Running to Bush’s right on the war

Over the past couple of months, the [tag]White House[/tag] seems to have gotten a little sensitive about overtly questioning critics’ patriotism. In almost every recent speech, top WH officials usually add some caveat about the motivations of congressional Dems. Last week, [tag]Bush[/tag] said Dems may disagree with him, but they are “fine, fine people,” who are “patriotic.” Cheney wouldn’t go that far, but he did tell Limbaugh last week, “I’ve got some friends on the other side of the aisle, and I don’t want to question everybody’s motives.”

Enter [tag]John McCain[/tag], stage right. The senator has apparently looked at the political landscape and decided that when it comes to the war, the Bush gang hasn’t been harsh enough.

[Yesterday], John [tag]McCain[/tag] did the full [tag]Cheney[/tag]. In his speech at the Virginia Military Institute in which he laid out his extensive support for the war in [tag]Iraq[/tag], the Arizona senator matched the vice president’s scorn for his political opponents. McCain said Democrats who oppose the president’s plans for Iraq are not just wrong on the facts but are seeking “advantage in the next election” and “the temporary favor of the latest public opinion poll.” […]

What’s new here is obviously not McCain’s unhedged support for the [tag]war[/tag]. He’s talked about that at length. What makes this speech different is the full-force, no-caveats attack on his opponents. It went beyond attacking policy inconsistencies — such as the fact that Democrats voted to confirm Gen. David Petraeus as Iraqi commander but against his plan for action — or raising questions about how opponents of the war would deal with the chaos following an American withdrawal. It repeatedly questioned not just their views but their motives, ending with a moving story about a heroic Navy SEAL officer whose bravery McCain juxtaposes with those seeking “temporary political advantage.”

The McCain campaign had been playing up the speech at VMI for weeks, telling reporters that it would be the key turn-around point for the senator’s struggling presidential campaign. But ultimately, what did McCain have to offer? Bush rhetoric, wrapped in a bitter attitude.

And when I say “Bush rhetoric,” I mean that literally.

Arizona Sen. John McCain stood before an auditorium of uniformed cadets at the Virginia Military Institute in Lexington, Va., on Wednesday with a message about the war in Iraq. “There are the first glimmers of progress,” McCain said, in what his campaign billed as the first of three major policy speeches that will lead to the official announcement of his presidential campaign later this month.

McCain was reading the words off a teleprompter in the back of the room, but it was hard not to notice how closely they matched a statement made just 25 hours earlier by President Bush, who had also come to Virginia to talk to a military audience. “We’re beginning to see some progress towards our mission,” Bush had declared to American Legion Post 177 in Fairfax.

The echo-chamber effect did not end there. On Tuesday, Bush told his listeners that the Democratic leadership was “irresponsible” for attaching restrictions on funding for the troops, which Bush called a “political statement” that could risk the war effort. On Wednesday, McCain told the VMI cadets that Democrats had chosen a “reckless” road that would “deny our soldiers the means to prevent an American defeat.” On Tuesday, Bush praised Iraq’s new oil law, warned of a power vacuum that would be caused by a U.S. withdrawal, and spoke of the lessons of Sept. 11. On Wednesday, so did McCain.

I’m not going to pretend to be a Republican strategist, but I am having a hard time understanding the coherence of McCain’s approach. Apparently, his idea for turning things around is to talk like Bush, enthusiastically embrace Bush’s war, and use the kind of cynical demagoguery Bush used to use, but now shies away from.

Ladies and gentleman, I give you John McCain’s four-more-years strategy. Apparently, he’s under the impression that what America really wants is more of the same. Let’s see how that works out.

Towards the end of yesterday’s speech in Virginia, McCain said it’s incumbent upon Dems in Congress “to offer an alternative strategy that has some relationship to reality.”

Given McCain’s recent pronouncements, he’s hardly in a position to lecture anyone about reality.

McCain is past it. Only a step away from having to be dressed in the morning. Unlike him the public still has a memory.

