McCain campaign spins like a top to justify ‘not too important’ line

I suppose there’s nothing more embarrassing for a politician than to make a mistake by accidentally saying what he or she really believes. Take John McCain, for example.

Matt Lauer asked McCain this morning whether the senator now has “a better estimate of when American forces can come home from Iraq.” McCain said, “No, but that’s not too important. What’s important is the casualties in Iraq.” The response, not surprisingly, hasn’t gone over well, and has drawn sharp rebukes from McCain critics.

But what’s truly entertaining about all of this is watching the McCain campaign struggle to come up with a coherent response. It’s almost consistent with the five stages of grief.

First up, denial — the remarks weren’t unusual or a break with previous statements.

“Sen. McCain has consistently opposed a timeline for withdrawing our troops from Iraq. And our friends on the opposite side of the aisle have a long history of attempting to twist Sen. McCain’s words on Iraq. The fact that Sen. McCain opposes a timeline for withdrawal and is principally concerned about the safety of American troops and the security of Iraq is pretty much ‘dog bites man.'”

Next, anger — the remarks were taken out of context.

“The Obama campaign is embarking on a false attack on John McCain to hide their own candidate’s willingness to disregard facts on the ground in pursuit of withdrawal no matter what the costs. John McCain was asked if he had a ‘better estimate’ for a timeline for withdrawal. As John McCain has always said, that is not as important as conditions on the ground and the recommendations of commanders in the field. Any reasonable person who reads the full transcript would see this and reject the Obama campaign’s attempt to manipulate, twist and distort the truth.”

Then, bargaining — don’t believe your lying eyes, consider an alternate spin on the meaning of McCain’s plain words.

Advisor Randy Scheunemann said McCain was calling the question of whether he, John McCain, had an estimate “not too important,” not the question of when troops will come home.

Then, depression — don’t try to understand the comments, because McCain was a POW.

“I mean the obvious fact is that more than most any American, Senator McCain knows the sacrifices that our men and women in uniform make, and the burden that their families bear. And it really is wrong to suggest otherwise. And obviously he knows that from his own — well, from his father’s service, and the impact it had on his family; from his own service and incarceration…

I realize why these guys are spinning like tops. Most Americans — especially the troops and their families — don’t want to a hear a prospective candidate say that it’s “not too important” when the troops come home from Iraq. But the problem is, and the reason the campaign can’t come up with a coherent response, is that McCain actually believes what he said.

Josh Marshall explained:

Sometimes these references by McCain are treated as gaffes but they’re not. This is what McCain believes: that we should have a long-term troop presence in Iraq to guarantee the survival of a pro-U.S. government and assert power in the region. That’s not a crazy position. That’s the position of the current administration. That’s why we’re currently trying to secure an agreement with the Iraqis to ratify that goal. The problem isn’t that McCain’s position is incomprehensible. It’s just not popular. Most Americans think reducing casualties is important too. But they’d like to do both — reduce casualties and leave too.

The problem for the McCain campaign is that he keeps stumbling into clear statements of his actual policy, which is close to lethal since the vast majority of Americans disagree with his policy and Iraq is virtually the only thing he’s running on. The context the McCain campaign keeps trying to put forward after the fact is what they wished he’d said rather than what he did. And even that, when you push deep, isn’t that different from McCain’s actual policy, which is that he doesn’t think we should be leaving Iraq for years to come, most likely decades.

As for the stages of grief, we’re still waiting for McCain & Co. to get to acceptance.

As for the stages of grief, we’re still waiting for McCain & Co. to get to acceptance.

Mark your calendar November 7 for that.

  • McCan’t wants to occupy the Iraqi oil fields forever so that Exxon/Mobile and all the rest of America’s (if you can really call them American) Oil Companies can control Iraq’s oil.

    Because once we are out, they are going to sell their concessions to the Russians or French or Chinese for 48% rather than to the Americans for 74% (that is, we get 74% of the profit of the oil), doubling the Iraqi’s take from 26% to 52% at a shot.

  • The problem for the McCain campaign is that he keeps stumbling into clear statements of his actual policy

    I think the problem is a little more than this. Most people understand by now that he wants to keep a permanent presence in Iraq. At the same time he insists that the surge has worked. But there are still 150,000 soldiers there. There are still lots of PTSD and other injuries, even if the death toll is down. There are still lots of families dealing with economic crises at home; children whose father or mother is spending long portions of their infancy away from home; constant pressure to re-up and do more tours; and National guardsmen losing jobs or at least promotion opportunities. There is also a huge financial cost and an Afghanistan issue ongoing.

