Brooks: Even If Troop Surge Completely Fails, It Will Help McCain Politically
Brooks: Even If Troop Surge Completely Fails, It Will Help McCain Politically
Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) is advocating sending up to 30,000 additional troops to Iraq. His plan is opposed by the military’s top generals and supported by just 12 percent of Americans.
Yesterday on the Chris Matthews Show, New York Times columnist David Brooks said that if President Bush takes McCain’s advice and sends more troops, it will help McCain politically — even if the troop surge fails. In that event, Brooks says, McCain will “say with a lot of justice, it’s too late.” Brooks said people will not focus on the results of McCain’s plan but “his conviction.” Watch it:
Transcript:
MATTHEWS: Welcome back.
Escalation. New signs suggest that President Bush might actually increase the troops in Iraq, a step John McCain has long called for.
Senator JOHN McCAIN: The situation in my view remains serious. It requires us to have an injection of additional troops on the ground in order to bring the situation under control, in order that the political process may proceed.
MATTHEWS: So let’s say it happens. We get more troops into Iraq early next year, but the violence and the killing continue over there. If the troop surge doesn’t turn things around, what would that do to McCain’s political chances?
I was thinking, by the way, of those old Road Runner cartoons where one guy chases the other guy, and then realizes he’s off the cliff. We put it to the Matthews Meter: Would a troop surge actually hurt or help John McCain? By seven to five the Meter says it helps, and sets McCain up to lead the country.
David, you think if Bush moves for more troops, following the Army’s advice, McCain’s on board, in fact, his biggest booster, that’s a doubling down for the bet for both those guys. What does it do to McCain’s future?
Mr. BROOKS: Well, I think people look at his conviction. I mean, if you look at every analysis of the war, every book that’s been written about it, it all comes back to three words: not enough troops. And John McCain has been saying that for three years, and the White House did not listen to him for three years, and people are going to remember that, I think.
MATTHEWS: But if it turns out that more troops don’t do the job, is he disproven.
Mr. BROOKS: Right. Well, not at this late date. I mean, then they’ll just say — and I think he’ll say with a lot of justice, it’s too late. And he said that even this week. One more surge, and then we have to look at a new reality.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
66 Responses to “Brooks: Even If Troop Surge Completely Fails, It Will Help McCain Politically”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Think ProgressContact Us
Donate
It’s about politics first, then doing the right thing.
December 18th, 2006 at 10:29 amPlease email Harry Reid to tell him even a temporary surge in troop levels is unacceptable. This is not what we voted for this past fall.
http://reid.senate.gov/contact/email_form.cfm
December 18th, 2006 at 10:29 amWe want a conviction, all right.
December 18th, 2006 at 10:29 amSorry, that’s just sick. And how many of our soldiers, how many Iraqis, will die to elect Mr. McCain?
December 18th, 2006 at 10:30 amSix months from now we’re going to be looking back at all of these quotes by the chickenhawks who think this is a good idea. Once again, they will be proven wrong.
December 18th, 2006 at 10:32 amThat’s refreshing. Thanks pundits.
December 18th, 2006 at 10:33 amIt must be hard to talk with McCain’s weiner in your mouth. What is it with the press’s love affair with this guy?
December 18th, 2006 at 10:38 amMcCain lacks credibility on both sides of the fence. Nothing will change that. But, Congress needs to tell this president that sending huge amounts of troops now will not secure Baghdad. That time came and passed in week three of our “pre-emptive” strike to get at those WMD’s.
December 18th, 2006 at 10:38 amfor f*ck’s sake - conviction is so OVERRATED
December 18th, 2006 at 10:39 amConviction or just plain nuts!
December 18th, 2006 at 10:43 amMr. BROOKS: One more surge, and then we have to look at a new reality.
Saying this shows there is no humanity in his bones or McCain’s. Sending more servicemen to die for something that you know is hopeless and will decide to do something different after they prove that point by dieing. I think I will call McCain, Zapp Branigan, from now on.
December 18th, 2006 at 10:44 amMcCain’s straight talking express, stop at Political Whore Junction in Jan.2001, he got off and has been a disgrace ever since.
