McCain: What I said is not what I meant?

BoomerD

No Lifer
Feb 26, 2006
66,322
14,725
146
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/200...itics_mccain_iraq_dc_1

McCain retracts comment he could lose on Iraq By Andy Sullivan
Mon Feb 25, 9:15 PM ET

CINCINNATI (Reuters) - Republican presidential front-runner John McCain on Monday retracted his earlier statement he would lose the November election if he did not convince Americans they were winning the war in Iraq.

"I don't mean that I'll, quote, lose," McCain told reporters on his campaign bus. "I mean that it's an important issue in the judgment of the American voters."

"It's not often I retract a comment," said the likely Republican nominee.

McCain, a staunch supporter of the Iraq war, said earlier in the day he would lose the election if he did not convince the American public the U.S. military was succeeding in Iraq.

Most Americans now say the 2003 invasion of Iraq was a bad idea and disapprove of the way President George W. Bush has waged it.

Democratic candidates Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama both advocate withdrawing U.S. troops if they are elected president.

McCain, a former Navy aviator who was a prisoner of war in Vietnam, often says on the campaign trail that withdrawing from Iraq prematurely would amount to surrender and give Islamic extremists a propaganda victory.

The Arizona senator has criticized how the war was waged under former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who was replaced in late 2006. McCain says the country has made important strides in security and political stability since the United States increased its troop presence last year.

McCain has said U.S. troops may have to maintain a presence in Iraq for up to 100 years, a statement that has drawn criticism from Democrats. McCain has added he expects casualties to decline as Iraqi troops take on more security duties.

On his campaign bus on Monday, McCain pointed out U.S. troops were still stationed in Japan, Germany, South Korea and Bosnia although those wars have ended.

"We will succeed in Iraq and the Iraqis will take over their responsibilities. Americans will withdraw. But Americans may have, as they have in so many other countries, a security arrangement far into the future," he said.



I used to have respect for John McCain, until the Rove Machine ran him over several years ago, then, he jumped on the Bush Bandwagon in support of the war...Now, he's just an old man trying to become someone he's not...important.

Happily, the "Swiftboating" of McCain seems to have died in the water with little-to-no notice. If it was as much bullshit and lies as it sounded like, then it deserves to die a quiet death.
 

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,029
2
81
He can't even admit it was a mistake to invade. Even the people here with their head up Bush's ass can admit that.
 

BoomerD

No Lifer
Feb 26, 2006
66,322
14,725
146
Originally posted by: bamacre
He can't even admit it was a mistake to invade. Even the people here with their head up Bush's ass can admit that.

Well, SOME of them anyway...
 

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,029
2
81
Originally posted by: BoomerD
Originally posted by: bamacre
He can't even admit it was a mistake to invade. Even the people here with their head up Bush's ass can admit that.

Well, SOME of them anyway...

:D

But if he can't be honest about that, then why would anyone trust anything else he has to say about Iraq?

The majority of people want out of Iraq. McCain's "100 years" there is gonna hurt him in the general election.
 

Noobtastic

Banned
Jul 9, 2005
3,721
0
0
Well, either way the war in Iraq will continue regardless of who takes the reigns. Rejecting McCain solely on the Iraq issue is a pretty stupid thing methinks...

Both parties offer the same thing: More government and less control by the people. Obama deludes through hope, Hillary through history, and McCain's just a royal @sshole.

 

Eeezee

Diamond Member
Jul 23, 2005
9,922
0
76
Originally posted by: loki8481
what a bastard, misspeaking like that :frown:

How can you keep a straight face when you make the claim that he just misspoke? "I'm going to lose the election under condition A." Where is the shade of gray in that, exactly?

He admitted he made a mistake and retracted it. Gee, sounds a lot like certain other politicians that were labeled flip floppers for doing so. The Republicans sure didn't stand up for Kerry when he was being crucified for misspeaking. Why should the Democrats be any more gentle to McCain?
 

Eeezee

Diamond Member
Jul 23, 2005
9,922
0
76
Originally posted by: Noobtastic
Well, either way the war in Iraq will continue regardless of who takes the reigns. Rejecting McCain solely on the Iraq issue is a pretty stupid thing methinks...

Both parties offer the same thing: More government and less control by the people. Obama deludes through hope, Hillary through history, and McCain's just a royal @sshole.

I wouldn't suggest that Obama is deluding anyone - everyone knows that we don't know exactly what will happen if he takes office. That's the point of electing him. We already know what happens if we elect the other guy (either McCain or Hillary, and yes, I did just call her a guy). Any reasonable American doesn't like that future.

Instead, we'll vote for the guy that might do some good. At worst, he does no better than the other candidates. There's nothing to lose by voting for him.

