McCain Wasn't Lying Exactly...

[john_anderson_ii]

He said the "troops" told him "we want to win" while he was in Iraq, and I believe him. They probably did tell him this very thing no matter what they actually thought on the subject.

If you find yourself needing to respond to this argument, here's two points bring up.

1.) McCain said "troops". How much time do you think a U.S. Senator spent with "troops" (E-5 and below)? How much time do you think he spent with company grade officers or higher? I can tell you he probably spent 98% of his time surrounded by "yes" men officers, and little to no time addressing real troops with the exception of photo ops.

2.) I don't envy how long these troops had to stand in formation and get lectured on how they were going to interact with the Senator. I've stood in formation a 15 minute lecture on "conduct" for a simple battalion commander inspection and a 20 minute lecture before a general arrived to "check on his troops". I'm glad I never had a Senator want to check on my health and comfort while I was in the military. I can't imagine what that formation would have been like.

His whole visit to Iraq was what we Marines call a Dog and Pony show. Treat 'em real nice, make 'em smile, and then hand 'em over to the officers for tea and crumpets so we can get back to work.

So yes, it's quite likely that everyone in Iraq told him exactly what he wanted to hear.

[synapz]

E5 army vet here. Seconded.

[Matthew Zak]

I'm sure he wasn't lying. I'm also sure the troops wouldn't dare express anything that could cause low moral while in combat. They'll do and say any and everything patriotic to make their experience as easy as possible in the desert, right? Their lives are at stake for who-knows-what reasons... they don't need to hang their heads lower than they already have to.

I don't think McCain was lying. I'm sure they want to win. I'm sure some of them are still feeling very patriotic, in the "liberate the Iraqi's" sense of the word.

[logolepsy]

E-4 Marine Corps, 6-yrs. You nailed it right on the head.

[RJB]

former Marine SGT. I agree.

[Stealth]

Well, I was in Iraq, and we had senators show up to our Marine regiment in Fallujah after the major operation over there. The troops are there to accomplish the mission. That's first priority. Sure, there are Marines that are sick and tired of being there, and want to be with their family. There is no place for dissent among the ranks though. It is unprofessional and un-military like. So it doesn't matter if he hung out and met up with E-5s and below he wouldn't get much of a display from the troops wanting to go home.

Former 5/11 Marine Sgt

[MsDoodahs]

I have a question I would like to ask the vets off board via PM. If any of you are willing to at least listen to my question, please PM me.

Thanks (and sorry for interrupting your thread, JAii)

[foofighter20x]

Active duty USAF E-6...

Nothing but truth in the original post. :)

[louisiana4liberty]

You're right on the money. I'm a Navy vet and the preparations for Admiral visits were unbelievable to me. My division commanders were YES men too. Even the Admirals didn't get a clear picture of the morale and welfare of our units. I can only imagine how pretty the pictures are painted for these Senators.

Sadly, I'm reminded of Rumsfeld being asked by an NCO for basic armor and defensive equipment for our comrads in Iraq. That was one sad day for America.

[Searching 4 the sound]

I posted this under a different topic, but I think it's appropriate here.

McCain in lastnights debate used 2 words that raised a question that should be Dr Paul's response to McCains absurd statement. The 2 words were "win" and "surrender". Question - win or surrender who do we treaty?

The military role in war is to secure the battlefield. Heads of State negotiate treaties.

Our military secured the battlefield all the way to Saddams palace in Baghdad. Did they not win the war?

George Bush landed on the aircraft carrier Lincoln and announced "mission accomplished". Does'nt that mean our troops won the war?

Our military captured the enemies executive military commander Saddam Hussien. Does'nt that mean they won the war?

Iraqi's held elections and established a new government. Is the war won yet?

The enemies executive military commander Saddam Hussien was executed. Can we come home now?

How can our troops not "win this thing" without surrender? How do we surrender when there is'nt anyone to surrender to? If the only authority we could surrender to has been executed and replaced by a new government yet our troops remain on the battlefield does'nt logic dictate that our troops won the war and have been abandoned on the battlefield by our own government?

Y'all understand what I'm saying?

[andrewss]

I posted this under a different topic, but I think it's appropriate here.

McCain in lastnights debate used 2 words that raised a question that should be Dr Paul's response to McCains absurd statement. The 2 words were "win" and "surrender". Question - win or surrender who do we treaty?

The military role in war is to secure the battlefield. Heads of State negotiate treaties.

Our military secured the battlefield all the way to Saddams palace in Baghdad. Did they not win the war?

George Bush landed on the aircraft carrier Lincoln and announced "mission accomplished". Does'nt that mean our troops won the war?

Our military captured the enemies executive military commander Saddam Hussien. Does'nt that mean they won the war?

Iraqi's held elections and established a new government. Is the war won yet?

The enemies executive military commander Saddam Hussien was executed. Can we come home now?

How can our troops not "win this thing" without surrender? How do we surrender when there is'nt anyone to surrender to? If the only authority we could surrender to has been executed and replaced by a new government yet our troops remain on the battlefield does'nt logic dictate that our troops won the war and have been abandoned on the battlefield by our own government?

