Robert Reich: McCain doesn’t really want more troops for Iraq
posted at 6:18 pm on November 21, 2006 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
printer-friendly
He says he told him so in the green room of Stephanopoulos’s show. It’s just a ploy to keep the troops’ morale up while the country falls apart.
Except Reich doesn’t believe him. He thinks it’s a different kind of ploy — namely, plausible deniability for the coming massacre.
I think McCain knows Iraq is out of our hands – it’s disintegrating into civil war, and by 2008 will be a bloodbath. He also knows American troops will be withdrawn. The most important political fact he knows is he has to keep a big distance between himself and Bush in order to avoid being tainted by this horrifying failure. Arguing that we need more troops effectively covers his ass. It will allow him to say, “if the President did what I urged him to do, none of this would have happened.”
McCain is smarter on this score than Dems who intend to engage in post-Baker Commission “what we must do now” bipartisanship. It may make Dems feel relevant and important, but it will also make them complicit in the impending failure.
Looks like Pelosi’s not taking his advice. She’s scheduled an Iraq forum for House Democrats on December 5.
As for his point about McCain, if Iraq does fall apart, how eager will America be in ‘08 for a candidate who thinks (or claims to think) Bush should have been more hawkish? If St. John’s going to take that position, he might as well back the “nuke Mecca” approach. He gets the same plausible deniability from it plus, at this point, probably a few extra votes.
Speaking of ‘08, America’s mayor filed a formal statement of organization for his exploratory committee with the FEC this afternoon. Is he or McCain the man to beat? Neither, I think: it looks Romney’s running on a full-bore social con platform, and since he’ll be the only one in the race, I figure the scale tips towards him once he starts to get name recognition. He attacked McCain today (unfairly) for taking a federalist position on gay marriage, and that’s just the beginning:
This hatred [of McCain by movement conservatives] dates to McCain’s signature campaign-finance-reform legislation, co-sponsored with liberal senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, which severely limited the large-sum individual and corporate contributions that had previously fueled Republican campaigns.
But that’s not their only problem with the Arizona senator. McCain voted against the Bush tax cuts (although he later voted for making them permanent). He has supported gun-control legislation. He led the “Gang of 14” senators in preventing the so-called nuclear option, a change in procedure that would have allowed Republicans to confirm conservative judges over Democratic opposition. He voted for federal spending on stem-cell research, and opposes a federal ban on gay marriage. He is one of the most pro-environment Republicans on Capital Hill, supporting the Kyoto Treaty and even co-authoring a failed bill to limit carbon-dioxide emissions. And, in a move tailor-made for attack ads, he co-authored the “amnesty-by-another-name” immigration-reform legislation — with Ted Kennedy, no less — that dominated right-wing talk radio much of the year.
The question is whether his Mormonism is going to scare people off. I didn’t think it would initially if only because I thought polygamy was extinct in Utah except for the Jeffs cult and a few other kooks. The Utah AG admitted today, though, that his office basically looks the other way when it comes to bigamy and WaPo had a page-one feature on polygamists who are trying to use Justice Kennedy’s follow-your-bliss majority opinion in the Lawrence case to torpedo bigamy laws altogether. No wonder Romney wants an amendment to ban gay marriage — that’s the only way he can kill the polygamy issue before it comes to kill him.
It’ll all work out, I guess. Hillary crapped away her entire $30M campaign war chest on a race she could have walked away with for nothing, so no matter how stupid we get, hope springs eternal that they’re stupider.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
And we’re going to trust a man who’s already decided that to interpret for us what McCain really meant? His post contains on more or less direct quote from McCain. That’s probably accurate. “But I simply can’t believe … ” … “I think …” Gimme a break. There’s a lot to not like about McCain but saying one thing and meaning another isn’t one of them.
bdfaith on November 21, 2006 at 6:44 PM
You mean Mr. Straight Talk Express is speaking out of both sides of his mouth?!?!???!?!?!?!?!?!?
(in Michelle-speak) Get the freak outta here!!!!!!!!!
thirteen28 on November 21, 2006 at 6:52 PM
McCain’s done before he even gets started. It’s foolish of him to spend the time on the exploratory blah blah… unless he’s planning on jumping ship just to eff the Reps.
Romney? Show me someone with a little more seriousness.
Editor on November 21, 2006 at 7:03 PM
McCain and Rangel, cage match.
Reffed by Rosie.
bbz123 on November 21, 2006 at 7:06 PM
“McCain is smarter on this score than Dems who intend to engage in post-Baker Commission “what we must do now” bipartisanship. It may make Dems feel relevant and important, but it will also make them complicit in the impending failure.”
