John McCain would like us to believe that he was some kind of uber-prescient early critic of the Bush administration's tactics in Iraq but it's just not so. Barack Obama warned before the war that disaster was likely, McCain cheerleaded for war. Then when the war appeared to be going well, McCain thought Bush and Rumsfeld were fantastic. Then when the war very clearly wasn't going well, McCain started opportunistically turning on them. That's nice, I suppose, but it's still a record of badly flawed judgment.
« More Things We Can Ignore | Main | Two Ways of Looking at a Primary »
McCain Five Years Ago
23 Apr 2008 04:27 pm
Comments (20)
I like the way he talked about the Iraq war in the past tense five years ago.
Should be McCain's campaign slogan.
I like his claim near the end there that "it was easy," given that elsewhere he has claimed that other people may have misled the American people into thinking that it would be easy, but they didn't know what they were talking about/voting on.
He'll say anything to anyone.
In McCain's defense, he was calling for more troops from almost the very beginning. He was for the war, but believed doing it right required a lot more troops. Matt believes that no feasible number of troops would have changed the outcome, but at least McCain was sharp enough to recognize that Rumsfeld's insistence on a small number of troops was counter-productive. McCain also was fairly early in pushing for Rumsfeld to go. McCain may have bad strategic ideas, but he seems to have not unreasonable notions about what would be required to actually carry out those ideas. This is an improvement over Bush & co.
"Cheerleaded"? My respect for a Harvard education drops another notch...
Then when the war very clearly wasn't going well, McCain started opportunistically turning on them. That's nice, I suppose, but it's still a record of badly flawed judgment.
Hmmmm..... I wonder if that might apply to any 20-somethings itching to be the next Beltway TeeVee pundits?
Behold the power of YouTube:
McCain's Double Talk Express, where he says multiple things that can't be explained away by saying he wanted more troops from the start.
An effective video on how support for continued presence in Iraq occurs 6 months at a time.
And a video showing McCain's flip flops on a variety of topics.
These are the kinds of things that will hurt McCain. When Obama quoted McCain's own words in context, he went ballistic and tried to say it was dirty. That s*** ain't gonna' fly in the general. He'll have to answer for his own words and record, something I haven't seen him as capable of doing at all.
Oh, please. The quotes on the linked page are from a month after the war began - before even "Mission Accomplished". Even Matthew himself was a war supporter at that time!
You may have noticed that he said other things about the war at other times. Like in 2004, when he said he had "no confidence" in Rumsfeld over Rumsfeld's handling of the war.
"Then when the war very clearly wasn't going well, McCain started opportunistically turning on them. That's nice, I suppose, but it's still a record of badly flawed judgment."
Hmmmm..... I wonder if that might apply to any 20-somethings itching to be the next Beltway TeeVee pundits?
sglover, it would be hard to argue that Matt's turn against the war has been opportunistic. After all, since that turn he's been *consistently* critical of it, which McCain has not -- his objective is to get elected, so he's been critical or supportive depending on whom he's talking to. Also, for a very long time, opposing the war was a sure way to NOT get yourself on TV, and indeed it still poses a serious handicap, so if getting on TV was Matt's objective, he'd have gone the O'Hanlon route and stuck with the war.
The quotes on the linked page are from a month after the war began...
And just how does that make McCain's judgment on the Iraq war any less abysmal? He said he thought we "WILL be greeted as liberators." GONG!!! He said no house to house fighting. GONG!!!
But if you want something more recent, let's talk about his infamous walk though the Baghdad market just one year ago. GONG!!!
"Cheerleaded"? My respect for a Harvard education drops another notch...
It's an interesting question. Lots of irregular verbs turn regular when they get turned into compounds or get new senses derived from nouns (such as "high-sticked" as opposed to "high-stuck"). Steven Pinker has elevated it to a principle; there is a discussion of Pinker and an apparent tennis-derived exception here. On Pinker's principle I think "cheerlead" would be regularized into "cheerleaded," because I suspect it was backformed from the noun "cheerleader" (first recorded in 1903, but I don't know when "cheerlead" first appeared as a verb).
And "cheerleaded" beats "cheerled" on Google, but not by that much. The interesting thing is that neither past tense is very common, compared to the huge number of hits for "cheerleader," "cheerleading," and "cheerlead"; but "cheerleads" isn't that common either, which makes me think that maybe the "cheerlead" hits aren't mostly uses as verbs.
Firefox spellcheck flags all the forms except "cheerleader" -- even, bizarrely, "cheerleading." And American Heritage Dictionary recommends "cheerled."
I recall, as does DCreader, McCain calling for more troops from very early on. Does anyone recall what McCain's response was to Gen. Shinseki's call for 250,000+ troops? That was pretty early in the process if I recall.
How about "cheered" or even "led the cheering"? Do you really lose that much oomph? "Chearleaded" is simply too ugly for print.
McCain never pushed legislation to increase the size of the military in order to have enough troops to maintain his fake larger force. McCain makes noises about a larger military on the talk shows then never does jack shit about it in his day job as US Senator.
also, for a very long time, opposing the war was a sure way to NOT get yourself on TV, and indeed it still poses a serious handicap, so if getting on TV was Matt's objective, he'd have gone the O'Hanlon route and stuck with the war.
OK, I'll grant you that opportunism probably doesn't apply. But the issue of judgement surely does.
John McCain is 5'7", and loses his temper all the time. We do not need this little, snotty, wannabe, smarmy, two-faced, too-old prick trying to live out his boyhood vengeance fantasies by playing with the fates of everyone in the country.
It's easy to look at Barack and McCain and see the contrast. The first is a man, the second is a boy. McCain tried to cover up his feelings of inadequacy with his reckless stunt of going into the Air Force, taking a place that certainly should have gone to a better man, a cooler head. Ever since, he's been milking his performance-- the better part of which consisted entirely of sitting in a little room, tied-up, and getting tortured-- to convince everyone he's something worthwhile.
That's no action hero-- that's a victim who's trying to take out his bad experiences on the people here at home.
You may have noticed that he said other things about the war at other times.
He contains multitudes! He supported tons of stuff before he opposed it!
You're in trouble, Al, when you start to sound like satire in an effort to defend your guy.
Swan, McBush was a Naval aviator, not Air Force. The worst one ever, I might add.
Anybody else get a warm and fuzzy feeling when Democrats unite to attack McCain?
Why can't we ever have the same discipline that the GOP does? Sure, they mostly use it for evil, but damn are they in line.
"McCain may have bad strategic ideas, but he seems to have not unreasonable notions about what would be required to actually carry out those ideas. This is an improvement over Bush & co."
Yeah, right - like nuking Iran.
You're an idiot.
Bravo Richard, on reminding these imperialist pigs exactly what the stakes are.
Comments closed May 07, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
So... McCain was for the war before he was against it which was before he was for even more of it for 100 years....
Posted by Ron | April 23, 2008 4:40 PM