Josh Marshall is angry at the press for buying into what he believes is a lie: That John McCain doesn’t want 100 years of war in Iraq but rather is willing to see a Germany-style long term, peaceful presence.
McCain does not want to leave Iraq. …

Stein has added an update (a never mind) at his post.

LATE UPDATE: The McCain campaign and Marc Ambinder note that earlier in the Matthews’ interview, the Senator argued that:

Sure we`re going to come home. But the fact is that the key to it is not when the troops come home. It is when we stop reading — today, Shuster just reported four brave young Marines were killed. It is the casualties that creates the discontent amongst Americans. We`ve been in Bosnia for, what, 10, 12, years, Kosovo for 10 years, South Korea for 50 years. Americans aren`t upset about that. But we have got to get the casualty rate down. And that`s the transfer of well-trained and well-equipped Iraqis to handle the security situation.

Ambinder argues that, “the full context of the interview he gave in 2005 suggests that he modeled a long-term U.S. commitment to Iraq on South Korea, albeit with a big difference: a major corps would not necessarily have to embed itself in the country.”

Lets not forget we are in Iraq now at the request of the Iraqi govt.

We will stay or keep a presence on good terms with the govt of Iraq to help them.

Thus completely making the DNC’s ads look moronic, or at least trying to insinuate that the US public is too dumb to figure this out.

Granted, I believe that McCain is right now and was wrong in 2005, but clearly his position has changed.

Different strokes for different folks I suppose as I believe that McCain was right in 2005 and is wrong now, however I do agree that very clearly his position has changed, but then so did Bush’s. Bush the Younger that is, I don’t think that Bush the Elder changed his position.

Maybe I’m missing something here. I mean, we’re going to have kind of a nation-building corps from America? Absolutely not. Our military is meant to fight and win war. That’s what it’s meant to do. And when it gets overextended, morale drops. But I’m going to be judicious as to how to use the military. It needs to be in our vital interest, the mission needs to be clear, and the exit strategy obvious.
- George W. Bush (his past and far superior position)

MS-NBC doesn’t mind promoting this either, as the clip below shows. Note that the announcer misrepresents McCain’s current position as “100 years of war”:

It never ceases to amaze me the crazy logic displayed by the left – this is clear proof that they are twisting his current position on Iraq (by claiming he wants 100 years of war, as Obama put it), because they are acknowledging the fact that this is about a Germany/Guantanamo type presence.

austinnelly on April 29, 2008 at 12:24 PM

Try reading the story before you spew your vitriol. McCain allegedly flipflopped from the position you are AGAINST to the position you are FOR. So Mr. Kamikaze Republican, try understanding the issue before you lock into automatic anti-McCain mode. Your candidate (whichever it was) lost. In the immortal words of Antonin Scalia “Get over it.”

The significance of the clip, per Stein, is that it proves McCain’s alternately (a) a flip-flopper, (b) a newly minted neoconservative stooge, or (c) a hypocrite for criticizing opponents of occupation. As regards (a) and (b), if Maverick’s changing his position for opportunistic reasons then he desperately needs to consult some polls: He’s swimming very much against the tide of electoral opinion with his war support (as the left never fails to remind us), which means either that he sincerely believes in what he’s saying or that Norman Podhoretz’s opinion is somehow more important to him than the presidency.

Your defense of (a) and (b) works in a way, but it doesn’t really address the primary at all. My biggest problem with McCain is that he reversed–or at least significantly downplayed–many of his trademark “Maverick” issues while he was running in the Republican primary. The Bush tax cuts, torture, immigration, etc… a lot of these seemed to take a back seat to McCain’s support for the war (even while he criticized its handling in many respects). I used to think that McCain’s steadfast support for the war was the one trademark McCain position that made it through the primary process completely unscathed–it seemed like at least the fundamentals made it through entirely unchanged. This earlier quote is not conclusive evidence that this isn’t still the case (as you rightly point out, the situation in Iraq changes frequently and new information always calls for re-assessments of one’s positions), but it definitely gives me pause. Could he have tweaked his Iraq stance a bit to make it even more hawkish and thus somewhat more appealing during the Republican primary? Considering that he’s openly admitted that his 2000 stance on the Confederate flag in South Carolina was based on “ambition” rather than principle, I think the answer is a definite “Maybe.”

