John McCain on War & Peace Republican nominee for President; Senior Senator (AZ)

Sub-sections under War & Peace:
• Global War on Terror
• Iran
• Iraq War
• Vietnam
• Voting Record
• Other issues under War & Peace

We're in an Afghan stalemate & a Russian EU destruction

MCCAIN: Yes. Well, I think he laid out a positive agenda. I would have liked to have heard about Afghanistan. We have 8,400 American troops in Afghanistan who are fighting in what has been described to me as a "stalemate." I would have liked to have heard a lot more about Russia. Russia is the country that tried to change the elections in the United States. I don't think they succeeded. Right now, they're affecting or trying to affect the elections in March. They've dismembered Ukraine. They've invaded Georgia. The list goes on and on. Vladimir Putin is hell-bent on the destruction of the European Union. So that I would have appreciated hearing about the president's views on these pressing national security issues.

Putin is a thug; Russia understands only our strength

McCAIN: Vladimir Putin wants to restore the old Russian empire. He's invaded Georgia. He's invaded Ukraine. He is now attempting to affect the outcome of elections. He's putting enormous pressure on the Baltics. One of the greatest men I've ever known, Boris Nemtsov, was murdered in the shadow of the Kremlin. Let's know what Vladimir Putin is. He's a thug. He's a KGB agent and he's a killer, and treat him as such. And what does he understand? Strength. That's why we have to rebuild our military, and that's why, frankly, we are not doing enough to rebuild that military and its capability. So all I can say is: Peace through strength. And I think that that's one thing that Vladimir Putin would understand.

GRAHAM: If you let Putin get away with this, then we're opening ourselves up for endless attacks by foreign entities.

Mandate a three-part process to start war

Putin in Crimea: it's delusional to think Cold War is over

Describing Obama, McCain said, "One is a fundamental understanding of Vladimir Putin. They have been near delusional in thinking the Cold War was over."

"Maybe the President thinks the Cold War is over," he added, "but Vladimir Putin doesn't and that's what this is all about."

If the Cold War never truly ended, it sure fooled John McCain, who said during his face-off against Obama in the 2008 presidential race: "The Cold War is over, the Soviet empire is gone and neither one is missed," speaking to a group of military veterans during the campaign.

Chief Senate proponent of military intervention in Syria

"Until we have a commander in chief who knows what he is doing....let Allah sort it out!" she told the Faith and Freedom Coalition. The statement shows how far Palin has drifted from former running mate Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who is the chief Senate proponent of U.S. military action to help the Syrian rebels.

This week, the White House announced it had concluded that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad had used chemical weapons against the rebels, thereby crossing a "red line." Obama has now decided to arm select elements of the Syrian rebellion.

2007: No guarantee with surge; but no surge surely fails

McCain and I had a complex relationship. We had competed against each other in 2000, and we had disagreed on issues from tax cuts to Medicare reform to terrorist interrogation. Yet he had campaigned hard for me in 2004, and I knew he planned to run for president in 2008. The surge gave him a chance to create distance between us, but he didn't take it. He had been a longtime advocate of more troops in Iraq, and he supported the new strategy wholeheartedly. "I cannot guarantee success," he said. "But I can guarantee failure is we don't adopt this new strategy."

Obama "an uncertain trumpet" for Afghan & Iraqi withdrawal

Some of McCain's former aides wish he would pick his shots more carefully. One former adviser, who also worked in the Bush administration, said that McCain has let his personal distaste for Obama get in the way of actually influencing the debate. "Certainly through the Bush administration, McCain was the most credible voice on the conduct and prosecution of the war," this adviser says. "We knew it would lead the news and people would believe him. If there's a missed opportunity with the Obama presidency, it's letting his personal feelings get in the way of trying to shape the policy. When he talked about Iraq or Afghanistan, we listened." This adviser added, "I think that in some ways he's sacrificed that to deliver messages that other people could deliver."

2008: No one has supported Bush in Iraq more than I have

Bush mismanaged Iraq; until the surge

McCain had been outspoken in pressing Bush to commit more U.S. forces to Iraq, even as Americans had turned decisively against the war and favored a timetable for withdrawal. His advisers warned him that his stance was damaging him politically, hurting him with voters as well as donors. He didn't care. "You're not gonna get me to change my opinion on Iraq," McCain would say. "I'd rather lose the campaign than lose a war."

McCain Doctrine: when we go to war, complete the mission

Proudest moment: opposing Reagan on Lebanon deployment

McCain evidently sees his 1983 vote as the moment where his political identity as a maverick began to form.

Consistent opponent of involving US in civil wars abroad

That didn't mean the congressman and future senator was oppose to meddling in other countries' affairs--to the contrary. He was an active supporter of Reagan's Monroe Doctrine, just not if it involved U.S. troops fighting a civil war.

1983: Questioned US military presence in Lebanon

"The longer we stay in Lebanon, the harder it will be for us to leave. We will be trapped by the case we make for having troops there in the first place. What can we expect if we withdraw from Lebanon? The same as will happen if we stay. I acknowledge that the level of fighting will increase if we leave. I regretfully acknowledge that many innocent civilians will be hurt. But I firmly believe this will happen in any event."

Less than one month later, 241 Marines were killed by suicide bombers in Lebanon. The House tried to cut off funding for the deployment, but the measure failed, with McCain voting against it.

1999: Kosovo: We are in it; now we must win it

McCain continued to make his twofold argument: The world's lone superpower, having committed itself militarily, cannot afford to be humbled by an army of 40,000 in a country no larger than Connecticut.

Telling an adversary that he does not have to fear facing ground troops is a form of unilateral disarmament and only emboldens that adversary. In other words, you may never use ground troops, but you need to be prepared to employ them if necessary, and you sure as hell don't tell the other guy he doesn't have to worry about them.

2000: Air bombing in Kosovo was immoral: it "wins ugly"

McCain's point was prescient but incomplete. The difficult decisions, especially those that involved the use of force, did seem wither rushed or belated--poorly planned and, in the case of Iraq & bin Laden, dangerously inconclusive. Other Republicans, less sophisticated and more ideological than McCain, also criticized Clinton for his willingness to engage in multilateral treaty-making.

In Afghanistan, employ same winning strategy as in Iraq

McCAIN: I’m afraid Sen. Obama doesn’t understand the difference between a tactic and a strategy. [I attended] a ceremony where 688 Americans were reenlisting to stay and fight for Iraqi and American freedom. Afterwards, you know what they said to us? They said, let us win. We don’t want our kids coming back here. They are winning. Sen. Obama refuses to acknowledge that we are winnin in Iraq. There is social & economic progress, and a strategy of going into an area, clearing and holding, and the people of the country then become allied with you. They inform on the bad guys. And peace comes to the country, and prosperity. That’s what’s happening in Iraq, and it is a strategy. And that same strategy will be employed in Afghanistan. Sen. Obama, who after promising not to vote to cut off funds for the troops, did the incredible thing of voting to cut off the funds for the troops.

