McCain’s Straight Talk On Timelines
Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) today on the Senate floor:
Supporters of this provision say they want a date certain for a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq. But what they have offered us is more accurately described as a date certain for surrender — a date certain for surrender — with grave consequences for the future of Iraq, the stability of the Middle East and the security of Americans at home and abroad.
Watch it:
In 1993, McCain’s straight talk sounded much different. Then, he argued that “the orderly way” to stop the U.S. campaign in Somalia was to set a timeline and cut off funds after March 31, 1994, unless the President secured authorization from Congress. From his floor speech:
MCCAIN: …this resolution establishes, in effect, a date certain for a vote on the commitment of United States forces to Somalia…I think we all realize that we have drifted from the use of force to secure humanitarian relief to an open-ended effort at peace enforcement and nation building. …the orderly way to stop it is for the President to present a plan for shaping U.S. withdrawal, set a date for that plan, and have the congress of the United States either endorse or reject such a proposal. [Senate floor speech, 9/9/93]
Several conservative senators still in office — including Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and Sens. Bennett, Bond, Cochran, Domenici, Hatch, Hutchison, Lugar, Specter, Stevens and Warner — joined McCain and voted in favor of cutting funds and setting a timetable.
Transcript:
MCCAIN: These same provisions were rejected by the Senate two weeks ago by a 48-50 vote. Now here we are debating the same provisions that we have — that have the same serious problems. I hope they’ll be rejected again by the same, if not a larger margin. Supporters of this provision say they want a date certain for a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq. But what they have offered us is more accurately described as a date certain for surrender — a date certain for surrender — with grave consequences for the future of Iraq, the stability of the Middle East and the security of Americans at home and abroad. And they offer it just as the situation in Iraq, though fraught with difficult challenges, is beginning to improve.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
64 Responses to “McCain’s Straight Talk On Timelines”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Think ProgressContact Us
Donate
he’s like a little angry cartoon! Elmer Fud?
March 27th, 2007 at 5:40 pmIf you can’t already see the difference between Clinton’s humanitarian / no threat to U.S. war in Somalia and Bush’s central front in the war on terrorists who want to kill every American, I doubt I can explain it any better.
March 27th, 2007 at 5:41 pmLet’s hope Lieberman finally wakes up to the danger of Democrats in charge of the U.S. Senate during wartime.
March 27th, 2007 at 5:43 pmShut up, McCain. Just shut up.
You exhaust me…
March 27th, 2007 at 5:43 pmClinton! Yes, Clinton, ohhhh yeahhhhh….
March 27th, 2007 at 5:44 pmDon’t be stupid! This is a Republican war. Rules are different.
March 27th, 2007 at 5:44 pmWell said Senator McCain!
March 27th, 2007 at 5:44 pmhey jerko, this is not surrender… that would be putting up our hands and giving our weapons to the insurgents… we made a mess in Iraq, but we’ve done about all we can do there… it’s to let Iraqis take over their own country…
March 27th, 2007 at 5:45 pmIs it REALLY wartime Jake?
March 27th, 2007 at 5:47 pmMcCain is Elmer Pudd.
-GSD
March 27th, 2007 at 5:48 pmLet’s hope Lieberman finally wakes up to the danger of Democrats in charge of the U.S. Senate during wartime.
Comment by Jake — March 27, 2007 @ 5:43 pm
Nothing would change if Lieberman decided to caucus with the republicans.
March 27th, 2007 at 5:51 pmWell said Senator McCain!
Comment by Patrick1 — March 27, 2007 @ 5:44 pm
Yeah, I agree with you Pat…
MCCAIN: …this resolution establishes, in effect, a date certain for a vote on the commitment of United States forces to Somalia…I think we all realize that we have drifted from the use of force to secure humanitarian relief to an open-ended effort at peace enforcement and nation building. …the orderly way to stop it is for the President to present a plan for shaping U.S. withdrawal, set a date for that plan, and have the congress of the United States either endorse or reject such a proposal.
