Reaping what they sowed
The Republicans are steamed about a pair of new TV ads - one from the Democratic National Committee, another from the liberal group moveon.org - that paint John McCain as a warmonger who wants to fight in Iraq for another 100 years. T
Reaping what they sowed
Dick Polman, Inquirer National Political Columnist
The Republicans are steamed about a pair of new TV ads - one from the Democratic National Committee, another from the liberal group moveon.org - that paint John McCain as a warmonger who wants to fight in Iraq for another 100 years. The Republican umbrage is somewhat amusing, for reasons I will soon explain, but first it's important to acknowledge that, empirically speaking, they do have a right to be ticked off.
The DNC ad plays a clip from a Jan. 3 McCain town hall meeting that shows the candidate talking about a potentially long presence for U.S. troops in Iraq ("maybe 100, that'd be fine with me"), then hitting the viewer with some brutal war footage and the latest stats about our casualties and war costs. The clear implication, for anyone connecting the dots, is that McCain was talking about another 100 years of war.
Meanwhile, moveon.org's tag line is, "100 years in Iraq? And you thought no one could be worse than George Bush." The clear implication there is that McCain as president would be even more of a hawk than the deceiver who stuck us in this quagmire after declaring - five years ago today - that "major combat operations are over." (The ad itself ends with a priceless photo of Bush and McCain in an awkward love embrace.)
Nevertheless, when McCain's town-hall remarks are read in context, it's clear that he was not talking about 100 years of war; rather, he was arguing that some troops might be need to be stationed there for backup purposes, much as we have done elsewhere in the world. Here's the context that doesn't appear in the two TV ads:
"We’ve been in Japan for 60 years. We’ve been in South Korea for 50 years or so. That would be fine with me, as long as Americans, as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed. It’s fine with me and I hope it would be fine with you if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world."
When Democratic chairman was asked about his ad on NBC the other day, he insisted that it did not seek to imply that McCain wants America to fight on for 100 years. Dean said, "We don't think we ought to be in Iraq for a hundred years under any circumstances." But if the Democrats really intended to cover all circumstances, they also would have used McCain's remarks about Japan and South Korea. They didn't, of course, because they wanted to leave the impression that McCain's was talking only about the prospects of a 100-year war.
We can legitimately debate whether McCain is right or wrong to believe that America can successfully fight its way to a longterm peacekeeping role, and whether the length of time it would take is worth the cost. But that's too nuanced for your basic 30-second attack ad, which requires that words be wrenched from context and used as a cudgel.
So the Republicans' annoyance is justified. And yet...OK, here's the thing:
They're the last people who should be crying in their beer about campaign falsehoods, given the fact that, over the past 20 years, they have perfected the art of distortion.
Two random examples from recent campaigns: George W. Bush, as a new candidate in 2000, had a line in his standard stump speech about how Al Gore claimed to have invented the Internet. While trailing Bush around New Hampshire and California early that year, I heard Bush deliver that line a dozen times. Then he said it again during one of the autumn debates. Problem was, Al Gore never claimed to have invented the Internet. He'd told CNN in 1999 that, as a congressman, he had taken the "initiative" in getting the Internet created - a claim that has been repeatedly confirmed by the Internet's tekkie pioneers. But the Republicans reduced the Gore remark to shorthand, and Bush repeated it endlessly until a sufficient number of Americans judged Gore to be a deluded blowhard.
Second random example: In the spring of 2004, Bush and a slew of GOP surrogates claimed that John Kerry, as a senator, "voted 350 times for higher taxes on the American people." Then it turned out that the Republican tally was a tad too flexible (they had counted things like Kerry's refusal to repeal the windfall profits tax on Big Oil, and his refusal to cut the federal tax on cigarettes). So the GOP retooled, and came back with a new message, this time that Kerry had voted to raise taxes "98 times." And that TV ad turned out to be a gross exaggeration as well.
The point is, I don't recall any Republicans fuming when Gore's words and Kerry's actions were twisted for political purposes. Two wrongs don't make a right, as our mothers used to say, but the GOP's veteran hardball players know full well that "politics ain't beanbag," as the American humorist Finley Peter Dunne used to say...and that, as the Bible tells us, you reap what you sow.
