A: Yeah, but look, the lesson is, it isn’t going to come. The lesson is they want the border secured first. I come from a border state. I know how to fix those borders with walls, with UAVs, with sensors, with cameras, with vehicle barriers. They want the border secured first. And I will do that, and, as president, I will have the border state governors certify those borders are secured. And then we will have a temporary worker program with tamper-proof biometric documents, and any employer who employs someone in any other circumstances will be prosecuted. That means a lot of people will leave just normally because they’re not going to be able to get their job. Then we have to get rid of two million people who have committed crimes here. We have to round them up and deport them. As far as the others are concerned, we were in an ongoing discussion when this whole thing collapsed.
A: I’m talking specifically about whether we should have maintained the surge in Iraq and, in April 2007, whether we had to have timetables. Gov. Romney said there had to be timetables, although they had to be secret.
Q: Gov. Romney said he never suggested a specific timetable, you’re being dishonest.
A: When he was asked should there be a timetable for withdrawing the troops, he said, quote, “There’s no question [the US & Iraq] have to have a series of timetables.“
Q: When Sen. Clinton suggested timetables, you said was waving the white flag of surrender. Is Gov. Romney waving the white flag?
A: What Sen. Clinton said was that you would set a timetable, within 60 days, of complete withdrawal from Iraq. To me that’s surrender.
Q: Is Gov. Romney suggesting surrender?
A: I don’t believe that Gov. Romney’s statement indicated anything but that we were going to have a timetable for withdrawal
A: I understand the frustration and the sorrow of the American people over the sacrifice that has been made. It was badly mishandled for nearly four years. And some people talk about the impatience of the American people. I’m proud, frankly, of the patience. But on the issue of how long we stay there, I think that’s a false argument. The point is, how many Americans are going to be harmed there? Right next door in Kuwait, we have military bases. We have troops in South Korea & Bosnia. It’s not a matter of American troop presence, it’s a matter of American casualties. And I believe that by next November, I can show the American people significant more progress & significant withdrawals. We have to succeed there.
A: Most importantly, I’ll improve our human intelligence.
Q: How?
A: Well, we’re going to recruit, and send people in who can blend into the culture, into the tribal communities. I didn’t say it was going to be easy. But I will get him. And why is it so important? One, he killed 3,000 Americans. But two, he is recruiting & instructing radical Islamic extremists who want to destroy everything we stand for. This guy is a continuing threat.
A: Look, I have said time after time that no one can be reward for illegal behavior. The context of that conversation, don’t you call that “amnesty.” I have said in hundreds of hours of debate on the Senate floor, we reward no one for illegal behavior They have to pay fines. They have to take the naturalization. About two million people here in this country who have come illegally, have committed crimes here in America, and they have to be deported immediately.
A: You round them up and you find them.
Q: Two million people, though? Logistically, how do you do that?
A: It’s very hard, but what’s the choice? Having people who are breaking our laws in our country illegally? But the other aspect of it is that people come forward, and those that don’t come forward, then obviously it’s easier to identify them, and then we address their situation according to how long they’ve been here, what their record is, but they cannot be rewarded for illegal behavior. In other words, they can’t be put in front of anybody else.
Q: Fourteen million illegal immigrants here, let’s say two million have committed crimes. The remaining 12 million: they will stay?
A: I have said in debate after debate, it’s not that they will stay, it depends on their category. I’m deporting any soldiers’ grandmothers. We have to address this in a humane and compassionate fashion.
: I’m pleased. I know we were at a very low point. We’ve been traveling around the country telling people the truth. And here in New Hampshire people, frankly, don’t mind it if you disagree with him as long as they think that you’re telling them the truth. We had our 100th town hall meeting here yesterday, and we had some very spirited exchanges. I think that’s what the people of New Hampshire want.
Q: You said this last week: “The American people have lost their trust and confidence in their government. Our failures at Katrina, the war in Iraq, corruption and spending in Washington.” That’s a denunciation of George W. Bush.
A: Well, it’s certainly a criticism, but I also have pointed out, we’ve not had another attack on the US. I think he deserves credit for that. He led this nation after 9/11 and united us.
A: I also said that the major reason why I was opposed to it was because there was no spending cuts. Reagan had tax cuts, but we had spending cuts that went right along with it.
Q: But you voted the third time for the tax cuts, but there weren’t spending cuts.
