McCain is unfit to lead our country

Joe Klein: McCain Meltdown

John McCain said this today in Rochester, New Hampshire:

This is a clear choice that the American people have. I had the courage and the judgment to say I would rather lose a political campaign than lose a war. It seems to me that Obama would rather lose a war in order to win a political campaign.

This is the ninth presidential campaign I’ve covered. I can’t remember a more scurrilous statement by a major party candidate. It smacks of desperation. It renews questions about whether McCain has the right temperament for the presidency. How sad.

McCain explicitly called Obama a traitor; he is a disgrace.

Trackbacks & Pings

  1. Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator on 23 Jul 2008 at 6:30 am

    McCain “Whiner” Adviser Resigns…

    Former Sen. Phil Gramm stepped down as John McCain’s campaign co-chair, hoping to quiet the uproar f…

  2. Dog love. on 31 Jul 2008 at 7:34 pm

    Dog love….

    Dog love….

Comments

  1. Alon Levy wrote:

    No, he said Obama cares about winning the election more than about winning the war. That’s not accusing him of treason; that’s accusing him of not having the right priorities.

    Posted 22 Jul 2008 at 9:36 pm

  2. Stephen wrote:

    No, “lose a war in order to win a political campaign.”

    The accusation is that he would “[do his country harm] in order to [gain personally].”

    Also, note that “lose” is an active verb. I.e. Obama would “actively do stuff to LOSE A WAR for America.”

    Posted 22 Jul 2008 at 10:05 pm

  3. Redhand wrote:

    Alon: Don’t be ridiculous. It is a scurrulous attack.

    Posted 23 Jul 2008 at 3:36 am

  4. Alon Levy wrote:

    It’s scurrilous, but it’s not a treason charge.

    Posted 23 Jul 2008 at 5:28 am

  5. John the Marine wrote:

    The accusation is that he would “[do his country harm] in order to [gain personally].”

    Most politicians in Congress do exactly that every day the Senate and the House are assembled. So, McCain may be a hypocrite but I’m not stupid enough to believe St. Obama isn’t just another member of the pack.

    By the way this post has the tone of an overprotective mother whose little darling got their feelings hurt on the play ground and now she’s out wagging her finger scolding the offender. For Pete’s sake Stephen man up.

    Oh, just as an asside the surged worked and the man of change should just admit it.

    Furthermore, Malaki agrees with Obama’s 16 month timetable for withdrawl now that Iraq is on its way to taking care of its own security. McCain and W need to acknowledge this and work towards that goal.

    Those are the real issues at hand not some whiny BS that poor little Obama has been called on something and his dear pure heart supporters are upset.

    Posted 23 Jul 2008 at 7:28 am

  6. David C. wrote:

    Please get a grip. It’s a political campaign and believe it or not, the candidates are going to say nasty things about each other. Accusing an opponent of taking positions solely to get elected is a staple of American politics.

    It seems to me that Obama would rather lose a war in order to win a political campaign.

    It seems that way to a lot of people. Obama was insisting that we withdraw from Iraq well before it looked feasible to do so. His continued insistance on a rigid timetable makes it appear that he doesn’t care what happens in Iraq, and he just wants our troops out regardless.

    This is the ninth presidential campaign I’ve covered. I can’t remember a more scurrilous statement by a major party candidate. It smacks of desperation. It renews questions about whether McCain has the right temperament for the presidency. How sad

    Completely ridiculous. This attack hurts because it has the ring of truth, and is exactly the type of attack McCain should be making. Obama doesn’t want to alienate the left-wing base of the Democratic party by modifying his position on Iraq to fit the changed conditions. He adopted his “withdraw in 16 months” position back when he, along with the rest of the Left, were convinced that the war was lost, and that the best thing for the U.S. was just to get out. Despite the changed situation he has stuck to that position. He’s danced around it, giving various caveats, but he hasn’t changed it. Why? Politics. He doesn’t want to be seen as flip-flopping on one of his major policy points and he doesn’t want to anger the anti-war base.

