‘We will win this conflict. We will win it easily’

January 6, 2007

MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann, reading a Think Progress post nearly word for word last night, reminded me that it’s time to update the list of John McCain’s flip-flops. From last night’s Countdown:

The winner [of the daily Worst Person in the World] is Sen. John McCain (R) of Arizona, [who] told us today that he knew that the war in Iraq war was “probably going to be long and hard and tough,” and that he was “sorry” for anybody who voted it thinking it would be “some kind of an easy task.”

Sen. McCain on CNN on Sept. 24, 2002: “I believe that the success will be fairly easy.”

Sen. McCain on CNN on Sept. 29, 2002: “We’re not going to have a bloodletting of trading American bodies for Iraqi bodies.”

Sen. McCain on this network on Jan. 22, 2003: “We will win this conflict. We will win it easily.”

What’s that’s called again? Flip-flopping? Senator, we keep all the tapes of these interviews. C’mon!

Of course, you know what this means — it’s time to update the list of McCain’s biggest flip-flops as he transforms himself from maverick hero to right-wing hack. We’re up to 13 now.

* McCain went from saying he would not support repeal of [tag]Roe v. Wade[/tag] to saying the exact opposite.

* McCain criticized TV preacher [tag]Jerry Falwell[/tag] as “an agent of intolerance” in 2002, but has since decided to cozy up to the man who said Americans “deserved” the 9/11 attacks. (Indeed, McCain has now hired Falwell’s debate coach.)

* McCain used to oppose Bush’s [tag]tax cuts[/tag] for the very wealthy, but he reversed course in February.

* In 2000, McCain accused Texas businessmen Sam and Charles Wyly of being corrupt, spending “dirty money” to help finance Bush’s presidential campaign. McCain not only filed a complaint against the Wylys for allegedly violating campaign finance law, he also lashed out at them publicly. In April, McCain reached out to the Wylys for support.

* McCain supported a major campaign-finance reform measure that bore his name. In June, he abandoned his own legislation.

* McCain used to think that Grover Norquist was a crook and a corrupt shill for dictators. Then McCain got serious about running for president and began to reconcile with Norquist.

* McCain took a firm line in opposition to torture, and then caved to White House demands.

* McCain gave up on his signature policy issue, [tag]campaign-finance reform[/tag], and won’t back the same provision he sponsored just a couple of years ago.

* McCain was against presidential candidates campaigning at Bob Jones University before he was for it.

* McCain was anti-ethanol. Now he’s pro-ethanol.

* McCain was both for and against state promotion of the Confederate flag.

* McCain decided in 2000 that he didn’t want anything to do with former Secretary of State Henry [tag]Kissinger[/tag], believing he “would taint the image of the ‘Straight Talk Express.'” Kissinger is now the Honorary Co-Chair for his presidential campaign in New York.

And now McCain has gone from insisting that the war in Iraq would be easy to insisting that he’s always said the war in Iraq would be hard. And yet, you’ll still find most of the political establishment arguing that McCain’s strength as a candidate is his credibility.

This nation needs to call McCain what he really is: a liar and a political sell-out.

  • Peorado is right in #1. When you claim you never believed what you said, then you’re lying.

    Maybe instead of McCain’s credibility, it’s his credulousness that people are noticing. Or maybe just his expectation of the ignorant credulousness of stupid right-wingers, oh, and the MSM.

  • McCain’s claim that he always knew the war would be hard is much worse then his claiming it would be easy. The whole Bush PR campaign was that it would be easy. A lot of people thought it would be easy (after the first Gulf War was so successful). And as Ed has pointed out, the defeat of Saddam was relatively easy. It was the after-warparty where things went to hell.

  • Don’t forget the most unforgivable flip-flop of all: He said he’d off himself if Dems took the majority and he hasn’t. Or maybe he tried but the bullet just bounced around, shredding what little brain he has left…

    Since Doonesbury portrayed Clinton as a big waffle. I bet he’d draw McCain as a giant pancake. Drawing a house of cards with no cards on the bottom would be too difficult.

    But I’m not worried about the STE driving into the Oval Office. It’s only a matter of time before he’s caught giving BJs to key members of Das Base.

    Now if you’ll excuse me, I must go pour bleach on my brain to get rid of that image. [urp!]

  • Maybe the alternative media should lighten up on McCain in the hope that he will be nominated. He would make a fine target in the general election.

  • John McCain (R-Ariz), spelled sideways, is “Join him, narc czar”. Or, with the two-letter abbreviation for Arizona, “Manic czar John”. Both are apt.

