………………. of John McCain at the Fort Des Moines last Saturday. A very good turnout was very efficiently managed, a great job by staff at organization and turnout.
More importantly, one facet of McCain’s message that didn’t receive wide coverage, probably because it doesn’t fit the template-the consequences of losing in Iraq-was perhaps the most important thing the Senator discussed in Des Moines. McCain talks about more than the cost of war but rather, focuses on the only real issue, the cost of losing the war. While the war is expensive and distasteful, McCain recognizes that we cannot lose in Iraq. The consequences are too bad, far worse than the unpleasant conflict in which we are there engaged.
So while acknowledging the obvious, the existence of conflict is absence of victory, Sen. McCain also explains the need for victory. This is a stark contrast with the disingenuous Democrat defeatist drumbeat.
More importantly, one facet of McCain’s message that didn’t receive wide coverage, probably because it doesn’t fit the template-the consequences of losing in Iraq-was perhaps the most important thing the Senator discussed in Des Moines. McCain talks about more than the cost of war but rather, focuses on the only real issue, the cost of losing the war. While the war is expensive and distasteful, McCain recognizes that we cannot lose in Iraq. The consequences are too bad, far worse than the unpleasant conflict in which we are there engaged.
So while acknowledging the obvious, the existence of conflict is absence of victory, Sen. McCain also explains the need for victory. This is a stark contrast with the disingenuous Democrat defeatist drumbeat.
23 comments:
How do McCain & Sporer define victory? For all the macho chest thumping and calling D’s unpatriotic, I would actually like to see what that elusive victory looks like. After 4 years, one would think that we would have a pretty good idea. Especially since we obviously are not going home until that victory is achieved.
Most importantly, how will President McCain (or anyone else who may win in ‘08) get the Congress and the nation to go to war when we may actually need to do so? We have pretty much depleted four critical elements for conducting a successful war: domestic political capital, international political capital, our federal coffers, and our physical military resources. The neocon chest thumping is all well and good until one thinks about the political and materialistic realities the next president will face. I certainly don’t envy the person who starts on the job in ’09.
This is not defeatist. This is reality.
I could care less about McCain's position on the war. His positions on every other issue are suspect. If McCain got elected, he'd torture America for longer than he was tortured in Vietnam.
Is there a Republican out there who is truly excited by this vainglorious pontificating Senator running for president? I don't think there is, other than the people who are paid to support him.
Rf - how do democrats define vistory? They don't define victory because they don't believe in it. It's a foreign concept to them. They don't believe in winners or losers. They think everyone should just get to do what they want to do without consequence.
The lack of ability to see clearly about what is really going on is the stark difference between ALL the democrat candidates and MOST of the republican candidates. Most of the republicans get it - mostly Hagel doesn't get it.
McCain will do well and will overcome all his negatives by focusing on what is the most important issue of our time. The other candidates who ignore it or try to be Dem light will fail no matter how big their SoCo credentials. It's about winning this time, not about abortion or gay marriage. We must defeat islamofascism even if it hurts those poor muslims feelings. Then, we can worry about what RF cares about.
I have yet to hear a dem talk about what happens next - after we turn tail and run home. What happens next in your reality? Do you think the terrorists are just going to go away? Why do you think we'll be safe once we run and hide?
and, the democrats gutted the military resources. They always do that when they are in power. the first thing they do is cut the defense budget, reduce troops and strangle the CIA.
why do they do that?
There is a liberal democrat group out there right now advocating that we cut our defense budget. It's those nutballs from Iowans for Sensible Priorities or other such nonsense. Defending our country sounds pretty sensible to me.
If you read noneedfortheneeds defeatist column, you'll see they are setting up training classes for other self-hating americans to learn how to defeat our country.
Gut the military. That's what Democrats advocate. If you listen to Pelosi and the gang from San Fran, they don't think we should have a military at all.
ALl the Democrat presidentials believe this too. Not one is advocating for protecting America - just blame and punish America.
