Another NH Paper Endorsement

The latest in a long string of NH media endorsements is the Valley News.

---

It is entirely possible that at age 71, Sen. John McCain of Arizona is now making his last stand in presidential politics. That almost certainly will be the case unless New Hampshire Republicans rally to his cause in the Jan. 8 primary. We hope that they do, not only because McCain's life reflects the highest ideals of service to the nation, but also because he represents the best hope to liberate a party that is being held hostage to its own worst instincts.

McCain is by no means a perfect candidate, or, as he is the first to admit, a man without flaws. We disagree with him on several fundamental issues, including his longstanding opposition to abortion rights. Nevertheless, the case for McCain is a strong one: Duty and honor are to him living imperatives forged in family tradition, not mere rhetorical flourishes calibrated to the exigencies of the campaign trail. He should be just the ticket for Republicans astonished and appalled that, during the Bush years, their party has become identified with a brand of evangelical, anti-immigrant, big-government, borrow-and-spend “conservatism” that is antithetical to its best traditions.

The senator's current struggles in the polls are probably largely the result of his continuing support for the unpopular war in Iraq. It must be noted, however, that McCain's judgment in this matter has been vindicated in several important respects. He warned early on about the dangers of trying to fight a war on the cheap, with too few troops and without a comprehensive plan for victory. He was among the first to call for the sacking of Donald Rumsfeld, one of the chief architects of the fiasco. And he also, almost alone, was a vigorous champion of the troop-surge strategy eventually adopted by President Bush, which almost certainly has improved the security situation in Iraq, despite a lack of accompanying progress toward political reconciliation.
And although we do not agree with McCain's thesis that prompt withdrawal of American troops from Iraq would necessarily have dire consequences throughout the Middle East and the world, we do not dismiss it lightly, either. His case is plausible, and his credentials in national security matters impeccable.

McCain, of course, is literally battle-tested. He springs from a distinguished line of admirals and himself served with distinction as a Navy pilot during the Vietnam War, when he was shot down over North Vietnam and held as a prisoner of war for five and a half years. His stubborn defiance while being tortured by his captors is the stuff of legend. But just as heroic, we think, is his principled stand against the use of torture by the United States against detainees in the war on terrorism. He alone among the major Republican candidates seems to understand that failure to adhere to civilized standards of conduct during war not only puts our own servicemen and -women in jeopardy in the future, but also grievously wounds America's moral standing in the world.

Nor do we assume that a McCain presidency would necessarily be bellicose because of his military background. It is often the case that leaders who have themselves served in the armed forces have a fuller appreciation of just what committing troops to combat entails than do those who feel the need to demonstrate their toughness. It ought to be noted that McCain has a son now serving with the Marines in Iraq and another soon to graduate from the Naval Academy. It is difficult to credit the notion that he would be reckless with their lives or put them in harm's way without a compelling reason to do so.

There are other reasons to prefer McCain to the rest of the Republican field. He not so respectfully declines to pander to party orthodoxy on several important matters. He understands that sealing the borders is not a substitute for rational immigration reform; he disdains pork-barrel spending and the lobbyists who corrupt the public purpose; he remains a small-government Republican and a fiscal hawk; he does not regard the dangers of climate change as mumbo-jumbo cooked up by liberals; he champions campaign-finance reform.

Yes, by all accounts he has a short fuse. His candor can border on simple meanness. He would be the oldest man ever elected to the presidency if he were to prevail next November. But those flaws may be kept in perspective when his main competition for the Republican nomination comes from the likes of Mitt Romney, who combines a justifiable claim to executive competence with opportunistic serial flip-flopping; and Rudy Giuliani, whose life work in recent years has largely been to wring political advantage out of his response to the 9/11 attacks. As for Mike Huckabee, well, it is perhaps enough to say that he's no John McCain.

http://www.vnews.com/12192007/4445768.htm

McCain Pounds Clinton on Iraq

From Politico
http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=782D24D3-3048-5C12-00BE624BB8A56090
By: John Bresnahan
November 25, 2007 05:37 PM EST

Iraq and electability once again dominated the Sunday talk shows as the race for the White House kicked into high gear, less than six weeks before the Iowa caucuses.

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), fresh off his latest visit to Iraq, told This Week’s George Stephanopoulos that “significant progress” is being made in reducing sectarian violence thanks to President Bush’s decision to send an additional 30,000 U.S. combat troops to the war zone.

McCain, who is trying to ride the improved security situation in Iraq to an improved standing in the polls, took shots at several Democratic candidates, including Sen. Hillary Clinton (N.Y.) and former Sen. John Edwards (N.C.), for their suggestion that the United States should begin withdrawing its forces from Iraq soon.

“Is that the same Sen. Clinton that said she had to suspend disbelief in order to acknowledge to that the strategy of the surge was succeeding?” McCain said in reference to Clinton’s statement that the United States should stop trying to intervene in a “civil war” in Iraq. “Clearly, it’s succeeding. You would have to suspend disbelief to believe that it’s not.”

McCain later said Clinton’s support for a phased withdrawal from Iraq “would have been a catastrophe for the United States of America.”

“Look, now the same people who were saying seven or eight months were saying you can’t succeed militarily, we’ve succeeded military. Sen. Edwards used to call it the ‘McCain strategy.’ He doesn’t call it that anymore,” McCain claimed. “Their record is wrong on this. My record is right.”

But on the same ABC program, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson (D), who has advocated a complete U.S. withdrawal from Iraq, pointed out that dozens of Americans continue to be killed every month in Iraq, in spite of a lower overall level of violence.

Richardson, like other Democratic candidates and party leaders on Capitol Hill, also noted that there has not been significant political progress inside Iraq among competing Sunni, Shiite and Kurdish factions.

“Progress shouldn’t be measured by casualty counts, by body counts,” Richardson said. “There is no military solution to the war in Iraq. There is a political solution. And there’s little [political] progress.”

“I believe that no American death is worthy of saying the body count has gone down,” Richardson added.

On Fox News Sunday, the Iraq conflict, and U.S. plans for the future there, also provoked a sharp exchange between Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), a member of the panel.

Levin and other Democrats have refused to provide Bush with an additional $200 billion to conduct military campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan during 2008, saying the president should not get the money unless he agrees to a “goal” of withdrawing most U.S. combat forces by Dec. 15, 2008.

Graham has been one of Bush’s staunchest supporters on the way and wants the new funds approved promptly.

“I think history will judge the surge as probably the most successful counterinsurgency operations in history,” Graham said. Graham accompanied McCain on the Thanksgiving trip to Iraq. “We’re on the right track with the surge.”

But Levin, like Richardson, echoed the Democratic line that the Bush surge has not brought about political reconciliation inside Iraq.

“The president’s policy very specifically had as its purpose . . . to give the Iraqi leaders breathing space to work out a political settlement, and that purpose has not been achieved,” Levin said. “Why in the name of heaven are we not willing to at least establish a goal for the removal of most of our troops?”

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, who has risen to second place in the GOP polls in Iowa behind former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, got the Sunday show treatment on CNN’s Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer.


Under questioning by Blitzer, Huckabee slammed Romney for changing his views on hot-button social issues. Huckabee said Romney’s shifts were a major reason he has closed to within four points of Romney in Iowa, according to a Washington Post-ABC News poll.

“Mitt has changed his position. He has been all over the board. But my conservatism has been consistent,” Huckabee said.

“When he was pro-abortion, I was still pro-life and always have been. When he was for gun control, I was against it. When he was against the Bush tax cuts, I was for them. When he was against Ronald Reagan's legacy and said he wasn't a part of that Bush-Reagan thing, I was a part of that Bush- Reagan thing.

“So it is not just about where we are now, it is where we have been and where we can be predicted to be if we are elected president,” Huckabee added. “People are looking for not just authenticity, but consistency. And that is one of the reasons that my numbers are surging, not only in Iowa, but in the other states as well.”

Huckabee responded to Romney’s charge that he was soft on illegal immigration, specifically for supporting tuition breaks for the children of illegal immigrants, stating that it was not his policy to “punish the children of those who break the law.”

Former Sen. Fred Thompson (R-Tenn.), during an appearance on Fox News Sunday, defended his campaign for the White House, as well as his support for allowing states to decide their own policies on abortion by repealing Roe v. Wade.

Thompson opposes efforts to enact a constitutional amendment to ban abortion, arguing that the effort is bound to fail because the proposal cannot garner enough support in Congress or the states to be enacted.

Instead, Thompson would like to see Roe abolished, allowing states to impose laws banning abortion, and thus shifting the abortion battle, in Thompson’s view, to those states that would retain access to abortion. “The game would be on the pro-life side,” Thompson said.

“What the situation is now is as follows — because of Roe v. Wade, all states are restricted from passing rules that they would maybe like to pass with regard to this area,” Thompson added. “If you abolish Roe v. Wade, you’re going to allow every state to pass reasonable rules they might see fit to pass.”

Thompson, who unveiled a new tax cut plan on Sunday to go along with his previous release of a Social Security reform proposal, even lashed out a Fox News during his appearance.

"This has been a constant mantra of Fox, to tell you the truth,” Thompson said when asked by Fox’s Chris Wallace if he is really running hard for the White House. Numerous conservative commentators on Fox and elsewhere have questioned Thompson's will to win and his work ethic.

“From Day One, they said I got in too late, I couldn't do it ... wouldn't raise enough money, and that sort of thing. And that's their opinion. They're entitled to their opinion. But that doesn't seem to be shared by the cross section of American people. If you look at the national polls, you'll see that I'm running second and have been running second for a long time."

McCain tops list of thankworthy

By Wayne Woodlief Thursday, November 22, 2007 http://www.bostonherald.com

Character, conviction personified

Today’s the day again to thank all the pols and pundits who’ve made me think anew or laugh or sometimes shout. Some have been outrageous, some have been straight arrows, but none that I’m grateful for has been dull.

I’m most thankful for Sen. John McCain, the one candidate for president who stands up for what he believes and says it plain, regardless of the political cost.
He’s ardently backed the troop surge in Iraq (losing some independent support along the way) even as he rebuked President Bush for not sending in more troops when the war first began, as McCain had advocated.

He stuck by the doomed immigration bill he co-authored with Sen. Edward Kennedy, though it cost him deeply among the conservative and important Republican Iowa caucus electorate. Yet that compromise bill was the closest we’ve come - or may come - to a solution that would both secure our national borders and open a path toward citizenship for illegal immigrants. For all the screaming and degradation of McCain by the hard-righters, why haven’t they found an answer?
The Arizonan has bucked the president on torture and on those so-called “signing statements” by which Bush asserts he can disobey whatever parts of bills passed by Congress that he chooses, without vetoing them.