Huzzah!
March 27th, 2007 at 5:51 pmwhat a piece of Sh*t. He is so desperate for power and so desperate for the nomination his has sold his soul to every special interest group and corporation with a dime to spare. For the love of God and all things sacred in this beautiful Republic, please do not elect this curmudgeon old man to give us another 4 years of Neo Conservative screwing in the butt.
March 27th, 2007 at 5:51 pmCheney- Bush-and Rumsfeld in The Masters of War
surrendering what has, from day one, been a sad combination of lies and pipedreams is not really surrendering at all - it’s called sobering up.
March 27th, 2007 at 5:52 pmIsn’t it amazing how unpopular nation-building was? Hard to imagine isn’t it? It was unpopular from here all the way through the 2000 debates with the Republicans… Bush told us that Gore was the one who was going to be nation-building with our military.
Frankly, I don’t think he even knew what the f*ck that meant when he said it.
March 27th, 2007 at 5:53 pm‘Round and round he goes. Where he stops, HE doesn’t even know. Poor John McCain really has fallen, hasn’t he?
March 27th, 2007 at 5:53 pmLet’s hope Lieberman finally wakes up to the danger of Democrats in charge of the U.S. Senate during wartime.
Comment by Jake
What are the dangers? You don’t even have to provide a link. I’ll accept your ass as a source.
March 27th, 2007 at 5:54 pmJohn McCain does not want the U.S. to leave Iraq because, like Vietnam [where in his last mission as a pilot he attempted to bomb a lightbulb factory, a civilian installation, which is a clear violation of the Geneva Convention], no matter how many Americans are killed and maimed and crippled for a less than noble cause, it can never make up for the fact that the U.S. was “allowed” to lose in Vietnam, despite the fact that 58,000 American military personnel died in that quagmire. McCain will do everything he can to make sure that the U.S. does not also “lose” in Iraq, no matter how many Americans must once again sacrifice their lives for lies that the U.S. government has put forth in order to achieve their own ends.
March 27th, 2007 at 5:54 pmsurrendering something that has been, from day one, a horrible combination of lieas and pipedreams is not surrendering at all, it’s called sobering up - you’d think a recovered drunk like dubbie would have to appreciate the difference….
there’s an interesting rhetorical for you - is a drunk or junkie that kicks their habit a better person, or a “surrender monkey”?
March 27th, 2007 at 5:54 pmYes McCain, we want to surrender Iraq to the Iraqis.
March 27th, 2007 at 5:55 pmForTruth:
No “magic words” are needed for Congress to declare war. See AUMF.
Nat:
Actually, the Senate would revert back to GOP control. What is your definition of “nothing”?
March 27th, 2007 at 5:56 pmAh yes, ye ol’ f republican Hypocrisy. … Classic!
March 27th, 2007 at 5:56 pmJohn McCain, you will never be president. You won’t even get the nomination.
March 27th, 2007 at 6:01 pmActually, the Senate would revert back to GOP control. What is your definition of “nothing�
Comment by Jake — March 27, 2007 @ 5:56 pm
It would not.
March 27th, 2007 at 6:03 pmOnce again P1 and Jake embrace hypocrisy.
Bush said our troops would not be used for nation building, what Mcain spoke against in 1994 and now he’s for using our troops for Nation buidling what Bush was against.
You know, all this talk and suddenly I’m hungry for ‘waffles’, Maybe I will put on my ‘flip flops’ and go to the store and get some Keebler ‘Elves’ as well.
March 27th, 2007 at 6:04 pmI’m distracting Jake while others put a “kick me” sign on his back. Heh.
March 27th, 2007 at 6:05 pmIf hypocracy was a hot chick, I would embrace it.
March 27th, 2007 at 6:05 pm“what they have offered us is more accurately described as a date certain for surrender†=JMc
How can one ’surrender’ when it was a freedom operation?