  • At least Junior and Dead-Eye-Dick deserve a little (darn little) credit for being consistent in their proclamations about the “flowers and kisses-mission accomplished” nonsense. As far as they’re concerned the whole ugly conflict is just a “success that hasn’t happened yet.”

    Poor Johnny Mc doesn’t know on any particular day what his opinion will be the next day. He’s making himself a good target in the race for the White House next year. My own personal favorite for the Republican nominee is Newt Gingrich, who wanted to declare that little temper tantrum between Israel and Hamas recently as being World War lll. Apparently the words World and War linked together have not penetrated his mutant brain!

  • Seems like he’s all over the map, presenting the ’08 narrative “when they don’t try my impossible plan, I can claim it would have won the war if they’d only listened to me.” When there was no chance at escalation, he called for 20K troops. When Bush called his bluff at 20, he went for 30K troops. That’s all after (both men) saying troop levels were fine or at least that no escalation was coming. Bush smells like he’s working for another candidate, or at least against this one. Meanwhile, McCain is showing himself to be easily manipulated and shallow; qualities we need in a leader.

  • McCain is not running for the ’08 nomination. He is sucking up to Bush so that he can replace Cheney when he soon resigns for “health reasons.” Bush will resign also, leaving McCain as the incumbent running in ’08 (with a nice pardon for Bush and Cheney).

  • When I was a member of a folk-singing group in San Francisco, back in the early ’60s, we used to do a satirical song called “The Vicar of Bray” … about an English Bishop who changed his philosophy/religion with every shift in politics. Lyrics pretty close to ours are here. Does a pretty good job of skewering those who, like McCain, have utterly no principles except their own well-being.

  • I used to admire Senator John McCain before he decided that, to win the presidency at all costs, he needed to join those who had done dirty, despicable tricks to him in his previous bids for the presidency.

    It seems to this senator, his bid for the presidency is now more important than keeping his scruples and doing what’s best for his country. His credibility went from 100 % to below 0 %; if one can achieve that “honor,” he certainly has.

    Congratulations, Senator John McCain, on being the world’s worst blatant “flip-flopper.”

  • In order to appeal to a base of political misfits, one must demonstrate superior political misfitdom”

    “Defining John McCain”
    (Me, January 6, 2007)

  • Those of us who have had to endure him for many years here in Arizona have always seen him as a lot more devious than portrayed by his more recent and carefully crafted public image. There are lots of warning flags, the Keating Savings & Loan scandal the most prominent. The question might be that if he is willing to sell his soul to the hard-right this early in the election process (when most people are ignoring the antics) does he intend to morph back into Mr.-straight-shooter-from-the-“rational”-right? By “suddenly” seeing the light, does he hope to charm the moderates?

  • I agree with steve ex-expat. I’ve long believed that Cheney would resign prior to 2008, so that Bush (and/or Cheney) could pick the inevitable GOP nominee in 2008.

  • Ed Stephan wrote:

    we used to do a satirical song called “The Vicar of Bray” … about an English Bishop who changed his philosophy/religion with every shift in politics.

    I am neither poet nor writer but it would not seem too dificult to transform:

    And this is law, I will maintain
    Unto my Dying Day, Sir.
    That whatsoever King may reign,
    I will be the Vicar of Bray, Sir!

    to:

    And this is truthy, I will maintain
    Unto my dying day, Sir.
    Whatever the facts that stand in my way,
    I will be the President, Sir!

    I leave the verses to the versifiers 🙂

  • The elites have determined that McCain stands a good chance of winning against Democrats. He will win the nomination.

  • Ed, Great anagram. I don’t know if you are aware of this site which generates anagrams. Here are a couple more anagrams for John McCain (R-Ariz): Can I Rim Czar John Monarch Zinc Jar I

  • We want him as their ’08 candidate. Years ago we tired of the media hyping this political whore as THE moderate/independent of the Republican party. Pry his lips off George’s ass and show him history’s Bob Dole dust bin.

  • I call McCain The Model Prisoner.
    It’s ironic that he’s most famous for failing his mission, getting captured and then doing really really well as a prisoner.

    He’s been living off that experience ever since and has never done anything since to equal it.

  • I once admired John McCain, even though he was a Republican, for what came across as a nascent nobility – an ability to stay clean in a mucky environment via a seeming simple honesty, kind of like being the only one sober in a crowd of drunken partiers without a shred of responsibility or care. He did indeed have an air about him of believability, like he would tell you the way the situation was without qualification or embellishment, even if he knew you didn’t want to hear it and it would not be well-received. He came across as less concerned with power than with being right.