Hunh? The Dems (whose Prediential Candidates for the most part are in the Majority Senate and House) would be better served by whining about what should have been done in the past, and do nothing to change what is being done now with the situation at hand?
This would be a “smarter” move for them? It would show the qualities that Americans want for a Leader perhaps?
The Dems have three choices.
1) Piss & moan about what was done, and do nothing different (which seems to be the recommendation implied in this paragraph). Is “doing nothing useful while in power” a political credit to the base? Wasn’t that the Republican plan for ‘06?
2) Chart a brand new course, and use spending, legislation holdup, budgets, etc. to force the Administration to use their plan. This takes over a great deal of responsibility and makes it the Dems plan in Iraq, not Bush’s plan… so a blowup gets credited to the Dem column (to the masses at least). Sure they didn’t start it, but they claimed it for their own at this point (in the eyes of the middle at least). Sharing blame with Bush won’t help when the Republicans chuck him under the bus with you.
3) Play bipartisanship, get what they can without taking the whole thing over. Try to keep the image that they’re trying to fix “Bush’s Mistake” not creating one of their own.
Now, if they do #2, and it works, that is optimal, but unlikely. If they do #2 and fail, they get blamed seriously for whatever fallout occurs. If they do #1 they can’t feasibly try for a leadership position as they’ve shown a strong desire to whine about past failings and let them continue even when in power… so, politically speaking, they’ve only got #3 as a valid option (with their Majority House & Senate).
McCain, being a minority party, can snipe and calculate. The only fear he’d have is if the Majority party leader called his bluff and put it up for a vote (ala Rangel’s draft bill). McCain would likely be smart enough to vote for it, knowing it would likely fail anyway (avoiding the mistake made by Rangel).
But to claim that his taking this position makes him “smarter” isn’t exactly correct. He’s just allowed to take a more weaselly position due to minority positioning.
gekkobear on November 21, 2006 at 7:06 PM
Robert Reich knows horrifying failures. He was, after all, right in the middle of one called the Clinton Administration.
jaleach on November 21, 2006 at 7:08 PM
Also, we could really make the Muslim world sit up and take note right now if we threw off the smarmy leftist claptrap and turned Iraq into a cauldron of fire. Go in there and wipe out all the insurgents, their families, and anyone associated with them. Go mafia on their asses. Then start massing troops on the Iranian border. The jihadists wouldn’t know what to do. “We thought the Americans were weak. What are they doing?” Make it so they seriously doubt whether they ever understood us at all. That ought to throw some cold water on their plans.
Never happen, of course.
jaleach on November 21, 2006 at 7:12 PM
Robert Reich, a troll long before they were in vogue, doesn’t have a platform to stand on. Oh, wait …….. what’s that he’s standing on?
Nevermind.
fogw on November 21, 2006 at 7:14 PM
I don’t get it. Where’s the unfairness? Is it in supporting a gay ban purely as cover for the polyg issue?
Other than that, St. John has pretty much shot himself in the foot, nominationwise. Forget all the previously mentioned gaffes…is there video of McVain telling Phoenix union workers that they are incapable of picking lettuce for 50 bucks an hour?
Kid from Brooklyn on November 21, 2006 at 7:40 PM
Would you believe anything that comes out of Reich’s mouth?
Other than the fact that he is a three foot troll, what does it matter?
NEMETI IN SYRACUSE on November 21, 2006 at 8:20 PM
Romney isn’t my ideal candidate, but he is the only Republican for whom I’ll vote as things stand now. Guiliani? He’s only mildly conservative on many issues and liberal on others. McCain? He panders to every conceivable group by adopting popular-at-the-time positions or changing positions. McCain is so enigmatic that I truly don’t know where he stands overall. His supposed maverick reputation is nothing more than chasing popular opinion, which in recent years has gone opposite many GOP stances.
Bellicose Muse on November 21, 2006 at 8:21 PM
Reich is really stupid, or he has not been paying attention for
monthsyears. Every expression I have heard from troops is not that they want to come home as quickly as possible, but that they want to get the job done. What a putz.urbancenturion on November 21, 2006 at 8:21 PM
Allah,
I like the picture of McCain you used for the post.
That needs to be your stock photo for any McCain stories like the screaming loon photo you use for Murtha stories.
McCain looks confused but a bit guilty…despite wanting to appear confident and in control. Kinda like the cat that ate the canary and got busted.
The pic sums him up pretty well.