Don’t threaten Pakistan; it’s part of Afghan strategy

A: I won’t repeat the mistake that I regret enormously, and that is, after we were able to help the Afghan freedom fighters and drive the Russians out of Afghanistan, we basically washed our hands of the region. The result was the Taliban, al Qaeda, and a lot of the difficulties we are facing today. We can’t ignore those lessons of history.

I’m not prepared at this time to cut off aid to Pakistan. So I’m not prepared to threaten it, as Sen. Obama wants to do, as he has said that he would announce military strikes into Pakistan. Sen. Obama doesn’t understand, it’s got to be the same strategy that he condemned in Iraq is going to have to be employed in Afghanistan.

We’re going to have to help the Pakistanis go into these areas and obtain the allegiance of the people. It’s going to be tough. They’ve intermarried with al Qaeda & the Taliban. Pakistan is a very important element in this. I would not publicly state that I’m going to attack them.

We face transcendent evil of radical Islamic extremism

A: I think that they’re on a task to try to defeat what Gen. Petraeus & Osama bin Laden have said is a central battleground in our struggle against radical Islamic extremism. We are facing a transcendent evil of radical Islamic extremism that wants to destroy everything we stand for and value. I know that’s what she was talking about.

Since 1998, championed policy of “rogue-state rollback”

McCain wants more boots on the ground in Iraq. He advocates intervention in Darfur, and has championed a policy of “rogue-state rollback” since 1998. He initially maintained some Vietnam Syndrome-style reticence about sending US troops abroad, opposing deployments to Lebanon, Haiti, and Somalia (and even insisting as late as 1990 that “we cannot even contemplate trading American blood for Iraqi blood”). But all that evaporated by the late 1990s after the success of the first Gulf War and the US interventions that halted ethnic bloodshed in the former Yugoslavia.

Follow Osama bin Laden to the gates of hell

GILMORE: We have to do everything that we can do to get this guy, because he is a symbol to the people who believe that they have a duty to destroy Western civilization.

ROMNEY: Of course we make sure bin Laden pays for the outrage he exacted upon America.

Q: Can we move heaven and earth to do it?

ROMNEY: We’ll move everything to get him. But this is not all about one person, because after we get him, there’s going to be another. But he is going to pay, and he will die.

McCAIN: Osama bin Laden is responsible for the deaths of thousands of innocent Americans. He’s now orchestrating other attacks on the United States of America. We will do whatever is necessary. We will track him down. We will capture him. We will bring him to justice, and I will follow him to the gates of hell

Prefers not to take troops out of Afghanistan

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.

The War on Terror is the overriding and transcendent issue

The War on Terror is a fight between good and evil

The War on Terror a war we must fight

Avoiding the War on Terror has cost us dearly

Bush promised enemies would soon hear from us and they did

Our adversaries express a hatred for all good in humanity

2000: Warned against radical Islamic terrorism

2001: No pinprick responses to 9/11; it’s a long haul

In his radio and television interviews, he was trying to prepare the public for the consequences of the latest terror attack: “It’s going to take a lot of work, a lot of effort, a lot of American treasure and perhaps some American blood.” McCain says in a phone interview, “first of all the message from America is that we are coming after you,” and he points out, “There is a broad variety of responses that can be deployed quickly--cruise missiles, ground troops, special forces operations will take longer.” He adds, “We’re in this for the long haul.

2001: Nuclear weapons unnecessary against terrorists

McCain replied that he thought “it’s not necessary. We have precision weapons and of the kind that would probably address this kind of threat, which is specific small groups of people in remote places, without having to use nuclear weapons. And very frankly, nuclear weapons have a connotation associated with them that, it seems to me, if you can’t rule it out you should certainly say that it is highly unlikely that this requirement would ever arise.“

Asked whether it was beyond the capabilities of the United States to combat terrorism, McCain said, ”I’m absolutely convinced that it’s in the capabilities of this country.“

Palestine: Against declaration of statehood

Don’t wait for UN if Iran attacks Israel

McCAIN: We obviously would not wait for the United Nations Security Council. I think the realities are that both Russia and China would probably pose significant obstacles. And our challenge right now is the Iranians continue on the path to acquiring nuclear weapons, and it’s a great threat. It’s not just a threat to the state of Israel. It’s a threat to the stability of the entire Middle East. If Iran acquires nuclear weapons, all the other countries will acquire them, too. The tensions will be ratcheted up.

OBAMA: We cannot allow Iran to get a nuclear weapon. And I will do everything that’s required to prevent it. And we will never take military options off the table. And it is important that we don’t provide veto power to the UN or anyone else in acting in our interests.

FactCheck: Obama did declare Republican Guard terrorists

Obama has in fact said that the IRGC should be named a terrorist group. He was a cosponsor of the Iran Counter-Proliferation Act, which, among other things, named the IRGC a terrorist organization What he voted against was the Kyl-Lieberman amendment, which also called for the terrorist group distinction. But Obama said that he opposed the amendment on the grounds that it was ”saber-rattling.“

Strategic bombing of Iran OK only if imminent threat

A: Well he doesn’t. But if there is an imminent threat, the president has to act in America’s security interest.

Q: But in terms of a strategic bombing, then he’s got to go to Congress?

A: He should, absent an imminent threat. But in the event of an imminent threat, the President has a constitutional obligation to protect the American people.

Congress can only declare war; not micromanage wars

A: It’s beyond Congress’s authority to micromanage wars. Congress has the power of the purse and the power to declare wars; the President is responsible for leading the armed forces as Commander in Chief

Keep military option open against Iran, even if no nukes

A: The military option is always the ultimate last option, but I don’t believe that it’s “off the table.” I would remind you that enrichment is a longer process. Weaponization can be done rather rapidly. Iran remains a nation dedicated to the extinction of the state of Israel. Iran continues to export the most lethal explosive devices into Iraq, killing Americans. They continue to be a state sponsor of terror in the case of Hamas and Hezbollah. And they continue to seek to exert influence throughout the entire region and the age-old ambition of Persian hegemony, including their increasing influence in the Basra area in southern Iraq. So I think they remain a significant threat and challenge, and so, no, I wouldn’t take the option “off the table.”

No direct talk with Iran; talk is over-rated

A: The most over-rated aspect of our dialogue about international relations is direct face-to-face talks. BlackBerries work. Emissaries work. There’s many thousands of ways to communicate. The question is are you going to have direct talks, and does that enhance the prestige of the president of Iran, who has said all these things about us, and has announced his country’s continued distinction to the extinction of the state of Israel, or does it reach a successful conclusion? That’s the question you have to ask when you talk about “face-to-face talks. ”I’d remind you that when we stopped the bombing in Vietnam, we were going to talk in Paris. It took 2.5 years because of the shape of the table. Bombing started of Hanoi. And guess what? Negotiations started again.

