Exclusive: Advance Copy of McCain's New Op-Ed for the New York Times

My friends, now that Barack Obama has explained why he wants to cut and run precipitously from Iraq just sixteen months after he becomes president (which he never will, so help me God and the victory-loving American people), I would like to take this opportunity to explain why I believe we must never set a timetable for our withdrawal, or even use the words "time" and "Iraq" in the same sentence, as the White House (in my opinion, unfortunately) has just done.

First of all, Senator Barack Obama opposed the surge. He opposed the surge. He was against it. He didn't think it would work. He voted against it. He thought it was a bad idea. He didn't support it. He failed to see that it would drastically reduce the violence in Iraq. But it has. So he was wrong about the surge. Wrong wrong wrong. Wrong about the surge. Get it?

By the way, don't let anyone tell you that the drop in violence over there has anything to do with the fact that we've paid Sunni tribal chiefs to fight the insurgents, to resist Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia. That's just a sideshow. The main event of the past year in Iraq is the surge. The surge that I supported, that I advocated, that I've been urging for years -- long before the president ordered it. I urged the surge. I urged the surge that Barack opposed. See? All his fancy rhetoric, all those fawning TV interviewers, all those roaring crowds he gets in Afghanistan and Iraq--none of that can change the fact that I urged the surge that he opposed. And the surge worked.

Also, don't be misled by fallacious reports that Iraq's Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki supports Obama's "timetable" for the withdrawal of American forces in sixteen months. What he actually said was that sixteen months into the next presidency would be a good time to discuss the general time horizon for meeting the aspirational goals of the Iraqi people and our American forces in the war against terrorism as it relates to conditions on th ground. So it's clear, my friends, that Prime Minister al-Maliki actually supports my position, even if this crucial point got lost in translation.

Now what do I see ahead for Iraq? I see brave American men and women fighting to liberate that country and save it from terrorists. And terrorists, my friends, don't go away. They certainly won't leave if Osama gets to the White House and announces surrender in Iraq, which is of course exactly what he'll do on Inauguration Day if he ever gets to be president. Terrorists will remain as long as they believe they can drive us out, or wait us out. So as soon as we set a time for our departure, the terrorists will win.

That must never happen. But this does not mean that American troops should occupy Iraq forever, or for even a hundred years, as some people say that I've said. In fact I hope to see American troops come home by the end of my first term, which would be 2028 or something like that (I'm not very good at arithmetic or economics either, for that matter). The crucial point here is that I want American troops coming home only after we've achieved a victory in Iraq, not before. That's one of the many points on which I differ from Senator Obama.

What do I mean by victory in Iraq? That's a question I've often been asked. And here's my answer. Victory in Iraq means no more terrorists crossing the border between Iraq and Pakistan. It means no more Iranian support for Iraqi Sunnis. It means capturing Osama bin Laden, who is surely hiding somewhere in Baghdad (not in Waziristan or anything like that) because he knows -- even if no one else over there does -- that Iraq really is the central front in the war against terrorism.

And of course victory in Iraq means freedom. Freedom for American companies to pump the oil we desperately need for American cars, to get our SUVs rolling again, to make our carbon footprint bigger than ever. Freedom from whiners who tell us we must cut and run. Freedom from some Democrat politician lurching from Baghdad to Basra and shooting off his mouth to deranged crowds (some of them dressed up as soldiers) planted everywhere by the Democrat party with TV cameras following his every move and catching his every word even though he's never fought a war and was wrong wrong wrong about the surge.

If we don't win the war, our enemies will. A triumph for the terrorists would be a disaster for us. That's why we can't let Afghanistan or Pakistan any other "stan" distract us from victory in Iraq. And that's what I plan to achieve by the end of my first term or 2028, whichever comes later.

Comments

[DenverJuggler]

OK - I saw that this was created as satire; sorry I missed it. Some of it sounded too much like McCain to be a joke. sorry for the obtuseness on my part.

[DenverJuggler]

I just glanced at his speech but is it a typo on Heffernan's part or did McCain really say the border between Iraq and Pakistan? Talk about a great statesman! He doesn't know his European geography and now he doesn't know his geography in this region. Iran borders Pakistan; Iraq? Not so much.

[Pulemerci]

The Times refusal to run Senator McCain's Op-Ed article reminds me of it's below market advertising rate for MoveOn.org's General Betray Us ad. I suppose it's like Wheel of Fortune to try to get advertising rates or getting an article published in the Times (depending upon who you are). Perhaps if McCain's piece had some classified National Security information it would have been published.
There really is no objective standard that is employed at the Gray Lady anymore. What a shame. The paper of record huh!

[4wehttam]

ROFLMFAO..........................Now THAT was funny as heck. Sounds exactly how McBush is acting, like a petulant little boy. All he can talk about is surge, surge, surge and more surge. GEEZ, he's so jealous of O he can't stand it. HA! Too bad, all his gaffes will come back to haunt him and he won't realize it until after O is in the W.H.

James, you did a GREAT, GREAT, GREAAAATTTTT JOB!!!