Jump To » Mobile / Confirm Them / Right Shelf / Sports / State Blogs / About / Contact / Help / Posting Rules / Conservative Book Club / Human Events
Just a Company of American paratroopers, a guitar plugged
into the outpost's PA system, and a whole lot of demolitions.
May 15 McCain Blogger Conference Call
McCain Answers, Does Not Eat Waffle
By Dan McLaughlin Posted in 2008 | Bloggers | John McCain — Comments (21) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Senator McCain just finished a conference call with bloggers. Most of the call was dominated by discussion of Iraq and Iran, specifically Senator Obama's reaction to President Bush's remarks in Israel, Senator McCain's thoughts on negotiating with Iran and Senator McCain's thoughts on his announced goal to win the war in Iraq by 2013. Here are the highlights:
Senator McCain set out his definition of victory in Iraq, including control of the country by the Maliki government, the Iraqi military taking over responsibility and U.S. troops out of harms way and reducing U.S. troop presence, but he stressed that this does not mean we leave Iraq, or that there is not still "sporadic fighting." He again analogized a long-term presence in Iraq to those in Kuwait and Korea.
Senator McCain specifically stated that he looks forward to having with Sen. Obama or Clinton a "debate as to whether we are winning or not" in Iraq. He stressed repeatedly the importance of the "facts on the ground."
He emphasized that he is not announcing a date for withdrawal by setting a 2013 goal. When a questioner characterized his speech as a withdrawal date he was quite firm in telling her that "you either didn't read or didn't understand my speech" and said it "should be fairly apparent" that he picked 2013 because that would be the end of his first term and he's saying what he intends to accomplish.
Turning to Iran, Sen. McCain said he took Pres. Bush at his word that in his remarks on the dangers of appeasement he was not referring to Sen. Obama, but he did note "such a vociferous reaction" by Sen. Obama and characterized as the "highest degree of naivete and inexperience" to negotiate with Iran when the Iranian leadership refers to Israel as "a stinking corpse" and threatens to wipe Israel off the map and supports terrorism and the insurgency in Iraq, emphasizing that such talks would only lend prestige to the Iranian regime.
As Sen. McCain described Sen. Obama's proposal for such talks: "what is it that he wants to talk about?"
Sen. McCain then laid out his conditions for talking with Iran: renounce threats against Israel, renounce nuclear ambitions, stop supplying "lethal explosive devices" to insurgents in Iraq. He noted that he'd be willing to offer incentives to Iran but they would have to make those steps first. He also noted that U.S. Ambassador Crocker, in Iraq, has tried talking with the Iranian Ambassador there (despite the lack of formal diplomatic relations) but has met with nothing but intransigence.
A few more random points:
In response to Jim Geraghty's question about Obama trying to lie about having proposed talks with Iran, Sen. McCain noted that Sen. Obama has told different audiences different things about NAFTA (being against it in Ohio and pro-free-trade in NC), and also noted that the Canadians responded to Sen. Obama's threat to unilaterally renegotiate NAFTA by saying they'd have to sell oil to China instead.
He also promised to try to do regular blogger calls even in the White House.
In response to a question about the influence of Newt Gingrich on his thinking, Sen. McCain said of Newt: "he has some of the best ideas in this country" and he has read some of Newt's books.
Sen. McCain reiterated his strong support for nuclear power and blamed President Carter for ceasing the reprocessing of spent fuel.
Answering a question about veterans' healthcare, Sen. McCain noted his support from veterans groups and promised to match his record of the same against anyone. He noted that he wants to work with Sen. Webb and that he supports letting veterans go to local non-VA health providers for routine care. He stressed that a key goal is "encouraging people to stay in the military" but that it's also important to support the mission, not just care for the wounded.
Finally, in response to questions about appointing Democrats to his Administration, Sen. McCain stated that he would intend to do so but won't specify to what jobs and that he has to "get a running mate first" before he thinks of that.
