McCain plays revisionist historian, hits rivals on Iraq

November 2, 2007

For five years, the Bush White House has had no more reliable an ally on Iraq policy than John McCain. So it was more than a little odd to hear the presidential hopeful lash out at his top Republican rivals today for not doing more to question the president’s Iraq strategy.

…McCain broadened his broadside to also castigate Romney, the former Massachusetts governor, and Thompson, the former Tennessee senator, as well as Giuliani on Iraq. He argued they were “nowhere to be seen when we were fighting a war with the wrong strategy.”

“I never saw Romney, Giuliani or Thompson say a word about it, except supporting what I clearly pointed out was a failed strategy,” McCain added. He said he has called for more troops in Iraq since 2003 and saw President Bush embrace that proposal earlier this year. “I don’t think there’s any greater indication of experience and knowledge of how wars should be fought and how crisis should be handled.”

I had to read this a few times, because it’s really a bizarre argument for McCain to make. To hear him tell it, Bush’s Iraq policy was failing for years, and it was John McCain, and no one else, who was willing to step up and say so. In effect, McCain was asking Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson, and Mitt Romney, “I’ve been pointing out this policy’s failure for years. Where have you guys been?”

But this is revisionist history to an absurd degree. McCain argues today that he “clearly pointed out [what] was a failed strategy. In December 2003, McCain praised Bush’s strategy as “a mission accomplished.” In March 2004, he said, “I’m confident we’re on the right course.” In December 2005, he said, “Overall, I think a year from now, we will have made a fair amount of progress if we stay the course.”

And now he wants to hammer the other guys for not criticizing Bush’s policy? Please.

McCain also took an unexpected course, criticizing Giuliani, Thompson, and Romney for not joining the military.

John McCain, a Vietnam war prisoner, argued Friday that his top rivals for the GOP nomination aren’t qualified to deal with issues like torture — or to be president in wartime — because they never served in the military.

“There’s a clear division between those who have a military background and experience in these issues and people like Giuliani, Romney and Thompson who don’t — who chose to do other things when this nation was fighting its wars,” McCain told reporters after touring a shipyard in this military bastion.

That’s a pretty provocative statement, isn’t it? Sure, I’m delighted to see someone mention Giuliani’s multiple deferments during Vietnam. And sure, if one of these other three get the GOP nomination, Dems might want to remind voters about this little quote.

But McCain came pretty close to arguing that his Republican rivals aren’t qualified to lead because they never wore a uniform.

By this logic, I suppose McCain also believes Bush and Dick “Other Priorities” Cheney also don’t deserve the offices they hold?

What a bullshit artist Baghdad John is, pretending that the Bush Disaster in Iraq was just poorly managed but still a good idea on it’s face.

The best idea is to withdraw the 160,000 troops from Iraq and the 100,000 troops occupying Japan and South Korea while we’re at it. The Constitution did not establish an empire.

But I guess Baghdad John doesn’t understand that, my friend.

  • If RooDee and Oven Mitt didn’t have such a tenuous relationship with the facts themselves, it’d be a lot easier to have some sympathy over Straight Pander’s attack. but as the old saying goes, live by the shameless flip-flopping revisionism, die by the shameless flip-flopping revisionism.

  • To say that McCain was ever a critic of Bush’s Iraq policy is insane. But then so is McCain. In my opinion having worn a uniform should count as a mark against you when running for president because it clearly shows a military bias. But then again, in some cases it showed an understanding of war to the point that war would be a last resort of action for a country to take because of the horrors of war.

    Republicans are in a corner they painted themselves into with candidates much like the highly unpopular Bush. They just can’t bring themselves to say we’re so sorry…we screwed it all up…it just didn’t work. Instead they look at new ways to justify failure. I agree with zeitgeist when he said no republican should be allowed any where near an elected office in his lifetime. Here’s hoping he lives a long, long time.

  • I think Mc Cain is right and you guys are wrong.

    He supported the invasion from the beginning, but he AND Biden were very critical of the lack of troops. I remember hearing him complain numerous times on TV. Biden later decided it was too little, too late and thought that disengagement was necessary.

    There were a few other Republicans who criticised the execution of the war, but the present Rep candidates were not among them.

  • @zeitgeist

    Hi Pot. Meet Kettle. The name under which you post is of a video so riddled with falsehoods that I don’t see how you could expect any credibility by using it. You reek of someone who cares about facts only after someone ELSE appears to have missed them.

  • If the McCaniac were in power, we would still be fighting the Vietnam War. Bryonic Zero at #5, what are you talking about? What video. Can you post a link to support your claim or more accurately your attack?

  • Byronic is probably talking about Zeitgeist, the movie. And apparently jumping to the fallacious conclusion that your name must be a reference to this movie, as opposed to the basic term zeitgeist itself, or any number of other possible reasons you use that name.

    • Comments are closed.