As if right on cue - Self-hating American, John Edwards said to Hollywood:
Edwards: "Perhaps the Greatest Short-Term Threat to World Peace Is the Possibility That Israel Would Bomb Iran's Nuclear Facilities"
Hillary Spot reader Michael points out this little gem in Peter Bart's column on John Edwards' comments in Hollywood:
There are other emerging fissures, as well. The aggressively photogenic John Edwards was cruising along, detailing his litany of liberal causes last week until, during question time, he invoked the "I" word — Israel. Perhaps the greatest short-term threat to world peace, Edwards remarked, was the possibility that Israel would bomb Iran's nuclear facilities. As a chill descended on the gathering, the Edwards event was brought to a polite close.
Really? Israel is the biggest threat? Not Ahmedinijad? Not al-Qaeda? Not a coup attempt in Pakistan? Not a complete breakdown in Iraq drawing in the Saudis, Turks, and Iranians?
Even a few democrats understand that Iran intends to nuke Israel and "wipe them off the face of the earth" - President of Iran.
Edward, it would appear, would be fine with that. Those pesky Jews! They are always trouble. If they could just go away, I could get on to that Two America project. The America where I live, (building the largest house in his state) and the America where everyone else lives.
02/20 05:58 AM
Perhaps Self-Hating American (SHA) or American Self-hater (ASH - yea, like that better). Perhaps John Edwards, who is an ASH, ought to take his tale of two americas to old europe. For all the worry that libs have about how europe feels about america, maybe this helps explain why Proud Americans just don't give a rats ass about what europe thinks. Capitalism still workos better than Socialism. Here's more proof.
One in six Europeans is living below national poverty thresholds, with children particularly vulnerable, according to the results of an official study.
The European Commission's annual report on "social protection and social inclusion" also found 10 percent of people living in households without anybody working.
"The facts are clear, 16 percent of Europeans remain at risk of poverty and 10 percent live in jobless households," he said of the data which will be formally presented to EU leaders at a summit in Brussels next month.
Wow! Anon is on fire. I'm still waiting for that R definition of victory, though. Most D pres contenders have been busy coming up with their plans.
Also, worth repeating my rant from a previous thread:
Why do Republicans love their party more than America? Why do they wish to squander our resources on a war that they are not even willing to pay for? Why aren’t Republicans willing to sacrifice anything? Why do they love America being impotent? Why do Republicans hate America?
Rf - We have the definition of victory. It is democrats who define victory as defeat.
I do not understand your question about republicans loving their party more than America. It is BECAUSE WE LOVE AMERICA that we are REPUBLICANS.
We have sacrificed much as a nation as we always do in defense of freedom. What have democrats sacrificed? Nothing. They don't even think there is a problem.
What, pray tell, would you describe as a sacrifice?
Why do democrats hate themselves but disguise it as hate for america? Why are they ashamed to be americans? why do they always want to defer to other, lesser, countries?
RF - How is this for a definition of victory. Again, it appears that only democrats don't know what the term means. Knowing how much democrats like to rule by poll, here's one from today.
POLL: AMERICANS 'WANT TO WIN IN IRAQ'
Tue Feb 20 2007 16:21:32 ET
In the wake of the U.S. House of Representatives passing a resolution that amounts to a vote of no confidence in the Bush administration's policies in Iraq, a new national survey by Alexandria, VA-based Public Opinion Strategies (POS) shows the American people may have some different ideas from their elected leaders on this issue.
The survey was conducted nationwide February 5-7 among a bi-partisan, cross-section of 800 registered voters. It has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.5 percent. The survey was commissioned by The Moriah Group, a Chattanooga-based strategic communications and public affairs firm.
The survey shows Americans want to win in Iraq, and that they understand Iraq is the central point in the war against terrorism and they can support a U.S. strategy aimed at achieving victory, said Neil Newhouse, a partner in POS. The idea of pulling back from Iraq is not where the majority of Americans are.