    Sadly, all that is gone, as he shills for the highest bidder. The lesson of “being President means never having to say you’re sorry” appears to have been taken on board without question. I’m curious what he was offered to make him abandon his principles (if they were ever genuine to begin with) so completely. Surely he doesn’t think the American public is as gullible as Bush does?

  • I think McCain just decided that the best way to win his heart’s desire, the presidency, he should say whatever he needs to whatever rightwing support group he happens to be speaking to. He has learned all to well that the wingnuts, whose votes he needs will have little use for close analysis of his wild inconsistencies (good job by the way CB; this is a keeper for future reference).

    Good lord, they’re still willing to trust Bush with war plans in Iraq – as KO asked, what in the world as he done to deserve our trust in his ability to plan for anything? The koolaid drinkers don’t care – so long as there isn’t some bleeding heart (read: person who cares about others) liberal, they’ll support them fully and trash anyone who dares to criticize their chosen one.

  • Make no mistake, the Iraq war is a disaster.

    A disaster from day one.

    The only question now, is how much will it cost

    Those that lost a loved one, or a serviceman who lost a limb, already have their answer – the rest of us are still calculating

    The responsibility to declare war, is given to congress, and congress alone via the constitution from our founding fathers

    yet, this power was transfered to a known drunk driver, G Bush

    Who gave the keys of war, a change of policy to first strike, delegated to an extreme concentration of power to an unworthy ‘decider’ G Bush?

    Well, one of the co-sponsors of the Iraq war resolution, was none other than John Edwards – he of course, voted for it also

    Now, he tells us he admits it was a mistake

    Think about it – if YOU gave your keys to a drunk driver 10 years ago in north carolina, and many people got killed and injured, and you admitted you made a mistake

    would john edwards have advocated you get a big promotion?

    or would he have taken you to the cleaners?

  • Let’s add to the list the Swift Boat affair. McCain first demands that President Bush tell the Swift Boat liars to cease their attacks on John Kerry. Bush ignores this demand and allows the Swifties to run two more dishonest attack ads. So what does McCain? Campaign for Bush – of course.

  • NEWS FLASH!!!

    Andy F has just turned a post from [insert topic] to how bad John Edwards is. Still following…..

  • my post IS about the war

    and what part of what i said isnt true?

    (by the way, have i convinced you i’m not a fan of Bush yet?)

  • Unlike Andy F, some people learn from their mistakes. I don’t know though that anyone should be held accountable for their vote back then. Strictly speaking, it wasn’t a declaration of war, and we were all lied to by the Bush Crime Family.

  • shouldnt be held accountable?

    this jerk made tens of millions holding people accountable

    Again, the founding fathers gave Congress responsibility for war, NOT the President! – delegation war to the president was questionable constitutionally, and Sen Byrde said just that

    Not only were they transferring power away from congress, the were also changing American’s long time stance AGAINST first strike

    No first strike was they lynchpin of Mutually Assured Destruction, a horrible policy, but the only thing that got us through the cold war without nuclear war – we assured the we wouldnt NOT strike first, so no need to strike us – how can we ever assure people that now?

    How can you support someone with a very short record of public service, who makes disasterous errors, adn cant be held accountable?????

  • I thought it was really neat that Olbermann named Mc Cain — *both of them* — the worst person ever…

  • How is it that the engineer of the Straight Talk Express has such a severe comb-over? How could he be such a straight talker if he can’t even be true to himself?

  • Can we please stop using the phrase “flip-flop” as a verb? It sounds just as dumb now as it did in 2004. Just call him an opportunist hypocrite and have done with it.

  • We really shouldn’t even be discouraging “flip-flopping.” Whats wrong with changing your mind. I think an open mind is important, and only people with closed minds can’t change it. Accusations of lying and hypocracy, and name calling are meerly attacks on the man, not his policy. Its called “ad hominum.” it means appeal the the man. Its like a 2000 year old argument falicy. I know that valid argument is different from politics, but I’d sorta like to see that change.

  • None of this should surprise anyone. McCain learned the hard way in 2000 which dicks you have to suck to win the Republican nomination. He’s been down on his knees ever since.

  • McCain owes this country his suicide.

    Once he gets that out of the way, I’ll start listening to what he has to say.

  • Damn, if this is the worst we’ve got on McCain, the Dems are screwed. Seriously, this stuff is pissweak. Pedantic at best.

    Compared to the quantity of shit you can dig up on Clinton, this is puny.

    It’s obvious we’re not going to defeat him on negatives.

  • I don’t think you should call this flip-flopping.

