« Prince's "Creep" | Main | Capital Gains » Out of Context28 Apr 2008 09:13 am Obviously, this ad is terrible unfair: It's unfair, because it's out of context. In context, McCain offered his Magical Death-Free Proviso in which our troops are going to be immune to enemy fire for the duration of his proposed 100 year presence. Or something. Basically, we'll have an open-ended war in Iraq followed by 100 years of peacefully kind of hanging around. That, obviously, makes his views much more reasonable. Comments (36)
And the giant tax cuts for the rich and businesses will more than pay for themselves! Clinton proved that raising taxes starves government, and W proved that lowering taxes balances the budget and leaves the country awash in money! Liberal Charlie Gibson said so! 
Statler:
"Obviously, this ad is terrible unfair:" Proofread, Matt. Proofread.
Basically, we'll have an open-ended war in Iraq followed by 100 years of peacefully kind of hanging around. That, obviously, makes his views much more reasonable. Well it is more reasonable than 100 years of war. Whether it's reasonable in an absolute sense is a bit more unclear.
I agree this line of attack on McCain is fair, and will remain so unless he actually comes up with an exit strategy for Iraq. The "defense" of McCain's comment is that he meant staying in Iraq like we stayed in South Korea or Japan. But I fail to see how that is really a defense: if McCain think the situation in Iraq is equivalent to the situation in South Korea or Japan, then he is hopelessly ignorant about what is going on in Iraq. Incidentally, Ambinder claims to be a reporter of some sort, but as far as I can tell his "reporting" basically amounts to the Clinton Campaign feeding him stuff they would like to see him print. Indeed, the few occasions when it appears the Clinton Campaign didn't ghost write his posts for him, they were a mess.
"Joe Klein's conscience," what the hell are you talking about? National Journal has never been a right-wing magazine.
I also agree with McCain: if and when the U.S. occupation in Iraq becomes similar to a skiing vacation in Switzerland in which no U.S. troops are suffering casualties and the troops are stationed across a safely patrolled DMZ and also the troops are daily issued pots of gold by friendly leprechauns, we would be able to remain there for hundred, a thousand years even.
Obviously it's less fair than to pin Obama for something a friend did when Obama as 9 years old, but it's fair.
John Tabin:
Criticising McCain on his all too flippant answer to that question about staying in Iraq is fair because the essential issue is stay there or not stay there. p.s. complaining to MY about marc is about as classy as jughead going to veronica to figure out whats up with betty: how high school can you folks get?
Attacking McCain on the war only makes sense if Obama is the candidate, it would be hard for Hillary to attack McCain for his war support when she has supported the same war.
RE: DNC McCain ad — He said it, he meant it. Kudos to the person who pointed out that "100 years of peaceful occupation" in Iraq is literally an impossibility. RE: Ambinder and Rev Wright — I watched his speech this morning, and the only thing Rev Wright DIDN'T do is cartwheel around the stage screaming "It's ABOUT ME!! WHEEEE!" As I sunk my face into my hands, I had visions of Nader and other hubris-soaked formerly-great leaders who never learned how to shut the eff up. I'm not sure if it was an egregious sin of pride or wrath, but Wright definitely had ulterior motives.
"100 years of peaceful occupation" in Iraq is literally an impossibility. And pointless. Really, really, really pointless. What's it supposed to prove? -There, I said we'd stay 100 years and now we've done it.
Ambinder was a Republican echo when editing ABC's "The Note". Why do you expect him to change.
Didn't al-Sadr just say that as long as US troops are there, there will be fighting? Did I mishear that?
If I could lay gold eggs, I'd do that for 100 years too.
As I've argued before, besides being unfair, what's more important is that this kind of thing is counterproductive. His substantive views are definitely a vulnerability, and I think that makes it all the more important to argue the actual point and avoid having this all degenerate into the 100 years sound bite. Of course, it does have value in a marketing, awareness-raising sense, but if at all possible it would be better to find provocative statements or actions which aren't taken out of context.
"Unfair" is what the Bamboosters will be crying when President Barry keeps the troops in Iraq throughout his presidency. Of course, you won't hear much about that possibility now, since both he and Hill keep the media at arm's length, rather than permitting access and openness to the extent that J-Mac has always done.
Didn't al-Sadr just say that as long as US troops are there, there will be fighting? So now you want to base our foreign policy on what al-Sadr says? Basing it on what Osama bin-Laden says is another matter.
Mike, The problem is that McCain is unlikely to just admit something like, "I have no exit plan for Iraq, which isn't a problem in my view since I don't want us exiting from Iraq anyway." And I really don't think using this soundbite without "context" is unfair, because the full exchange implies the same thing (McCain has no exit plan for Iraq, and indeed doesn't see the need for one).
Sorry, Michael, I would've asked Ambers directly, but, you know, comments are disabled. OTOH, I didn't watch the speech, so it's entirely possible that John's point about "everything short of cartwheeling" is entirely true. I just don't know -- there's a lot of nuance in speech that gets lost in a transcript. However, from what I've read I've got to say that R. Wright doesn't sound "vengeful."
I thought McSame's comments meant that we would stay in Iraq as long as it takes. Not that we'll stay in Iraq for 100 years once the peace pony is found. McSame thinks that it doesn't matter if we lose 1,000 or 10,000 American service men and women per year for 10 years, 50 years, 100 years, or 1,000 years. According to McSame, we'll be in Iraq until no more Americans are killed and all Iraqis are riding pretty pink peace ponies across the desert. The goal of the military occupation of Iraq is that we will stay there until Iraqis stop killing our soldiers and marines. Of course, I can think of another way to get our casualty rate to 0% that doesn't involve our service men scouring the desert for pretty pink peace ponies...
