McCain says US lives 'wasted' in Iraq

[Ron Burgundy]

AP - Republican presidential contender John McCain (news, bio, voting record), a staunch backer of the Iraq war but critic of how President Bush has waged it, said U.S. lives had been "wasted" in the four-year-old conflict. Democrats demand the Arizona senator apologize for the comment as Sen. Barack Obama (news, bio, voting record) did when the Democratic White House hopeful recently made the same observation.

"Americans are very frustrated, and they have every right to be," McCain said Wednesday on CBS' "Late Show With David Letterman." "We've wasted a lot of our most precious treasure, which is American lives."

McCain, who repeated his assertion that U.S. troops must remain in Iraq rather than withdrawing early, made the "wasted" remark after confirming to Letterman what has been clear for at least a year or more — that he's in the running for the 2008 Republican nomination.

"I am announcing that I will be a candidate for president of the United States," he said — and added that he would officially enter the race by giving a formal announcement speech to that effect in April after a visit to Iraq.

Hours after the taped appearance aired, the Democratic National Committee called on McCain to take back the "wasted" lives remark.

"Senator McCain should apologize immediately for his callous comments," said Karen Finney, a DNC spokeswoman. "How is it that John McCain now believes American lives are being wasted, yet he so stubbornly supports the president's plan to escalate the war in Iraq and put more American lives in harms way?"

A message seeking comment was left with McCain's campaign.

In February, Obama described the lives of troops in Iraq as having been "wasted," but then later said he regretted the comment.

"We ended up launching a war that should have never been authorized, and should have never been waged, and on which we've now spent $400 billion, and have seen over 3,000 lives of the bravest young Americans wasted," Obama, D-Ill., said at a rally in Ames, Iowa.

Later, in an interview with a newspaper reporter, Obama said: "I was actually upset with myself when I said that, because I never use that term."

"Their sacrifices are never wasted," he said.

A four-term senator, McCain unsuccessfully ran for president in 2000 against Bush and has been laying the groundwork for a second run for more than a year. There had been little doubt that he would become a full-fledged White House candidate. He had been expected to make his candidacy official in the spring.

The 2006 midterm campaign had just ended when McCain took the first formal step toward a presidential run. He formed an exploratory committee and gave a speech casting himself as a "commonsense conservative" in the vein of Ronald Reagan who could lead the party back to dominance.

McCain faces strong challenges from former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who has widened his lead over McCain in popularity polls in recent weeks, and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who is little-known nationally but is drawing notice for his deft fundraising.

"We keep doing the best we can. We're very happy with the way things are going," McCain told reporters Wednesday in response to a question about him trailing Giuliani in polls.

Giuliani and Romney have spent the past two months mostly campaigning while McCain largely has been tied to Capitol Hill in his role as the highest-ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, which is focused largely on the unpopular Iraq war.

A former Navy pilot who was a prisoner of war in Vietnam, he has emerged as the Senate's go-to guy on Iraq. In recent months, McCain has become Bush's most outspoken supporter of sending in another 21,500 troops to Iraq — even though he for years has leveled strong criticism about how Bush has handled the war.

source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070301/ap_on_el_pr/mccain2008 [link]

[motivez]

I agree with him, and the person from the DNC is a moron for criticizing him for speaking the truth about the ghastly reality.

It might not be the most politically correct terminology, but it's unfortunately 100% correct.

It was right when Obama said it too, even though there was some outrage at that.

Obama made the smart political move to apologize. Will McCain? Should he?

[ballz2wallz]

Does a war have to be won in order for lives not to be wasted? Were lives wasted at the Alamo?

I think lives are only 'wasted' when someone, and individual, wastes it themselves, by not leading a productive, meaningful life. If anyone fights for their country with bravery and valor, then their lives are not wasted. There are more here on LL wasting their lives than there are fighting for their country in Iraq.

I'm becoming VERY annoyed at people who say American lives are 'wasted' in Iraq, and I'm even more annoyed with those that agree with them.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by motivez

Obama made the smart political move to apologize. Will McCain? Should he?

I think he definitely should. Obama is the rock star right now and he's the man to beat. If McCain gets anywhere this could be thrown in his face.. Obama apologized for this comment, McCain wouldn't. Etc.

I thought Obama was smart when he apologized, and I think McCain would be foolish if he doesn't.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by motivez

Obama made the smart political move to apologize. Will McCain? Should he?

I think McCain will. I think he mis-spoke, as he's been an avid supporter of this war and the surge. I can't imagine he'd say something like this and mean it.

