Are You an "INDEPENDENT" VOTING IN THE NEW HAMPSHIRE PRIMARY?
Lean to the left? Vote OBAMA.
Lean to the right? Vote RON PAUL
Whatever you do, DO NOT VOTE FOR McCAIN!
(Here he is, with his friend Joe Lieberman)
Q: President Bush has talked about our staying in Iraq for 50 years -- " (cut off by McCain)
McCain: "Make it a hundred."
Q: "Is that ..." (cut off)
McCain: "We've been in South Korea ... we've been in Japan for 60 years. We've been in South Korea 50 years or so. That would be fine with me. As long as Americans ..."
Q: [tries to say something]
McCain: "As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed. That's fine with me, I hope that would be fine with you, if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where Al Queada is training and equipping and recruiting and motivating people every single day.
THE WEEKLY UPDATE FROM MEDIA MATTERS FOR AMERICA
John McCain's Iowa victory -- and his hundred years' war
In a guide to "post-caucus spin" posted Wednesday night, NBC News political director Chuck Todd wrote:
Nobody plays the "national press expectations game" better than [John] McCain. ... Anything north of 15 percent Thursday will get played up big by the media and lead to front-runner coverage once he sets foot in New Hampshire again. The only bad news for McCain right now is that there is an expectation that he could finish third. If he doesn't, then maybe many in the media will question whether the comeback is real or Memorex, circa 2000.
As if to prove his colleague correct, MSNBC's Chris Matthews predicted that same evening that McCain would win at least 18 percent of the vote in the Iowa Republican caucuses. Winning such a "high percentage" of the vote would make McCain "the big hero tomorrow night," according to Matthews. The next morning, Matthews repeated his prediction.
Todd also wrote that if Hillary Clinton found herself in a three-way tie, her campaign would have to "make sure the media doesn't somehow turn the tie into a '60-plus percent of Democrats rejected her' spin. ... [T]hey do have to worry about a certain segment of the press interpreting Clinton as the incumbent being rejected by majority margins." Matthews came through again, before the voting had even begun, and kept it up throughout MSNBC's caucus-night coverage.
You might wonder how Matthews could simultaneously argue that John McCain would be a big winner if he got 18 percent of the vote and that if Hillary Clinton finished with more than 30 percent, it would mean she had been "rejected here in Iowa by two-thirds of the Democratic Party." Well, it might have a little something to do with the fact that Matthews thinks McCain "deserves to be president," and has reportedly said of Hillary Clinton "I hate her. I hate her. All that she stands for."
Posted by: not my president | January 05, 2008 at 12:24 PM
from Center for American Progress
At the end of last year, President Bush quietly revealed his intention to create an endless, "enduring" relationship with Iraq. In September, Gen. David Petraeus said a 50-year presence in Iraq would be a "realistic assessment." Echoing this sentiment, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) said last week that it "would be fine" with him if the U.S. military stayed in Iraq for "a hundred years" or even a "million years" in order to ensure a stable Iraq. Yet today, the political stalemate in Iraq is essentially where it was two years ago. The Financial Times reports today that Iraq is so far from national reconciliation that "U.S. officers say that such a grand compromise may not be so important," abandoning the primary goal of Bush's escalation policy. Fifty-nine percent of Americans say the United States should "stick to a withdrawal timetable" instead of keeping "a significant number of troops in Iraq until the situation there gets better, even if that takes many years." A date certain for redeployment of troops out of Iraq -- nor endless occupation -- is more likely to give the needed "leverage to advance a political settlement between Iraq's warring factions."
THE COST OF OCCUPATION: Yesterday on the Sunday talk shows, McCain suggested that he supports "permanent bases" in Iraq, adding that Americans would endorse such an occupation plan. "I don't think Americans are concerned if we're there for 100 years or 1,000 years or 10,000 years," he said, as long as troop deaths are minimal. McCain, however, is ignoring the immense cost of occupation. Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK) recently said that the Iraq war and war on terror are now costing "$15 billion a month." Even with the reduced troop levels that McCain foresees, "total spending for U.S. operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and other activities related to the war on terrorism would amount to between $1.2 trillion and $1.7 trillion for fiscal years 2001 through 2017," according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). The "higher debt and interest costs, is going to cause severe economic dislocation, which are exacerbated by war costs," noted CBO Director Peter Orszag.
TOUGHER RHETORIC: While McCain is aligning himself with Bush, progressives are doing the opposite. As the Los Angeles Times notes today, Iraqi security forces have had only "a mixed track record" despite billions of dollars in U.S. investment. A June report from the Center for American Progress, titled Strategic Reset, called for "ceasing the unconditional arming and training of Iraq's national security forces until a political consensus and sustainable political solution is reached." "Spending billions to arm Iraq's security forces without political consensus among Iraq's leaders carries significant risks," the report states. Echoing Strategic Reset, former Democratic senator John Edwards told The New York Times last week "that if elected president he would withdraw the American troops who are training the Iraqi army." "I absolutely believe this to my soul: we are there propping up their bad behavior," he said. Sens. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) and Barack Obama (D-IL) have also recognized the risks of training without political progress and reconciliation. Obama gave a speech earlier this year saying he would continue training Iraqis if political progress was made and the Iraqi forces did not act in a sectarian manner. Though less clear, Clinton also has issued similar qualifications saying she would support training "only to the extent we believe such training is working."
NO LONGER DRIFTING: In October, the Center for American Progress Action Fund warned that heading into 2008, progressives were at risk of "drifting themselves into offering only a vague and muddled vision" for Iraq in light of declining violence levels. Progressive candidates have responded and toughened their stances on redeployment. Clinton told a New Hampshire audience on Friday that she would have "the Joint Chiefs, the Secretary of Defense, and my security advisers draw up the plans necessary to begin withdrawing our troops within 60 days" of entering office. Edwards's plan also calls for continuing "a steady redeployment until all combat troops are out in roughly nine to ten months," a quicker withdrawal than his previous emphasis on the "gradual reduction of forces and training of Iraqi forces." Obama recently called for a "complete redeployment of U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of 2009, starting immediately."
Posted by: McCain's Imperial Plan | January 07, 2008 at 11:21 AM