Y'all understand what I'm saying?


Good post, a point I have to say I hadn't really thought of that much... nice post :)

[Paulitician]

Who said he was lying? What Ron Paul said is that he distorted the issue, as, of course, it was purely anecdotal.

Oh, and thanks for the info. I would have never thought about that, but it's something I would expect

[JaylieWoW]

I posted this under a different topic, but I think it's appropriate here.

McCain in lastnights debate used 2 words that raised a question that should be Dr Paul's response to McCains absurd statement. The 2 words were "win" and "surrender". Question - win or surrender who do we treaty?

The military role in war is to secure the battlefield. Heads of State negotiate treaties.

Our military secured the battlefield all the way to Saddams palace in Baghdad. Did they not win the war?

George Bush landed on the aircraft carrier Lincoln and announced "mission accomplished". Does'nt that mean our troops won the war?

Our military captured the enemies executive military commander Saddam Hussien. Does'nt that mean they won the war?

Iraqi's held elections and established a new government. Is the war won yet?

The enemies executive military commander Saddam Hussien was executed. Can we come home now?

How can our troops not "win this thing" without surrender? How do we surrender when there is'nt anyone to surrender to? If the only authority we could surrender to has been executed and replaced by a new government yet our troops remain on the battlefield does'nt logic dictate that our troops won the war and have been abandoned on the battlefield by our own government?

Y'all understand what I'm saying?

I'll second the post about never having thought of it this way before. Good post!

[lemnad]

I agree if you ever gave a politician or a high ranking officer a "real' answer your ass is grass. This war is a big part of the reason I got out after 14 years. That and the lack of concern by most American citizens that they were lied too, to justify going into Iraq.

[SrA_Brown]

Just to reiterate, the same is true in the Air Force. Whenever a bigwig comes to town, everybody starch your uniforms and put on your happy face. Tell em that everything is going great, no matter how much fraud waste and abuse you see happening everyday. Of course the troops that McCain met with said that, they were hand picked to make him feel all warm and fuzzy inside.:mad:

[tropicangela]

How can our troops not "win this thing" without surrender? How do we surrender when there is'nt anyone to surrender to? If the only authority we could surrender to has been executed and replaced by a new government yet our troops remain on the battlefield does'nt logic dictate that our troops won the war and have been abandoned on the battlefield by our own government?


Well said!

[thomj76]

http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2007/tst052107.htm


This was the first Texas Straight Talk I received. It hits the nail on the head.

[RickNHouston]

I posted this under a different topic, but I think it's appropriate here.

McCain in lastnights debate used 2 words that raised a question that should be Dr Paul's response to McCains absurd statement. The 2 words were "win" and "surrender". Question - win or surrender who do we treaty?

The military role in war is to secure the battlefield. Heads of State negotiate treaties.

Our military secured the battlefield all the way to Saddams palace in Baghdad. Did they not win the war?

George Bush landed on the aircraft carrier Lincoln and announced "mission accomplished". Does'nt that mean our troops won the war?

Our military captured the enemies executive military commander Saddam Hussien. Does'nt that mean they won the war?

Iraqi's held elections and established a new government. Is the war won yet?

The enemies executive military commander Saddam Hussien was executed. Can we come home now?

How can our troops not "win this thing" without surrender? How do we surrender when there is'nt anyone to surrender to? If the only authority we could surrender to has been executed and replaced by a new government yet our troops remain on the battlefield does'nt logic dictate that our troops won the war and have been abandoned on the battlefield by our own government?

Y'all understand what I'm saying?


I understand and agree completely~

[lasenorita]

Insightful post, Searching 4 the sound.

I'm thankful that the men and women in our military have the courage and honor to keep their promise to uphold the Constitution and protect their fellow Americans with their lives. They've done the job they were asked to do in Iraq admirably. They've protected us, and continue to protect us ...when are we going to start protecting them? When are we going to start standing up for their rights and protecting our military from the dangerous agendas of misguided politicians and powerful special interests?

[TexicanLady]

Visiting the troops doesn't give McCain any right to attack Ron Paul the way he did. It made McCain look petty and I am glad that Ron Paul stood up to him. I wish RP would have gotten a full 30 seconds to answer the attack.

I was a military dependent and some of what you guys are talking about. Sometimes the brass forgot that us peons (wives) were standing in the shadows when they addressed the troops.

[john_anderson_ii]

Well, I was in Iraq, and we had senators show up to our Marine regiment in Fallujah after the major operation over there. The troops are there to accomplish the mission. That's first priority. Sure, there are Marines that are sick and tired of being there, and want to be with their family. There is no place for dissent among the ranks though. It is unprofessional and un-military like. So it doesn't matter if he hung out and met up with E-5s and below he wouldn't get much of a display from the troops wanting to go home.

