Contact
Subscribe
|
Tweet
| (13) |
N.M. GOP pre-empts attack ad against McCain
MoveOn.org plans to begin airing a controversial television ad in
Here’s the ad, which has already been running in other states and drawing a great deal of attention:
The ad plays audio of McCain saying he doesn’t think Americans would be concerned if the
“100 years in
The MoveOn.org ad could be interpreted to imply that McCain was referring to combat missions, not peacetime presence. But as the non-partisan FactCheck.org reports, McCain was speaking specifically about a peacetime presence, not the continuing of combat operations, and that’s made clear when you consider the context of the quote:
“We’ve been in
State Republican Party Chairman Allen Weh pointed out today during a conference call with reporters that Republican and Democratic presidents alike have made the decision to keep American troops in certain nations around the world long after combat operations ended. He said the MoveOn.org ad is “misleading” and takes McCain’s quote out of context.
“Am I surprised that MoveOn.org is disingenuous? Absolutely not. They are a left-wing, radical organization and they are going to stretch the truth,” Weh said. “He’s making reference to peacetime presence. … He clearly did not mean that we’re going to be fighting combat missions for 100 years.”
The ad is going to begin airing Thursday in
“A vote for him is basically a vote for a third Bush term,” Pariser said.
The ad will run for a week on broadcast and cable stations in
Weh said the party may consider asking
Weh also said he believes voters will see through the MoveOn.org ad.
“They can tell a flaky ad from a bona-fide ad,” he said. “They understand B.S. and this one is a B.S. ad.”
|
Share
Tweet
|
Advertisements
|
13 comments so far. Scroll down to submit your own comment.
Leave a response
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Dear Thinker & cactusjack,
Ah ahm not a smart man. . . but apparently, I’m a pretty sharp three-year-old. Heh. Whoops. I guess I didn’t carry the one.
I can’t really consider myself a conservative. I’m a registered Democrat and the ideas I back were Democratic ideas once upon a time. Call me a liberal if you like. I’ll tell ya what – I voted for Obama, and like the guy well enough even though McCain is my boy. I’ll promise to understand the spirit of Obama’s bittergate comment if y’all promise to understand the spirit of McCain’s 100 years comment.
Yours,
Ben
Oh, and P.S.:
May 1, 2003 interview of John McCain with Neil Cavuto:
CAVUTO: … Senator, “after a conflict” means “after the conflict,” and many argue the conflict isn’t over.
MCCAIN: Well, then why was there a banner that said ‘mission accomplished’ on the aircraft carrier? The conflict…the major conflict is over, the regime change has been accomplished.
Thoughtless, careless, pandering much???
Ben said: “Heck, I was born to American military personal in England sixty years after WWII ended.”
If the above statement is true and WWII ended in 1945 that means that Ben was born in 2005. While I do not subscribe to conservative political thought I am most impressed with Ben’s expression at such a young age.
Hey Charlie-I’ve been doing PLENTY of thinking lately. Unless you want to be compared to the pitiful cartoon character who is conned over and over again into kicking a football that is pulled away at the last minute every time, YET HE STILL BELIEVES AND TRIES TO KICK ANYWAY——don’t make fun of my screen name! (Hahaha-I am JUST kidding!)
Ben,
I admit that you’re far better on the specifics than am I on the events of history
My “big picture” point is more about our recent, modern relationships since those eras of “occupation” of those countries began, as well as what I believe is an unwise use of our military to create empires, especially given the state of world politics today. That is a lesson I thought we should have taken from the fall of the Roman Empire, among other things. Wasn’t their collapse really due to the economic depletion from overextension of their resources by way of imperialism?
However, I still disagree with you on how sloppy McCain’s assessment of this war is. It smacks of pandering to the Republican right and lack of intellectual reflection.
How woefully anachronistic it is to assume we can successfully continue on this course like this was WWII. It is not, is has never been, and it will never be. If we didn’t learn in Viet Nam that the nature of armed conflict has changed forever, and that we, too, must change how we deal with our enemies, than we are fools.
We have already had 8 years of an idiot who believes in simplistic answers to incredibly complex issues, who’s “bring it on” language only portended his complete and total incompetence to lead. We don’t need another–4?–years of stupidity.
By the way, I am married to a vet, my dad served in Korea, and we have family members who were stationed in Germany and Japan, for what it matters. Most of those folks worked or now work for the Dept. of Defense as civilians. We are big, big fans of the military in our family.
And thanks for your thoughts, too. They are such a relief from hearing “Jeramiah Wright” repeated ad- nauseum on the teevee.
Dear Thinker,
I thought you might be interested in a few more interesting historical tidbits. (History buff. Can’t help it.) First, the Allied occupation of West Germany did not terminate for ten years. If we’re on that schedule, we’ve got another five years before Iraq’ll be ready.
Second, it wasn’t until Article 7 of this treaty kicked in that true and full sovereignty was restored to Germany – in 1991!
http://usa.usembassy.de/etexts/2plusfour8994e.htm
At that rate, we’ll be in Iraq for, lemme see here, doing the math, carry the one. . . uh, forty-six years, followed by seventeen years of completely friendly troop presences. It looks like that falls into the middle range of Johnny’s 50-100 year ballpark figure.
Not bad for a thoughtless and careless statement!
