McCain on Bush, Obama, Iran and 2013
May 16th, 2008 at 09:58am KMorrison
In yesterday’s blogger call Senator McCain was questioned about his speech outlining his goals for 2013, President Bush’s remarks about appeasement, and Senator Obama’s position on negotiating with Iran. Senator McCain discussed how he would embrace bipartisanship as he has done throughout his career. He talked of working on issues that both sides of the isle can come to an agreement on, and stated that he would most likely have Democrats in his cabinet. When questioned about President Bush’s remarks about appeasement, he said he took the President at his word that the comments weren’t about Senator Obama. He definitively stated his opposition to the president directly talking to Iran. He laid out what Iran would have to do before talks were even considered, such as renouncing their desire to ‘wipe Israel off the map’, stop their nuclear ambitions, abandon sending arms into Iraq, and stop supporting of Hezbollah. He was clearly disturbed by the idea of negotiating with someone who recently called Israel a “stinking corpse”, and questioned what could possibly be said that would result in anything positive. One questioner noted that Senator Obama’s campaign had made different statements about his willingness to talk with Iran than Senator Obama had and asked Senator McCain about these discrepancies. Senator McCain also noted that Senator Obama had stated in Ohio that he would unilaterally renegotiate the NAFTA and then stated he supported free trade in North Carolina, and was troubled by the inconsistencies and contradictions of Senator Obama and his campaign. Finally, Senator McCain was challenged on his speech’s prediction that their would be a significant reduction of troops in Iraq by 2013 being asked if that wasn’t a timeline for withdrawal which he has vehemently opposes. Senator McCain answered that troop levels would be dictated by conditions on the ground, and that the reduction of troops is a realistic goal but not the queue to the enemy as to when troops would leave that a timetable would be.
First Published at Purple People Vote Independent Blog
Entry Filed under: Barack Obama, John McCain, Military, War on Terror, iraq
5 Comments
1. Joe | May 16th, 2008 at 11:21 am
He talked of working on issues that both sides of the isle can come to an agreement on, and stated that he would most likely have Democrats in his cabinet.
— This is a goal that EVERYONE should have. The disgusting partisanship of the last 8 years is nauseating. And to think the current guy came in “as a uniter not a divider”. Little did we know, that Bush was talking about mathematics and he meant he only knew how to do addition, but didn’t know how to do division.
The GOP have continued to say that the wave of new Dems being elected to Congress are conservative Democrats. That means a President Obama would most likely have conservatives in his cabinet. Again, different views are a good thing. That is something the current Prez doesn’t get. I have complete faith that McCain will be different (as long as his “Democrats in his cabinet” is not just Joe Lieberman and nobody else). Good for McCain for seeing this issue, but let’s hope he follows thru with it if he wins.
When questioned about President Bush’s remarks about appeasement, he said he took the President at his word that the comments weren’t about Senator Obama.
— How can you take that as not about Obama? It clearly was. I hope this isn’t just McCain simply trying to NOT tick off the 28%-ers that are the base of the GOP.
He definitively stated his opposition to the president directly talking to Iran. He laid out what Iran would have to do before talks were even considered…
— I think we’ve been thru this before. Laying out some conditions are fine. I have no problem with that as long as they are realistic conditions and diplomacy is the primary goal of Foreign policy.
…questioned what could possibly be said that would result in anything positive.
— Who knows until someone tries? Maybe telling them that “wiping Israel off the map” would not happen and that there would be serious consequences if that attempt is even made? Then continue talks from there. That would be talking from a position of strength, not appeasement (as you people love to label things).
Senator McCain was challenged on his speech’s prediction that their would be a significant reduction of troops in Iraq by 2013 being asked if that wasn’t a timeline for withdrawal which he has vehemently opposes.
— Good grief. I would HOPE there would be some reduction in troops before then! We couldn’t keep up the troop levels or the expenditure levels for another 5 years! If we are still at 140k troops in 2010 there may be a revolt in the U.S. Poll after poll after poll have shown that over 70% of the U.S. want the troops home within a YEAR. Not reduced by 2013.
Senator McCain answered that troop levels would be dictated by conditions on the ground
— We’ve heard that before. Then when Bush hears that there is no military solution, those Generals are discounted and they leave. It sure would have been nice to hear him say something like… “Well as we all know there is no military solution to this. We need to start push the Iraqis to take more of a stake in this occupation so we can start drawing down.”
Nothing groundbreaking in the interview, but hey, nothing horrible either. I wouldn’t be ticked over a McCain presidency, I just feel that an Obama presidency has a LOT more potential. In my opinion, McCain has to prove he is not just another 4 years of what we’ve been thru of this last Administration. I think he can to a point, but not enough to my liking.
2. KMorrison | May 16th, 2008 at 12:07 pm
I think Bush’s comments put McCain in a awkward position. It’s hard to deny that there was an Obama inference, but when the president states that there wasn’t I don’t think McCain can say much else besides ‘I take him at his word.’ It’s also difficult because there is a legitimate question about the merits of face to face negotiation, but it’s now being tied to the appeasement comment which again puts McCain in an odd position. I do hope President Bush decides not to “help” McCain to much, because his methods of campaigning have worn thin in a big way.
Matt’s piece on In the Year 2013 gives a better account of McCain’s view of progress in Iraq and the Middle East as he just gave a clarification in the blogger call.
A future president meeting with Ahmadinejad face to face is a terrible idea. He’s crazy and he’s hell bent on destroying Israel. A face to face meeting would give him prestige and Senator McCain is right in asking what could possibly be accomplished by talking to him.
3. Joe | May 16th, 2008 at 12:35 pm
KM: I do hope President Bush decides not to “help” McCain to much, because his methods of campaigning have worn thin in a big way.
Glad to hear that you agree with that!
As for the “appeasement” thing… nobody says that talking to an enemy means you have to give things up or not be hard on them. Talking also can be standing tough with the enemy, but still talking. It is always better than bombing.
Look at how it worked with North Korea. Look at Libya. Why can’t talks work with Iran???
4. KMorrison | May 16th, 2008 at 12:49 pm
I think the problem is two fold. You don’t want to legitimize him, it’s not absolute that he will continue to be Iran’s president and we could end up making him more powerful than he is now. Second, talks typically consist of compromise and there are too many areas that are not open to compromise. Specifically they have to renounce there desire to destroy Israel.
5. Matt DiBari | May 16th, 2008 at 4:08 pm
That’s what I’m worried about. What is Barack Obama willing to give up in these negotiations, and does he really plan on taking Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at his word? That is what is reminding people of Neville Chamberlain. This idea that we’re going to negotiate from a position of weakness and, in theory, take a maniac at his word.