    McCain explicitly called Obama a traitor; he is a disgrace.

    No, he didn’t, obviously. If he had explicitly called Obama a traitor he would have said “Obama is a traitor.” What he did do was say that Obama is putting politics ahead of the good of the country. This is a standard political attack made by campaigns across the spectrum — as even Joe Klein admits in his silly overreaction.

    Don’t be ridiculous. It is a scurrulous attack.

    No, it isn’t, and McCain should continue to say it. The hysterical reaction of Obama supporters to criticism is getting out of hand. At least you aren’t screaming about racism this time, so I guess that’s one positive.

    Posted 23 Jul 2008 at 8:34 am

  7. Redhand wrote:

    Furthermore, Malaki agrees with Obama’s 16 month timetable for withdrawl now that Iraq is on its way to taking care of its own security. McCain and W need to acknowledge this and work towards that goal.

    But the point is, John, that they won’t. W. will stick by his “aspirational event horizion” (or whatever the meaningless euphasism-de-jour is) because he doesn’t want the US to leave without Iraq becoming a “strong democratic ally and friend of the US in the region,” i.e. part of our sphere of influence there. He will maintain this posture until he leaves office, and hope the baton is passed to McCain, who is of the same view. This view is open-ended as to time.

    Of course, it is inconvenient that the Iraqi Government’s agenda may be different: “Thank you for our freedom, but please don’t overstay your welcome as liberators. Leave in about 16 months. BTW, states have no ‘friends,’ only interests, and we’re not interested in becoming an American sphere of influence.”

    Posted 23 Jul 2008 at 9:02 am

  8. David C. wrote:

    he doesn’t want the US to leave without Iraq becoming a “strong democratic ally and friend of the US in the region,” i.e. part of our sphere of influence there.

    And this is somehow a bad thing?

    This view is open-ended as to time.

    As it should be. That’s called being flexible and adapting to the situation

    Of course, it is inconvenient that the Iraqi Government’s agenda may be different: “Thank you for our freedom, but please don’t overstay your welcome as liberators. Leave in about 16 months. BTW, states have no ‘friends,’ only interests, and we’re not interested in becoming an American sphere of influence.”

    Yes, Iraqi interests are different than U.S. interests. But that doesn’t mean the U.S. should act in accord with Iraqi interests. If we can’t reach agreement with Iraq regarding a continued military presence, then we should leave. But until we get a definitive request to leave, we should keep trying to work out an arrangement that is best for U.S. interests. This is yet another reason to vote for McCain. He’ll try to do that, Obama just wants to leave.

    Posted 23 Jul 2008 at 9:31 am

  9. John the Marine wrote:

    Redhand,
    What about this 1/2 of it?

    Oh, just as an asside the surged worked and the man of change should just admit it.

    Well are we just addressing the part of reality we like neglecting the part that is distasteful? Politics as usual. I was hoping for a change.

    Posted 23 Jul 2008 at 9:37 am

  10. Stephen wrote:

    McCain is a confused, has-been, and a hack. He doesn’t know which countries haven’t existed for 15 years. He supported a pointless war, and wants to stay there for 100 yeara. He sings songs about bombing people. He doesn’t know where Iraq and Pakistan are. He doesn’t know how Social Security works. He claims he voted for stuff he didn’t.

    After promising a “respectful dialog,” now, in a fit of pique, he’s got nothing more than to call his opponent a traitor.

    He’s claiming that the Surge (early 2007) “caused” the so-called Anbar Awakening (late 2006).

    He is a confused, weak, dangerous liability, a liar, and a hack. And “now he wants to be our commander in chief? America can’t afford that risk.”

    He should ride off into the sunset with Bush41 in his golf cart.

    Posted 23 Jul 2008 at 9:45 am

  11. Bill from INDC wrote:

    Commissar -

    Step awaaaaay from the compuuuuter …

    Posted 23 Jul 2008 at 10:01 am

  12. Bill from INDC wrote:

    Have a nice iced lemonade, watch some TV (no cable news).