« The Bloom Is Off The Rose — Comments (1) | Touchy — Comments (88) »
May 15 McCain Blogger Conference Call 21 Comments (0 topical, 21 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
I'm hoping that Newt has a prominent place in McCain's administration. VP is probably too much to hope for, unfortunately.
---
Finrod's First Law of Bandwidth:
A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it takes the bandwidth of ten thousand.
I'd settle for an untitled advisorship. n/t
by simpson316
McCain is really growing on me
by justatron
And not in the horrible fungus sort of way...
The killer line for me in this exchange is when he wonders what exactly it is that Obama wants to talk to Iran about. That would make a great ad for McCain.
Just ask Robert Gates
by ol
He seems to have a few ideas on what one might talk with Iran. See here.
I think McCain will be a much stronger candidate
by goldenboy
than many people think. He is good at cutting to the chase and saying things that are repeatable and reportable. Sadly, this is what it takes in the news cycle we have that does not reward long answers.
I know many are non-plused by McCain, but I don't think it will be wise to stay at home in November and destroy the country in the name of saving it.
It's never a good idea to lose a war.
"The most dangerous form in which oppression can overshadow a community is that of popular sway" -James Fenimore Cooper
I am breathing a little easier now.
by Section9
Given McCain's clumsy handling of earlier Obama attacks, I expected the worst.
What I like here is the sense of coordination and the elegant strategy.
To wit: Obama is down in the mud with Bush. Which is right where Bush wants him. Obama should have kept his mouth shut. Instead, he forgot the old aphorism:
'Tis better to go through life and only play the fool, rather than open one's mouth and immediately remove all doubt.
McCain gets to gently criticize Obama, not back away from Bush's critique at all, yet stay above the battle in Statesman Mode, pointing out Obama's contradictions and the Fuhrerbunker Language of Ahmadhi-Nejad.
Even Lieberman joined in, giving the critique legitimacy with Jewish voters. That's what hurts.
I am pleasantly surprised at this level of coordination from the usually incoherent Team Maverick. A pleasand distraction from that all-over-the-map 2013 commercial.
"History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it"-Winston Churchill
It was a good call
by mike volpe
I think that along with painting Obama as a defeatist because he wants to set a timetable for withdrawal, Obama's insistence on meeting with Iran will be his second biggest line of attack foreign policy wise.
I would also point out that McCain linked Obama's foreign policy positions to his lack of experience which he would be wise to repeat as often as possible. Unless people see the consequence of a lack of experience they won't see why it is a problem.
Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor
The Defeatism Is Important
by Dan McLaughlin
because it shows the limits of Obama's "yes, we can" attitude - he does not actually believe we can defeat our enemies. Which is, ironically, one of the few things our government actually does have a consistent history of doing well.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
The problem is that 60% of the country agrees with him
by shooflyguy68
We can call it defeatism but the majority of Americans call it a good idea. As a matter of fact, he can probably spin the retreat as an example of "yes we can". Politically, the war in Iraq is a problem for the GOP. The best we can hope for is relative quiet in Iraq and at least a couple of steps of progress by the Iraqi government.
Wishful thinking
by shooflyguy68
I think that the chaos in Iraq caused by poor planning in the Pentagon and WH are the root cause of America's opposition to the war. However, if you look at polls now, large percentages not only want us out but also think it was a bad idea to go into Iraq in the first place. Neither of those results show that American's want to "win" the war. Today and likely through November, arguing for staying in Iraq is a bad political position no matter the merits of the case.
Mmmm hmmm
by E Pluribus Unum
Seriously doubt your first sentence. And your second sentence. And your third and fourth sentences as well.
Show me a poll (not from ABC, WP, NYT, MSNBC, Reuters or other noted commie cesspools) that is from 2008 from which conclusions like that can be drawn, and I'll consider buying into that.
Unfair. Unbalanced. Unmedicated. -- IMAO
So you want to see a poll of Red Staters
by shooflyguy68
published in the National Review as proof. Hmmm. You can believe or "feel" what you like. I hope you are right, but I feel that you are wrong and it will cost us in November.
