McCain says setting Iraq withdrawal date 'not that important'

Thursday 12th June, 07:30 AM JST

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

Latest 15 of 79 Total Comments Show All

Sarge at 06:43 AM JST - 13th June

USAFdude - "McCain couldn't care less about us troops"

If you really are a member of the U.S. Air Force, you are probably the only member of your unit who would say that. He might lose the election to the messiah, but he certainly cares about our troops.
yabits at 07:20 AM JST - 13th June

but [McCain] certainly cares about our troops.

Not really. How many times has he voted against increased funding for veterans' medical care?

The following passages give some indication of McCain's record of voting against veterans' interests:

Thirty-five years after McCain's return to the United States, the Veterans Health Administration has undergone a sea change. Once a national embarrassment, it is now among the highest-functioning public bureaucracies. In fact, it's the best health system, public or private, in the country. (Military hospitals are a different story altogether, managed not by the Veterans Administration but by the armed services. To many, the words "military hospital" evoke images of the Soviet-style decay uncovered by journalists at Walter Reed Army Medical Center.)

Times have changed since McCain needed veterans services so urgently. And for many of those thirty-five years, McCain, the presumptive GOP presidential nominee, the candidate who talks the best talk on veterans issues, has demonstrated a tendency to work against veterans' interests, voting time after time against funding and in favor of privatizing services--in other words, of rolling back the VA's improvements by supporting some of the same policies that wrecked Walter Reed.

During a March 2005 Senate budget debate, McCain voted to kill an amendment that would have "increase[d] veterans medical care by $2.8 billion in 2006." That amendment lacked an assured funding stream, but lest one mistake this incident for a maverick's stance against budget-busting, there's more. Just a year later McCain voted against an amendment that would have "increase[d] Veterans medical services funding by $1.5 billion in FY 2007 to be paid for by closing corporate tax loopholes." Two days after it failed, he voted to kill "an assured stream of funding for veterans' health care that [would] take into account the annual changes in the veterans' population and inflation to be paid for by restoring the pre-2001 top rate for income over $1 million, closing corporate tax loopholes and delaying tax cuts for the wealthy." That amendment died quietly, forty-six to fifty-four.

In September 2006 McCain voted to table an amendment to a Defense appropriations bill that would have prevented the department from contracting out support services at Walter Reed. The amendment was indeed tabled--by a vote of fifty to forty-eight, the sort of margin a true veterans' senator might have been able to flip if he really cared about veterans' healthcare.

"John McCain voted against veterans in 2004, '05, '06 and '07," says Jeffrey David Cox, who spent twenty-two years as a VA nurse before moving to the American Federation of Government Employees, where he serves as secretary-treasurer (AFGE represents employees of several federal agencies, including the VA). Cox is right. Under Bush, McCain has voted for measures that target so-called Priority-7 and Priority-8 veterans (those whose injuries are not service-related and whose incomes are above a low minimum threshold) for annual fees, higher co-pays and even suspended enrollment. Priority-7 veterans without dependents earn more than $24,644 annually. Priority-8 veterans without dependents earn an annual minimum of $27,790.

As they say, "money talks and BS walks." And McCain is a BS artist.
SuperLib at 10:36 AM JST - 13th June

I think it's pretty silly to say that McCain "doesn't care about troops" or "thinks $3 billion a week is chump change." I'm sure he does care about the troops. And I'm sure he thinks $3 billion is a lot of money. The decisions that people like him have to make include a variety of different factors, including sacrifices and/or the reality of limited resources. The opinions above exclusively attribute his motivation as hatred or stupidity, an accusation that would seem to be more appropriate for the accusers.
SuperLib at 10:39 AM JST - 13th June

The Catch-22 here is the extent that the US occupation is a contributing factor to the instability.

I think you're overstating the difficulty brought by US troops being there and understating the difficulty that would most likely occur if the US were to leave today.
yabits at 11:02 AM JST - 13th June

I think you're overstating the difficulty brought by US troops being there...

The Iraqis themselves are saying this.

Al-Jaberi and al-Ilyan said they thought violence in their country would subside after U.S. troops leave, and they embraced the idea of setting a timetable for the troops' departure. In a letter to Congress last week, some 31 Iraqi lawmakers - representing parties that constitute a majority in parliament - said they will insist on ratifying the agreement as is required by their country's constitution. They also pledged to reject any agreement that "is not linked to clear mechanisms" obligating U.S. troops to leave "with a declared timetable and without leaving behind any military bases, soldiers or hired fighters."

They want a chance to vote to ratify the heretofore closed agreement between Bush and al-Maliki, as the Iraq constitution specifies. Bush's agreement does not have a declared timetable, which a the parties representing the majority of Iraq's parliament wants.
Betzee at 08:18 PM JST - 13th June

And I'm sure he thinks $3 billion is a lot of money. The decisions that people like him have to make include a variety of different factors, including sacrifices and/or the reality of limited resources.

Really? It's this sort of bland assumption that explains why Uncle Sam has a USD 9 trillion national debt. When GWB came into office it stood at 5.7 trilion. It's expected to hit the ten mark when he departs next year.

.
Maruku at 11:34 PM JST - 13th June

I don't think McCain's statements were that out of line if you really think about it. They reflect what goes on in Washington. After dropping 3 tril. US dollars no-one walks away (has ever or will ever) and focuses on some other topical issue, say bail-outs by the Fed. This [the US in Iraq] is a non-issue, and if he made a faux pas it was not that the US is there to stay - this is an inescapable fact for several reasons - his point was that, if people must die, he wants those folks not to be American.

