McCain: U.S. Lives 'Wasted' in Iraq

What a maverick, huh?

WASHINGTON Mar 1, 2007 (AP)— Republican presidential contender John McCain, a staunch backer of the Iraq war but critic of how President Bush has waged it, said U.S. lives had been "wasted" in the four-year-old conflict. Democrats demand the Arizona senator apologize for the comment as Sen. Barack Obama did when the Democratic White House hopeful recently made the same observation.

"Americans are very frustrated, and they have every right to be," McCain said Wednesday on CBS' "Late Show With David Letterman." "We've wasted a lot of our most precious treasure, which is American lives."

Update: McCain apologizes but damage done. If he were on the upswing it might not matter quite as much. But given his existing issues with the Republican base and the way things have been headed for him, bad timing makes this is a tougher knock.

"Last evening, I referred to American casualties in Iraq as 'wasted'," McCain said in a statement Thursday.

"I should have used the word 'sacrificed' as I have in the past. No one appreciates and honors more than I do the selfless patriotism of American servicemen and women in the Iraq War," said McCain, a decorated Vietnam war hero.

Comments

[Bill Adkins]

Darth, did you vote for Bush? Beause if you did you definitely voted for a dumbass. As to 'hindsight,' seekeronos, only Bush and friends call our criticism 'hindsight.' Those of us who saw the disaster in Iraq coming can say 'I told you so.' Doesn't make it any better, though.

[Jeff]

What the hell is your problem, how about if I send you some pictures of me and him? Would that do.

You fking retard, what does it take for you to quit? I have a friend that died, obviusly I shouldn't mention my personal life here ever again, because a-holes like you don't have a clue.

[Jeff]

"you're exagerration on your vicarious connection to this war is fascinating to watch however"

I never claimed to have a connection to Iraq.

Hey Andrew are your parents still alive? I need something to make fun of you about.

[Andrew]

Jeff is busy photoshopping pictures as we speak. What a lowlife to claim that HE had to tell the parents of a soldier that their sone was dead.

Jeff, tell us about how you raised that flag on Iwo Jima. I heard you ended up on a stamp and Clint Eastwood made a movie about you.

[Jeff]

What a lowlife to claim that HE had to tell the parents of a soldier that their sone was dead.

I never said that moron.

So your parents alive? No? Liar!

[Jeff]

I was saying, I was going to tell them that his life was wasted in Afghanistan. Not that he died.

What an idiot.

[M. Simon]

Dwight D,. Eisenhower: "War is synonymous with waste."

[Steve]

Andrew,

If you read Jeff's original post he was attempting sarcasm by saying he was excited to tell his dead friend's parents thier son's life was wasted.

I understood his remark clearly. Either you don't or you decided to twist his comment out of context for reasons known only to you.

[M. Simon]

"Constitutional democracy is a concept Jeffersonian types actively FOUGHT FOR. They wanted it; demanded it; claimed it as their own; and implemented it. "

Yes. About 1/3 were Patriots (per above), 1/3 were Tories, and 1/3 just wanted to keep their heads down. The Tories went to Canada. Ethnic cleansing. Voluntary and otherwise.

Iraq is no worse and possibly better.

[JEM]

Legalize - "Um, no, what created the pluralistic Western world we have today is adherence to the rule of law, due process, human rights, and transparent governance, i.e. "Western Values." What you are describing is what created National Socialism, fascism, and Stalinism."

The most important thing about being a gentleman is knowing when not to be one. Rule of law, civil society, et al are nice principles, and a government that adheres to them is a good thing, but at the sharp end what got the Germans out of France was firepower. In the service of good principles, one hopes, but applied quite liberally.

"Really? I seem to remember Nuremberg, the Marshall Plan, Eisenhowerian pragmatism, detente, leading by example by actually living up to Western Values, etc. as being really really really successful tactics."

Yes, all of which were valid carrots while the Soviets provided the stick. But first the foul crop of the '30s and '40s had to be plowed under so that something else could grow.

[M. Simon]

In fact looked at from a certain viewpoint the American Revolution was our first civil war. Not too different from Iraq. Except that the explosives are stronger and the weapons faster.

[Andrew]

Thanks Steve/Jeff for the 'clarification'. Now please, tell us some more stories.

[Steve]

Andrew,

If you have nothing to add to the discussion then you may leave the table and go play with your Wii.

[LOL]

please knock it off with the WW2 comparisons. This isn't world war2, and the threat of radical islam is not at the level of Nazi germany and Imperial Japan. US actions during these times is proof of this.

