McCain On When Troops Can Come Home From Iraq: ‘That’s Not Too Important’
McCain On When Troops Can Come Home From Iraq: ‘That’s Not Too Important’
In an interview on NBC’s Today Show, host Matt Lauer asked Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) about his support for the war in Iraq. Noting that violence has decreased in Iraq, Lauer asked if McCain has a better “estimate” of when he would withdraw troops from the country. “No, but that’s not too important,” McCain responded:
Q: A lot of people now say the surge is working.
McCAIN: Anyone who knows the facts on the ground say that.
Q: If it’s working, senator, do you now have a better estimate of when American forces can come home from Iraq?
McCAIN: No, but that’s not too important. What’s important is the casualties in Iraq. Americans are in South Korea. Americans are in Japan. American troops are in Germany. That’s all fine.
Watch it:
McCain’s comments reflect a deep misunderstanding of the priorities of the public. Sixty-eight percent of Americans oppose the war; 62 percent believe the next president should “try to end the Iraq war within the next year or two, no matter what.”
But the comments aren’t surprising, given that McCain has supported keeping troops in Iraq for 100 to a million years. Earlier this week, McCain pledged to send an unlimited number of troops to Iraq:
Q: Will your support be there for however many U.S. troops are required?
McCAIN: Yes, and the fact is we are winning in Iraq.
For McCain, there is no end in sight in Iraq, but that’s “not too important” to him.
McCain’s statement today that withdrawing troops doesn’t matter is a crystal clear indicator that he just doesn’t get the grave national-security consequences of staying the course -- Osama bin Laden is freely plotting attacks, our efforts in Afghanistan are undermanned, and our military readiness has been dangerously diminished. We need a smart change in strategy to make America more secure, not a commitment to indefinitely keep our troops in an intractable civil war.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
That sounds reasonable.
June 11th, 2008 at 9:52 amMatt Lauer: Enabler-in-Chief.
?
And a lot don’t. How about phrasing it, “Senator, since you say the surge is working, when do troops come home?”
June 11th, 2008 at 9:55 amAs Josh Marshall @ TPM points out, better make this McCain clip go viral, because in a couple days he won’t have said it.
June 11th, 2008 at 9:55 amIs the troll saying that to this administration having casualties in Iraq is important to the spread of Truth, Justice and the American Way of Life?
June 11th, 2008 at 9:58 amI think McSame is trying to live in the past. In the olden days, you could say virtually anything and get away with it because there weren’t these new fangled communications things such as the internet, or TV’s, or radio, or newspapers…..
June 11th, 2008 at 10:02 amQ: do you now have a better estimate of when American forces can come home from Iraq?
McCAIN: No, but that’s not too important.
That’s the ticket, Gramps. Keep telling America that “it’s not important” when our troops come home from Iraq.
Excellent strategy.
June 11th, 2008 at 10:04 amThen give us that smile you’re so famous for, Gramps.
June 11th, 2008 at 10:05 amWho is saying the surge is working? Isn;t this so called “surge” really an escalation?
June 11th, 2008 at 10:07 amKindly define “victory”?
Hey Matt: Only the 20%er’s think the surge is working. Way to give mcsame a nice ass kiss, when you’re suppose to me a serious journalist.
June 11th, 2008 at 10:08 amForget a day or so,by this afternoon mclame will say he’s been misquoted (again)
Josh Marshall is sooooo right. I bet his “people” will eiother deny it or fall back on the “You Liberal Medai! He was taken out of context!!!’
June 11th, 2008 at 10:09 amAlright. New Plan JinJin. I don’t even toss your cyper leper as the loose change. Instead I just pummel you relentlessly till you go away. Deal?
June 11th, 2008 at 10:15 amIf by “the surge” you mean, an escalation of troops, stepped-up bribery to warlords and ethnically-cleansed neighborhoods that leave fewer people around to kill, then yes, it’s working to give wingnuts a talking point.
On the other hand, if you consider the stated goal of the Surge™, which was to give the Iraqi parliament some bretahing room with which to bring the nation together, well, not so much.
But McSame’s desperate false equivalency between American troops in Korea, Japan and Germany, and American troops in Iraq is staggering in its ignorance.
But not surprising, since the Right dines out on false equivalencies these days.
June 11th, 2008 at 10:17 amah - I see - and this is from the same crowd that “supports the troops” - way to go McIdiot - may you burn in hell with the rest of them
June 11th, 2008 at 10:20 amI HATE to say this, but on this point, McCain may be right.