Iran & Syria must not get nukes; they’ll exterminate Israel

A: I wonder if Mohamed ElBaradei knew that the Syrians were, with the help of North Korea, building a facility that would be used for the construction of nuclear weapons. The facts are that if Iran acquires a nuclear weapon, the other countries in the region will acquire them as well. If they acquire a nuclear weapon, they have dedicated themselves to the extermination of the state of Israel. That’s their statement, not mine. We need to get the Europeans, who they seem to be interested in joining us in meaningful sanctions, whether it be diplomatic trade, economic & others, and put enormous pressures on Iran. Iran cannot have nuclear weapons.

Iran is state sponsor of terrorism; no more evidence needed

A: Well, he turned out to be right, and he is going to turn out to be wrong on Iran, as he has been wrong on others. The evidence is overwhelming that they are on the path to acquiring nuclear weapons. They are arming Hezbollah in southern Lebanon, as we speak. They have supported Hamas and other terrorist organizations. There is no question about that, no matter what Mr. ElBaradei says. And so, they are a state sponsor of terror. And that’s agreed to by most people in the world. And that’s my position. I have enough information, my own knowledge and background and information that they are a nation of state-sponsored terror.

Congressional consultation before attacking Iran’s nukes

A: We’re dealing of course with hypotheticals. If the situation is that it requires immediate action to ensure the security of the United States of America, that’s what you take your oath to do when you’re inaugurated as president of the United States. If it’s a long series of build-ups, where the threat becomes greater and greater, of course you want to go to Congress; of course you want to get approval if this is an imminent threat to our security. So it obviously depends on the scenario, but I would, at minimum, consult with the leaders of Congress because there may become a time where you need the approval of Congress, and I believe that this is a possibility that is maybe closer to reality than we are discussing tonight.

Sanctions to prevent Iranian nukes; but don’t count on UN

A: At the end of the day, we cannot allow Iran to have nuclear weapons. Now, I believe that we can do a lot of things. We can have a league of democracies to impose sanctions and to cut off many of the things and benefits that the Iranians are now getting from other democracies. I think it’s clear that the United Nations Security Council will not act effectively with Russia and China behaving as they are. We need to work together with our allies, but at the end of the day, it’s the United States that will make the final decision. In January of 1981, Ronald Reagan came to power and raised his hand as president of the United States of America. By more than coincidence, the Iranian hostages returned on that same day. I would employ some of his methods.

Iran is sponsor of terrorism; US strike if they get nukes

A: Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism. We all know that. Iran continues their efforts to build nuclear weapons. Iran is now exporting lethal IEDs & jihadists and suicide bombers into Iraq, killing American soldiers. The Iranians encouraged Hezbollah to attack Israel from Lebanon recent. Iran poses one of the greatest threats to the security of the world, and in the Middle East. We have to work together. If the Russians & the Chinese are not helpful to us, then we had better figure out a way to put additional pressures, encouraging democracy and freedom within Iran.

Q: What’s your tripwire for a U.S. strike in Iran?

A: My greatest fear is the Iranians acquire a nuclear weapon and give it to a terrorist organization. And there is a real threat of them doing that. The trip wire is that if they acquire these weapons. But I want to emphasize, there’s lots of additional efforts that can be made and must be made before we consider that option.

2007: Visited Iraq with Lieberman; led to endorsement

McCain and Lieberman had developed a close friendship through the years , and the war was a big part of it. Lieberman was inarguably the most hawkish Democrat in the Senate. He & McCain saw eye to eye on almost everything when it came to Iraq, but the bond was deeper than that. It was forged around the antipathy they both had for the bases of their parties, which was reciprocated in spades. Lieberman's foreign policy stances had made him an enemy of the left and especially of the netroots, which had successfully targeted him for the defeat in the 2006 Connecticut Democratic primary. Lieberman now called himself an Independent Democrat. McCain could relate to that.

The day after returning from Iraq, McCain phoned Lieberman to ask: A former Democratic vice-presidential nominee endorsing a Republican? "I don't agree with him on everything, but war and peace is one," Lieberman thought. "Besides, the guy's my friend."

No Surrender Tour: Stop Democrats from Iraqi withdrawal

Advisers said, "Your strategic imperative is completely different from every other candidate's. Yours is to create a comeback narrative. And the way you create a comeback is by making this race about something other than your political fortunes. It's gotta be about a cause greater than self, which is what your campaign is supposed to be about. The thing this campaign ought to be about now is stopping the Democrats from surrendering in Iraq at the moment when we're winning."

Source: Game Change, by Heilemann & Halpern, p.297-298 , Jan 11, 2010

2006: No good options in Iraq, but we can't afford to lose

By late 2006, McCain faced a wholly different political reality, as the country turned against Bush and the war and support for withdrawing troops increased. One scene vividly captured his predicament. McCain had just spoken at a fund-raiser for Chris Shays (R, CT) and now they were on their way to a public rally. Shays talked rapidly into McCain's ear, trying futilely to explain his now tortured stance on the war. "I just want you to know my position," Shays said plaintively. McCain was unresponsive as Shays chattered on, until finally, with a tone of exasperation, he ended the conversation: "Like I said, there are no good options." McCain acknowledged that the war put his political aspirations at risk. "There's nothing I can do about it," he told us.

Waving a white flag in Iraq will cause chaos and genocide

McCain decided to force the debate back to Iraq and national security. Earlier in the year, Romney had made a fuzzy statement suggesting that the military prepare "a private timetable" for troop presence in Iraq. McCain blistered Romney: "If we surrender and wave a white flag, like Sen. Clinton wants to do, and withdraw, as Gov. Romney wanted to do, then there will be chaos, genocide, and the cost of American blood and treasure would be dramatically higher," he said. It was a questionable charge based on flimsy evidence, but it created the diversion McCain wanted. Romney's team foolishly took the bait. Romney demanded an apology. McCain responded, "The apology is owed to the young men and women serving this nation in uniform." McCain's attack on Romney over and Iraq timetable stopped Romney's surge.

2004: Iraq War was "necessary, achievable, and noble"

Biden’s plan to partition Iraq was a cockamamie idea

McCAIN: I think that Joe Biden is qualified in many respects. But I do point out that he’s been wrong on many foreign policy and national security issues, which is supposed to be his strength.

He voted against the first Gulf War. He voted against it and, obviously, we had to take Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait or it would’ve threatened the Middle Eastern world supply.

In Iraq, he had this cockamamie idea about dividing Iraq into three countries. We’re seeing Iraq united as Iraqis, tough, hard, but we’re seeing them. We’re now about to have an agreement for status of forces in Iraq coming up.

There are several issues in which, frankly, Joe Biden and I open and honestly disagreed on national security policy, and he’s been wrong on a number of the major ones.

FactCheck: Biden’s plan decentralized Iraq; not 3 countries

The Facts:Sen. Biden co-authored an opinion piece in The New York Times on May 1, 2006, that proposed a five-point plan “decentralizing” Iraq, greatly beset at the time by civil warfare between Shiites and Sunni Arabs.