A: No, but I thought that we ought to keep the tax cuts permanent, because if I had voted in the other way, that would have had the effect of increasing taxes.
Q: Do you believe that voting against the Bush tax cuts was a mistake?
A: Of course not.
Q: Bob Novak wrote in his column, “McCain has admitted to me that those tax votes were a mistake.”
A: I can’t account for Bob Novak’s comments or anybody else’s comments
So you’d be all right with having US troops in Iraq for the next 100 years?
A: Most importantly, so would the American people if Americans aren’t dying. We have a base in the neighboring country of Kuwait. We have a base in Turkey. We have a base in Japan, Germany. We’ve had bases there. It’s not American presence that bothers the American people, it’s American casualties. And if Americans are safe wherever they are in the world, the American people don’t mind that. So what I believe we can achieve is a reduction in casualties to the point where the Iraqis are doing the fighting and dying, we’re supporting them, and, over time, then it’ll be the relation between the two countries.
McCAIN: The US strategy in Iraq should be to defeat al-Qaeda, to reverse the increasing influence of Iran in Iraq, & to move towards the goal of military security & a functioning government.
Q: General Petraeus testified that in order to do that we will lose, on the average, two US men or women per day, 15 will be wounded per day, at a cost of $300 million per day. Is it worth it?
McCAIN: The strategy that we’ve now adopted is now succeeding. If we abandon it and go, the consequences will be genocide, and chaos in the region
KERRY: The Bush-McCain strategy of escalating our troops in the middle of a civil war has no relationship directly to what you need to do to resolve the civil war. A policy of putting more troops in and staying is a policy for staying. It is not a policy for winning or for changing the equation. This is making us weaker in the war on terror. It is emboldening Iran, empowering Hamas & Hezbollah.
McCAIN: The consequences of a set date for a withdrawal would cause us to have severe national security implications not only in Iraq but the region.
KERRY: On the word “withdrawal:” [McCain implies that] a fixed date withdrawal is somehow going to abandon Iraq. We’re not talking about abandoning Iraq. We’re talking about changing the mission & adjusting the mission so that the bulkier combat troops are withdrawn, within a year, but that you are continuing to provide the basic backstop support necessary to finish the training, so they stand up on their own, and you are continuing to chase al-Qaeda. There was no al-Qaeda in Iraq before we attacked. So we are in Iraq today on false pretenses, in the middle of a civil war.
McCAIN: You are advocating going back to the failed tactic of before. And whether al-Qaeda was there before or not, al-Qaeda is there now. Iraq is now the central front in the war against al-Qaeda.
A: Not forever. The majority of Americans were opposed to [the US military presence in] Korea. Thanks to a very brave president named Harry Truman, at least South Korea is now free today. I hear from hundreds of men and women, all the time. They want us to win.
Q: When you say win, how do you define win?
A: The same way you succeed in any counterinsurgency. The government functions effectively, there’s an environment of security. But, basically, you continue to progress and to bring a free and open and democratic society and fight back [against any long-term conflict]. Look, this is an evil influence. They think they’re winning. If you listen to bin Laden & Zarqawi, they say they drove us out of Beirut, they drove us out of Mogadishu, they hit the USS Cole, they attacked our embassies, and they’re saying, “We’ll drive them out of Iraq, and we will succeed.
McCAIN: Iran loves to be in Iraq, and they are in Iraq. And al-Qaeda is in Iraq. If we don’t continue to beat them back, they will be a major influence, and have training bases. I hope we can also point out the consequences of failure, which is what the Democrats are proposing now.
KERRY: We’ve had four and a half years of failure. We are not proposing failure. We’re proposing a way to, in fact, make Iraq successful to the degree that it can be by playing to the real undercurrents of their cultural and historical divisions. Nothing in the surge addresses the question of Shia & Sunni divide [or other political issues]
McCAIN: In my study of military history, I never heard of a withdrawal and a reduction of military presence as being a winning strategy. The fact is that we are succeeding. That’s the thing that the Democrats won’t realize. And of course I’m saying it’s a recipe for failure. Of course history teaches that if we announce withdrawal, we will fail and we will see catastrophic consequences.
A: That was in the context of conversation about having to change the culture of America as regards to this issue. I have stated time after time after time that Roe v. Wade was a bad decision, that I support the rights of the unborn.
