Is the Maverick Back?
This is quite surprising:
Republican presidential candidate John McCain said Monday the war in Iraq has been mismanaged for years and former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld will be remembered as one of the worst in history.
“We are paying a very heavy price for the mismanagement _ that’s the kindest word I can give you _ of Donald Rumsfeld, of this war,” the Arizona senator told an overflow crowd of more than 800 at a retirement community near Hilton Head Island, S.C. “The price is very, very heavy and I regret it enormously.”
[...]
“I think that Donald Rumsfeld will go down in history as one of the worst secretaries of defense in history,” McCain said to applause.
His main problem? Rumsfeld should have sent more troops, right from the get-go.
This is – obviously – very serious criticism (he might be overdoing it a bit, for instance regarding Rumsfeld being the worst secretary of defense in U.S. history).
Curiously, he was less negative about Rumsfeld when the latter had just resigned:
“While Secretary Rumsfeld and I have had our differences, he deserves Americans’ respect and gratitude for his many years of public service.”
Michael Stickings believes that McCain probably was insincere when he spoke more positively about Rumsfeld.
Michael – also – rightfully points out that although McCain broke with the right wing of the Republican party by criticizing Rumsfeld, he did not criticize Bush. He is, thus writes Michael, still loyal to Bush.
I disagree, at least to a degree. McCain does not – indeed – criticize Bush directly, but when one criticizes Rumsfeld like this, one criticizes Bush indirectly at the same time.
McCain is – obviously – right in so far that this war has – indeed – been mismanaged tremendously and that the U.S. should have sent far more troops, right from the get-go.
The main difference between and me, in that regard, is that I think that raising the troop levels now is too little, too late. I simply think that it’s useless. Too many mistakes have already been made. The chaos is too wide-spread. Extremists have too much influence / power.
John Hinderaker has an interesting theory:
McCain is entitled to editorialize, of course, and I believe he has been consistent in calling for more troops. It seems odd to blame Rumsfeld, though; the administration’s position has always been that it would provide more troops if the generals said they needed them. The military judgment of the generals on the ground has been, up until recently, that they had enough personnel to do the job.
My guess is that McCain’s criticism is more about the future than the past. What he really wants is to buy time for the surge to work. As Paul noted yesterday, McCain has acknowledged that if the surge doesn’t work, there probably won’t be sufficient public support for the war effort to try a Plan B. By emphasizing the alleged “mismanagement” of the past, McCain is trying to generate optimism that, if properly run and adequately manned, our effort can succeed.
The Gun Toting Liberal isn’t exactly a fan of John McCain:
For the war before he was against it. Against torture before he was for it. For gay marriage before he was against it. Against flag burning before he was for it. For former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld before he was against him. Against President Bush before he was for him. For “flipflopping� before he was against it.
I AGREE with Senator McCain. THEN, I DISAGREE with him. That’s the beauty of it, frankly: most of us are searching for a candidate we mostly agree with, which disqualifies Senator McCain from EVER gaining the Presidency since he both agrees with everything and disagrees with everything simultaneously. This means the voters will choose somebody else since they, obviously, will disagree with HALF of what this guy says at any given time.
GTL is quite mild compared to Dan Riehl who writes that John “McCain should shut up and sit down.”
Readers of this blog know, and I have been consistant, that I will not support Senator John McCain for the 2008 presidential nomination. As a leader in the local South Florida GOP, I will oppose his nomination with all the resources we have available.
[...]
McCain shows once again that he is not the man of character he would have us believe because a man of character says what he means – not behind a another back – but to his face. McCain is a “Face Politicianâ€? who only speaks to hear himself talk and says whatever it takes to get himself in the limelight.
Is the maverick back? Looking at some of the reaction in blogtopia: not entirely… but to a degree, yes.