Read: We will stay in Iraq in an advisory capacity while we train Iraqi forces to defend their country against our mutual enemies i.e. radical Islam.

Guess who is dying and buying US tech, and guess who is staying.
USAFdude at 05:36 AM JST - 14th June

Sarge -

If you really are a member of the U.S. Air Force, you are probably the only member of your unit who would say that.

Yet again, you're utterly wrong. I have yet to speak to a member of my unit (which is sizable) who doesn't share my views on McCain vs. Obama. Deal with it, Sarge; we want a Democrat CinC.
yabits at 07:50 AM JST - 14th June

we want a Democrat CinC

Our son is an E6 in the Navy, and he tell us there's a lot more support for the Democrats than in prior election years.
USAFdude at 04:46 PM JST - 14th June

SuperLib-

I think it's pretty silly to say that McCain "doesn't care about troops" or "thinks $3 billion a week is chump change." We don't. Just look at this article.

The decisions that people like him have to make Just like the decisions people like Obama have to make.
prague at 02:17 PM JST - 15th June

A few days ago John McCain told an interviewer he could not predict when the troops in Iraq could come home.

"That's not important," he said.

"What's important is the casualties in Iraq."

He pointed out that U.S. troops have remained in Korea, Japan, and Germany long after conflicts there have ended.

Makes perfect sense to me as a guy who served in Germany for over three years in the U.S. Army.

It's also important to note that U.S. and Iraqi casualties are way down, and al Qaida in Iraq is on the run.

However, Barack Obama's campaign staff, in their infinite wisdom, said McCain's remarks show he is confused and lacks an understanding of the situation.

That's really interesting.

Since his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama has traveled to Iraq just once - in January 2006, more than a year before General David Petraeus took command and the surge began.

John McCain has been to Iraq eight times since 2003.

Barack Obama says such trips are not important and are staged-managed.

I suppose that's why fellow Democratic Senators Joe Biden and Jack Reed have made eight and ten trips to Iraq respectively.

Another Obama inconsistency is his tying the war in Iraq to high oil prices, something which like his one trip to Iraq the mainstream media has failed to call him on.

Iraqi oil production is now either at pre-war levels or even above.

Also it's very doubtful the U.S. military presence in Iraq has affected global supply and demand.

So what's the war got to do with the high price of gas Senator Obama?

Finally, I have a prediction for whatever it's worth. If McCain wins in November, and I predicted he would back in mid-2007, investors will be so relieved that global stock markets will soar and oil prices will stablize and later decline.

Sincerely,

James La-Giglia Hong Kong
yabits at 09:23 PM JST - 15th June

prague writes:

He pointed out that U.S. troops have remained in Korea, Japan, and Germany long after conflicts there have ended. Makes perfect sense to me as a guy who served in Germany for over three years in the U.S. Army.

Really? This makes "perfect sense?"

Well, to a guy who served in Japan for several years, tell me something: In the years following the fall of the war-governments of the Japanese and Germans, how many Americans were killed by local insurgents? How much did those occupations cost, relative to our occupation of Iraq?

Iraqi oil production is now either at pre-war levels or even above.

This is a very silly form of disinformation. Iraq's "pre-war" production was severely limited by UN mandate. Prior to Saddam's invasion of Kuwait, Iraq normally produced over 3 mbd. Current production is nowhere near that.

So what's the war got to do with the high price of gas Senator Obama?

The high levels of spending on the war, among other things, has led to a drastic decline in value of the US dollar.
prague at 10:07 PM JST - 15th June

Hi Vabits:

I still do not believe that you are disproving my arguments.

First you are right and Condoleezza Rice was wrong. You cannot compare the insurgency in Iraq with insurgencies in Japan, Germany, and Korea after wars there. In Japan and Korea, I think they were basically non-existent. Germany had a relatively low level insurgency waged by some hardcore Nazis called the "Werewolves" or something, but it was nothing like the scale of Iraq or Vietnam.

But again the point is still there is nothing wrong with keeping U.S. troops in Iraq for decades, if both Baghdad and Washington agree on the necessity and if Iraq is eventually as peaceful as Germany, South Korea, and Japan are today. Casualties and violence in Iraq are much lower than a year ago. Progress is being made. No matter what your opinion about whether the war was right or wrong to start. Now is not the time to throw in the towel and had the country over to al Qaida.

On your second point about Iraqi oil production today compared with before the war, don't take it up with me. Take it up with Iraq's oil minister. That person stated a few days ago that oil production is now at pre-war levels. And during the 1990s when oil was selling for 10 dollars a barrel as opposed to 136 now, Iraq's production was severely limited by a U.N. mandate as you write.

On your third point, a low dollar can increase the price of oil. You are right. Oil is denominated in dollars so when the dollar is declining, speculators frequently invest in oil, if the price is perceived to be rising, to protect their wealth. But I think what's brought down the dollar mostly are low interest rates and a weak U.S. economy. I do not think the high levels of spending on the war have caused low interst rates and a weak economy. But maybe some economists would disagree, given that that money could have been spent on infrastructure.

James Graziano La-Giglia Hong Kong
Maruku at 12:20 AM JST - 19th June

Jimmy in Hong Kong,

When there's a war (actually an invasion), the price of things goes up. This has happened since the beginning of time.

McCain has been to Iraq 9 times. So what?　The US army folks I know are as keen to go to to Iraq as few times as possible and I can assure that having him there is more of an inconvenience to the troops there who trying to do their job than taking care of some geezer.
Maruku at 12:42 AM JST - 19th June

besides ... after the precedent of GW on some ship in Top Gear kit declaring the end to the "war" several years ago now, what forward-looking politician would want to follow the same precedent. Except John McCain that is.