    But McCain jumps from war to peace without any sense of recognition that there is even any need for a transition.

  • “Sometimes these references by McCain are treated as gaffes but they’re not.” . . . Well, I’d say they’re gaffes because I’m sure McCain’s handlers have told him again and again not to make explosive remarks like this which confirm his 100 year occupation intentions, but he forgets, and just blurts things out.

    It’s a gaffe all right.

    And it’s so utterly insensitive to the agony of the families and troops involved, who so desperately want this thing over with and to reunite back in the states that I’d call it a callous, outrageous gaffe at that.

  • My grandmother never really recovered when her son was killed in action just days before the Armistice for World War I. That was a stupid war too. Even if a war goes more than a day longer than it should, people die and get maimed. If it is your loved one it is the most important thing in your life.

  • McCain campaign spins like a top….

    Actually, they spin like a broken top. The kind of top that’s been put under the bus, tossed into a meat-grinder, and then fed to a blast furnace. They fumble, flop, and crunch; they shoot sparks out of their ears (and a few other bodily orifices), and then wither and sizzle into the consistency of molten lead balloons. It’s really a wonder that these GOPers haven’t figured out a way to replace their candidate with someone who could at least manage a series of cohesive sentences in a row without morphing into The Great Green-Screened Ghost of Dodo!

    With luck—a little smidgen of luck—any luck at all—even no luck between now and the end of time itself, for crying out loud—Senator McNeurologial-Extinction-Event will take his band of silly sycophants over the Longest-Of-All Lemming Leaps, fall into the bottomless rectal-pit from whence they were spawned, and leave all of humanity alone.

    At least for a few generations or so….

  • John ‘Befuddled’ McCain — no matter how it’s sliced, the man lacks the mental acuity to be the leader of the free world.

  • Since my father spent 35 years in the Air Force (I was born after he’d been in for 10), and my husband has been in for 23 years, my brother has been in for 26, my brother-in-law retired after 24, another brother-in-law has served 16 years in the Marine Corps, another brother-in-law served 6 years Marines before switching to the Air National Guard for 20 years, my sister-in-law graduated from the Air Force Academy and served 6 years, a niece who served 6 years (her husband is currently in his 10th year), a nephew in his 7th year, a niece and her husband in their 3rd year, a nephew in his 4th year Navy, a son-in-law in his 7th year Air Force, and a daughter and her husband in their 3rd year Air Force, I would like to suggest that before you attack how the military is treated and by whom that you might want to talk to those who serve. And before you ask, everyone of my family members currently serving (that would be 9) have been deployed at least once in support of this war, most of them twice, for six or more months at a time. They have all deployed willingly to Iraq and Afghanistan, knowing that they are making progress and helping those who cannot seem to muster the courage and strength to help themselves. They know this because they have almost all had contact with the local peoples.

  • Commander Guy #2…He already came out and said it but everybody keeps trying to say he didn’t really mean that etc. He thinks he can turn Iraq into Korea situation proving how jaded he really is. The two aren’t even remotely related but he references them together as a plan while his staff and reporters claim he meant something else.

    Off topic: Dems should start impeachment proceeding shortly before or right after the elections just to ensure Bush cannot later claim “executive privilege” or pardon anybody should he later be prosecuted…you know, like for treason.

    Kucinich and his 35 Articles of Impeachment will go down in history and needed to be in the public record. Pelosi will “only” be remembered as the speaker who took impeachment off the table for the most corrupt and unpopular administration ever, especially so if he attacks Iran and begins another war which she could have stopped. She ignored the fact that we have a constitution which demanded such action, politically correct or not. She knows better than our constitution.

  • We will continue to provide support . Just as we continue our support in Europe and Asia. For as long as is necessary. Whether in a combat situation or a peace time situation. THAT is the meaning of McCain’s statement.

  • This is about using the wrong words and appearing insensitive. The Democrats, however, aren’t taking that approach. They are saying that his choice of words shows that he doesn’t care about casualties and deaths and chaos or the families of troops. That is wrong.

  • And they are absolutely wrong in their “choice of words” because they know that McCain knows that the important thing is not when we come home but how. Every military family member knows the same thing.

