For GOP only

[southsider2k5]

I like the article a lot, except he does't really make the point that hasn't been made, and that is McCain never said we would be AT WAR for 100 years. He even sited examples like Korea and Germany, where there hasn't been a shot fired for over a half century. That still doesn't get the quote not used as something that was never said.

 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-ope...0,4349671.story

 

Politics of war

Democrats' rush to blast long-term U.S. role in Iraq is missing bigger picture

 

Charles Krauthammer

April 1, 2008

 

WASHINGTON—Asked at a New Hampshire campaign stop about possibly staying in Iraq 50 years, John McCain interrupted—"Make it a hundred"—then offered a precise analogy to what he envisioned: "We've been in Japan for 60 years. We've been in South Korea for 50 years or so." Lest anyone think he was talking about prolonged war-fighting rather than maintaining a presence in postwar Iraq, he explained: "That would be fine with me, as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed."

 

And lest anyone persist in thinking he was talking about war-fighting, he told his questioner: "It's fine with me and I hope it would be fine with you if we maintained a presence in a very volatile part of the world."

 

There is another analogy to the kind of benign and strategically advantageous "presence" McCain was suggesting for postwar Iraq: Kuwait. The U.S. (with allies) occupied Kuwait in 1991 and has remained there with a major military presence for 17 years. We debate dozens of foreign policy issues in this country. I've yet to hear any serious person of either party call for a pullout from Kuwait. Why? Because our presence provides stability for the entire Gulf and for vulnerable U.S. allies that line its shores.

 

The desirability of a similar presence in Iraq was obvious as long as five years ago to retired Gen. Merrill McPeak, one of Barack Obama's leading military advisers. During the first week of the Iraq war, McPeak (a war critic) suggested that "we'll be there a century, hopefully. If it works right." (Meaning, if we win.)

 

Why is that a hopeful outcome? Because maintaining a U.S. military presence in Iraq would provide regional stability, as well as cement a long-term allied relationship with the most important Arab country in the region.

 

As McPeak once said about our long stay in Europe, Japan and Korea, "This is the way great powers operate." One can argue that such a presence in Iraq might not be worth the financial expense. A legitimate point—it might require working out the kind of relations we have with Japan, which picks up about 75 percent of the cost of U.S. forces stationed there.

 

Alternatively, one might advocate bolstering our presence in Kuwait, a choice that would minimize risk. Such a debate would be fruitful and help inform our current negotiations with Baghdad over the future status of American forces.

 

But a serious argument is not what Democrats are seeking. They want the silver bullet to take down McCain. According to Politico.com, they have found it: "Dems to hammer McCain for '100 years.' "

 

The device?

 

Charge that McCain is calling for a hundred years of war. Hence:

 

•"[McCain] says that he is willing to send our troops into another 100 years of war in Iraq." (Obama, Feb. 19)

 

•"We are bogged down in a war that John McCain now suggests might go on for another 100 years." (Obama, Feb. 26)

 

•"[McCain's] willing to keep this war going for 100 years." (Hillary Clinton, March 17)

 

•"What date between now and the election in November will [McCain] drop this promise of a 100-year war in Iraq?" (Chris Matthews, March 4)

 

As Lenin is said to have said: "A lie told often enough becomes truth." And as this lie passes into truth, the Democrats are ready to deploy it "as the linchpin of an effort to turn McCain's national security credentials against him," reports David Paul Kuhn of Politico.

 

The Annenberg Political Fact Check, a non-profit and non-partisan project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania, says: "It's a rank falsehood for the DNC to accuse McCain of wanting to wage 'endless war' based on his support for a presence in Iraq something like the U.S. role in South Korea."

 

The Democrats are undeterred. "It's seldom you get such a clean shot," a senior Obama adviser told Politico. It's seldom that you see such a dirty lie.

 

Washington Post Writers Group

 

Charles Krauthammer is a syndicated columnist based in Washington. E-mail: letters@charles krauthammer.com

 

Get Chicago Tribune home delivery and save big!

[HuskyCaucasian]

Quick thoughts:

Who will McCain pick for VP?

[southsider2k5]

Quick thoughts:

Who will McCain pick for VP?