Of course, the problem with putting Senator McCain's "100 years" comments into context is that by putting it into context, it demonstrates Senator McCain's continuing lack of understanding of the dynamics in Iraq - all of the examples (Germany, Korea, Japan) that he cited for our "continued presence" did not take place in religously, culturally, and ethnically fractured countries (we continue to ignore the fact that the country we call "Iraq" is simply an arbitrary border established by the British when they colonized the region), and DID NOT take place in the face of ongoing insurgency. Senator McCain was trying to make the point that he's OK with us being in Iraq if Iraq is at peace: that's fine. But he's going to have to damn well tell me what his plan is for reaching that peace - because frankly, repeating "the surge is working" with your hands over your eyes ain't working, John.— JLB- Well, its gutter politics as usual. God forbid the dems just challenged McCain on the ideas behind a 100 year presence. Its based on some weird catch-22 that American soliders need to keep fighting and getting killed to reach some point where it will be safe enough that they won't be getting killed. Then why not pull out enitrely? Secondly, Iraq is nothing like Japan, its a cobbled together country with littel sense of national identity, and the population is hardly homogeneous.— RG
- In my mind, nothing tops Bush 2000's gutter hit job on McCain in South Carolina. That was Republican-on-Republican crime. Heck, the Dems have learned from the GOP. No wonder Hillary & Bill have clear consciences (well, one of the reasons, anyway...).— yobill626
- In all fairness, the "100 years" comment is a distortion of McCain's words. The DNC should pull the add immediately. But I don't think we need to resort to lying in order to point out how wrong McCain is about the occupation in Iraq. McCain claimed that an American could go for a stroll through parts of Baghdad, which is completely ridiculous. McCain is a stay-the-course candidate. That should be enough. By the way, 49 U.S. soldiers were killed in Iraq this April, the most since September. Will somebody please step up and do something to end this mess already? This is unconscionable.— p-diddy
- Along the lines of "reaping what they sowed": What were all the people who voted for GWB thinking? I just read on CNN.com today that GWB has the highest disapproval rating ever for a president - over 70% disapprove of the job he's doing. Talk about buyer's remorse.— p-diddy
- McCain said we will be an occupier in Iraq for decades to come. How can you say that as long as fighting is going on? It's not important how long we stay. What is important is how long we intend to stay while insurgents are picking off U.S. soldiers one by one. If the Iraqi government can't govern itself we should get out of there. Hopefully our new president will have vision enough to see this. I doubt John McCain who is supported by the same people that elected George W Bush will do anything to end this war anytime soon. The democrats are the only hope of anyone that wants this stupidity to end. Clinton or Obama '08!— James TL
- Gosh, misstatements, lies, distortions, falsehoods in campaign advertising? Shocking. As for McCain's comments, we stayed in Japan and Germany after WWII for more than just rebuiding the countries. We also stayed there to stem the spread of the Soviet Union. I suppose Berlin was a classic example of that...what with the airlift and everything else. For 40 years we and out troops lived under some pretty precarious times. So we stayed there to curb the Soviets. As for Korea, that "police action" never officially ended. That is why we are still there. Iraq is different, for primarily religious reasons. However, we probably need to stay there to help stem the spread of Iran and Syria and Al Qaeda (and I KNOW they were not there before we invaded, so spare me). IF we can ever get a handle on the jihadists, then perhaps we can just be onlookers instead of active participants. Maybe.— tom - wilmington, de
- Gosh, misstatements, lies, distortions, falsehoods in campaign advertising? Shocking. As for McCain's comments, we stayed in Japan and Germany after WWII for more than just rebuiding the countries. We also stayed there to stem the spread of the Soviet Union. I suppose Berlin was a classic example of that...what with the airlift and everything else. For 40 years we and out troops lived under some pretty precarious times. So we stayed there to curb the Soviets. As for Korea, that "police action" never officially ended. That is why we are still there. Iraq is different, for primarily religious reasons. However, we probably need to stay there to help stem the spread of Iran and Syria and Al Qaeda (and I KNOW they were not there before we invaded, so spare me). IF we can ever get a handle on the jihadists, then perhaps we can just be onlookers instead of active participants. Maybe.— tom - wilmington, de