  • Look, it’s very simple. It’s not important “if” the soldiers return, but “when”, which is 100 years after there stop being casualties. Since that will be my focus of my Presidency, we can expect the end of major casualties at some point after I leave office, if the surge keeps going as well as it is.

    The important thing is to remain firm in our maintaining Bush’s strategy of postponing victory until the next President.

  • Didn’t McCain recently make a “I have a dream” speech where he envisioned most American troops would be home by January 2013?

  • Bev – do you feel you are speaking for some, many, most or almost all the troops when you say the important thing is not when we come home? Do you think McCain has considered “how” they will come home? Do you feel you were told the reason for the invasion of Iraq?

  • IMHO, the more outrage the mccain campaign pours into defending/spinning these types of clearly contextual statements, especially this early into the race, the better it will be for Obama.

    Think about. If they’re frothing at the mouth now at things mccain DID say and mean to defend themselves from democrats and public at large, what are they going to do 5 months from now? Have a brain aneurysm to show the public they are in the right? That’d be awesome.

  • What’s truly satisfying is that the same guys who invented this game are now spinning like hell to save themselves from it.

    Note to GOP: If you’re going to run a campaign based solely on soundbites and sloganeering, try not to nominate someone who can’t open their mouth without sticking a foot in it.

  • Bev–I respect where you’re coming from and I appreciate it that you present your view in a non-polemical and civil way.

    Despite your family’s feelings, I believe the that whatever they are accomplishing in Iraq (Afghanistan is a separate issue) has to be measured against the costs in

    -Iraqi lives
    -American lives
    -American prestige and ability to influence events in the world
    -American strategic influence in the Middle East
    -American military readiness and ability to confront other problems in the world
    -The billions upon billions upon billions of American dollars being spent

    … just to name a few. The decision to go into Iraq was a disaster by all these measures and more, compared to the limited progress that has been made. If we had been asked at the outset “Would you like to spend some trillions of dollars, 4,000 + American lives over the next several decades to improve the lives of the Iraqi people?” I guarantee you that the answer from across the political spectrum would have been a resounding No.

    I’m glad that they are seeing some improvement to their quality of life over there. God knows they deserve it. But it was wrong to make that the all-consuming national mission of the United States based on lies and an excruciatingly naive theory of how to transform the Middle East. If the promoters of this effort had any intellectual honesty they would be calling for a war tax to cover the financial costs and a draft to supply the manpower, instead of stop-loss and repeated deployments and National Guard reservists and 100s of thousands of “private contractors” (read mercenaries) being pulled in to make up the shortfall, all while the whole thing is paid for “off-budget.”

    The reason they don’t have that courage is obvious of course: they know that never in a million years would the public think those costs were worth pouring those kinds of resources into such a mission, had it ever been honestly presented to them. But the truth can’t be hidden forever, and that–not the supposed misrepresentations of the (hardly) “liberal media”–is why most of us on this site as well as the overwhelming majority of Americans want us out of there.

  • Bev, our of curiosity, how do your military family members feel about the Webb GI bill? What about the Veteran care which is pending? Or the money to be spent to build/improve bases? (All part of HR 4279 and S.22) which McCain is against and Bush vows to veto?

  • Danp

    I am not speaking for anyone other than myself. My comments are based on my personal life experiences and the discussions I have with military and their family members on a daily basis. Most of us knew what we were getting into by choosing to serve more than one enlistment or commit to a life with those who serve. Career military didn’t just join for the GI Bill. They joined to make a difference in the world and to protect not only those in our country but those in the world.

    Look. Unfortunately the reason for the invasion of Iraq is a moot point. My belief on the integrity of the intelligence is of little importance. We are there. We have a responsibility. We can not leave until the country is able to maintain and govern itself without constant internal threats to its continued peaceful existence, and protect itself from dangers to its continued existence within the region. These threats include physical and psychological attacks on all of the civil liberties that we in this country take for granted. I am aware, as are those military and their family members with whom I speak, that this could mean years of restabilizing.

    And, yes, I do think McCain has greatly considered “how” the troops will come home in every conceivable definition of the word “how”. Meaning: alive vs. dead; whole vs. wounded; psychologically vs. physically; welcomed vs. demonized; by boat vs. by plane; etc. I believe this because of his personal connection with the military, not just as a former Navy member. And because every military and military family member I know (and I’m sure those whom I don’t know) worry daily over the same things. But it is the job that we have chosen to do. We are not warmongers. Our greatest hope is for peace to exist worldwide because it is OUR LOVED ONES who will die for you.