 

Mike Huckabee is my guess if Obama is the pick for the Dems. They need a real southern conservative righty to balance out the ticket.

[Balta1701]

Quick thoughts:

Who will McCain pick for VP?

“We just started this process of getting together a list of names and having them looked at, and I don’t know how long it takes,’’ Mr. McCain said in a radio interview Wednesday morning with Don Imus. “But if I had a personal preference, I’d like to do it before the convention to avoid some of the mistakes that I’ve seen made in the past, as you get into a time crunch and maybe sometimes don’t make the announcement right.’’

 

Previously Mr. McCain and his aides had said that they were merely trying to settle on a process to try to select a vice presidential running mate, but that they were not yet making up a list of names.

 

Mr. McCain, 71, told Mr. Imus “I’m aware of enhanced importance of this issue given my age.’’

 

A number of younger officials have been mentioned as potential running mates. They include governors, including Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota, an early supporter; Charlie Crist of Florida, whose 11th-hour endorsement helped Mr. McCain win the primary; Jon Huntsman Jr. of Utah, an early supporter despite Mitt Romney’s popularity in his state; and Mark Sanford of South Carolina, whose conservative reputation could help Mr. McCain with the base but who did not endorse him in the primary there.

 

Some ex-governors have been mentioned as well, including Tom Ridge of Pennsylvania, whose support of abortion rights could cause Mr. McCain trouble with conservatives who are already wary of him, and two of Mr. McCain’s former primary opponents, Mr. Romney and Mike Huckabee.

Link.

[EvilMonkey]

Pawlenty wouldn't be too bad a choice, unless they are looking for a southerner.

[southsider2k5]

Crist would also seem to be a favorite.

[lostfan]

I like the article a lot, except he does't really make the point that hasn't been made, and that is McCain never said we would be AT WAR for 100 years. He even sited examples like Korea and Germany, where there hasn't been a shot fired for over a half century. That still doesn't get the quote not used as something that was never said.

Yeah I have been trying to defend McCain on this. The next sentence that never gets quoted is a pretty major qualifier but everyone that brings it up always uses it to make him sound like he's some crazed bloodthirsty warmonger which is the total opposite of what he said. However, that IF is a really big IF. There was no insurgency in Germany, Japan, or Korea that is anywhere comparable to what we have going on now and to bring up those as examples is completely ignoring reality. If the insurgency was to suddenly and cleanly end within the next couple of years that'd be completely different. But that's never going to happen.

[DrunkBomber]

Mike Huckabee is my guess if Obama is the pick for the Dems. They need a real southern conservative righty to balance out the ticket.

I think Huckabee pissed off a lot of hard core conservatives with his comments about Wright.

[mr_genius]

Huckabee doesn't really help McCain much IMO. The base will be fired up enough to vote against Obama.

 

FOX news (and I suspect talk radio) has been non-stop Obama bashing for weeks now, and I don't see them stopping anytime soon. FOX and talk radio are pretty much what convinced neo-cons that they were the true conservatives and that they shouldn't support McCain. Now that Hannity and such are supporting McCain I would expect the true conservatives to be all for McCain.

 

McCain should take a VP that is strong on the economy. Or someone that is totally rich and can buy tons of TV ads.

 

I think McCain might go with Romney.

[NorthSideSox72]

Huckabee doesn't really help McCain much IMO. The base will be fired up enough to vote against Obama.

 

FOX news (and I suspect talk radio) has been non-stop Obama bashing for weeks now, and I don't see them stopping anytime soon. FOX and talk radio are pretty much what convinced neo-cons that they were the true conservatives and that they shouldn't support McCain. Now that Hannity and such are supporting McCain I would expect the true conservatives to be all for McCain.

 

McCain should take a VP that is strong on the economy. Or someone that is totally rich and can buy tons of TV ads.

 

I think McCain might go with Romney.

I think going with Romney does two things. One, it gets him in better with the conservative base - but as you say, that's probably not a big issue anyway. And two, it means that many independents/moderates will think twice about voting for that ticket. Overall, I think Romney does more harm to McCain than help. I think that Huckabee, though just as conservative, comes off a lot better (more positive) and has a more folksy appeal, which is a nice change from McCain's style.