It's like if someone gave you $10, but you could only use that money in slot machines. You have nothing to lose, and you could potentially gain a lot even though the odds are bad. Throwing the $10 away is the same as voting for McCain or Clinton - you've accepted the worst case scenario. Gambling the $10 is voting for Obama - you'll either end up in the same situation as throwing the $10 away, or you may against all odds hit the jackpot (or maybe at least walk away with more than you had).
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,589
5
0
He had admitted that the situation in Iraq will have a great impact on his success.
 

RY62

Senior member
Mar 13, 2005
891
153
106
Originally posted by: Eeezee
Originally posted by: Noobtastic
Well, either way the war in Iraq will continue regardless of who takes the reigns. Rejecting McCain solely on the Iraq issue is a pretty stupid thing methinks...

Both parties offer the same thing: More government and less control by the people. Obama deludes through hope, Hillary through history, and McCain's just a royal @sshole.

I wouldn't suggest that Obama is deluding anyone - everyone knows that we don't know exactly what will happen if he takes office. That's the point of electing him. We already know what happens if we elect the other guy (either McCain or Hillary, and yes, I did just call her a guy). Any reasonable American doesn't like that future.

Instead, we'll vote for the guy that might do some good. At worst, he does no better than the other candidates. There's nothing to lose by voting for him.

LOL, I remember people saying the same thing when they were voting for Bush's first term.
 

Robor

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
16,979
0
76
Originally posted by: RY62
Originally posted by: Eeezee
Originally posted by: Noobtastic
Well, either way the war in Iraq will continue regardless of who takes the reigns. Rejecting McCain solely on the Iraq issue is a pretty stupid thing methinks...

Both parties offer the same thing: More government and less control by the people. Obama deludes through hope, Hillary through history, and McCain's just a royal @sshole.

I wouldn't suggest that Obama is deluding anyone - everyone knows that we don't know exactly what will happen if he takes office. That's the point of electing him. We already know what happens if we elect the other guy (either McCain or Hillary, and yes, I did just call her a guy). Any reasonable American doesn't like that future.

Instead, we'll vote for the guy that might do some good. At worst, he does no better than the other candidates. There's nothing to lose by voting for him.

LOL, I remember people saying the same thing when they were voting for Bush's first term.

What? I think I remember the exact opposite in the first term. Now the 2nd term I remember people on the fence who wound up voting for Bush because they said he's not 'the lesser of 2 evils' but a 'known evil' rather than an unknown. That probably doesn't make any sense outside my mind but I don't have time to fix it right now. ;)
 

BMW540I6speed

Golden Member
Aug 26, 2005
1,055
0
0
When the slam at Obama was put in heavy rotation on the "News" the other day, I laughed given McCain's "bomb-bomb-bomb Iran" redmeat for his skittish right wing.

It was obvious that StraightTalk was unaware of the irony of his comment, and further, it was obvious that the journalistic fraternity following the presumptive Republican nominee were oblivious to it, even though they themselves reported the "bomb Iran" chuckler.

McCain is clearly of the "do-as-I-say-and not-as-I-do" ilk of politician. Obama is "naive" to consider bombing areas of Pakistan, but McCain with his flip, unfunny and inappropriate comments on bombing Iran is what?

A war-mongering relic in the Senate.

What is naive is for Senator McCain to think he has any realistic chance to become President.

He has tied himself to the mind numbingly unpopular Bush and his war mongering failed policies. Proposing to continue indefinitely a war that 70% of the nation wants to end as soon as possible, will gain him support only among the chattering classes.

Americans have finally grown sick and tired of the fear mongering. "Less jobs, more war" is not a winning campaign slogan.





 

Skitzer

Diamond Member
Mar 20, 2000
4,414
3
81
Originally posted by: BMW540I6speed
What is naive is for Senator McCain to think he has any realistic chance to become President.

What is naive is for you to think he doesn't.
This is not a done deed by any means. Anything can happen my friend.
Of course I will be voting for Obama and hoping he wins but it could turn out to be a very close race.
 

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,168
60
91
Obama never says anything of substance or tells anyone what his plans are. He is an empty promise of nothing. He has no policy that he is sharing with anyone.

I dont really like McCain that much easier.

Whoever wins, just expect to pay more taxes.
 

Skitzer

Diamond Member
Mar 20, 2000
4,414
3
81
Originally posted by: piasabird
Obama never says anything of substance or tells anyone what his plans are. He is an empty promise of nothing. He has no policy that he is sharing with anyone.

I dont really like McCain that much easier.

Whoever wins, just expect to pay more taxes.

None of them are really sharing any defined policy with the populace.
Besides McCain and his 100 year war stance, what do you really know he will do?
 