The column likened Iraq’s sectarian woes to those in Bosnia [in which the] Dayton Accords kept Bosnia intact by “dividing it into ethnic federations, even allowing Muslims, Croats & Serbs to retain separate armies.“ The result was that Bosnians ”have lived a decade in relative peace.“ The proposal, which became known as the Biden-Gelb plan, generated attention in Washington & Baghdad, and the US Senate voted for a Biden amendment expressing support for a US-backed political settlement that would include a federal system.

The Verdict: False. Biden proposed decentralizing Iraq’s government, but not breaking up the country.

Bring our troops home with victory and with honor

There was a lot at stake there, my friends. And I can tell you right now that Sen. Obama would have brought our troops home in defeat. I’ll bring them home with victory and with honor and that is a fundamental difference.

2007: Encouraging signs of normalcy in Iraq

FactCheck: Bush vetoed troop bill that Obama voted against

FACT CHECK: Obama did vote against a 2007 spending bill that did not include language calling for withdrawing troops from Iraq, but voted for the version that did. That version was vetoed by Pres. Bush, though McCain does not say Bush cut off funding for the troops. Overall, Obama voted yes on at least 10 other war-funding bills prior to the single no vote.

We now have a great strategy & are winning in Iraq

A: I think the lessons of Iraq are that you cannot have a failed strategy that will cause you to lose a conflict. We went in to Baghdad and everybody celebrated. Then the war was badly mishandled. I went to Iraq in 2003 and came back and said, we’ve got to change this strategy. This strategy requires additional troops, it requires a fundamental change and I fought for it. Finally, we came up with a great general and a strategy that has succeeded.

We are winning in Iraq. We will come home with victory and honor. Now we will see a stable ally in the region and a fledgling democracy.

The consequences of defeat would have been increased Iranian influence. It would have been increase in sectarian violence. It would have been a wider war.

There was a lot at stake. And thanks to this great general, David Petraeus, and the troops who serve under him, they have succeeded. We will come home as we have when we have won other wars and not in defeat.

The next president has to decide how and when to leave Iraq

OBAMA: The violence has been reduced as a consequence of the extraordinary sacrifice of our troops. But understand, that was a tactic designed to contain the damage of the previous four years of mismanagement of this war. At the time when the war started, you said it was going to be quick and easy. You were wrong. You said we knew where the WMDs were. You were wrong.

FactCheck: Admiral did not call Obama’s plan dangerous

Admiral Mullen did say in a Fox News interview that having a time line for withdrawal would be dangerous. On July 20, Mullen said, “I think the consequences could be very dangerous in that regard. I’m convinced at this point in time that making reductions based on conditions on the ground are very important.” However, interviewer Chris Wallace had just told Mullen to take Obama out of the equation. So strictly speaking Mullen was not talking specifically about “Obama’s plan.” He did say a rigid timetable could have dangerous consequences.

Obama would lose a war to win a political campaign

A: Sure. I mean, it’s very clear that he lacks the judgment [on Iraq].

Q: It’s not judgment you talked about. You made a very declarative statement, “He would rather lose a war.”

A: And I’ll make a very declarative statement that he went to the left of his party, refusing to acknowledge the success of the surge today. No rational observer would deny that we’ve succeeded, and he refuses to do so, because he won the nomination by going to the far left of his political base and that was against the war. And that’s a fact.

Q: But you didn’t say judgment when you said that.

A: I’m saying that what he did was motivated by political reasons. He took the position that he did for political reasons to get the far left of his party’s support and win the nomination of his party.

Quoting “100 years in Iraq” is out-of-context

A: If the voters decide that, absolutely. I believe that my talent and my background and my experience qualifies me more. Let me just say again that was in response--when I said he was inexperienced and does not have the background--to the charge of this “100 years in Iraq.” It was obvious when you read the whole quote: I said, “It could be 100 years, but it’s a matter of US casualties, and we have presence in countries like South Korea, Japan,” etc. So it’s very clear. And Senator Obama and anyone who reads that knows that I didn’t think we were in a 100-year war.

Q: But on the bigger issue...

A: You could make an argument maybe that Jack Kennedy was not “qualified” in 1960 as opposed to Richard Nixon. The voters decided on Jack Kennedy. So I can’t dictate what the voters will decide.

Despite deserters & Basra loss, Iraqi military doing better

A: The [Sadr militia] do control the port of Basra now. But the Iraqi military performed pretty well. Eight or nine months ago, it would have been unthinkable for Maliki to act this way.

Q: We heard this week that 1,000 soldiers refused to fight or deserted.

A: And there were many, many thousands who are fighting there. Compare that with two years ago when the army was basically unable to function in any way effectively. I’ve always said this is long and hard and tough. We’re paying a huge penalty for four years of a failed strategy that I fought hard against, and I believe this strategy has succeeded and will succeed and can succeed. But it’s long and hard and tough.

1998: Remove Saddam by force without UN approval

The monomania of removing Saddam Hussein had been coursing through neoconservative circles throughout the 1990s. The attacks on 9/11 gave the neocons the opening they needed to put their radical plan into effect--a project to which McCain gladly signed on. McCain had supported a now-famous 1998 letter to Clinton from the Project for a New American Century, calling for the US to overthrow Saddam Hussein, by force if need be and without a "misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council."

Before the war began, McCain pushed the administration's talking point as relentlessly as anyone. Saddam Hussein, McCain argued in September 2002, "is intent on constructing weapons of mass destruction," adding, "particularly a nuclear weapon."

Costs will be far greater should we fail in Iraq

Not a matter of how long in Iraq, but a matter of casualties

A: Well, the key is success, and the key is American casualties. We are succeeding. But as I’ve said many times, Al Qaida is on the run. They are not defeated. But this strategy is succeeding. And I believe that if we had set a date for withdrawal or if we do set a date for withdrawal, Al Qaida will then win and we’ll see chaos and genocide in the region. That’s another significant difference that Senator Clinton and I have, and I look forward to discussing it. It’s not a matter of how long Americans stay. It’s a matter of American casualties. Those casualties are coming down, and we can eliminate them. Look, we’re in Kuwait right next door to Iraq. We’re in Turkey. We’re in Bosnia. We’re all over the world. One of the obligations, unfortunately, of being a great superpower is that we have to take care of the world’s security.

Don’t let enemy lay in the weeds until we leave

ROMNEY: Unequivocably, absolutely no. I have never, ever supported a specific timetable for exit from Iraq. Sen. McCain pointed to an interview when I said that our president and their prime minister should have timetables and milestones. [When asked what I’d do with a bill with] a date specific to withdraw, I said I’d veto it.

McCAIN: Well, of course, he said he wanted a timetable. In April 2007, the buzzword was “timetables.” Governor, the right answer to that question was “no,” not what you said, that Maliki and the president should enter into some kind of agreement for, quote, “timetables.”

ROMNEY: Why don’t you use the whole quote, Senator?

MCCAIN: The actual quote is, “We don’t want them to lay in the weeds until we leave.”