December 18th, 2006 at 10:45 amMcCain’s already at it. He’s following the Bush strategy SO closely that he’s already using the photo company that scrubbed the Bush-Abramoff photos from existance for his grip and grins…
http://www.reflectionsorders.com/view_event.asp?EVENTID=17210
December 18th, 2006 at 10:46 amBrooks is just retooling pundits’ conventional wisdom. Pundits like Brooks played this game before the election; any political news was framed as “helping the republicans” and “hurting the Democrats” whether it was good or bad. Now that that canard has been shot down, pundits like Brooks are using the same tactic with McCain. Whatever happens, it’s all good for McCain.
December 18th, 2006 at 10:46 amCheeks McCain, please, stop toturing us.
December 18th, 2006 at 10:53 amYour feeble attempts to look smart aren’t working.
On the other hand, if you’re the best the Neosluts have to throw at us in ‘08, it will be a very good year for Democrat Presidential candidates!
I think we should deploy all of the additional troops to the different prisons in Iraq where Saddam’s nephew, and the corrupt Iraqi Govt. official escaped from.
December 18th, 2006 at 10:54 amMr. BROOKS: Well, I think people look at his conviction.
Yes, because ‘conviction’ is such a reliable yardstick for measuring
the effectiveness and fitness of a leader, isn’t it. I mean, look at our illustrious President! He’s fairly dripping with conviction….he’s so steeped in conviction that his world-view is unassailable.
And look where that’s got us.
David, while I understand that you’re just doing your job as a neocon cheerleader, I have to seriously doubt that the people are going to seriously consider John McCain’s ‘conviction’, or, having considered it, actually regard it as something positive. After all, the people of this nation have a President with ‘conviction’, and ‘conviction’ is precisely what has landed us in this mess.
You want to talk about ‘conviction’, David? Let’s talk about Dennis Kucinich, who has loudly and repeatedly spoken out against this immoral, illegal, and unjust war since it was first proposed. Or does the term ‘conviction’ only apply to those who toe the neocon line?
December 18th, 2006 at 10:55 amBrooks said people will not focus on the results of McCain’s plan but “his conviction.â€
Who gives a shit about the inevitable carnage awaiting those troops, as long as McCain can appear to have conviction.
One more surge, and then we have to look at a new reality.
That is all anyone needs to know about David Brooks.
December 18th, 2006 at 11:00 amOne issue that is consistently left out of these arguments is that the Iraqi government (specifically Maliki) does not want more U.S. troops in the country, and in particular, in Baghdad. To do so, despite the Iraqi government’s objection, is, in essence, a second invasion. And even more so, shows the hypocrisy of the U.S. and coalition “partners” in proclaiming Iraq a democratic and soveriegn nation.
The bottom line is that nothing good can come out of something bad. The illegal and immoral invasion of Iraq was like rotten meat. You get maggots…not filet mignon.
December 18th, 2006 at 11:02 amSen. McCain lost his “golden boy” halo in 2000 when then-Gov. Bush trashed him in the primary and he slunk away like a dog with his tail between his legs.
In 2000, Sen. McCain COULD have been the Republican President. Now, he’s just a sell-out of the political type. He’s a whimp that refued to stand up for himself.
December 18th, 2006 at 11:03 amMcCain is an old evil disgusting political whore warmonger! Anyone who votes for him to be president will be labeled the same! Shame on McCain!
December 18th, 2006 at 11:03 am“Surge.” It’s so obvious. Why didn’t they try it a year ago? Just send in a big surge of troops and it’ll overwhelm the insurgents and militia and al Qaeda. It’ll just knock them on their asses. There’s no way it could fail. Right? I mean, you can just picture it working. Cool!
This is what it’s come to. We have a bunch of adolescents running the White House. And we have a bunch of adolescent admirers commenting on them from the right. They don’t have a plan, but they figure they can put out some meaningless imagery like “surge” and it will buy them some good press and some support and some time. It serves no purpose but to stall, while the president tries to figure out what he can do in lieu of coming up with an actual plan or accepting the suggestions of those who are miuch better at thinking than he is. Is it possible that the military leaders in Iraq are not rolling their eyes or even spewing obscenities over this? Is there any way they can buy into this kind of idiocy and waste of resources–living human resources?