If Iraq was stable — like Japan or Germany — I wouldn’t care if U.S. troops were there. Big deal. We have American troops all over the world. The problem is not “we have American troops in Iraq.” The problem is “we have American troops FIGHTING A WAR in Iraq.”
So, McCain is right. Take away war, and I don’t see a big deal with American troops there.
HOWEVER, McCain has offered nothing but “more of the same” when it comes to ending the war. That’s the problem with McCain. It is easy to say “We can have American troops in a stable Iraq” but it is far more difficult to build that stable Iraq.
June 11th, 2008 at 10:20 amIf Lauer was a journalist instead of a simpering buffoon, the next question would have been something to the effect of: “Senator, hostilities ceased in Japan and Germany in 1945 and in Korea in 1953 while the most recent confirmed U.S. casualty in Iraq was three days ago. Understanding that you are willing to station U.S. troops in Iraq for another century, when do you expect them to stop dying in combat and how long are you willing to let them die?”
June 11th, 2008 at 10:30 amI’m sorry McCain ever came back from Vietnam!
June 11th, 2008 at 10:33 amSkeeter1 Says:
The problem is “we have American troops FIGHTING A WAR in Iraq.”
Uhhh. No….We are occupying Iraq. Big difference.
June 11th, 2008 at 10:33 amMy suggestion is that mr mccain ask harry reid to be his running mate. in reality, harry has no more to add than john mccain.
June 11th, 2008 at 10:34 ampaleolib Says:
Understanding that you are willing to station U.S. troops in Iraq for another century, when do you expect them to stop dying in combat and how long are you willing to let them die?”
McRibs would undoubtedly declare: “I never said that”!!
June 11th, 2008 at 10:35 ampaleolib. To be fair, I think we lost 300,000 troops in WWII compared to 4000 troops in Iraq.
McCain believes that if we persevere that hostilities will cease.
Another question that we may want to be asking is “what are the consequences for the Iraqis once we pull out?”
The vacuum created by troop withdrawal and the ensuing destabilization may unfortunately be much worse than the troop losses we face today.
June 11th, 2008 at 10:35 amnot a commitment to indefinitely keep our troops in an intractable civil war.
Senator Reid: Please change “war” to “Occupation” because that is how the Iraqis view our presence in Iraq.
As for McCain. Like Cheney, he doesn’t care what the majority of American’s think.
June 11th, 2008 at 10:36 amResponse to:
I understand what you are saying. However, it still does not excuse or explain the statement by McCain. We have far too many troops in Iraq under combat conditions. It is placing a strain on our active duty, reserve and national guard troops. It is placing incredible stress on our military hardware. It is costing an incredible amount of money. SO YES, IT IS IMPORTANT TO KNOW WHEN OUR TROOPS ARE COMING HOME LEAVING A MINIMAL FORCE IN THE FIELD.
June 11th, 2008 at 10:41 amPeople involved in the planning of their invasion new well what would ensue. That’s one of the reasons they chose Iraq. After taking out Saddam, they knew they’d get the endless conflict they wanted, along with the rest of it.
June 11th, 2008 at 10:50 amJust investigate their enabling event already.
So McCain believes that eventually we will be greeted as liberators in Iraq and the violence will end with parades and flowers will be thrown at our feet. Sure, because if there’s one thing they love in the middle east it’s occupation.
June 11th, 2008 at 10:50 amSkeeter is right… the question that should be asked isn’t “when will the troops come home?” but should rather be “what will you do to ensure that if troops remain in Iraq, they will not there fighting or in any way involved in combat?”
June 11th, 2008 at 10:52 amZell Miller in 2004:
“Motivated more by partisan politics than by national security, today’s Democratic leaders see America as an occupier, not a liberator. And nothing makes this Marine madder than someone calling American troops occupiers rather than liberators.”
Permanent occupation……..
-GSD
June 11th, 2008 at 10:53 amI guess that means that we will be staying in Iraq until those ungratefull Iraqi’s see us for the liberators we are damnit. Oh, and they had better bring the flowers and the chocolate with them too.
June 11th, 2008 at 10:53 amMcNoBrain proved already his insensitive nature.
June 11th, 2008 at 10:54 amNot sure how this matters.
Many observers, includinga majority of Iraqis, believe that we are a primary factor in creating the hostilities.