  • McCain won’t leave. You support him because he won’t leave. We say he won’t leave. So how is that a distortion.

    McCain won’t leave. McCain says so. You say so. So… he won’t leave. But McCain can’t say that because no one wants to stay. So we pretend it’s controversial to say McCain wants to do exactly what he’s said he’ll do, and you think he should do.

    According to McCain’s 2013 ad — we’ll still be fighting in Iraq after his first term. If everything goes well.

  • We will continue to provide support . Just as we continue our support in Europe and Asia. For as long as is necessary. Whether in a combat situation or a peace time situation. — Bev, @11

    What if the majority of the population in the country we are “supporting” say: “Yankee go home”? Contrary to your belief, we are not supporting Iraq; we’re occupying it. Some people there — like Maliki — are saying it politely; some — like the militants — less so (with IEDs).

    US in Iraq is now like a dog with trismus; it got hold of something, its jaws locked and it can’t let go. Even if it means that the dog will die, because it can neither eat nor drink. I never thought trismus was a communicable disease but it looks like it might be; first Bush got it from Cheney, now McCain got it from Bush…

  • I am sure this will make our fine men and women serving our country thrilled:

    In Debate Over Permanent Bases In Iraq, U.S. Seeks Authorization For War In Iran

    The ongoing negotiations between Iraqi leaders and the Bush administration over the future role of the military occupation “have turned into an increasingly acrimonious public debate.”

    The Bush administration’s demand for 58 permanent bases in Iraq — a near doubling of the current 30 bases — are causing Iraqis to warn that the status of forces agreement would be “more abominable than the occupation.” The administration is reportedly holding hostage “some $50bn of Iraq’s money in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York to pressure the Iraqi government into signing an agreement.”

    The reason the White House is so hell-bent on signing a long-term agreement may have less to do with Iraq and more to do with Iran. According to press reports of the ongoing negotiations, the Bush administration is seeking the “power to determine if a hostile act from another country is aggression against Iraq.”

    The administration’s request would seemingly allow the U.S. to brand Iran as an enemy of Iraq and attack Iran in the name of defending Iraq pursuant a legal obligation under the status of forces agreement.

    Other details from press accounts confirm that the Bush administration has one eye on Iran in the course of its negotiations with Iraqis. The Washington Post explains that the administration is seeking “the prerogative for U.S. forces to conduct operations without approval from the Iraqi government.” Moreover, the U.S. wants control over Iraq’s airpsace

    Serving our country should be to protect us. They should be in Afghanistan not Iraq. Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11.

    Our proud troops should not be used like this. For war profit. For aggression. For occupation.

    Our proud troops should be paid better. They should be treated better. Fuck the Blackwaters of the world! That alone would support our troops ten fold.

  • Bev, when I asked whether you feel you are speaking for some, most or all the troops, I didn’t mean to accuse you of speaking for all, though your (9) comment seemed to suggest that anti-Iraq-war people should merely butt out. That made me somewhat defensive since I had written that many of the troops and their families were making an incredible sacrifice and that McCain seems to be taking this for granted (comment 4). What I was really trying to find out is whether you had a strong impression as to how many people in the military felt as you do.

    I must say, however, I am troubled that you don’t think the reason for the invasion is important. If I were going to be sent to war I would certainly want to know why. And I would hope that would apply even more for a career person. And at this point, I think we are past the possibility that it was just poor intelligence. It was sold to the public based on selective intelligence. WMD and links to Al Qaeda were not the actual reason unless you believe the so-called 1% Doctrine – the idea that if there is even a one percent chance that Iraq has these weapons or connections then the invasion is justified.

    As for whether McCain has considered “how” the troops would come out, when the answer to “when will they come out” is “it’s not important”, I think it does raise the question about how much has even considered an end game. In fact, I wonder if he even has given any thought as to what circumstances would allow some reduction, or what would happen if there were a crisis elsewhere.

  • Dan, I agree.

    As many regulars know, I travel extensively for work. I am in airports and in airplanes for more hours a month than I would like sometime. And there are alot of military members in airports and airplanes.

    As you may have gathered, I am not shy…I talk to pretty much anyone.

    Many of the military members I have spoken with went to serve because of 9/11. That WHY is very important to them. And there is a lot of sadness on their parts knowing now that, well, maybe things weren’t what they were supposed to be.

