- Subliminal Messaging, or Over-Active Imaginations?
- VEEPBEAT: Contenders Off Radar as Obama Travels
- Team Clinton Gearing Up for 2012?
- Rice to Meet with North Korea Next Week
- The Note: Obama Poised for High-Profile Trip
- McCain Touts Surge Success Before Obama's Overseas Trip
- Hearing-Gate Exposed! McCain Has Worse Afghanistan Hearing Record Than Obama
- Bill Clinton Says He's Ready to Campaign for Obama
- Obama Blasts Conservative Attacks Against Wife: 'Debate Me Not Her'
- Biden hits back - More on Obama's Committee
- Obama Hits the Gym, With Multiple Repetitions
- Gore To Issue Clean Energy Challenge
- The Note: Foreign Trip Taking Shape for Obama
- Obama Raises $52 Million in June
- Religious Group Demands McCain Staffer's Ouster
« Clinton Makes Rocky Balboa Look like a Pansy? | Main | Clinton vs. O'Reilly: The Interview »
McCain Once Worried About Impact of Long-Term US Presence in Iraq
Email
ShareApril 29, 2008 12:23 PM
ABC News' Teddy Davis and Mike Elmore Report: Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., once seemed to reject a long-term U.S. troop presence in Iraq even if those troops were stationed in a fortified place. McCain's 2005 comments appear to be somewhat at odds with a position he has spoken favorably of in the 2008 campaign.
Appearing on MSNBC's "Hardball" on Jan. 31, 2005, Chris Matthews asked McCain if the US could get along without making Iraq "the home of a U.S. garrison".
"I not only think we could get along without it," said McCain, "but I think one of our big problems has been the fact that many Iraqis resent American military presence."
The tension between McCain's 2005 position and his 2008 position was first reported this morning by HuffingtonPost.
The HuffingtonPost story neglects to include the portion of the Hardball transcript in which McCain showed consistency. Just as he has done in his 2008 campaign, McCain said in 2005 that "the key" is "not when the troops come home" but rather when the casualties will stop.
". . . the fact is that the key to it is not when the troops come home," said McCain. ". . . It is the casualties that creates the discontent amongst Americans. We`ve been in Bosnia for, what, 10, 12, years, Kosovo for 10 years, South Korea for 50 years. Americans aren't upset about that."
Asked about the 2005 Hardball interview, McCain spokesman Brian Rogers sought to debunk what he called the "urban legend" of the Arizona senator's "100 Years" remarks at a New Hampshire town-hall meeting in January 2008.
"He has made very clear that any post-war presence would be subject to an agreement between sovereign governments," Rogers told ABC News. "He has never specifically said that it's desirable to have 50,000 troops in a garrison. What he said is that should you get to a point where it is in our interest and in the mutual interest of Iraq and American national security to have a long-term presence. He thinks that would be acceptable to the American people."
McCain's "100 Years" comments are currently the subject of a Democratic National Committee television ad targeting McCain on national cable.
April 29, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (8)
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/433071/28606498
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference McCain Once Worried About Impact of Long-Term US Presence in Iraq:
It is not just a matter of being there it is a matter of defining what our purpose is there. We have not had that definition. The mission was accomplished, yet we are still there. We are not going to get out by digging in deeper.
Posted by: Louis | Apr 29, 2008 12:35:47 PM
Mc Cain is running a lousy campaign. He doesnt need to defend the base of his party. Do they want OBAMA instead? lol.
He needs to break away from the bush administration, citing a NEW republican party. A NEW party based on comprimise with democrats. Mc Cain can back up that claim.
If he moves to the center and confinscates the major democratic rhetoric, he can make the election about CHARACTER.
He wins a CHARACTER debate with Obama. He LOSES an 'issues' debate with democrats. All he has to do is take a page out of Obamas book.
Obama simply COPIED much of Clintons platform to neutralize her advantage of experience with the issues.
Mc Cain needs to do the same. If he can do this, he will CRUSH Obama.
If he faces Clinton, he will have to backpeddle and go back to the Republican base and conservative issues to win.
Posted by: tomdavie | Apr 29, 2008 12:38:17 PM
Seems like McCain has gotten stupider. At least in 2005 he said something that made sense. Only Ron Paul understands why 911 happened and how a changed attitude with regards to foreign policy will bring about significant change in the world. McCain is dangerous. He is trying to stoke terrorism fear into the republican electorate. We should be more worried about Monsanto splicing in Roundup pesticides into plant DNA and purple ketchup than a group of thugs.
Posted by: Ben Straub | Apr 29, 2008 1:01:38 PM
We keep hearing how McCain meant that american troops would be in Iraq for 100 years but only as a military presence like Japan or South Korea or Bosnia. Well Japan and South Korea aren't in a civil war and the troops in Bosnia are token. The following is an excert from an article from the AP on November 25, 2004
"NATO will be handing over the peacekeeping mission to the European Union on Dec. 2, which means a withdrawal of most of the 700 U.S. troops currently in Bosnia. They will be replaced by E.U. personnel, with the biggest contingent coming from Finland.
About 150 U.S. troops will stay at Eagle Base to help local authorities adopt defense reforms and hunt war crime suspects."
So is McCain suggesting that we will only have 150 troops in Iraq or the 140,000 plus that are there now.
Posted by: JR | Apr 29, 2008 1:14:33 PM
This is a Non-Story!
There is no conflict in what he said
then and now!
Posted by: reaganfan | Apr 29, 2008 2:05:21 PM
Ben Straub: Agreed
Posted by: antenian | Apr 29, 2008 2:34:38 PM
He needs to break away from the bush administration, citing a NEW republican party. A NEW party based on comprimise with democrats.
------------------------------------
That would certainly be a "NEW" party for Republicans, whose obstructionism has been paramount the past two years. The problem is McCain can't even control an old woman running a nasty ad from North Carolina's Republican Party - he sure isn't going to have much influence over Republicans in Congress. He also has a history of bullying - a more significant issue that the media barely talks about - but then, it would be considered "news" only if it came from his former preacher.
Posted by: kevinbgoode | Apr 30, 2008 5:10:32 AM
This line makes little sense:
"The HuffingtonPost story neglects to include the portion of the Hardball transcript in which McCain showed consistency."
The point was not that every single thing that McCain says is inconsistent with something else that he said, but to point out an inconsistency regarding a key Iraq issue. This does not mean that what McCain is consistent on -- that casualties are key in terms of U.S. views (OBVIOUSLY) -- is somehow required to be reported in a story pointing out a major inconsistency.
If someone points out an error or other issue about an ABC story, is that report "neglectful" if it does not then take space and time to report on other matters that ABC reported correctly?
Posted by: Bud Weiser | Jun 2, 2008 1:13:33 AM
Post a comment