March 27th, 2007 at 6:06 pmActually, the Senate would revert back to GOP control. What is your definition of “nothing� Comment by Jake — March 27, 2007 @ 5:56 pm
BAHAHAAH, You say you’re 75 years old, and you don’t know sh*t about the Senate? No wonder your statements all come out of your *ss - it’s where your head is permanently attached!
You aren’t 75, you’re 7+5=12 - you’re just a st*pid little child!!!
March 27th, 2007 at 6:07 pmActually, the Senate would revert back to GOP control. What is your definition of “nothing�
Comment by Jake
Shirley U. Jest
Liberman has made himself a fulcrum, a pivot man, the majoritywhip, the minority whip and about one of the most powerful Senators by placing himself where he is.
He will waffle back and forth and forth and back. Hide and watch.
March 27th, 2007 at 6:11 pmDamn, I forgot I’m on the Ignore List (TM).
March 27th, 2007 at 6:11 pmThe Senate would not flip back to Republican control Jake.
We’re locked in until 2009.
March 27th, 2007 at 6:14 pmDamn, I forgot I’m on the Ignore List (TM).
Comment by Zooey
Jakes ignore list only works in one direction, sadly. He doesn’t ignore us ‘lurkers’, he just doesn’t reply to them. In essence it’s a non-reply list.
March 27th, 2007 at 6:17 pmJRoyale:
If Lieberman pulled a Jeffords (all other things being equal — obviously after today, Gordon Smith or Chuck Hagel could pull a reverse-Jeffords), how exactly does a 50-50 tie not give Cheney the power to revert the Senate back to GOP? And I would hope this time they learned their lesson and no give the Dems some pansy-power-sharing agreement again.
March 27th, 2007 at 6:18 pmZippo Credibility McCain needs to begin to keep a very low profile. His candidacy is already tanking and his outright lies about how safe the streets of Baghdad are to walk on these days are, in the words of the CNN correspondent over there, absolutely and totally “ludicrous”. Perhaps now we can add to McCain’s personal legacy: original flip-flopper, outright liar, propaganda-spewing sycophant, and possibly in the “throes” of senile dementia. Certainly, this failing, addled brain is definitely NOT what this country needs more of right now! His chances of ever being elected are now slim-to-none.
March 27th, 2007 at 6:19 pmJake who?? That troll passed away last week. RIP
March 27th, 2007 at 6:19 pmSo why don’t the pork barrell Republicans want to support the troops?
They still hold the pork record =)
March 27th, 2007 at 6:28 pmmccane will not get the nomination, the way thing’s are going the bull shit bush bunch might as well call off a convention all together…Hell their numbers are tanking and lot’s of their bunch are going to jail….Who do they have to vote for any way…No one. The old, infermed, insane, corrupt, pedafiles, relegious zelot’s, liers, war mongers and thieves?..LOL..Yep cancel do to kack of qualafied polaticians, save your money and come back in say 2500 by then maybe they can start the cycle of greed and deciet again..Blessings
March 27th, 2007 at 6:31 pmIf Lieberman pulled a Jeffords (all other things being equal — obviously after today, Gordon Smith or Chuck Hagel could pull a reverse-Jeffords), how exactly does a 50-50 tie not give Cheney the power to revert the Senate back to GOP? And I would hope this time they learned their lesson and no give the Dems some pansy-power-sharing agreement again.
Comment by Jake — March 27, 2007 @ 6:18 pm
I would not revert back. The Senate rules that the Congress voted on at the beginning of this legislative session locked in the Democrats until 2009 unless the republicans get a clear majority (51 senators). The only thing that would change is the number of seats on each committee if Lieberman switched. If the GOP prayers that Tim Johnson dies are answered along with a Lieberman switch then the Senate will flip to the republicans.
March 27th, 2007 at 6:31 pmMcCain is gradually becoming irrelevant. He’s going down with the ship with his position on Iraq.
March 27th, 2007 at 6:34 pmIn essence it’s a non-reply list.
