April 3, 2008
by Faiz Shakir, Amanda Terkel, Satyam Khanna, Matt Corley, Ali Frick, and Benjamin Armbruster
IRAQ
During a New Hampshire townhall meeting on Jan. 3, an audience member started to ask Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) how long he expected troops to stay in Iraq, saying, "President Bush has talked about staying in Iraq for 50 years," but McCain cut him off. "
Make it a hundred," McCain replied. "That'd be fine with me, as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed, that's fine with me." McCain continued later, "excitedly declaring that U.S. troops could be in Iraq for
'a thousand years' or 'a million years,' as far as he was concerned." Now McCain is decrying critics for supposedly
taking his comments out of context -- even as he stands by his call for an indefinite occupation of Iraq. Yesterday, McCain accused Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) -- who criticized McCain's 100-year framework -- of displaying "a
fundamental misunderstanding of history and how we've maintained national security." McCain claimed that Obama is trying to "swindle voters" with "dishonest smears" by repeating McCain's comments. Some
journalists have compared it to Sen. John Kerry's (D-MA) infamous 2004 remark about voting for war funding "before I voted against it." Both characterizations are misleading.
There is nothing "dishonest" about Obama saying, as he did yesterday, that McCain "wants to keep tens of thousands of United States troops in Iraq for as long as 100 years." And unlike Kerry's misspoken statement, McCain
repeatedly and
constantly evokes the long-term occupations of Korea, Japan, Germany, or Kuwait when discussing Iraq.
KOREA FLIP FLOP: Although McCain is now fond of using South Korea as a model for the Iraq occupation, he hads rejected such a framework as recently as last November. At that time, PBS host Charlie Rose asked the senator whether he thought "South Korea is an analogy of where Iraq might be...over the next, say, 20, 25 years," to which McCain replied, "
I don't think so." Rose followed, "Even if there are no casualties?" McCain repeated "no," adding that because of "
the religious aspects of it (Iraq) that America eventually withdraws." Just two months later, however, McCain emphasized that as long as there are no casualties, he wouldn't mind staying in Iraq for "one hundred years, one thousand years, ten thousand years
or until the earth collapses under global climate change." McCain is now fully embracing the Korea model, remarking just yesterday, "
We fought a war with Japan and Germany. Afterwards we maintained a military presence there, which we are doing today. We fought a war in Korea, we maintained a military presence in Korea, which we are doing to this day. The first Gulf War, we threw Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait, and we have a military presence there to this day." But as McCain himself seemed to recognize just a few months ago when talking to Rose, sectarian Iraq presents a very different situation than relatively ethnically- and religiously-homogeneous South Korea or Kuwait.
RIGHT WING RUSHES TO McCAIN'S DEFENSE: Yesterday, MSNBC's Chuck Todd wrote that "not a day has gone by recently" without an
aggressive pushback from conservatives on McCain's 100 years comment: "
(T)hey are trying very hard to put the toothpaste back into the tube. They are petrified that it becomes the one thing everyone thinks they know about McCain and Iraq." Those on the far right are embracing McCain's vision for a permanent occupation. Recently, former White House adviser Karl Rove explained with approval that McCain was talking about "
the projection of American power to maintain stability in a dangerous and difficult part of the world." New York Times columinist Bill Kristol praised the senator for choosing "to
tell Americans the hard and unpopular truths that we'll be there
for a while." Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer echoed that sentiment, saying that McCain's permanent occupation creates an Iraq from which the United States "projects power and provides stability for the entire Gulf." But the Wonk Room's Matt Duss pointed out, "It's Charles Krauthammer who doesn't get that Kuwait is not Iraq, and that if we'd spent years bombing their country and kicking down their doors in the middle of the night, the Kuwaitis would want us to leave, just as the Iraqis do. ... ny Iraqi government that agrees to a hundred-year U.S. presence in Iraq will never be seen as legitimate by the Iraqi people, and thus will require the presence of U.S. forces to ensure its government."
100 YEARS STARTING WHEN?: McCain's dissembling about his vision of an Iraq occupation shows how little he understands about the region and the Iraq war. Recently, McCain rejected the very question of "how long we stay there" as "a false argument," because "it's not a matter of American troop presence, it's a matter of American casualties." McCain insists his 100-year troop presence would begin only after American casualties have ended. He told Fox News's Sean Hannity, "This war will be won if we stay with it and then it's just a question of American presence," adding, "I haven't seen anyone demonstrate against troops in Kuwait. It's American success." McCain's logic is woefully muddled. Last month, McCain reassured a townhall audience that "the war will be over soon," though he added quickly, "although the insurgency will go on for years and years and years."It's the same kind of despicable bullshit the left bought into that allowed the RW flip-flop talking points to gain traction. Kerry never said he voted for the war before he voted against it:
Talking Points
Actually, it was Bush who threatened to veto a bill Kerry co-sponsored to provide $87B to the troops by rolling back Bush's tax cuts on the wealthy elite. Effectively, Bush put his "have mores" ahead of our troops.
Kerry was telling the truth -- although he put it rather badly -- when he claimed that he "voted to provide the money before he voted against it". That's because there were two bills (hence, two options) for providing the funds. The first was S.1634, which Kerry co-sponsored but died in committee because of the Bush veto threat.
The bill that passed, S. 1689, had no provision for paying for the funding; thus, it provided $87 billion by running up the deficit further. An amendment offered by Biden (discussed below) which would have paid for the bill by rolling back tax cuts on the wealthy was defeated (tabled) by the majority Republicans.
The bottom line is this: Kerry proposed a bill to fund the troops. He proposed to pay for the funding, too, without running up the deficit. Bush threatened to veto a bill for funding the troops if it didn't run up the deficit. The GOP agreed, and their version passed.
link“I am confident that these patriotic Americans are prepared to sacrifice,” says Kerry
Thursday, October 2, 2003
WASHINGTON, DC – Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.) today joined Senator Joseph Biden (D-Del.) in calling for shared sacrifice by the wealthiest one percent of Americans to help pay the cost of $87 billion supplemental spending request for the war in Iraq.
“Senator Biden and I are making a common-sense proposal. Rather than borrowing an additional $87 billion, we want to scale back some of the new tax cuts for Americans making over $300,000 a year,” said Kerry in a speech delivered from the floor of the Senate.
“To put this in perspective with the men and women who are making the sacrifice in uniform – who are putting it all on the line for the country – the average enlisted man or woman makes $30,000 per year and the average officer makes $67,000.
“We all know what’s happening. The troops didn’t make millions in the 1980s and 1990s; they’re hardworking men and women, mostly from the middle class, who are fighting America’s war. It’s not unfair to ask those that earn the very most – those many fortunate, talented and hardworking Americans earning more than $300,000 – to sacrifice some of their tax cuts in order to promote a free Iraq; to reduce some of the burden being placed on future generations; and help sustain education, health care, and homeland security.”
The Biden-Kerry amendment to the supplemental spending request reduces the size of the Bush tax cut for the wealthiest one percent of Americans to help pay for the war in Iraq. The rate adjustment would occur during the final six years of the President’s 10-year tax cut plan.
“With 130,000 troops sacrificing every day in Iraq, terribly unfunded domestic programs, and historic debt growing in Washington, it is an equitable and responsible proposal. And I am confident that these patriotic Americans are prepared to sacrifice as well,” Kerry concluded.
The full text of Kerry floor speech follows:
moreAnyone suggesting McCain is making a valid argument or criticicsm of any Democrat when it comes to Iraq should be called out for their despicable desperation.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