    It is dishonest to say that they don’t care. I am sorry. Maybe Bev’s family doesn’t mind it. But I guarantee that the marine who held what was left of his friend in his arms as that friend died or the one who was mortally wounded – they care.

    I know the effect it has had on my friend who was there until last year. I think the last of the many friends who died there affected him deeply.

    Do they serve any less willingly? No. Are they any less proud? No. But to be lied into this, to be stop-gapped and not taken care of…that is not something for any of us to be proud of.

  • MsJoanne, If you ever decide to do a parody character, you can call yourself “Wallflower”. I guarantee no one will ever guess. 🙂 Thanks.

  • Honey, I wish I could pull off a Wallflower parody. 😀

    I am awed by those who manage them so well…and I bow to their greatness.

  • I did not ever say that the military does not care why they were sent to Iraq. Nor that I or my family do not care. We would all rather have our family members at home, having no more than a twenty minute commute to work and home for dinner every night. We understood, pre 9/11, that the risk for combat was ever present in our lives. And that combat was at the discretion of our elected officials.

    What I said was that the reason for our being there is moot at this time. Do I have firsthand knowledge of everything that was discussed by any of our elected officials concerning Iraq before we went? No. Can I change anyone’s mind about what the facts are or aren’t since I was not there? No. Can we go back in time and change the fact that we are there? No.

    To go on about “lying” or “misrepresenting the intelligence” does not change the fact that the majority of our nationally elected representatives, many with the same access to that information, supported the use of military force in Iraq. But since the intelligence was manipulated, they are all blameless? Except (apparently) for Bush and Cheney. And now McCain. But no one else? Please feel free to run ALL 500+ out of office. That is the beauty of our system of government, that we have the choice to NOT re-elect our government officials.

    My point here is that since we are there, we have a responsibility to the Iraqi people. To pull out now would NOT be in their best interests. It would NOT improve the world view of our country. It would, however, re-enforce the mistaken belief that we are bullies who make messes all over the place and walk away. And how long it takes to bring the troops home can NOT be decisively determined until stability is achieved.

    Would that it were so simple to determine a pull out date. My husband, daughter, nephew and brother-in-law could all be home now.

  • MsJoanne’s post #21:

    I am still researching reasons that McCain and Bush have for opposing the bill. While the GI Bill is in need of some updating, which is what S.22 proposes, there are positives and negatives. If it is to the detriment of NCO development and retention, as I currently read it, then I, and many I’ve spoken to, have reservations about it’s implementation. Also, from my understanding, the complete bill to which S.22 is attached, contains items not dealing with the (supposed) subject matter of Military and Defense funding.

    HR 4279 is “Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual Property Act of 2008”. If you can get me the correct bill number, I would appreciate it.

  • From Post #32

    “But since the intelligence was manipulated, they are all blameless?”

    I meant to put “manipulated” in quotes, as I can not confirm that it happened, .

  • […] since we are there, we have a responsibility to the Iraqi people. To pull out now would NOT be in their best interests. — Bev, @32

    What right do we have to say what the best interests in Iraqi people are, having wrecked their country? Presumably, they now have a democracy; God knows Bush had crowed enough about their purple fingers. Then why insist on the “White Man’s Burden” (long outdated) attitude? Daddy doesn’t always know best…

  • Bev, I hope you are joking about the “manipulated” thing. After Phase II came out?

    http://senatus.wordpress.com/2008/06/05/intelligence-committee-report-cites-pre-war-inaccuracies/

    The bill is HR 2642:

    http://senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=2&vote=00139#position

    If it is to the detriment of NCO development and retention, as I currently read it, then I, and many I’ve spoken to, have reservations about it’s implementation.

    Sorry, Bev, but bullshit. Absolute bullshit. This sounds like a Fox piece…people have said, some say, crap. If you offer something to people they will more willingly enlist. To the people who have lost body parts, does it matter whether it was two or four years into their service? They deserve it. Period.

    Veterans deserve the healthcare. The bases need to be repaired and built. They deserve it. Period.

  • “What I said was that the reason for our being there is moot at this time.”

    No it isn’t.

    The Iraqis care why you’re there. That’s one of the reasons their support for American troops staying in the country has dropped.

    The reason U.S. troops failed to wear out their welcome in Europe and Korea is that the people there were more convinced that the U.S.’s stated reasons for being there were true and the dangers that the U.S. claimed existed were real.