  • I imagine we will have to hear the rhetoric, “There are the first glimmers of progress” in Iraq right up to the end of the U.S. military occupation. McCain is creating an incredibly thick-headed, delusional caricature of himself.

  • I think McCain just doesn’t realize that he’s a monumentally boring has-been. He has French-kissed so many fat, smelly, asses that he doesn’t know who he is anymore. He can’t aid Bush’s war efforts by echoing Bush; he and Bush drag each other down. Enough is enough. Failure is failure. Eye on the prize: ignore the has-been and oust the crime family.

  • Maybe “Republican strategist” will become the new “Democratic strategist”. They’re the kiss of death. They belong to a self-perpetuating class of insiders who give their candidates horrible advice and only know how to lose elections.

  • I wonder if McCain has seen this:

    QUESTION: Do you favor a withdrawal of all United States military from Iraq within the next six months?

    ANSWER: Yes 52% No 39% Undecided 9%

    No, those are not particularly shocking numbers.

    We have known for a long time that Americans favor the rapid withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq.

    What is interesting about these numbers is who they come from.

    The Strategic Vision polling group asked 600 likely Iowa caucus goers the question in a survey conducted March 30-April 1, 2007.

    To be more precise, the survey queried 600 likely Republican caucus goers.

    http://www.thenation.com/blogs/campaignmatters?pid=183463

  • “We’re BEGINNING to see some progress towards our mission”?
    Only “beginning”? What the fuck have we been doing there for the past four years if, only now, are we “beginning” to see progress?

    Doesn’t anyone – ever – follow-up on these bozo statements?

  • Both McCain and Bush spoke about the war before military audiences….Do these guys ever talk about the war and patriotism to other audiences? I double dog dare them to speak to any association of people other than a VFW, a military school, or an evangelical college, and let the press guage the audience’s reaction.
    Bruce

  • Unbelievable. John McCain is “Roving” himself. The campaign strategy of turning an opponent’s strength into a liability has been attributed to Karl Rove, but John McCain is the first to turn this strategy on himself. John’s is still thinking that supporting the Iraq war is somehow viewed as being patriotic and a strength of his candidacy (that mindset is soooo 2004,) therefore supporting the war to the point of insanity will make him uber-patriotic and a shoe-in for the president. To borow a line from old W himself, “I don’t question his patriotism, I question his judgment.”

    For John to be this far off base and wanting to go even further still is a sign he has no business running for president. If he doesn’t find reality soon, I would quetion his fitness to even continue holding his Senate seat.

  • I must confess to some grudging admiration for McCain here. He’s sticking with a position, facts and public opinion be damned. It does rather contrast with a lot of the political flip-flopping and toadying he’s done to get in good with the GOP base. Of course, I guess I can be generous here, since my admiration is of a kind with what one might have for a captain who’s lashed himself to the mast of a sinking ship.

  • The damage that Bush is doing is systemic and the state of our government must be viewed as a computer that has been massivley infected with special interest worms.
    The lesson of the disaster that is Bush 43 …is that our institutional safeguards are outdated and corrupted beyond normal repair.
    A major institutional overhaul on the order of a disk wipe and reinstallation of democracy a the first priority, because our operating system is now open to any hacker because the password is no longer secret. (“cash”).

    Why shouldn’t our constitutional protections need current updates the same way we update virus protection programs?

  • Maybe McCain wants to be the next Cheney?

    Is Thompson enough of an empty suit to fill Bush’s… suit?

    Somehow I doubt it, he’s at least pretty good actor.

  • I must confess to some grudging admiration for McCain here. He’s sticking with a position, facts and public opinion be damned.

    Agreed. And this is why I hope he wins the GOP nomination.

  • Right-wing politicians seem to be the last ones left on the war in Iraq, and left wing activists and politicians were the first to get it.