It made sense strategically to “establish a significant combat presence” in continental Europe in 1944 by way of invasion. Making the effort in 1942 – something which many US strategists happened to advocate very strongly – probably would have been calamitous. By mid-1945, there wasn’t anyone to fight. Similarly, allied policy for post-war Germany was, at base, to turn it permanently into a non-industrial state. Within a few years, the thinking matured.

Comparing this to the Romney kerfuffle is also absurd. It’s not worth reviving that argument, but, in short, it had to do with political conduct, not strategic thinking.

Obviously the situation in Iraq has changed. It makes sense that a politician more interested in American security than his own public image would change his opinion.

And now I’ve just defended McCain as a politician more interested in America than himself. Having time to soften to McCain will probably work to get me to the polls it seems.

After that he should just admit the situation on the ground has changed his view.

Only an idgit would not adjust to the world around them.

EJDolbow on April 29, 2008 at 12:17 PM

Exactly. This is why charges of flip-flopping are usually silly (as long as you don’t go back and forth several times depending on whom you’re talking to). We like getting politicians with gotchas, but the ability and courage to change your opinion over time is a good quality, not something to be ridiculed.

Will someone in the media ask Hillary most obvious question!
“Mrs Clinton, with your plan to withdraw all our troops from Iraq within 30 days, 60 days or 2 years as she said them all at different times),what will happen to Iraq the days and weeks after we leave?”

malkinmania on April 29, 2008 at 12:12 PM

She has actually been asked this question many times in debates. But Hillary Clinton always responds by dodging questions and specifics – it’s what she does.

here is the latest example from the last debate: http://www.redlasso.com/ClipPlayer.aspx?id=e423d4b1-104b-4a3e-997f-01e922cb5d6b

Of course this was said before it became clear that 1) Iran will not leave a democratic Iraq alone and 2) that the surge, properly executed, is actually generating stability and goodwill towards US forces.

SPCOlympics on April 29, 2008 at 12:10 PM

yep

After that he should just admit the situation on the ground has changed his view.

Do you think the situation on the ground changed his view, or the fact he is going after more center left voters has changed his view?
The one issue where McCain sounded like a conservative; the one issue McCain supporters loved to pound his critics with because he was so much better on the war than the 2 democrats…now he’s changing his mind. Sounds a little like Hillary does when she’s not pandering directly to the left.
Who was it that said that it’s only a matter of time before McCain flips on his signature issue, as he’s flipped on so many conservative positions over the last 8 years? Oh yeah, that was me. Course, I’m just a wingnut. A kamikaze republican. I guess insanity gives access to amazing insights. Or maybe not having my head up John McCain’s backside keeps my thinking a little clearer.
He’s getting polling showing he’s making progress with Democrats; so, he turns more away from the GOP. It’s not even the general yet, and we’re getting the big dumpola. You think it’s bad now? Wait til he’s in office. Well, at least he’s got an ‘R’ next to his name. That makes up for all of it, I’m sure. Have fun in November.

“Republican candidate for president, John McCain (R-AZ) today announced his plan to begin a gradual drawdown of US troops in Iraq to pre-Surge levels. He intends to supplement the Iraqi forces fighting in Sadr City with battalions of Barbie dolls, supported by two platoons of Bratz Special Forces. This move is viewed by many as politically saavy, since it allows McCain to reconcile his 2005 stance of ‘bring all the troops home’ with his more hawkish 2008 stance of ‘a long-term presence’ to stabilize the region. Iranian officials are loudly decrying the proposal as more neo-con American war-mongering. ‘Dirka Dirka, Muhammad Jihad,’ said Iranian President Ahmadinewhatshisname, apparently consumed by paroxysms brought on by exposure to the soft, fleshy temptations of Mattel’s most famous harlot. Iraqi leader Nouri al-Maliki is already proclaiming ‘Operation Unrealistic Expectations of Beauty’ a resounding success. More on this as the story develops…”

How does McCain address this?

First thing – He should apologize to Mitt Romney for doing to him what the DNC and the media is now doing to McCain.

After that he should just admit the situation on the ground has changed his view.

Only an idgit would not adjust to the world around them.