul was brilliance, and is the 'sound bite' of the evening. It's hard to deny the man has so much credibility on the issue. He also seems to be the one who is trying to be 'above it all' in terms of playing 'gotcha' with his opponents and focusing on the big picture." (Bull Dog Pundit, Ankle Biting Pundit Blog, 11/28/07)
"God Bless John McCain" For "Stirring" Statement On Iraq War: "Let Us Win"
National Review's Kathryn Jean Lopez: "'Let us win,' the troops say. God bless John McCain. Ron Paul should have let it alone. Absurd to say John McCain doesn't understand this war. He's communicated our effort in Iraq better than the White House for a very long time. We owe him a debt." (Kathryn Jean Lopez, National Review's The Corner, 11/28/07)
The American Spectator's Philip Klein: "McCain's stirring on criticism of Ron Paul's opposition to Iraq and foreign policy views in general, delivered in a way that only he could, will play well with the base." (Philip Klein, The American Spectator Blog, 11/28/07)
Granite Grok's Skip Murphy: "McCain does a good job standing up for people like me who realize that we are in the fight of our lives with those that want us dead. McCain understands, better than anyone else, we have to actively fight these folks with everything we have -- and not just militarily. ... [Y]ou can tell that he is the real deal on this subject -- and I will stand with him on this issue to the gates of hell and to the Pearly Gates. He ripped Paul up and down -- good for him." (Skip Murphy, Granite Grok Blog, 11/28/07)
"McCain Shines" Tonight As He "Triumphed" On Experience, Torture And Spending Issues
Townhall's Mary Katharine Ham: "McCain shines, as always, on spending and the war. He's right, he's quick-witted, and he comes across as dead-sure ..." (Mary Katharine Ham, Townhall Blog, 11/28/07)
Townhall's Matt Lewis: "McCain's answer to the question about the Vice President was very good. He was able to seamlessly segue into his real message -- that he has the most foreign policy experience -- and thus, wouldn't need to rely on a VP to the same degree Bush did." (Matt Lewis, Townhall Blog, 11/28/07)
National Review's Jim Geraghty: "McCain said that Bush had to rely on Cheney for expertise on national security issues after 9/11. Says he himself would never need to rely on his veep in this area. Ooooh." (Jim Geraghty, National Review's Campaign Spot Blog, 11/28/07)
MSNBC's Mark Murray: "Did that just become the lead of tonight's debate? It sure looked like McCain triumphed in that exchange. But to fair, it was a question that McCain -- the former POW -- was going to win no matter what." (Mark Murray, MSNBC's First Read Blog, 11/28/07)
National Review's Kathryn Jean Lopez: "You can't help but to respect and admire McCain." (Kathryn Jean Lopez, National Review's The Corner, 11/28/07)
· Lopez: "The Unspoken Truth ... John McCain doesn't own a gun because he's put in more time protecting and defending freedom on the frontlines than most of us will mercifully ever know." (Kathryn Jean Lopez, National Review's The Corner, 11/28/07)
The Atlantic's Andrew Sullivan: "McCain came out of the exchange easily the most appealing and mature candidate." (Andrew Sullivan, The Atlantic Blog, 11/28/07)
Tampa Tribune: "'We let spending lurch completely out of control,' McCain says. Lays out a joke about spending money to study bear DNA in Montana. 'Not sure if it was paternity issue or a criminal issue.' Best laugh of the night." (Billy Townsend, Tampa Tribune Blog, 11/28/07)
National Review's Jonah Goldberg: "I think his immigration answer was grown-up and serious." (Jonah Goldberg, National Review's The Corner, 11/28/07)
The American Spectator's Jennifer Rubin: "McCain oozes credibility and seriousness on controlling spending." (Jennifer Rubin, The American Spectator Blog, 11/28/07)
"The bottom line is that I think McCain got his
message out tonight -- that he has the experience needed at this time in
history. In short, he was 'Presidential.'" -- Townhall's Matt
Lewis
Watch John McCain Tonight: "Let Us Win!"
John McCain Declared Debate Winner, "Most Presidential," "Awesome! Awesome! Awesome! Fight On!"
Townhall's Matt Lewis: "The bottom line is that I think McCain got his message out tonight -- that he has the experience needed at this time in history. In short, he was Presidential.'" (Matt Lewis, Townhall Blog, 11/28/07)
· Lewis: "I'm reading David McCullough's excellent book on Truman, so a lot of what McCain said rang true tonight. McCain's comment to Ron Paul about WWII and the danger of isolationism rang particularly true. In addition, his comment about the importance of America taking the high-road when it comes to torture also reminded me of the book." (Matt Lewis, Townhall Blog, 11/28/07)
CNN's David Gergen: "I think that the most presidential tonight were John McCain, who's found his voice again ... especially I thought on the issues of Iraq and on torture ..." (CNN Post-Debate Coverage, 11/28/07)
Redstate's Erick Erickson: "McCain won on scalps. He got Mitt Romney and he got Ron Paul. McCain was the adult in the room all night. He was stable, composed, and mature." (Erick Erickson, Redstate Blog, 11/28/07)
· Erickson: "McCain kicks ass on taking out Ron Paul. Awesome! Awesome! Awesome! Fight on!" (Erick Erickson, Redstate Blog, 11/28/07)
National Review's Jim Geraghty: "Is it just me, or is McCain dominating the debate tonight?" (Jim Geraghty, National Review's Campaign Spot Blog, 11/28/07)
CNN's Jamal Simmons: "I thought that John McCain clearly won this thing." (CNN Post-Debate Coverage, 11/28/07)
The Politico's Jonathan Martin: "McCain is really starting to look strong now that the conversation has moved onto national security. Beyond his answer to torture, his response about what really happened in Vietnam (contrary to what those blame-America-first types would have you believe) was red meat to every conservative in the crowd and at home who is over the age of 50." (Jonathan Martin, The Politico, 11/28/07)
Ankle Biting Pundit's Bull Dog Pundit: "The 'winner' tonight was John McCain with Mike Huckabee in second." (Bull Dog Pundit, Ankle Biting Pundit Blog, 11/28/07)
· Bull Dog Pundit: "McCain continues to impress the hell out of me with his assessment of Iraq and how it fits into the larger war on terrorism. I also wonder if he paid Ron Paul to make his usual stupid comments because McCain brilliantly played off of them to make his larger points on why the war in Iraq is necessary, and why it's necessary we win. His 'let us win' retort to Paul was brilliance, and is the 'sound bite' of the evening. It's hard to deny the man has so much credibility on the issue. He also seems to be the one who is trying to be 'above it all' in terms of playing 'gotcha' with his opponents and focusing on the big picture." (Bull Dog Pundit, Ankle Biting Pundit Blog, 11/28/07)
"God Bless John McCain" For "Stirring" Statement On Iraq War: "Let Us Win"
National Review's Kathryn Jean Lopez: "'Let us win,' the troops say. God bless John McCain. Ron Paul should have let it alone. Absurd to say John McCain doesn't understand this war. He's communicated our effort in Iraq better than the White House for a very long time. We owe him a debt." (Kathryn Jean Lopez, National Review's The Corner, 11/28/07)
The American Spectator's Philip Klein: "McCain's stirring on criticism of Ron Paul's opposition to Iraq and foreign policy views in general, delivered in a way that only he could, will play well with the base." (Philip Klein, The American Spectator Blog, 11/28/07)
Granite Grok's Skip Murphy: "McCain does a good job standing up for people like me who realize that we are in the fight of our lives with those that want us dead. McCain understands, better than anyone else, we have to actively fight these folks with everything we have -- and not just militarily. ... [Y]ou can tell that he is the real deal on this subject -- and I will stand with him on this issue to the gates of hell and to the Pearly Gates. He ripped Paul up and down -- good for him." (Skip Murphy, Granite Grok Blog, 11/28/07)
"McCain Shines" Tonight As He "Triumphed" On Experience, Torture And Spending Issues
Townhall's Mary Katharine Ham: "McCain shines, as always, on spending and the war. He's right, he's quick-witted, and he comes across as dead-sure ..." (Mary Katharine Ham, Townhall Blog, 11/28/07)
Townhall's Matt Lewis: "McCain's answer to the question about the Vice President was very good. He was able to seamlessly segue into his real message -- that he has the most foreign policy experience -- and thus, wouldn't need to rely on a VP to the same degree Bush did." (Matt Lewis, Townhall Blog, 11/28/07)
National Review's Jim Geraghty: "McCain said that Bush had to rely on Cheney for expertise on national security issues after 9/11. Says he himself would never need to rely on his veep in this area. Ooooh." (Jim Geraghty, National Review's Campaign Spot Blog, 11/28/07)
MSNBC's Mark Murray: "Did that just become the lead of tonight's debate? It sure looked like McCain triumphed in that exchange. But to fair, it was a question that McCain -- the former POW -- was going to win no matter what." (Mark Murray, MSNBC's First Read Blog, 11/28/07)
National Review's Kathryn Jean Lopez: "You can't help but to respect and admire McCain." (Kathryn Jean Lopez, National Review's The Corner, 11/28/07)
· Lopez: "The Unspoken Truth ... John McCain doesn't own a gun because he's put in more time protecting and defending freedom on the frontlines than most of us will mercifully ever know." (Kathryn Jean Lopez, National Review's The Corner, 11/28/07)
The Atlantic's Andrew Sullivan: "McCain came out of the exchange easily the most appealing and mature candidate." (Andrew Sullivan, The Atlantic Blog, 11/28/07)
Tampa Tribune: "'We let spending lurch completely out of control,' McCain says. Lays out a joke about spending money to study bear DNA in Montana. 'Not sure if it was paternity issue or a criminal issue.' Best laugh of the night." (Billy Townsend, Tampa Tribune Blog, 11/28/07)
National Review's Jonah Goldberg: "I think his immigration answer was grown-up and serious." (Jonah Goldberg, National Review's The Corner, 11/28/07)
The American Spectator's Jennifer Rubin: "McCain oozes credibility and seriousness on controlling spending." (Jennifer Rubin, The American Spectator Blog, 11/28/07)
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
John McCain Returns to New Hampshire
Senator McCain will be returning to New Hampshire next week with a series of campaign events and town hall meetings. Note 'Upcoming Events' section for details.
