For some inexplicable reason, Sen. John McCain was a guest on one of the Sunday news shows again yesterday, this time CNN's State of the Union. As Steve Benen at Washington Monthly points out:
"For those keeping score, this will be McCain's 14th Sunday morning appearance since President Obama's inauguration in January. That's 38 Sundays, for an average of a McCain appearance every 2.7 weeks...Not bad for a senator in the minority, who isn't in the party leadership, who has no role in any important negotiations, and who has offered no significant pieces of legislation."
I might add, for someone who is invited to these programs to give his views on foreign policy, specifically as it pertains to Iraq and Afghanistan, not bad for a senator who has been so consistently wrong about both.
As Frank Rich wrote in a scathing op-ed in Saturday's New York Times:
"Perhaps the most surreal aspect of our great Afghanistan debate is the Beltway credence given to the ravings of the unrepentant blunderers who dug us into this hole in the first place...Let's be clear: Those who demanded that America divert its troops and treasure from Afghanistan to Iraq in 2002 and 2003 -- when there was no Qaeda presence in Iraq -- bear responsibility for the chaos in Afghanistan that ensued. Now they have the nerve to imperiously and tardily demand that America increase its 68,000-strong presence in Afghanistan to clean up their mess."
Among those "unrepentant blunderers" John McCain takes a backseat to no one, with the possible exception of former VP Cheney. On CNN, McCain gave this assessment of General McChrystal's request for additional troops:
"Sen. John McCain said any added military deployment in Afghanistan smaller than the 40,000 troops reportedly requested by the top U.S. commander there "would be an error of historic proportions."
"Errors of historic proportions," Senator? Let's take a look at your record:
Within hours of the 9/11 attacks McCain was already proposing to take the "war on terror" beyond Afghanistan. Within a month he said "Very obviously Iraq is the first country," and he pushed the Bush-Cheney propaganda of a link between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda.
On September 24, 2002 and again on January 22, 2003 McCain said the war in Iraq would be won "easily."
Then there was this appearance on Hannity and Colmes, February 21, 2003 in which the sagacious senator from Arizona said: "We're going to win this victory. Tragically, we will lose American lives. But it will be brief. We're going to find massive evidence of weapons of mass destruction..." Fast forward to about 2:20 to avoid Hannity's drivel:
The list goes on and on.
Back to Rich's op-ed:
"What's more mortifying still is that McCain was just as wrong about Afghanistan and Pakistan. He routinely minimized or dismissed the growing threats in both countries over the past six years, lest they draw American resources away from his pet crusade in Iraq.
Two years after 9/11 he was claiming that we could "in the long term" somehow "muddle through" in Afghanistan. Even after the insurgency accelerated in Afghanistan in 2005, McCain was still bragging about the "remarkable success" of the prematurely abandoned war...As a presidential candidate in the summer of 2008, McCain cared so little about Afghanistan it didn't even merit a mention among the national security planks on his campaign web site.
He takes no responsibility for any of this. Asked by Katie Couric last week about our failures in Afghanistan, McCain spoke as if he were an innocent bystander: "I think the reason why we didn't do a better job on Afghanistan is our attention -- either rightly or wrongly -- was on Iraq." As Tonto says to the Lone Ranger, "What do you mean 'we,' white man?"
So why does anyone care what John McCain thinks? To use a few analogies from the sports world, it's like getting batting tips from Mario Mendoza, or asking Mike Tyson for a lesson on self-control, or asking the Houston Texans how to score from inside the one-yard line.
Let's face a cold, hard truth about Afghanistan before we send 40,000 more troops into that increasing quagmire. The war there was lost the day we invaded Iraq. Anything after that is trying to put toothpaste back in the tube.
"For those keeping score, this will be McCain's 14th Sunday morning appearance since President Obama's inauguration in January. That's 38 Sundays, for an average of a McCain appearance every 2.7 weeks...Not bad for a senator in the minority, who isn't in the party leadership, who has no role in any important negotiations, and who has offered no significant pieces of legislation."
I might add, for someone who is invited to these programs to give his views on foreign policy, specifically as it pertains to Iraq and Afghanistan, not bad for a senator who has been so consistently wrong about both.
As Frank Rich wrote in a scathing op-ed in Saturday's New York Times:
"Perhaps the most surreal aspect of our great Afghanistan debate is the Beltway credence given to the ravings of the unrepentant blunderers who dug us into this hole in the first place...Let's be clear: Those who demanded that America divert its troops and treasure from Afghanistan to Iraq in 2002 and 2003 -- when there was no Qaeda presence in Iraq -- bear responsibility for the chaos in Afghanistan that ensued. Now they have the nerve to imperiously and tardily demand that America increase its 68,000-strong presence in Afghanistan to clean up their mess."
Among those "unrepentant blunderers" John McCain takes a backseat to no one, with the possible exception of former VP Cheney. On CNN, McCain gave this assessment of General McChrystal's request for additional troops:
"Sen. John McCain said any added military deployment in Afghanistan smaller than the 40,000 troops reportedly requested by the top U.S. commander there "would be an error of historic proportions."
"Errors of historic proportions," Senator? Let's take a look at your record:
Within hours of the 9/11 attacks McCain was already proposing to take the "war on terror" beyond Afghanistan. Within a month he said "Very obviously Iraq is the first country," and he pushed the Bush-Cheney propaganda of a link between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda.
On September 24, 2002 and again on January 22, 2003 McCain said the war in Iraq would be won "easily."