I think Obama meant it, and he apologized cause he knew it would go against him. McCain will apologize for it cause it's not really what he thinks.

You know he was 3rd from the bottom of his class right? Don't know what the means? It means he probably said something he didn't intend to say.

[motivez]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Does a war have to be won in order for lives not to be wasted? Were lives wasted at the Alamo?

I think lives are only 'wasted' when someone, and individual, wastes it themselves, by not leading a productive, meaningful life. If anyone fights for their country with bravery and valor, then their lives are not wasted. There are more here on LL wasting their lives than there are fighting for their country in Iraq.

I'm becoming VERY annoyed at people who say American lives are 'wasted' in Iraq, and I'm even more annoyed with those that agree with them.

It's not about winning or losing, it's about them being in a place they should have never been, with no coherent strategy, going around the country playing a giant game of wack-a-mole with terrorists and Iraqi militias in the middle of a civil war.

When they die because we have no plan, because we haven't been able to change the dynamic, and Bush refuses to listen to the Generals or anyone else that has a different idea on how to actually succeed over there, it's simply a fact that the life that was lost was wasted on a misguided, bungled and failing war effort.

It doesn't speak to the soldier, so saying that they had a good life or whatever is irrelevant, it speaks to the people running this war making bad decisions that impact the lives of our troops.

You can be annoyed all you want, it's not a happy thing to say and I certainly don't like saying it. I'm saddened and frustrated by it. But it's the truth, and I'm not going to run from it or pretend it's different for bullshit political reasons.

[ethyl]

But at the Senate today Obama defended McCain, surmising that McCain was trying to say what he had been trying to: that the troops deserved better planning and preparation than the Bush administration had given them.

"One thing I don't think McCain can be faulted for is his dedication to the troops," Obama said. "He's been there, done that."

Sounds ok to me.

[kinggovernor]

they will only be wasted if we pull out

[motivez]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

I think McCain will. I think he mis-spoke, as he's been an avid supporter of this war and the surge. I can't imagine he'd say something like this and mean it.

I think Obama meant it, and he apologized cause he knew it would go against him. McCain will apologize for it cause it's not really what he thinks.

You know he was 3rd from the bottom of his class right? Don't know what the means? It means he probably said something he didn't intend to say.

I think it's what he really thinks. He's shifted a lot of his positions over the last year or two because he's been positioning himself for another run for the White House, and to get the nomination in the Republican Party of today, he can't be seen as a moderate. Sad, because I like the moderate McCain, but true nonetheless. He unfortunately needs to pander to the right wing of the party, the crazy evangelicals, etc.. and that's exactly what he's been doing.

He got off the "Straight Talk Express" long ago for political reasons, but I don't believe he actually buys into some of the more extreme stuff he's been saying. I don't believe that someone can shift so vastly in the other direction after a long distinguished career as a maverick / moderate. I think this was a Freudian slip.

I really don't think being in the bottom of his class means he's not a smart person politically. I think he'll apologize because it's the right political move for the image he's tried to create recently, not because he doesn't believe it.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by motivez

It's not about winning or losing, it's about them being in a place they should have never been, with no coherent strategy, going around the country playing a giant game of wack-a-mole with terrorists and Iraqi militias in the middle of a civil war.

When they die because we have no plan, because we haven't been able to change the dynamic, and Bush refuses to listen to the Generals or anyone else that has a different idea on how to actually succeed over there, it's simply a fact that the life that was lost was wasted on a misguided, bungled and failing war effort.

It doesn't speak to the soldier, so saying that they had a good life or whatever is irrelevant, it speaks to the people running this war making bad decisions that impact the lives of our troops.

You can be annoyed all you want, it's not a happy thing to say and I certainly don't like saying it. I'm saddened and frustrated by it. But it's the truth, and I'm not going to run from it or pretend it's different for bullshit political reasons.

No soldiers lives are 'wasted' no matter who put them there. It is not their fault, they've done their job, and they've done it properly, as they should. Anybody that lives their life that way lives it properly, and it was not wasted. I don't care how you justify it, their lives are not wasted, as they are more honorable than most people back here in the US.

How can an honoralbe life be a wasted life? It can't. No matter how you try to justify those words, it hurts, both those that are over there and the families of those who have lost them.

If you're trying to attack the people in charge of sending them over there, then do so, but don't attack Bush by attacking the worth of the soldiers' lives.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

they will only be wasted if we pull out

This more of a justifyable stance than saying they are presently wasted.