Tonight is the Republican YouTube Debate. Click to see clips of the Republican YouTube Debate.
Cross Posted from http://nh4mccain.blogspot.com/2007/11/john-mccain-returns-to-new-hampshire.html
Monday, November 26, 2007
Sunday, November 25, 2007
McCain Pounds Clinton on Iraq
From Politico
http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=782D24D3-3048-5C12-00BE624BB8A56090
By: John Bresnahan
November 25, 2007 05:37 PM EST
Iraq and electability once again dominated the Sunday talk shows as the race for the White House kicked into high gear, less than six weeks before the Iowa caucuses.
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), fresh off his latest visit to Iraq, told This Week’s George Stephanopoulos that “significant progress” is being made in reducing sectarian violence thanks to President Bush’s decision to send an additional 30,000 U.S. combat troops to the war zone.
McCain, who is trying to ride the improved security situation in Iraq to an improved standing in the polls, took shots at several Democratic candidates, including Sen. Hillary Clinton (N.Y.) and former Sen. John Edwards (N.C.), for their suggestion that the United States should begin withdrawing its forces from Iraq soon.
“Is that the same Sen. Clinton that said she had to suspend disbelief in order to acknowledge to that the strategy of the surge was succeeding?” McCain said in reference to Clinton’s statement that the United States should stop trying to intervene in a “civil war” in Iraq. “Clearly, it’s succeeding. You would have to suspend disbelief to believe that it’s not.”
McCain later said Clinton’s support for a phased withdrawal from Iraq “would have been a catastrophe for the United States of America.”
“Look, now the same people who were saying seven or eight months were saying you can’t succeed militarily, we’ve succeeded military. Sen. Edwards used to call it the ‘McCain strategy.’ He doesn’t call it that anymore,” McCain claimed. “Their record is wrong on this. My record is right.”
But on the same ABC program, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson (D), who has advocated a complete U.S. withdrawal from Iraq, pointed out that dozens of Americans continue to be killed every month in Iraq, in spite of a lower overall level of violence.
Richardson, like other Democratic candidates and party leaders on Capitol Hill, also noted that there has not been significant political progress inside Iraq among competing Sunni, Shiite and Kurdish factions.
“Progress shouldn’t be measured by casualty counts, by body counts,” Richardson said. “There is no military solution to the war in Iraq. There is a political solution. And there’s little [political] progress.”
“I believe that no American death is worthy of saying the body count has gone down,” Richardson added.
On Fox News Sunday, the Iraq conflict, and U.S. plans for the future there, also provoked a sharp exchange between Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), a member of the panel.
Levin and other Democrats have refused to provide Bush with an additional $200 billion to conduct military campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan during 2008, saying the president should not get the money unless he agrees to a “goal” of withdrawing most U.S. combat forces by Dec. 15, 2008.
Graham has been one of Bush’s staunchest supporters on the way and wants the new funds approved promptly.
“I think history will judge the surge as probably the most successful counterinsurgency operations in history,” Graham said. Graham accompanied McCain on the Thanksgiving trip to Iraq. “We’re on the right track with the surge.”
But Levin, like Richardson, echoed the Democratic line that the Bush surge has not brought about political reconciliation inside Iraq.
“The president’s policy very specifically had as its purpose . . . to give the Iraqi leaders breathing space to work out a political settlement, and that purpose has not been achieved,” Levin said. “Why in the name of heaven are we not willing to at least establish a goal for the removal of most of our troops?”
Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, who has risen to second place in the GOP polls in Iowa behind former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, got the Sunday show treatment on CNN’s Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer.
Under questioning by Blitzer, Huckabee slammed Romney for changing his views on hot-button social issues. Huckabee said Romney’s shifts were a major reason he has closed to within four points of Romney in Iowa, according to a Washington Post-ABC News poll.
“Mitt has changed his position. He has been all over the board. But my conservatism has been consistent,” Huckabee said.
“When he was pro-abortion, I was still pro-life and always have been. When he was for gun control, I was against it. When he was against the Bush tax cuts, I was for them. When he was against Ronald Reagan's legacy and said he wasn't a part of that Bush-Reagan thing, I was a part of that Bush- Reagan thing.
“So it is not just about where we are now, it is where we have been and where we can be predicted to be if we are elected president,” Huckabee added. “People are looking for not just authenticity, but consistency. And that is one of the reasons that my numbers are surging, not only in Iowa, but in the other states as well.”
Huckabee responded to Romney’s charge that he was soft on illegal immigration, specifically for supporting tuition breaks for the children of illegal immigrants, stating that it was not his policy to “punish the children of those who break the law.”
Former Sen. Fred Thompson (R-Tenn.), during an appearance on Fox News Sunday, defended his campaign for the White House, as well as his support for allowing states to decide their own policies on abortion by repealing Roe v. Wade.
Thompson opposes efforts to enact a constitutional amendment to ban abortion, arguing that the effort is bound to fail because the proposal cannot garner enough support in Congress or the states to be enacted.
Instead, Thompson would like to see Roe abolished, allowing states to impose laws banning abortion, and thus shifting the abortion battle, in Thompson’s view, to those states that would retain access to abortion. “The game would be on the pro-life side,” Thompson said.
“What the situation is now is as follows — because of Roe v. Wade, all states are restricted from passing rules that they would maybe like to pass with regard to this area,” Thompson added. “If you abolish Roe v. Wade, you’re going to allow every state to pass reasonable rules they might see fit to pass.”
Thompson, who unveiled a new tax cut plan on Sunday to go along with his previous release of a Social Security reform proposal, even lashed out a Fox News during his appearance.
"This has been a constant mantra of Fox, to tell you the truth,” Thompson said when asked by Fox’s Chris Wallace if he is really running hard for the White House. Numerous conservative commentators on Fox and elsewhere have questioned Thompson's will to win and his work ethic.
“From Day One, they said I got in too late, I couldn't do it ... wouldn't raise enough money, and that sort of thing. And that's their opinion. They're entitled to their opinion. But that doesn't seem to be shared by the cross section of American people. If you look at the national polls, you'll see that I'm running second and have been running second for a long time."
http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=782D24D3-3048-5C12-00BE624BB8A56090
By: John Bresnahan
November 25, 2007 05:37 PM EST
Iraq and electability once again dominated the Sunday talk shows as the race for the White House kicked into high gear, less than six weeks before the Iowa caucuses.
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), fresh off his latest visit to Iraq, told This Week’s George Stephanopoulos that “significant progress” is being made in reducing sectarian violence thanks to President Bush’s decision to send an additional 30,000 U.S. combat troops to the war zone.
McCain, who is trying to ride the improved security situation in Iraq to an improved standing in the polls, took shots at several Democratic candidates, including Sen. Hillary Clinton (N.Y.) and former Sen. John Edwards (N.C.), for their suggestion that the United States should begin withdrawing its forces from Iraq soon.
“Is that the same Sen. Clinton that said she had to suspend disbelief in order to acknowledge to that the strategy of the surge was succeeding?” McCain said in reference to Clinton’s statement that the United States should stop trying to intervene in a “civil war” in Iraq. “Clearly, it’s succeeding. You would have to suspend disbelief to believe that it’s not.”
McCain later said Clinton’s support for a phased withdrawal from Iraq “would have been a catastrophe for the United States of America.”
“Look, now the same people who were saying seven or eight months were saying you can’t succeed militarily, we’ve succeeded military. Sen. Edwards used to call it the ‘McCain strategy.’ He doesn’t call it that anymore,” McCain claimed. “Their record is wrong on this. My record is right.”
But on the same ABC program, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson (D), who has advocated a complete U.S. withdrawal from Iraq, pointed out that dozens of Americans continue to be killed every month in Iraq, in spite of a lower overall level of violence.
Richardson, like other Democratic candidates and party leaders on Capitol Hill, also noted that there has not been significant political progress inside Iraq among competing Sunni, Shiite and Kurdish factions.
“Progress shouldn’t be measured by casualty counts, by body counts,” Richardson said. “There is no military solution to the war in Iraq. There is a political solution. And there’s little [political] progress.”
“I believe that no American death is worthy of saying the body count has gone down,” Richardson added.
On Fox News Sunday, the Iraq conflict, and U.S. plans for the future there, also provoked a sharp exchange between Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), a member of the panel.
Levin and other Democrats have refused to provide Bush with an additional $200 billion to conduct military campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan during 2008, saying the president should not get the money unless he agrees to a “goal” of withdrawing most U.S. combat forces by Dec. 15, 2008.
Graham has been one of Bush’s staunchest supporters on the way and wants the new funds approved promptly.
“I think history will judge the surge as probably the most successful counterinsurgency operations in history,” Graham said. Graham accompanied McCain on the Thanksgiving trip to Iraq. “We’re on the right track with the surge.”
But Levin, like Richardson, echoed the Democratic line that the Bush surge has not brought about political reconciliation inside Iraq.
“The president’s policy very specifically had as its purpose . . . to give the Iraqi leaders breathing space to work out a political settlement, and that purpose has not been achieved,” Levin said. “Why in the name of heaven are we not willing to at least establish a goal for the removal of most of our troops?”
Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, who has risen to second place in the GOP polls in Iowa behind former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, got the Sunday show treatment on CNN’s Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer.
Under questioning by Blitzer, Huckabee slammed Romney for changing his views on hot-button social issues. Huckabee said Romney’s shifts were a major reason he has closed to within four points of Romney in Iowa, according to a Washington Post-ABC News poll.
“Mitt has changed his position. He has been all over the board. But my conservatism has been consistent,” Huckabee said.
“When he was pro-abortion, I was still pro-life and always have been. When he was for gun control, I was against it. When he was against the Bush tax cuts, I was for them. When he was against Ronald Reagan's legacy and said he wasn't a part of that Bush-Reagan thing, I was a part of that Bush- Reagan thing.