ROMNEY: What does that mean?

MCCAIN: It means a timetable until we leave. If we weren’t leaving, how could the enemy lay in the weeds?

Support the surge and bring troops home with honor

Timetable for withdrawal is a white flag of surrender

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

Staying for 100 years OK, if US casualties are low

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.

The Iraq war was worth the price in blood and treasure

A: It was a good idea. It was not worth the failures that happened, but it is worth it at the end of the day because we will have peace and success in the Middle East, and our men and women will return, and return with honor, and they won’t have to go back and fight al Qaeda there.

Ok with American presence in Iraq for 100 years

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.

FactCheck: Yes, criticized Rumsfeld, but not before invasion

It’s true that McCain was an early critic of Rumsfeld’s strategy in Iraq, as early as Nov. 2003. And it’s also true that McCain refused to offer Rumsfeld a vote of confidence when President Bush reappointed Rumsfeld as secretary of defense following his 2004 reelection.

But McCain’s expression of no confidence came in December 2004--well into the Iraq war. Rumsfeld’s decision to invade with a much smaller force than the one suggested by his more traditional generals--the famous “shock and awe” strategy--was implemented in March 2003.

Help Maliki government move forward as rapidly as possible

A: The first and most important and vital element is to continue this surge which is succeeding and we are winning the war in Iraq. Secondly, I would make sure that we do what we can to help reconstruct the country, to help the Maliki government move forward as rapidly as possible to train the police.

I would much rather lose a campaign than lose a war

A: I don’t know. And I can’t be concerned. Because I know too many brave young Americans that are serving and sacrificing in Iraq, as we speak. I would much rather lose a campaign than lose a war.

Stategy in Iraq: defeat al-Qaeda; limit Iran’s influence

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.

Iraq is now the central front in the war against al-Qaeda

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.

Americans want to win; bin Laden thinks he’s winning now

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.

Democrats proposing failure in Iraq by withdrawing

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]

Reducing military presence has never in history won a war

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.

Bring troops home the right way: home with honor

Surge is working; let it continue until it succeeds

ROMNEY: I don’t have a time frame that I’ve announced. The surge is apparently working. If the surge is working, then we’re going to be able to start bringing back our troops levels slowly but surely, and play more of a support role over time.

MCCAIN: Governor, the surge is working.

ROMNEY: That’s just what I said.

MCCAIN: It is working. No, not “apparently”; it’s working. It’s working because we’ve got a great general. We’ve got a good strategy. The Maliki government is not doing the things we want it to do, the police are not functioning the way we want them to do, but we are succeeding. And the great debate is not whether it’s apparently working or not, the great debate is going to be whether we set a date for withdrawal, which will be a date for surrender, or whether we will let this surge continue and succeed.

Tragic mistake of Iraq: no plan to deal with success

The political and military mistakes we have made in Iraq offer a variety of examples of insufficient awareness. An important part of awareness is anticipating the decisions you will have to make if your initial decision proves successful.

For instance, we designed a force and an operational plan to dispense with the Iraqi army and Saddam quickly. But we did not plan for or have the force ready to deal with our success. We didn’t know what would happen in Iraq if we achieved our initial objective by the means we employed, and we were very slow in realizing what was needed when it did happen. That proved to be a very serious and tragic mistake.

Support the surge even if benchmarks are not met

A: Of course. They are making progress & we are winning on the ground. And there are political solutions being arrived at all over Iraq today, not at the national level. I’m disappointed that the Maliki government has not done what they need to do. But it’s not only in the national interest of the Iraqis, it’s an American national interest. We are winning. We must win. If we lose, there’ll be catastrophic consequences and genocide, and we will be back. This is a seminal moment in American history. We must succeed. There will be a big debate coming up in September on the floor of the Senate. We will win that debate because the American people understand the consequences of failure. Morale is good amongst our military. We will not set a date for surrender.

Did not read NIE before war vote, but was fully briefed

McCAIN: I did not read that particular document. I received hundreds of briefings, hundreds of hours of study and background and information on it. And the fact is, that the sanctions were breaking down.

Q: Gov. Gilmore, you chaired the commission on Iraq. Do you think it was appropriate that members of Congress would authorize the president to go to war without reading that NIE?

GILMORE: I think the people who are in Congress who are responsible for sending this country to war, with the enormous dangers that it has geopolitically and strategically, ought to read at least that kind of material. I know they get a lot of stuff and they can’t read everything.

If new strategy not working by Sept., we still must succeed

A: Then you have to examine the options. And I’ll tell you the options. One is the division [of Iraq into three parts by ethnicity]. You would have to divide bedrooms in Baghdad, because Sunni and Shi’a are married to each other. You have 2 million Sunni and 4 million Shi’a living in Baghdad together. You withdraw to the borders and watch genocide take place inside Baghdad. You watch the destabilization of Jordan. You see further jeopardy of Israel because of the threats of Hezbollah and Iranian hegemony in the region. All of the options I could run through with you; none of them are good. That’s why we must succeed and give it a chance to succeed.

Willing to be last man standing for US involvement in Iraq

A: We have to continue because it’s not just the Iraqi vital national security interests that are at stake here, it’s America’s vital national security interests. If we fail in Iraq, we will see Iraq become a center for al Qaeda, chaos, genocide in the region, & they’ll follow us home

Consequences of failure: regional chaos & we must come back

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.

In hindsight, Iraq invasion was still justified

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.

Timetable would be catastrophe, even if Iraq wants it

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.

Advocated leaving Somalia, but no comparison to Iraq

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.

War has been mismanaged, but we are now on the right track

A: I would need the support of the American people. I would need to be able to show them some success in Iraq, both on the battlefield as well as with the government. We have a new general; we have a new strategy. That strategy can succeed. But when the majority leader of the US Senate says we’ve lost the war, then who won? Did al Qaeda win? When on the floor of the House of Representatives they cheer--they cheer!--when they pass a withdrawal motion that is a certain date for surrender, what were they cheering? Surrender? Defeat? We must win in Iraq. If we withdraw, there will be chaos; there will be genocide; and they will follow us home.

Q: Do you need anything, beyond what the president has now, to win the war?

A: Now I think it’s on the right track. The war was terribly mismanaged. The war was terribly mismanaged and we now have to fix a lot of the mistakes that were made. But we have a new strategy and a new general.

War in Iraq has not gone well: dire but not hopeless

General Petraeus was ordered to Baghdad to execute a new strategy that realistically addresses the threats we face there, and he has been assured he will have the forces necessary to do so. It is long overdue. The hour is late. But we must try. We must.

Al Qaeda may take over Iraqi oilwells

Prefers more troops for surge, but 20,000 is sufficient

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.

Bush now has the right strategy, and it’s our last chance

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.

Generals advising “no more troops” was a failed policy

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.

McCain Principle: Committing troops means completing mission

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.

If we leave Iraq, terrorists will follow us home

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.

