McCain explained is mainly 'cause he's vain
Think Progress points out that St. John McCain is busy changing his position on what constitutes a proper "surge." After having urged that we send 20,000 troops, he is now saying that 20,000 isn't enough.
What gives?
Quite simple, really.
1. McCain has staked out the hawkish position.
2. He knows that whatever Bush attempts will fail.
3. To avoid being tarred with Bush's failure, and preserve his "we would have won if we did what I advocated" argument in 2008, he must keep moving rightward and away from whatever Bush's plan is.
4. Ergo McCain's plan will always be whatever Bush advocates plus at least 10,000 troops.
Smart. Also cynical, soul-less, hypocritical and horrifying. But smart.
What gives?
Quite simple, really.
1. McCain has staked out the hawkish position.
2. He knows that whatever Bush attempts will fail.
3. To avoid being tarred with Bush's failure, and preserve his "we would have won if we did what I advocated" argument in 2008, he must keep moving rightward and away from whatever Bush's plan is.
4. Ergo McCain's plan will always be whatever Bush advocates plus at least 10,000 troops.
Smart. Also cynical, soul-less, hypocritical and horrifying. But smart.
posted by bluememe at 1/08/2007
5 Comments:
I used to like him after what the Bushies did to him. Then I gradually lost sympathy until he came to California with ads for Arnold's bogus special election ballot initiatives. Now that Arnie's a centrist, I wonder if he'd come back.
And incidentally, I still can't believe he got elected again. Arnold, I mean.
Besides agreeing with your post, I really liked the title of it! heh...
Mixter
What makes McCain an authority on strategy? Does he have a track record of strategic prescience?
He has behaved admirably from time to time, but his flaws are manifest, starting with the very public fact that he is a Republican and a supporter from the start of what may be the greatest strategic debacle in our history, which is now unfolding in the Middle East.
How is he any different from the other warmongers, who got every aspect of the Iraq enterprise wrong? After coming very late to a recognition that we are unable to control the country we have conquered and that resistance to us could become much more deadly, he joins in an argument over whether we need to send 20,000 or 30,000 or 40,000 more troops. That is not a strategy, and it may not even be the issue.
What I'm saying is that when plans for safe withdrawal may be the only correct strategic question, McCain is one of a dwindling number of "leaders" trying to push us in the opposite direction, without even showing enough respect to offer any change in strategy.
How is it that anyone who supported the attack on Iraq has an ounce of credibility left?
He's in some sort of subsection of the 36% that support a surge in general.
Also - Bush is down to 26 - I was starting to think it wasn't going to happen, but he is a mere three points (probably within the margin of error) of hitting Jordan's jersey.
Most say no to Iraq buildup
By Susan Page, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — President Bush will outline his "new way forward" in Iraq on Wednesday to a nation that overwhelmingly opposes sending more U.S. troops and is increasingly skeptical that the war can be won.
A USA TODAY/Gallup Poll taken Friday through Sunday shows a daunting sales job ahead for the White House, which is considering a plan to deploy up to 20,000 additional U.S. troops to Iraq.
Those surveyed oppose the idea of increased troop levels by 61%-36%. Approval of the job Bush is doing in Iraq has sunk to 26%, a record low.
In order to rid this nation of the Bush plague, we must impeach. Polls will not stop him.
Post a Comment
<< Home