Comment by Zep Tepi
I’m glad you’re keeping track, Zep.
Did you see Briseadh na Faire’s response to you about the Federalist Society?
March 27th, 2007 at 6:35 pmJake,
Yes, Cheney could break tie votes, but committee chairmanships, which are VERY important, would be divided between the parties. So the GOP would have a strategic advantage, but far from the control they would have were they a majority.
March 27th, 2007 at 6:35 pmI don’t care if you wouldn’t revert back — you are saying that a tied Senate to change the rules, with Cheney breaking the tie, would be inoperative?! LOL
March 27th, 2007 at 6:36 pmObviously, I am not praying for Sen. Johnson to die.
March 27th, 2007 at 6:38 pm#39 should read: “It would not revert back.”
March 27th, 2007 at 6:38 pmNat:
You and VerbalKint are going to have to get your stories straight about Committee charis and then see me about the ever-increasingly-probable hypothetical I posed. Especially after a veto and if the Dems REFUSE to hold another vote to fund the troops.
March 27th, 2007 at 6:39 pmI don’t care if you wouldn’t revert back — you are saying that a tied Senate to change the rules, with Cheney breaking the tie, would be inoperative?! LOL
Comment by Jake — March 27, 2007 @ 6:36 pm
They cannot change the rules.
March 27th, 2007 at 6:40 pmHow can one ’surrender’ when it was a freedom operation?
Comment by Zep Tepi
I’d say the argument stops right here. Great point.
LIEberman, your 15 minutes expired YEARS AGO.
March 27th, 2007 at 6:43 pmI’ve been looking at the comments from all of the articles today and noticed that our buddy Jake is there on almost every one of them. He’s usually is one of the first few commenters in every thread, hijacking the thread and trying to make it all about him and his comments. We can’t help ourselves in defending our beliefs from his ignorant crap.
Jake, get a life!!
As for your latest comments, why don’t you use that googly thing and find the section of the 9/11 commission report that talks about there being NO link between Saddam and Al-Qaeda.
I can’t believe you are so stupid that you believe this war in Iraq is somehow protecting us. There were NO WMD in Iraq, NO imminent threat. There was only a sovereign nation that we pre-emptively invaded based on false pretenses.
You are really annoying the f**k out of me with all of your crap. Is that your intent? Do you mind being such an annoying pr**k?
March 27th, 2007 at 6:46 pmObviously, I am not praying for Sen. Johnson to die.
Comment by Jake — March 27, 2007 @ 6:38 pm
Obviously that’s what you want, otherwise you wouldn’t have made this statement.
March 27th, 2007 at 6:47 pmYou and VerbalKint are going to have to get your stories straight about Committee charis and then see me about the ever-increasingly-probable hypothetical I posed. Especially after a veto and if the Dems REFUSE to hold another vote to fund the troops.
Comment by Jake — March 27, 2007 @ 6:39 pm
Again it doesn’t really matter. Harry Reid will still be the majority leader; they’ll still have subpoena power and they’ll have the ability to investigate the executive branch. This is not the same situation as when Jeffords switched.
March 27th, 2007 at 6:47 pmFor lurkers only — let’s examine some of this logic, shall we?
“If the GOP prayers that Tim Johnson dies are answered along with a Lieberman switch then the Senate will flip to the republicans.”
Comment by Nat — March 27, 2007 @ 6:31 pm
“Obviously, I am not praying for Sen. Johnson to die.”
Comment by Jake — March 27, 2007 @ 6:38 pm
“Obviously that’s what you want, otherwise you wouldn’t have made this statement.”
Comment by ValiantVenusGrewFromUranus — March 27, 2007 @ 6:47 pm
I report, you decide.
March 27th, 2007 at 6:52 pmJake,
I am not claiming to be an expert on this subject. But I think Nat is right about Reid keeping his majority leader status, and I’m sure that the Democrats would continue to control at least some of the committees, which have a lot of power to shape legislation.