Send in a heavy wave of troops to Iraq to establish order

Looting, terrorism in Iraq a result of US mistakes

The Iraqi war was necessary after years of failed diplomacy

Saddam would have acquired terrible weapons again

The Iraqi war was necessary, achievable and noble

The cause of the Iraqi war was just

1991: Urged formally declaring war on Iraq over Kuwait

Four days before the cutoff date, McCain went to the floor of the Senate to argue that sanctions would not keep carrying out “naked aggression of the most heinous and disgraceful kind.” McCain said: “Who are the ones who would suffer as a result of sanctions? In my view, it is the innocent civilians.“

The cutoff date came and went. On Thursday, January 17, President bush requested Congress’s permission to conduct military operations in the Persian Gulf. The Senate voted 99-0 to approve the president’s request. Not only did McCain vote in favor of the request, but before the vote, he had proposed that the Congress should adopt a declaration of war---a move much more severe than simply committing troops to the region.

OpEd: As war pilot, no remorse for dropping bombs on Hanoi

If my estimates are wrong and racism prevailed; if the Republican candidate won the presidency, the threat of war would increase and the opportunities for the peoples of the world to progress would be reduced. Nevertheless, we need to fight and to build awareness about this, whoever wins this election.

Vietnam's greatest injustice: burden of service on the poor

Some of his judgments were harsh, but he confined them mostly to the power structure. Political and military leaders had grossly underestimated the will and resiliency of the enemy. As for members of the antiwar movement, he did not buy their reasoning, but he endorsed their right to demonstrate. He even took a live-and-let-live attitude toward draft dodgers.

To the extent he admitted any anger, it was toward a system that put the burden of service on the poor and the powerless. "Those who were better off economically did not carry out their obligations, so we forced the Hispanic, the ghetto black, and the Appalachian white to fight and die. That to me was the greatest crime and injustice of the Vietnam War."

1967: POW son of admiral was propaganda coup for N. Vietnam

Then an officer rushed in, claiming they just learned that McCain's father was a "big admiral." The North Vietnamese cleared McCain for surgery. The logic was clear enough: the son of a big admiral was a propaganda gold mine. Win him over, it was reasoned, and others would follow. McCain was, in their words, the "crown prince."

For propaganda, the patient must be made presentable, and so a cast was quickly fashioned. Without painkiller, McCain passed out several times as the exasperated physician tried to connect the broken bones in his arm. For propaganda, there must be a change of scenery, so McCain was put in a proper hospital room which was, for all practical purposes, a film prop.

1966: Part of no-win situation in Operation Rolling Thunder

American pilots encountered relatively little resistance from Soviet-made North Vietnamese jets. The real enemy was the North Vietnamese Soviet-built air defense systems, reckoned to be among the best in the world at the time.

In the narrative of his shoot-down, McCain refers to "jinking" the plane, that is, the grueling aeronautical acrobatics necessary to evade this type of defensive systems. McCain actually underplayed the risk to American pilots in what increasingly became something of a no-win situation, in which the American flyers were faced with a double jeopardy of antiaircraft fire on one hand and Soviet surface-to-air missiles on the other. It took nerves and skill, and one wonders if McCain was quite ready for his first combat flight over Hanoi, not because of his flying skills, but because of the novelty of the threat.

1967: Survived USS Forrestal fire that killed over 100

One suspects that, to this day, McCain cannot recount the incident without betraying intense emotions--the type that causes the speaker to lose composure. Aboard the Forrestal in that frightful day in the summer of 1967 the fire was eventually brought under control, but not before more than 100 crewmen lost their lives.

1967: Shot down on first mission over central Hanoi

McCain immediately ejected out of the cockpit and was temporarily knocked unconscious by the force. The parachute opened and McCain regained consciousness before landing in a small, man-made lake in the center of Hanoi. Weighed down by 50 lbs of equipment and gear, McCain sank several times. A Vietnamese pulled him to shore.

A woman poured tea to McCain's lips, and photos were taken. Kindness or propaganda? Then came the stretcher, and McCain was deposited on a truck and taken to Hanoi's main prison: Hoa Lo, dubbed the "Hanoi Hilton."

1967:Refused making propaganda film in exchange for medicine

The film of McCain was eventually aired for American audiences in early 1968. Many thought he looked drugged. He was, in fact, fatigued from the prolonged, and futile, medical treatment without painkiller. Nonetheless, McCain was given a leg operation, which the North Vietnamese also predictably filmed. Because of his "bad attitude," the camp authorities refused McCain a second operation--typical of their psychological punishment. Up to this point, the North Vietnamese seemed, if not sympathetic, certainly not conspicuously INhumane. It was only in the face of resistance from a specific POW or a group of POWs, that they brought the full weight of physical coercion down. But that would come.

1968: Under torture, wrote coerced "confession"

Beaten and bloodied, McCain agreed to write the statement that he was sorry for the "crimes" he committed. The interrogator wrote the final draft and, as McCain noted, "it was in their language." For McCain, this was a victory of sorts: if forced to admit anything, the prisoner should keep it as close to communist rhetoric as possible, misspell words, dissemble--all in the goal of making it clear that the confession was with the work of someone who had been tortured, brainwashed, or not within his right senses. "I am a black criminal," wrote McCain, "and I have performed the deeds of an air pirate. I almost died and the Vietnamese people saved my life, thanks to the doctors." He wrote that he had bombed a school, which was yet another lie.

Silent about origins & necessity of Vietnam

Given that McCain's argument that official lying carries profound policy consequences and corrodes trust between the governors and the governed, his silence on the origins of American involvement in Vietnam is an interesting omission. It may also be an issue that McCain, who spent 5 half years imprisoned as a result, does not care to pursue to its logical implications. In that he could be forgiven.

Congress has no authority to cut off funds for Iraqi use

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.

Voted NO on redeploying non-essential US troops out of Iraq in 9 months.

• The President shall commence the safe, phased redeployment of members of the US Armed Forces from Iraq who are not essential to the [new limited mission].
• Such redeployment shall begin not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.
• No funds under any provision of law may be expended to continue the deployment in Iraq of members of the US Armed Forces after 9 months.

Proponents support voting YES because:

Sen. LEVIN: "The amendment requires redeployment be completed within 9 months. At that point, funding for the war would be ended, with four narrow exceptions:"

1. Security for US Government personnel and infrastructure
2. Training Iraqi security forces
3. Equipment to US service men and women to ensure their safety

Opponents recommend voting NO because:

Sen. McCAIN: "This year, after nearly 4 years of mismanaged war, our military has made significant gains under the so-called surge. Overall violence in Iraq has fallen to its lowest level since [2003]. Improvised explosive device blasts now occur at a rate lower than at any point since September 2004.

"Al-Qaida's leadership knows which side is winning in Iraq. It may not be known in some parts of America and in this body, but al-Qaida knows. We are succeeding under the new strategy.

"Given these realities, some proponents of precipitous withdrawal from Iraq have shifted their focus. While conceding, finally, that there have been dramatic security gains, they have begun seizing on the lackluster performance of the Iraqi Government to insist that we should abandon the successful strategy and withdraw U.S. forces. This would be a terrible mistake."

