McCain's Interesting Admission

Flag pins.

Unfortunately, Carolyn, there are many Americans who will believe him because they just WANT to believe him. They cannot face the facts - that America has caused countless lives to be lost and damaged, and that we have spent obscenely high amts of money for nothing.

McCain just admited he would loose the election if nominated. Is that news?

Heck Sheryl, I want to believe him too. I would like nothing more than to see the Iraqi government start acting like a government and doing what they say they are going to do. I would love to see the militias disbanded, al-Qaeda driven out, and the sectarian factions make peace. The difference is that I don't believe that simply saying it is better makes it better. I think you have to actually do something and have some concrete proof of improvement that isn't just sleight of hand or twisting events to look one way when they are actually not.

It would have gone a long way toward people believing what we're told had our current Decider in Chief ever once admitted his mistakes and taken responsibility for his failures. Two small film clips pretty much sum up the Bush administration in my mind. One is of President Bush clowning around pretending to look for WMD as if our troops dying by the thousands was some sort of a joke. The second was of him being asked directly if he had made any mistakes in his administration. He got this dim, confused look on his face, fumbled around for words, and then said something like he was sure there probably had been mistakes made, but he sure couldn't think of any.

Do not underestimate honesty. At least he is saying what he believes and has made specifics recommendations to deal with the war in Iraq. I am not a big supporter of the war, but I worry that Obama will pull the troops abruptly and leave us in a worse situation. We need a strong person with military or foreign affairs experiencve, not negativity that will hurt us further.

Linda: If I had a dollar for every "recommendation" the current administration has made in Iraq, I could buy a new car, a nice condo somewhere, and live comfortably on the interest from the remainder. We don't need any more suggestions. We need to hold the Iraqi government's feet to the fire and we need to provide consequences for their failure to act that they understand. Beginning to withdraw our troops in the face of their continued recalcitrance is a very good place to start.

am just finishing the book "The Assassin's Gate" by George Packer published in 06. Of all the reading I've done on Iraq this book lays out the hubris, environment and obstacles more clear and concisely than any other. I strongly recommend it to anyone interested in making sense of our involvement. He paints an unvarnished picture of Saddam AND Dubya and the political climate, mindset, intellectual history and roots of the neo-con movement. In order for us as a nation to deal with this we must have a starting place, a reference point. Packer goes a long way in illustrating it.

The question or problem presented by McCain is faulty. America's involvement in Iraq was done with the wisdom and insight of a child wearing kalidescope glasses. There is no "better" or "worse." That concept does not address the depth of the debacle. If your home, no matter how corrupt, was invaded and occupied by an armed and deranged band of aliens who possesed no sensititivity, understand or concern of your entire frame of reference and imposed their will by deadly force and for the most part DID NOT SPEAK YOUR LANGUAGE is there a "fix?" A "better?" Would injecting more and more powerful aliens bring "peace?" IF, a big if, there is any role for America in Iraq the entire intellectual definition of our position and place must be re-defined from the ground up and ALL those who view this as needing some sort of clever patch be sent packing. Unless we change the entire dynamic this truly will be the pit of American expression of power.

Marsha? What claptrap. Do you really believe for so much as an instant that the current Iraqis are going to invade the U.S. any time soon? They cannot even stop their own people from murdering one another. They have no navy and no airforce. Exactly how do you think they are going to get here to invade your back yard? Better yet, what do you have in your back yard that they would want in the first place?

As for U.S. soldiers not being drafted, how is that material to anything? A war doesn't suddenly become well executed if the people involved in it and fighting it are volunteers. And quite frankly a dead volunteer soldier is just as dead as is a draftee when he runs over a roadside IED and doesn't have the proper vehicle to protect him.

I wouldn't mind had Mr. Bush done what he said he was going to do. But he didn't. He's not done anything he promised other than to give huge tax breaks to the wealthiest 1/2 of 1% of tax payers and staggering amounts of corporate welfare to the richest most profitable companies in history. I've repeatedly asked the Bush supporters to list his accomplishments. Not one has managed to list a single one thus far. That's pretty telling, don't you think?

I'd love to believe him but haven't seen a shred of evidence that it's true. But admitting that he will lose if he doesn't convince us at least means he has more going on upstairs than Bush does.

he made an honest assesment. I am a hillary supporter but john get points for this one.

Now the dumbass robot flip flopper will reenter the race.

How can we possibly lose???

Julie: I fully agree with you and with Carol that McCain's assessment is true. But essentially what he is saying is that if he cannot persuade the voting public that black is white before election day it's over for him. As for having more going on upstairs than Bush.....well let's be real. I don't think it's possible to have less and not be institutionalized.

