McCain covers own ass, increases surge suggestion

[Drocket]

McCain called for a minimum of six additional Army brigades -- roughly 25,000 soldiers -- to be sent to Iraq, especially translators, Special Forces and civil affairs officers.

Link (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16484446/)

In this whole discussion of the 'surge' (AKA escalation) option for Iraq, the thing that disgusts me most is McCain. His entire position seems to be to come up with suggestions that he doesn't believe will be implemented, simply so he can claim that had he been in change, he would have 'won' in Iraq. He's essentially the main person who started discussion of the escalation option - something the majority of the army's commanders have come out against - most, I think, because it was a stupid enough plan that he didn't think Bush would ever go for it (or that anyone would ever let Bush go for it.)

It turns out that Bush IS stupid enough to do for it, so McCain does the only logical thing - call for even MORE troops, and claim that the number Bush is apparently planning to sent (15-20,000) "will be worse than not doing anything." (Gee, John, if the plan you came up with last month was that bad, why should we trust your new plan?)

If anything good comes out of the escalation in Iraq, its that McCain's bluff has been called, and his 2008 presidential run just got a whole lot toastier.

[Labrocca]

Others have also called for more troops...especially the Democrats. Who was it that actually placed the draft into a vote? A Democrat. My personal opinion is not to send more troops but that's exactly what the new powers that be will do. If you want to blame anyone...blame the Democrats because if they weren't elected into power Bush wouldn't send more troops.

[Drocket]

Others have also called for more troops...especially the Democrats. Who was it that actually placed the draft into a vote? A Democrat.

The Democrat in question doesn't actually WANT the draft. What he wanted was an honest discussion of what would be needed to maintain our occupation of Iraq. And he's right - yesterday's news included the little factoid that Bush can want to surge 20,000 troops into Iraq all he wants, but the military has told him that it can only sent about 9,000.

If we want to send enough troops to Iraq to matter, we're going to have to enact a draft. That's just the simple reality of the situation. The only other two options are to bring them home, or let them sit over there and get blown up. This is a fact that America needs to face.

My personal opinion is not to send more troops but that's exactly what the new powers that be will do. If you want to blame anyone...blame the Democrats because if they weren't elected into power Bush wouldn't send more troops.

Boy, I'm glad Bush didn't decide to nuke Europe - the Democrats would be in a LOT of trouble then for making him do it.

[ECW]

Others have also called for more troops...especially the Democrats.Â*Â*

This story from the ticker says you are wrong about that.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The new leaders of Congress on Friday urged President Bush not to pour more U.S. troops into the war in Iraq, calling the idea "a strategy that you have already tried and that has already failed."

Their open letter comes as Bush considers a new plan for the war, shuffles his Iraq commanders and moves his spy chief to handle Iraqi diplomacy.

"Adding more combat troops will only endanger more Americans and stretch our military to the breaking point for no strategic gain. And it would undermine our efforts to get the Iraqis to take responsibility for their own future," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid wrote in a letter released Friday afternoon.

"We are well past the point of more troops for Iraq."

[Nemo]

What a dog’s life John McCain must lead. After being so viciously attacked in his bid for the presidency in 2000, he comes crawling back to lick his master’s hand.

[Viper2]

Drocket:
If anything good comes out of the escalation in Iraq, its that McCain's bluff has been called, and his 2008 presidential run just got a whole lot toastier.

McCain is a fence jumping maverick, plain and simple.

[Viper2]

Others have also called for more troops...especially the Democrats.Â*Â*Who was it that actually placed the draft into a vote?Â*Â*A Democrat.Â*Â*My personal opinion is not to send more troops but that's exactly what the new powers that be will do.Â*Â*If you want to blame anyone...blame the Democrats because if they weren't elected into power Bush wouldn't send more troops.


Good ole Charlie R:

http://www.nydailynews.com:80/front/v-echo/story/473181p-398023c.html

Rangel feelin' a draft
But Harlem voters deride renewed push by Dem big
BY MICHAEL McAULIFF
DAILY NEWS WASHINGTON BUREAU

WASHINGTON - Rep. Charles Rangel plans to resurrect a bill to reinstate the draft when Democrats take power in January, but the idea got a chilly reception yesterday in the heart of his Harlem district.

"There's no question in my mind that this President and this administration would never have invaded Iraq ... if, indeed, we had a draft and members of Congress and the administration thought that their kids from their communities would be placed in harm's way," Rangel said yesterday.