Yours,
Ben
Dear Thinker,
Our military presence in Germany began with war, turned into occupation over the course of the next four years, turned into reconstruction over the course of the next several years, and turned into a peaceful partnership over the course of the next several decades. During the course of that occupation, lots of mistakes were made. It’s not just disingenuous to say that we didn’t occupy Germany – it’s false, historically so. We did, along with France, Britain, and the Soviet Union. Heck, the occupation of Austria didn’t result in a re-constituted country for ten years. Anyway, the point is that we did occupy Germany. We are not currently occuping them. We did occupy Iraq, but we might not be despite a military presence years from now. It is feasible to forsee, on the same timeframe as Germany and Austria, a transition from military serving in a combat role to military serving in a peaceful partnership role in Iraq. But like Germany, we did not begin as welcome guests. Germany in 1944 was doing its damndest to keep us out.
Those bases are probably no longer needed, as those countries are no longer threatening each other or under threat from Soviet conquest. Part of the reason I live in New Mexico instead of England is because of those bases being phased out. As you noted, they may NOT be strategically important anymore, so perhaps we should get rid of them. From that, it follows that if they WERE strategically important, we should consider keeping them. I submit that military bases that exist by the invitation of an allied country in a strategically critical part of the world where our troops defend that country against conquest by our declared enemies might be strategically important. That’s a good description of Europe five years after WWII, and it’s a great description of the Middle East five years after Gulf War II.
Have you ever been on a military base overseas?
Further, we know from the conversations within terrorist organizations that we are targeted because we are seen as defeatable, not because we are seen as aggressive. Imagine if we did as you suggest and back out of the Middle East entirely. Imagine our enemies there actually having free rein to do all the things they promise they will do. Of course, for pan-Islamist extremists like Bin Ladin, retreat is insufficient. And, of course, for any geopolitical realist, retreat is kinda silly. Low-level insurgency is nothing compared to the kind of chaos that occurs when a Pax enforced by a hegemonic power ends. Our presence in the Middle East brings peace, not war, and in that capacity we are performing the role of every other hegemonic power in that region going through the British Empire back to the Roman one.
Oh, and McCain isn’t a one-trick pony neo-conservative. He’s at least a three or four trick pony neo-conservative.
Not that he’s a neo-conservative either. . . time was, when a president believed in defending liberal values overseas, you called him Truman or FDR. I’m fiercely proud of that liberal tradition. Maybe we should call McCain a neo-liberal! 
Thank you for your thoughts!
Yours,
Ben
“thinker” doesn’t seem to be doing enough of it lately. We were not welcome guests in Germany when we originally went there in WWII. We are allies now because we prevailed against a dictator and stayed to help rebuild.
“terrorist and other groups” will not like us simply for leaving them alone. Until we agree to live like them they will attack us. Living like them may not seem like a problem to you unless you’ve visited their lairs.
Ben, the difference between our presence in countries like Great Britain and Germany is based on our military/politcal alliances with them stemming all the way back to WWII and the Cold War. WE ARE NOT OCCUPYING THEM. With some exceptions, we have been welcome guests in those countries, share democratic ideals and values, and promised protection to them in exchange for a strategic presence. However, we are even now rethinking just exactly why we have to spend billions supporting those bases, since they may NOT be strategically as important as in the past.
John McCain deserves every bit of crap he’s getting over his completely arrogant, thoughtless and careless statements, and I, for one, hope they play that sound bite 4000+ times a day.
Our presence in the Middle East is already directly connected to our problems there. If we set up permanent bases in that region, especially in Iraq, we will continue to be viewed as occupiers by terrorist and other groups who need the “Big Bad Imperialist Bully” as a symbol and cause for their existence. We will continue actively engaging in war until we are no longer viewed as such, continue to need huge defense budgets to support our presence, and worst of all, will continue to see our best and brightest young military be permanently injured or killed.
McCain is a one-trick pony neo-conservative, and he hasn’t got a clue that the world is moving on without them all.
Are Americans concerned with how long we’re in Germany? Korea? Britain?
We were at war with Germany sixty years ago. We still have troops there. McCain, as per his comments, was talking about that.
Heck, I was born to American military personal in England sixty years after WWII ended. Curse FDR and his hundred years in Europe!
If you had read my words carefully j.ramirez, you would have seen that I was referring to McCain’s OWN words and his ridiculous assumption that Americans are not concerned with how long we are in Iraq. His out-of-touch outlook is comparable with his lack of knowledge (by his own admission) of economical affairs. Heath’s words are accurate, and perhaps FactCheck.org is accurate as well. But McCain’s voice speaks loudest. If he is not out of touch with the needs, desires and demands of the American people, he gives an Academy Award-winning performance.
McCain is committing the US to 100 years of war unless he sets a timetable for establishing peace in Iraq, AND promises that we will LEAVE by xxxx if peace is not established. The sectarian strife there is endless, so this will never happen.
Wow Beanie, did you not read the article?
As I will quote Heath:
“But as the non-partisan FactCheck.org reports, McCain was speaking specifically about a peacetime presence, not the continuing of combat operations, and that’s made clear when you consider the context of the quote…”
You are the type of voter that MoveOn.org hopes will listen to the “B.S. Ad” they are spending thousands to air.
How can anyone vote for this fool when they listen to the ad and hear his voice say Americans don’t care how long we are in Iraq??