Rosetta on November 21, 2006 at 8:24 PM
I don’t think McMain is enigmatic at all. He’s a pure egomaniacal opportunist. He says what he thinks will get him either elected or good press, depending on where we are in the election cycle.
urbancenturion on November 21, 2006 at 8:29 PM
Well, Moronism doesn’t scare voters away from politicians…. What difference could an additional little M make?
LegendHasIt on November 21, 2006 at 8:39 PM
Before everyone gets on the Romney express, I recommend reading the running comments in the AmSpec Blog on Romney and the Mass Law forcing health insurance on all.
Mass Care Not Working Out–Part I
Mass Care Not Working Out–Part II
Mass Care Not Working Out–Part III
Mass Care Not Working Out–Part IV
Mass Care Not Working Out–Part V
Mass Care Not Working Out–Part VI
Mass Care Not Working Out–Part VII
Mass Care Not Working Out–Part VIII
Mass Care Not Working Out–Part IX
More mushyheaded having the government do “compassionate conservatism” just isn’t going to cut it.
Here’s more on Romney talking out of both sides of his mouth on states’ rights and federalism on the two topics of gay marriage and being prolife.
As an evangelical soc con I look with a skeptical eye on Romney. At this point I am ready to support Newt.
INC on November 21, 2006 at 8:45 PM
I’d never vote for McCain for nothing other than McCain/Feingold. One of the worst pieces of legislation to ever come out of the halls of Congress that never did what it was intended to do and gave rise to 501(c)’s.
Unintended consequences aren’t consequences at all. They’re the end result of actions set in motion by opportunistic lawmakers who don’t think things through.
BacaDog on November 21, 2006 at 9:40 PM
Then do! I do! There are many, many of us. Unfortunately I heard Newt say (I think it was on Bill O) he wouldn’t be ready to make an announcement until later in 2007. Curiously, he considered campaign activity this early to be a waste of time. He may have a good point. Those who announce their White House intentions early leave a lot of time for the public and media to pick them apart. He’s a smart man.
thedecider on November 21, 2006 at 9:46 PM
Well, I didn’t like the way Newt let Clinton bamboozle him and I didn’t like the way he treated his wife; however, at this point I really don’t like the ideology of the rest of the bunch.
As if he didn’t have enough baggage already, McCain lost me forever with McCain/Feingold. And then there was that remark he made I would rather have a clean government than one where quote First Amendment rights are being respected.
I wouldn’t trust him as President.
INC on November 21, 2006 at 10:21 PM
Good point INC.
McCain must know he doesn’t have a chance. It would be like him to lose the primary and then try to run as an independent. I wonder if he would do a Perot?
Kevin R on November 21, 2006 at 10:40 PM
INC i think you missed the point that the MA legislature was heaing to enact Hilary Clinton style government run healthcare. Romney’s plan is concervative in comparision. You have to understand MA gov is one sided they can easily override his vetoes if he simply says he is against it altogether or didnt have his own plan to cover everyone.
Also if you arent in favor of states rights then I think Romney is more concervative then you are.
Resolute on November 21, 2006 at 10:40 PM
McCain and Reich both need to disappear and keep going until they are gone forever. Too loony left for me.
retired on November 21, 2006 at 11:00 PM
Resolute has a point. Romney knew what was coming down the pike with MA health care and took steps to minimize the damage that would be done by the State Legislature. A purely defensive move that attempted to salvage what private industry could be saved.
Troy Rasmussen on November 21, 2006 at 11:02 PM
Jaleach, I like the way you think!
That picture of McCain - what is up with his cheek? The left side is all swollen and weird. Does he have some sorta medical problem?
Lehuster on November 21, 2006 at 11:52 PM
The war’s been described as a debacle, a disaster, a failure, and now this munchkin calls it a “horrifying” failure.
To be honest, you can call an elephant a hummingbird, but you’d better duck if it flies over. I don’t really think that the American people know *ANYTHING* about how well or poorly the war’s going. Pay-for-opinion ex-officer pundits on cable news have their contacts, some possibly correct, a lot no more on-the-ball than when they were on active duty.
I think that we just don’t know, and this attempt at disheartening us all by rubbing our noses in the casualty figures isn’t helping. Nobody’s looking in any of the right places. For one thing, is *ANYONE* saying when 30 or 50 or 100 people “died in Baghdad today” that they were kidnapped, tortured and killed by these “insurgents” (read: kidnappers, torturers and murderers), and that this sort of thing happened under the Nazis, under the North Koreans and Chicoms, under the Viets, and had been done for 24 or so years under Saddam, even after we kicked his a$$ once.
So, as if I needed one *MORE* reason not to listen to anything Robert Reich said, he’s that reason.
As for McCain, he’s so nakedly a grasper, hungry for power and willing to do or say anything to get it, a “me-first” kind of guy, that even a glipse of his mug gets me queasy.