Former 5/11 Marine Sgt

I agree with this 100%. Marines always put mission accomplishment above all, and we take quite a bit of pride achieving our goals, but that doesn't mean we don't have an opinion. However, I think McCain might have gotten a completely different viewpoint if he had sat down and had uninhibited conversation with a cross section of non-rates and NCOs. I'm pretty sure they ALL want to do their job to the best of their ability and do themselves proud. I'm sure they all want to 'win'. I'm not so sure they all know 'winning' is because it's not yet been defined very clearly.

At the same time I'm sure many Marines in their personal thoughts are ticked off that they are essentially babysitting a fledgling government that can't seem to step up to the plate and do it's job. I'm sure the guys who have had their boots worn flat from 3 tours would really like to come home and get some R & R. I'm sure Staff NCOs and company grade officers would like to come home, and start rebuilding their units, obtain or repair gear, catch up on the admin side of the house. Personal thoughts don't get in the way of a professional warfighter, and they will be honored to accomplish every task the chain of command assigns them.

With that caliber of professionalism and perseverance, maybe the policy makers, and ultimately the voters should be more careful with what we ask them to do for us in the future.

[jacmicwag]

E-5 Army vet. I kind of feel for McCain since he experienced some nasty stuff in Nam that is just part of who he is. He got stuck in a mess just like the rest of us only worse. At least I know where the guy stands and where he is coming from. It's two different views of the world that have to be discussed and ultimately voted on. May the best man win.

[john_anderson_ii]

E-5 Army vet. I kind of feel for McCain since he experienced some nasty stuff in Nam that is just part of who he is. He got stuck in a mess just like the rest of us only worse. At least I know where the guy stands and where he is coming from. It's two different views of the world that have to be discussed and ultimately voted on. May the best man win.

That's kind of the way I feel about him. I agree with McCain on a lot of his policies. Cut the spending. Protect the 2nd Amendment. As well has his stance on torture. I seriously disagree with his foreign policy and immigration stances though. Being an Arizonan, I was actually going to vote for him in '08. However, I've now found a philosophy that suits me better. His tired last reinforced this. He just told me in so many words that he thinks using military force on a nation who is gearing up it's military but has not yet attacked is the proper thing to do.

I am glad to finally see the philosophy of liberty slugging it in on the stage with the philosophy of "always making sure 'good' is done at any cost". Even if the stage is rigged.

[usmcZ]

Corporal/E-4 Marine here, and I will definitely agree with that.

I remember only one time in Fallujah(3/5 DarkHorse) some big wigs were going to come "check on us at our FOB" and on the way they spotted an IED (safely) and decided it was too dangerous and had to turn around... so we cleaned up all the dirt in the middle of a desert for nothing. :p

Just today, we were briefed that tomorrow morning the battalion co will be visiting with the sgt.maj. and already had the warnings... you never just tell someone (especially a senator) that you don't agree, blah blah, that would be skipping your chain of command and a huge, huge no-no.

many sayings apply... atleast in the corps..

"stay in your lane"
"speak your pay grade"
etc..


I am sure the OP is dead on, and they will tell a senator what he wants to hear.. Dog and pony show exactly. I know the pride Marines take in their work and job, and that has nothing to do with wanting to be in Iraq fighting their war, but we will do anything they give us to the best of our abilities, and then some... then ask politely for more.

[undergroundrr]

Great thread. Thanks for those who have contributed their personal experiences.

[enjerth]

I agree. I believe the majority of the troops want to win. It means they take their job seriously, and I'm proud of them for that.

But the president is not supposed to take orders from the troops. It's the other way around. They may want to win, but it's not their job to decide which battles to fight. McCain is wrong to argue that the troops should stay because they want to win.

For Ron Paul, and many of us, this is not an issue of winning or losing. Being there in the first place is wrong.

[Jason T]

Just like the country, there are many troops for the war, many against it.

I have no doubt in my mind there are many troops for the war.

I think why Ron Paul is more popular among the troops than the anti-war dems is that he is the only canidate who wants to stop "leasing" our troops to other countries. I bet most people who sign up for the military look forward to defend our country, only to find out a lot of their military career will be spent protecting Korea etc.

Also, Ron Paul is the only canidate who doesn't want long term military relations with Iraq. I'd assume many soldiers who have faith in the war think we shouldn't have troops there when the job is done.

But even for the pro-war people, no matter what the troops are going to be in Iraq for another 2 years. It's going to take about a year for the new president to get into power, and if he calls off the war asap, it'll take another year just to logistically get everyone out of Iraq.

[bobbybobington]

McCain at least has some honor, it basically comes down to ideology. It's not a matter of the job our troops do, they excel. It's a matter of the mission and foreign policy.

[Arek]

That was a good point, whom do we surrender to in Iraq, the fledgling government we're setting up? We never surrendered in Vietnam, we declared victory and came home. I thought we already won the war back when Bush claimed Mission Accomplished. So yea I believe the poster reiterating our whole mission in Iraq hit the nail on the head. If the Mission is Accomplished who are we fighting. If a European poll is correct 70% of insurgents want Americans out of Iraq.