    Frankly I’m tired of that particular phrase. So often “flip flopping” is changing one’s mind, being smart, being flexible. The accusation of flip flopping is too often used as a political tool to make a strong sound bite with no real substance.

    I would call this simply “being wrong” and “lying about it later.”

  • Corporate media is totally in the tank with St John McCain.

    He can lie, flip flop all he wants and they will continue fawning over him, praising his honesty and integrity and calling him straight talker.

  • Michael7843853 said (See Comment 5):

    “Maybe the alternative media should lighten up on McCain in the hope that he will be nominated. He would make a fine target in the general election.”

    Now you’re thinking. That’s the kind of manipulation they’ve been up to for a couple of centuries. One of the reasons they support both sides in any war is so that they can choose the leaders they want to beat. We need to start planning the same way…

  • Mark (#21), I’m with you, and might go further. I think McCain — at one time — did seem to have the potential to be very good, possibly great. And that’s despite my knowledge that, even at that time, his voting record in Congress had been way more extreme — on the right end of course — than most of the liberal McCainiacs were willing to admit to (if they even knew).
    Here are two of my data points, both of them partly derived from seeing him on the stump in New Hampshire a couple of times during the primary campaign:
    first, there was one event at which there were a bunch of enviro protesters dressed up as trees. When one of the trees got the mic in the Q+A part of the rally, and challenged McCain on his global warming stance, McCain gave the tree a respectful listen, and asked what the tree would suggest as a solution. Tree didn’t have much to say by way of specifics. But when this colloquy was over, and before the next person took the mic, McCain said something along these lines: “I’m not convinced yet. But I’ve got an open mind on this, and I’m willing to be convinced. But you’ve got to give me data, and you’ve got to give me solutions. Here’s how to contact my chief of staff, or whoever, to give them all your info.” And as we know, McCain became one of the very few Republicans even to acknowledge, let alone support some kind of action on, global warming. But even aside from the respect points he deserves for this, let me ask: how many Democratic candidates would even give a respectful listen to, say, a pro-NRA protester dressed as a gun at a campaign rally, let alone take a public anti-gun-control stance?
    Here’s the other one, also from campaign appearances in NH: in the 2000 primaries, when some Democrats were castigating John Edwards for his focus on “two Americas” (class warfare! politics of envy!), McCain was expressing his concern about the increasing disparities of income and wealth. To be sure, he had to make his obeisances to capitalism and the usual “free-market” delusions. He would emphasize that he didn’t want to bring the wealthy down, but to bring everyone else up. But still, and again — how many Republican candidates would even admit to the problem, let alone express an intent to address it?
    I really believe that, had McCain agreed to be Kerry’s running mate in ’04, he would not only have assured a Kerry win, he would have positioned himself to be a great “unity” President in ’12.
    But of course, he made the opposite choice. The path that I believe he could have taken will never happen now. Believing as he clearly does (and is right) that he can’t get thru the Repuke primaries without sucking up to (sucking off?) the Christofascists (if they’ll even go for that at this point, no matter how strongly their Repuke masters urge them to), he’s inevitably put himself in places that even the moderates, let alone the liberals, who supported him before, will no longer accept. And rightfully so, of course.
    I don’t know why he chose to stay with a party whose base can never elect him. But had he chosen to write them off, and run either as an independent (after joining a Kerry administration) or even as a Democrat (ditto), he might still be the McCain that he could have been, which I truly believe could have been a truly great leader.
    I blame the patriarchy, of course.

  • McCain’s claim that he always knew the war would be hard is much worse then his claiming it would be easy. The whole Bush PR campaign was that it would be easy. A lot of people thought it would be easy (after the first Gulf War was so successful). And as Ed has pointed out, the defeat of Saddam was relatively easy. It was the after-warparty where things went to hell. Hell, why did I vote for Bush in the first place. That liberal son of a bitch was supposed to cut taxes not raise money for wars.

  • Well, we could have easily managed to have Hillarly lead us but she is too on the fence for the sides she wants to be. He is definately flip flopping only because he is inconcise with what he is thinking and very uncoordinated. We need obama to run and win.

  • He would emphasize that he didn’t want to bring the wealthy down, but to bring everyone else up. But still, and again — how many Republican candidates would even admit to the problem, let alone express an intent to address it?

  • A more apt time than ever to bring back this discussion.

    Funny that Romney took flak throughout his campaign for flip-flopping (and rightfully so)–which many would argue to be the main reason his campaign tanked. Meanwhile John McCain will march on to take the GOP nomination, and I haven’t heard *much talk in the popular media about McCain flip-flopping.

    *read “any”

    • Comments are closed.