McCain refuses to say whether he would support Iraq security agreement.
McCain refuses to say whether he would support Iraq security agreement.
The Bush administration and Iraq are in contentious talks over a security agreement calling for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of 2011. In an interview with CNN today, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) refused to directly answer whether he would support the agreement and its timeline, quickly changing the subject:
BLITZER: So you would accept this if it’s on the table right now?
McCAIN: I’ve always said we would be out based on conditions, and honor and victory, and not defeat. And it’s very clear to any observer now that if we had done what Senator Biden wanted to do, break Iraq up into three countries, if we had done what Senator Obama wanted to do, which was immediate withdrawal and setting firm dates for it, we would have probably been defeated in Iraq.
Watch it:
Transcript:
BLITZER: We still have 140,000, 150,000 troops in Iraq. The Bush administration seems to be close to what’s called a status of forces agreement with the Iraqi government of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki.
It calls, the draft agreement, at least, for a complete withdrawal of combat forces from villages and cities by July 30th of 2009, and out of the country by December 31, 2011.If you’re elected president, would you as commander in chief honor this agreement if, in fact, it formalizes?
MCCAIN: With respect, Wolf — and you know better, my friend. You know better. It’s condition-based. It’s conditions-based.
And Ryan Crocker, our ambassador in Baghdad, said if you want to know what victory looks like, look at this agreement. So you know better than that, Wolf. You know it’s conditions-based, and that’s what the big fight was all about.
BLITZER: So you would accept this if it’s on the table right now?
MCCAIN: I’ve always said we would be out based on conditions, and honor and victory, and not defeat. And it’s very clear to any observer now that if we had done what Senator Biden wanted to do, break Iraq up into three countries, if we had done what Senator Obama wanted to do, which was immediate withdrawal and setting firm dates for it, we would have probably been defeated in Iraq. And the problem there is we would have had increased Iranian influence, we would have had sectarian violence on the increase. And probably, we would have had to go back.
So a big issue. A big issue for the American people. And I understand why it’s not on the front pages or the lead on CNN, because we have a relatively secure environment that’s getting more secure.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Poor s.o.b.’s stuck now – he knows no matter what he says it will blow up in his face in 12 hrs. or less.
October 22nd, 2008 at 6:36 pmIrrelevant.
The Iraqi parliament shitcanned the treaty.
At the end of the year, our current UN deal expires.
Our troops will be subject to arrest for firing on any Iraqi.
Can you say Di Mau Di (Dee Mo Dee) really fast three hundred and sixty six times?
October 22nd, 2008 at 6:41 pmMcCAIN: I’ve always said we would be out based on conditions, and honor and victory, and not defeat.
Too late.
October 22nd, 2008 at 6:43 pmLink to above
October 22nd, 2008 at 6:43 pmIraq Moves Closer to Obama-Type Plan for early US Withdrawal;
Cabinet rejects Security Agreement
So I suppose McIIIrd wants to re-invade them to establish our authorita?
October 22nd, 2008 at 6:45 pmI’ve always said we would be out based on conditions, and honor and victory, and not defeat.
He’s always said it, just never defined what the hell he means by ‘victory’ or ‘defeat’.
It’s an occupation, dumbass, there is no victory only inevitable withdrawal. See Romans, Britain, History book.
October 22nd, 2008 at 6:47 pmWhat, exactly do you consider victory John?
And victory over who?
Those pissed off Iraqis who want us out of their country?
How do you know when you have won?
I do think that these 4 questions make you out to be a lying fool.
October 22nd, 2008 at 6:48 pmI wonder what promises McCain’s lobby-based advisers have promised to their real ‘employers’ to keep this defense industry gravy train rolling along in a McCain administration?
Maybe that’s why McCain is dodging the question. No war, no money to Haliburton, etc.
October 22nd, 2008 at 6:51 pmTP: Could you clear something up for us? Does the president have the authority to commit the US to a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) without it being approved by Congress (or even just the Senate) first? Isn’t a SOFA just another form of treaty? And don’t all treaties have to be ratified by the Senate? I find it hard to believe that we would let one person (a president) commit US troops to long-term commitments without Congressional approval. What happens if Congress decides they no longer wish to fund this SOFA?
October 22nd, 2008 at 6:55 pmMcCAIN: I’ve always said we would be out based on conditions, and honor and victory, and not defeat.
– - Oh Johnny, don’t let Gen. Petraeus, your man-love, hear you use the “V” word.
October 22nd, 2008 at 6:59 pmWayne A. Schneider Says:
October 22nd, 2008 at 6:55 pm
Presidents get around that little “treaty” problem by calling it something else. Who needs that god-damned piece of paper?
October 22nd, 2008 at 7:01 pm/sarc
Not about Iraq, but is about McCain:
John McCain paid $175,000 of campaign money to a Republican operative accused of massive voter registration fraud in several states….