Nice straw man
by E Pluribus Unum
Rasmussen, Gallup, Zogby - universally respected and unbiased polls. It's silly to suggest I was not after serious polls - just not communist polls where the questions are slanted in order to achieve the pre-ordained anti-American results.
No poll EVER commissioned which asks "do you want us to win the war in Iraq" will ever show Americans as wanting to cut and run. Never. Polls asking "do you approve of the job the US is doing in Iraq" do not differentiate those who are anti-war from those who are just angry at all the dithering.
Unfair. Unbalanced. Unmedicated. -- IMAO
I don't think I've see a poll that
by shooflyguy68
asks if Americans want to win in Iraq. That's a good question. I'll google later. I do know, however, that when asked if invading Iraq was a "good idea", the numbers saying "no" are now approaching 60%. That's the problem.
I would LOVE to see the good
by destroyr
I would LOVE to see the good Senator hijack Obama's slogan in a commercial or debate. Something to the tune of "Can we win the war on terror? YES WE CAN!"
I have been pushing that idea already
by Dan McLaughlin
and will probably have a front pager on it eventually.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
Very good start by McCain
by sinz52
I'm really glad McCain is trying to put Obama on the defensive over this Iran business.
I'm pretty sure I know what Obama wants to talk about: There are those on the Left who think that the U.S. could offer Iran a non-aggression pact (i.e., give up on the possibility of regime change there) in exchange for some concessions by Iran. But what they fail to realize is that a) By his own words, Obama has already taken the military option off the table by policy, making such a non-aggression pact worthless--the Iranians already know Obama would never attack them; and b) Iran holds the oil card as a trump card.
The only thing I wish McCain had mentioned, is that just as a military buildup was an absolutely necessary bargaining chip for Reagan in the Cold War, energy independence has to be an absolutely necessary bargaining chip now in the War on Terror.
Ahmedinijad's own oil industry advisers have reportedly told him that any military attack by the U.S. on Iran that disrupts oil production and shipment there would send world oil prices soaring to over $300 per barrel--maybe as high as $400 per barrel, driven by speculation. Which would be a body blow to the oil-dependent American economy. That's why Ahmedinjad regards any American military threats as a bluff, and why he regards America as a paper tiger.
Unless that is corrected, any "negotiation" between America and Iran will be nothing but a thinly disguised surrender.
good job..
by Pentagon16
I like what he has been saying for the last few days..
"Small town folks get bitter after which they cling to guns or religion, or antipathy to people who aren't like them, or anti-immigrant sentiment, or anti-trade sentiment."
more than that..
by Pentagon16
I have a full 26 page paper on news articles describing Obama's anti-Israel advisors (Malley who met with Hamas), McPeak who brought up the old "Jews control the government" canard, Samantha Power (Israel annihilated poor Jenin), Brzenski, Tony Lake, Kurtzer, Khalidi, Edward Said, Nadhmi Auchi).. there is so much to attack Obama on- it should NOT be simply wanting to talk with Iran but his ENTIRE WORLDVIEW..
"Small town folks get bitter after which they cling to guns or religion, or antipathy to people who aren't like them, or anti-immigrant sentiment, or anti-trade sentiment."
blog advertising is good for you
Human Events
Recent comments
Great Post... Thanks!! n/t
by iamcool388I was there
by Mud GuruNo, but there are enthusiast support sites.
by jonlesterNot everyone who thinks
by yolepierdomiamorPulling a Kowalski...
by aceintxI can see a whole line of these nt
by dglennP.S. here is what we are exporting
by JoliphantCED was just strange
by JoliphantThank You so much! I want
by dld1717If true, that would be a serious heresy
by civil truth& the Cries of Unity
by Whitehorse5*5*5*5*5*5*5 nt
by aceintxAs a Southern Baptist, the
by Kev85Come to think of it,
by jonlesterWe need a new Jesse Helms.
by Nobama
blog advertising is good for you
get your job site
at simplyhired.com
Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion