When 2013 Is Not A Date, But A Vision For Victory
by Erin Kotecki Vest

Presumptive GOP presidential nominee John McCain has a vision of what his first term in office will look like, and it includes America welcoming home '"most" of it's servicemen and women by 2013.

"...the following are conditions that I intend to achieve. And toward that end, I will focus all the powers of the office, every skill and strength I possess, and seize every opportunity to work with members of Congress who put the national interest ahead of partisanship, and any country in the world that shares our hopes for a more peaceful and prosperous world.

By January 2013, America has welcomed home most of the servicemen and women who have sacrificed terribly so that America might be secure in her freedom. The Iraq War has been won, " McCain said Thursday in Columbus, Ohio.

Don't be confused though, McCain is not specifying a specific withdrawl timeline or assigning a date for success, as he so kindly explained to me on a conference call held with bloggers. I say "kindly" with a bit of a grin on my face because his tone obviously changed with my question.

I asked the senator, "I am curious why today you decided to announce your troop withdrawl timeline and/or target dates when previously you called it (or at least alluded to it) being tantamount to giving terrorists a timeline for defeat. Why now suddenly telling us about 2013-why 2013?"

He responded "Well you either didn't read or didn't understand my speech, one of the two Erin. And I am sorry, I'll try to clear it up for you. I said we are winning in Iraq. We are wining today."

You can hear the entire call below, with my question around the 21:20 mark.

Video thumbnail. Click to play
Click To Play

So why did McCain respond to me with allegations I had not seen or read his speech? (which, I had, but...let's move on) - presumably because I had brought up "2013" as a "date" for withdrawl, and questioned why he was making the reference now when previously he called any timeline "tantamount to giving the terrorists a date for defeat."

"We are winning in Iraq, we are winning today," said McCain. "...with victory comes a date for withdrawl," he told me on Thursday's conference call.

Apparently I was not the only one "unclear" on why the 2013 date was not, exactly, a time-frame for troop withdrawl. After McCain's speech in Columbus, OH CNN reports, "Speaking with reporters after his address, McCain insisted that 'we are winning and we will win' in Iraq, but said he's not assigning a date for success.."

Now, maybe I'm crazy, but the date of 2013 seems to have been put out there as a date for success in McCain's vision for his first term. I guess it depends on what your definition of "is" "is" or what your definition of "date" is-because on my calendar 2013 notes the end of the next president's first term AND is generally thought of as a DATE.

Townhall.com reports, "Later, as the Arizona senator drove to the airport on his 'Straight Talk Express' campaign bus, McCain was peppered by reporters with questions about the timetable. He and his aides insisted there was a difference between ending the war and bringing troops home and, as they criticize the Democrats, announcing a withdrawal upfront without regard for the military endgame."

I am not alone, with the Washington Post noting "McCain previously had resisted offering target dates for troop withdrawals, saying that to do so would be tantamount to giving terrorists a timeline for defeat. During the Florida primary, he blasted former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney for what he said was support of a withdrawal timeline."

Several other issues were also discussed in the call from Iran to Veterans to Nuclear power.

Amanda Carpenter from Townhall.com notes McCain described his Democratic rival Barack Obama’s willingness to negotiate with enemies of the United States as “unacceptable."

Lane writes, "On the energy crisis, Senator McCain feels that Nuclear power has to be a component in the future..."

Jennifer Rubin says, "I asked McCain about President Bush’s comments in Israel and why the Democratic establishment and media had gone crazy over Bush’s warnings about the dangers of appeasement. McCain said that he took Bush at his word when he said that he wasn’t talking about Barack Obama specifically."

Lawyer Mama, representing MOMocrats.com writes, "While McCain made a point of mentioning on the call that he is in favor of increasing educational benefits for soldiers, he also indicated that he thinks we should work on ways to retain soldiers. What he didn't say is that he thinks the benefit should be increased, but soldiers should only be able to get it if they stay in longer."

I should note Lawyer Mama mentions my discussion with McCain saying, "I admit that this post is snarkier than usual because John McCain managed to really piss me off during the call. Why? Erin asked him a hard question he didn't want to answer, so he was patronizing and condescending to her, telling her she either hadn't read or didn't understand his statement earlier today and, 'I'll try to clear it up for you.'"

The call in it's entirety is available above, and at blip.tv.

Erin Kotecki Vest also blogs at Queen of Spain blog.

Submitted by Erin Kotecki Vest (view blog) on Thu, 05/15/2008 - 17:36

Comments

 

Hmm I think I missed a memo somewhere

I confess my attention has been--perhaps underestimatingly and erroneously---focused on the Democrats. So it's very possible I missed something; it certainly seems like I have.

So these are my questions (and I feel okay asking you---pretty sure you won't scathingly tell me to go read a memo or take a reading comprehension course, right? LOL): 

When did McCain abandon the 100 Years War? 

When did the Republicans start calling Iraq a war? I thought they kept spinning it as a Liberation (and release...hey now, hey now...don't dream it's over).  

Julie
Using My Words

Submitted by RavinPictureMaven on Fri, 05/16/2008 - 10:05
 

You're a better woman than I am!

I don't know that I could have been so diplomatic!  Your question was a great one. 

Lawyer Mama

http://lawyermama.com

http://MOMocrats.com

http://DCMetroMoms.com

Submitted by LawyerMama on Fri, 05/16/2008 - 12:16
 

Interesting side note ...

I was on the call, as well.  McCain's people followed up with me afterwards -- probably because I got to ask a question, too -- and when I told them I was somewhat dismayed at how Senator McCain had spoken to you and thought it had been rude, I was told that McCain was just trying to be "playful" and humorous!!

Call me crazy, but it didn't seem that way to me!

PunditMom, Contributing Editor, Politics & News

Also at MOMocrats and Huffington Post 

 

Submitted by PunditMom on Fri, 05/16/2008 - 12:34
 

Indicative

And this is just the sort of president we want, isn't it? Someone who's condescending and rude to us. Who tells us we don't understand when he "flip-flops".

Jim Heivilin

Submitted by heivilinj on Fri, 05/16/2008 - 12:59
 

So, how will 2013 be different from now?

So we're winning now, but we won't have won until 2013? Is that what it means? Maybe I'm stupid, but I don't think he did anything to "clear it up."

Props for the great question, Erin!

Good call, @PunditMom: Playful and humorous? Like when he referred to his wife as a "cunt"?

 

Submitted by MMarquit on Fri, 05/16/2008 - 13:01
 

Conservative POV

I think you did misunderstand Senator McCain--whether that was intentional or unintentional, or you just wanted to debate semantics. And I believe he also answered your question.

Clinton and Obama have both asked for a very specific timeline with dates for troop withdrawal at the earliest possible date--regardless of whether we have won. On the other hand, I believe McCain is projecting that within four years--no specific date--we will have stayed and won the war in Iraq. At that time we can start pulling out troops. We will not pull out troops to meet a timeline; rather we will pull out troops after we have won the war--and McCain sees the US winning the war by the end of his first term. These are two very different things.

I believe the Clinton/Obama and McCain views are this are completely different and Senator McCain answered your question in a no-nonsense matter. His tone was no more offensive to me than the condescension of Senator Clinton to the American public. What offends me more is that BlogHer is being completely partisan in their coverage of this election. I’ve not seen nearly as many pro-conservative posts as I have seen conservative-bashing posts. Yours is one of many, but it was the last straw for me.

To address MOMocrat’s quote in your article: Why shouldn’t extra educational benefits be tied to commitment or performance? Being in the military is a job. Every job I have had or have heard of requires a certain commitment from its employees, whether that commitment is a promise to stay for X number of years or meet certain goals. Raises, benefits, bonuses are all based on performance and commitment. The military is not an exception.

Chilihead
Don't Try This at Home

Blogging Basics 101

Submitted by chilihead on Fri, 05/16/2008 - 14:35
 

Semantics maybe, but an important one

I don't care if it's a specific timeline, a total plan, or even just a vague reference.

The point is he's made a very big deal about never giving a date or time frame for troop withdrawl. And now he has.