Also be sure to check this post by Roger Simon (he’s travelled with McCain and, thus, was able to have an interesting conversation with ‘em). McCain seems to have learned from 2000, he is more relaxed, he understands that he has to be positive, that he should not complain about the past and he has learned not to worry about things he has no control over.
More at: Decision08 and The Democratic Daily and, one of the best resources for blogposts, at Memeorandum.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
8 Responses to “Is the Maverick Back?”
Is the Maverick Back?…
…
You either are a maverick or you aren’t. You can’t be one when the need suits you. McCain is just doing whatever is politically expedient, his own beliefs be damned — that’s the exact opposite.
“I disagree, at least to a degree. McCain does not – indeed – criticize Bush directly, but when one criticizes Rumsfeld like this, one criticizes Bush indirectly at the same time.”
I strongly disagree with this. I think McCain parses his words more carefully than any candidate in the field, and he was very, very careful not to criticize Bush. He is in Bush’s pocket. Far from being maverick, not only is he cowed by the Bush administration, but he is owned by it. His hopes for the ’08 Republican nomination are fastened to the Bush administration with glue, nails, screws, and clamps. McCain now owns the escalation, despite his attempts to maintain distance by saying he wanted a bigger escalation. He is using the Bush fund-raising list (if you know a little about campaigns, you know what a big deal that the Bushies shared their fund-raising list with him). He made nice-nice, and basically bent over, after the 2000 South Carolina primary. He’s been playing “good dog” ever since. There’s a deal in there somewhere that he cut with Bush in 2000. No, McCain is very careful not to criticize Bush in any way and that has been the case since the deal was cut.
This is just political posturing. If McClown beleived this now, why didn’t he say something like this one or two years ago. It’s brave to kick the dead dog Rumsfeld now, but how many Iraqis and American lives could have been saved if McClown took this stance at the same time Murtha spoke out. I used to say I wouldn’t vote for Hillary, but if McClown is the Rep nominee I will hold my nose…
It just seems like its more expedient for McCain to blame our failure in Iraq on Rumsfeld, who now can be used as a scapegoat for the GOP, than to attack Bush, who McCain still needs. A lot of Bush’s big donors are signing on to the McCain campaign, so it seems to me he is just choosing a softer target. Really there is plenty of blame to go around- Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Congress, Doug Feith, Bill Kristol, Wolfowitz, a gullible press, all need to share in this turkey. McCain is neatly sidestepping his own responsibility for six years of missing congressional oversight, by putting the lion’s share of the blame on Rumsfeld.
Why oh why would any sentient being give a heck about what that madman Dan Riehl has to say.
Seriously Michael, have you really read what that guy writes before?
McCain is entitled to editorialize, of course, and I believe he has been consistent in calling for more troops. It seems odd to blame Rumsfeld, though; the administration’s position has always been that it would provide more troops if the generals said they needed them.
I don’t see how Hinderaker can claim this with a straight face. Yes, this was the official position, but it is now well-documented that despite the advice of Gen Shinsecki, Rumsfeld was determined to fight the war with a leaner, meaner military force. This initial error cost us the ability to prevent looting, and stabilize the area, losing the US the goodwill of the Iraqi people.
In a later phase, Casey and Abizaid were concious of the way the population viewed us as a foreign occupier rather than a liberator and wanted to train an Iraqi army and police force to protect the nascent government.
It was only when that mission failed, and there was widespread fear that Iraq was descending into a bloody civil war that could easily lead to regional war, that talk of sending in a larger US force resurfaced. I believe that there was a decision made that we could defeat the Sunni insurgency with a larger force in Baghdad, while the Shiite militias sat back and let us do the dirty work.
In any case, McCain was a war hawk, but favored the use of overwhelming force. He has recently been highly critical of Casey and Rumsfeld, because they believed the war could be won with “Iraqization”. Of course that would have only worked if Iraq had not split into so many factions.
[...] ***** Our good friend Michael van der Galien of The Moderate Voice has quoted this post with a fantastic blogger roundup entitled Is the Maverick Back? [...]