Well, while I'm enjoying the McCain "Not too important" coverage, I do have to say...

[HardWorkingDem]

His comment was taken out of context. I'm sorry, but to me, this type of coverage and "gotcha" political focus will possibly only come back to bite each candidate again and again. It angered me when the right attacked Michelle Obama on her proud of America remark and I don't care for it now.

Of course, what is good for the goose is good for the gander. Still, I would rather see this race truly be ran on the issues. This country is in true trouble and to focus on silly things like lapel pins and misstatements isn't doing us any real good, (though better happening to them, than us).

[NYC]

1. Read The Political Brain.

The Political Brain by Drew Westen.

[FrenchieCat]

2. I think quotes about war that one has voted for and appears to want to stay in forever

are fair game...... Nothing out of context about his expressed sentiment, far as I know.

[dkf]

3. I don't see why you say that.

I think it was his first thought and a truthful statement of his intent. He only talks about taking troop levels down by 2012 because the war is highly unpopular. He is trying to pull a Lieberman.

[calimary]

4. Hey, all I can think of are those three words. Not. Too. Important.

Not. Too. Important.

Tell that to a young mother counting the minutes waiting for her husband to come home from war - maybe after his what-number-is-it-by-now deployment. Tell her his return home is "not too important." Go ahead, mcsame. Make my day. Better yet, make hers.


I've heard all I need to hear from this man. If there weren't already several (hundred thousand) deal-breakers, this one would be it.

[quiet.american]

5. I would have to disagree that this is a "misstatement" from McCain.

The core problem of his glib "not too important" statement was that he compared our military presence in countries we are not at open war with -- Germany, South Korea, etc. to our current presence in Iraq. On the face of it, that is an absolutely ridiculous thing to do. Especially, without even taking a moment to reflect on his response... to reflect on how his answer might be received by those who are on their fourth or fifth tour in Iraq, on how family members might take such a response.

There's nobody home emotionally when it comes to John McCain. He deserves everything he gets on this one.

[Occam Bandage]

6. Yep. It was totally out of context. So was 100 years. So what?

This is a Presidential campaign. We need to distill the truth about John McCain into a few short, memorable phrases. If John McCain does us the honor of providing those phrases for us, so much the better.

[HardWorkingDem]

28. Then don't whine and moan when..

the right does the same thing again against Obama and his wife ("really proud of America"......et cetera)....

[Occam Bandage]

29. Republicans reserve the right to do that. I reserve the right to fight that, just as they

reserve the right to fight our attempts to define them.

This is politics. You are aware that this is politics, right?

[HardWorkingDem]

38. Like I said....

the next time Obama has a verbal misstep or his wife gets up and blabs on with some misconstrued statement, don't whine and bitch and moan about it because this is what the politics we will continue to have will remain to be.

Myself, I'm more concerned with health care costs, the deeper meaning of the US Constitution, presidential power and things like that and not stupid ignorant arguments over lapel pins and who loves his or her country more.

[Occam Bandage]

40. We're discussing Iraq. You don't believe Iraq is important?

You don't believe John McCain wants to keep American forces in Iraq indefinitely? Sure, he may not have, at that moment, meant to say that he didn't care about bringing troops home. However, that doesn't mean that he does care about bringing troops home. He doesn't. The reason that this 'gaffe' is notable (in a way that his, say, "veto every single beer" misstatement wasn't) is that it is true, and it is true regarding a very important issue. I'm glad that John McCain has given us a true statement on an important issue with which we can define him as he is, instead of allowing him to define himself falsely as an anti-war reformer. I'm rather disappointed that you'd compare the importance of our soldiers in Iraq to the importance of lapel pins.

If you think 'taking the high road' requires us to only attack our opponent on our opponent's terms, great. Maybe that'll work as well as it did in '04 and '00.

[HardWorkingDem]

43. No, what I'm saying is...

it's time to quite the idiotic latching on to incomplete and misconstrued partial statements and start debating the real issue. But what do we have here? More ignorant claiming that a WAR veteran is saying that he doesn't give a shit about bringing troops home.

THAT is not what he meant and if we want to debate real issues, then we better start doing it instead of continuing to exist in this McDonald's like sound bite debate.

And it's not like I'm trying to defend McCain. I just hate this form of moronic politics that drives the debates.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

7. The "context" itself is horseshit.

On so many levels, it's absurd to compare Iraq today with South Korea or Japan or Germany. Also, it shows how tone-deaf the man is to campaign & media realities & subtleties. Third, how many times does a person have to repeat something before it's no longer considered a "misstatement"? All this shows both how stubborn & outoftouch the fellow is.