Had he never made a big deal about it, I don't think anyone would bat an eyelash.

Politics & News Contributing Editor
Queen of Spain

Submitted by Erin Kotecki Vest on Mon, 05/19/2008 - 10:44
 

I thought McCain was perfectly clear.

Erin, I was in on the call too, and I thought McCain's speech was very clear in the first place.  There's a big difference between setting a cut-and-run withdrawal date (ala Obama and Clinton) and saying "we'll leave when we win, which I expect to be by 2013." 

I think it's going to be very interesting to hear the debates in which Barack Obama tries to tell us all that he knows more about effective military management than a decorated and heroic soldier.   

Shannon @ Rocks In My Dryer
www.rocksinmydryer.net
BlogHer Contributing Editor, Mommy and Family 

Submitted by rocksinmydryer on Fri, 05/16/2008 - 20:47
 

My point of view

isn't that it's a specific plan or that it's laid out entirely, but that a date was given. This was the candidate who was NEVER going to frame any of this in any sort of timeline because that was bad. But if he doesn't talk about getting troops home, he's obviously going to have issues with public opinion. He has now given his best case scenario timeline, whereas before a timeline did not exist. Or was 100 years.

Politics & News Contributing Editor
Queen of Spain

Submitted by Erin Kotecki Vest on Mon, 05/19/2008 - 10:41
 

Funny, I must not be getting it.

I've relistened to the call and I still think he's trying to make too much of a fine distinction.  He, and his communications people, should know better.

Chilihead, you should actually read the post. Educational benefits are one of the biggest recruiting tools the military has.  Already has.  They already have to stay in 3 to 4 years to get them.  The concern seems to be that those benefits are encouraging people to leave the military and *gasp* go to college.

Making people stay in *longer* (which is what McCain is proposing) to get those benefits may help retention, but it will hurt recruitment of QUALITY people - the kind that want to go to college and not wait 6 to 8 years to do it. 

 

Lawyer Mama

http://lawyermama.com

http://momocrats.typepad.com

http://dcmetromoms.com

Submitted by LawyerMama on Fri, 05/16/2008 - 21:19
 

I prefer a longer enlistment period for
college bennies

I could go on and on about the not so nice things said by enlisted AND officers alike about the people who enlist just to go to college on taxpayer money and then ditch the service as quickly as they can. (As an aside, my daughter is dating a young man who is doing this and when she told me.... I bristled.)

I see your point, Lawyer Mama. But I also see McCain's point, Chili's point and the point made by virtually every active duty member and officer I've ever known (or at least the ones who weren't there for the ride to college.)

(See folks - this is why I can consider voting for McCain. I was a Navy brat and then an AF/DW for a long long time. I lean republican when it comes to many, many issues related to the military and national defense.)

~Denise
BlogHer Community Manager

Flamingo House Happenings

Submitted by Denise on Sat, 05/17/2008 - 05:24
 

Vet on GI Bill etc

I'm a 100% Disabled Vet who spent two separate terms in the Army, one during GW I and another in mid to late 90s. That is so you know where I'm coming from.

I served with countless men and woman. I would say about 10% were there strictly for the GI Bill benefits. However, for about 90% us, it was factor in joining.

That said, it does not matter. Service is service. You can debate why all you like, but when someone signs the dotted line knowing the world and our military's role in it, no reason behind it matters a whit, compared to the fact they knowingly are putting themselves in harms way while giving up most of their personal rights.

To increase the amount of service requirement is a slap in the face to anyone who serves or has served. It says, yeah, you put yourself at the mercy of others, at the will of your country, but 3 to 4 years of life (and possibly your life itself) is not enough. Screw you.

Submitted by Joffi on Sat, 05/17/2008 - 06:52
 

I did read the post

LawyerMama,

Just to be clear: I listened to the McCain call and I read the post I referred to in my earlier comment. I still stand by my comments. Please don't assume that, just because I disagree with your POV, I have not read and considered the information presented.

Melanie
Blogging Basics 101
Bloggy Giveaways
Don't Try This at Home

Submitted by chilihead on Sat, 05/17/2008 - 09:13