Rangle, IMHO is a racist and bigot.

[Viper2]

Drocket:
The Democrat in question doesn't actually WANT the draft. What he wanted was an honest discussion of what would be needed to maintain our occupation of Iraq.

I would have to respectfully disagree.

Rangel has for the past 3 years been spouting his racist rhetoric about the imbalance of blacks/whites in the military only to be proven wrong - but he sure as hell won't admit it.

[Viper2]

What a dog’s life John McCain must lead.Â*Â*After being so viciously attacked in his bid for the presidency in 2000, he comes crawling back to lick his master’s hand.


Would that be a Pit-bull or Toy-Fox-Terrier ???

[Buck Laser]

Drocket:
If anything good comes out of the escalation in Iraq, its that McCain's bluff has been called, and his 2008 presidential run just got a whole lot toastier.

McCain is a fence jumping maverick, plain and simple.


I'm sorry. I see John McCain as a whore. I admired him back when he ran his "Straight Talk Express," but it seems to have turned into a "Pandering Express," as he willingly says whatever he thinks will buy him some cred with the Right Wing. He is now officially pathetic.

[Viper2]

Drocket:
If anything good comes out of the escalation in Iraq, its that McCain's bluff has been called, and his 2008 presidential run just got a whole lot toastier.

McCain is a fence jumping maverick, plain and simple.


I'm sorry.Â*Â*I see John McCain as a whore.Â*Â*I admired him back when he ran his "Straight Talk Express," but it seems to have turned into a "Pandering Express," as he willingly says whatever he thinks will buy him some cred with the Right Wing.Â*Â*He is now officially pathetic.


I was attempting to be polite.

I respect McCain for his military service and his 6yrs as a POW - however, since becoming a Senator - forget it.

McCain was part of the Senate Select Committee along with Kerry and Daschle who shredded the vital records of POW's and MIA's in Vietnam that could have brought most of them home dead or alive. That to me is unconscionable to put it mildly.

[underdawg]

I lost respect for McCain a while back. He looked miserable campaining with Bush during the last election. He then started to try to suck up to people like Pat Robertson and the religious right when he had previously been against them. I think he would sacrifice all his principles just for a vote.

[lily]

I think he would sacrifice all his principles just for a vote.


He did that, IMO when he stood next to Bush smiling while Bush took pen to paper, signed McCain's torture bill, then added his signing statement, without a word spoken from Mc Cain.

[Cobra]

I think he would sacrifice all his principles just for a vote.
Most politicians would, no reason to hate on McCain because of it.

[Buck Laser]

I think he would sacrifice all his principles just for a vote.
Most politicians would, no reason to hate on McCain because of it.

It's not the fact that he's compromising--that's the nature of politics--but [b]who[b] he's compromising with. And I don't hate him. I just don't trust him anymore.

[BoogyMan]

The Democrat in question doesn't actually WANT the draft.Â*Â*What he wanted was an honest discussion of what would be needed to maintain our occupation of Iraq.Â*Â*And he's right - yesterday's news included the little factoid that Bush can want to surge 20,000 troops into Iraq all he wants, but the military has told him that it can only sent about 9,000.

Charlie Rangel is the congress critter we are discussing here and the man has called for a draft several times based on his typical role as a classist warrior.Â*Â*

I haven't seen any news about only having 9000 available troops Drocket, got a link?

Boy, I'm glad Bush didn't decide to nuke Europe - the Democrats would be in a LOT of trouble then for making him do it.

This comment really is complete hogwash.Â*Â*Opinion or not, its just silly.

[Drocket]

I haven't seen any news about only having 9000 available troops Drocket, got a link?

Link (http://in.today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=worldNews&storyID=2007-01-04T112645Z_01_NOOTR_RTRJONC_0_India-282235-1.xml)

Think Progress (http://thinkprogress.org/2007/01/05/report-military-tells-bush-it-has-only-9000-troops-available-for-surge/) explains it more clearly, but its a rather partisan site so I prefer not to use it as a primary source of information. What it boils down to is that the military is only able to send 7-8000 troops. They may be able to boost that by a couple thousand more by denying troops already in Iraq leave that they're already long overdue for.