Don? McCain never left the race. Why should he? He's all but got the Republican nomination locked up. It's really not a matter of the race right now; it's a matter of McCain somehow being able to persuade people that everything in Iraq is a bed of roses and the gateway to the Garden of Eden. Personally I think that's going to be a hard sell with the media there to tell the truth.

Obama has said that his "plan" to withdraw troops from Iraq is just that. A PLAN. In answering a question on the subject from a person at one of his stump speeches, Obama indicated that he would first have to take into consideration the input of the Commanders on the ground. This little tid-bit by Obama has seemingly escaped the MSM. As CL stated, McCain has made an honest assessment of the situation. But then, to clarify his meaning, he added:

"If I may, I'd like to retract 'I'll lose.' But I don't think there's any doubt that how they judge Iraq will have a direct relation to their judgment of me, my support of the surge," McCain added. "Clearly, I am tied to it to a large degree."

A few die hard republicans I imagine hold out hope that they have a chance, the vast majority at least in private acknowledge its not if, but how deep the margin in respect to seats in the house and state houses.

Personally I think McCain would have been a lot smarter to admit that Mr. Bush failed in Iraq and then said he would use his military experience and knowledge to disengage and get us out with as much of the shreds of our honor as we might be able to salvage. This could include working with the al-Maliki government so they know it's either do it or gett off the pot in terms of meeting their obligations. The more and the better they did that, the longer they could expect at least limited support. But the moment they go back to SSDD, then we begin removing troops again.

Remember, according to Mr. al-Maliki, we are not needed there and are free to leave whenever we wish. And no. I didn't read that somewhere, I saw the interview live when he said it.

He'll also need to convince us that we need to "Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran".

Ivan - Had Bush only listened to the commands on the ground. He has ignored most every commander, then fired them, looking for someone that will agree with him. So I believe that Obama may actually listen to the commanders on the ground. Obama could ask the commands: How do we salvage this abortion? He might get some reasonable answers. Remember the AWOL-in-chief when he asks a question of the commandsers it is more like.. What are you going to say to make me look good? Remember your ass is toast if I don't look good.

Kevin: The number of military commanders who have retired or resigned rather than tell Mr. Bush what he wants to hear is fairly large. I'm pretty sure there are others who caved in to save their careers. Military men are like anyone else. If your job is on the line and your boss is telling you to do something or say something, the choices are not terribly appealing no matter what you do.

So Kevin. Does that mean if Obama is President, if Commanders don't say what he wants to hear, they're fired?

I do not believe, Carolyn, that commanders are fired nor even resign for not saying what the President "wants to hear". Fired for failing to do thier duty, yes. Resign because they don't agree with policy, yes. Either way, if there are no criminal charges pending, they still receive full retirement.

Our next President, regardless of who he or she may be, will have to take a lot of things into consideration concerning Iraq.

Ivan: There are a number of officers who either were reassigned and subsequently left the service for refusing to tell Mr. Bush what he had already decided was the truth. Others simply took themselves out and retired because they knew ethically they were being compromised. They have testified before congress about this. So you don't have to believe it, but it happened anyway. We are not dealing with a normal person in our current Decider in Chief.

I think that if Commanders disagree with Obama he will take that into consideration rather than simply moving the commanders around until he finds one who will agree with him. Will he abide by it? That I don't know. I would expect, however, he would seriously consider what they say. Remember, Mr. Bush was told that it would require 360,000 troops to do the job right when he invaded. He chose to go in with about a third of that and the rest, as they say, is history.

General Petraus testified before Congress, too. He was accused of saying "what he was told to say". I suppose we could accuse those former officers of "saying what the liberals wanted to hear".

And, from my view point, I see success in Iraq. Though we won't read about it or see about it in the MSM.

I just can not understand why FAILURE in Iraq is acceptable to so many Americans.

Ivan: I don't see how you can even say that anyone finds failure acceptable. That's not even vaguely close to the truth. I don't know of anyone who doesn't wish Mr. Bush had not decided to invade for no reason, or that once there he had chosen to go in to win. He did neither.

I am not talking about the press is saying they were fired for not saying what they were told to say. I am saying the generals and other officers involved themselves said that. The press reported what they were told by the people involved, not the other way around.

What I find puzzling is that anyone such as you is content to sit back and watch a war being lost through incompetence on the part of the Decider in Chief, and keep yelling "black is white!!!!" black is white!!!!!" as more and more people either run for their lives or die.

I'll agree that many people "wish" we had not gotten involved in Iraq. But we did. And we still are. And, the only way they can see the U. S. end this involvement is through failure. I am not one of them. Failure is not an option.