“So it is not just about where we are now, it is where we have been and where we can be predicted to be if we are elected president,” Huckabee added. “People are looking for not just authenticity, but consistency. And that is one of the reasons that my numbers are surging, not only in Iowa, but in the other states as well.”
Huckabee responded to Romney’s charge that he was soft on illegal immigration, specifically for supporting tuition breaks for the children of illegal immigrants, stating that it was not his policy to “punish the children of those who break the law.”
Former Sen. Fred Thompson (R-Tenn.), during an appearance on Fox News Sunday, defended his campaign for the White House, as well as his support for allowing states to decide their own policies on abortion by repealing Roe v. Wade.
Thompson opposes efforts to enact a constitutional amendment to ban abortion, arguing that the effort is bound to fail because the proposal cannot garner enough support in Congress or the states to be enacted.
Instead, Thompson would like to see Roe abolished, allowing states to impose laws banning abortion, and thus shifting the abortion battle, in Thompson’s view, to those states that would retain access to abortion. “The game would be on the pro-life side,” Thompson said.
“What the situation is now is as follows — because of Roe v. Wade, all states are restricted from passing rules that they would maybe like to pass with regard to this area,” Thompson added. “If you abolish Roe v. Wade, you’re going to allow every state to pass reasonable rules they might see fit to pass.”
Thompson, who unveiled a new tax cut plan on Sunday to go along with his previous release of a Social Security reform proposal, even lashed out a Fox News during his appearance.
"This has been a constant mantra of Fox, to tell you the truth,” Thompson said when asked by Fox’s Chris Wallace if he is really running hard for the White House. Numerous conservative commentators on Fox and elsewhere have questioned Thompson's will to win and his work ethic.
“From Day One, they said I got in too late, I couldn't do it ... wouldn't raise enough money, and that sort of thing. And that's their opinion. They're entitled to their opinion. But that doesn't seem to be shared by the cross section of American people. If you look at the national polls, you'll see that I'm running second and have been running second for a long time."
Friday, November 23, 2007
Boston Herald - Thanksgiving
By Wayne Woodlief Thursday, November 22, 2007 http://www.bostonherald.com
McCain Tops the List of Thankworthy
Character, Conviction Personified
Today’s the day again to thank all the pols and pundits who’ve made me think anew or laugh or sometimes shout. Some have been outrageous, some have been straight arrows, but none that I’m grateful for has been dull.
I’m most thankful for Sen. John McCain, the one candidate for president who stands up for what he believes and says it plain, regardless of the political cost.
He’s ardently backed the troop surge in Iraq (losing some independent support along the way) even as he rebuked President Bush for not sending in more troops when the war first began, as McCain had advocated.
He stuck by the doomed immigration bill he co-authored with Sen. Edward Kennedy, though it cost him deeply among the conservative and important Republican Iowa caucus electorate. Yet that compromise bill was the closest we’ve come - or may come - to a solution that would both secure our national borders and open a path toward citizenship for illegal immigrants. For all the screaming and degradation of McCain by the hard-righters, why haven’t they found an answer?
The Arizonan has bucked the president on torture and on those so-called “signing statements” by which Bush asserts he can disobey whatever parts of bills passed by Congress that he chooses, without vetoing them.
He has heart and fortitude. McCain was given up for dead a few months ago when his presidential campaign had overspent and was in disarray. Yet he is rising again as he focuses on the New Hampshire primary, where an upset of Mitt Romney would catapult McCain forward. Already, he has passed Fred Thompson, is edging by Rudy Giuliani for second place and has Romney in his sights in the Granite State.
In the latest Fox News poll, voters nationally also rate McCain as the Republicans’ best hope against Hillary Clinton. In trial heats, Clinton beats Giuliani by 4 percentage points, Thompson by 9 and Romney by 13. But she and McCain are in a virtual tie, with the former first lady at 46 percent and McCain at 45 percent.
So keep telling it straight, brother McCain. You could win this thing yet. And even if you lose, you’ll feel better about yourself.
Reprinted from: http://www.bostonherald.com/news/opinion/op_ed/view.bg?articleid=1046301&format=text
McCain Tops the List of Thankworthy
Character, Conviction Personified
Today’s the day again to thank all the pols and pundits who’ve made me think anew or laugh or sometimes shout. Some have been outrageous, some have been straight arrows, but none that I’m grateful for has been dull.
I’m most thankful for Sen. John McCain, the one candidate for president who stands up for what he believes and says it plain, regardless of the political cost.
He’s ardently backed the troop surge in Iraq (losing some independent support along the way) even as he rebuked President Bush for not sending in more troops when the war first began, as McCain had advocated.
He stuck by the doomed immigration bill he co-authored with Sen. Edward Kennedy, though it cost him deeply among the conservative and important Republican Iowa caucus electorate. Yet that compromise bill was the closest we’ve come - or may come - to a solution that would both secure our national borders and open a path toward citizenship for illegal immigrants. For all the screaming and degradation of McCain by the hard-righters, why haven’t they found an answer?
The Arizonan has bucked the president on torture and on those so-called “signing statements” by which Bush asserts he can disobey whatever parts of bills passed by Congress that he chooses, without vetoing them.
He has heart and fortitude. McCain was given up for dead a few months ago when his presidential campaign had overspent and was in disarray. Yet he is rising again as he focuses on the New Hampshire primary, where an upset of Mitt Romney would catapult McCain forward. Already, he has passed Fred Thompson, is edging by Rudy Giuliani for second place and has Romney in his sights in the Granite State.
In the latest Fox News poll, voters nationally also rate McCain as the Republicans’ best hope against Hillary Clinton. In trial heats, Clinton beats Giuliani by 4 percentage points, Thompson by 9 and Romney by 13. But she and McCain are in a virtual tie, with the former first lady at 46 percent and McCain at 45 percent.
So keep telling it straight, brother McCain. You could win this thing yet. And even if you lose, you’ll feel better about yourself.
Reprinted from: http://www.bostonherald.com/news/opinion/op_ed/view.bg?articleid=1046301&format=text
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
McCain Leads - and can Defeat Clinton
Washington Post --Dan Balz
Sunday night speeches rarely get much attention but the address John McCain delivered in New Hampshire last night deserves a closer look. It was his most cogent argument for why he should be the Republican nominee and a blueprint for how he would run against Hillary Clinton, if she were the Democratic candidate.
McCain couched his criticisms of the Democratic front-runner in civil tones, eschewing some of the hotter rhetoric coming forth from other Republican candidates and particularly from GOP partisans anxious to demonize her. "I intend this to be a respectful debate," McCain said. "She and I disagree over America's direction, and it is a serious disagreement. But I don't doubt her ability to lead this country where she thinks it should go."
That said, McCain proceeded to draw a series of bright and highly unflattering distinctions between the two of them -- in their worldview, in their approach to government's role in health care and the economy and especially on two of the most difficult issues likely to face the next president, Iraq and Iran.
McCain promised a respectful debate, but he was scornful of Clinton's position on Iraq. He implied that she had voted for the 2002 resolution authorizing the war because of polls and that she has abandoned that position because the war has become highly unpopular.
"I wouldn't surrender when we can still succeed, and accept the terrible consequences that would ensue, because I feared the polls more than history's judgment," he said, according to the prepared text of his remarks.
McCain recalled, critically, Clinton's comment to Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, during congressional testimony in September, when she said that his optimistic assessment of progress on the ground required "the willful suspension of disbelief."
Instead, McCain said, it is Clinton who has suspended belief in the face of positive reports about the effect of the troop surge policy in Iraq. He accused her of succumbing to "her rivals and the fringe of her party" in allowing her to be jerked "toward a position she knows is irresponsible."
McCain stacked up his record against hers -- highlighting his opposition to the policies of former defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his advocacy for the surge policy proposed by President Bush and implemented this year by Petraeus. In contrast to Clinton, McCain suggested that he had taken the honorable but more difficult course.
"I took abuse from members of my own party -- some of it pretty tough -- for doing so," he said. "And I stuck by it knowing it could hurt my chances for the presidency. I did it for one reason: I would rather lose an election than stay silent and watch my country lose a war."
On Iran, he suggested that Clinton is mostly confused. He asserted that she once ruled out unconditional negotiations with the Iranians but now is willing to talk without preconditions. McCain said he would pursue vigorous diplomacy with others to apply pressure on the Iranians. In reality, it is not clear there is as much difference here as McCain suggests, but he portrayed his potential rival as naive if she were to follow the course he said she favors.
On other issues, McCain drew a contrast between his long record of fighting government waste against what he said is Clinton's belief in big government. "She'll have Washington assume more of your responsibilities and raise your taxes to pay for it," he said. "She won't address seriously the fiscal crisis of Social Security and Medicare or if she does she'll let congressional Democrats convince her to raise your taxes."
McCain was more circumspect about his plans for the two big entitlement programs, promising only to fix them without raising taxes. That leaves the choices as either potentially painful in terms of reduced benefits or fanciful through gimmickry and sleight-of-hand. He said he would, if Congress balked, force an up-or-down vote on his proposals. Bush learned on Social Security how hard that can be.
McCain said he and Clinton would have a major argument over health care -- as would any of the Republican candidates. Clinton favors universal coverage that would include a mandate for all individuals to purchase insurance. McCain said he would make health care "more accessible by making it more affordable."
McCain called hers a big government plan, while Clinton has argued that she would keep the bulk of the current system of private insurance in place. She and other Democrats have argued that Republicans are not serious about insuring everyone and are not willing to put enough additional money into the system to achieve real success.
There were other areas of disagreement, from judicial appointments to reforming and expanding the military, which McCain cited in his speech at Franklin Pierce University. Boiled down to its essence, he said he offers one direction and she offers an alternative that he believes "is absolutely wrong for America and wrong for the world."
What McCain said about himself, however, may be the more important part of the speech, given that his campaign still faces serious obstacles en route to the nomination. Without speaking about his GOP rivals, McCain portrayed himself as the most equipped to deal with a hostile world and the conservative with the best chance of defeating Clinton.