[4themind]

8. I agree but

even in the most generous context I still disagree with the implications, that have yet to be allayed by McCain (permamnent bases in Iraq) He's also yet to give what number of troops would remain in these "satisfactory" conditions, and that can be a problem especially when we have Afghanistan and a declining economy to worry about.

[27inCali]

9. HE ANSWERED TOO GLIBBLY

As if What the fuck ever, I hope every military family takes a hardcore look at this. I got some very close friends in the military and their lives and well being are not whatever.
The comments were absolutely disrespectful.



his argument is intellectually dishonest: he knows full well that we could deploy peacefully into Germany and Japan because they knew they were defeated and just wanted the war to end.



the violent actors of Iraq and the various outsiders do not feel beaten by Dick Cheney's hamfisted micromanaging. Kerry is right about Al Queda's existence in Iraq depending on us staying.



Republicans spend so much time worrying about how to profiteer off of war, they never want it to end.

[NatBurner]

15. yep

it was so bush-like

a president that actually thinks before he speaks will be refreshing

[Sherman A1]

10. Agreed

Yes, it was taken out of context (at least in part). It was also a very, very poor choice of words for a response and I expect more from a guy that wants to run the country. The problem with his gaffe after gaffe (the New Orleans speech, the 100 years war, the long ago Chelsea comment, the Beer misspeak and on and on) is that they are not funny or Presidential. I expect the person who I elect to be human certainly and occasionally trip over their words, but to at least know when they did without an aide having to tell them later. He isn't a mature leader, he is simply OLD and needs to retire.

[Vinca]

11. I disagree - it wasn't taken out of context.

What he said was that it was not important WHEN troops came home, indicating it was only casualties that were important. Do you think families enjoy having their loved ones in Iraq for years on end? McCain cited South Korea and other countries where there have been peaceful contingents of American troops as his reasoning. In locations where there are peace keeping missions, families are usually allowed to accompany the military person to the location. Can you imagine anyone packing up their kids and heading to Iraq for a year or more? It does matter WHEN we pull out the troops. Families shouldn't be apart, American taxpayers are not a bottomless pit and - not even mentioned - it was the U.S. presence on Arab soils that caused the problems in the first place. Don't give McSame a pass on this one.

[chieftain]

22. You're right and I would add the question what would be

doing there if violence had disappeared. McCain is tacitly admitting that we need to keep a huge armed force in the Mid-East regardless of the situation on the ground in Iraq. If there is violence, we have to stay; if peace breaks out, we will still stay. McCain believes in an American Empire, one that is more effective than Bush runs but an empire nonetheless.

[HardWorkingDem]

25. What he was trying to say was.....

Between the two, stopping the casualties is more important than bringing the troops home. Now, it might be obvious that the best thing to do to prevent troop casualties is to bring them home, but what would you rather have? A family or friend in the military alive in a military unit away for home or a soldier home that is dead?

[uponit7771]

35. The premise of the thought is we should be there anyway and we shouldn't that's ANOTHER reasons even

...that perspective is wrong headed on his part.

He's made if very clear that he plans on staying in Iraq and making it a NKorea or Germany type operation as if we're still fighting the Russians.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

39. McCain could use your spinning skills!

:*

[HardWorkingDem]

44. Yeah, and I'll be standing by to see how you squirm...

when Obama or his wife or some surrogate makes some sort of misconstrued statement while crying and moaning about it.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

47. I'm watching you squirm right now trying to sell McCain's war statements as "verbal missteps".

Read the responses to your thread. Nobody's forcing you to defend McCain's statements. Are you worried about attacks on the Obamas or are you still insisting that his oft-repeated declarations of war policy are "misstatements"??? And your last post asks, "What is it with people here?" I'd say, What is it with you? Are you really defending McCain's stubborn insistence on staying in Iraq until the "mission" is "completed"? IT is NOT misstatement. Winning that war over there is the most important thing to him. He's not well. Youre defending not the "misstatements" of a politician, but the war policy of a madman. He means exactly what he says. Bringing those troops home is not important to him compared to winning that war. And your repeated attempts to try to tie this issue to tie pins is bloody obscene.

[uponit7771]

34. EXCELLENT EXAMPLE!! Should send this to Obama campaign as a counter point really

[JustAnotherGen]

12. And with all of his

"Obama won't say it's working (the surge)" b.s. -

Let's not forget - we are there on a lie. Regardless of how McSame wants to 'paint his victory' - it's a lie that got us into this mess in the first place. I'd take his comments re the so-called surge, if he would admit publicly that Bush and Co. lied to make a lot of money of the blood of Americans and Iraqis - and the tax payers.

