Slog - The Stranger's Blog

Line Out

The Music Blog

« War, Unedited II | Without Question the Most Exci... »

Friday, July 21, 2006

Mike McGavick: Debating the War is Inappropriate While Troops are Still in Harm’s Way

Posted by on July 21 at 10:33 AM

As he continues to campaign across the state, GOP U.S. senate candidate Mike McGavick spoke to the Lewiston Tribune. Here’s part of their report:

Lewiston Morning Tribune, July 20, 2006, By DEAN A. FERGUSON of the Tribune. McGavick: It’s wrong to debate war. McGavick is a fierce supporter of the “War on Terror.” Just as previous generations fought fascism and communism, this generation must battle terrorists, he said. “The paramount job of the federal government is to keep us safe and secure,” he said. In an earlier stop at the Lewiston Tribune, he said it is wrong to debate the war. Despite a “large” list of mistakes, the war debate needs to happen when the war ends. “We’ve got lots of time and we’ve got lots to learn,” McGavick said.

Quips Washington State Democratic Party Spokesman Kelly Steele: “What if the war never ends? When should citizens start debating it?”

Table-pounding State Democratic Party Chair Dwight Pelz was a bit more harsh. In a press release Pelz said: “After more than 2,500 American casualties and a failed Bush strategy with no direction or end in sight, the fact that Mike McGavick believes citizens shouldn’t be debating the war in Iraq is simply un-American. If my position were to blindly support Bush’s failed strategy in Iraq and stay indefinitely, I wouldn’t want to debate it either.”

This is a good gotcha on McGavick from the Democrats. Although, I’ve talked to McGavick about his position on the war, and it’s not radically different from Cantwell’s. Yes Cantwell voted for the Levin amendment—which called on President Bush to come up with benchmarks for a troop phase out. But Cantwell has also made it clear that she’s against withdrawal until the situation on the ground is stabilized. That is fundamentally McGavick’s position as well. He just doesn’t want to superimpose withdrawal deadlines. And quite frankly, if you believe, as Cantwell does, that the situation on the ground needs to stabilize before hard and fast decisions are made about withdrawal, it seems to me she would oppose the Levin amendment—as McGavick did.

More to the point: I’m still confused about Cantwell’s position. Didn’t her new outreach staffer, Mark Wislon, support the Kerry amendment…which not only called for establishing withdrawal benchmarks, but named them: Troops out by July 2007?

Having said that, at least she still believes in thinking and talking about it.



CommentsRSS icon

"at least she still believes in thinking and talking about it."

And there is this November's election in a nutshell. Do you like the Republican strategy of sticking your head in the sand, or would you prefer to talk honestly about what's going on and some strategies to end the U.S. occupation of Iraq?

Nothing will change if Republicans keep control of both chambers of Congress.

Change can only occur by voting Democratic this November.

Just the facts.

I thought you Democrats were the touchy-feely types. I wouldn't think you would want drop dead deadlines.

My jaw hit the floor when I read the headline for this Slog post. IMHO, rational debate is _always_ patriotic, or it is in the America I thought I lived in, anyway.

McGavick isn't saying just "no deadlines". He's saying "don't even talk about it". There are problems with setting a deadline, but McGavick isn't interested in exploring what they are; he just wants to sit and watch Bush pound the US military further and further into the ground.

The problem the Democrats have is that Iraq is a classic "you break it, you bought it" scenario. Just because you believe the war was a stupid idea doesn't make it any simpler to just turn around and walk away. A Democratic administration would represent AMERICA, as does Bush -- not just the Party. Iraq is not the Republican's problem, it is the problem of ALL of us.

This is incredibly frustrating for those of us who believe that it's a terrible mistake. But if the Dems take control of the Senate, it becomes the DEMOCRATS' PROBLEM. You can't just walk away and say "I didn't do it, not me, sorry, my hands are clean".

Iraq is a no-win situation. There ARE NO GOOD SOLUTIONS to repair the damage that Bush has done. If the Democrats think they can pretend it never happened, they will lose, PERMANENTLY this time.