By a 53 percent - 46 percent margin, respondents surveyed said that Democrats are going too far, too fast in pressing the President to withdraw troops from Iraq.
By identical 57 percent - 41 percent margins, voters agreed with these statements: I support finishing the job in Iraq, that is, keeping the troops there until the Iraqi government can maintain control and provide security and the Iraqi war is a key part of the global war on terrorism.
Also, by a 56 percent - 43 percent margin, voters agreed that even if they have concerns about his war policies, Americans should stand behind the President in Iraq because we are at war.
While the survey shows voters believe (60 percent- 34 percent) that Iraq will never become a stable democracy, they still disagree that victory in Iraq (creating a young, but stable democracy and reducing the threat of terrorism at home) is no longer possible. Fifty-three percent say it's still possible, while 43 percent disagree.
By a wide 74 percent - 25 percent margin, voters disagree with the notion that "I don't really care what happens in Iraq after the U.S. leaves, I just want the troops brought home."
When asked which statement best describes their position on the Iraq War, voters are evenly divided (50 percent - 49 percent) between positions of "doing whatever it takes to restore order until the Iraqis can govern and provide security to their country," and positions that call for immediate withdrawal or a strict timetable.
27 percent said "the Iraq war is the front line in the battle against terrorism and our troops should stay there and do whatever it takes to restore order until the Iraqis can govern and provide security to their country."
23 percent said "while I don't agree that the U.S. should be in the war, our troops should stay there and do whatever it takes to restore order until the Iraqis can govern and provide security to their country."
32 percent said "whether Iraq is stable or not, the U.S. should set and hold to a strict timetable for withdrawing troops."
17 percent said "the U.S. should immediately withdraw its troops from Iraq."
The survey also found that voters thought it would hurt American prestige more to pull out of Iraq immediately (59 percent) than it would to stay there for the long term (35 percent).
Public Opinion Strategies "scored the best win-loss record among the major polling and media firms in the 2004 election" and was named Pollster of the Year in 2002.
Here's the one that you like. I'm guessing that you are one of the 17%.
17 percent said "the U.S. should immediately withdraw its troops from Iraq."
I guess the self-loving americans (republicans) understand victory.
So far, McCain has the best message on Iraq and the War on Freedom. The others better get moving on that issue. NOW!
This one is especially for Old Europe.
The survey also found that voters thought it would hurt American prestige more to pull out of Iraq immediately (59 percent) than it would to stay there for the long term (35 percent).
Sporer and Bush define victory as an Iraq that can sustain itself, defend itself, protect its borders, at peace with its neighbors and an ally in the WOT.
W's been saying it since 2003. We're a lot closer today than we were in 2003. No war is perfectly waged. Far more serious blunders cost far more lives in WW2 for example (like Pearl Harbor when we actually visually identified the Japanese planes over Hawaii or subs in the harbor before the attack), which is why we cannot get all nationally beaten up about every military faux pas in Iraq. Shit happens, lots of weird, bad and sometimes just unlucky shit happens in war. Its always messy and, as Sherman really said-"war is all hell boys, all hell and nothing but hell", and he meant it in the Biblical plague in after life sort of way.
Most of Iraq, both geographically and sociologically, already meets that definition. Unfortunately, a relatively small part of the indiginous population, fed by arguably the worst ideological movement in the history of mankind (wraps all the worst elements of all of the others together)with foreign fighters, money and weapons, are committed to more or less random slaughter. This makes for very bad TV, especially when the 90% or so positive gets no mention. (How often to you hear about the large numbers of casualties we inflict).
For example, we took 39 combat fatalities in Iraq in January. There were 35 murders in municpal Detroit. 39 deaths was a very slow day in WW2 or Korea.
So, let's talk history, 'cause if you don't know it you cannot place your own times in an accurate context. I invite your commentary. Bring friends because we had all better start talking 'cause those worst people in history I'm talking about don't do much talking-they're more action oriented-want us all dead or dying. I think there are enough educable people left in America that are open to learning just how really dangerous are our times and how very badly we need some reality based consensus on what to do with jihadism and Islamofacsism, even if we cannot agree on anything else.