The football metaphor for this would be to have an armchair quarterback, his team down by a few touchdowns in the fourth quarter, calling for a blitz against the other team’s offense on every down. To someone who doesn’t really understand the intricacies of it, someone like the armchair quarterback who should not be coaching a football team, it might seem like a blitz would just mow down the opposing offense and cause a loss of yardage or even a fumble. No, it’s not that simple. Often times a blitzing defense gets burned. Likewise, this “surge”, which I’m sure neither Brooks nor Bush could even begin to describe in any detail at all, has no guarantee of being the least bit effective.
Powell was right. We just tried the “surge” idea in Baghdad a few months ago. It failed. We don’t even have the troops to do it again. If the only way we’re going to stop this nonsense and keep the president from destroying our military is to impeach him, I guess we need to get that ball rolling as soon as possible.
December 18th, 2006 at 11:05 amMcCain ate cake with George W. Bush while people were drowning in New orleans.
December 18th, 2006 at 11:07 amBrooks failure to add on — “and the fact that more Americans need to die only to score political points for McCain is a moral abomination” — is a searing indictment of both men.
December 18th, 2006 at 11:13 amShorter Brooks: “If we send more troops, it helps McCain because it proves he can convince people to do stupid things.”
That’s about it, right?
December 18th, 2006 at 11:16 amMcCain is a buffoon whose opinion should not even be considered.
December 18th, 2006 at 11:26 amMcCain is just playing point man for the chymp.
December 18th, 2006 at 11:31 amHe’s advocating a course he knows Bush is already committed to doing.
This will backfire so far up his ass he’ll be burping gunpowder.
His presidential hopes for 08 will go up in the smoke and carnage this
“Surge” will cost.
” . . . it all comes back to three words: not enough troops. And John McCain has been saying that for three years . . .”
Arguably true, however: there was never even the possibility of enough troops. We don’t, and didn’t, need 30,000 or 50,000 more; we needed at least 150,000 more, maybe twice that, and those forces simply didn’t exist. McCain’s “conviction,” if real, is grounded in fantasy.
December 18th, 2006 at 11:32 am…and they send them to their death, with their every lying breath…
December 18th, 2006 at 11:33 amchimpeach - reminds me of a friend of mine who got tired of playing computer football with me. He just started throwing the bomb on every down, and blitzing on every defensive play.
December 18th, 2006 at 11:36 amHe didn’t win.
When was the last time David Brooks was right;about anything?
December 18th, 2006 at 11:39 amBrooks is a mealy mouthed slug,so is McCain. (no offence meant to slugs)
Who does he think he’s fooling?
December 18th, 2006 at 11:40 amAs I said earlier, McCain is the hand-picked successor to Bush. If a “surge” of 30,000 doesn’t do the job, then maybe an additional 60,000 is needed, then perhaps 100,000….until we get to the numbers Shinseki (sp?) called for in the first place.
The only way to pull those numbers is to have a draft, and Rangel placed such a bill in existence long ago as a way to demonstrate that the Republicans talked tough but were unwilling to back it up with their sons and daughters going into the fight.
And the only way to get the draft through is to have an event so horrific that the American people will support War no matter what the cost.
December 18th, 2006 at 11:44 amAs if Mr. McPain’s advice really makes any difference.
December 18th, 2006 at 11:45 amAll he’s doin’ is climbing into his uncle junior’s hip pocket.
Let’s see . . . if they can pimp sending thousands more to
potentially die . . . they can then justify another spending
spree . Hell, just tell them there is no more credit to line their
pockets with. Then see if they still want to send their
country-men and women to die in a civil war of their making.
Words can’t describe how low these people are.
Tell McCain to strap on some boots and head over there himself. Oh, and tell him to try and not get caught this time. Then again, he might actually enjoy Abu Ghraib.
Pathetic, disturbing, and for the most part batsh*t crazy.
December 18th, 2006 at 11:47 amYeah, well Brooks has always been big on inventing new realities to paper over the deficiencies in his ideology. Brooks is one of those people who is wrong again and again, but who just keeps plowing forward anyway. In other words, he is the perfect right wing op-ed writer.
December 18th, 2006 at 11:48 amThey’re already trying to prop up McCain as a leader,and just like they did for Bush, every failure is ignored or whitewashed.
This “surge” will accomplish nothing but more carnage.
