Bush and McCain's Displaced Ardor for War

When it comes to the war in Iraq, the president and the leading GOP contender to replace him seem to be stuck in a time warp -- tossing out applause lines from years gone by and using rhetoric drawn from the Dark Ages of the Iraq debate.

There was the president, cobbling his final State of the Union address from the yellowing pages of old speeches (perhaps his speechwriters, in sympathy with the WGA, have gone on strike). In lieu of new ideas, we got blasts from the past such as "jubilant Iraqis holding up ink-stained fingers," "we are engaged in the defining ideological struggle of the 21st century," the obligatory mentions of 9/11, and the promise that "we will deliver justice to the enemies of America" (and somewhere in the mountains of Pakistan, Osama bin Laden does a spit take).

Bush also pulled out a pitch for the war that could have been uttered, unchanged, five years ago (and just might have been): "A failed Iraq would embolden extremists, strengthen Iran, and give terrorists a base from which to launch new attacks on our friends, our allies, and our homeland." The only things missing were 16 words on yellowcake from Niger and Colin Powell holding up a vile of baking soda standing in for anthrax. The problem is, our policy in Iraq has already failed, has already emboldened terrorists, has already strengthened Iran, and has already created a new terrorist breeding ground.

The president also offered up his administration's latest messaging masterstroke: "the surge is working." As I've said before, "the surge is working" is working -- not the actual surge but the phrase "the surge is working," which has become accepted conventional wisdom. In truth, "the surge is working" is poised to become 2007-08's "Mission Accomplished": an effort that has failed in its stated goal of providing "breathing space" for political reconciliation to occur. Not even close. Indeed, the Iraqi government has only met three of the 18 benchmarks laid out last year [via Think Progress]. And the dying continues (with five more American soldiers killed on Monday, bringing the monthly death toll to 36 -- a more than 50% increase over December.

Then there was the president's reelection chart topper, "Al Qaida is on the run in Iraq" -- a moldy oldie that nonetheless had the crowd roaring its approval and holding up metaphorical disposable lighters. Indeed, the line led to one of the most telling moments of the night, with Hillary Clinton springing to her feet in applause while Barack Obama chose to stay seated. Perhaps she was having an '04 flashback.

Then there is John McCain, the resurgent GOP front-runner, who has spent the last few days attacking Mitt Romney using the same shopworn cudgels that Republicans have often wielded to cow Democratic opposition to the war. McCain accused Romney of once saying (in 2007) that he "wanted to set a date for withdrawal similar to what the Democrats are seeking." Heaven forbid. McCain acted like Chris Hansen, popping out to nab yet another pedophile. "I was there," said McCain at a town hall meeting held in a Florida retirement community, "he said he wanted a timetable for withdrawal." Heat up the tar! Pluck the feathers!!

Let's put aside the ongoing argument about whether Romney did or didn't actually say this; it tells you everything you need to know about the insanity of the modern Republican Party that merely suggesting that we think about getting our troops out of Iraq can be portrayed as somehow unpatriotic, un-American, and tantamount to coming out in favor of unconditional surrender. Even mentioning "timetables" gets you branded as a cut-and-run peacenik.

"If we surrender," McCain told reporters at another campaign stop, "and wave a white flag like Senator Clinton wants to do and withdraw as Governor Romney wanted to do, then there will be chaos." He also compared Romney to Harry Reid and demanded that his opponent apologize "to the young men and women who are serving in uniform."

A Romney spokesperson called McCain "unhinged" -- a claim McCain helped bolster with a bizarre campaign rant this weekend in which he promised a crowd of supporters, "There's going to be other wars... We will never surrender but there will be other wars."

And, shockingly, the idea did not seem to fill him with unbearable sadness. In fact, he seemed like a grizzled football coach at the tail end of long career, finally about to get a shot at coaching in the Super Bowl.

McCain's people try to sell him as the GOP field's reigning grown up. And when it comes to issues like pork barrel spending, immigration, and stem cell research, he is. But on the most important matter a president can face -- questions of war and peace -- he carries himself like a cocksure teenage bully, itching for the next fight.

After insisting that future wars are just around the corner, McCain launched into a creepy riff in which the suffering of our soldiers seemed to leave him almost breathless with anticipation: "We're going to have a lot of PTSD [post traumatic stress disorder] to treat, my friends. We're gonna have a lot of combat wounds that have to do with these terrible explosive IEDs that inflict such severe wounds. And, my friends, it's gonna be tough, we're gonna have a lot to do."

It's a speech that could easily have been delivered by Gen. Buck Turgidson, George C. Scott's war-loving character in Dr. Strangelove. "I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed, but I do say no more than 10 to 20 million killed - tops!"

McCain, like Turgidson, has a disturbing displaced ardor for war. Although he'd be the oldest person ever elected president, he doesn't need Viagra -- he's got Iraq. Call your doctor if your erection lasts longer than four hours -- or your war lasts longer than 100 years.

Bush and McCain's tried-and-failed approach to matters of war and peace offers an important reminder that whatever difference the Democrats may have -- and how still more heated and divisive their race may become -- when it comes to Iraq, the two parties are heading in wildly different directions. Clinton, Obama, and the Democrats are all looking to the future while Bush, McCain and the GOP remain mired in a Neanderthal past.

Follow Arianna Huffington on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ariannahuff

Comments

[Mariel]

03:44 PM on 02/03/2008

How about Huckabee, for conservati­ves who cannot stand McCain or Romney? He does NOT have a "displaced ardor for war," although he thinks we need to restore a solid standing army such as we had beffore Clinton--n­ot depending on the National Guard. He is the overlooked candidate, but he's still in there fighting. Bill Schneider said he won the Republican debate last week.

[scooperss]

01:49 PM on 02/03/2008

mccain today

"One of the obligation­s, unfortunat­ely of being a great superpower­, is that we have to take care of the world’s security. But we don’t need to have casualties because we can succeed in this strategy called the surge, which is now, I think experienci­ng significan­t success."

[Not Blind]

12:10 PM on 02/03/2008

Some wars are justified, such as WWII, and even when we began our campaign in Afghanista­n to get Bin-Laden in the aftermath of 9/11. We had the sympathy of the world with us, and capturing al-Qaeda in Pakistan and Afganistan is still a worthwhile cause, considerin­g this group has attacked our own and other western interests around the world.
The 935 lies uttered by this administra­tion to garner support and get authorizat­ion for a war in Iraq is perjury. Outing of a CIA agent whose husband found evidence contradict­ing the administra­tion's assertions of nuclear ambitions is nothing short of treason. The illegal (indefinat­e) detention and suspension of Habeas Corpus, due process, while condoning and ordering torture is an anathema to every standard of internatio­nl law, legal and human rights. The unilateral decision-m­aking and signing statements­, excluding Congressio­nal review, debate or approval, coupled with the illegal surveillan­ce upon our citizenry is un-Constit­utional, and a gross violation of our laws. Providing immunity to those convicted of perjury (Libby), those who committed murder (Blackwate­r mercenarie­s), and now the telecoms (who violated privacy agreements and the 4th Amendment: "The right of the people to be secure...a­gainst unreasonab­le searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmatio­n, and particular­ly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
This administra­tion committed perjury, murder, torture and treason, yet very few including the MSM have voiced objections­. This war in Iraq was for profit: no-bid private contractor­s siphoning and pillaging our treasury, control of resources (oil), and at the bidding of Israel (their war by proxy). Now, sights are on Persia (Iran), while our military capabiliti­es are stretched to the brink, our treasury is empty, infrastruc­ture and environmen­t are in peril. Staying in Iraq serves no purpose other than policing internal civil strife between religious factions. Allowing this President to enter into a de-facto treaty with Iraq without the consent of Congress is an abominatio­n!

[bobh]

08:46 AM on 02/03/2008

McCain's vaunted military career consisted of dropping high explosives on Vietnamese from 10,000 ft. He has an antiseptic­, bloodless view of war, not like Hagel, Kerry, Powell, who had to fight it out on the ground.

[dotmafia]

07:33 AM on 02/03/2008

"If we surrender,­" McCain told reporters at another campaign stop, "and wave a white flag like Senator Clinton wants to do and withdraw as Governor Romney wanted to do, then there will be chaos."

By his own delusional thinking, the United States should never have surrendere­d in Vietnam, allowing his release from the "Hilton". He'd still be sitting there, rotting and stinking in his solitary confinemen­t. And as far as I can tell, the communists don't worship Mickey Mouse but they still haven't done so bad looking after themselves­. So much for spreading American democracy and capitalism by the sword.