This is the standard “what if” posed by pro-war pundits. Only problem is, these are by-and-large the same people who predicted that Saddam had WMD, that he was helping AQ, that the war would would be a cakewalk and that the invasion would pay for itself.
So it’s fair to say that, when it comes to predictions and Iraq, that camp doesn’t have the best track record.
The opposite view is that, without the external threat posed by American forces, al Qeada in Iraq is toast, and the Iraqis will have more elbow room in order to establish a REAL government without fear that they will appear to be working with the occupying forces. I think this is at least as likely as the widescale “destabilization” of which you warn.
June 11th, 2008 at 10:55 am“No, but that’s not too important.”
June 11th, 2008 at 10:57 amI’m a veteran; I fought in a war. Now I see a candidate that says “… not too important” about when the veterans come home. Veterans’ suicides are at near record highs, their home foreclosures are above the national average, their divorce rates are through the roof. So, “that’s not too important”?
These people are not the ones who lied us into this [insert your own word here] war. They are not the ones who are making bucketfulls of money by waging war. They’re the ones with PTSD after serving 2 or 3 tours in a country where 70% say we are occupiers and should leave. They’re the ones serving in a country where, after 5 years, Iraqis are way worse off than they were before we were there. That’s got to be incredible stress on top of their military missions.
“… not too important”? Mr. McAin, these are our kids, grandkids, brothers, sisters, nieces, nephews, relatives, friends. They may not be important to you, but they sure are to us.
Bring them home.
I’m really pissed; I’d better go to my garden and pull some weeds to work some of this out.
I am no psychologist, but…
McCain’s quiet, monotone voice reminds me of someone about to let his rage fly, that “eye of the hurricane” sort of thing.
And his smarmy smile and chuckle is like a passive/agressive, condescending junior high school kid, lying through his teeth.
I can’t wait to see Obama take him on in a real debate. Let’s just hope we have some true moderators, and not more of McCain’s “base”.
PEACE
June 11th, 2008 at 11:02 amMcCAIN: No, but that’s not too important. What’s important is the casualties in Iraq. Americans are in South Korea. Americans are in Japan. American troops are in Germany. That’s all fine.
Never mind their families that want them home or, considering the divorce rate, if they still have families to come home to.
None of this has anything to do with the surge of course, it always was about establishing a permanent presence in the region. And Hundred-year-war McCain well knows it.
http://progressiveworldreview.com
June 11th, 2008 at 11:03 amThis begs the question that has NEVER been answered by the supporters of this war and occupation of Iraq: “Why?” What exactly IS important enough that the U.S. be in Iraq in any way, shape, or form? Obviously, McCain is promoting a PERMANENT presence in Iraq, symbolized by the huge embassy. WHY? What is the ultimate purpose for which we have expended so much treasure, both in lives and money, and must continue to expend?
June 11th, 2008 at 11:03 amShorter McIIIrd:
Me getting elected is the only ‘real important’ thing going on here, except of course for my BBQ.
And, my friends, I didn’t say that. Did I? Get those damned cameras off my lawn!
June 11th, 2008 at 11:04 amHow long is it going to take to clean up the Iraq mess. Surge hasn’t worked so lets stop throwing good money after bad and most important… good lives after bad. All we have done in Iraq is make a mess. This mess has cost us dearly… What has this mess bought us?. Well its bought us a expensive mess. The most expensive mess in world history for a shithole. Hecka of a job Bushy.
June 11th, 2008 at 11:06 amBackup,
That is VERY flawed logic. Our troops occupying a sovereign nation is causing more unrest than it is helping. We are in the middle of a civil and religious war and have no legal right to be there.
We were wrong to go in when we first did it and are wrong to be there now.
June 11th, 2008 at 11:07 ambackup:
What’s important is the casualties in Iraq.
That sounds reasonable.
skeeter1 days: The problem is “we have American troops FIGHTING A WAR in Iraq.”
http://www.whitehouse.gov/ news/ releases/ 2007/ 01/ 20070110-7.html
“Even if our new strategy works exactly as planned, deadly acts of violence will continue – and we must expect more Iraqi and American casualties. The question is whether our new strategy will bring us closer to success. I believe that it will. (George Bush Jan 10 2007 )
So according to Bush casualties in Iraq aren’t important, just inevitable. McCain says they arem’t too important.
The obvious follow-up would be “The calendar year average for the whole invasion and occupation up to March 2008 is 792 US deaths a year. If that figure for the rest of 2008 figure were halved, are you saying that that reduction wouldn’t be as important as say having the oil-sharing law, and some reasonable restoration of basic services happen before you’d consider removing at least some US troops?