    Obama is not the messiah, McCain is not the devil, and vice versa. Both of them offer up plenty of BS.

    And regarding those who are sticking to the “Maliki agrees with Obama” line, some suggested reading.

    Posted 23 Jul 2008 at 10:03 am

  13. canuckistani wrote:

    No one thinks Obama is the messiah. Just that he is a far better choice than poor old confused flip-flopping petulant John McCain.

    Hey, did you notice I didn’t call him McSame? Or John McBush III? Or call him a senile old fool? Pretty restrained, eh?

    Posted 23 Jul 2008 at 10:12 am

  14. Stephen wrote:

    Bill,

    This is nuts. Maybe you have to get away from the computer.

    Maliki’s comments in DS, and confirmed by the NYT, pathetically non-denied by Dabbagh, and then reinforced by more Iraqi government statements in the following days, suport Obama’s position.

    Maliki HIMSELF said “I agree with Obama.” But no, the WaPo editorial says, “The Iraqi govt doesn’t agree with Obama,” and (if you read it) is wholly sneaky and “spinny” in its support of that assertion.

    Further, it tries to say “not 16 months, but in 2010.” If Obama takes office in Jan, 2009, how is 16 months *not* in 2010?

    C’mon, Bill. That’s a BS editorial. You should know better.

    Posted 23 Jul 2008 at 10:26 am

  15. Redhand wrote:

    To John & David C.:

    Yes, “the Surge” has brought much greater stability to Iraq, but it’s an oxymoron. What we really have in it is a permanent increase in troop strength. After years of wasting American lives with ad-hoc non-strategies, Bush finally got something right, i.e. he found Petraeus. However, the present stability doesn’t justify the war, in my opinion. The whole mess has been an enormous diversion from what should have been the focus from Day One: getting Bin-Laden.

    As between a compliant client state in Iraq and dealing with the fire in Afghanistan, I agree with Obama that the latter should be our primary focus. (It’s clear we can’t maintain current troop strengths in Iraq and send additional troops to Afghanistan.) I decline to adopt David C.’s blatant neo-con (and dare I say, neo-colonialist) view of our “interests” in Iraq.

    Posted 23 Jul 2008 at 10:46 am

  16. David C. wrote:

    McCain is a confused, has-been, and a hack. He doesn’t know which countries haven’t existed for 15 years. He supported a pointless war, and wants to stay there for 100 yeara. He sings songs about bombing people. He doesn’t know where Iraq and Pakistan are. He doesn’t know how Social Security works. He claims he voted for stuff he didn’t.

    What a bunch of bs, derived from a few mistatements on the campaign trail, not to mention the usual intellectually dishonest talking point about 100 years. Do you actually believe your own nonsense?

    he’s got nothing more than to call his opponent a traitor.

    Except that he didn’t. Stop pretending that your illogical characterization is what McCain said. Candidates regularly say that their opponents are putting politics ahead of the good of the country. It doesn’t equal calling them traitors. Stop being ridiculously hypersensitive to any criticism of Obama — especially when it is well-deserved.

    He is a confused, weak, dangerous liability, a liar, and a hack. And “now he wants to be our commander in chief? America can’t afford that risk.”

    Sounds like a pretty solid description of Obama to me.

    Posted 23 Jul 2008 at 10:52 am

  17. David C. wrote:

    Redhand,

    However, the present stability doesn’t justify the war, in my opinion. The whole mess has been an enormous diversion from what should have been the focus from Day One: getting Bin-Laden.

    That’s a legitimate argument, but it isn’t really relevant to the question of what we should do now in Iraq.

    As between a compliant client state in Iraq and dealing with the fire in Afghanistan, I agree with Obama that the latter should be our primary focus. (It’s clear we can’t maintain current troop strengths in Iraq and send additional troops to Afghanistan.

    Also a reasonable argument, except that no one is talking about maintaining our current troop strength in Iraq. Withdrawal plans are on schedule. The big question revolves around whether we need to tie ourselves to a fixed timetable, or whether we should retain flexibility.

    I decline to adopt David C.’s blatant neo-con (and dare I say, neo-colonialist) view of our “interests” in Iraq.

    Except that my views are not neo-con at all. I don’t particularly care about building a democratic state in Iraq and never have. And what is “neo-colonialist”? Is that just a generic slur like neo-con, meaning basically anyone that disagrees with you? I’ve repeatedly stated that we should leave Iraq if we get a formal request to do so — hardly an imperialistic position.

    Since when is it wrong to believe that the U.S. government should be more concerned with U.S. interests than Iraqi interests? Why would you want our government to advance the interests of foreign countries above our own? The Iraqi government can look out for Iraqi interests.

    Posted 23 Jul 2008 at 11:07 am

  18. Stephen wrote:

    David,

    What does this mean?

    “the usual intellectually dishonest talking point about 100 years.”

    He said the words, in reference to our long-term presence in Iraq, “Why not 50 years, or 100?”

    You all insist that he meant “a peaceful presence, like SK or Germany, after fighting has ceased.” Okay. No reference to “fighting and dying for 100 years.” I’ll grant you that.

    But now, somehow, any reference at all to his statement, wholly within the context of what you claim he meant, is “intellectually dishonest.” How?

    Posted 23 Jul 2008 at 12:28 pm

  19. Bill from INDC wrote:

    Hey, did you notice I didn’t call him McSame? Or John McBush III? Or call him a senile old fool? Pretty restrained, eh?

    I do appreciate that. Nothing flips my not paying attention switch faster than political nicknames.

    Posted 23 Jul 2008 at 2:28 pm

  20. David C. wrote:

    Stephen,

    You all insist that he meant “a peaceful presence, like SK or Germany, after fighting has ceased.” Okay. No reference to “fighting and dying for 100 years.” I’ll grant you that.

    Then why is it something to beat McCain over the head with? Do you object to our presence in Germany or South Korea? Why is being in favor of a similar arrangement in Iraq a bad thing?

    Posted 23 Jul 2008 at 2:31 pm

  21. Alon Levy wrote:

    For a start, there’s no money for it. A good rule of thumb is that when the government runs deficits at the peak of the business cycle, there’s no money for elective programs until taxes are raised to cover them.

    Posted 23 Jul 2008 at 2:40 pm

  22. John the Marine wrote:

    Redhand, I’m proud of you’ve grown:

    Yes, “the Surge” has brought much greater stability to Iraq,

    Now I won’t take your quote out of
    context so here is the rest:

    What we really have in it is a permanent increase in troop strength. After years of wasting American lives with ad-hoc non-strategies, Bush finally got something right, i.e. he found Petraeus. However, the present stability doesn’t justify the war, in my opinion. The whole mess has been an enormous diversion from what should have been the focus from Day One: getting Bin-Laden.

    The above is debateable. I disagree with you for the most part but everyone is entitle to their own opinion. Furthermore I can how based on available information why you might arrive at your conclusions but as I’ve already said I disagree. Finally acknowledging the sucess of the surge is important because quite frankly the positive results it has generated allow the U.S. to begin its exit leaving Iraq not chaos but under the control of a stable democratic government with a viable well trained military to provide internal and external security.

    BTW even though it isn’t my point per say I think a truly free, independent and self governing Iraq is what is truly good for US interests.

    Posted 23 Jul 2008 at 2:52 pm

  23. John the Marine wrote:

    Ooopps, the first sentence should have been:

    Redhand, I’m proud of you, you’ve grown.

    Oh, Stephen, don’t pop a blood vessel or something. Sheesh, I think you passion meter is in the red brother.

    Posted 23 Jul 2008 at 2:54 pm

  24. Bill from INDC wrote:

    Maliki HIMSELF said “I agree with Obama.” But no, the WaPo editorial says, “The Iraqi govt doesn’t agree with Obama,” and (if you read it) is wholly sneaky and “spinny” in its support of that assertion.

    I may have missed Maliki’s explicit agreement, beyond his statement that “whoever is advocating withdrawal sooner rather than later is closer to the mark.” (paraphrased)

    The fact of the matter is, Maliki et al have always - always - caveated statements about a timeline for withdrawal with “if the Iraqi Army is ready,” or “circumstances permitting,” or some other head nod to conditions.

    To some extent this is all hair splitting, as Obama does the same thing (add caveats).

    And while Maliki is PM, it’s also important to know that he represents a minority party that is part of a majority bloc in a government coalition within a larger government that is divided about withdrawal timeframes.

    You’re in the tank for Obama, and that’s fine. But don’t you get tired of the parsing, the close analysis, the outrage, the attacks on the opponent, and, to some extent, the spinning?

    I look back at my political blogging in ‘04 and grimace in discomfort at a lot of it. At some point in the past few years, I lost most of my taste for getting emotionally invested in politics (and especially politicians). Probably the only thing that makes me angry is when folks twist reality about war to meet political ends.

    Examples of this for me would be those calling for withdrawal in 2007 when such an act would have undoubtedly resulted in stupefying genocide. When one sits and talks to Iraqis and hears how bad things are, and how bad they would get, it’s easy to develop that anger.

    For balance, I get annoyed with right wing pundits who claim to know the will of the troops as some sort of homogenous entity (plenty of liberals and/or cynics in the military, believe it or not), or downplay difficulties because difficulty is seen as “anti-war,” as examples.

    Rhetoric from politicians has been especially disconnected from the reality of the conflict.

    I’ll leave this topic with this: regardless of the initial decision to invade, the US has spent an enormous amount of treasure and a significant amount of blood on this conflict, and nearly unquantifiable strategic implications are at stake when contemplating Iraq’s future. (For the US, Middle East, civilians, military, economics, you name the category)

    Coupled with the fact that Iraq is now being won, when one defines “winning” as a stable, sovereign Iraq that suffers a comparable level of violence for the region, can defend itself, pay its bills, does not export terror and is not a threat to its neighbors, Obama’s talk of Iraq being a “distraction” is odd in its distortion of America’s foreign policy issues.

    His line is served up for the consumption of a base that is tired of the war and/or generally ignorant of the implications of not nailing down the stabilization of Iraq.

    Promote Obama’s energy policy, promote his financial policy, promote his good looks and charm, whatever - but on Iraq, Obama’s stated position, which I pray will be tempered by cynical politicking and reality if/when he’s elected, is way more wrong than it’s right.

    Posted 23 Jul 2008 at 3:02 pm

  25. Bill from INDC wrote:

    And that evaluation is not based on my political leanings, rather my honest assessment of what Iraq needs.

    And if I’m not a good enough source (understandable), I highly, highly recommend Anthony Cordesman’s last three assessments on Iraq, including timelines for effective development of the ISF. I believe he last stated major infrastructure, ISF development and government institutional development would be needed from the US through 2013.

    Posted 23 Jul 2008 at 3:05 pm

  26. Stephen wrote:

    Bill,

    Do you think McCain is competent to be President? Not “the devil.” But seriously up to the job.

    Posted 23 Jul 2008 at 3:27 pm

  27. a former european wrote:

    Stephen, the only reason McCain is the Republican nominee is that Lincoln Chafee wasn’t around to get it.:) McCain has always been a political lightweight. The only reason he is well-known is because of the media. The media anointed him their “darling” because he was willing to give Bush and the Republicans a poke in the eye whenever it would garner him more camera time. At least Evita had that catchy “Don’t cry for me Argentina” song.

    Asking whether he would be a better president than Bush is a trick question, though. Can we get worse?

    Posted 24 Jul 2008 at 12:56 am

  28. Bill from INDC wrote:

    Do you think McCain is competent to be President? Not “the devil.” But seriously up to the job.

    I think that both McCain and Obama are competent to be president. I do believe that if McCain runs two terms, his competence might become a problem due to his advanced age.

    Posted 25 Jul 2008 at 12:06 pm

« A nation of whiners?
Let’s do the time warp again »