You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Home Front: Politix
McCain Changes Course With Vote Against Casey Nomination
2007-02-08
Gen. George Casey, the former U.S. commander in Iraq, is likely to be the Army's next chief of staff despite limited opposition in the Senate, most notably from Iraq war supporter Sen. John McCain, who has previously defended President Bush's right to make executive appointments. McCain voted against forwarding Casey's nomination to the Senate floor during the Senate Armed Services Committee vote on Tuesday and he said Wednesday that he will oppose the nomination when it goes up for a decision on Thursday.

One of Casey's most ardent critics in the Senate, McCain blames Casey for the "dire and deteriorating" situation in Iraq. At his confirmation hearing last week, the Arizona Republican and 2008 presidential candidate questioned Casey's judgment and blamed the general for strategic missteps resulting in "unprecedented levels of violence." He also called on Casey to "explain why your assessment of the situation in Iraq has differed so radically from that of most observers and why your predictions of future success have been so unrealistically rosy."

On the Senate floor Wednesday, McCain said Casey "more than anyone" has been the architect of U.S. strategy in Iraq, and during that time has presented false scenarios to Congress about progress of Iraqi security forces training and their ability to combat sectarian violence. McCain, who has long advocated boosting the number of U.S. troops fighting in Iraq, added that Bush's new surge plan might need more than the five brigades that the president committed in his strategy speech on Jan. 10. Nevertheless, McCain said, at his confirmation hearing, Casey continued to say that two brigades would suffice and would leave incoming commander, Gen. David Petraeus, with "flexibility."

For his part, Casey argued that he didn't ask for more troops when the security situation began to worsen because he did not want to bring "one more American soldier than necessary" into Iraq.

Despite the decision to oppose Casey, McCain has in the past said it's the president's decision to set up his commanders and appointees the way he wants. In 2005, McCain said Bush "has a right to put into place the team that he believes will serve him best." In a statement made at a May 26, 2005, confirmation hearing for John Bolton to be U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, McCain said that "one consequence of President BushÂ’s re-election is that he has the right to appoint officials of his choice."

"When President Clinton was elected, I did not share the policy views of some of the officials he nominated, but I voted to confirm them," McCain said at the time. Asked about the contradiction, McCain told FOX News on Wednesday that his comments in defense of presidential appointments do not mean that he has abandoned the Senate's constitutional right to advise and consent.

"There's a reason not to [vote for Casey]," he said. "There is the advise and consent clause. Nothing said we have to be a rubber stamp," McCain said, echoing Democratic objections to many of Bush's past nominees.
Posted by:ryuge

#20  Ah A weasel Graphic, Good as a snake head anyday.
Posted by: Redneck Jim   2007-02-08 21:23  

#19  Yep, Casey would be a war provider, the cincs at centcom, socom, etc are the war fighters.
Posted by: Broadhead6   2007-02-08 20:38  

#18  I love this place (Rantburg). Two sides (or more) of an issue discussed / debated. Well reasoned discourse and opinion.
Posted by: Mark Z   2007-02-08 16:05  

#17  Weasel works.
Posted by: Ebbang Uluque6305   2007-02-08 15:27  

#16  Power Line had an interesting take on this - that Casey would primarily be responsible for recruiting, training, and logistics, and not much else as CS, and therefore would be relegated to an administrative role. I don't know how much to trust that judgment. As for McCain, I don't trust him to brush his teeth in the morning, much less with anything else, including a Senate seat. I would never vote for him as president. If the choice was between him and hillary, I'd vote for the libertarian candidate. He strikes me more as a snake-oil salesman than a weasel, but that's just me.
Posted by: Old Patriot   2007-02-08 14:57  

#15  This one is tough, McCain needs to retire, but then so does Kennedy and most of the old guard. I'm not a big fan of Casey either and as far as being able to do damage COS facilitates and is a provider, he won't be fighting any more wars. His ability to do damage is limited, at least they did not nominate Cody for the job!
Posted by: 49 Pan   2007-02-08 14:26  