June 11th, 2008 at 11:08 amLike the man said, what does the WWII figure have to do w/ diddley? We were fighting all over the world against an enemy with warmaking capabilities comparable to our own.
And what is McLame’s, or anyone’s substantial basis for believing that a continuing troop presence will reduce hostilities? Hasn’t worked so far. It seems plain to me; the longer we’re there, the more direct influence we have over THE OIL, which was what was really in view from the first. There are plenty of other small nations we could have thrown up against the wall…er…promoted the spread of democracy.
June 11th, 2008 at 11:13 ambackup, since none of the Bush administration’s tactics thus far have been calculated to advance the interests of the Iraqi people you will have to forgive me if I do not take at face value your newfound concern for the populace in case of a U.S. withdrawal. Furthermore, I have no interest in what McCain “believes” will happen if we mindlessly throw more troops into a country we have no reason to occupy or in the “belief” of any other neocon shill as to the possible consequences of withdrawal. Your leaders have cried wolf far too many times to have any credibility at this point. Finally, based on what sems to be transpiring in the reality-based part of the Iraq conflict, I think the answer to your question becomes clear. After killing over 4000 Americans and scores more Iraqis to off Saddam we now have an Iraqi government allied with Iran. Unless McCain’s hundred year occupation includes extermination of the Shia population guess who becomes the power broker in Iraq. Heck of a job Bushie.
June 11th, 2008 at 11:15 amSkeeter, he’s right, but it’s meaningless. In none of those cases were we EVER facing any insurgency. We’d just dropped two atom nombs on Japan; anybody in West Germany could just thank their lucky stars they weren’t in the clutches of the Red Army, and Soutg Korea was effectively partiioned. South Korea’s cool–but is a nuclear North with missile capable of reaching US soil ‘victory’? Don’t think so.
But what’s more important is that in none of those countries were we running the country. Within five years of the occupation of Germany, Japan and South Korea, American Nationals were subject to nationsl courts and local police.
What I would like to ask John McCain is about Blackwater. How soon, sir are you going to get these armed mercenaries, not subject to the UCMJ and apparently immune from prosecution when they rape Americans, out of Iraq? As long as Blackwater is in Iraq, the country is quite literally lawless.
June 11th, 2008 at 11:21 amit’s important to the troops. it’s important to the american people. so mcsame doesn’t get my vote.
no to a third bush term.
June 11th, 2008 at 11:36 amThomasMc Says:
I’m sorry McCain ever came back from Vietnam!
I must say, this is one of the more screwed up things I have read here in a while. Disagree all you want with a man’s policies. Wishing him death or worse yet endless POW status…I will give you the benefit of flippancy in this remark.
June 11th, 2008 at 11:43 amlibforequity Says:
There is a lot of spin here. . . . .
————————————————–
???
June 11th, 2008 at 11:54 amKeltoi, since you are so indignant about citizen and blogger ThomasMc’s “wishing..endless POW status” on McCain, I’m sure you are that much more indignant that presidential candidate McCain is wishing “prisoner to war” status on all of America.
June 11th, 2008 at 11:55 amPatrioticLiberalChristian Says:
Keltoi, since you are so indignant about citizen and blogger ThomasMc’s “wishing..endless POW status” on McCain, I’m sure you are that much more indignant that presidential candidate McCain is wishing “prisoner to war” status on all of America.
I repeat: argue policy all day long. McCain volunteered to fight in a war more unpopular than Iraq and suffered the tortures of the damned for it. You don’t have to agree with him or vote for him. Wishing any American death or endless torment at the hands of our country’s enemies is screwed up and there is no two ways about it.
June 11th, 2008 at 11:59 amWell of course he wouldn’t think it’s too important: “I know what the military is like; I spent years away from home in a north vietnamese prison, and I came out fine!”
June 11th, 2008 at 12:00 pmit’s official, the mccsame “that’s not too important” video clip has gone viral.
June 11th, 2008 at 12:07 pmSen. Joe Biden (D-DE) adds: “I think many of our brave soldiers and their families would disagree that it’s ‘not too important’ when they come home.”
High five, Joe.
June 11th, 2008 at 12:11 pmKetltoi: You don’t have to agree with him or vote for him.
I didn’t agree-with or vote for Bush, but I and all of us got stuck with him.