If this was a ww2 threat there would be a draft, rationing, and at least a tax hike. So clearly no one thinks that, because I don't see any of you on the right campaigning for these things.

[Andrew]

Jeff was in WW2. He was in the Phillipines and told the natives that he would return. He did. Jeff is a hero to us all.

[Steve]

LOL

"If this was a ww2 threat there would be a draft, rationing, and at least a tax hike. So clearly no one thinks that, because I don't see any of you on the right campaigning for these things."

Make sweeping generalizations often?

Im on the right and Im for a gasoline tax imposed on Americans. Id rather have my gas money wasted by the buffoons on both sides of the aisle in congress than on the primitives sitting in their gilded palaces in the Arab world. Im also for rationing of supplies and materials coming from the middle east. Im against the draft because it would lower the effectiveness of the professional armed forces we currently enjoy. A professional standing army may be the opposite of what the founders wanted but there is a reason our forces can not be defeated on the field of battle. You get what you pay for. Remember, 4000 volunteers succesfully overthrew the Taliban in a month and 150000 overran Iraq so fast the Iraqi army didnt even have time to put their uniforms on let alone flee leaving their arab boots behind in the sand.

So clearly at least one person on the right thinks that.

[warrenb]

I love it...Maybe tonight he should go on Jay Leno and announce his withdrawal from the 2008 presidental campaign.

[funky chicken]

Steve, great posts. I know it's not a popular stance, but you have one ally. I'm a military spouse, and it has gotten to the point where I do believe our further casualties are wasted lives, and wasted sacrifices. We don't have a civilian leadership willing to allow the military to destroy the enemy. As long as that's the case, there is no sense in sending our people into harm's way.

[salvage]

Buzzy

Do you know the difference between before and after? This is important so I'll wait for you to look that up.

Theme from Jeopardy

Ok, I'll assume you now do.

Before there were American soldiers in Iraq there was no civil war. No, no, don't talk to me about centuries old conflict blah blah blah. There was no hot war going on in Iraq. People were not being blown to pieces everyday, shot, tortured etc due to sectarian strife. Yes, yes, Saddam, very bad man did very bad things to people but stay focused, that's not what we're talking about. Civil war is the topic at hand.

Then the Bush Administration trumped up a bunch of bullshit about WMD... no, no, don't cut and paste a list of Democrats and UN types talking about Saddam's vast arsenal of WMD. Saddam had none and Bush invaded anyway, that is a fact. So Bush invaded using American soldiers to prevent a threat that never was. That has destabilized Iraq to the point of civil war.

Cause followed by effect. Before and after.

If Bush had listened to all the people who were right those soldiers would still be alive and maybe Afghanistan would be in better shape.

No matter how you spin this war every aspect of it has been a waster, in lives (Iraqi and American and other nations), money, time and opportunity.

A complete and total waste and anyone who cannot see that now is a full on retard or a paid shill trying to prop up a collapsing ideology.

Those soldiers did not waste their lives, being a soldier is a fine career and choice, their commander in chief and his cheerleaders did and they should be held accountable for it.

That's clearly what Obama meant and it's clearly what McCain meant. This "outrage" is completely manufactured and compared to what's being done to the wounded at Walter Reed laughable.

What do you think hurts the soldiers more? A remark or recuperating in a shit hole of a hospital?

[Steve]

John McCain should announce his withdrawal from the 2008 campaign and should be removed from the Senate by the citizens of the Arizona for failing to support and defend the constitution of the United States. He's a populist ideologue suffering from brain damage from being a guest in the hanoi hilton.

Why? Because McCain was the author and sponsor of the McCainFeingold Campaign finance reform law which was upheld by the liberal members of the Supreme Court.

Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances

Because of McCain, people on the left and the right are no longer allowed to criticize their elected congressperson 60 days before an election. If that is not an abridgment of free speech then what if anything qualifies?

[Zifnab]

"Im on the right and Im for a gasoline tax imposed on Americans. Id rather have my gas money wasted by the buffoons on both sides of the aisle in congress than on the primitives sitting in their gilded palaces in the Arab world. Im also for rationing of supplies and materials coming from the middle east."

You're either epically ignorant or completely full of shit. Bush and Cheney are bought and paid for by the family of Saud, and yet you pander to those baffoons like they were Yaweh's Gift to the White House. The guys running this country couldn't be better friends with the actual terrorists who actually want to kill us. That's why they're running around the Middle East toppling Shia regimes and turning a complete blind eye to every Sunni who steps out of line.

Your tax dollars are going to buy guys for the terrorists who are shooting at American troops. They're going into the pockets of corrupt Iraq politicians and corrupt American contractors who turn around and sell arms to the same scum that blow up buses in marketplaces.