 

[mr_genius]

I think going with Romney does two things. One, it gets him in better with the conservative base - but as you say, that's probably not a big issue anyway. And two, it means that many independents/moderates will think twice about voting for that ticket. Overall, I think Romney does more harm to McCain than help. I think that Huckabee, though just as conservative, comes off a lot better (more positive) and has a more folksy appeal, which is a nice change from McCain's style.

 

Romney won lots of moderate and independent when he was an elected politician. I don't see how he is going to scare them off now.

 

Huckabee adds nothing to the ticket except a TON of quotes that will make it appear as if McCain has selected the GOP's Rev.Wright as VP.

 

edit: I will admit that at a time I thought Huckabee would be a good choice, but now that I've thought about it a little more it doesn't really seem like a good move.

Edited April 2, 2008 by mr_genius

[NorthSideSox72]

Romney won lots of moderate and independent when he was an elected politician. I don't see how he is going to scare them off now.

 

Huckabee adds nothing to the ticket except a TON of quotes that will make it appear as if McCain has selected the GOP's Rev.Wright as VP.

I disagree. Romney was a candidate who I heard Dems and independents be absolutely repulsed by during the campaign - some in this forum. I think when he was governor or MA, he was popular for a time. But then he hit the national spotlight and veered hard right, not to mention gained a reputation for being a huge flipflopper. Huckabee put his foot in his mouth a few times no doubt, but, he had growing success with little money, where as Romney spent a ton and saw his numbers drop as he campaigned in each state. I think Huckabee is actually more conservative than Romney, but he has a much more populist bent in his affect. Sort of weird I know, but, that's my take.

 

[mr_genius]

I disagree. Romney was a candidate who I heard Dems and independents be absolutely repulsed by during the campaign - some in this forum. I think when he was governor or MA, he was popular for a time. But then he hit the national spotlight and veered hard right, not to mention gained a reputation for being a huge flipflopper. Huckabee put his foot in his mouth a few times no doubt, but, he had growing success with little money, where as Romney spent a ton and saw his numbers drop as he campaigned in each state. I think Huckabee is actually more conservative than Romney, but he has a much more populist bent in his affect. Sort of weird I know, but, that's my take.

 

in the current news atmosphere of attack attack attack, Huckabee hurts the ticket. CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, NY times, ect would go non-stop insane 24-7 news coverage of 'Huckabee gate'.

 

I agree that Dems hate Romney. Not so sure about independents. But a lot Dems hate McCain too, the GOP isn't counting on the dailykos vote to go Republican. But you are right, if he loses independent votes the GOP would lose, he needs to reconnect with the type of voter that helped get him elected in MA.

 

Edit: Even though I don't like Romney, I'm just saying he might not be bad on the ticket. He would have to lose the 'used car salesman' persona, that is for sure.

Edited April 2, 2008 by mr_genius

[lostfan]

in the current news atmosphere of attack attack attack, Huckabee hurts the ticket. CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, NY times, ect would go non-stop insane 24-7 news coverage of 'Huckabee gate'.

 

I agree that Dems hate Romney. Not so sure about independents. But a lot Dems hate McCain too, the GOP isn't counting on the dailykos vote to go Republican. But you are right, if he loses independent votes the GOP would lose, he needs to reconnect with the type of voter that helped get him elected in MA.

 

Edit: Even though I don't like Romney, I'm just saying he might not be bad on the ticket. He would have to lose the 'used car salesman' persona, that is for sure.

I think many more left-leaning moderates/independents, e.g. me, are inclined to like McCain and hate Romney than the ones who would just hate them both. I think I'm okay with a McCain White House, but Romney's "surrender to terror" comment and any others like that really bother me, because using extreme "this-or-that" language like that plays directly into the hands of al-Qaida propagandists and although the far right eats that up, it really isn't very helpful. Plus Romney really comes off as a phony to me. I might not agree with a lot of Huckabee's views but at least he's genuine.

 

Anyway, my main point is that a VP that's too conservative or otherwise unlikable would turn off a lot of the independents IMO.