June 11th, 2008 at 12:16 pmObama in the polls — up, UP and AWAY!
June 11th, 2008 at 12:22 pm5th Estate Says:
Ketltoi: You don’t have to agree with him or vote for him.
I didn’t agree-with or vote for Bush, but I and all of us got stuck with him.
Understood. My point is simple. Wishing McCain had not come back from Vietnam should be a statement that is easy to condemn. Certainly Obama would decry it.
June 11th, 2008 at 12:23 pmKeltoi Says:
I repeat: argue policy all day long. McCain volunteered to fight in a war more unpopular than Iraq and suffered the tortures of the damned for it. You don’t have to agree with him or vote for him. Wishing any American death or endless torment at the hands of our country’s enemies is screwed up and there is no two ways about it.
Uh, no. McCain became a Naval aviator in 1958, Keltoi, well before the Vietnam War started, much less before it became “more unpopular than Iraq” (which is a dubious claim at this point). He was shot down in 1967 and, yes, he was imprisoned in a hellhole. But let’s keep the details correct, OK. He was a member of a military family–like his father and grandfather, he went to Annapolis where, according to Wikipedia, he finished up 894 out of 899.
There is no question that he went through Hell in Vietnam, suffering from disease, beatings and torture. There is also no question that he had already flown 22 bombing runs over Vietnam, killing and maiming an unknown number of human beings. I have a very difficult time accepting the notion that there is anything heroic about bombing (or napalming?) humans, especially in the circumstances of that war.
June 11th, 2008 at 12:27 pmOne of my old army buddies group emailed the link to the video. Quite an interesting conversation about the genetic linage of McCain going on now, with recipients doing “reply all”
LMAO
June 11th, 2008 at 12:27 pmTo be fair, Vietnam didn’t have the benefit of a slick marketing campaign. LBJ tried guerilla marketing and, before the age of the internet, it may have been an unwise choice.
But BushCo — now THOSE guys knew how to sell a bogus war.
(But I agree with you, Keltoi — ThomasMc’s comment was tasteless and over the top. I too tend to give him teh benefoit of the doubt in terms of hyperbole.)
June 11th, 2008 at 12:31 pmEh, Keltoi - let’s just weigh that against all the frothing reichers wishing death on Teddy Kennedy - even on television and radio - and let it go, OK?
June 11th, 2008 at 12:32 pmTerrorist fist bump.
June 11th, 2008 at 12:32 pmLeftside Annie Says:
——————————————————————————–
Eh, Keltoi - let’s just weigh that against all the frothing reichers wishing death on Teddy Kennedy - even on television and radio - and let it go, OK?
Fair enough, I condemn anyone wishing death on any American of any political stripe. Consider it done.
June 11th, 2008 at 12:36 pmActually it is not fine that our troops are still in Korea, Japan, Okinawa, etc. It serves no purpose other than to waste our money.
June 11th, 2008 at 12:49 pmMcCain: “What’s important is the casualties in Iraq.”
If troop casualties were ever important to these Bushie bozos (and I include McSame in that category) there would never have been an invasion of Iraq in the first place. Apparently, McSame isn’t even trying to pretend that he cares a whit about civilian casualties.
June 11th, 2008 at 2:24 pmAnyone wishing death on one American (dropping bombs on Vietnamese civilians) must be condemned. However, 3,200,000 Vietnamese and 1,200,000 Iraqis (neither of which were any threat to us)–now that’s just hunky dorey!
June 11th, 2008 at 4:28 pmThe BIG difference between troops in Iraq and troops stationed in Korea and Germany, etc. is that their families are not there with them like they are in those other places. Also, Germany etc. are not combat zones.
The comparison is totally disingenuous.
June 11th, 2008 at 6:18 pmI’d also like to know when Obama plans to pull our troops out and turn over the bases to the Iraqi military.
June 11th, 2008 at 6:21 pmKeltoi Says:
McCain volunteered to fight in a war more unpopular than Iraq and suffered the tortures of the damned for it.
The Iraq War is more unpopular, as the whole world (except for a few countries) were, and still are against it. Much more so than world opinion was against Vietnam at the time.
Or do only Americans’ opinions count?
June 11th, 2008 at 6:45 pmBlogwhoring…so sorry.
You’re gonna love this!
Why are YOU voting Republican?
June 12th, 2008 at 12:40 amMaybe McCain would think it’s important if he had a son/daughter there fighting now.
July 7th, 2008 at 6:56 pm