I'm not trying to argue, Carolyn. And I appreciate the tone of your responses. I guess we should agree to disagree. Our opinions differ and that is quite acceptable.

Ivan: I agree with you in a way. You see, I believe that winning would be the best thing, but there isn't much of a chance of that now that Mr. Bush screwed things up so badly. What I would like to see is a negotiated series of benchmarks with the Iraqi government. As long as the Iraqi government could prove that progress was being made, then we remain and help. When they go back to sitting on their hands, we leave.

The bottom line is that unless the Iraqi government steps up and begins taking charge there is no end to this mess. You absolutely cannot force peace and security on people who are determined to murder one another. I don't believe our troops should continue dying for people who refuse to do anything for themselves.

That isn't wanting failure, it's acknowledging that without a miracle we have already failed.

Another thing we could try is diplomacy with the surrounding countries. If we actually had some diplomatic capabilities I am positive we could get some help. Another thing we could do is work with the UN. I know that a lot of people on the right decry any UN involvement. But you must remember that is one of the reasons that der AWOL-in-chief gave as reasons for going in.

I think that a fresh brain in the White House could muster a wide variety of mechanisms to terminate this war short of another surge. And short of a bloodbath in the region when we leave.

Bust has absolutely no intention to leave. I don't believe he ever did.

How about this Ivan? Bush and the neo-con led us into the war with deception then thru hubris and domestic political survival completely screwed the occupation leaving us with no credibility. You are correct, we broke it and we either "fix it" (if we can even define what that means within a realistic context) or we exit. Either way Bush and Co must pay dearly for the debacle. If America was to exact punishment, either by impeachment or crimminal prosecution of the Iraq war "deciders" or complete humiliation and rejection by the Repubs of everything Bush and every staffer in the Defense, State, CIA that assisted in this debacle were to get the boot or worse and true bi-partisan hearings exposing ALL the bungling, lies and looting done under Bush's watch, would you accept that as a price for continued American involvement in Iraq instead of exit? If Bush were to PAY for this disaster and govenment purged of the neo-con fools would you trade that for another 20 years in Iraq?

I really don't blame the commanders on the ground. I feel they follow orders and do the best they can with stupid orders, no latitude, insufficient troops and equipment, etc. On the other hand, you are entirely correct when you say that diplomacy is the only way out of this and it's the one thing Mr. Bush and his followers like McCain are unwilling to even consider.

This botched war cannot be won through force of arms now unless they are willing to turn the entire country into a glass parking lot, and that's hardly a solution even for someone as callous as Mr. Bush, though of course they can always drill through glass as a hard-hearted friend of mine once observed.

I believe the proper term is 'anxious' Tony . . . and I most certainly consider myself anxious. I simply cannot imagine that there is any chance we won't find ourselves on yet another madcap military misadventure brought to us by George "It's like a Risk Game" Bush . . . and the book writing presidential crew that allow everything to happen and write books about how wrong it was only AFTER it's all over.

McCain lost hope the moment he tied himself to this criminal, corrupt Bush Administration and its illegal, failed ivasion and occupation of Iraq. He be better off back in the arms of Vicki Iseman . . .

Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~

Well, we did bomb Somalia yesterday, taking out a terrorist camp full of three women and three children, and we got them all. *sigh*

Ivan said: "I'll agree that many people "wish" we had not gotten involved in Iraq. But we did. And we still are. And, the only way they can see the U. S. end this involvement is through failure. I am not one of them. Failure is not an option."

You can't "win" a war crime.

Did you ever see the cult movie -- aarrgghhh!! Can't remember the name (subtiled "How I learned to stop worrying and love the bomb). But a general had arranged for Russia to get bombed by faking orders, arranging to ensure that there was no pulling back, and when it came up in a meeting with the President got all excited about how now we had no choice but to make it a real MASSIVE attack to destroy Russia before they could be fully prepared to fight back, and the loss of lives in the US from the nuclear retaliation would be perfectly acceptable. He was basically insane. But we have roughly the same situation here. The only reason we are in the war at all is because of lies. Now you and other apologists for the war start claiming it is too late to change now, you got us in this mess and now we have to do whatever you say or there will be even worse disasters.

The problem with that reasoning is the the crazy person does not stop there. They use anything to just keep escalating. So then it esscalates into we HAVE to take out Iran because THEY might take over Iraq, then keeps going and going and going until we are fully engaged in WW III. The only rational thing to do is to NOT give the crazy person what he wants. Even though it hurts now, because the crazy person has put us into an impossible lose-lose situation, it would be even worse if we gave in to him. We may not be able to SEE how it would be worse because our minds do not work that way, but it is very clear in the mind of the crazy person.