"On matters of war and peace," he said, "I offer Americans my experience, my personal familiarity with the tragedy of war, deep involvement in all of the national security issues of the last two decades and steadfast conviction that America cannot afford to relinquish its leadership of the world and the world can't afford it either."
McCain's speech came hours before Rudy Giuliani was to launch a new television ad extolling his experience in crisis management as without parallel in the presidential race. The Arizona senator begged to differ. "No other candidate," he said, "has my experience or the judgment it informs."
McCain must spend the next eight weeks repeating that argument over and over again as he campaigns to win the New Hampshire primary. Should he succeed, he might yet have the opportunity to demonstrate whether it is possible to run both a courteous and vigorous general election campaign. As he showed on Sunday, the differences between the parties are huge and the stakes high. The choice, he said, "couldn't be a bigger one."
Reprint from http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2007/11/19/mccain_experience_no_one_else.html
Sunday night speeches rarely get much attention but the address John McCain delivered in New Hampshire last night deserves a closer look. It was his most cogent argument for why he should be the Republican nominee and a blueprint for how he would run against Hillary Clinton, if she were the Democratic candidate.
McCain couched his criticisms of the Democratic front-runner in civil tones, eschewing some of the hotter rhetoric coming forth from other Republican candidates and particularly from GOP partisans anxious to demonize her. "I intend this to be a respectful debate," McCain said. "She and I disagree over America's direction, and it is a serious disagreement. But I don't doubt her ability to lead this country where she thinks it should go."
That said, McCain proceeded to draw a series of bright and highly unflattering distinctions between the two of them -- in their worldview, in their approach to government's role in health care and the economy and especially on two of the most difficult issues likely to face the next president, Iraq and Iran.
McCain promised a respectful debate, but he was scornful of Clinton's position on Iraq. He implied that she had voted for the 2002 resolution authorizing the war because of polls and that she has abandoned that position because the war has become highly unpopular.
"I wouldn't surrender when we can still succeed, and accept the terrible consequences that would ensue, because I feared the polls more than history's judgment," he said, according to the prepared text of his remarks.
McCain recalled, critically, Clinton's comment to Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, during congressional testimony in September, when she said that his optimistic assessment of progress on the ground required "the willful suspension of disbelief."
Instead, McCain said, it is Clinton who has suspended belief in the face of positive reports about the effect of the troop surge policy in Iraq. He accused her of succumbing to "her rivals and the fringe of her party" in allowing her to be jerked "toward a position she knows is irresponsible."
McCain stacked up his record against hers -- highlighting his opposition to the policies of former defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his advocacy for the surge policy proposed by President Bush and implemented this year by Petraeus. In contrast to Clinton, McCain suggested that he had taken the honorable but more difficult course.
"I took abuse from members of my own party -- some of it pretty tough -- for doing so," he said. "And I stuck by it knowing it could hurt my chances for the presidency. I did it for one reason: I would rather lose an election than stay silent and watch my country lose a war."
On Iran, he suggested that Clinton is mostly confused. He asserted that she once ruled out unconditional negotiations with the Iranians but now is willing to talk without preconditions. McCain said he would pursue vigorous diplomacy with others to apply pressure on the Iranians. In reality, it is not clear there is as much difference here as McCain suggests, but he portrayed his potential rival as naive if she were to follow the course he said she favors.
On other issues, McCain drew a contrast between his long record of fighting government waste against what he said is Clinton's belief in big government. "She'll have Washington assume more of your responsibilities and raise your taxes to pay for it," he said. "She won't address seriously the fiscal crisis of Social Security and Medicare or if she does she'll let congressional Democrats convince her to raise your taxes."
McCain was more circumspect about his plans for the two big entitlement programs, promising only to fix them without raising taxes. That leaves the choices as either potentially painful in terms of reduced benefits or fanciful through gimmickry and sleight-of-hand. He said he would, if Congress balked, force an up-or-down vote on his proposals. Bush learned on Social Security how hard that can be.
McCain said he and Clinton would have a major argument over health care -- as would any of the Republican candidates. Clinton favors universal coverage that would include a mandate for all individuals to purchase insurance. McCain said he would make health care "more accessible by making it more affordable."
McCain called hers a big government plan, while Clinton has argued that she would keep the bulk of the current system of private insurance in place. She and other Democrats have argued that Republicans are not serious about insuring everyone and are not willing to put enough additional money into the system to achieve real success.
There were other areas of disagreement, from judicial appointments to reforming and expanding the military, which McCain cited in his speech at Franklin Pierce University. Boiled down to its essence, he said he offers one direction and she offers an alternative that he believes "is absolutely wrong for America and wrong for the world."
What McCain said about himself, however, may be the more important part of the speech, given that his campaign still faces serious obstacles en route to the nomination. Without speaking about his GOP rivals, McCain portrayed himself as the most equipped to deal with a hostile world and the conservative with the best chance of defeating Clinton.
"On matters of war and peace," he said, "I offer Americans my experience, my personal familiarity with the tragedy of war, deep involvement in all of the national security issues of the last two decades and steadfast conviction that America cannot afford to relinquish its leadership of the world and the world can't afford it either."
McCain's speech came hours before Rudy Giuliani was to launch a new television ad extolling his experience in crisis management as without parallel in the presidential race. The Arizona senator begged to differ. "No other candidate," he said, "has my experience or the judgment it informs."
McCain must spend the next eight weeks repeating that argument over and over again as he campaigns to win the New Hampshire primary. Should he succeed, he might yet have the opportunity to demonstrate whether it is possible to run both a courteous and vigorous general election campaign. As he showed on Sunday, the differences between the parties are huge and the stakes high. The choice, he said, "couldn't be a bigger one."
Reprint from http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2007/11/19/mccain_experience_no_one_else.html
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
JOHN MCCAIN ARGUED FOR NEW IRAQ STRATEGY FOR YEARS
JOHN MCCAIN ARGUED FOR NEW IRAQ STRATEGY FOR YEARS
In 2003, Sen. McCain Acknowledged Mistakes Made In Iraq, Pushed For Urgent Changes Or “We Are Facing A Very Serious Long Term Problem”
Sen. McCain: “There is no doubt that we have made mistakes …” (CNN’s “Inside Politics,” 8/19/03)
Sen. McCain: “If we don’t turn things around in the next few months, we are facing a very serious long term problem.” (ABC’s “Good Morning America,” 9/3/03)
For Over Three Years, Sen. McCain Has Consistently Advocated For New Strategy In Iraq
2003:
Washington Post Headline, August 24, 2003: “McCain Says U.S. Needs More Money, Troops in Iraq.” (Mike Allen, “McCain Says U.S. Needs More Money, Troops in Iraq,” The Washington Post, 8/24/03)
August 2003: “Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said after visiting Baghdad last week that President Bush needs to level with the public about the need for more U.S. troops as well as dramatically more spending to make postwar Iraq peaceful enough for democracy to unfold. McCain said that when he returns from the Middle East he plans to mount a heavy campaign on the issue in meetings with national security adviser Condoleezza Rice and other White House officials and during hearings of the Senate Armed Services Committee. ‘We need to tell the American people directly, and I think they’ll support it,’ McCain said from Islamabad, Pakistan. ‘We must win this conflict. We need a lot more military, and I’m convinced we need to spend a lot more money.’” (Mike Allen, “McCain Says U.S. Needs More Money, Troops in Iraq,” The Washington Post, 8/24/03)
· August 2003: NBC’s TIM RUSSERT: “What must be done in Iraq right now?” SEN. MCCAIN: “First, could I say, Tim, the men and women in the military are doing a superb job. … The problem is that they don’t have enough resources. There’s not enough of them, and we are in a very serious situation, in my view, a race against time. We need to spend a whole lot more money to get the services back to the people. We need to get the electricity going, the fuel, the water. And unless we get that done and get it done pretty soon, we could face a very serious situation. … Time is not on our side. People in 125-degree heat with no electricity and no fuel are going to become angry in a big hurry. The sophistication of the attacks on U.S. and allied troops have increased. And what we do in the next several months will determine whether we’re in a very difficult situation or not, and there’s still time, but we’ve got to act quickly.” (NBC’s “Meet The Press,” 8/24/03)
· August 2003: NBC’s TIM RUSSERT: “MR. RUSSERT: How many more troops do you think we need in Iraq?” SEN. MCCAIN: “I think we need, I would guess, at least another division, but we also need people with specialized skills. Linguists we’re running short of. Our Guard and reservists are at the breaking point. We need civil affairs people. The infrastructure, refinery at Basra cannot be fixed. It needs to be totally replaced. It was 30 years of neglect on the part of the Saddam Hussein regime.” (NBC’s “Meet The Press,” 8/24/03)
November 2003: “To win in Iraq, we should increase the number of forces in-country, including Marines and Special Forces, to conduct offensive operations. I believe we must have in place another full division, giving us the necessary manpower to conduct a focused counterinsurgency campaign across the Sunni triangle that seals off enemy operating areas, conducts search and destroy operations and holds territory. Such a strategy would be the kind of new mission General Sanchez agreed would require additional forces. It’s a mystery to me why they are not forthcoming. We cannot achieve our political goals as long as a strategic region of Iraq is in a state of fundamental insecurity.” (Sen. John McCain, Remarks To Council On Foreign Relations, Washington, DC 11/5/03)