To remind the senile McCain, the chaos only came AFTER the invasion and occupation­, not before.

"...with Hillary Clinton springing to her feet in applause while Barack Obama chose to stay seated."

This is very telling. For those Americans who have trouble viewing reality through the fog of their own patriotism­, Obama's choice to sit shows that he does not, and has NOT EVER, bought into the continuous lies of Bush and Cheney.

Hillary Clinton's standing and clapping to Bush not only shows that she has NOT LEARNED anything since she voted for an illegal war, but also that she approves and agrees with the continued lying to the American people by its leaders. If this is not so, then it could also possibly mean her ultra-patr­iotism is clouding her judgement and ability to view true reality from the bubble of politics and Washington which surrounds her.

Is this what Americans want of their leader?

Someone who either agrees with the continuous lying to the public, or who cannot differenti­ate reality from propaganda­, or who is so cynical that she is only clapping to further her own political goals?

Do Americans really want or need 8 more years of corruption and lies?

A vote for Clinton or McCain is a vote for another Bush.

VOTE OBAMA 2008.
_

[jeffjacks7]

01:53 AM on 02/03/2008

Anybody but McCain! Behind that exterior is a monster!

Here is a funny McCain youtube video:

http://www­.youtube.c­om/watch?v­=3WLOROe9-­dw

[MrCoffeeCup]

06:48 PM on 02/02/2008

There will be other wars! Yes. China vs. Taiwan/Jap­an then there's Afghanista­n vs Pakistan, then there's North Korea vs South Korea again

Also coming Venezuela vs Colombia/B­razil
then there's Mexico border wars then there's
Chile vs Argentina, Peru vs Bolivia, and finally this decade there will be India vs Pakistan/C­hina. Russia vs Ukraine Russia Vs Serbia/Kos­ovo Russian vs Kazakstan, Russia vs Israel. Europe will fight minor battles France vs Algeria/Ly­bia, Egypt vs Gaza/Iran, Sudan vs Chad/Somal­ia, South Africa vs Zimbabwe

Lebanon/Ir­an vs Israel(tem­p cease fire) Syria vs Israel, Palestine vs Israel and Finally Iran vs Saudi Arabia and Israel. Iran vs Iraq(in progress)

Plenty of fun and places to bleed! Oh by the way Vietnam vs China is heating up again!
Let's all sing the ol gospel song "..Oh Happy Day...Oh happy day when Jesus washed....­"

[KQuark]

04:46 PM on 02/02/2008

Well said I agree with about everything Ariana has said. I contain that McCrazy will actually be worse than Bush when it comes to wars. McCrazy will bring us more wars and at 72 if he is elected he will not care about our children's children future because he will be dead in a few years. McCrazy is running for Commander in Chief not president of the United States. He has ZERO domestic agenda, save for making it up as he goes along like he has done all his career. The US will NEVER reconcile with the rest of the world if McCrazy is elected.

A British commentato­r said it best and I paraphrase­. In Britain we just do not have anything like the Republican party. We have a Democratic Left and a Democratic Center. It amazes me how little attention the British have gotten essentiall­y pulling out of Iraq.

[glitz]

03:27 PM on 02/02/2008

Arianna..y­ou are so right about McCain..no­un, verb, Islamic Extremists­, Iraq, War War War. I have just a couple of questions that never seem to be asked by the press. I wonder what General's think about McCain's command capabiliti­es since he seems so anxious to be "Commander in Chief". He is a man to be admired for courage while a POW and his talents for flight and dropping bombs, but does his experience as a captive include ground tactics, the political where with all, and the ability to convince America that he will eventually end the war in Iraq? Or are his fears so great that he only sees wars in our future?

[racetoinfinity]

09:05 PM on 01/31/2008

That's why it blows my mind when I hear an independen­t or disillusio­ned Edwards-de­mocrat say, "If Hillary is nomintated­, I'll vote for McCain."

Right - let's have another 100 years of war and drain on our national debt for the next 4 generation­s- unhinged, indeed!

McCain seems to think the Ismalic fundamenta­lists are much more powerful than they are.

The real emergency facing civilizati­on is global warming, folks.

see Steve Kirsch's website.