[motivez]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

they will only be wasted if we pull out

Yeah, keeping the troops over there with no mission, no strategy, so they can continue to be a target for no reason is way better than trying to shift the dynamic in the country by forcing the Iraqi's to finally step up and take control

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by motivez

Yeah, keeping the troops over there with no mission, no strategy, so they can continue to be a target for no reason is way better than trying to shift the dynamic in the country by forcing the Iraqi's to finally step up and take control

Hate to say this (well, actually I like saying it) but the surge is working, quite well in fact.

There is a strategy, there is a mission, and it's going to work as long as we don't pussyfoot around it.

Originally Posted by motivez

Yeah, keeping the troops over there with no mission, no strategy, so they can continue to be a target for no reason is way better than trying to shift the dynamic in the country by forcing the Iraqi's to finally step up and take control

There's no mission or strategy? Thats not what the secretary of defense and a four star general said just two days ago.

[SpicyMcVoodoo]

Originally Posted by motivez

I agree with him, and the person from the DNC is a moron for criticizing him for speaking the truth about the ghastly reality.

I don't know if the person is a moron. Sure, it's substantively moronic to criticize him, but politically it may be smart. When you have Republicans micro-analyzing every word Dems say waiting to pounce on them with accusations of being unpatriotic, the Dems would be foolish not to do the same back when there's a silver platter opportunity.

[motivez]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Hate to say this (well, actually I like saying it) but the surge is working, quite well in fact.

There is a strategy, there is a mission, and it's going to work as long as we don't pussyfoot around it.

Where do you get the idea that it's working?

It's not working, look at the other thread recently we've had. I posted some good information there straight from the military that shows it's not going like they thought it would. They're far behind target and it's not even going to be what President Bush said it was going to be (ie: the Iraqi's actually stepping up).. it's the military taking over for the Iraqi's again.. and when the surge is done ( like has happened the multitude of other times we've had these little surges around Muslim holidays, etc ), nothing will be different than it was beforehand.

This isn't a new strategy, it's the same strategy we've used over and over again that hasn't worked, hasn't quelled the violence, hasn't changed the dynamic on the ground with the various ethnic factions, and hasn't improved the political situation.

The reality is that everyone who knows anything about what's going on in Iraq, including the military Generals who have overseen the effort recognize that it's not a military solution that is needed, it's a political one.

Taking more responsibility over from the Iraqi units doesn't do anything to help that situation.

[motivez]

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

I don't know if the person is a moron. Sure, it's substantively moronic to criticize him, but politically it may be smart. When you have Republicans micro-analyzing every word Dems say waiting to pounce on them with accusations of being unpatriotic, the Dems would be foolish not to do the same back when there's a silver platter opportunity.

He's a moron because McCain isn't wrong. His comments should be highlighted and taken as more evidence that the surge is pointless and shouldn't be happening.

Instead, by asking him to apologize, it says that Obama was wrong as well.

It's an easy move against the Republicans without much thought put into it.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by motivez

I think it's what he really thinks. He's shifted a lot of his positions over the last year or two because he's been positioning himself for another run for the White House, and to get the nomination in the Republican Party of today, he can't be seen as a moderate. Sad, because I like the moderate McCain, but true nonetheless. He unfortunately needs to pander to the right wing of the party, the crazy evangelicals, etc.. and that's exactly what he's been doing.

He got off the "Straight Talk Express" long ago for political reasons, but I don't believe he actually buys into some of the more extreme stuff he's been saying. I don't believe that someone can shift so vastly in the other direction after a long distinguished career as a maverick / moderate. I think this was a Freudian slip.

I really don't think being in the bottom of his class means he's not a smart person politically. I think he'll apologize because it's the right political move for the image he's tried to create recently, not because he doesn't believe it.

Nope, you're wrong, he just apologized and admitted he misspoke. I'll have the text when it's posted.

[motivez]

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

There's no mission or strategy? Thats not what the secretary of defense and a four star general said just two days ago.

That's correct. There's no mission and no strategy to help fix the problems Iraq is facing. Do they have little individual missions and whatnot? Sure, but no broad effort. Anyone with two eyes who can read about the lack of progress on the ground can see that.

Like, oh, the fact that 40% of the educated middle class have fled the country, that the political situation isn't getting any better, that the country is beginning self-segregate based on ethno-religious factions, that the militia's are becoming more powerful, etc, etc.

This temporary surge is no different than any of the other's we've had. Violence in a certain area will decrease temporarily, but it doesn't actually address any of the issues that need to be addressed.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by motivez

Where do you get the idea that it's working?

Oh I don't know, the government (those in charge of the war) and the generals over there in Iraq (those actually in the war) and the Iraqi government (those able to actually see the progress) all say it's going quite well