McCain Watch

by digby

Finally, a questioner lays it all on the line: “The war’s the big issue,” he says, adding, “Some kind of disengagement—it’s going to have to happen. It’s a big issue for you, for our party, in 24 months. It’s not that long a time.” McCain replies, “I do believe this issue isn’t going to be around in 2008. I think it’s going to either tip into civil war … ” He breaks off, as if not wanting to rehearse the handful of other unattractive possibilities. “Listen,” he says, “I believe in prayer. I pray every night.” And that’s where he leaves his discussion of the war this morning: at the kneeling rail.

On the way to our next stop, McCain tells me, “It’s just so hard for me to contemplate failure that I can’t make the next step.”

There you have it. So because St John and Junior and the rest of these macho Republican heroes can’t “face” failure, with or without an escalation, more Americans will have to die in the Iraq meatgrinder for their vanity. Jesus H. Christ.

Here’s today’s dispatch from the rabbit hole:

The 2006 election has not changed Sen. John McCain’s support for victory in Iraq one iota.

While some Democrats have interpreted their party’s triumphs in last November’s balloting as a call by voters to end the U.S. deployment in Iraq, McCain, a leading contender for the 2008 GOP presidential nomination, made it clear Friday he doesn’t see it that way.

McCain seems to be launching his 2008 campaign by taking the role of foremost advocate of sending significantly more troops for long-term deployment to Iraq.

“There are two keys to any surge of U.S. troops: to be of value, it must substantial and it must be sustained,” he declared in a speech at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), a think tank that is home to some of the most hawkish strategists on Iraq.

Just to make sure everyone in the overflow audience got the point, McCain repeated that phrase: “it must substantial and it must be sustained.”

[…]

In their comments at AEI both McCain and Lieberman seemed to be concerned that Bush might shy away from a big increase in U.S. forces in Iraq.

McCain said, “The worst of all worlds would be a small, short surge of US forces. We’ve tried small surges in the past and they’ve been ineffective.”

Very brave words from a man who just read in the papers that Bush was not going to send in a sustained and substantial increase because the military doesn’t have enough troops. “If he’d have done what I wanted, we could have won.” How convenient.

Meanwhile, the two maverick lovebirds gave each other big smacking kisses:

McCain “is taking a position that is not based on putting his finger in the air and gauging the direction of the political winds,” said his ally, Sen. Joe Lieberman, an independent Democrat from Connecticut who just won re-election. “He is doing what he sincerely believes is best for the national security and safety of our country…. John’s taking a gutsy position”

Lieberman added, pointedly, “I just finished an election campaign. If rumors are correct, he may be starting one. And he’s not taking the easy way out here.”

Not exactly. He’s taking a risk that Bush will not be able to scrape up enough troops for a “sustained and significant” surge of 20,000 or more troops so that he can throw up his hands and say that nobody listened to him. Lieberman chose another path which was to lie baldly to the voters of Connecticut and say that he wanted to end the war and bring the troops home. Both are dishonest bloodthirsty warmongers, but in entirely different ways.

McCain cited Lieberman’s decisive victory over anti-war Democrat Ned Lamont as proof that the electorate was not clamoring for withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq.

“Of course I disagree” with the notion that last November’s election was a mandate to end the Iraq deployment, McCain said heatedly in comments to reporters. Gesturing to Lieberman at his side, McCain said, “There’s no way this guy could have been re-elected if it was as simple as that. Americans are frustrated and angry and that frustration and anger is justified. But when you ask most Americans should we get out right away, most of them say no.”

By Republican logic that means that they favor a “sustained and significant” escalation.

We are getting into a totally crazy, hallucinogenic situation here. For example, I just heard Charles Krauthammer sound almost sane, complaining that we can’t possibly secure Iraq while it’s in the middle of a civil war. That’s how nuts it is.

Thankfully, as of today anyway, the Democrats are speaking in a unified, forceful voice against this insanity, which is very good news.

Our troops and the American people have already sacrificed a great deal for the future of Iraq. After nearly four years of combat, tens of thousands of U.S. casualties, and over $300 billion dollars, it is time to bring the war to a close. We, therefore, strongly encourage you to reject any plans that call for our getting our troops any deeper into Iraq. We want to do everything we can to help Iraq succeed in the future but, like many of our senior military leaders, we do not believe that adding more U.S. combat troops contributes to success.

Update: Don’t miss today’s “thank you” from Kate O’Beirne to the people of Connecticut. They must be very proud.

.