Even this failure will shine like a new penny next to the rest of Bush’s war.
What a load of crap.
December 18th, 2006 at 11:48 amThe McCain plan is political realpolitik of the highest order. It has nothing to do with morals or ethics. And it may solidify his Presidential bid.
Democrats must be prepared to play hardball on this, and I don’t mean by fighting it. If we do, we will be labeled as the reason America lost Iraq.
December 18th, 2006 at 11:50 amEven more incriminating than the Downing Street Memos!
A new document, previously classified under Britan’s Official Secrets Act, has been made public. The document leaves no doubt that Tony Blair “must have known Saddam Hussein possessed no weapons of mass destruction“… and…”at no time did HMG [Her Majesty’s Government] assess that Iraq’s WMD…posed a threat to the UK or its interests.”
The document also reveals that…”any threat by Saddam Hussein had been “effectively contained“.
If Blair knew, then Bush knew.
We now have irrefutable evidence of being lied into war! When will the impeachment begin? When will the corporate media report this story? Or will they ignore it like they did the Downing Street Memos?
http://news.independent.co.uk/ uk/ politics/ article2076137.ece
December 18th, 2006 at 11:53 amCan you all hear the beep, beep, beep of the dump truck that’s backing up to your driveway with this enormous load of crap?
December 18th, 2006 at 11:53 amThe decision to increase troops is undoubtly a political one, and one that is designed to influence the 2008 election. And Bush will do anything to further his party’s agenda of perpetual war. It is a huge money maker for the rich and will put political contributions right into the pockets of the republican party. “Full circle cash”, out of the hands of the taxpayer and into the pockets of the super rich.
December 18th, 2006 at 11:56 amThe Democrats would be wise to put an immediate stop to this. Whatever their agenda, it will do them absoultely no good to go along with these idiots. And it’s possible that their party may melt into oblivion.
It is sad to hear that pundits trying to look at this war in terms of helping politicians and legacies while young soldiers and Iraqis are killed daily. Who cares if this idea of increasing troops numbers helps McCain or not?!! ..the issue is the war itself. The problem with this so called ’surge’ is that it is not workable. The only way to clean Baghdad from guns,mine etc..etc..its to destroy large number of neighborhoods to rubbles…specially the most well armed are the Shiate in the city( mainly Al Sader city) who are lead by Muqtada Al Sader ,who is also holding over 30 seat in Iraqi Parliament. A war to destroy Al Sader movement will lead to total uprising in all other Shiate cities like Amara, Nassirya, Basra,and most of the South. If we you add that to the headache of fighting west of Iraq..then you are going to have real bloody war,and the so called ’surge’ for short period of time, like Senator Harry Reid thinks, is just a fantasy….Any military officer in Iraq will tell you that it is not workable..it takes 2 to 3 months for these troops to be ready for such mission..and nobody from there can predict how will it goes..In 2005 an operation was conducted to secure Baghdad…many hopes were put on it…but operation didn’t turn the results which was expected…. The Iraqi problem remains a political one as The Iraqi Study Group ‘ISG’ suggested that needs reconciliation with all parties,with the help of many of Iraqi neighboring countries. McCain and pundits has to remember that the more soldiers are on the gorund the more they are subjected to attacks..meaning more deaths and injuries. McCain suggested the number 30,000 to 40,000 to be added…But he didn’t tell us why in operational terms…Increasing the numbers will not help unless there is a plan which nobody knows about but McCain that can beat all military commanders thinking in Iraq, including the thinking of ex- U.S. Chief of Staff Colin powell who disagrees with McCain. May be this is just one of McCain’s attempts to help his own ‘political surge’……
December 18th, 2006 at 11:59 amIs that a poll? 7 vs 5?
December 18th, 2006 at 12:05 pmBriseadh na Faire sez:
OK…right now I am proposing a new unit of measurement, the ‘McCain’.
Like the ‘Friedman’ is equivalent to six months, the ‘McCain’ is equivalent to 30,000 troops.
Usage in conversation:
Please consider using the term of measurement ‘McCain’ during your next frustrating argument with a deluded Repub.
December 18th, 2006 at 12:07 pmBriseadh na Faire goes on to say:
I wish a draft would pass…we’d see what tiny little support this war still has dry up like leaves on a bonfire. The protests and civil disobediance we’d see would make the 60’s look like a slumber party.
