'This train wreck' takestoll on McCain
'This train wreck' takestoll on McCain
The advocate for the so-called troop surge also is frustrated by the war and its direction.By Dan Balz and Shailagh Murray, Washington Post
WASHINGTON - There is no mistaking the anguish of Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz. Sitting in his Senate office, he is uncharacteristically subdued, his voice at times almost inaudible.Although the Bush administration last week finally embraced his long-standing call to send more troops to Iraq, McCain believes the way it has handled the war "will go down as one of the worst" mistakes in the history of the American military.
"One of the most frustrating things that's ever happened in my political life," he said, "is watching this train wreck."
McCain, an all-but-announced presidential candidate, offered those assessments toward the end of a lengthy interview Thursday night. No politician in the United States is more clearly identified with President Bush's new policy, and no politician has more to lose if it fails. Democratic opponents have already coined a name for the troop "surge": the McCain Doctrine.
McCain made it clear that he supports Bush's plan to send 21,500 additional U.S. troops to Iraq as the only way to prevent that country from slipping further into chaos. In fact, he thinks even more troops may be needed for the job. "I cannot guarantee success, but I can guarantee failure if we don't adopt this new strategy," he said.
But he also voiced deep frustration over what the war has done, to this country and to Iraq. "I think many things that have happened in the world that are unfavorable to the United States are the result of our weakness in the Iraqi conflict," he said.
Asked how the war may affect his candidacy, McCain shrugged. "I have to do what I think is right."
Last week he told CNN's Larry King: "I would much rather lose an election than lose a war."
The risk now is that both could be lost.
McCain -- whose character was shaped by the previous great conflict that divided America, the Vietnam War -- is being tested by the current conflict, which also is creating a split. A prisoner of war in Vietnam, McCain now has his political future tied in part to the president, the Pentagon and an Iraqi government in which he has limited confidence.
"We've either got to do what's necessary, in my considered view, that can lead to success in Iraq, or withdrawal, which in my view is going to lead to catastrophic consequences," he said. "I don't know where you find a middle ground there."
As a forceful advocate for a policy that appears to fly in the face of the message voters sent in November, the politician who has long played for the center of the electorate now finds himself isolated on the right.
"The war is going badly, and he is now the leading public advocate of more of the same or even much more of the same," said Ron Klain, a Democratic strategist who was chief of staff to then-Vice President Al Gore. "That's an odd place to be."
But as many Republicans are voicing opposition to Bush's plan, McCain is not budging. Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., one of McCain's closest friends in the Senate, explained the stakes in the simplest terms. "If we're successful, he'll get the benefit," Graham said, referring to Iraq. "If we fail, he'll get the blame."
It is a considerable irony, given their histories, that McCain's future is now so closely tied to the president's ability to bring the Iraq war to a successful conclusion. The two battled bitterly over the 2000 GOP presidential nomination. In 2004, they brokered a rapprochement that appeared beneficial to both: Bush gained the high-profile support of the Republican with the broadest appeal to independent voters, and McCain gained respect and admiration from conservative Republicans who had opposed his candidacy in 2000.
McCain said he has no regrets over the role he played in helping Bush win reelection, given his belief that the administration has so badly mismanaged the war.
"Did I support the strategy? No, I didn't," he said. "But I certainly didn't see his opponent, who was advocating withdrawal, as advocating any kind of viable proposal," he added, referring to Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass.
http://www.startribune.com/587/story/935244.html
The advocate for the so-called troop surge also is frustrated by the war and its direction.By Dan Balz and Shailagh Murray, Washington Post
WASHINGTON - There is no mistaking the anguish of Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz. Sitting in his Senate office, he is uncharacteristically subdued, his voice at times almost inaudible.Although the Bush administration last week finally embraced his long-standing call to send more troops to Iraq, McCain believes the way it has handled the war "will go down as one of the worst" mistakes in the history of the American military.
"One of the most frustrating things that's ever happened in my political life," he said, "is watching this train wreck."
McCain, an all-but-announced presidential candidate, offered those assessments toward the end of a lengthy interview Thursday night. No politician in the United States is more clearly identified with President Bush's new policy, and no politician has more to lose if it fails. Democratic opponents have already coined a name for the troop "surge": the McCain Doctrine.
McCain made it clear that he supports Bush's plan to send 21,500 additional U.S. troops to Iraq as the only way to prevent that country from slipping further into chaos. In fact, he thinks even more troops may be needed for the job. "I cannot guarantee success, but I can guarantee failure if we don't adopt this new strategy," he said.
But he also voiced deep frustration over what the war has done, to this country and to Iraq. "I think many things that have happened in the world that are unfavorable to the United States are the result of our weakness in the Iraqi conflict," he said.
Asked how the war may affect his candidacy, McCain shrugged. "I have to do what I think is right."
Last week he told CNN's Larry King: "I would much rather lose an election than lose a war."
The risk now is that both could be lost.
McCain -- whose character was shaped by the previous great conflict that divided America, the Vietnam War -- is being tested by the current conflict, which also is creating a split. A prisoner of war in Vietnam, McCain now has his political future tied in part to the president, the Pentagon and an Iraqi government in which he has limited confidence.
"We've either got to do what's necessary, in my considered view, that can lead to success in Iraq, or withdrawal, which in my view is going to lead to catastrophic consequences," he said. "I don't know where you find a middle ground there."
As a forceful advocate for a policy that appears to fly in the face of the message voters sent in November, the politician who has long played for the center of the electorate now finds himself isolated on the right.
"The war is going badly, and he is now the leading public advocate of more of the same or even much more of the same," said Ron Klain, a Democratic strategist who was chief of staff to then-Vice President Al Gore. "That's an odd place to be."
But as many Republicans are voicing opposition to Bush's plan, McCain is not budging. Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., one of McCain's closest friends in the Senate, explained the stakes in the simplest terms. "If we're successful, he'll get the benefit," Graham said, referring to Iraq. "If we fail, he'll get the blame."
It is a considerable irony, given their histories, that McCain's future is now so closely tied to the president's ability to bring the Iraq war to a successful conclusion. The two battled bitterly over the 2000 GOP presidential nomination. In 2004, they brokered a rapprochement that appeared beneficial to both: Bush gained the high-profile support of the Republican with the broadest appeal to independent voters, and McCain gained respect and admiration from conservative Republicans who had opposed his candidacy in 2000.
McCain said he has no regrets over the role he played in helping Bush win reelection, given his belief that the administration has so badly mismanaged the war.
"Did I support the strategy? No, I didn't," he said. "But I certainly didn't see his opponent, who was advocating withdrawal, as advocating any kind of viable proposal," he added, referring to Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass.
http://www.startribune.com/587/story/935244.html
posted by presgore19 at 4:55 PM
<< Home