- Gosh, misstatements, lies, distortions, falsehoods in campaign advertising? Shocking. As for McCain's comments, we stayed in Japan and Germany after WWII for more than just rebuiding the countries. We also stayed there to stem the spread of the Soviet Union. I suppose Berlin was a classic example of that...what with the airlift and everything else. For 40 years we and out troops lived under some pretty precarious times. So we stayed there to curb the Soviets. As for Korea, that "police action" never officially ended. That is why we are still there. Iraq is different, for primarily religious reasons. However, we probably need to stay there to help stem the spread of Iran and Syria and Al Qaeda (and I KNOW they were not there before we invaded, so spare me). IF we can ever get a handle on the jihadists, then perhaps we can just be onlookers instead of active participants. Maybe.— tom - wilmington, de
- What makes the 100 years fair games is the profoundly ignorant comparison of Iraq to homogeneous nations like Germany, Japan and Korea.— SteveMG
- The Dems and their supporters are doing just what they have to do. One thing we learned from the last 14 years of Republican rule is that if you fight them fairly, they'll kick your rear, and that the American people don't pay enough attention to figure it out. And we've all lost. So put away the niceties and nuances and fight those lying, greedy, self-aggrandizing jerks with everything you have. When they're down, keep 'em there. The country, the world, will be better for it. (Of course, as JLB and RG point out, an insightful look at McCain's position is no better for him -- but let's not get noble when fighting evil! Hit McCain where it hurts, and hit him often. You better believe his people will do the same.)— Djoko Pritza
- Tom, I agree about the reason's we were in Germany, Japan, Korea. However, what's been the justification since 1989? In all 3 of those countries, the general population hates our presence there. We are resented by their people for meddling in their internal affairs, at least as it pertains to Japan and S.Korea. In both countries, we spent decades keeping true Democracy from occurring in order to ensure the local government remained favorable to the USA, no matter how corrupt and ruthless it was locally. Most Americans don't know this story...yet. And many of those that learn of it will defend it as necessary in the greater battle against the USSR. Perhaps...but don't be offended when the locals want to take your head off.— JeffA
- JeffA, I assume your question is rhetorical, but it should be answered anyway. The United States wants to maintain a global military presence. Period.— p-diddy
- Not to mention that if we pulle out of South Korea, the North AND China would flood down there like a dam bursting on the Yalu. I agree that Japan probably wants us out, but I believe that South Korea knows they need us to maintain their existence. In Iraq, I believe many want us out, and also many want us to remain. Some there may see us as the only reason complete anarchy has not reigned supreme.— tom - wilmington, de
- White man's burden, Tom?— p-diddy
Cited by the Columbia Journalism Review as one of the nation's top political reporters, and lauded by the ABC News political website as "one of the finest political journalists of his generation," Dick Polman is a national political columnist at the Philadelphia Inquirer. He is on the full-time faculty at the University of Pennsylvania, as "writer in residence." Dick has been a frequent guest on C-Span, MSNBC, CNN, NPR and the BBC. He covered the 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2004 presidential campaigns.
ARCHIVES
All commentaries posted before April 18, 2008, can be accessed at www.dickpolman.blogspot.com.
- American Spectator
- David Limbaugh
- Free Republic
- Glenn Reynolds
- Hugh Hewitt
- Human Events
- John Hawkins
- Matt Lewis
- Michelle Malkin
- National Review
- Opinion Journal
- Power Line
- Red State
- The Brody File
- The Daily Caller
- Town Hall
- Weekly Standard
- Center for American Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- Daily Kos
- David Corn
- Huffington Post
- Media Matters
- Mojoblog (Mother Jones)
- Open Left
- Political Animal
- Salon's War Room
- Talking Points Memo
- Tapped
- The Democratic Strategist
- The Grey Matter
- Unclaimed Territory
- Andrew Sullivan
- Attytood
- Chi Tribune's The Swamp
- CJR's Campaign Desk
- CNN's Political Ticker
- CQ Politics
- FactCheck.org
- Gail Collins
- Howard Kurtz
- Mickey Kaus
- NBC's First Read
- Obit
- Political Wire
- Politico
- Politics Daily
- Pollster.com
- Real Clear Politics
- The Atlantic Wire
- The Fix
- The Moderate Voice
- The Plank
- USA Today On Politics
- Wonkette