As the McCain camp attempts to tie Barack Obama to claims of registration irregularities by ACORN, finance records detailing payment to the firm of Nathan Sproul threatens to derail that argument.
The committee of the McCain-Palin campaign, the RNC and the California Republican Party, made the payment to Sproul for the purposes of “voter registration”.
Sproul has been investigated on numerous occasions for preventing Democrats from voting, destroying registration forms and leading efforts to get Ralph Nader on ballots to leach the Democratic vote.
McCain will probably say, Sproul was not convicted, but this would certainly question his claims against ACORN – but will the press ask him?
October 22nd, 2008 at 7:02 pmIf an arrangement is made to remove our troops from Iraq without a “victory parade” McCain will have a hard time continuing the fight.
October 22nd, 2008 at 7:08 pmBut I am with Wayne here, can the president sign this without congressional approval?
And, as BB points out, will someone ask McCain what definition he gives to victory in Iraq?
The war is over, we are now in occupation aren’t we? RUC, I see you also have similar questions.
What a leader!
October 22nd, 2008 at 7:10 pmMcCain doesn’t know poop about the middle east. All
October 22nd, 2008 at 7:23 pmhe can talk about is “victory and honor” Bla Bla Bla.
WASHINGTON (March 13th, 2009) – President McCain today gave a final warning to Iraq’s democratic government that any further attempts to remove U.S. military personnel from Iraqi soil would be met with armed resistance. “My friends, it looks like regime change is a possibility here. If they keep trying to kick us out, we may have to kick them out instead. Like I said on the campaign trail, I’m keeping us in this war until we achieve victory. And if I have to change who we’re fighting in order to have someone to have victory over, then that’s what a maverick would do.”
Vice President Palin echoed the President’s statements. “Sure, we’d like ‘em to be the good guys and help us and all, but if they want to be the bad guys, well then, as we say in Alaska, you don’t want to be the moose in this equation.”
Reportedly, McCain’s national security team is currently working on the problem of how to invade a country that you’re already occupying. “This would be so much easier if we could just do a head fake and shift everybody across the border into Iran,” said Secretary of Defense Rick Davis. “They’d never see that one coming.”
October 22nd, 2008 at 7:38 pmAnd of course Blitzer, neocon toe sucker, allowed him to get away with evading the question. Why does Blitzer even ask him questions if he isn’t going to demand an answer?
When will the neoCONS (including McCain) finally get it that THERE IS NO WAY TO WIN AN OCCUPATION?
October 22nd, 2008 at 7:41 pmI think there’s still an awful lot of “slippage” between the terms “SOFA” and “Long-term security agreement.” The Bush administration has been trying to create a LTSA, but in such a way that it would appear to rise to the level of a treaty. A SOFA does not need Senate approval; a LTSA definitely does. See this earlier article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/25/world/middleeast/25military.html
By the way, Russia indicated today that they would probably support an extension of the U.N. mandate IF the Iraqi government requested it. Not that they would possibly be a laughing up their sleeve on the additional (borrowed) dollars the U.S. might continue spending on that occupation. Considering their 10-year debacle in Afghanistan that brought their economy to its knees, I rather doubt they’d have any concern about ours.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/23/world/middleeast/23iraq.html?hp
October 22nd, 2008 at 7:50 pm# 16 – ElBruce Says:
Please provide the link to this info. Not that I would not believe it, but I am a fact-based person.
October 22nd, 2008 at 7:55 pmoff topic, but poignant nonetheless
October 22nd, 2008 at 7:57 pm# 19 impeachcheneythenbush Says:
Check the date again – it’s in the future. I made that scenario up based on the news item at the top of this page.
October 22nd, 2008 at 8:00 pmI’m so sick of the right lacing every friggin’ sentence they say with some right-wing buzzword. It’s like sending a shout-out to your base whenever you open your mouth.
October 22nd, 2008 at 8:12 pmWhy doesn’t somebody give him a computer game based upon the vietnam war?
He can continue playing and replaying the scenarios until he someday far in the future finds a route to “victory”. Unlike the tic-tac-toe game in Star Wars, there must be a path to victory. With honor. Somebody on his staff will probably have to load it for him and walk him through how to click a mouse.
How many thousands more have to bloodily die or be dismembered because he is still fighting phantasms and nightmares and guilt?
If we sent him lead figures, he’d probably eat them in anger, despite being comfortable with the low-tech physicality. On the computer, he can kill them again and again and again. With fancy zooming camera controls, he could even see the faces of the people he is bombing to smithereens.
And in the real world, families can start to rebuild their neighborhoods.
October 23rd, 2008 at 1:04 amBedava Porno izle
LiseLi Bakire,LiseLi Sex
April 5th, 2009 at 6:30 am