Voted NO on redeploying troops out of Iraq by July 2007.

1. The President shall redeploy, commencing in 2006, US forces from Iraq by July 1, 2007, leaving only the minimal number of forces that are critical to completing the mission of standing up Iraqi security forces and conducting specialized counterterrorism operations.
2. The President should maintain an over-the-horizon troop presence to prosecute the war on terror and protect regional security interests.
3. Within 30 days, the administration shall submit to Congress a report that sets forth the strategy for the redeployment of US forces from Iraq by July 1, 2007.

Opponents of the Resolution say:
• This amendment would withdraw American forces from Iraq without regard to the real conditions on the ground.
• The consequences of an American retreat would be terrible for the security of the American people at home.
• Our commitment is not open-ended. It is conditional on the Iraqis moving toward self-government and self-defense.

Supporters of the Resolution say:
• Congress talks almost incessantly about the situation in Iraq as if on 9/11 the situation involved Iraq. Of course, it didn't. We were attacked by al-Qaida operating out of Afghanistan on 9/11.
• One of the theories we hear is that somehow staying in Iraq is necessary because all the terrorists will come into Iraq, and then they wouldn't be able to attack us anywhere else. Some call this the roach-motel theory. The fact is, al-Qaida is operating in 60 to 80 countries. Yet our resources are only heavily focused on this Iraq situation.
• In terms of differences from other Iraq amendments: This is binding, not just a sense of the Senate.
• Secondly, we have a date; other amendments are open-ended.
• Thirdly, this has an over-the-horizon force specifically to protect our security interests.

Voted NO on investigating contract awards in Iraq & Afghanistan.

Voted YES on requiring on-budget funding for Iraq, not emergency funding.

• Request all future funding for ongoing military operations overseas, especially in Afghanistan and Iraq, be included in the President's annual fiscal year budget proposal
• Call for the President to submit to Congress by Sept. 1, 2005, an amendment to his annual fiscal budget, that details estimated costs for ongoing military operations overseas.
• Ask that all future funding requests for ongoing military operations overseas appear in the appropriation bills in which such expenditures are normally included.

Voted YES on $86 billion for military operations in Iraq & Afghanistan.

• $5.1 billion for security
• $5.2 billion for reconstruction costs
• $65.6 billion for military operations and maintenance
• $1.3 billion for veterans medical care
• $10 billion as a loan that would be converted to a grant if 90% of all bilateral debt incurred by the former Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein, would have to be forgiven by other countries.

Voted YES on authorizing use of military force against Iraq.

Voted NO on allowing all necessary force in Kosovo.

Voted YES on authorizing air strikes in Kosovo.

Voted YES on ending the Bosnian arms embargo.

Supports $48 billion in new spending for anti-terrorism.

The Republican Main Street Partnership (RMSP), the largest group of moderate GOP elected officials in the nation, applauds President Bush's call for $48 Billion in new defense spending to win the war on terrorism, provide for homeland defense and modernize the U.S. military.

Main Street Moderates, also offer support for the President's "Homeland Defense" initiative that strengthens border security ($2.1 Billion Increase), bulks up INS and Customs inspectors and agents (focusing on the northern border), and proposes a 500% increase in "Bio-Terrorism" spending. These were part of the RMSP Anti-Terrorism Policy proposed by key Main Street members Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME), Rep. Christopher Shays (R-CT) and others shortly after Sept. 11th. Sen. Snowe called "the President's proposals to boost funding for the Coast Guard, border security and customs right on target." "By focusing on these issues (Defense and Homeland Security), he's clearly in touch with what's most important to the American people," said fellow Main Street member Rep. Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY).

CIA assessments ib Iraqi WMDs were all wrong.

As war loomed, the U.S. Intelligence Community was charged with telling policymakers what it knew about Iraq's nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs. The Community's best assessments were set out in an October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate, or NIE. These assessments were all wrong.

• Overall Commission Findings: The Intelligence Community's performance in assessing Iraq's pre-war weapons of mass destruction programs was a major intelligence failure. The failure was not merely that the Intelligence Community's assessments were wrong. There were also serious shortcomings in the way these assessments were made and communicated to policymakers.

• Nuclear Weapons : The Intelligence Community seriously misjudged the status of Iraq's alleged nuclear weapons program in the 2002 NIE and other pre-Iraq war intelligence products. This misjudgment stemmed chiefly from the Community's failure to analyze correctly Iraq's reasons for attempting to procure high-strength aluminum tubes.

• Biological Warfare: The Intelligence Community seriously misjudged the status of Iraq's biological weapons program in the 2002 NIE and other pre-war intelligence products. The primary reason for this misjudgment was the Intelligence Community's heavy reliance on a human source--codenamed "Curveball"--whose information later proved to be unreliable.

• Chemical Warfare The Intelligence Community erred in its 2002 NIE assessment of Iraq's alleged chemical warfare program. The Community's substantial overestimation of Iraq's chemical warfare program was due chiefly to flaws in analysis and the paucity of quality information collected.

• Regime Decisionmaking The Intelligence Community, because of a lack of analytical imagination, failed even to consider the possibility that Saddam Hussein would decide to destroy his chemical and biological weapons and to halt work on his nuclear program after the first Gulf War.

Belief in Iraqi nukes was poor analysis of aluminum tubes.

Nuclear Weapons Finding 1

Nuclear Weapons Finding 2

Nuclear Weapons Finding 3

Nuclear Weapons Finding 4

Belief in Iraqi BWs was based on one unreliable person.

Biological Warfare Finding 1

Biological Warfare Finding 2

Biological Warfare Finding 3

Biological Warfare Finding 4

Biological Warfare Finding 5

Biological Warfare Finding 6

Belief in Iraqi CWs was based on flawed imagery.

Chemical Warfare Finding 1

Chemical Warfare Finding 2

Chemical Warfare Finding 3

Chemical Warfare Finding 4

Iraq never had delivery systems to attack US mainland.

Delivery Systems Summary Finding 1

Delivery Systems Summary Finding 2

Delivery Systems Finding 1

Delivery Systems Finding 2

Delivery Systems Finding 3

Delivery Systems Finding 4

CIA never questioned assumption that Saddam had WMDs.

Collection Management and Analysis: Conclusion 11

Conclusion 12

Conclusion 13

Conclusion 14

Conclusion 15

Conclusion 16

Conclusion 17

Conclusion 18

Conclusions on Iran and North Korea are all classified.

IRAN AND NORTH KOREA: MONITORING THE DEVELOPMENT OF NUCLEAR CAPABILITIES

The Commission carefully studied the Intelligence Community's capability to assess accurately the nuclear programs of Iran and North Korea. In doing so, we reviewed numerous intelligence reports and conducted interviews with Intelligence Community analysts, collectors, and supervisors, as well as policymakers and non-governmental regional and weapons experts. Because even the most general statements about the Intelligence Community's capabilities in this area are classified, the Commission's assessments and eleven specific findings cannot be discussed in this report. The Commission has, however, incorporated the lessons learned from its study of Iran and North Korea in all of our recommendations for reform of the Intelligence Community.