We gave in to Bush earlier with his insistence that he be given the power to wage war as a threat to get Saddam to allow the inspectors back in. It worled. The inspectors were allowed back in. If we had a rational person as President that would have been that, but a crazy person uses whatever power he is given to further his cause, and that is why we are in Iraq. At the time giving Bush that power seemed like the lesser of evils, because we could not imagine the power being misused the way it was. Now we see just the START of what it means to yield on this issue.

John

Ivan said: "General Petraus testified before Congress, too. He was accused of saying "what he was told to say". I suppose we could accuse those former officers of "saying what the liberals wanted to hear"."

I think even you can see the flaw in your argument.

General Patraus was under orders from the Commander in Chief.

The others were acting 100% on their own. They did not risk being demoted or being reassigned. There was no possible threat to hold over them to make them say what they did. They spoke out AFTER retiring because it is ILLEGAL for them to publicly disparage the President while they are active military. It was their first opportunity to speak up. The fact that so many are willing to speak up says an awful lot.

John

Amen John. Perfectly stated. Petraeus works under the orders of the CiC. The others actually cut short their careers so that they could be free to speak out honestly and tell the truth.

What I think Petraeus did, by the way was the same thing Mr. Bush did. He presented a carefully selected group of facts, figures, and a favorable snapshot in time, then presented those without the caveat that would/could have given his statements context. It's possible that, unlike Mr. Bush's WMD, everything Petraeus said to congress was strictly and technically the truth. It was simply a very selective and non-inclusive picture of the truth. It's called a lie of omission.

Petraeus also strove mightily to duck the assignment when first called. No doubt he is a loyal soldier, like the rest of the military who have been abused and bastardized by the Decider In Chief.

Kevin says, "Another thing we could try is diplomacy with the surrounding countries." Amen. I heard someone say a couple or so years ago, we might not have success in Iraq by getting Syria and some other neighboring countries more involved but without them we definitely won't be successful.

Dave said, "Failure is not some future state to be avoided, it is both the past and the present reality of the American occupation." Agreed. The idea that we should decide what to do on the basis of whether we want to win or lose is irrelevant.

I hear both Clinton and Obama saying over and over again that we need to be careful getting out. I don't envy them in whatever plan they try.

Carolyn, great discussion here! I find myself in agreement with nearly everything you say. But one question. Do you think, even if we pressure the Iraqi government more, it has enough power and influcence to get much done?

Sam, The Assassin's Gate sound like a good read. Thanks for your comments.

Bruce: An honest answer to your question is no. I don't think that they have any real power and only minimal influence. I think if we pull out they will fall within a week tops. I also am convinced that in some ways they are intentionally dragging their feet on the oil issue because they don't want to give all that exploration money away to Americans when they could sell it for tens of millions in bribes. This government is seen as an American pawn. I am convinced that one reason the Iraqi government doesn't act, despite all it's big talk and posturing is that it doesn't dare. Anything it does will set off one side or another in what is right now a very delicate balancing act.

So in the end, I don't really believe that they will ever even try and that they will fall and the country will slide into chaos and further into civil war. I think it's inevitable because the window for diplomacy seems to have closed.

Carolyn. Thank you for the response. I think this is a perfectly good and concise appraisal of the situation. Looking back at your first comment, I think we would have been more successful if this administration would have been as honest with it's assessment once the initial mistake of going to war was realized.

Bruce: I agree. Had Mr. Bush been capable of thinking on his feet, he would have immediately sent in tens of thousands more troops and began securing things before the insurgency had a chance to root and flourish. He could have called back the trained Iraqi military and the police and set them to work supervised by our troops. Then he could have reached out to the neighbors in the region and began immediate and intense diplomatic efforts to bring them into the peace process. He would not even have to have publicly admitted his mistake, which I think would have taken a much bigger man than he is.

What caused the problem is his refusal to see that there was one. Each setback was explained away with blowing sunshine. As near as I can tell, he honestly believed that the Iraqi people would be so grateful to be free of Saddam that they would simply step up and immediately begin governing themselves. He never once believed what he was told about the sectarian divides, ancient hatreds, and other such things. I'm not sure he really either understands or accepts them to this day. He still looks bewildered every time the subject of what happened in Iraq comes up, and he gets glassy eyed and begins spouting talking points. I've never heard him utter any sort of insightful analysis of the entire situation.

In the end I suppose it's rather meaningless now. Civil wars don't generally end soon and they don't generally end cleanly. In the absence of diplomacy al-Qaeda will remain a problem as it pulls in fighters from outside the country. The only possible upside to all of that is that their excesses are causing Iraqis to turn away from them. I don't suppose the enormous bribes we pay them to do so hurts all that much either.