And yet you sit here with a straight face telling us how you support a gas tax and supply rationing from a political party that works arm-in-arm with Big Oil and Saudi Royalty.

You're so fucking dumb, it boggles my mind.

[Jeff]

Bush and Cheney are bought and paid for by the family of Saud, and yet you pander to those baffoons like they were Yaweh's Gift to the White House.

I actually agree with you Zifnab. And I don't get it, it seems perfectly clear to me that they aren't allies... there's something going on.

[templar knight]

Well, Ziffy, what the hell is Clinton doing over there in the Middle East taking millions of dollars from these same guys? The truth of the matter is that the Republicans AND Democrats are in the House of Saud's pocket. I'm willing to take suggestions as to what we can do about it.

[Purple Avenger]

Friction free conflict doesn't exist.

When you decide to go to war, you also decide that some will get zapped in the occasional blue/blue incidents, traffic accidents, clobbered by bad/stale intel, etc.

[Jeff]

Actually TK, you reminded me of something I heard on a local radio show the other day (Tom Baurle show if you care) that Clinton spoke in Saudi Arabia and collected $250,000... the largest fee he has ever collected. Just think about it.

[boomdude]

Legalize: Al Quada, Iran, and Syrians are fomenting the the civil strife, not our guys. And to say that NOTHING has gone right in Iraq, your own inaccurate thinking is as bad as the Neocons you bash. Your just on the other side of the extreme.

Totten and others reporting from the ground in Iraq is much more well-rounded than the 11 or so MSM reporters at the Baghdad Hotel reporting via suspect stringers and Jamil Hussein.

Maybe it will take 300 to 500 years for democracy to mature in the mid east. The sooner we start, the faster we get there. Saddam gave us no choice. Obviously, the CIA had no idea what was going on. He wasnt contained by any means.

[templar knight]

Jeff, Clinton's last tour through the ME netted him several millions of dollars, you can be sure of that. But I haven't seen any of my liberal friends criticizing Clinton for taking this money, but to give them the benefit of the doubt, my liberal friends might have called Clinton a slime bucket, and I just missed it somehow. I've been pretty busy lately.

[Zifnab]

"I'm willing to take suggestions as to what we can do about it."

Vote for a third party. Take slugs like these out in the primaries before they ever land on a real ballot. Do your own part to conserve on gasoline and organize a boycott against Middle Eastern products. Those would be the first steps I would take.

[Zifnab]

Oh, here's a good one. Stop rationalizing yourselves by saying "Clinton did it too." Bill Clinton isn't running for President, or for any office, for that matter. George Bush is the POTUS.

If you don't like Islamic extremists being pro-Clinton doesn't make you worse off than being pro-Bush. Try being pro-neither. At least then you can relax in your intellectual honesty.

[Jeff]

Well Zifnab, I agree with both of your posts. And I have been considering voting Libertarian, except I'm socially Conservative.

The only times that I know of/remember a third party doing decently are 1968 and 1996. I am pretty much sure that unless one of the parties really messes something up, we will be a two party system.

[Korla Pundit]

The main reason lives in Iraq are possibly being "wasted" is that the Dems and the media have spelled out the terms so absolutely: "If you terrorists kill a bunch of Americans and start blowing up Iraqi children, then we will take our soldiers out."

It's an offer Al Qaeda couldn't possibly refuse.

If the Dems had presented a united front, and instead made it clear that "If we gain control of Congress or the Presidency, we will be even tougher on these murderers than President Bush, and maybe even bomb the crap out of Syria and Iran," then the terrorists would have had a lot less incentive to kill so many innocents.

Remember the threatening noises Reagan was making before he got into office. The Iranians were wetting their pants. That's why the embassy hostages were released the day Ronnie got into office, and why they were kept imprisoned for 444 days of Carter's "why do they hate us" navel-gazing.

[LOL]

uhm Korla, up until January the Republicans had complete and total control of this war. And yet you blame it on the democrats? Interesting logic

[Jon G]

The reason lives are being "wasted" is due to utter incompetence by the administration in war planning. They're the ones that are in charge of the war, not the Dems and certainly not the Media.

Actually, a lot of people think Reagan made a deal with Iran. It's where the phrase "October Surprise" comes from. The timing of releasing the hostages literally minutes after Reagan was sworn in was certainly suspicious.

As for Reagan scaring the Middle East back in line: He's the guy that pulled the marines out of Lebanon after the Beirut barracks bombing. He was then involved in a little thing called Iran-Contra that had something to do with trading arms with Iran - you remember - the guys that released the hostages right after Reagan got elected.