    That is not the case with Iraq.

  • Splitting Image, you are wrong to a certain extent. There are fears by many Sunni that the US will leave. There will be much more bloodletting.

    And I am from the school of we fucked it up wen need to do something.

    But permanent bases? Interfering with their government? Threatening war with Iran with Iraq as the basis?

    We are in a quagmire of epic proportions with no good options on either side.

  • Thanks to MsJoanne, Danp and Bev…this has been a great debate…I would just like to add something to the retention/enlistment point as far as the 21st century GI bill goes…I work at a fairly large police department and we get hundreds of background checks weekly from recruiters…the lenghts these people are having to go to just to get a warm body,any “body” is highly disturbing. The people they are trying/unfortunately probably succeeding in getting waivers for is distressing. Some of these people have no business being put in a war zone and will not be “helping” the iraqis…If our country can offer more incentives then we can guarantee a better class of soldier.

    It does make a difference why we are there and if we are even wanted by a supposed sovereign nation…and dammit if we expect this level of performance out of our soldiers then we as a country should be willing to support them financially, emotionally, educationally…whatever…to not do that is just morally bankrupt and disgusting..

  • MsJoanne

    Thank you for the link. As I said before, I have not read the entire bill and I will enjoy doing so.

    I realize that the GI Bill is a recruiting tool. I also vehemently defend the fact that our military deserve to be repaid for their service and veterans deserve the best available healthcare. And as I have spent most of my 44 years living on military installations, I realize that they need repair. However, since I have only read the Congressional Budget Office reports on S.22, the GI Bill, I still wonder about the development and retention of our NCOs. Getting people to enlist is one thing. Retaining them is a different matter. Therefore I have reservations. Sorry.

    Again, I will read the bill before I can make a more informed comment.

  • locanicole

    Yes, it is distressing that many people who are recruited should never have been allowed to put on a uniform let alone be put into a war zone. It is equally distressing that we must promise a full ride at a four year institution of higher education to recruit a “better class of soldier.” Those who serve with honor, regardless of time in service, are fully deserving of every support that we as a country can give them.

    That being said my gut reaction is frustration that so many enlist solely for the purpose of that full ride knowing that they will get out of service at the earliest possible moment and then complain the whole time that they are in service about how evil the military and our country are. Many of these folks are never sent to a war zone nor ever will be due to their career field and short enlistments. I see it all the time. This is what has always bothered me about the GI Bill.

    MsJoanne

    You are correct. We are in a quagmire. I can only pray that we can get out of it with our souls intact. How we do it and when we are able to do so is the big question. Too soon and we screw up, ruining our reputation again. Too long, and we screw up, destroying any chance of a worthwhile reputation. I haven’t got the answer. But neither does anyone else with a guarantee of 100% accuracy. Most don’t even come close to a 50/50 chance of when is “the right time.” We must, unfortunately, therefore play it by ear. And pray we are right.

  • So many well-written pieces here tonight. I’ve tried to understand the position Bev has, that it’s moot. Many others have said it in different ways, that it doesn’t matter, that we’re there, and let’s move forward. It must be a mindset of those who have to keep their heads down and continue to slog, but it also sounds like the position of the warmongers like Bill Kristol. It also could be the profit-motivated position of war profiteers like Halliburton, KBR and Blackwater. So whatever, we all have an opinion. It’s good to talk about it.

    Bev’s post at #42, though. How we get out, and when, the big question(s). You focus on time: too soon, we screw up. Too late, we screw up and lose our chance at a good reputation again. Well, it isn’t hypothetical, not to say that you believe that it is. The choice to stay or leave will be made. I want to elect someone who has a plan to leave. There is no “plan” in not deciding. Not deciding (either from fear of making a mistake or not knowing what to decide) is a decision. Not choosing is a choice. Staying is McCain’s choice. Staying is his plan. He’s choosing that, and he hopes to have the power to make it so.

    I am tired of letting someone who plans to stay, who has no plan to leave, play it by ear. So no, we must not play it by ear. We must decide who we wish to back for president, either the guy who plans to leave, or the guy who plans to stay. The military will simply follow those orders, whatever they are.

    The soldiers have to play it by ear every day in battle, but I don’t want the damn president doing it.

  • Today on MSNBC, David Schuster completely annihilated John Kyle’s attempt to defend McCain’s honest but ridiculous comment.

  • Comments are closed.