Beyond that, though... If Bush chooses to call for more troops than that rather small number, the military's plan seems to be to call troops in Kuwait and the US as 'in reserve' - which is to say they won't be going anywhere, or doing anything they aren't already doing. They'll basically be Iraq forces in name only. If that sounds like the military is toeing the line of outright disobedience if Bush orders an escalation (as he's expected to), I'd pretty much have to agree with you.

This comment really is complete hogwash. Opinion or not, its just silly.

Sillier than saying that Democrats are to blame for Bush's decision to escalate in Iraq by daring to be elected?

[BoogyMan]

Link (http://in.today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=worldNews&storyID=2007-01-04T112645Z_01_NOOTR_RTRJONC_0_India-282235-1.xml)

Thanks for the Reuters link Drocket, I always appreciate it when someone will make an effort to substantiate a claim.Â*Â*I must have missed something though, because it says nothing about the US military only being able to provide 9000 troops to the effort.

Think Progress (http://thinkprogress.org/2007/01/05/report-military-tells-bush-it-has-only-9000-troops-available-for-surge/) explains it more clearly, but its a rather partisan site so I prefer not to use it as a primary source of information.Â*Â*What it boils down to is that the military is only able to send 7-8000 troops.Â*Â*They may be able to boost that by a couple thousand more by denying troops already in Iraq leave that they're already long overdue for.

Think Progress?Â*Â*Those guys have pretty much been left-wing hitmen, got anything from a reputable source?


This comment really is complete hogwash.Â*Â*Opinion or not, its just silly.

Sillier than saying that Democrats are to blame for Bush's decision to escalate in Iraq by daring to be elected?


I never claimed that Drocket, maybe you have me confused with someone else? :D

[Drocket]

Thanks for the Reuters link Drocket, I always appreciate it when someone will make an effort to substantiate a claim. I must have missed something though, because it says nothing about the US military only being able to provide 9000 troops to the effort.
Reuters puts the number at 7-8,000, others say 9,000. Close enough. Either way, the reality is that the US isn't going to be able to put close to the 20,000 Bush is expected to call for on the field any time soon.

Think Progress? Those guys have pretty much been left-wing hitmen, got anything from a reputable source?
That was why I put the Reuters link first. The Think Progress link also contains a video from CBS news the other day that sums up the situation. It all boils down to the same fact: Bush can call for as many troop as he wants, but he's only getting 7-9,000 (not that that will stop him, I'll wager.)

I never claimed that Drocket, maybe you have me confused with someone else? :D
I never said you claimed it: Labrocca did. You called what I said silly, implying that what Labrocca said (that Bush's surge in Iraq is the Democrats fault because they were elected) wasn't.

[ECW]

Maybe Congressional leaders need one of these to deal with the Chimpster's proposals:

http://images.lowes.com/general/s/surge_supressor_buyguide.jpg

[Viper2]

I think he would sacrifice all his principles just for a vote.
Most politicians would, no reason to hate on McCain because of it.


Is it hate ??? or just plain disgust ???


"Each of them thinks of himself as intensely patriotic; but it does not take the average member long to conclude that his first duty to his country is to get himself reelected. This subconscious conviction leads to a capacity for rationalization that is almost unbelievable."
5-Star General of the Army - Supreme Commander Allied Forces Europe - President of the United States Dwight David Eisenhower

[Viper2]

BoogyMan:
Charlie Rangel is the congress critter we are discussing here and the man has called for a draft several times based on his typical role as a classist warrior.

I’ve seen this bigot on FNC over the past two years criticize President Bush and play the “race card� and push for the draft to get more “whites� in the military. Problem with this &^#$%@ is he should check the demographics of our Armed Forces.

I haven't seen any news about only having 9000 available troops Drocket, got a link?

Regardless of what you see or hear – please remember: Disinformation is a part of strategy.

[Viper2]

Drocket:
What it boils down to is that the military is only able to send 7-8000 troops. They may be able to boost that by a couple thousand more by denying troops already in Iraq leave that they're already long overdue for.

Again, disinformation is a part of strategy – Sun Tzu said it best.

[Viper2]

ECW:
Maybe Congressional leaders need one of these to deal with the Chimpster's proposals:

Cute, childish but cute.

IMHO, what all members of Congress need is to remember they are Americans first, elected by the people to serve, defend and protect America the country and her citizens, and to stop the partisan crap.

Most of our founding fathers didn't want political partys and our present condition is exactly the reason why - damn and that was over 200 years ago - you'd think we would have learned by now.

[ECW]

I lost respect for McCain a while back. He looked miserable campaining with Bush during the last election. He then started to try to suck up to people like Pat Robertson and the religious right when he had previously been against them. I think he would sacrifice all his principles just for a vote.


He correctly sees himself as the front runner for the Neo-con vote that currently has no prominent candidate so he is making sure that he panders up to the Head Neo-Con as much as he can. He knows they control the party machinery and if they don't approve of him then he doesn't get the nomination. You can forget about any of that "reaching across the aisle" crap because his positions on 95% of the issues are as rightwing, if not more so, than GWB's.

The good thing is if he gets the nomination then he will split the moderates off from the GOP unless he picks a complete moderate for VP. I don't see that happening. His push for more troops, while it goes contrary to what this administration originally planned for, fits in with what he has been quietly saying for months and now suits the Neo-Cons purposes. They are using each other to get what the other wants.

If he gets elected you may even see a greater escalation of the war.

[Drocket]

He correctly sees himself as the front runner for the Neo-con vote that currently has no prominent candidate so he is making sure that he panders up to the Head Neo-Con as much as he can. He knows they control the party machinery and if they don't approve of him then he doesn't get the nomination. You can forget about any of that "reaching across the aisle" crap because his positions on 95% of the issues are as rightwing, if not more so, than GWB's.

I'd kind of have to disagree with your interpretation of the situation, here. McCain is FAR from the neocon frontrunner, and he knows it (he learned that when he got his butt kicked in 2000.) His reputation (though not his actual positions) is far, far too moderate for the right-wing that controls the Republican party. He spent years building a reputation as a moderate, with a *wink, wink* to the right-wing to show them that he wasn't actually serious. For whatever reason, though, they didn't get the not-too-subtle message.

What he's doing now is overcompensating, pandering like there's no tomorrow to the most right-wing elements in the Republican party. They still don't like him, though, which is why his sucking up is getting so desperate. I don't think its going to work, though, because he's being TOO obvious about the groveling, and keeps looking more and more like fake to both the conservatives he's trying to attract, and to the moderates who he's still going to need.

[Thirdparty]

McCain called for a minimum of six additional Army brigades -- roughly 25,000 soldiers -- to be sent to Iraq, especially translators, Special Forces and civil affairs officers.

Link (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16484446/)

In this whole discussion of the 'surge' (AKA escalation) option for Iraq, the thing that disgusts me most is McCain.Â*Â*His entire position seems to be to come up with suggestions that he doesn't believe will be implemented, simply so he can claim that had he been in change, he would have 'won' in Iraq.Â*Â*He's essentially the main person who started discussion of the escalation option - something the majority of the army's commanders have come out against - most, I think, because it was a stupid enough plan that he didn't think Bush would ever go for it (or that anyone would ever let Bush go for it.)Â*Â*

It turns out that Bush IS stupid enough to do for it, so McCain does the only logical thing - call for even MORE troops, and claim that the number Bush is apparently planning to sent (15-20,000) "will be worse than not doing anything."Â*Â*(Gee, John, if the plan you came up with last month was that bad, why should we trust your new plan?)

If anything good comes out of the escalation in Iraq, its that McCain's bluff has been called, and his 2008 presidential run just got a whole lot toastier.


Or maybe he is a man who suffered and was tortured for his nation who really believes a short term increase will help. I would trust him more than a civvie with no experience in country.

[lily]

Or maybe he is a man who suffered and was tortured for his nation who really believes a short term increase will help. I would trust him more than a civvie with no experience in country.


I don't know Boogy......as was already mentioned, it didn't seem to bother him, when Bush did his little signing statement on the torture bill he worked so hard on.

[ECW]

He correctly sees himself as the front runner for the Neo-con vote that currently has no prominent candidate so he is making sure that he panders up to the Head Neo-Con as much as he can. He knows they control the party machinery and if they don't approve of him then he doesn't get the nomination. You can forget about any of that "reaching across the aisle" crap because his positions on 95% of the issues are as rightwing, if not more so, than GWB's.

I'd kind of have to disagree with your interpretation of the situation, here.Â*Â*McCain is FAR from the neocon frontrunner, and he knows it (he learned that when he got his butt kicked in 2000.)Â*Â*His reputation (though not his actual positions) is far, far too moderate for the right-wing that controls the Republican party.Â*Â*He spent years building a reputation as a moderate, with a *wink, wink* to the right-wing to show them that he wasn't actually serious.Â*Â*For whatever reason, though, they didn't get the not-too-subtle message.