[Korla Pundit]

> uhm Korla,

Any post that starts with "uhm" is not worth the pixels they take up.

The Dems and their antiwar base gave aid and comfort to an enemy that would behead them, and made it quite clear that all they had to do to defeat America is to make the death toll unacceptable politically. And so the terrorists took them up on the offer, and Dems seem more than happy to reward Al Qaeda for their savagery.

Hopefully, their wishy-washy brand of treason will cost them any future elections.

[Jon G]

Nice of you to call over half the American Public traitors, because it's the majority position in this country. It's this administration's utter and complete incompetence that got us in this mess, not the Democrats.

Oh yeah, check this out:

"Do you approve or disapprove of the way Bush is handling the situation in Iraq?" Approve Disapprove Unsure
2/22-25/07 31 67 1

You can read a bunch more numbers that show the Publc's fed up with the war.

http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

[Scott]

Hmmmmm? The moralizing, rationalizing bumwads that say our Iraqi military deaths are a waste are pathetic and spineless pussies. In fact, I find these sentiments to be so repugnant as to projectile vomit into their school lunchboxes, the shatty-panted lot of them. And every other human-sized gerbil that cites a poll to justify their lemming-like plummet of the edge of reality, to you I say: don't reproduce. More pre-programmed dullards will only swell the ranks of indolent, over-weight and self-important Americans. God only knows DC is already full of them, now every pruny pig behind the screen and keyboard thinks they have all the freaking answers.

[Erich Walker]

At Valley Forge, George Washington had a problem. The war was going poorly, the British had the Americans pinned down, the public was turning against the war. Even Washington's own troops began to doubt his wisdom.

There were two kinds of Americans there, at Valley Forge, that winter. Those who looked at the British and said "the war is unwinnable" and packed up and went home. Washington lost a thrid of his army to deserters. But the ones that stayed crossed the Ptomac, defeated the British, and won us our Freedom.

Resolve: The ability to stay committed to a cause even when things are going poorly. If our enemies are willing to die for their cause, and we will not even fight for our own survival, then we will be destroyed, and America will be wiped off the face of the earth.

[Purple Avenger]

"Bill Clinton isn't running for President, or for any office, for that matter."

Yea, but he's the modern "gold standard" for presidential behavior.

[scarshapedstar]

"If our enemies are willing to die for their cause, and we will not even fight for our own survival, then we will be destroyed, and America will be wiped off the face of the earth."

Why haven't you signed up yet? You said it yourself, you can either die on the battlefield today or die at the point of a scimitar when the omnipotent terrorists follow us home in February 2009. On your feet or on your knees. The choice seems pretty simple.

[James]

Erich. Your history of what was really happening is too shallow.

Washington didn't just cross the Ptomac and defeat the British. At that time period the British themselves were tired of the fighting. There was all kinds of arguements going on in Parliament about the war. What finally convinced the British to quit was a French fleet showing up as Washington pinned the British army at Yorktown. King George wanted to fight on but he lost the support in Parliament and a treaty was signed that ended the war.

Without the French, Americans would not have won the war.

The situation in Iraq is not the same. To be a good commander you have to know when to fight and when to stop fighting.

If you had a very good down scaling of fighting in Iraq then one should maintain that course; but that is not what is happening in Iraq. To truly win in Iraq you need to take true control of Iraq. For that you need a whole new army of at least 200,000 Combat troops; not 200,000 troops. The number of "Combat troops" and "troops" is the big difference.

If you look at the original war plans, Iraq was not suppose to be a long war with U.S. troops fighting to win the war. Iraq was a suppose to be a "Tag Team" war. U.S. troops were to fight for awhile; train a new Iraq army, then hand the fighting over to the Iraqi's. U.S. then goes home; BUT the war was supppose to go on until, whenever, the Iraqi's could control their own country.

It was the new Iraqi army that was suppose to win the war, not the U.S.

[jetnoiz]

I meant to say that John McCain would make a good Presidential candidate. Unfortunately, what came out was, "McCain is a jackass." I'll issue a statement, and I'm sure you'll understand how I confused my words.

Not one life and not one penny has been wasted IF we continue to eradicate islamic extremists...IF we drain the swamp that exists in the Middle East...and IF we can help bring stability to the Middle East. This show doesn't wrap itself up in an allotted 60 minutes. This objective of this effort will unfortunately...but realistically...take time.

Lives will have been wasted as soon as the politicians quit this fight.

[Lance]

The fact that two of our leaders, who are on different sides of the political fence, have described the dead troops as having there lives wasted, is the real proof of whats going on here. Politicians can't always tell the truth for fear of upsetting some group or another, but the truth has been verbalized, whether it was retracted or not.