March 27th, 2007 at 6:56 pmI am not claiming to be an expert on this subject. But I think Nat is right about Reid keeping his majority leader status, and I’m sure that the Democrats would continue to control at least some of the committees, which have a lot of power to shape legislation.
Comment by VerbalKint — March 27, 2007 @ 6:56 pm
When the GOP took control of Congress in 2001 they agreed to certain Senate rules at that time because Bush and Cheney were not yet sworn in and Al Gore was still Senate president. Jake is trying to equate this current situation to 2001 but they’re totally different.
March 27th, 2007 at 7:06 pmI report, you decide.
Comment by Jake — March 27, 2007 @ 6:52 pm
When you start reporting, let us know. Until then, we’ve all decided you’re an ignorant dweeb… Decision over, son.
March 27th, 2007 at 7:28 pmNat:
I just reviewed every Senate vote from January — what “rule change” are you referring to?
March 27th, 2007 at 7:29 pmI just reviewed every Senate vote from January — what “rule change†are you referring to? Comment by Jake — March 27, 2007 @ 7:29 pm
Ah, more *ignorant* request, from the *Tubes* gallery!!! You’re a st*pid little piece of work, aren’t you Jake-Off?
March 27th, 2007 at 7:30 pmAnd, the lurkers wonder why I have an “Ignore List”?
March 27th, 2007 at 7:43 pmBut what they have offered us is more accurately described as a date certain for surrender — a date certain for surrender — with grave consequences for the future of Iraq, the stability of the Middle East and the security of Americans at home and abroad.
The grave consequences for Iraq that McCain speaks about, were set into motion with the disastrous decision by Paul Bremer to disband the Iraqi army. That put thousands of armed men on the streets with no pay and no reason to support the Americans.
March 27th, 2007 at 7:44 pmI just reviewed every Senate vote from January — what “rule change†are you referring to?
Comment by Jake — March 27, 2007 @ 7:29 pm
There was a rule change in 2001 not in 2007. This article explains it a little better.
March 27th, 2007 at 7:48 pmI just reviewed every Senate vote from January — what “rule change†are you referring to?
Comment by Jake — March 27, 2007 @ 7:29 pm
This is the Senate organizing resolution of January 2001:
Relative to Senate procedure in the 107th Congress.
March 27th, 2007 at 8:00 pmPASTY-FACED, FLIP-FLOPPING SCHIZOID MADMAN McPAIN, TOGETHER WITH HIS repugnant-repub rightwingnut crank fudge-pachyderm COLLEAGUES McConnell, Bennett, Bond, Cochran, Domenici, Hatch, Hutchison, Lugar, Specter, Stevens and Warner—-ALL HYPOCRITES WHO VOTED TO CUT FUNDS AND SET A TIMELINE DURING BILL CLINTON’S TENURE BUT STUCK BY CHIMPya’S FOLLY AGAINST THE BETTER GOOD FOR AMERICA AND ITS TROOPS DURING MONKEY-BOY’S TENURE—-RANK HYPOCRITES AND CRIMINALS, ALL OF THESE SCUM-HYENA-SHIT SEWER RATS!!!!!
March 27th, 2007 at 8:05 pm#56 And, the lurkers wonder why I have an “Ignore List�
You really do think there are hundreds of people out there that support your stupid comments but don’t post, don’t you? Those phantom lurkers are the “Jake for president” group. You need to see a therapist.
March 27th, 2007 at 11:54 pmAnd, the lurkers wonder why I have an “Ignore List�
Comment by Jake — March 27, 2007 @ 7:43 pm
And the lurkers wonder why a Jake’Off like you thinks anyone cares what st*pid things you have to say! You’re just a pathetic little coward, and complete piece of immoral sh*t, cloaking yourself in *fake* religious rhetoric. You know Hitler also claimed to be a Christian - jack*ss.
March 28th, 2007 at 3:31 am