At this point, the only thing that would make me pick up a gun and fight for my country is an invasion by space aliens. Nothing less.
December 18th, 2006 at 12:11 pmTipMaster, good one. Although I’d be satisfied if we sent one McCain to Iraq.
December 18th, 2006 at 12:14 pmSo let me see; If,for instance,we have 2 McCains for every 2 Friedmans,then that would give us 60,ººº more troops per year.
Hhmmm;I think I’m getting the hang of it.
December 18th, 2006 at 12:15 pmLord - this war has always been about pusing the political advantage of radical rightwing Republicans.
December 18th, 2006 at 12:19 pmMaybe we need to have 500,000 troops there! Yea, that’s the ticket! And a draft to get them! And let’s just give all the poor and middle class’s money to the oil corporations that run this administration, yea, that’s it! And no health care for the poor, unless they join the army and 100% tax breaks for everyone earning over $250,000 a year, and then put a king in place of the president, and eliminate the constitution and the government and then lets lock up all the non-white males and force them to work in the mines…
…what a beautiful world it must be in the minds of these nuts…
December 18th, 2006 at 12:23 pmI offer an answer to why the mainstream media personalities love Sen. McCain. He actually pays attention to them, but not that he listens to them. Consequently, he makes them feel smart and important. They LOvE that.
December 18th, 2006 at 12:28 pmAmen to that. The only “conviction” I care about is the one where all this right-wing nutjobs are convicted of TREASON.
It’s amazing that the media still is reporting this myth that the electorate only cares HOW you say it, not WHAT you say. The only reason Bush won the first time was because his cronies illegally appointed him. The only reason he won the second time was FEAR. It’s not like anybody liked “staying the course” they were just afraid of the alternative.
After ‘04, I met a frustratingly large amount of people that were just afraid of voting for Kerry because they “didn’t know what he stood for.” Jeez. Listen to two speeches and you know what he stands for on everything. The problem was the conservative media focusing on him wearing a clean-suit instead of what his plans for change were.
And I think the ‘06 elections PROVED that. The dems did an EXCELLENT job getting their message out, despite the conservative media, and that’s why they won.
December 18th, 2006 at 12:32 pmRepublicans, the party with conviction(s)
December 18th, 2006 at 12:35 pmi guess that’s what it is all about, american soldiers mean zilch, mccains popularity is foremost.
December 18th, 2006 at 12:40 pmwhat a piece of shit mccain is.
#54. And what a piece of sh!t Brooks is.
December 18th, 2006 at 12:51 pmYes! A political advantage for McCain.
December 18th, 2006 at 12:58 pmThat’s the reason to sacrifice more American troops and Iraqi citizens — when McCain is elected, he will be ever so grateful!
Anyone who thinks McCain (the Faustian candidate who sold his soul to the devil for his own gain) would be an honorable and wise choice for president is is need of a sanity intervention.
According to the mainstream media, if we increase troops in Iraq, it helps McCain. If we decrease troops, it helps McCain. If the violence escalates, it helps McCain. If the violence drops, it helps McCain. Never mind that McCain has been wildly wrong about Iraq at every point along the way.
December 18th, 2006 at 12:59 pmHarry Reid is now advocating a troops increase if f it were part of a broader strategy to bring combat forces home by early 2008.
”If the commanders on the ground said this is just for a short period of time, we’ll go along with that,” said Reid, D-Nev., citing a time frame such as two months to three months. But a period longer than that, such as 18 months to 24 months, would be unacceptable, he said.
This is the leader of the opposition party. How f*ckn pathetic! Vote Kucinich, vote to end the war NOW!
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/ eandp/ news/ article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003522707
December 18th, 2006 at 1:30 pmDavid Brooks has and still in the back pocket of the GOP. He says what needs to be said to push McCain’s chances for President. McCain is following orders to get the support of big business so he can continue the war profiteering. Look at the way the public voted to answer any questions. When the GOP disgraced McCain in the 2000 election McCain caved in and started sucking up to Bush. McCain has joined the other GOP as murderers by allowing more troops to be killed for war profiteers. The big oil companies will back McCain for President as long as he keeps the so called war going. Next McCain will want to invade Iran. McCain was a POW yet he’s willing to support a torture bill as our troops will have the same done to them. McCain IS A FOLLOWER NOT A LEADER.