Then there was this appearance on Hannity and Colmes, February 21, 2003 in which the sagacious senator from Arizona said: "We're going to win this victory. Tragically, we will lose American lives. But it will be brief. We're going to find massive evidence of weapons of mass destruction..." Fast forward to about 2:20 to avoid Hannity's drivel:
The list goes on and on.
Back to Rich's op-ed:
"What's more mortifying still is that McCain was just as wrong about Afghanistan and Pakistan. He routinely minimized or dismissed the growing threats in both countries over the past six years, lest they draw American resources away from his pet crusade in Iraq.
Two years after 9/11 he was claiming that we could "in the long term" somehow "muddle through" in Afghanistan. Even after the insurgency accelerated in Afghanistan in 2005, McCain was still bragging about the "remarkable success" of the prematurely abandoned war...As a presidential candidate in the summer of 2008, McCain cared so little about Afghanistan it didn't even merit a mention among the national security planks on his campaign web site.
He takes no responsibility for any of this. Asked by Katie Couric last week about our failures in Afghanistan, McCain spoke as if he were an innocent bystander: "I think the reason why we didn't do a better job on Afghanistan is our attention -- either rightly or wrongly -- was on Iraq." As Tonto says to the Lone Ranger, "What do you mean 'we,' white man?"
So why does anyone care what John McCain thinks? To use a few analogies from the sports world, it's like getting batting tips from Mario Mendoza, or asking Mike Tyson for a lesson on self-control, or asking the Houston Texans how to score from inside the one-yard line.
Let's face a cold, hard truth about Afghanistan before we send 40,000 more troops into that increasing quagmire. The war there was lost the day we invaded Iraq. Anything after that is trying to put toothpaste back in the tube.
Ah, but you voted for him and *if* he had won (thank the Lord for the fact that he didn't), he WOULD have been speaking for you. For four years anyway. Or until his heart gave out and then Pitiful Palin would have been doing your speaking.
You betcha.
And I didn't vote for Pres. Obama because I thought he was "the lesser of two evils".
I voted for him because I thought (and still do) that he was the best candidate for the job.
First of all John McCain does not speak for me. I voted for him, only for the reason I thought he was the lesser of two evils. That being said, I wish he would stop going on TV and trying to be a talking head for Republican party... he's not.
Secondly I do agree with the troop surge. I have 3 family members currently serving our great military overseas in Afghanistan. They can see a real change in the work they are doing, and tell me stories of people whom come to them crying and thanking them for being there. There are not words to describe my love, admiration, respect for our American Soldiers.
McCain, Palin and, apparently, CNN all have the same problem. They fail to grasp that Obama won.
No one cares about what McCain thinks. A majority of American voters made that clear in November. But he can always be counted on for an interesting quotation, it seems. Wrong, certainly. But interesting.
mccain is pathetic. despite being bashed by palin who said they lost because she couldn't find anyone to "pray" with her and constantly went "rouge", mccain's new tune is palin's "the best hope of the republican party." he needs his aricept dose upped. on the other hand, what the hell is liz cheney doing on chris wallace? even for fox it was slumming. perhaps because mccain was already booked on another show...
Carguy,
quite true, BUT, the outcome CAN be different with a paradigm shift in military philosophy. There's that word, again...CHANGE!
What has to be recognized is that any military action in the 21st century should be viewed by definition as a long term committment with long term goals. That's why it is essential that the world has to accept the responsibility for all of our freedoms and safety.
The "smart" people (that means those who do not have a "beltway mentality") ALL agree on one thing. This is a "lose-lose" scenario. The war in Afghanistan has as many "good" choices as Custer had at Little Big Horn. Nothing has EVER worked. Nothing ever WILL work. You could set the bar 2 feet off the ground and nobody would ever clear it.
I was gonna say that. Thanks for saving me the keystrokes.
My concern about leaving is what happens next? It seems the Taliban would set up shop again and it would be as if we were never there.
A little off point here, but I do think Obama and his crew cannot afford to drag their feet on this decision. As I am an unabashed Obama devotee, I say it may be that he's already moving without any media and public fanfare but at the same time I believe there is potentially too much political damage to be done by making a belated decision.
"Bad" John is a good invite to the Sunday shows cause he'll always agree to come. Why not ? Hes am old hot headed loser that welcomes a chance to complain about the President. Loyal opposition, my benind.
My first thought when I read that McCain said Afghanistan needed troops or it would be catastrophic was that he was simply setting the bar higher than needed so it would look like Obama was soft on the war, and wasn't sending the amount of troops needed.
As far as I'm concerned, McCain lost any credibility from me (or respect) the day he sold his soul to the Karl Rove wanna-be's last year. And I supported him in 2000. Or when he let his worse self pick Palin. Brain cells sure weren't working *that* day. Or when he showed how frighteningly erratic he is, how impulsive, how full of rage.
Or how about when he "suspended" his campaign to go figuratively riding in on his white horse to "rescue" the failing economy? When it was apparent to anyone with any sense that he wasn't suspending his campaign but trying to dodge a debate he wasn't ready for, and sat like a lump at the table because he admittedly knew less than nothing about economics?
Or how about his bombastic "Bomb bomb bomb Iran" talk?
He has no credibility. And why anyone would keep asking him to appear on any talk show beyond the equivalent of Good Morning Phoenix is beyond me.
Can't he take his trophy wife and retire to one of his seven or eight houses yet? It's a pity he's overstayed his welcome.
No one listens or cares what McCain has to say anymore. He has no creditibility. Maybe the guests they really wanted were already booked so the only one available was McCain? He seems kind of obsessed with keeping his face out there in the public for some reason. Who cares?