The troops that have died in Iraq have WASTED their lives, or had them wasted by this administration and its big oil masters. The only meaning that could be extracted from these deaths is in the demonstration of how corporations with too much power can influence legislation for their own profit. This profiteering knows no bounds, they will kill to get richer.

If the deaths are to have any meaning we must change this system.

[Korla Pundit]

>"Do you approve or disapprove of the way Bush is handling the situation in Iraq?" Approve Disapprove Unsure

That doesn't ask which way they want Bush to go. Most people want him to use more force, not pull out. Only those with moral cowardice and lack of principles.

[Jon G]

Korla Pundit - wrong again. Making stuff up apparently, because the facts don't support any of your statements.

Same link - just scroll down.

"Do you support or oppose Bush's proposal to send approximately 22,000 additional U.S. military forces to Iraq?"

Support Oppose Unsure
% % %
2/22-25/07 32 67 1

[Korla Pundit]

Relying on biased polls from CBS News/New York Times is not going to convince anybody.

They have no credibility, having shown time and again their willingness to lie and fabricate data and even physical evidence. They aren't interested in truth. They are interested in defeating Bush and if that means taking down America with him, then so be it.

You are all a bunch of liars. Funny that the antiwar zombies like you seem so concerned about Bush "lies." You are all a bunch of hypocrites.

Go hang out with Al Gore in his mansion. I hear he's cobbling together another Internet in his basement.

[Jon G]

How about Fox News - are they liars too?

By 59 percent to 36 percent, Americans oppose sending more U.S. troops to Iraq, not only because most believe it is unlikely the plan will succeed, but also because few voters see the plan Bush announced last week as a significant change to current policy.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,244584,00.html

[Korla Pundit]

I suppose you could decide military strategies based on weekly polls.

But then you would have to discard the polls that strongly say we should not withdraw the troops until the Iraqi government can defend itself.

You would have to ignore any poll you didn't like and do an awful lot of cherry-picking.

[Jon G]

Please show some polls that STRONGLY support staying. You keep posting, but never managed to actually cite any FACTS.

"Do you think the United States should keep its military forces in Iraq until civil order is restored there, even if that means continued U.S. military casualties; or do you think the United States should withdraw its military forces from Iraq in order to avoid further U.S. military casualties, even if that means civil order is not restored there?"

2/22-25/07
Keep Forces in Iraq Withdraw Forces Unsure
42 56 2

[Korla Pundit]

I know it won't do any good, since as I say, you will pick and choose which polls you wish to believe (CBS and the NY Times are typically slanted to bash Bush, so those can stand in your book), but here's one that counters your position:

"The poll found that 57 percent of Americans supported "finishing the job in Iraq" - keeping U.S. troops there until the Iraqis can provide security on their own. Forty-one percent disagreed.
"By 53 percent to 43 percent they also believe victory in Iraq over the insurgents is still possible.
"Despite last November's electoral victories by anti-war Democrats, the survey found little support among voters for a quick pullout of U.S. forces.
"Only 25 percent of those surveyed agreed with the statement, "I don't really care what happens in Iraq after the U.S. leaves, I just want the troops brought home." Seventy-four percent disagreed.
"The survey was conducted before last week's House of Representatives resolution repudiating Bush's war policies.
"But by 53 percent to 46 percent, Americans said Democrats are going too far, too fast in demanding troop withdrawals."

http://www.nypost.com/seven/02212007/news/nationalnews/america_says_lets_win_war_nationalnews_andy_soltis.htm

Yeah, but that poll doesn't count because it shows that people might actually want to refrain from surrendering to terrorists.

[Jon G]

That's interesting, because the 57% in favor of staying doesn't match with the numbers in the key findings at the end of the article. According to those, only 50% are in favor of staying and 49% want to get out immediately or have some type of timetable for withdrawal - not an open-ended commitment to "finish the job".

And it's curious they don't sow the actual questions asked and response breakdown.

Among other key findings of the poll conducted Feb. 5-7:

* When given a choice of four policies, an immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops was the least popular (17 percent).

* The most popular option (32 percent) was a withdrawal timetable.

* The next most popular policy, favored by 27 percent, was expressed by the statement: "The Iraq war is the front line in the battle against terrorism and our troops should stay there and do whatever it takes to restore order until the Iraqis can govern and provide security to the country."

The fourth option, favored by 23 percent, was the statement: "While I don't agree that the U.S. should be in the war, our troops should stay there and do whatever it takes to restore order until the Iraqis can govern and restore security to their country."