· November 2003: “More American forces and a commitment to keep them in Iraq as long as it takes are required to defeat our adversaries, so that Iraqi democracy is not stillborn. As we learned in Vietnam, if we do not defeat them before we leave, our enemies will continue to fight until any government we help establish is destroyed.” (Sen. John McCain, Remarks To Council On Foreign Relations, Washington, DC 11/5/03)
· November 2003: “The simple truth is that we do not have sufficient forces in Iraq to meet our military objectives. I said this in August, after I returned from visiting Iraq, and before the security situation deteriorated further. It is even more obviously true today.” (Sen. John McCain, Remarks To Council On Foreign Relations, Washington, DC 11/5/03)
· November 2003: “We need more troops. The casualties in November were the highest in history. I hope we are achieving some success. We have to achieve success. We cannot lose. But in order to save American lives, we have to be much more robust and do – and send whatever troops are necessary.” (Fox News’ “Fox News Sunday,” 11/30/03)
2004:
April 2004: “When I came back last August from Iraq, I said we needed more troops, thousands that were special forces, linguists, civil affairs type of people, that we’d be dealing with this new insurgency that we are now seeing in spades. Yes, I believe we need more, thousands more of the right kind of military personnel.” (CNN’s “Inside Politics,” 4/6/04)
· April 2004: “I was there in last August and have said since then that we needed more troops, we need them very badly. We may be paying a price for not having had more troops there, and I feel sorry for these young men and women having to remain there, but they know their job and I’m sure they’ll do it well.” (Sen. John McCain, Remarks At Media Availability, Washington, DC, 4/11/04)
· April 2004: “[W]hen I was there in Iraq in August, I talked to [the] British. I talked to sergeant majors. I talked to colonels and captains. And I came back absolutely convinced that we needed more boots on the ground. These people warned me. They said, ‘Look, if you don’t have more soldiers here, you’re going to lose control of this situation and you’re going to face an insurgency some months from now.’ I begged and pleaded that we send more troops. Secretary Rumsfeld said, ‘Well, our commanders on the ground haven’t asked for them.’ It’s not up to the commanders on the ground. It’s up to the leadership of the country to make these decisions. That’s why we elect them and have civilian supremacy. We’re now facing a terrible insurgency. We can prevail, but we’ve got to have more people over there to get the job done.” (Fox News’ “Hannity & Colmes,” 4/14/04)
· April 2004: “Third, it is painfully clear that we need more troops. Before the war, the U.S. Army chief of staff said that several hundred thousand troops would be necessary to keep the peace. While criticized at the time, General [Eric K.] Shinseki now looks prescient. I have said since my visit to Iraq last August that our military presence is insufficient to bring stability to the country. We should increase the number of forces, including Marines and Special Forces, to conduct offensive operations. There is also a dire need for other types of forces, including linguists, intelligence officers, and civil affairs officers. We must deploy at least another full division, and probably more.” (Sen. John McCain, Remarks To Council On Foreign Relations, Washington, DC, 4/22/04)
May 2004: “We need more troops in, need more troops now. Yes, there are more troops that are going to stay there, but we may even need more than that, and we have to expand the size of the military. We really do.” (Fox News’ “The Big Story With John Gibson,” 5/10/04)
June 2004: “Some of this could have been prevented if Secretary Rumsfeld had recognized long ago what so many of us were saying urgently, that we needed more troops on the ground in Iraq, particularly of particular specifications, specialties that these people have that are being called up involuntarily.” (MSNBC’s “Hardball,” 6/29/04)
August 2004: “I think the events on the ground right now indicate clearly that we cannot bring anybody home. In certain areas we may even have to strengthen our troop presence.” (ABC’s “Good Morning America,” 8/11/04)
September 2004: “I think that we need more troops in Iraq. I’ve thought that for a long time, election or no election. … [I]’ve been asking since a year ago last August. So I’m not sure that the elections have a lot to do with it, but I’ve been saying since a year ago August that we needed more boots on the ground, particularly in the form of Special Forces, civil affairs, linguists and others.” (CNBC’s “Capital Report,” 9/23/04)
November 2004: “It’s very tough and we still need more troops. We still need more people there. I believe those reports of those young Marines that said, ‘Look, unless we keep a significant presence here, they’re going to filter back in.’“ (NBC’s “Meet The Press,” 11/21/04)
December 2004: “[T]he problem that we have here is that the Pentagon has been reacting to initiatives of the enemy rather than taking initiatives from which the enemy has to react to. Many of us, as long as a year and a half ago, said, ‘You have to have more people there. You have to have more linguists. You have to have more special forces. You have to have’ – and the Pentagon has reluctantly, obviously, gradually made some increases. And the problem, when you react, you have to extend people on duty there, which is terrible for morale. There’s a terrific strain on Guard and reservists. If you plan ahead, then you don’t have to do some of these things. The military is too small. The good news is we went into Fallujah and we dug then out of there. And I’m proud of the work. These men and women are magnificent. Their leadership is magnificent. The bad news is we allowed Fallujah to become a sanctuary to start with. So, yes, we need more troops. Yes, we have to win.” (Fox News’ “Fox News Sunday,” 12/5/04)
December 2004: MCCAIN: “I have to say that I want to work with Secretary Rumsfeld because he will be the secretary of defense for an undetermined length of time. And I want to work with him and I want to do the best that I can for the country.” QUESTION: “That’s not a vote of confidence.” MCCAIN: “No, it’s not.” (CNN’s “American Morning,” 12/6/04)
December 2004: “Asked about his confidence in the secretary’s leadership, McCain recalled fielding a similar question a couple weeks ago. ‘I said no. My answer is still no. No confidence,’ McCain said.” (Beth DeFalco, “AP Interview: McCain Says He Has ‘No Confidence’ In Defense Secretary Rumsfeld,” The Associated Press, 12/13/04)
December 2004: “I have strenuously argued for larger troop numbers in Iraq, including the right kind of troops – linguists, special forces, civil affairs, etc. … There are very strong differences of opinion between myself and Secretary Rumsfeld on that issue.” (Beth DeFalco, “McCain says He Has ‘No Confidence’ In Secretary Of Defense,” The Associated Press, 12/13/04)
2005:
June 2005: “I think we need – I think we need more troops there … because we’re not staying once we attack and clear. We’ve got stay and expand.” (MSNBC’s “Hardball,” 6/28/05)
· June 2005: “I’ve thought for a long, long time, since the very beginning, that we needed more troops, and one of the reasons why we’ve experienced many of the difficulties we have is we didn’t have enough boots on the ground, and we still do.” (CNN’s “American Morning,” 6/29/05)
August 2005: “We not only don’t need to withdraw, we need more troops there.” (Fox News’ “Fox News Sunday,” 8/14/05)
· August 2005: TIME’s MIKE DUFFY: “Do you think we need more troops?” SEN. MCCAIN: “I’ve always said that … I think we need more and I think they need to stay longer. The problem is, is that we didn’t expand the size of the Army and the Marine Corps and we put enormous strains on the Guard and Reserves and on active duty personnel. We need to expand the Army and expand the Marine Corps, and have more troops over there for as long as is necessary. The irony here is that we could have had less troops here now if we had had more troops when they were needed where, in the view of literally every military person I talked to in Iraq, right after the victory.” (CBS’ “Face The Nation,” 8/28/05)
· August 2005: “Well, I don’t have confidence [in Rumsfeld], but it’s up the president. The important thing is that he has the president’s confidence, and that’s the important thing. … Have I disagreed with the secretary of defense? Yes. But my job is not to have an open confrontation with the secretary of defense. My job is to try to work with him as long as he enjoys the confidence of the president to try and get this job completed. It doesn’t help if I get into some kind of fight with him.” (Fox News’ “News Sunday,” 8/14/05)
September 2005: “I have always said we need more troops. I believed it then. I believe it now.” (NPR’s “Morning Edition,” 9/20/05)
October 2005: “[W]hen I say that I don’t have confidence in [Rumsfeld], I can’t look people in the eye and say that I do [have confidence in him], because so many mistakes were made that – that cost us so much in American blood and treasure.” (PBS’ “Charlie Rose,” 10/31/05)
November 2005: “Securing ever-increasing parts of Iraq and preventing the emergence of new terrorist safe havens will require more troops and money. It will take time, probably years, and mean more American casualties. Those are terrible prices to pay. But with the stakes so high, I believe we must choose the strategy with the best chance of success.” (Sen. John McCain, Remarks To American Enterprise Institute, Washington, DC, 11/10/05)
· November 2005: “To enhance our chances of success with this strategy and enable our forces to hold as much territory as possible, we need more troops. For this reason, I believe that current ideas to effect a partial drawdown during 2006 are exactly wrong. … Instead of drawing down, we should be ramping up, with more civil-military soldiers, translators and counterinsurgency operations teams.” (Sen. John McCain, Remarks To American Enterprise Institute, Washington, DC, 11/10/05)
December 2005: “I’ve wanted to send troops. I still think we should have more troops there.” (NBC’s “Meet The Press, 12/4/05)
December 2005: “When the first insurgents – or when the looting started, Secretary Rumsfeld said, ‘Stuff happens.’ And then when the insurgency started, he said there was a few dead-enders. The reason why I mention that, there was a gross misunderestimation of the challenge we faced in the post-conflict aspect of Iraq.” (NPR’s “Fresh Air,” 12/6/05)
· December 2005: “If the president wants him on his team, I’m not going to question that. But, as I said – very strong disagreements because early on after the initial military phase, I said, ‘You’ve got to have more troops over there.’ And I didn’t think of it myself. I heard from everybody from sergeant majors to generals saying the same thing; that they didn’t have enough troops over there. And we paid a very heavy price for that.” (NPR’s “Fresh Air,” 12/6/05)
2006:
March 2006: “Of course, I would, quote, like to see more troops.” (CNN’s “The Situation Room,” 3/30/06)