[southsider2k5]

Huckabee doesn't really help McCain much IMO. The base will be fired up enough to vote against Obama.

 

FOX news (and I suspect talk radio) has been non-stop Obama bashing for weeks now, and I don't see them stopping anytime soon. FOX and talk radio are pretty much what convinced neo-cons that they were the true conservatives and that they shouldn't support McCain. Now that Hannity and such are supporting McCain I would expect the true conservatives to be all for McCain.

 

McCain should take a VP that is strong on the economy. Or someone that is totally rich and can buy tons of TV ads.

 

I think McCain might go with Romney.

 

The Sneed rumor in the ST today is that Rove really wants Romney on the ticket. Yuck.

[HuskyCaucasian]

I found this rather interesting. John McCain is not currently supporting the new GI bill.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/03/m...gi_n_94791.html

 

In November 2007, Sens. Jim Webb and Chuck Hagel penned an op-ed in the New York Times advocating a reformed G.I. Bill that would provide Iraq war veterans with greater educational opportunities.

 

Flash-forward several months and Webb and Hagel's vision (after months of consideration) is on the cusp of codification. The 21st Century G.I. Bill may be included in the language of the next Iraq war supplemental. And while, if considered separately, it could require 60 votes for passage, more than 50 Senators -- including many Republicans -- have already signed on as co-sponsors.

 

surprisingly, one of those Senators who has not yet offered his support is John McCain. How could a veteran of Vietnam and someone widely touted as Congress' foremost champions of veterans' affairs not sign on to a largely bipartisan, uncontroversial measure?

 

Thoughts?

[EvilMonkey]

I found this rather interesting. John McCain is not currently supporting the new GI bill.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/03/m...gi_n_94791.html

Thoughts?

Also not currently opposing it, at least according to your little snippit.

[HuskyCaucasian]

Also not currently opposing it, at least according to your little snippit.

He says he needs to read it carefully before supporting it. Well, he didnt read the NIE (National Intelligence Estimate) on Iraq before voting for the war. Now he needs to review carefully a bill to give those soldiers an education? Interesting.

[lostfan]

Whatever he decides, I want to see his reason for it at least before taking the opinion of a liberal blogger as gospel.

[EvilMonkey]

He says he needs to read it carefully before supporting it. Well, he didnt read the NIE (National Intelligence Estimate) on Iraq before voting for the war. Now he needs to review carefully a bill to give those soldiers an education? Interesting.

YEs, because we all know full well how all those Democratic Senators read every bill that comes before them before offering support or voting on them. They would never get tricked into signing a bill about a war or anything, or just sign anti-terror laws without reading the fine print. Models of efficiency and diligence, they are.

[HuskyCaucasian]

YEs, because we all know full well how all those Democratic Senators read every bill that comes before them before offering support or voting on them. They would never get tricked into signing a bill about a war or anything, or just sign anti-terror laws without reading the fine print. Models of efficiency and diligence, they are.

You are getting no arguments form me that there is egg on a lot of peoples faces now. They SHOULD have read it or at least have a staffer brief them on it.

I am just saying I find it interesting that he would blindly support a war (having been IN a war), but yet have to "read closely" a bill to give them an education.

[Cknolls]

Mike Huckabee is my guess if Obama is the pick for the Dems. They need a real southern conservative righty to balance out the ticket.

 

 

I would prefer Mark Sanford of South Carolina.

[EvilMonkey]

 

I don't know how to get it to embed, but this is a good one. If this guy really said that, he SHOULD be toast.

[lostfan]

This is the whole quote:

 

"I think it's simplistic and naive to say people can spend their money better than the government. And the reason is, the reason we have government is to build community assets. And I don't care how rich you are, you can't build a freeway system by yourself, and that's why we have taxes. And I don't care how rich you are, you can't build a public education system by yourself. You can get you own child educated, but in this state we have something called universal education for all children. And so I think the notion that everybody can individually spend their money better than government I just think is trite, wrongheaded and anti-democratic."

 

http://www.looktruenorth.com/limited-gover...-sure-but-.html

[mr_genius]

He says he needs to read it carefully before supporting it.

 

that isn't a bad thing. no matter what the huffington post is telling you.