I think McBush's Iraq views are pretty all-inclusive. As long as we are taking casualties, we cannot leave Iraq. If we are no longer taking casualties, there is no reason to leave Iraq. Either way, McBush gets his 100 years. The only one it's not fair to is the American servicemen/women and the American taxpayers.
openness to the extent that J-Mac has always done. "J-Mac"? I'm afraid you're really close to going to Hell.
It's funny; the GOP cries that McCain's comments are taken out of context, but then they do the same and worse with Rev Wright, who isn't even running for office. I guess there's 2 standards; one for white candidates, one for black people who aren't even on the ballot.
The goal of the military occupation of Iraq is that we will stay there until Iraqis stop killing our soldiers and marines. Of course, I can think of another way to get our casualty rate to 0% that doesn't involve our service men scouring the desert for pretty pink peace ponies... The lightbulb just went on! It's just like that scene at the beginning of "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid" where Butch is trying to get out of having Sundance kill the guy who called Sundance a cheater. Maybe an al Qaida guy can ask us nicely to stay. Then, McCain (et al) can just collect their winnings and leave. It's worth a shot.
permitting blowjobs and frottage to the extent that J-Mac has always done. Fixed your typo, there. (What do you think he uses the doughnuts for?)
The situation in Iraq is the one part of the situation that does not matter to McCain’s Iraq policy. If the war goes well, we stay for 100 years - to balance Iran, to project our force, etc. If the war goes badly, we stay for 100 years - to fight for honor.
Well the compromise obvious! Pull the troops out now and once Iraq is as peaceful as modern day Germany or South Korea, while then we'll roll in with the bands playing and the troops marching. That way, there's a clean break between our troops fighting in a pointless war and our troops enduring a long, boring stint of guard duty. So, unless we pull the troops until after the fighting stops, at what point along that 100 years can we expect to stop taking casualties? It really is remarkable that during the US peacekeeping operations in the Balkans during the late 90's, not a single US service member was killed by enemy fire. Would that our troops in Iraq were so lucky.
Well the compromise obvious! Pull the troops out now and once Iraq is as peaceful as modern day Germany or South Korea, while then we'll roll in with the bands playing and the troops marching. That way, there's a clean break between our troops fighting in a pointless war and our troops enduring a long, boring stint of guard duty. If we don't pull the troops until after the fighting stops, at what point along that 100 years can we expect to stop taking casualties?
It'd be more than fair if the DNC began to de-mythologize McCain's "war hero" status and ran with the Alex Cockburn "Counterpunch" piece the other day. As the equivalent of the Peter Graves POW rat from "Stalag 17" - McCain deserves no less. Of course, they won't touch it - but some enterprising political group should. Why give the pampered little coward a pass?
I love the angle of the McCain video. I don't know if it was intentional or not, but it's sure sweet to see a hunched over old man lecturing to us about 100 years. He'll be dead in 20, tops. WTF does he care.
The problem is that McCain is unlikely to just admit something like, "I have no exit plan for Iraq, which isn't a problem in my view since I don't want us exiting from Iraq anyway." Quite true. I still think that with more work, you should be able to quote him both accurately and damningly.
I don't know why this keeps coming up. There is absolutely no way in hell the US COULD stay in Iraq for a 100 years given any significant opposition. But beyond that obvious point, IN FACT the Iraqis ARE going to drive the US out within the next couple of years at best - and probably this year if Bush and Cheney attack Iran. All it will take is for the Iranians to trigger ISCI and Dawa and Sadr to start it full scale, without worrying about being "blamed" for it - since they will be anyway once the US attacks Iran on that excuse. And then the Sunni would join in seeing it as their best chance to get rid of the US, so they can go back to fighting the Shia later. The US will have its supply lines cut within thirty days, and be out of food, water, fuel and ammo within thirty days. Then US forces will have to evacuate through hostile territory under fire out through Kuwait, or, more likely, northern Iraq into Turkey. And if they don't leave, once the attacks on Iran start, Iran would just throw four divisions across the border and roll up most US troops in southern and eastern Iraq. And if the US threw the US troops in northern and western Iraq in, they'd get rolled up too. William Lind is not wrong to suggest that this outcome is quite possible, if not likely. With the aid of over 100,000 Shia insurgents, oh, yes, the US could lose its entire force in Iraq. Iran would take devastating punishment doing so, but it could be done. The US military in Iraq is hanging by a thread.
rather than permitting access and openness to the extent that J-Mac has always done. Is that the "openness" that has nearly the entirety of McCain's financial holdings withheld from the public for "privacy"?
Comments closed May 12, 2008. |
Search
Subscribe to this blog by Email Books by Matthew Yglesias
Recent Comments
Recent Posts
Weekly Archives
Categories
|
Copyright © 2007 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Matt, what's the deal with Marc. He stopped allowing comments and seems to have suddenly become savagely anti-Obama. That's fine, but it is a really sharp turn in his campaign coverage. See: his post about Wright's "revenge tour" where the linked article doesn't convey any sense of "revenge." Any idea what's going on? I really like Marc's work, but I suddenly feel like I'm in the spin room.
Posted by Statler | April 28, 2008 9:26 AM