He has heart and fortitude. McCain was given up for dead a few months ago when his presidential campaign had overspent and was in disarray. Yet he is rising again as he focuses on the New Hampshire primary, where an upset of Mitt Romney would catapult McCain forward. Already, he has passed Fred Thompson, is edging by Rudy Giuliani for second place and has Romney in his sights in the Granite State.

In the latest Fox News poll, voters nationally also rate McCain as the Republicans’ best hope against Hillary Clinton. In trial heats, Clinton beats Giuliani by 4 percentage points, Thompson by 9 and Romney by 13. But she and McCain are in a virtual tie, with the former first lady at 46 percent and McCain at 45 percent.

So keep telling it straight, brother McCain. You could win this thing yet. And even if you lose, you’ll feel better about yourself.

Reprinted from: http://www.bostonherald.com/news/opinion/op_ed/view.bg?articleid=1046301&format=text

John McCain's History on Iraq

JOHN MCCAIN ARGUED FOR NEW IRAQ STRATEGY FOR YEARS

In 2003, Sen. McCain Acknowledged Mistakes Made In Iraq, Pushed For Urgent Changes Or “We Are Facing A Very Serious Long Term Problem”

Sen. McCain: “There is no doubt that we have made mistakes …” (CNN’s “Inside Politics,” 8/19/03)

Sen. McCain: “If we don’t turn things around in the next few months, we are facing a very serious long term problem.” (ABC’s “Good Morning America,” 9/3/03)

For Over Three Years, Sen. McCain Has Consistently Advocated For New Strategy In Iraq

2003:

Washington Post Headline, August 24, 2003: “McCain Says U.S. Needs More Money, Troops in Iraq.” (Mike Allen, “McCain Says U.S. Needs More Money, Troops in Iraq,” The Washington Post, 8/24/03)

August 2003: “Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said after visiting Baghdad last week that President Bush needs to level with the public about the need for more U.S. troops as well as dramatically more spending to make postwar Iraq peaceful enough for democracy to unfold. McCain said that when he returns from the Middle East he plans to mount a heavy campaign on the issue in meetings with national security adviser Condoleezza Rice and other White House officials and during hearings of the Senate Armed Services Committee. ‘We need to tell the American people directly, and I think they’ll support it,’ McCain said from Islamabad, Pakistan. ‘We must win this conflict. We need a lot more military, and I’m convinced we need to spend a lot more money.’” (Mike Allen, “McCain Says U.S. Needs More Money, Troops in Iraq,” The Washington Post, 8/24/03)

· August 2003: NBC’s TIM RUSSERT: “What must be done in Iraq right now?” SEN. MCCAIN: “First, could I say, Tim, the men and women in the military are doing a superb job. … The problem is that they don’t have enough resources. There’s not enough of them, and we are in a very serious situation, in my view, a race against time. We need to spend a whole lot more money to get the services back to the people. We need to get the electricity going, the fuel, the water. And unless we get that done and get it done pretty soon, we could face a very serious situation. … Time is not on our side. People in 125-degree heat with no electricity and no fuel are going to become angry in a big hurry. The sophistication of the attacks on U.S. and allied troops have increased. And what we do in the next several months will determine whether we’re in a very difficult situation or not, and there’s still time, but we’ve got to act quickly.” (NBC’s “Meet The Press,” 8/24/03)

· August 2003: NBC’s TIM RUSSERT: “MR. RUSSERT: How many more troops do you think we need in Iraq?” SEN. MCCAIN: “I think we need, I would guess, at least another division, but we also need people with specialized skills. Linguists we’re running short of. Our Guard and reservists are at the breaking point. We need civil affairs people. The infrastructure, refinery at Basra cannot be fixed. It needs to be totally replaced. It was 30 years of neglect on the part of the Saddam Hussein regime.” (NBC’s “Meet The Press,” 8/24/03)

November 2003: “To win in Iraq, we should increase the number of forces in-country, including Marines and Special Forces, to conduct offensive operations. I believe we must have in place another full division, giving us the necessary manpower to conduct a focused counterinsurgency campaign across the Sunni triangle that seals off enemy operating areas, conducts search and destroy operations and holds territory. Such a strategy would be the kind of new mission General Sanchez agreed would require additional forces. It’s a mystery to me why they are not forthcoming. We cannot achieve our political goals as long as a strategic region of Iraq is in a state of fundamental insecurity.” (Sen. John McCain, Remarks To Council On Foreign Relations, Washington, DC 11/5/03)

· November 2003: “More American forces and a commitment to keep them in Iraq as long as it takes are required to defeat our adversaries, so that Iraqi democracy is not stillborn. As we learned in Vietnam, if we do not defeat them before we leave, our enemies will continue to fight until any government we help establish is destroyed.” (Sen. John McCain, Remarks To Council On Foreign Relations, Washington, DC 11/5/03)

· November 2003: “The simple truth is that we do not have sufficient forces in Iraq to meet our military objectives. I said this in August, after I returned from visiting Iraq, and before the security situation deteriorated further. It is even more obviously true today.” (Sen. John McCain, Remarks To Council On Foreign Relations, Washington, DC 11/5/03)