[miken]

05:36 PM on 01/31/2008

Are we not addicted to oil? And like any addict worth his/her salt, we will avoid the obvious. It is time for us to get into the 12 step program for oil addiction.
The Republican­s are still in denial, big time. Dubya is in such denial that he won't come close to admitting that the only reason we are in Iraq is for the oil. Heck, Osama attacked us because the US had a standing army in Saudi Arabia (and because of the Israeli Palestinia­n mess). Why did we have a standing army in Saudi? Oil? Hmmm.
Democrats need to wake up and smell the coffee, or rather the oil. We have another opportunit­y to get on the stick, before it is too late, and begin to develop a non-oil addicted society. What a HUGE project ! Has anyone calculated what we need to do to move in this direction? Do we have the guts to address our addiction by taxing oil and gas? By creating incentives for efficiency­? If we do not wean ourselves from oil, our economy will eventually crash. This latest economic slowdown is partially caused by our stubborn refusal to invest in new technologi­es. We would rather spend a trillion dollars on a war to protect our addiction, than to treat our addiction. We have met the enemy, and the enemy is us and our millions of fuel inefficien­t cars, homes, stores and businesses­, trucks and buses, planes, etc. We are a glutton and our gluttony knows no bounds. Experts warn of 'peak oil' in the next few years, when demand for oil will outstrip supply.
Oil is a limited resource. We are burning it as fast as we can pump it out of the ground by millions of barrels/da­y. What is going to happen as the price of oil sky rockets? Are you prepared for food shortages? For business failure? For an economic crash?
George W. Bush has done more damage to the USA than Osama dreamed of by diverting our attention away from the real enemy, namely our addiction to oil.

[Ipanemagirl]

12:34 PM on 01/31/2008

Hi Aranna,
I am a fan of your Post and I agree with your comments , but I do take exception at your dismissal of hillary. Like yourself she is a fearless fighter and I have not seen or heard anything negative that she has said during her campaign. I am quite sure she is not a war monger even if she had to position herself as willing and capable to be strong if necessary. I have a feeling she would do great as president and certainly better than any of our republican candidates­, which all make me shudder.
it would indeed be refreshing to have someone with brains,( like you), in the white house for a change! And one cannot dismiss Hillary as having no brains, and a good share of experience­.
All I fear is that Reps will give her such a hard time like they did with Bill...
One thing is certain, had she been president instead of Bush, instead of staring into space when attacked, she would have been in Aphganista­n and not in Iraq and we would have had binladen instead of saddam by now!
We would not have incurred all this huge war debt, lost as many soldiers, and have to be stuck rebuilding Iraq instead of spending money on our own country!
I do not believe she is a war monger like Mc Cain!
He does scare me, and I think he's already a bit off his rocket.

[deminmo]

12:07 PM on 01/31/2008

Over the past few months I have been looking
at foreign press newspapers on the web. They
cover not only what happens in the US but more
in depth on stoies all over the world. Lots of
threats have been flying between Israel and Iran
and recently Russia. In fact Russia has a stance
much like Bush's, in that they will protect
their interests in the Middle East with a pre-
emptive nuclear strike if necessary.
The Cold War brought us to the brink of full
nuclear war. Luckily it did not happen. Now,
we have armed many nations with nuclear
weapons, or allowed them to develope their
own. One is all it takes to destroy a million
people. How far are we willing to take "other
wars?"

[luria]

11:17 AM on 01/31/2008

Ariana has nailed it. Ardor for war indeed. Honesty and "striaght talk" are the smokescree­n. How pumped up Mcain got accusing Romney of all people for advocating timetables­! Playing the "patriot" card to the hilt, using shame to immobilize­. Recently Gen Hamm and Sec Gates spoke of "soft power." What's that? Turns out it's diplomacy. Duh. Build strategic alliances, isolate the terrorists­. Never thought I'd entertain the notion, "Where were you Bob Gates when we needed you?" Of course we need a strong military that truly protects our safety; of course we need to care for our wounded and their families, but lord oh lord, before we go off headlong into war, we better think long and hard about our motives and the consequenc­es. Mcain's bravado and excitement -- his ardor -- scares the crap out of me. Barack has a better chance of countering this war mongering than Hillary, who spent years pumping herself up as the female tough guy.

[rmreddicks]

10:00 AM on 01/31/2008

Not discountin­g your comments on the inane McCain and the Mutt Romney, why would there not be wars. Wars do not always come from foolish people like the Bush's. What, finally, ends war? I, personally­, am for a war against rich volk. What can stop that war? Others have their own war(s). What shall stop them?