"It's always darkest before it's totally black:" McCain Uses Some Straight-Talkish Humor About Campaign Woes

McCain's making some progress, I think.

"They keep saying to me, 'What's your Plan B? I would say to them, 'What's your Plan B?"

These are very tough times. It's very tough when you lose [high-profile votes like Lugar and Domenici].

I'm guardedly optimistic that we can maintain 41 votes."

...

"As you know, this past week, I was on the floor of the Senate the whole time managing this defense bill. I will do whatever is necessary, including taking time off in September from the campaign...

I would rather lose a campaign than lose a war...

For people like me, who have nothing to sacrifice, to bail on them because I might lose a campaign is something that would make it hard for me to shave in the morning."

Again, I appreciate this sentiment (and I believe him), I just wish he would note that there are some in Washington who would, apparently, rather lose a war than a campaign.

McCain, I guess, has a lot invested in his nice-guy, collegial, fence-mender image. Except this is politics, which isn't bean-bag. Except it's actually not even politics -- it's a question of whether senators who voted to put our troops in harm's way will actually grant out troops the support and time to justify the additional lives and limbs lost due these same senators' previous votes.

Our troops previously were in a less aggressive posture. They were a little safer, but not really all that safer, because while our politicians and generals were doing just enough to not lose, they weren't giving our soldiers the go-ahead to actually win, and so for years they took casualties while not being let off their leashes, so to speak.

The Defeatist Caucus didn't like this policy. They demanded a change. Okay-- they got one. Now our soldiers are taking lots more casualties -- but due to the fact that they're much, much more active in hunting and confronting (and decimating) Al Qaeda.

Now, with that high-cost, high-reward strategy actually showing results, they want to begin "phased redeployments" or whatever this week's euphemism for surrender is -- and get them all back into their bases where they were slightly better protected, but unable to actually snatch territory and safe havens away from Al Qaeda.

So why, exactly, did these venal bastards order our soldiers on the high-tempo offensive for a month? Just to get killed? They called for this surge, supported it, voted for the additional US combat deaths it inevitably entailed... for what? Just to say "we gave it the ol' college try... for three weeks"?

Again, if that doesn't warrant a little anger and name-calling, I don't know what does.

Lindsay Graham is manning up on this. Good. But how about a little of that "bigot" type invective for the bastards who voted in favor of our troops taking a more aggressive, and dangerous, posture in the war now cutting the support out from under them?

Or is such name-calling only permissible when one's fellow senators are opposing you by tacking to the right?

posted by Ace at 05:58 PM

| Access Comments