What he's doing now is overcompensating, pandering like there's no tomorrow to the most right-wing elements in the Republican party.Â*Â*They still don't like him, though, which is why his sucking up is getting so desperate.Â*Â*I don't think its going to work, though, because he's being TOO obvious about the groveling, and keeps looking more and more like fake to both the conservatives he's trying to attract, and to the moderates who he's still going to need.


Not to be an argumentative SOB, but who do YOU see as the neocon front runner? The loss in 2000 was to Chimpy who cannot run again so who do you see as capturing the Republican rightwing in the primaries?

[BoogyMan]

Or maybe he is a man who suffered and was tortured for his nation who really believes a short term increase will help. I would trust him more than a civvie with no experience in country.


I don't know Boogy......as was already mentioned, it didn't seem to bother him, when Bush did his little signing statement on the torture bill he worked so hard on.

Hey Lily, what are you attributing to me here? :) I don't mind being associated with 3P's high quality postings, but I think you might be speaking with him on this one instead of me.

[lily]

OOoopppsss............ can I use the excuse I didn't have my glasses on again?

[Drocket]

Not to be an argumentative SOB, but who do YOU see as the neocon front runner? The loss in 2000 was to Chimpy who cannot run again so who do you see as capturing the Republican rightwing in the primaries?

Well, to answer that I have to make a distinction between the neocons and the conservative base who ultimately control the Republican primaries, as they're not the same thing. Neocon-ism, as embodied by Bush, is dead, and was never a particularly strong player in election campaigning anyway (Bush himself certainly never campaigned, even for an instant, on neocon principles. If he had, his campaign never would have gotten past the first state.)

The group who will decide who the 2008 Republican campaign are the usual: the good old 'religious right', and their favorite candidate is Brownback. They face a problem, though, in that Brownback is pretty nearly unelectable. I don't even know if the Democrats would need to campaign against him. So the Republican party MAY go with McCain out of simple pragmatism, but he's never going to be their preferred candidate. I think it'll all come down to whether they'll choose to shoot for the moon with the candidate they prefer, or if they'll settle for someone who has an actual chance of winning. I really don't know which way things will go.

I suppose you could ask why McCain is backing neocon ideals when neoconism itself isn't a winner, even among the base: there's a few reasons there, I think. One is Bush's continuing 'infallibility' among the true believers - there's a depressingly high chunk of the Republican core who would believe Bush if he said the moon was made out of green cheese, and McCain intends to be right there by Bush selling mooncheese. Another part is that McCain feels the need to have a plan for Iraq, but simply can't come out and admit that its lost. This is a problem on both sides of the aisle, though - Hillary is going to have just as much of a problem coming out and admitting that America lost, and that the only real option is to simply give up, and she's not even in the same party.

And ultimately, I think a large part of it that its a miscalculation on McCain's part, because he never thought it would happen when he called for it. He thought he'd safely be able to claim that he could have 'won' in Iraq, and nobody would have been able to prove him wrong. His bluff was called, though. I'm willing to bet that if he could undo his 'plan, he would in an instant, but unfortunately for him, life doesn't have a rewind button.

[Drocket]

Or maybe he is a man who suffered and was tortured for his nation who really believes a short term increase will help.

Actually, he doesn't. I wish I could find a link for it, but there's a video out there on YouTube somewhere from a couple weeks ago where a reporter flat out asked him if he actually thought sending in 20,000 more troops would help the US win in Iraq. He kind of stammered and sputtered for a bit, and eventually all he could come up with was that the surge would be good for troop morale (because having your leave cut because our already over-stretched military doesn't have any more troops is GREAT for morale...)

So McCain himself has been forced to admit that his plan isn't going to help the situation any. Its just good for morale - the morale of his presidential campaign, that is.

[ECW]

Thanks. I appeciate your opinion. Food for thought.

[Viper2]

Thirdparty:
Or maybe he is a man who suffered and was tortured for his nation who really believes a short term increase will help. I would trust him more than a civvie with no experience in country.

Basically, I guess I might as well - however, IMHO, his time in the Hanoi Hilton has made him gun shy which he is so damn weak on interrogation methods.