Throckmorton

Lifer
Aug 23, 2007
16,829
3
0
Criticizing him for this is just as stupid as criticizing Michelle Obama for misspeaking about being proud of America. Of course, McCain's wife attacked her for that, so he's just getting what he had coming.
 

owensdj

Golden Member
Jul 14, 2000
1,711
6
81
McCain jokes(inappropriately) about bombing Iran, yet we know Al-Qaeda is hiding in western Pakistan. Shouldn't we bomb where the terrorists are? It seems like it's Obama who understands foreign policy better than McCain.
 

nageov3t

Lifer
Feb 18, 2004
42,808
83
91
Originally posted by: owensdj
McCain jokes(inappropriately) about bombing Iran, yet we know Al-Qaeda is hiding in western Pakistan. It seems like it's Obama who understands foreign policy better than McCain.

because sitting down and having a good hug with Pakistan's president is going to force him to allow us to go into his country with our military and extract OBL?
 

owensdj

Golden Member
Jul 14, 2000
1,711
6
81
loki8481, I think we need to tell Pakistan either they go into the western areas and take out the terrorists or *we* will. What happened to Bush's claim we would hold nations who harbor terrorists responsible?
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,562
9
81
Originally posted by: owensdj
loki8481, I think we need to tell Pakistan either they go into the western areas and take out the terrorists or *we* will. What happened to Bush's claim we would hold nations who harbor terrorists responsible?

We pretty much blew away our credibility when we attacked a country which from all indications had no terrorists.
 

Robor

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
16,979
0
76
Originally posted by: Throckmorton
Criticizing him for this is just as stupid as criticizing Michelle Obama for misspeaking about being proud of America. Of course, McCain's wife attacked her for that, so he's just getting what he had coming.

:thumbsup:
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
5
0
Originally posted by: piasabird
Obama never says anything of substance or tells anyone what his plans are. He is an empty promise of nothing. He has no policy that he is sharing with anyone.

I dont really like McCain that much easier.

Whoever wins, just expect to pay more taxes.
We should be paying more taxes. In case you hadn't noticed, national debt has nearly doubled under bush's tenure and there has to be payback.

 

BoomerD

No Lifer
Feb 26, 2006
66,322
14,725
146
Here we go again...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200...n_el_pr/mccain_iraq_10

McCain says 100-year remark distorted By LIBBY QUAID, Associated Press Writer
1 hour, 31 minutes ago



"HOUSTON - Republican presidential hopeful John McCain said his remark that American troops could stay in Iraq for 100 years has been distorted, yet he still suggests a lengthy U.S. presence comparable to that in Korea and other countries.

"Of course, that comment of mine was distorted. Life isn't fair, as Jack Kennedy said," McCain told a town hall meeting at Rice University. "I was talking about American presence after the war."

Responding to a student who had criticized his 100-year remark, McCain added, "No American argues against our military presence in Korea or Japan or Germany or Kuwait or other places, or Turkey, because America is not receiving casualties."

"I think, generally speaking, we have a more secure world thanks to American presence, particularly in Asia, by the way, as we see the rising influence of China," McCain said. "But the key to it is American casualties, America's most precious asset, and that is American blood."

The student had referred to McCain's response at a New Hampshire town hall meeting in January when he was asked about a comment President Bush had made about U.S. troops remaining in Iraq for 50 years.

"Maybe 100," McCain answered. "As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed, it's fine with me, and I hope it would be fine with you, if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where al-Qaida is training, recruiting, equipping and motivating people every single day."

McCain insisted the United States "will win the war in Iraq and win it fairly soon," allowing U.S. troops to withdraw to military bases.

The student, 24-year-old Kelly Horn, quoted an analogy she said former President Clinton has made.

"He says if your neighbor's house burns down, you might let them sleep on your couch ... but after a year, it's not about the fire anymore," Horn said. "If we don't have a yearly time point or plan for withdrawal ... what will be our benchmark?"

McCain replied: "If our house is in danger of being burned down, then we will do whatever is necessary to prevent them from burning down our house, too. That's not what I say, that's what bin Laden says, that's what al Zawahiri says, that's what all of them say. Iraq isn't their ultimate goal. The United States of America is their goal."

He was referring to al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden and his second-in-command, Ayman al Zawahiri.

McCain has said he expects Iraq war policy to be an issue in the general election, because Democratic presidential contenders Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton both favor withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq soon.

Though most Americans remain opposed to the Iraq war, they are now evenly divided over whether the U.S. should bring the troops home or keep them there until the country stabilizes, and over whether the war is going well, according to a poll released Thursday by the Pew Research Center. A year ago, when President Bush's troop increase was just beginning, most preferred a U.S. withdrawal and said the military effort was going poorly.

Though the economy has overtaken the war as voters' chief worry, the poll showed Iraq still affects people's votes. In a general election matchup between McCain and Obama, McCain does 31 points better in the survey among independents who think the war is going well than with those who think it is going badly.

McCain spoke at the university's James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy, named for President Reagan's secretary of state. Baker introduced McCain and endorsed him at a news conference afterward."



Of course I didn't mean our troops would have to be there for 100 years. I meant they would have to be there for 100 years...

I'm beginning to wonder if McCain even knows what he's said in the past...Could he be starting to suffer from Reaganosis? (AKA Alzheimer's)
"Umm, I must have been out of the room when they discussed that."
"Oh, I must have been left out of the loop on that."