Oh my, we have one feisty anon! But I’ve always liked feisty, so that’s fine. To be honest, I really don’t think R’s hate America. I’m sure the feisty anon, Sporer and W all love this country and have good intentions. As do I, believe it or not. But one can always support attacks on others’ patriotism with real evidence.
Sporer, thanks for giving your definition of victory. Still, I strongly feel that the war has been a colossal mistake when using a cost benefit analysis (in a very broad sense, not just dollars). Even if we achieve victory as you define it, the gains will not be worth the steep costs: no domestic political capital, no international political capital, no money in the federal coffers, and our military resources worn out. Plus, Al Qaeda and its twisted ideology will not vanish even if we achieve complete victory in Iraq.
Just imagine what a formidable anti-terror force our great country could have been had we stayed on the real enemy, crushed them in Afghanistan and still had a big stick that we were strong enough to swing. As a student of history, you must realize that sometimes it takes real leadership to admit mistakes and to make major corrections.
Sporer, another thing, in the spirit of constructive discussion. Could you answer my earlier question: How will President McCain (or anyone else who may win in ‘08) get the Congress and the nation to go to war when we may actually need to do so? - After the Iraq situation, I think this is a real issue.
hey Rf
Those anonymous Rs really love to back their arguements with non answers and attacks. Just think if all those repub on this blog would only put their courage where their mouth is an enlist then they could tell us what victory in Iraq feels like.
real Ted, if this was the Civil war you would have recruited all those patriotic anon Rs to enlist in this great patriotic struggle. And you could finally wear a neat uniform and strut around with a riding crop giving orders instead of being the ultimate monday morning quarterback. Oh i forget it would interfere with your fighting keyboard duty and none of your fans would want to sacrifice!
There have been too many defintions of cause for war and victory spun out over the last 4 years. The truth is we had a better case for war with Saudi Arabia than we did with iraq.
McCain's "efficiently managed" promotional event reminds me of the last two efficient campaigns. It only produced the most corrupt incompetent president ever!
hey Rf
Those anonymous Rs really love to back their arguements with non answers and attacks. Just think if all those repub on this blog would only put their courage where their mouth is an enlist then they could tell us what victory in Iraq feels like.
real Ted, if this was the Civil war you would have recruited all those patriotic anon Rs to enlist in this great patriotic struggle. And you could finally wear a neat uniform and strut around with a riding crop giving orders instead of being the ultimate monday morning quarterback. Oh i forget it would interfere with your fighting keyboard duty and none of your fans would want to sacrifice!
There have been too many defintions of cause for war and victory spun out over the last 4 years. The truth is we had a better case for war with Saudi Arabia than we did with iraq.
McCain's "efficiently managed" promotional event reminds me of the last two efficient campaigns. It only produced the most corrupt incompetent president ever!
Jimmy Carter? You are correct, Jimmy was the most incompetent president ever. And, Yes, you are correct that Clinton was the most corrupt president ever. He will only be topped by his wife, if she becomes president. I think she likes it on top.
rf - no one will be able to do it until we are attacked again. Heavy emphasis on UNTIL. We will pull out and we will get attacked again.
Thanks for that victory smile!
I think McCain is hiding his secret plan to win the WOT. I bet in the coming weeks he announces that as part of his requirement to receive blanket amnesty, all 12 million illegal aliens will have to register for selective service and serve no less than one tour in one of the theatres of the WOT.
Why else could he possibly support amnesty for illegal aliens? I think he's on to something.
Anon,
“No one will be able to do it until we are attacked again.” – I think you are right. Thanks a bunch, W!
“We will pull out and we will get attacked again.” – What kind of logic is that? It must come from the “if we fight them over there we don’t have to fight them here” stuff, which is the most illogical argument I have ever heard. Kind of like saying that Wal-Mart is no longer able to conduct business in the U.S. because they have operations in China. Huh?
Post a Comment