Q: If Roe v. Wade was overturned during a McCain presidency, and individual states chose to ban abortion, would you be concerned that, as you said, X number of women in America would undergo illegal and dangerous operations?
A: No, I would hope that X women in America would bring those children into life in this world, and that I could do whatever I could to assist them. Again, that conversation from 1999, so often quoted, was in the context of my concerns about changing the culture in America to understand the importance of the rights of the unborn.
(Videotape of McCain, 6/19/2005):
My opposition to ethanol obviously would hurt me. But I’ve got to do what I think is right. And if it offends a certain political constituency, I regret it, but there’s really nothing I can do about it.
A: When oil is $15 a barrel, ethanol does not make sense. When oil is $60-plus a barrel, then ethanol does make sense.
Q: So you’ve changed your mind.
A: No, I haven’t. I have adjusted to the realities of the world we live in today.
A: Actually, I’m on constant contact on this issue. I think we are close to an agreement.
Q: Some pundits say your identification with Sen. Kennedy on the immigration issue has accounted for your political problems with conservatives.
A: I’m proud of the bipartisan effort that I’ve made on many issues with Democrats & Republicans, ranging from Joe Lieberman on 9/11 to working on the other side of the aisle on immigration reform and others. And that’s why I think I’m prepared to be president of the US. The American people want us to work together on issues that are important to the American people. That’s my record.
Q: You think you’re going to get a deal.
A: I think we’re very close to it, and I’m very pleased to see that we have a number of the more conservative Republicans engaged in this effort, as well as people on the other side of the aisle.
A: Mm-hmm. Q: Is that still your view? A: Am I opposed to tax increases? Yes. But we’ve got to sit down together and figure out what our options are, and tough decisions have to be made, Republicans and Democrats. And I know how to do that.
A: Mm-hmm. In 2004, I again asked you about opposing the Bush tax cuts, and you said, “I voted against the tax cuts because of the disproportional amount that went to the wealthiest Americans. I would clearly support not
extending those tax cuts in order to help address the deficit.“ But now you voted to extend them. A: I voted to extend them because it would have the effect of having a tax increase. The tax cuts have increased revenues enormously. They’ve been very
beneficial. The problem is that spending has lurched completely out of control. My proposal was to restrain spending. I do not support tax increases. And the effect of not making them permanent would have the effect of a tax increase.
A: If we can show the American
people some successes in Iraq and if people like me do a better job of explaining the consequences of failure. The consequences of failure are that there would be chaos in the region. Some people say partition. You’d have to partition bedrooms in
Baghdad because Sunni and Shia are married. This is a very difficult situation, but the consequences of failure, in my view, are unlike the Vietnam war where we could leave and come home and it was over, that these people will try to follow us
home and the region will erupt to a point where we may have to come back or we will be combating what is now, to a large degree, al-Qaeda, plus many other factors of sectarian violence, in the region.
A: You know, in hindsight, if we had exploited the initial success, which was shock and awe, and we succeeded, and we had done the right things after that, all of us would be applauding what we did.
We didn’t. It was terribly mismanaged. If we had succeeded, then all of us would be very happy that one of the most terrible, cruel dictators in history was removed from power. Now, because of our failures, obviously we have paid a very heavy price in
American blood and treasure and a great sacrifice. Q: So it was a good idea to go in? A: I think at the time, given the information we had. Every intelligence agency in the world, not just US, believed that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction.
The sanctions were breaking down. If we’d have known we were going to experience the failures we experienced, obviously it would give us all pause. Yet the information & the knowledge & the situation at the time, I think that it was certainly justified.
A: This is long and hard and difficult, and it’s no last throes, it’s no mission accomplished. But to do what the Democrats want to do, and that’s set a date for withdrawal, even those who opposed the war from
the beginning don’t think that that would lead to anything but an enormously challenging situation as a result. Q: But a majority of the Iraqi parliament has signed a petition asking for a date certain for withdrawal of American troops. If the
Iraqi parliament wants it, & a majority in the Congress want it, then why do you say, “No, you can’t have it”? A: Because it’s my job to give my best estimate to the American people, no matter what the political calculations may be, as to what’s the
best in our nation’s national security interest. It’s also my obligation to tell the American people and my constituents in Arizona that I represent, what the consequences of failure will be; and I believe they will be catastrophic.