[hokies4ever]

13. The war is about blood and treasure, not just blood

That's what McCain doesn't understand. This quote further illustrates that along with his '100 years' quote. McCain is okay with the economic drain on our country that a long-term troop presence in Iraq would bring.

[enough]

14. In fact has said the same thing in different ways before.

It's pretty clear that this is what he actually "thinks."

[TexasObserver]

16. While media are still reacting to the resignation of the vetter, Jim Johnson ...

... I am not concerned that they're also reacting to a much bigger matter - McCain's statement.

The statement was revealing, for it showed that McCain really does not think WHEN they come home is important.

[Alter Ego]

17. It's a taste of their own damn medicine.

McCain should have known better.

[HardWorkingDem]

27. I agree it is, but....

is this the type of "gotcha" debate what we want to keep having?

DUers keep professing to care about the issues and depth of issues, but then seem to want this sort of debate that instead overshadows what we really need to be talking about. It's just the perpetual method of battle by sound bite.

[onetwo]

18. Susan Rice just used the quote against McCain in its proper context (Morning Joe).

Rice was just on Morning Joe. Each time she used the quote to hit McCain, she used the full statement including the part about casualties being more important. Her argument is that it IS important, regardless of casualties, because our military resources are finite and are currently spread too thinly. That is a completely valid point.

The Morning Joe crew tried to spin it as the Obama camp acting "out of character" and playing Clinton-esque "gotcha" politics -- if they had been paying attention, they would have heard Obama each time he proclaimed that he will not hold back when it comes to a "substantive debate on the issues."

It is sad that Joe and his sidekick spent half of the interview trying to get Rice to say that Obama was trying to make him look "old" and "confused." Susan came right out and said that they were not interested at all in making ad hominem attacks on McCain.

[Avalux]

19. I disagree. It was a comment that indicated his true beliefs.

McCain really doesn't care when the troops come home; he's said as much many times before. He wants to keep them there and thinks the American people will be pacified if he can cut down on the number of casualties.

Remember what lies beneath - PNAC's imperialistic plan to control the ME and their resources. The comment was quite sinister when put in THAT context.

[uponit7771]

32. This is the 3 or 4th time I've heard him talk about keeping the troops in Iraq also.

[HardWorkingDem]

37. And each time, under what context?

These foolish neo-cons think that somehow someday a post-Iraq will look like a Germany or Korea and that is the context McCain is thinking of.

I mean, come on. Let's look at this from the other side of the equation - how many here would really object if the Middle East did end up to being like Germany and Korea (stable) as long as some sort of security was present?


Now, I do not think that with such of a US presence this will ever happen and to me, this is the debate we should be having. But no, people want to talk about a foolish dust up of words.

[Avalux]

41. Other side of WHAT equation?

There is no equation because you can't equate post WWII Germany and post conflict Korea to Iraq. We invaded that country, destabalized it, killed tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis and are occupiers. The basis for our being there gives us no right to remain. The only way that country can become whole again is if we get out.

And it wasn't a foolish dust up of words; McCain's language is serious stuff as I said. I don't know if you're playing the devil's advocate or are sympathizing with the guy, but you have no argument.

[HardWorkingDem]

45. What is it with people here?

Obama has based his campaign on getting rid of the usual politics. Have you been listening at all?

Focusing on the idiotic same old politics is just what people are doing.

Now, the debate should be on the differences of Germany, Korea and Iraq, just as you point out. THAT is what the debate should be on. Not that it appears McCain doesn't seem to give a shit about bringing troops home.

Frankly, I don't give a shit if McCain makes blunder after blunder that keeps him out of the White House. Heck, I hope it keeps happening. But what I do give a shit is that the media and those who follow this race keep on playing the game of latching on gaffe after gaffe instead of having a debate on the real and complex issues.

But I guess you must have enjoyed that one debate on ABC months ago.

[beachmom]

50. Permanent bases in Iraq is a very, very bad idea. The Middle East is not Europe or Korea.

THAT is the point. NO PERMANENT BASES was a rallying cry from John Kerry in 2004, and it has been the Democratic position ever since. We do not want permanent bases. We did that in Saudi Arabia, another holy land (Iraq has many Shi'ia holy lands), and the direct result was 9/11.