April 2006: “It’s well known, because I was asked a direct question about my confidence in Secretary Rumsfeld, that I do not have confidence. But that does not mean that I’m calling for his removal, because that’s what the president of the United States’ job is.” (CNN’s “Anderson Cooper 360 Degrees,” 4/13/06)
June 2006: “You know, I’ve always said that we needed more troops over there. I have said that for years.” (CBS’ “Evening News,” 6/20/06)
July 2006: CNN’s JOHN KING: “The United States is sending more troops to Iraq. What do you think?” SEN. MCCAIN: “I think it’s necessary. I think it was necessary a long, long time ago. I think one of the biggest mistakes we made that we’ve paid a very heavy price for was not having enough boots on the ground. I said that three years ago.” (CNN’s “Larry King Live,” 7/26/06)
August 2006: NBC’s DAVID GREGORY: “But to do that, do you need more U.S. soldiers on the ground now?” SEN. MCCAIN: “I think so. I think so. We took troops from places like Ramadi, which are still not under control, to put them into Baghdad. We’ve had to send in additional troops as they are. All along, we have not had enough troops on the ground to control the situation. Many, many people knew that and it’s – we’re paying a very heavy price for it. But I want to emphasize that we cannot lose this. It will cause chaos in Iraq and in the region, and it’s – I still believe that we, we must prevail.” (NBC’s “Meet The Press,” 8/20/06)
· August 2006: “I know that military commanders on the ground need more troops, whether they’re asking for them or not. But see, this is kind of a false argument. … It’s not up to the commanders on the ground, it’s up to the leaders who assess the entire battlefield situation to decide whether they need. I’ve known very few – General McCaffrey’s going to follow us – I’ve known very few commanders in the field who see I – say, ‘I need help.’“ (NBC’s “Meet The Press,” 8/20/06)
September 2006: “I still think we need more troops over there.” (CBS’ “Face The Nation,” 9/24/06)
October 2006: “I would increase the size of the Army and Marine Corps by some hundred thousand people, and I would send more troops over there where necessary, and I would listen very carefully to my military commanders.” (CBS’ “Evening News,” 10/19/06)
· October 2006: “Roughly, you need another 20,000 troops in Iraq, but that means expanding the Army and Marine Corps by as much as 100,000 people …” (Lorna Colquhoun, “ McCain Urges More Troops For ‘Insurgency,’“ The Union Leader, 10/28/06)
· October 2006: “I have said, as long ago as nearly three years ago, when I was asked if I had confidence in Secretary Rumsfeld, I said I did not.” (MSNBC’s “Hardball,” 10/18/06)
November 2006: “I believe that there are a lot of things that we can do to salvage this, but they all require the presence of additional troops. … I also said three years ago, if we don’t have more troops over there, and we don’t do what’s necessary, we are going to be doomed to failure. I gave a speech to the Foreign Relations – Council on Foreign Relations – that said basically that, and I’ve been saying it all along in every hearing, and I’ve been saying, ‘You are going to face this situation we’re facing today if we didn’t have a more robust presence and a better strategy,’ and that’s – I proved to be right in that respect.” (NBC’s “Meet The Press,” 11/12/06)
· November 2006: “I’ve said for a long time that I had no confidence in Secretary Rumsfeld, but that’s a decision to be made by the president.” (Fox News’ “Live Event,” 11/8/06)
December 2006: “We must have more troops over there. That has to be accompanied by a larger Marine Corps or Army. Maybe 20,000 more Marines and 80,000 more Army troops so that we can handle whatever is necessary. And we have to have a big enough surge that we can get Baghdad under control and then Anbar province under control.” (Fox News’ “Special Report With Brit Hume,” 12/12/06)
2007:
January 2007: “The presence of additional coalition forces would give the Iraqi government the ability to do what it cannot accomplish today on its own: impose its rule throughout the country. In bringing security to Iraq, and chiefly to Baghdad, our forces would give the government a fighting chance to pursue reconciliation. … There are two keys to any surge of U.S. troops. To be of value the surge must be substantial and it must be sustained – it must be substantial and it must be sustained. We will need a large number of troops. During our recent trip commanders on the ground spoke of a surge of three to five additional brigades in Baghdad and at least an additional brigade in Anbar province. I believe these numbers are the minimum that’s required – a minimum. We need more of the right kind of troops: civil affairs teams, special forces, translators, troops to conduct information operations, among others. The mission of these reinforcements would be to implement the thus-elusive hold element of the military’s clear, hold, build strategy, to maintain security in cleared areas to protect the population and critical infrastructure, and to impose the government’s authority: essential elements of a traditional counterinsurgency strategy.” (Sen. John McCain, Remarks To American Enterprise Institute, Washington, DC, 1/5/07)
· January 2007: “Rumsfeld will go down in history, along with McNamara, as one of the worst secretaries of defense in history.” (Roger Simon, “McCain Bashes Cheney Over Iraq Policy,” The Politico, 1/24/07)
April 2007: “After my first visit to Iraq in 2003, I argued for more troops. I took issue with statements characterizing the insurgency as a few ‘dead-enders’ or being in its ‘last throes.’ I criticized the search and destroy strategy and argued for a counter-insurgency approach that separated the reconcilable population from the irreconcilable. That is the course now followed by General Petraeus, and the brave Americans and coalition troops he has the honor to command.” (Sen. John McCain, Remarks To The Virginia Military Institute, 4/11/07)
May 2007: “The war was terribly mismanaged and we now have to fix a lot of the mistakes that were made.” (Republican Presidential Debate, Ronald Reagan Library, Simi Valley, CA, 5/3/07)
In 2003, Sen. McCain Acknowledged Mistakes Made In Iraq, Pushed For Urgent Changes Or “We Are Facing A Very Serious Long Term Problem”
Sen. McCain: “There is no doubt that we have made mistakes …” (CNN’s “Inside Politics,” 8/19/03)
Sen. McCain: “If we don’t turn things around in the next few months, we are facing a very serious long term problem.” (ABC’s “Good Morning America,” 9/3/03)
For Over Three Years, Sen. McCain Has Consistently Advocated For New Strategy In Iraq
2003:
Washington Post Headline, August 24, 2003: “McCain Says U.S. Needs More Money, Troops in Iraq.” (Mike Allen, “McCain Says U.S. Needs More Money, Troops in Iraq,” The Washington Post, 8/24/03)
August 2003: “Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said after visiting Baghdad last week that President Bush needs to level with the public about the need for more U.S. troops as well as dramatically more spending to make postwar Iraq peaceful enough for democracy to unfold. McCain said that when he returns from the Middle East he plans to mount a heavy campaign on the issue in meetings with national security adviser Condoleezza Rice and other White House officials and during hearings of the Senate Armed Services Committee. ‘We need to tell the American people directly, and I think they’ll support it,’ McCain said from Islamabad, Pakistan. ‘We must win this conflict. We need a lot more military, and I’m convinced we need to spend a lot more money.’” (Mike Allen, “McCain Says U.S. Needs More Money, Troops in Iraq,” The Washington Post, 8/24/03)
· August 2003: NBC’s TIM RUSSERT: “What must be done in Iraq right now?” SEN. MCCAIN: “First, could I say, Tim, the men and women in the military are doing a superb job. … The problem is that they don’t have enough resources. There’s not enough of them, and we are in a very serious situation, in my view, a race against time. We need to spend a whole lot more money to get the services back to the people. We need to get the electricity going, the fuel, the water. And unless we get that done and get it done pretty soon, we could face a very serious situation. … Time is not on our side. People in 125-degree heat with no electricity and no fuel are going to become angry in a big hurry. The sophistication of the attacks on U.S. and allied troops have increased. And what we do in the next several months will determine whether we’re in a very difficult situation or not, and there’s still time, but we’ve got to act quickly.” (NBC’s “Meet The Press,” 8/24/03)
· August 2003: NBC’s TIM RUSSERT: “MR. RUSSERT: How many more troops do you think we need in Iraq?” SEN. MCCAIN: “I think we need, I would guess, at least another division, but we also need people with specialized skills. Linguists we’re running short of. Our Guard and reservists are at the breaking point. We need civil affairs people. The infrastructure, refinery at Basra cannot be fixed. It needs to be totally replaced. It was 30 years of neglect on the part of the Saddam Hussein regime.” (NBC’s “Meet The Press,” 8/24/03)
November 2003: “To win in Iraq, we should increase the number of forces in-country, including Marines and Special Forces, to conduct offensive operations. I believe we must have in place another full division, giving us the necessary manpower to conduct a focused counterinsurgency campaign across the Sunni triangle that seals off enemy operating areas, conducts search and destroy operations and holds territory. Such a strategy would be the kind of new mission General Sanchez agreed would require additional forces. It’s a mystery to me why they are not forthcoming. We cannot achieve our political goals as long as a strategic region of Iraq is in a state of fundamental insecurity.” (Sen. John McCain, Remarks To Council On Foreign Relations, Washington, DC 11/5/03)
· November 2003: “More American forces and a commitment to keep them in Iraq as long as it takes are required to defeat our adversaries, so that Iraqi democracy is not stillborn. As we learned in Vietnam, if we do not defeat them before we leave, our enemies will continue to fight until any government we help establish is destroyed.” (Sen. John McCain, Remarks To Council On Foreign Relations, Washington, DC 11/5/03)
· November 2003: “The simple truth is that we do not have sufficient forces in Iraq to meet our military objectives. I said this in August, after I returned from visiting Iraq, and before the security situation deteriorated further. It is even more obviously true today.” (Sen. John McCain, Remarks To Council On Foreign Relations, Washington, DC 11/5/03)
· November 2003: “We need more troops. The casualties in November were the highest in history. I hope we are achieving some success. We have to achieve success. We cannot lose. But in order to save American lives, we have to be much more robust and do – and send whatever troops are necessary.” (Fox News’ “Fox News Sunday,” 11/30/03)
2004:
April 2004: “When I came back last August from Iraq, I said we needed more troops, thousands that were special forces, linguists, civil affairs type of people, that we’d be dealing with this new insurgency that we are now seeing in spades. Yes, I believe we need more, thousands more of the right kind of military personnel.” (CNN’s “Inside Politics,” 4/6/04)
· April 2004: “I was there in last August and have said since then that we needed more troops, we need them very badly. We may be paying a price for not having had more troops there, and I feel sorry for these young men and women having to remain there, but they know their job and I’m sure they’ll do it well.” (Sen. John McCain, Remarks At Media Availability, Washington, DC, 4/11/04)
· April 2004: “[W]hen I was there in Iraq in August, I talked to [the] British. I talked to sergeant majors. I talked to colonels and captains. And I came back absolutely convinced that we needed more boots on the ground. These people warned me. They said, ‘Look, if you don’t have more soldiers here, you’re going to lose control of this situation and you’re going to face an insurgency some months from now.’ I begged and pleaded that we send more troops. Secretary Rumsfeld said, ‘Well, our commanders on the ground haven’t asked for them.’ It’s not up to the commanders on the ground. It’s up to the leadership of the country to make these decisions. That’s why we elect them and have civilian supremacy. We’re now facing a terrible insurgency. We can prevail, but we’ve got to have more people over there to get the job done.” (Fox News’ “Hannity & Colmes,” 4/14/04)
· April 2004: “Third, it is painfully clear that we need more troops. Before the war, the U.S. Army chief of staff said that several hundred thousand troops would be necessary to keep the peace. While criticized at the time, General [Eric K.] Shinseki now looks prescient. I have said since my visit to Iraq last August that our military presence is insufficient to bring stability to the country. We should increase the number of forces, including Marines and Special Forces, to conduct offensive operations. There is also a dire need for other types of forces, including linguists, intelligence officers, and civil affairs officers. We must deploy at least another full division, and probably more.” (Sen. John McCain, Remarks To Council On Foreign Relations, Washington, DC, 4/22/04)
May 2004: “We need more troops in, need more troops now. Yes, there are more troops that are going to stay there, but we may even need more than that, and we have to expand the size of the military. We really do.” (Fox News’ “The Big Story With John Gibson,” 5/10/04)
June 2004: “Some of this could have been prevented if Secretary Rumsfeld had recognized long ago what so many of us were saying urgently, that we needed more troops on the ground in Iraq, particularly of particular specifications, specialties that these people have that are being called up involuntarily.” (MSNBC’s “Hardball,” 6/29/04)
August 2004: “I think the events on the ground right now indicate clearly that we cannot bring anybody home. In certain areas we may even have to strengthen our troop presence.” (ABC’s “Good Morning America,” 8/11/04)
September 2004: “I think that we need more troops in Iraq. I’ve thought that for a long time, election or no election. … [I]’ve been asking since a year ago last August. So I’m not sure that the elections have a lot to do with it, but I’ve been saying since a year ago August that we needed more boots on the ground, particularly in the form of Special Forces, civil affairs, linguists and others.” (CNBC’s “Capital Report,” 9/23/04)
November 2004: “It’s very tough and we still need more troops. We still need more people there. I believe those reports of those young Marines that said, ‘Look, unless we keep a significant presence here, they’re going to filter back in.’“ (NBC’s “Meet The Press,” 11/21/04)
December 2004: “[T]he problem that we have here is that the Pentagon has been reacting to initiatives of the enemy rather than taking initiatives from which the enemy has to react to. Many of us, as long as a year and a half ago, said, ‘You have to have more people there. You have to have more linguists. You have to have more special forces. You have to have’ – and the Pentagon has reluctantly, obviously, gradually made some increases. And the problem, when you react, you have to extend people on duty there, which is terrible for morale. There’s a terrific strain on Guard and reservists. If you plan ahead, then you don’t have to do some of these things. The military is too small. The good news is we went into Fallujah and we dug then out of there. And I’m proud of the work. These men and women are magnificent. Their leadership is magnificent. The bad news is we allowed Fallujah to become a sanctuary to start with. So, yes, we need more troops. Yes, we have to win.” (Fox News’ “Fox News Sunday,” 12/5/04)
December 2004: MCCAIN: “I have to say that I want to work with Secretary Rumsfeld because he will be the secretary of defense for an undetermined length of time. And I want to work with him and I want to do the best that I can for the country.” QUESTION: “That’s not a vote of confidence.” MCCAIN: “No, it’s not.” (CNN’s “American Morning,” 12/6/04)
December 2004: “Asked about his confidence in the secretary’s leadership, McCain recalled fielding a similar question a couple weeks ago. ‘I said no. My answer is still no. No confidence,’ McCain said.” (Beth DeFalco, “AP Interview: McCain Says He Has ‘No Confidence’ In Defense Secretary Rumsfeld,” The Associated Press, 12/13/04)
December 2004: “I have strenuously argued for larger troop numbers in Iraq, including the right kind of troops – linguists, special forces, civil affairs, etc. … There are very strong differences of opinion between myself and Secretary Rumsfeld on that issue.” (Beth DeFalco, “McCain says He Has ‘No Confidence’ In Secretary Of Defense,” The Associated Press, 12/13/04)
2005:
June 2005: “I think we need – I think we need more troops there … because we’re not staying once we attack and clear. We’ve got stay and expand.” (MSNBC’s “Hardball,” 6/28/05)
· June 2005: “I’ve thought for a long, long time, since the very beginning, that we needed more troops, and one of the reasons why we’ve experienced many of the difficulties we have is we didn’t have enough boots on the ground, and we still do.” (CNN’s “American Morning,” 6/29/05)
August 2005: “We not only don’t need to withdraw, we need more troops there.” (Fox News’ “Fox News Sunday,” 8/14/05)
· August 2005: TIME’s MIKE DUFFY: “Do you think we need more troops?” SEN. MCCAIN: “I’ve always said that … I think we need more and I think they need to stay longer. The problem is, is that we didn’t expand the size of the Army and the Marine Corps and we put enormous strains on the Guard and Reserves and on active duty personnel. We need to expand the Army and expand the Marine Corps, and have more troops over there for as long as is necessary. The irony here is that we could have had less troops here now if we had had more troops when they were needed where, in the view of literally every military person I talked to in Iraq, right after the victory.” (CBS’ “Face The Nation,” 8/28/05)
· August 2005: “Well, I don’t have confidence [in Rumsfeld], but it’s up the president. The important thing is that he has the president’s confidence, and that’s the important thing. … Have I disagreed with the secretary of defense? Yes. But my job is not to have an open confrontation with the secretary of defense. My job is to try to work with him as long as he enjoys the confidence of the president to try and get this job completed. It doesn’t help if I get into some kind of fight with him.” (Fox News’ “News Sunday,” 8/14/05)
September 2005: “I have always said we need more troops. I believed it then. I believe it now.” (NPR’s “Morning Edition,” 9/20/05)
October 2005: “[W]hen I say that I don’t have confidence in [Rumsfeld], I can’t look people in the eye and say that I do [have confidence in him], because so many mistakes were made that – that cost us so much in American blood and treasure.” (PBS’ “Charlie Rose,” 10/31/05)
November 2005: “Securing ever-increasing parts of Iraq and preventing the emergence of new terrorist safe havens will require more troops and money. It will take time, probably years, and mean more American casualties. Those are terrible prices to pay. But with the stakes so high, I believe we must choose the strategy with the best chance of success.” (Sen. John McCain, Remarks To American Enterprise Institute, Washington, DC, 11/10/05)
· November 2005: “To enhance our chances of success with this strategy and enable our forces to hold as much territory as possible, we need more troops. For this reason, I believe that current ideas to effect a partial drawdown during 2006 are exactly wrong. … Instead of drawing down, we should be ramping up, with more civil-military soldiers, translators and counterinsurgency operations teams.” (Sen. John McCain, Remarks To American Enterprise Institute, Washington, DC, 11/10/05)
December 2005: “I’ve wanted to send troops. I still think we should have more troops there.” (NBC’s “Meet The Press, 12/4/05)
December 2005: “When the first insurgents – or when the looting started, Secretary Rumsfeld said, ‘Stuff happens.’ And then when the insurgency started, he said there was a few dead-enders. The reason why I mention that, there was a gross misunderestimation of the challenge we faced in the post-conflict aspect of Iraq.” (NPR’s “Fresh Air,” 12/6/05)
· December 2005: “If the president wants him on his team, I’m not going to question that. But, as I said – very strong disagreements because early on after the initial military phase, I said, ‘You’ve got to have more troops over there.’ And I didn’t think of it myself. I heard from everybody from sergeant majors to generals saying the same thing; that they didn’t have enough troops over there. And we paid a very heavy price for that.” (NPR’s “Fresh Air,” 12/6/05)
2006:
March 2006: “Of course, I would, quote, like to see more troops.” (CNN’s “The Situation Room,” 3/30/06)
April 2006: “It’s well known, because I was asked a direct question about my confidence in Secretary Rumsfeld, that I do not have confidence. But that does not mean that I’m calling for his removal, because that’s what the president of the United States’ job is.” (CNN’s “Anderson Cooper 360 Degrees,” 4/13/06)
June 2006: “You know, I’ve always said that we needed more troops over there. I have said that for years.” (CBS’ “Evening News,” 6/20/06)
July 2006: CNN’s JOHN KING: “The United States is sending more troops to Iraq. What do you think?” SEN. MCCAIN: “I think it’s necessary. I think it was necessary a long, long time ago. I think one of the biggest mistakes we made that we’ve paid a very heavy price for was not having enough boots on the ground. I said that three years ago.” (CNN’s “Larry King Live,” 7/26/06)
August 2006: NBC’s DAVID GREGORY: “But to do that, do you need more U.S. soldiers on the ground now?” SEN. MCCAIN: “I think so. I think so. We took troops from places like Ramadi, which are still not under control, to put them into Baghdad. We’ve had to send in additional troops as they are. All along, we have not had enough troops on the ground to control the situation. Many, many people knew that and it’s – we’re paying a very heavy price for it. But I want to emphasize that we cannot lose this. It will cause chaos in Iraq and in the region, and it’s – I still believe that we, we must prevail.” (NBC’s “Meet The Press,” 8/20/06)
· August 2006: “I know that military commanders on the ground need more troops, whether they’re asking for them or not. But see, this is kind of a false argument. … It’s not up to the commanders on the ground, it’s up to the leaders who assess the entire battlefield situation to decide whether they need. I’ve known very few – General McCaffrey’s going to follow us – I’ve known very few commanders in the field who see I – say, ‘I need help.’“ (NBC’s “Meet The Press,” 8/20/06)
September 2006: “I still think we need more troops over there.” (CBS’ “Face The Nation,” 9/24/06)
October 2006: “I would increase the size of the Army and Marine Corps by some hundred thousand people, and I would send more troops over there where necessary, and I would listen very carefully to my military commanders.” (CBS’ “Evening News,” 10/19/06)
· October 2006: “Roughly, you need another 20,000 troops in Iraq, but that means expanding the Army and Marine Corps by as much as 100,000 people …” (Lorna Colquhoun, “ McCain Urges More Troops For ‘Insurgency,’“ The Union Leader, 10/28/06)
· October 2006: “I have said, as long ago as nearly three years ago, when I was asked if I had confidence in Secretary Rumsfeld, I said I did not.” (MSNBC’s “Hardball,” 10/18/06)
November 2006: “I believe that there are a lot of things that we can do to salvage this, but they all require the presence of additional troops. … I also said three years ago, if we don’t have more troops over there, and we don’t do what’s necessary, we are going to be doomed to failure. I gave a speech to the Foreign Relations – Council on Foreign Relations – that said basically that, and I’ve been saying it all along in every hearing, and I’ve been saying, ‘You are going to face this situation we’re facing today if we didn’t have a more robust presence and a better strategy,’ and that’s – I proved to be right in that respect.” (NBC’s “Meet The Press,” 11/12/06)
· November 2006: “I’ve said for a long time that I had no confidence in Secretary Rumsfeld, but that’s a decision to be made by the president.” (Fox News’ “Live Event,” 11/8/06)
December 2006: “We must have more troops over there. That has to be accompanied by a larger Marine Corps or Army. Maybe 20,000 more Marines and 80,000 more Army troops so that we can handle whatever is necessary. And we have to have a big enough surge that we can get Baghdad under control and then Anbar province under control.” (Fox News’ “Special Report With Brit Hume,” 12/12/06)
2007:
January 2007: “The presence of additional coalition forces would give the Iraqi government the ability to do what it cannot accomplish today on its own: impose its rule throughout the country. In bringing security to Iraq, and chiefly to Baghdad, our forces would give the government a fighting chance to pursue reconciliation. … There are two keys to any surge of U.S. troops. To be of value the surge must be substantial and it must be sustained – it must be substantial and it must be sustained. We will need a large number of troops. During our recent trip commanders on the ground spoke of a surge of three to five additional brigades in Baghdad and at least an additional brigade in Anbar province. I believe these numbers are the minimum that’s required – a minimum. We need more of the right kind of troops: civil affairs teams, special forces, translators, troops to conduct information operations, among others. The mission of these reinforcements would be to implement the thus-elusive hold element of the military’s clear, hold, build strategy, to maintain security in cleared areas to protect the population and critical infrastructure, and to impose the government’s authority: essential elements of a traditional counterinsurgency strategy.” (Sen. John McCain, Remarks To American Enterprise Institute, Washington, DC, 1/5/07)
· January 2007: “Rumsfeld will go down in history, along with McNamara, as one of the worst secretaries of defense in history.” (Roger Simon, “McCain Bashes Cheney Over Iraq Policy,” The Politico, 1/24/07)
April 2007: “After my first visit to Iraq in 2003, I argued for more troops. I took issue with statements characterizing the insurgency as a few ‘dead-enders’ or being in its ‘last throes.’ I criticized the search and destroy strategy and argued for a counter-insurgency approach that separated the reconcilable population from the irreconcilable. That is the course now followed by General Petraeus, and the brave Americans and coalition troops he has the honor to command.” (Sen. John McCain, Remarks To The Virginia Military Institute, 4/11/07)
May 2007: “The war was terribly mismanaged and we now have to fix a lot of the mistakes that were made.” (Republican Presidential Debate, Ronald Reagan Library, Simi Valley, CA, 5/3/07)
John McCain Bloggers Added
An updated list of McCain Bloggers...
AvoiceForReason
Azamatterofact
Azamatteroprinciple
blogs4mccain.com
Broad Side of the Barn
Election Night HQ New!
EvangelicalsForMcCain
eyeon08
HoosiersForMcCain
Iowa for McCain
McCain Blogette
McCain States
McCain Talk
McCain08 On-Line Strategy Memo
McCain2008/blog
McCainHQ08 Yahoo Group
MichiganCooler
MyMcCainBlog
NH4McCAIN
NJ for McCain
Official McCain Blog
Partisan American
Political Mafioso
Reality Bytes New!
South Carolina for McCain
StandUpForMcCain New!
The Mac Is Back
The Mad Irishman New!
The McCain Times New!
The Way Forward-John McCain
VoteMcCain
With Both Hands
with assists from
www.circletheweb.blogspot.com/
http://www.ramblingweb.blogspot.com/
http://www.ramblingweb.blogspot.com/
AvoiceForReason
Azamatterofact
Azamatteroprinciple
blogs4mccain.com
Broad Side of the Barn
Election Night HQ New!
EvangelicalsForMcCain
eyeon08
HoosiersForMcCain
Iowa for McCain
McCain Blogette
McCain States
McCain Talk
McCain08 On-Line Strategy Memo
McCain2008/blog
McCainHQ08 Yahoo Group
MichiganCooler
MyMcCainBlog
NH4McCAIN
NJ for McCain
Official McCain Blog
Partisan American
Political Mafioso
Reality Bytes New!
South Carolina for McCain
StandUpForMcCain New!
The Mac Is Back
The Mad Irishman New!
The McCain Times New!
The Way Forward-John McCain
VoteMcCain
With Both Hands
with assists from
www.circletheweb.blogspot.com/
http://www.ramblingweb.blogspot.com/
http://www.ramblingweb.blogspot.com/
Endorsement for John McCain
SECRETARY JOHN LEHMAN ENDORSES JOHN MCCAIN FOR PRESIDENT
ARLINGTON, VA -- Today, Dr. John Lehman, former Secretary of the Navy and 9/11 Commission member, endorsed John McCain for President of the United States. Secretary Lehman joins a distinguished group of national security experts supporting John McCain for president, including fellow 9/11 Commission members Tom Kean and Slade Gorton as well as four former United States Secretaries of State: Henry Kissinger, General Alexander Haig, Lawrence Eagleburger and George Shultz.
Secretary Lehman issued the following statement on his endorsement of John McCain:
"I am proud to support John McCain for president. Having worked with John McCain for over twenty years -- from the Reagan Administration through to the 9/11 Commission -- there's no doubt in my mind that he is the right man to lead as commander in chief today.
"As John McCain has said, 'There comes a time when a president can no longer rely on briefing books and power points, when the experts and advisors have all weighed in, when the sum total of one's life becomes the foundation from which he or she makes the decisions that determine the course of history.' No other candidate has John McCain's experience or the judgment it informs to make the tough decisions required to protect our national security.
"I am honored to stand with John McCain."
John McCain issued the following statement accepting Secretary Lehman's endorsement:
"America is indebted to Secretary Lehman for his many contributions to protecting our national security -- from his time as President Reagan's Navy Secretary to his critical role on the 9/11 Commission. I thank Secretary Lehman and am honored to receive his support."
ARLINGTON, VA -- Today, Dr. John Lehman, former Secretary of the Navy and 9/11 Commission member, endorsed John McCain for President of the United States. Secretary Lehman joins a distinguished group of national security experts supporting John McCain for president, including fellow 9/11 Commission members Tom Kean and Slade Gorton as well as four former United States Secretaries of State: Henry Kissinger, General Alexander Haig, Lawrence Eagleburger and George Shultz.
Secretary Lehman issued the following statement on his endorsement of John McCain:
"I am proud to support John McCain for president. Having worked with John McCain for over twenty years -- from the Reagan Administration through to the 9/11 Commission -- there's no doubt in my mind that he is the right man to lead as commander in chief today.
"As John McCain has said, 'There comes a time when a president can no longer rely on briefing books and power points, when the experts and advisors have all weighed in, when the sum total of one's life becomes the foundation from which he or she makes the decisions that determine the course of history.' No other candidate has John McCain's experience or the judgment it informs to make the tough decisions required to protect our national security.
"I am honored to stand with John McCain."
John McCain issued the following statement accepting Secretary Lehman's endorsement:
"America is indebted to Secretary Lehman for his many contributions to protecting our national security -- from his time as President Reagan's Navy Secretary to his critical role on the 9/11 Commission. I thank Secretary Lehman and am honored to receive his support."
McCain Online Buzz
Reprint from http://mccain08olc.blogspot.com/2007/11/buzz-is-growing-for-mccain.html
We got a great e-mail from Tony GOPrano over at PoliticoMafioso about the growing buzz on-line about John McCain.
While we'd love to take credit for it (and Tony very graciously offers some), we think it has more to do with Senator McCain himself as well as established bloggers such as Adam C. over at RedState who filed these two posts:
Red State Blog: On The Bus With McCain: Sights And Sounds and on Rep. Flake explaining why conservatives should support McCain
From the Pollster.com Blog on how McCain runs best against Hillary in Iowa and Ohio.
ABC News’ Political Radar Blog: McCain Electability Over Clinton
By ABC News's Ron Claiborne and Bret Hovell.
And finally, there is a great “call to arms” for bloggers and other supporters for McCain over at The Mad Irishman’s Conservative Consortium.
So there is an increased buzz on-line for John McCain. That is, thanks to McCain himself and the blogs above. If we have had some small impact we are gratified.
We got a great e-mail from Tony GOPrano over at PoliticoMafioso about the growing buzz on-line about John McCain.
While we'd love to take credit for it (and Tony very graciously offers some), we think it has more to do with Senator McCain himself as well as established bloggers such as Adam C. over at RedState who filed these two posts:
Red State Blog: On The Bus With McCain: Sights And Sounds and on Rep. Flake explaining why conservatives should support McCain
From the Pollster.com Blog on how McCain runs best against Hillary in Iowa and Ohio.
ABC News’ Political Radar Blog: McCain Electability Over Clinton
By ABC News's Ron Claiborne and Bret Hovell.
And finally, there is a great “call to arms” for bloggers and other supporters for McCain over at The Mad Irishman’s Conservative Consortium.
So there is an increased buzz on-line for John McCain. That is, thanks to McCain himself and the blogs above. If we have had some small impact we are gratified.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)