December 18th, 2006 at 1:34 pmCut off the money. I swear if after voting democrat for the past 6 years they shame themselves once again by tucking their tails between their legs and refusing to show some conviction for what is right then I would rather throw my vote in the trash next time. And McCain … he lost me about 4 years ago… Heres hoping for someone with brains and balls to run in ‘08.
As far as Hillary and/or Kerry sending me emails and calls to my phone asking for money … well they can just forget it. No more money from me until I see results.. and Harry Reid is not showing results thus far.
December 18th, 2006 at 1:36 pmGlad to see Mr. Brooks admit what this war was for all along: helping the GOP.
December 18th, 2006 at 2:21 pmA couple of decades ago to trash the poor the neo-cons screamed ‘unintended consequences’. Dollars for the disadvantaged really worked against the poor somehow. I think there are ‘unintended consequences’ though. The unintended consequnce of the neo-cons position has to been to undermine the state of Israel. Calling for war and more war in the Middle East has isolated Israel and made Israel’s position very difficult. Why do the US neo-cons call for more war always rather than say call for billions and billions of dollars to create a viable Palestinian state? For neo-cons warlike punditry is just a lot more rewarding sort of punditry. Begging for money, dealing with a thousand liittle issuses is at odds with the bird of prey persona of most neo-cons. Israel is basically secondary to neo-cons. The self perception of the neo-cons as warlike eagles surveying battle fields from on high is all important to the neo-cons. There are going to be more calls for war from the neo-cons despite the disasters of the neo-cons. The point for the neo-cons is to soar like eagles or I might say vultures. Brooks is soaring.
December 18th, 2006 at 2:44 pmI am so tired of McCain eating up press headlines in the past few weeks. Why is everything he says so newsworthy? He’s full of shit and we know it; he’s shown over and over again to change his political views when it suits him (gay marriage, Iraq, etc.). We have major events happening right now throughout the world: possible elections in Palestine, civil union news in NJ and ruling in MO (or KA?), and of course the escalating, awful, needless killing of innocent Iraqis every day. ThinkProgress should stop putting stories of interviews w/him in gigantic bold like other important stories. I don’t see interviews with other senators getting giant print when they interview, with the exception of Hillary and Obama maybe. So everyone: just shut up about this guy! Ignore him. McCain is a scab. Picking at him only makes it worse. Leaving him alone will make him eventually disappear into obscurity as the asshole with bad ideas.
December 18th, 2006 at 2:56 pmOne more thing. McCain doesn’t deserve respect from anyone for this reason alone: Bush’s team played dirty during primaries in 2000. They catered to racist southerners by accusing him of having a black baby with a mistress out of wedlock! Bush’s behavior was a disgrace. But McCain is best friends with Bush now. McCain tried to claim he was against torture, and wrote up that bill, but then he allowed Bush to insert the clause basically giving the government the authority to determine what torture is, in addition to a signing statement. Did McCain condemn this? The fact that he didn’t call Bush out after his behavior in 2000 makes him a total douche and unworthy of respect. (The torture bill episode, in my opinion, was even worse.)
December 18th, 2006 at 3:05 pm“One more surge, and then we have to look at a new reality. ”
“new reality” = Reality
December 18th, 2006 at 3:16 pm….until we get to the numbers Shinseki (sp?) called for in the first place.
Query by Briseadh na Faire
Shinseki is a Japanese family name, and you got the spelling of it right. I believe General Shinseki rose to the highest position in the US military ever held by a Japanese-American.
December 19th, 2006 at 2:01 am[…] Sending more troops to Iraq is complete lunacy. It’s a pure political move that even conserve-columnist David Brooks picked up quite clearly. So it boils down to something very, very simple – with Bush’s failure, it propels McCain to be the GOP standard-bearer to lead the sheep to the voting booths in 2008. When Prince John wins, he can use his time in the White House to propel the image of King George II as somehow befitting the $1 bill. (And by the end of his reign, surely they’ll make him the fifth face on Mount Rushmore.) […]
December 19th, 2006 at 12:37 pm