    I posted this on the previous thread- it’s a slightly changed version of an old blog post of mine:

    Re: the Iraq war in general

    (also see this post)

    Ever since the months prior to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, there have been a few reports in the newspapers that the Central Intelligence Agency was casting aspersions on the intelligence the White House was relying on to justify the war. The CIA has never given a position on whether the war is needed or justified or said that Bush is wrong to go to war. But doesn’t it seem much more likely that the CIA is an extremely right wing organization than a left wing one? After all, even if the people working for them and at least a lot of the leadership really wanted a war for their own reasons, there are a lot of reasons for them to not want to tie their credibility to what they know is faulty information. They and their personnel, present and former, could use other means of promoting the Iraq war, and still be motivated to make the statements in the media. If the CIA got behind faulty information, they would have to make a choice between whether they would be involved in scamming the American people and the world once the military had invaded Iraq and no weapons were found- so: 1) Imagine the incredible difficulties involved in pulling off a hoax that weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq. Imagine all the people you would have to be able to show the weapons to- the inspectors from the UN / the international community, the American press, statesmen, etc. Then imagine the difficulties of substantiating that story to people who would examine it- the lack of witnesses to a production plant that made the weapons or to transportation operations or storage of the weapons during Hussein’s regime of them. 2) If the story fell apart upon inspection or the CIA tried not to hoax it at all, imagine the loss of credibility they would suffer. The CIA, it is safe to bet, does not want to be known to the American people as a group that lies to them to send them to war. Even within the CIA there could be disagreement among people about how involved they should be in promoting the war or the neo-con agenda more broadly, so the CIA would have to worry about lying to and managing its own people after trying so hard to get them to trust their superiors in the agency, and perhaps there simply might be too many people in the agency who knew enough about what was going on in Iraq to know if someone was deceiving people to promote this war.

    So there is a lot of reason to be cautious against being seen as endorsing what they knew was false intelligence even if they were very strong supporters of going to war.

    Granted, it’s certainly possible the CIA could have changed their minds about the war, as a lot of people have, and could now be trying to move the nation closer to withdrawal.

  • Just a hunch….
    I figure Bush’s pioneers and no-bid contractors like Haliburton / KBR / Blackwater are planning to enhance McCain’s fortunes as a big ol’ thank you for his “unfathomable” support.

    There will be some flak for the huge cash infusions and their sources which will quickly be forgotten then McCain will give Rudy and Mitt a run for their money.

  • Boy, I can’t think of anything the country needs more than another bitter, petulant President who is completely delusional on the facts of the war, and seeks to divide the country by impugning the motives of those who disagree with him.

    Hey John, did you notice that Shrubby and Darth’s approach (and total incomptence) has made them*extremely* unpopular? Good luck with that. I’d rather be Rudy trying to win over the right while refusing to back down on abortion!

  • Now if I were a Bush supporter (perish the thought!!!—and shoot me if I start saying “nook-yoo-lurr”), I’d almost have to feel sorry for him. I mean, McCaca has got to be the ugliest, dumbest, most classless groupie on the whole freaking planet!!! He’s like a ‘Thuglican “Mini-me….”

  • I’m not going to pretend to be a Republican strategist, but I am having a hard time understanding the coherence of McCain’s approach. Apparently, his idea for turning things around is to talk like Bush, enthusiastically embrace Bush’s war, and use the kind of cynical demagoguery Bush used to use, but now shies away from.

    Ladies and gentleman, I give you John McCain’s four-more-years strategy. Apparently, he’s under the impression that what America really wants is more of the same. Let’s see how that works out.

    It makes perfect sense to me. The GOP base still likes that demagoguery — still gets sweaty in the loins from it, in fact. So McCain is going to give the base what it wants.

    Then, if he wins the nomination, he’ll count on the MSM (back in love with him because he’s a winner) to yell MAVERICK MAVERICK MAVERICK MAVERICK every time his name is mentioned. And he’s right — that will happen.

    The only problem with this plan is that the GOP base still doesn’t seem to like Bush-like cynical demagoguery from McCain. Otherwise, the plan probably would work perfectly.

  • Comments are closed.