A: Sure I do. My response is,
What happens after we leave? Far greater casualties, far greater dislocation, far greater threats to our national security. That’s my response to that heartfelt statement. Q: Well, those are your words from 1993 about Somalia. A: Mm-hmm. A: Many
Americans now are echoing your words about Iraq, because they see no end in sight. A: I don’t see any comparison between Somalia & Iraq except that there was chaos in the streets of Mogadishu, [while in Iraq it’s] vital national security interests.
A:
Over a year ago, I had changed my position on this issue because I believe that it was too big a bite to take. I believe that there’s ambiguities concerning it, and so I believe that it was better to move forward with the reforms that we can make. Q:
But it also helps you politically. A: I don’t know how it helps me politically. Q: In currying favor with conservative groups that were opposed to your original legislation. A: There are as many liberal groups who were opposed to the legislation
as well. Some of these grassroots organizations are very legitimate organizations. As we found out during the Abramoff investigations, some are not. We should be able to find out and discriminate between the two.
A: I am concerned about it, whether it is sufficient numbers or not. I would have liked to have seen more. I looked General Petraeus in the eye and said, “Is that sufficient for you to do the job?”
He assured me that he thought it was and that he had been told that if he needed more he would receive them. I have great confidence in General Petraeus. I think he’s one of the finest generals that our military’s ever produced, and he wrote the new
Army counterinsurgency manual. But do I believe that if it had been up to me would there have been more? Yes, but one of the keys to this is get them over there quickly rather than feed them in piecemeal as some in the Pentagon would like to do today.
A:I understand their frustration and sometimes anger over the lack of success and lack of
progress, particularly coupled with optimistic statements made time after time when things were not going well and deteriorating. Americans are frustrated, they are angry, and they are fed up. And what we need to do is show them a path to success. Also
I think we need to make them more aware of the consequences of failure, which would be chaos in the region. And sooner or later, I think Americans might have to return. So I understand their frustration, I believe that Pres. Bush now has the right
strategy. I’ve been deeply disappointed in the strategy in the past, as is well known, and I think this is our last chance. Will it succeed? I can’t guarantee that. I think we have a good chance of it, but I guarantee the catastrophic results of failure.
A: I’m not aware of that, and on its face I would be very concerned. A recent trip that we made to Afghanistan, it’s clear to one and all
that the Taliban has been reconstituted, particularly in safe area in Pakistan just across the Afghan border, and there will be increased attacks on US and coalition forces. I’ve not seen the report, but I would be concerned about it. Q:
So you would prefer not to take troops out of Afghanistan? A: I would prefer not to take troops out of Afghanistan. I think that the new policy of expanding the Marine Corps and the Army is vital, because we are going to have difficulties throughout
the world, and we’re going to have increasing difficulties in Afghanistan. It’s a very serious situation there. But the good news is we have allies who are in there with us who are committed and are also making similar sacrifices.
A: Because it was clearly a failed policy. From the beginning, many of us knew that it was a failed strategy. It was based on the mistaken belief that the
Iraqi army and police would be able to take over the responsibilities far more quickly than they were able to. Q: Failed policy. Prime Minister Maliki of Iraq met with Pres. Bush on Nov. 30th, and said “no more American troops.” If the
Iraqis didn’t want more troops, why are we sending them? A: I think we’ve convinced Prime Minister Maliki then, as the situation continues to deteriorate, that we need to do that. Q: Is Maliki’s government is on borrowed time? A:
I think the whole situation in Iraq is on borrowed time, because of the continued deterioration of the security situation, particularly in Baghdad and Anbar province. You cannot have this kind of situation exist in a capital of any nation.
A: Well, there’s a McCain principle, and that is that when you raise your hand and you vote to send young
Americans into harm’s way that you will commit yourself and your efforts to completing that mission successfully. I don’t know how lightly others may take that vote, but that’s the principle that I’ve operated under, but not everybody gets a doctrine
named after them. Q: MoveOn.org has an advertisement saying , “The McCain plan to escalate, going from bad to worse. ” What do you think? A: I’m trying to convince my fellow citizens in Arizona that this strategy can succeed and it can prevent chaos
in the region. I really believe that those who oppose this policy have some obligation to propose an alternative strategy besides withdrawal in four to six months. That’s not a strategy; that’s a retreat.