We live during a time when there’s a dearth of heroes…except those in uniform.
Puritan1648 on November 22, 2006 at 12:17 AM
Skin cancer.
As far as Romney, I didn’t know about this socialized medicine business. That’s a dealbreaker for this fis-con soc-libt.
Newt’s wise to play it safe at this stage. Kind of like the wrestler in the battle royal that lays back and lets everyone throw each other out of the ring. How very Sun Tzu. McVain doesn’t stand a chance.
I don’t know about my fellow Hot Air breathers, but the only objection I’ve heard against Newt address personal character issues.
I suspect that Newt isn’t really worried about a character debate if he knows he’s likely to run against a Clinton.
Kid from Brooklyn on November 22, 2006 at 12:21 AM
Put it another way, if I have two known dirtbags on the ticket…I’m voting for the dirtbag that champions tax cuts, strong defense, and fiscal responsibility 10 times out of ten.
A character debate between Newt and Hillary will always end in a scoreless tie.
Kid from Brooklyn on November 22, 2006 at 12:26 AM
Kid, I’ve always ‘loved’ ya for your witty short comments. Now I find you’re also very practical. I like the way you think and vote. We need more such discussion. Abstracts will take us nowhere in 2008.
fogw and NEMETI IN SYRACUSE, I’ll report you to CATR (Council on American-Trolls Relations)
fogw, I’ll have to put you on a payroll, for making me laugh, sometimes in tears. May your supply never deplete!
Entelechy on November 22, 2006 at 12:49 AM
Put me down for supporting Romney. With Newt running a close 2nd. The other two might as well be democrats.
lan astaslem on November 22, 2006 at 2:06 AM
As somewhat of an anomoly (staunch conservative - social and otherwise, Republican, former-actor, current athiest) I cringe every time I hear people floating Romney as the Republican’s ‘08 candidate.
While I’m not one of those athiests who wants to foist his views on others (I’m *not* offended by references to “God” in the pledge, for example) and am generally accepting of others beliefs, I’d have a *very* difficult time supporting anyone who can honestly consider the tenets of the LDS church. I’ve done much reading about many religions (and “religions”)…and personally consider the LDS church only slightly more credible than Scientology. Of course, I see logical problems with pretty much all religions, but with the LDS church there are actual verifiable historical accounts of the founder’s life and unbelievable claims…and you can bet that there will be *many* new (negative) “special reports” showcasing this religion’s founder and its underpinnings…which will be extremely distracting and unhelpful to Republicans.
You can dismiss me as a bigot or consider this post a troll if you wish (I’m not, and don’t intend this post to be), but I truly believe that nominating Romney would be a monumental misstep.
pjaromin on November 22, 2006 at 9:19 AM
A character debate between Newt and Hillary will always end in a scoreless tie.
True in the abstract, but whose character flaws are going to be put under a media microscope, and whose character flaws are going to be glossed over and ignored? Hmmmm, let me think…
Lehuster on November 22, 2006 at 9:19 AM
To Pjaromin:
The Republican party is made up of anomolies. Some people call it the “big tent.” Neocons, Evangelicals, devout Catholics, supply-siders, pro-Second Ammendment, and pro-military have been forced out of the Democratic party and live in an uneasy tension within the Republican party. If Republicans expect to win anything in 2008, they must a) clean up their act, b) realize that they win elections by appealing to their entire party (not just Paul Gigot and the Neocons), and c) find an articulate candidate who the majority of the party likes and trusts. Bush, in 2000, was a compromise candidate in a weak field. McCain was his closest rival. But Gore, another poor candidate, nearly beat him (and actually won the popular vote). Bush then eked out a win against another lackluster candidate in 2004. Rove is no genius. Any good incumbent should have beaten Kerry by a couple hundred electoral votes.
McCain will not unite the party. Neither will Giuliani. Romney may. I’ve not heard that he’s even considered it, but imagine if General Tommy Franks threw his hat in the ring. I’m not sure on his social or economic positions (which is an advantage since he can say whatever he wants), but it’d be like voting for John Wayne. Or at least voting for a tough guy that John Wayne played in a movie.
On Romney being a Mormon: I vote for candidates based on their philosophy and effectiveness. I would vote for a pro-life, lower taxes, less government intrusion Scientologist sooner than I’d vote for such “Catholic” politicians like Arnie, any Kennedy, or Nancy Pelosi. You should certainly take into account a persons religion because it molds their worldview, but I think a better indicator of how a person will govern is how a person has governed.
cmay on November 22, 2006 at 10:13 AM