Iranian nuclear weapons: prevention instead of containment.

Expressing the sense of Congress regarding the nuclear program of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran.
• Whereas, since at least the late 1980s, Iran has engaged in a sustained pattern of illicit and deceptive activities to acquire nuclear capability;
• Whereas the UN Security Council has adopted multiple resolutions since 2006 demanding the full suspension of all uranium enrichment-related activities by Iran, particularly possible military dimensions;
• Whereas, in Nov. 2011, the IAEA issued an extensive report that documents "serious concerns regarding possible military dimensions to Iran's nuclear programme";
• Whereas top leaders of Iran have repeatedly threatened the existence of the State of Israel;
• Whereas the Department of State has designated Iran as a state sponsor of terrorism since 1984;
• Whereas Iran has provided weapons, training, & funding to terrorist groups, including Hamas, Hezbollah, and Shiite militias in Iraq;
• Whereas Iran had forged a "secret deal" with al Qaeda to facilitate the movement of al Qaeda fighters and funding through Iranian territory;

1. Reaffirms that the US Government has a vital interest in working together to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability;
2. warns that time is limited to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability;
3. urges continued and increasing economic and diplomatic pressure on Iran until a full and sustained suspension of all uranium enrichment-related activities;
4. expresses that the window for diplomacy is closing;
5. expresses support for the universal rights and democratic aspirations of the people of Iran;
6. strongly supports US policy to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability;
7. rejects any US policy that would rely on containment as an option in response to the Iranian nuclear threat.

Iran must accept long-term intrusive nuke inspection.

Excerpts from Letter from 85 Senators to President Obama We all hope that nuclear negotiations succeed in preventing Iran from ever developing a nuclear weapons capability. For diplomacy to succeed, however, we must couple our willingness to negotiate with a united and unmistakable message to the Iranian regime. We urge you to insist on the realization of these core principles with Iran:

• Iran has no inherent right to enrichment under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
• Any agreement must dismantle Iran's nuclear weapons program and prevent it from ever having a path to a nuclear bomb.
• Iran has no reason to have an enrichment facility like Fordow, and that the regime must give up its heavy water reactor at Arak.
• Iran must submit to a long-term and intrusive inspection and verification regime.
• Iran must not be allowed during these negotiations to circumvent sanctions.

Opposing argument: (Cato Institute, "Enforcing Iran Nuke Deal," Jan. 25, 2017): More than anything else, the Iran nuclear deal must be kept because the alternative is a return to ever-heightening tensions and clamoring by hawks in both countries. From 2003 to 2014, years of unrelenting U.S. sanctions and confrontation, Iran went from 164 centrifuges to 19,000. The hostile approach generates a more expansive, less transparent Iranian nuclear program and increases the chances for another disastrous U.S. war in the Middle East. Let's hope the Trump administration chooses not to go that route.

No nuclear deal with Iran without Congressional input.

Ballotpedia.org summary:Dozens of Republican senators wrote an open letter to the leadership of Iran, warning them that any nuclear deal signed between Iran and U.S. President Barack Obama might not last beyond his presidency, without Congress signing off on it as well. No Democrats signed it. [The letter caused intense backlash. V.P. Joe Biden said of the letter, "In 36 years in the US Senate, I cannot recall another instance in which senators wrote directly to advise another country--much less a longtime foreign adversary--that the president does not have the constitutional authority to reach a meaningful understanding with them." On Twitter, the hashtag "47Traitors" became the top trending topic in the world, and a debate raged as to whether the 47 who signed the letter were traitors or patriots. Here is the text of the letter.

An Open Letter to the Leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran:

Under our Constitution, while the president negotiates international agreements, Congress plays the significant role of ratifying them. In the case of a treaty, the Senate must ratify it by a 2/3 vote. A so-called congressional-executive agreement requires a majority vote in both the House and the Senate (which, because of procedural rules, effectively means a three-fifths vote in the Senate). Anything not approved by Congress is a mere executive agreement.

We will consider any agreement regarding your nuclear-weapons program that is not approved by the Congress as nothing more than an executive agreement between President Obama and Ayatollah Khamenei. The next president could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen and future Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any time.

We hope this letter enriches your knowledge of our constitutional system and promotes mutual understanding and clarity as nuclear negotiations progress.

Support the completion of the US mission in Iraq.

A resolution expressing the sense of the Senate that the Commander of Multinational Forces-Iraq and all United States personnel under his command should receive from Congress the full support necessary to carry out the United States mission in Iraq. Expresses the sense of the Senate that:

1. Congress should ensure that General David Petraeus have the necessary resources to carry out their mission in Iraq; and
2. the government of Iraq must make visible progress toward meeting the political, economic, and military benchmarks enumerated in this Resolution.

Sanctions on Iran to end nuclear program.

Expresses the sense of Congress that:
1. diplomatic efforts to address Iran's illicit nuclear efforts, unconventional and ballistic missile development programs, and support for international terrorism are more likely to be effective if the President is empowered with explicit authority to impose additional sanctions on the government of Iran;
2. US concerns regarding Iran are strictly the result of that government's actions; and
3. the people of the United States have feelings of friendship for the people of Iran and regret that developments in recent decades have created impediments to that friendship.

States that it should be US policy to:
1. support international diplomatic efforts to end Iran's uranium enrichment program and its nuclear weapons program;
2. encourage foreign governments to direct state-owned and private entities to cease all investment in, and support of, Iran's energy sector and all exports of refined petroleum products to Iran;
3. impose sanctions on the Central Bank of Iran and any other Iranian financial institution engaged in proliferation activities or support of terrorist groups; and
4. work with allies to protect the international financial system from deceptive and illicit practices by Iranian financial institutions involved in proliferation activities or support of terrorist groups.

• Amends the Iran Sanctions Act of 1996 to direct the President to impose sanctions if a person has made an investment of $20 million or more (or any combination of investments of at least $5 million which in the aggregate equals or exceeds $20 million in any 12-month period) that directly and significantly contributed to Iran's ability to develop its petroleum resources. (Under current law the sanction thresholds are $40 million, $10 million, and $40 million, respectively.)
• Establishes additional sanctions prohibiting specified foreign exchange, banking, and property transactions.
• Includes refined petroleum resources.

Move the US Embassy to Jerusalem.

Declares it to be U.S. policy that:
• Jerusalem remain an undivided city in which the rights of every ethnic religious group are protected;
• Jerusalem be recognized as the capital of the State of Israel;
• the U.S. Embassy in Israel be established in Jerusalem no later than May 31, 1999.
• Makes specified amounts of such funds available until expended in FY 1996 and 1997 only for construction and other costs associated with relocating the U.S. Embassy Jerusalem.