There needs to be a conversation about this, though, and McGavick doesn't appear to have anything to offer. Senatorial candidates who have nothing of themselves to offer are sitting ducks for the party machine -- which is fine, as long as you agree with the machine. In his case, the machine is being driven by Karl Rove. That's a problem.

Let's face it, a vote for McG is a vote for many more "off-budget" years of Failure in Iraq, Iran, and I guess Iceland at the rate Bush and his Moron Team are going. All borrowed from the middle class Social Security and Medicare reserves, which millionaires and billionaires don't pay into (little known fact, that), even though their effective tax rate is 8 percent.

Yes, 8 percent. I don't know about you, but most people pay a lot more in the middle class. Of course, we can't set up "charitable organizations" to pay our bills ...

Because nothing is more patriotic than keeping your fucking mouth shut.

Mike McGavick exposes himself for the fascist he is.

The war is making Israel stronger and that's good for all of us. The Stranger went out on a limb backing the Iraq invasion, and is now going out on a limb standing behind Israel. Imagine Israel taking on Iran w/o U.S. bases in Iraq. Impossible.

Josh, get a clue stick - soon. The only thing happening is they're spending our tax dollars (who do you think supplies Israel? It sure ain't the tooth fairy).

When you retire and find out there's nothing there for you - well, thank Bush for spending it. Cause that's what he's doing.

The conventional Seattle wisdom is anti-Israel and some of those anti-Israel comments are also anti-Jewish. We're lucky to have The Stranger keeping the discussion on point. Someone has to speak out against all the Rachel Corrie peace-nics, and The Stranger was the only local paper with the guts to report Corrie's ties with terrorist groups. This war is difficult at the momement, but we need troups in Iraq so Israel can take on Iran. The war will bring peace.

Josh, "the War will bring Peace"?

Please. Grow a brain. Or enlist.

Then we'll talk.

Setting a deadline for withdrawal is culturally important when dealing with Iraq because that's the way Iraq has operated historically: The Iraqi government won't come together and make a decision without a deadline.

For example, they debated endlessly about a constitution until the US said you must have a constitution by X date. That worked. Although the constitution was not adopted on time, it was adopted within a few days of the deadline. Until a deadline was set by the US there simply was no end in sight to the talking.

For example, the Iraqi government couldn't reach an agreement on who to elect as the prime minister...until the US set a deadline. Again, the prime minister was not appointed on time, but within a few days of the deadline.

Many Iraqi's argue that we aren't going to be able to get out of there until we set a deadline and tell them we are leaving on X date come hell or high water. They have 'til then to stabilize things with the help of the US. After that, they are on their own.

Supporting a deadline and wanting to not withdraw until circumstances on the ground are stable are not inconsistent positions. They are the best we can hope to achieve given the situation. But we must also acknowledge that stabilization while we are in Iraq may simply not be achievable.

Until we set a deadline, events to date indicate that matters on the ground will not stabilize. They may not stabilize after we set a deadline. But are we going to ignore the enormity of our error going into Iraq forever? We should do our best within reason. If that doesn't work, we should admit our failure, accept that we can't change reality and do the inevitable: leave.

How...corporate. I can just hear Safeco CEO McGavick, perfectly straight-faced, making the statement, "Our employees are our most important asset, however, there has been far too much questioning of management decisions. That has to stop."

I’ve talked to McGavick about his position on the war, and it’s not radically different from Cantwell’s.

Are you joking? Has Cantwell voiced that we shouldn't debate this war? Is she a bling partisan of Bush's neocon agenda?

Day after day you write the most naive bunk, and the scary thing is you actually think you're being a professional reporter.

You may get paid to do this, but you come across as so incredibly clueless.

Jogh wrote: "The war is making Israel stronger and that's good for all of us."

Will wrote: "Please. Grow a brain. Or enlist."

I agree with Will. Israel warring with Arab countries has never been good for all of us. Unbelievable bunk.

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).