WE. DO. NOT. WANT. PERMANENT. BASES.

Oh, and ask the British how their occupation of Iraq went? And they supposedly had defeated the insurgency, yet still got high tailed out of there.

[blondeatlast]

20. He got off his talking point and spoke his real feelings on the matter.

I saw the entire interview; he gets nervous when he says a talking point but he didn't hesitate on this point.

I'm an AZan, I've observed him for 30 years--that statement was straight from his gut. I can easily tell the difference.

[SeaLyons]

21. The "not too important" comment is fair game....

but I think going after him based on "age" is going to backfire, and I'd like to see us attack him on the issues.

[TwilightGardener]

23. Wrong-o. Whether we keep thousands of troops stationed in the heart of

a Middle East that seems to resent our presence there is a matter of GRAVE importance, casualties or no. We cannot occupy a Middle Eastern country indefinitely, without affecting our relations with the Muslim world, with terrorist elements, with neighboring nations, and also our economy and our military readiness and force structure. McCain seems to think that none of that matters, all we have to do is sit there, and they'll eventually accept us--he totally ignores the larger consequences of our war and occupation of Iraq. It's not Korea, it's not Japan, it's not Germany--apples and oranges. If you agree with him, then you are either none too bright, or you belong in Freepville. Both, actually.

[uponit7771]

31. RIGHT!! Iraq is NOT Germany!! Germans WANTED Americans there Iraqis DON'T!!

[Hamlette]

24. I agree and further, the comment opened him up to the real discussion, do we want bases in Iraq?

that's what we should be talking about, instead of this gotcha.

[HardWorkingDem]

26. Exactly! And this would be an even more valid issue and possibly more damaging one because...

to me, I do not think the attacks on American troops in Iraq will EVER stop. That there will always be a push to get them out no matter how secure. I think American troops in Iraq would be seen as a similar thing to Palestinians and Israel and all that is going on there.

And this is a debate we need to have rather than what is going on.

[uponit7771]

33. It's NOT a gotcha! He's said this more than once about the troops staying in Iraq as long as

...there's no casualties like NKorea or Germany as if most Americans want to be there either.

His stand on the issues is very 1980s ish VERY

[HardWorkingDem]

36. My issue though is....

whether you like the man or not, his statement is being sold as he doesn't care about troop casualties - that they aren't important, which is bullshit.

It's like the idiotic Obama-Muslim-lapel pin type arguments and it is detracting from the real debate: how long do we want our troops there because the causalities are NEVER going to stop. But instead of this debate we have people running all over the place screaming that McCain says getting troops home from war is "not too important."

We're missing the real debate here.

[uponit7771]

30. I sKrongly and respectfully disagree, bottom line he was saying it wasn't important that they stay

...in Iraq as long as the environment isn't in chaos or similar to Korea.

I don't want to be in Korea either nor do MOST Americans!!

That's the issue he's not getting, we don't need to be there and it's costing us money. Bring em home

[ecstatic]

42. This is why we can't win elections (sigh). We MUST win this year

we don't have time to coddle the GOP or give them an inch. Whatever it takes. They won't hesitate to put words in Obama's mouth.

[Bleacher Creature]

46. Not true. This war was NEVER sold as establishing a permanent presence in Iraq

The fact that McCain's first instinct is to highlight that point says a LOT.

[TheDonkey]

48. actually I do not think it was. It is another glib statement from him about this war

where he thinks that Iraq 2008 is the same as post-Hiroshima Japan. John Kerry summed it up perfectly, McSame is confusing everything about this war and just flat out making shit up. He doesn't have a grip on what is going on.

when do we leave? "that's not too important" that is what he believes and will tell you to your face that he believes that. He does not care about leaving IRAQ!!!

[beachmom]

49. It wasn't a gaffe. He was telling the truth. It is "not too important"

because he has this vision in his head of Iraq morphing into Korea or Germany with bases in a peaceful country. So there are really two major differences with Obama:

1. McCain thinks Iraq will magically become peaceful like Korea or Germany
2. McCain thinks we should have permanent bases in Iraq

I do agree that gotcha politics is not very good, but in this case it is highlighting the problem with McCain's vision of Iraq. He can't explain how Iraq turns into Korea (how to get from A to B) and I question whether the American people want permanent bases in Iraq. We already have bases in Kuwait, why do we need Iraq, too, when our presence fires up terrorism throughout the world?

[DearAbby]

51. What out of context...?

The question was asked, and he answered it. Nothing was taken out of context. Can you please explain how you think the comment was taken out of context?