· November 2003: “We need more troops. The casualties in November were the highest in history. I hope we are achieving some success. We have to achieve success. We cannot lose. But in order to save American lives, we have to be much more robust and do – and send whatever troops are necessary.” (Fox News’ “Fox News Sunday,” 11/30/03)

2004:

April 2004: “When I came back last August from Iraq, I said we needed more troops, thousands that were special forces, linguists, civil affairs type of people, that we’d be dealing with this new insurgency that we are now seeing in spades. Yes, I believe we need more, thousands more of the right kind of military personnel.” (CNN’s “Inside Politics,” 4/6/04)

· April 2004: “I was there in last August and have said since then that we needed more troops, we need them very badly. We may be paying a price for not having had more troops there, and I feel sorry for these young men and women having to remain there, but they know their job and I’m sure they’ll do it well.” (Sen. John McCain, Remarks At Media Availability, Washington, DC, 4/11/04)

· April 2004: “[W]hen I was there in Iraq in August, I talked to [the] British. I talked to sergeant majors. I talked to colonels and captains. And I came back absolutely convinced that we needed more boots on the ground. These people warned me. They said, ‘Look, if you don’t have more soldiers here, you’re going to lose control of this situation and you’re going to face an insurgency some months from now.’ I begged and pleaded that we send more troops. Secretary Rumsfeld said, ‘Well, our commanders on the ground haven’t asked for them.’ It’s not up to the commanders on the ground. It’s up to the leadership of the country to make these decisions. That’s why we elect them and have civilian supremacy. We’re now facing a terrible insurgency. We can prevail, but we’ve got to have more people over there to get the job done.” (Fox News’ “Hannity & Colmes,” 4/14/04)

· April 2004: “Third, it is painfully clear that we need more troops. Before the war, the U.S. Army chief of staff said that several hundred thousand troops would be necessary to keep the peace. While criticized at the time, General [Eric K.] Shinseki now looks prescient. I have said since my visit to Iraq last August that our military presence is insufficient to bring stability to the country. We should increase the number of forces, including Marines and Special Forces, to conduct offensive operations. There is also a dire need for other types of forces, including linguists, intelligence officers, and civil affairs officers. We must deploy at least another full division, and probably more.” (Sen. John McCain, Remarks To Council On Foreign Relations, Washington, DC, 4/22/04)

May 2004: “We need more troops in, need more troops now. Yes, there are more troops that are going to stay there, but we may even need more than that, and we have to expand the size of the military. We really do.” (Fox News’ “The Big Story With John Gibson,” 5/10/04)

June 2004: “Some of this could have been prevented if Secretary Rumsfeld had recognized long ago what so many of us were saying urgently, that we needed more troops on the ground in Iraq, particularly of particular specifications, specialties that these people have that are being called up involuntarily.” (MSNBC’s “Hardball,” 6/29/04)

August 2004: “I think the events on the ground right now indicate clearly that we cannot bring anybody home. In certain areas we may even have to strengthen our troop presence.” (ABC’s “Good Morning America,” 8/11/04)

September 2004: “I think that we need more troops in Iraq. I’ve thought that for a long time, election or no election. … [I]’ve been asking since a year ago last August. So I’m not sure that the elections have a lot to do with it, but I’ve been saying since a year ago August that we needed more boots on the ground, particularly in the form of Special Forces, civil affairs, linguists and others.” (CNBC’s “Capital Report,” 9/23/04)

November 2004: “It’s very tough and we still need more troops. We still need more people there. I believe those reports of those young Marines that said, ‘Look, unless we keep a significant presence here, they’re going to filter back in.’“ (NBC’s “Meet The Press,” 11/21/04)

December 2004: “[T]he problem that we have here is that the Pentagon has been reacting to initiatives of the enemy rather than taking initiatives from which the enemy has to react to. Many of us, as long as a year and a half ago, said, ‘You have to have more people there. You have to have more linguists. You have to have more special forces. You have to have’ – and the Pentagon has reluctantly, obviously, gradually made some increases. And the problem, when you react, you have to extend people on duty there, which is terrible for morale. There’s a terrific strain on Guard and reservists. If you plan ahead, then you don’t have to do some of these things. The military is too small. The good news is we went into Fallujah and we dug then out of there. And I’m proud of the work. These men and women are magnificent. Their leadership is magnificent. The bad news is we allowed Fallujah to become a sanctuary to start with. So, yes, we need more troops. Yes, we have to win.” (Fox News’ “Fox News Sunday,” 12/5/04)

December 2004: MCCAIN: “I have to say that I want to work with Secretary Rumsfeld because he will be the secretary of defense for an undetermined length of time. And I want to work with him and I want to do the best that I can for the country.” QUESTION: “That’s not a vote of confidence.” MCCAIN: “No, it’s not.” (CNN’s “American Morning,” 12/6/04)

December 2004: “Asked about his confidence in the secretary’s leadership, McCain recalled fielding a similar question a couple weeks ago. ‘I said no. My answer is still no. No confidence,’ McCain said.” (Beth DeFalco, “AP Interview: McCain Says He Has ‘No Confidence’ In Defense Secretary Rumsfeld,” The Associated Press, 12/13/04)

December 2004: “I have strenuously argued for larger troop numbers in Iraq, including the right kind of troops – linguists, special forces, civil affairs, etc. … There are very strong differences of opinion between myself and Secretary Rumsfeld on that issue.” (Beth DeFalco, “McCain says He Has ‘No Confidence’ In Secretary Of Defense,” The Associated Press, 12/13/04)

2005:

June 2005: “I think we need – I think we need more troops there … because we’re not staying once we attack and clear. We’ve got stay and expand.” (MSNBC’s “Hardball,” 6/28/05)

· June 2005: “I’ve thought for a long, long time, since the very beginning, that we needed more troops, and one of the reasons why we’ve experienced many of the difficulties we have is we didn’t have enough boots on the ground, and we still do.” (CNN’s “American Morning,” 6/29/05)

August 2005: “We not only don’t need to withdraw, we need more troops there.” (Fox News’ “Fox News Sunday,” 8/14/05)

· August 2005: TIME’s MIKE DUFFY: “Do you think we need more troops?” SEN. MCCAIN: “I’ve always said that … I think we need more and I think they need to stay longer. The problem is, is that we didn’t expand the size of the Army and the Marine Corps and we put enormous strains on the Guard and Reserves and on active duty personnel. We need to expand the Army and expand the Marine Corps, and have more troops over there for as long as is necessary. The irony here is that we could have had less troops here now if we had had more troops when they were needed where, in the view of literally every military person I talked to in Iraq, right after the victory.” (CBS’ “Face The Nation,” 8/28/05)

· August 2005: “Well, I don’t have confidence [in Rumsfeld], but it’s up the president. The important thing is that he has the president’s confidence, and that’s the important thing. … Have I disagreed with the secretary of defense? Yes. But my job is not to have an open confrontation with the secretary of defense. My job is to try to work with him as long as he enjoys the confidence of the president to try and get this job completed. It doesn’t help if I get into some kind of fight with him.” (Fox News’ “News Sunday,” 8/14/05)

September 2005: “I have always said we need more troops. I believed it then. I believe it now.” (NPR’s “Morning Edition,” 9/20/05)

October 2005: “[W]hen I say that I don’t have confidence in [Rumsfeld], I can’t look people in the eye and say that I do [have confidence in him], because so many mistakes were made that – that cost us so much in American blood and treasure.” (PBS’ “Charlie Rose,” 10/31/05)

November 2005: “Securing ever-increasing parts of Iraq and preventing the emergence of new terrorist safe havens will require more troops and money. It will take time, probably years, and mean more American casualties. Those are terrible prices to pay. But with the stakes so high, I believe we must choose the strategy with the best chance of success.” (Sen. John McCain, Remarks To American Enterprise Institute, Washington, DC, 11/10/05)

· November 2005: “To enhance our chances of success with this strategy and enable our forces to hold as much territory as possible, we need more troops. For this reason, I believe that current ideas to effect a partial drawdown during 2006 are exactly wrong. … Instead of drawing down, we should be ramping up, with more civil-military soldiers, translators and counterinsurgency operations teams.” (Sen. John McCain, Remarks To American Enterprise Institute, Washington, DC, 11/10/05)

December 2005: “I’ve wanted to send troops. I still think we should have more troops there.” (NBC’s “Meet The Press, 12/4/05)

December 2005: “When the first insurgents – or when the looting started, Secretary Rumsfeld said, ‘Stuff happens.’ And then when the insurgency started, he said there was a few dead-enders. The reason why I mention that, there was a gross misunderestimation of the challenge we faced in the post-conflict aspect of Iraq.” (NPR’s “Fresh Air,” 12/6/05)

· December 2005: “If the president wants him on his team, I’m not going to question that. But, as I said – very strong disagreements because early on after the initial military phase, I said, ‘You’ve got to have more troops over there.’ And I didn’t think of it myself. I heard from everybody from sergeant majors to generals saying the same thing; that they didn’t have enough troops over there. And we paid a very heavy price for that.” (NPR’s “Fresh Air,” 12/6/05)

2006:

March 2006: “Of course, I would, quote, like to see more troops.” (CNN’s “The Situation Room,” 3/30/06)

April 2006: “It’s well known, because I was asked a direct question about my confidence in Secretary Rumsfeld, that I do not have confidence. But that does not mean that I’m calling for his removal, because that’s what the president of the United States’ job is.” (CNN’s “Anderson Cooper 360 Degrees,” 4/13/06)

June 2006: “You know, I’ve always said that we needed more troops over there. I have said that for years.” (CBS’ “Evening News,” 6/20/06)

July 2006: CNN’s JOHN KING: “The United States is sending more troops to Iraq. What do you think?” SEN. MCCAIN: “I think it’s necessary. I think it was necessary a long, long time ago. I think one of the biggest mistakes we made that we’ve paid a very heavy price for was not having enough boots on the ground. I said that three years ago.” (CNN’s “Larry King Live,” 7/26/06)

August 2006: NBC’s DAVID GREGORY: “But to do that, do you need more U.S. soldiers on the ground now?” SEN. MCCAIN: “I think so. I think so. We took troops from places like Ramadi, which are still not under control, to put them into Baghdad. We’ve had to send in additional troops as they are. All along, we have not had enough troops on the ground to control the situation. Many, many people knew that and it’s – we’re paying a very heavy price for it. But I want to emphasize that we cannot lose this. It will cause chaos in Iraq and in the region, and it’s – I still believe that we, we must prevail.” (NBC’s “Meet The Press,” 8/20/06)

· August 2006: “I know that military commanders on the ground need more troops, whether they’re asking for them or not. But see, this is kind of a false argument. … It’s not up to the commanders on the ground, it’s up to the leaders who assess the entire battlefield situation to decide whether they need. I’ve known very few – General McCaffrey’s going to follow us – I’ve known very few commanders in the field who see I – say, ‘I need help.’“ (NBC’s “Meet The Press,” 8/20/06)

September 2006: “I still think we need more troops over there.” (CBS’ “Face The Nation,” 9/24/06)

October 2006: “I would increase the size of the Army and Marine Corps by some hundred thousand people, and I would send more troops over there where necessary, and I would listen very carefully to my military commanders.” (CBS’ “Evening News,” 10/19/06)

· October 2006: “Roughly, you need another 20,000 troops in Iraq, but that means expanding the Army and Marine Corps by as much as 100,000 people …” (Lorna Colquhoun, “ McCain Urges More Troops For ‘Insurgency,’“ The Union Leader, 10/28/06)

· October 2006: “I have said, as long ago as nearly three years ago, when I was asked if I had confidence in Secretary Rumsfeld, I said I did not.” (MSNBC’s “Hardball,” 10/18/06)

November 2006: “I believe that there are a lot of things that we can do to salvage this, but they all require the presence of additional troops. … I also said three years ago, if we don’t have more troops over there, and we don’t do what’s necessary, we are going to be doomed to failure. I gave a speech to the Foreign Relations – Council on Foreign Relations – that said basically that, and I’ve been saying it all along in every hearing, and I’ve been saying, ‘You are going to face this situation we’re facing today if we didn’t have a more robust presence and a better strategy,’ and that’s – I proved to be right in that respect.” (NBC’s “Meet The Press,” 11/12/06)

· November 2006: “I’ve said for a long time that I had no confidence in Secretary Rumsfeld, but that’s a decision to be made by the president.” (Fox News’ “Live Event,” 11/8/06)

December 2006: “We must have more troops over there. That has to be accompanied by a larger Marine Corps or Army. Maybe 20,000 more Marines and 80,000 more Army troops so that we can handle whatever is necessary. And we have to have a big enough surge that we can get Baghdad under control and then Anbar province under control.” (Fox News’ “Special Report With Brit Hume,” 12/12/06)

2007:

January 2007: “The presence of additional coalition forces would give the Iraqi government the ability to do what it cannot accomplish today on its own: impose its rule throughout the country. In bringing security to Iraq, and chiefly to Baghdad, our forces would give the government a fighting chance to pursue reconciliation. … There are two keys to any surge of U.S. troops. To be of value the surge must be substantial and it must be sustained – it must be substantial and it must be sustained. We will need a large number of troops. During our recent trip commanders on the ground spoke of a surge of three to five additional brigades in Baghdad and at least an additional brigade in Anbar province. I believe these numbers are the minimum that’s required – a minimum. We need more of the right kind of troops: civil affairs teams, special forces, translators, troops to conduct information operations, among others. The mission of these reinforcements would be to implement the thus-elusive hold element of the military’s clear, hold, build strategy, to maintain security in cleared areas to protect the population and critical infrastructure, and to impose the government’s authority: essential elements of a traditional counterinsurgency strategy.” (Sen. John McCain, Remarks To American Enterprise Institute, Washington, DC, 1/5/07)

· January 2007: “Rumsfeld will go down in history, along with McNamara, as one of the worst secretaries of defense in history.” (Roger Simon, “McCain Bashes Cheney Over Iraq Policy,” The Politico, 1/24/07)

April 2007: “After my first visit to Iraq in 2003, I argued for more troops. I took issue with statements characterizing the insurgency as a few ‘dead-enders’ or being in its ‘last throes.’ I criticized the search and destroy strategy and argued for a counter-insurgency approach that separated the reconcilable population from the irreconcilable. That is the course now followed by General Petraeus, and the brave Americans and coalition troops he has the honor to command.” (Sen. John McCain, Remarks To The Virginia Military Institute, 4/11/07)

May 2007: “The war was terribly mismanaged and we now have to fix a lot of the mistakes that were made.” (Republican Presidential Debate, Ronald Reagan Library, Simi Valley, CA, 5/3/07)

Statement by McCain Campaign on Push Polling in New Hampshire

For Immediate Release Contact: Press Office
Friday, November 16, 2007 703-650-5550

ARLINGTON, VA -- U.S. Senator John McCain's New Hampshire Vice Chair, former Congressman Chuck Douglas (R-NH), along with the campaign's New Hampshire Leadership Committee, today issued the following statement on reports of push polling in New Hampshire:

"Today, the McCain New Hampshire Leadership Committee intends to file a complaint with the New Hampshire Attorney General's office seeking a full investigation to determine who was behind the push poll. The Leadership Committee calls on all the other Republican campaigns to join us as parties to this complaint. These tactics are repugnant and despicable and there is no place in New Hampshire politics for push polling or any other negative tactics that engage in personal attacks. It is especially shameful that those responsible would hide behind a push poll to impugn a candidate's faith."

Senator John McCain issued the following statement today:
"I applaud my Leadership Team for taking action against these cowardly acts. I call on all other candidates and their supporters to repudiate these attacks and join me in pledging not to engage in such despicable tactics throughout the balance of this campaign. I am outraged by the cowardly telephone calls that hide behind my name in an effort to disparage one candidate and advance the candidacy of another. I was a target of these same tactics in South Carolina in 2000 and believe the American people deserve better from those who seek the high office of the presidency."

New Hampshire McCain Update - November 16, 2007

John McCain is returning to the Granite State this week for a tip to toe tour from the Canadian border down all the way to the border of Massachusetts. This is a great opportunity for voters in New Hampshire, Vermont and Massachusetts to come out and see the man columnist David Brooks this week referenced as "the one great man running for president." Please join us for a part or all of this marathon tour!

Saturday, November 17th
Town Hall Meeting
1:30pm
Horse Meadow Senior Center
Horse Meadow Road
North Haverhill, NH
RSVP: 603-369-4945

Town Hall Meeting
6:30pm
Dartmouth College, Alumni Hall, Hopkins Center
2 East Wheelock St.
Hanover, NH
RSVP: 603-369-4946

Sunday, November 18th
Town Hall Meeting
New London Town Hall
328 Main St., New London
New London, NH
12:00 Noon
RSVP: 603-369-4947

Town Hall Meeting
Franklin Pierce University
Pierce Hall
6:00PM
Rindge, NH
RSVP: 603-369-4948

The Lil McCainiacs

Cross Posted from - http://madirishmaninc.blogspot.com/2007/11/lil-mccainiacs.html

I took my children on the 'campaign trail' this weekend for the first time. My lil girl was so excited at the opportunity to meet Senator McCain it was crazy. Who ever would've thought a four year old and nine year old would have enough respect and knowledge to appreciate this meeting.

We arrived in Barrington about 20 minutes early...it was too cold for them to wait outside so we slumped into Calefs store. They knew to keep an eye out for *(the big McCain Hero bus)* and when it finally pulled in they were practically dancing. In walks John, he is immediately bombarded with people. People clambering past and in front of us trying to get to John. We simply waited in the wings as I knew he would make it a point to stop by , I could tell from the wink across the room when we made eye contact. My daughter MaKayla, grabbing peoples around about the knees, asking them politely to please move, *John McCain is coming to see me!* Finally he made his way over. We talked a bit, then he generously posed for pictures with the kids and had a wee chat with them. My daughter reached for his pant leg as he made his way off , exclaiming *I wasn't done talking to him people*

Well, I finally managed to get her back and we made our way to the door. At this point I had planned on taking them home before I returned to the campaign. When we got to the front steps my daughter asked what we were doing and I explained. She immediately broke into tears...very dramatic and genuine * But Daddy, Daddy Daddy . . . I didn't get to thank him for being a Hero!*...well, after that I had no choice but to wait for the Senator to come back out. So we went outside and waited by the bus. John's Mom was the first out and she spent a solid ten minutes chatting with the kids and myself she was absolutely fantastic! John began to make his way down the stairs . . . My daughter MaKayla was the FIRST one in front of him standing there all by herself. John Said * Hey its you again sweety.,* He knelt down and asked if she would give him a hug and kiss Goodbye...She Obliged excitedly!! It made her whole weekend!&nb sp; As John began to rise. MaKayla exclaimed * WAIT WAIT JOHN MCCAIN! I forgot to tell you something!...He knelt down again and she said *Thank you for being such a good hero!*....McCain Smiled very very widely and of course the media and cameras went berserk! It was wonderful. We got home in time for the kids to see themselves on the News with John McCain!!!!

What a weekend for the lil' McCainiacs!!

Boston Globe: Schilling Endorses McCain

Senator John McCain can boast another big-name endorsement - and hope some postseason magic rubs off on his campaign.

On his weekly appearance on WEEI sports radio yesterday, Red Sox pitcher Curt Schilling said he will support McCain in the 2008 presidential race. "I'm voting for the guy that I know is going to be the same person four years from now that he was when elected," Schilling said.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/11/15/clinton_says_she_would_not_back_drivers_license_plan/

John McCain - Rochester Town Hall

This town hall was packed. I was standing in the back corner of the church when I heard applause behind me and realized that people were filling up the kitchen as well as the main hall. Senator McCain’s mother gave the introduction, and she was a big hit. There were questions about health care and specifically veteran health care. One gentleman mentioned that he received excellent care at the VA in Manchester and recently received a new prosthetic limb, but that he feels terrible when he sees that other veterans aren’t receiving the same level of care. Senator McCain addressed the VA being overburdened and for his desire to give veterans a card that allows them to seek medical care where ever they choose. Several people questioned Senator McCain about how to make political discourse more substantive and respectful. He stated that he voices strong opposition to people’s opinions, but doesn’t attack them personally. He’s worked with people across the isle while still holding onto his conservative values, and is able to do so because he maintains a respectful level of discourse. He also noted how Ronald Reagan and Tip O’Niel, a conservative Republican and a liberal Democrat, still had a friendship and worked together for the greater good while still holding firm to their principles.

John McCain - Letter to the Editor

As an Independent I have gone to see a number of candidates from both parties. While I found many candidates interesting, I found only one candidate qualified to be the next Commander-in-Chief and that is Senator John McCain. I sincerely hope that voters will go hear him speak, and give him the chance to explain his positions and qualifications.