A: I don’t see any place in the Constitution where that kind of authority is granted to the Congress. The Congress can cut off funding. And if my colleagues believe that they’re going to send young
Americans to die in an unwinnable situation, it seems to me that their conscience would dictate that they cut off the funding for the entire effort. This resolution is basically a vote of no confidence in the men and women we are sending over there.
We’re saying, “We’re sending you-we’re not going to stop you from going there, but we don’t believe you can succeed and we’re not willing to support that.” I don’t think the troops would find that an expression of support.
A: I think we are all responsible, including me. But I believe that it is a frustration that Americans feel that we have not
succeeded. We raised their expectations with comments like “stuff happens” and “last throes” and all of that rhetoric that went on, including predictions by our military commanders over there that things were going well. Q: How is this different from
Vietnam? A: When we left Vietnam and came home, the Vietnamese didn’t want to follow us. If we leave Iraq, I am convinced that al-Qaeda and terrorist organizations will want to follow us home. Q: If in nine months, the situation in Iraq does not
improve, would you then say we gave it our best shot, it’s time to come home? A: I think it would depend on the situation on the ground at the time. I hope that we can set up some benchmarks so that we can know whether we’re achieving some success.
Q: In Feb. 2005, I asked you about the suggestion that the payroll tax, which is now capped at $90,000 of income be lifted so the people who pay a payroll tax on more than the first $90,000. You said you’d be willing to do that as part of a compromise.
Q: In 2003, I asked you, “Do you believe the president should hold off any future tax cuts until we have a sense of the costs of the war?” You responded, “Yes, I do. I believe that until we find out the costs of this war and the reconstruction that we
should hold off on tax cuts.”
Q: In 2005, you said, “If we can’t retain the support of the American people, we will have lost this war as soundly as if our forces were defeated on the battlefield.” Haven’t they lost the support of the American people?
Q: In hindsight, was it a good idea to go into Iraq?
Q: What about a timetable for withdrawal?
Q: Let me show you something said with soldiers overseas: “There’s no reason for the US to remain. The American people want them home. I believe the majority of Congress wants them home. What should be the criteria is our immediate, orderly withdrawal.
And if we do not do that and other Americans die then I say that the responsibilities for that lie with the Congress who did not exercise their authority under the Constitution.” You hear those kinds of words, right?
Q: You supported legislation which would demand that organizations provide their fundraising lists when they were doing grassroots lobbying. You were very much in favor of that kind of transparency, and then you voted against it on the floor. Why?
Q: The Economist magazine’s intelligence unit say: “Unless their mission is very well-defined, 20,000 troops are probably too few to make a significant difference. Adding around 20,000 to the 132,000 currently there will increase US capabilities, but not
enough to stabilize the country.” You agree with that?
Q: Why should the American people, after they voted the midterm elections and have a Congress that says no to the president, why shouldn’t they be listened to?
Q: Should we be moving troops from Afghanistan, as has been reported, at this delicate stage in that war, to Iraq?
Q: Why didn’t the president listen to his generals when they advised no more troops?
Q: Democrats are now referring to the increase in American troops, the so-called surge, as the McCain doctrine. Do you accept that?
Q: Senator Hillary Clinton says we should not cut off funding for American troops, but cut off funding for the security for Iraqi government officials and cut off funding for the Iraqi army because they simply have not measured up.
Would you support her in that effort?
Q: The percent of Americans who support the war is in the 30s. Could this be perceived as a vote of no confidence in Bush?
The above quotations are from Meet the Press: Meet the Candidates 2008 series, individual interviews with Tim Russert, throughout 2008.
Click here for main summary page.
Click here for a profile of John McCain.
Click here for
John McCain on all issues.
John McCain on other issues:
Abortion
Budget/Economy
Civil Rights
Corporations
Crime
Drugs
Education
Energy/Oil
Environment
Families
Foreign Policy
Free Trade
Govt. Reform
Gun Control
Health Care
Homeland Security
Immigration
Jobs
Principles/Values
Social Security
Tax Reform
Technology/Infrastructure
War/Iraq/Mideast
Welfare/Poverty
Please consider a donation to OnTheIssues.org!
Click for details -- or send donations to:
1770 Mass Ave. #630, Cambridge MA 02140
E-mail: submit@OnTheIssues.org
(We rely on your support!)
Page last updated: Dec 01, 2018