#14  McCain should retire.
Posted by: Rob Crawford   2007-02-08 12:16  

#13  McCain's silence on the underwar torture story speaks volumes to me about his character. An actual - honest to God torture victim in the Hanoi Hilton, I'll bet he prayed for pair of panties on his head and an embarrasing photograph when the vietnames guards were beating him bloody with a bamboo cane. As I recall from a Reader's Digest condensed version - one of his guards showed great compasion by letting him soak in water before pulling off his blood caked garments and tearing open the wounds.
John McCain said nothing about abu gharaib and proved to me he is simply a political beast now, and concerned only with what may grant him higher office.
Posted by: Rob06   2007-02-08 12:11  

#12  Sometimes you see people promoted to a position where they cannot do any harm. Perhaps, McCain needs to consider the promotion from that viewpoint.
Posted by: TomAnon   2007-02-08 12:08  

#11  I agree. McCain isn't a great presidential candidate. He doesn't inspire me at all, but he's good to have as a balance in the Senate.
Posted by: Shaish Spaviting2771   2007-02-08 11:33  

#10  Who was it that said that the bad general's best friend was Rummy? The talking head said that after Rummy left, then people would begin to focus on who was actually doing badly on the ground, rather than blaming it all on Rummy in D.C.
Posted by: whatadeal   2007-02-08 11:33  

#9  It sounded to me like President Bush allowed changing the ROE in January. Had the commander in Iraq argued more aggressively for the need, pacification would now be much further advanced. Methinks Senator McCain needs to remain in the Senate, where sometimes he can do much good by his posturing.
Posted by: trailing wife   2007-02-08 11:02  

#8  Sounds all very good in theory, but who's gonna allow changing the ROE?

If you can't do that, then I wouldn't just sit there with my hands in my pockets.

How many IEDs are planted in places that our troops already cleared out? What's the point when you giving back the area to the enemy in a few hours.

Yeah sure someone's gonna snipe at you when you have more troops on the ground, but if your with a small force your not going to have as much coordination you need to pinpoint them and keep the area secure.

I believe elite small killing forces are great for invasions but not for holding large areas.

Also there is the fatigue factor of having the same elite guys run all over town when more troops can relieve some of the stress.
Posted by: Shaish Spaviting2771   2007-02-08 10:17  

#7  How about trying to change the rules of engagement to allow our troops to kill the enemy instead of making a police action? You could have a million troops in there, but with the insane ROE, would you make better progress, other than give the enemy more targets?
Posted by: Alaska Paul   2007-02-08 09:57  

#6  I hate to agree with McCain. It makes me question myself. But upon review in the booth, I agree, promoting Casey is a mistake, if for no other reason than it is rewarding failure, or at least the absence of success. A statement like 'he did not want to bring "one more American soldier than necessary"' indicates someone more interested in politics than victory. That's not good in a chief of staff. I had hoped Rumy had flushed more of these non-warrior generals out of the service.
Posted by: Shaiter Thrick2337   2007-02-08 09:40  

#5  Aside from the Anti-McCain comments, is he right or wrong? I have to agree a bit.

For his part, Casey argued that he didn't ask for more troops when the security situation began to worsen because he did not want to bring "one more American soldier than necessary" into Iraq.

Obviously he didn't have what was necessary. The main priority should be getting the job done and kicking ass, not 1/2 assing it. What happens in the future when in the next conflict we really do need to get more men and resources onto the field and he's timid about it because of the political environment. If there is no one better then I'll rest my case but he just doesn't seem dynamic enough to me.

Any thoughts?
Posted by: Shaish Spaviting2771   2007-02-08 09:31  

#4  That's why I will never vote for McCain. He always goes with what he thinks will get him elected.

Goddamn RINO.
Posted by: DarthVader   2007-02-08 09:28  

#3  You think that Britney's "Oops..I did it again" would be too crass?
Posted by: Procopius2k   2007-02-08 09:21  

#2  How about a large Snake Head?
Posted by: Redneck Jim   2007-02-08 09:18  

#1  Can we get some kind of grephic for whenever McCain grabs attention? Like some eyerolling or something?
Posted by: Mike N.   2007-02-08 08:27  

00:00