I have to admit that I was originally a bit cynical. Unhappy with President Bush’s handling of Iraq, I doubted Republican leadership because there seemed to be a lack of honesty and foresight about where we stood in Iraq. However, I learned that Senator McCain had repeatedly challenged the previous war strategy, and pushed for a strategy change even when criticized by fellow Republicans for being disloyal. Eventually he was successful in that endeavor, and the new strategy (referred to as the ‘surge’ or the McCain doctrine) is showing signs of success. Consequently, other Republican candidates are now lining up in support of the surge. But where were they six months ago, and where were they a year ago? Senator McCain took the heat and stuck to his guns under scathing criticism. He did what he thought was right while other candidates hedged their bets and said nothing of substance on the topic.

It isn’t simply about Senator McCain being right; it’s about him having the experience and knowledge to know the difference. It’s about him having the backbone to take the heat and follow his gut. It’s about his military and legislative background enabling him to make informed decisions, not just popular ones. The candidates are rightfully questioned on a host of different topics from health care to taxes, but I hope people are particularly cognizant of the role of the President as Commander-in-Chief in a time of war. I don’t agree with Senator McCain on every issue, but I have full confidence in his ability to lead with integrity and reason at this complicated moment in history.

Epping, NH

John McCain is Hitting Stride at Right Time

by Frank Donatelli
Reprint from TheHill.com http://pundits.thehill.com/2007/11/08/john-mccain-is-hitting-stride-at-right-time/

Evidence continues to accumulate that Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) is making progress in his comeback effort to secure the Republican presidential nomination. McCain and dark horse Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee are on the upswing, while the support levels for other candidates are either flat or actually declining.

Consider these recent developments:

First, McCain won the endorsement of Sen. Sam Brownback, the conservative, pro-life senator from Kansas. Brownback will campaign for McCain and be very helpful among social conservatives, especially in the caucus state of Iowa. Thus far, Sen. McCain has not been able to get traction with social conservatives, despite boasting the most pro-life voting record of any of the top-tier candidates. Brownback will remind conservatives that actions speak louder than words, and that only John McCain has by action demonstrated a real commitment to protecting human life.

Second, three national polls released in the last week confirm that John McCain is alone in second place among all of the GOP candidates. The ABC-Washington Post, Pew Foundation and Marist polls all show McCain moving into second place behind Rudy Giuliani while the others remain farther back. This represents a substantial gain for McCain in the last several months.
Third, a number of state surveys confirm that it is McCain, not Giuliani, who runs best against Democratic front-runner Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.). It is true that Rudy does better in very blue states like New York, New Jersey and Connecticut, but these are long shots for any GOP nominee. The better test is who does best in real Midwest battleground states such as Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin and Minnesota, and the evidence suggests that McCain runs better than Rudy in those key states.

Fourth, the continuing threat of some social conservatives to refuse to support Giuliani, or even to back an independent candidate in the general election against him, represents the continuing problems that a Giuliani candidacy will have in keeping the Reagan coalition of social and economic conservatives together. The best road to a GOP victory next year is to keep the base intact and add moderate and independent voters who like the GOP candidate’s expertise on national security and foreign policy issues and his willingness to work with the other party to fashion legislative solutions to our problems. That profile fits Sen. McCain much more than Rudy Giuliani.

The election season is just now beginning. Voters are looking hard at the choices available. John McCain is hitting his stride at just the right time.

He's Back!

Senator McCain is planning to return to New Hampshire at the end of this week, and the end of next week, as well as another visit towards the end of the month. More details to follow...

McCain Campaign Calls Romney An Armchair Quarterback

New Hampshire Presidential Watch: McCain Campaign Calls Romney An 'Armchair Quarterback" - Reprint from http://nh2008.blogspot.com

U.S. Senator John McCain's New Hampshire Vice Chair, former Congressman Chuck Douglas (R-NH), today issued the following statement:

"In today's Union Leader, Governor Romney suggested that he is the most qualified candidate to be President and that the Iraq war will not be 'the big, dividing issue in '08.' He also said that 'Come the fall of '08, for all of Hillary's rhetoric, she's not going to be demanding a dramatically different course in Iraq than the Republican nominee will.' For Gov. Romney to suggest that he is uniquely qualified to be commander in chief is like saying that he should replace Tom Brady because he has watched Patriot football games. Governor Romney is naive if he believes that Senator Clinton or the Democrats' position on the Iraq war will not be 'dramatically different' from Republicans next year. The Democrats and Senator Clinton have consistently advocated for a deadline for defeat in Iraq. Governor Romney fails to realize the importance of the new strategy in Iraq or that winning in Iraq is critical to the entire region and the war against Islamic extremists and that failure in Iraq strengthens Iran. Governor Romney should realize that 'armchair quarterbacking' doesn't work on Sunday and it won't work in the Oval Office.

"John McCain is uniquely qualified to be the next commander in chief from day one. He was the only candidate for President who recognized that the strategy being employed in Iraq in 2003 was flawed and called for the present strategy that is showing real, not apparent, progress on the ground against our enemies. John McCain wants our troops to come home in victory and with honor. He understands the importance of victory in Iraq and the consequences of failure to the region, to the war against Islamic extremism, and to the security of our nation."

***UPDATE: Romney spokesman Kevin Madden responded:

"The McCain campaign wins the weakest analogy of the week award for that one. Same old talking points, no new ideas."