The Annotated Lindsey Graham

Thu, September 04, 2008 - 8:37 PM

Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, John McCain’s best friend in Washington and, maybe, anywhere, just finished speaking. I’m going to try something new here with my analysis of his speech.

The full speech text is below. My thoughts are in parentheses. His are not.

Let’s call this the annotated Lindsey Graham.

--Sean Mussenden

REMARKS

By every measure, the surge of troops into Iraq has worked.

(He jumped right into it, didn’t he? Graham, who McCain calls “little jerk” – a term of endearment – has been talking about this for months on the campaign trail in support of his friend. It’s a cornerstone of McCain’s campaign, and on the trail he often chose Graham to give it.)

Sectarian violence and coalition casualties are at record lows.

15 of the 18 political benchmarks have been met.

The Iraqi's have a larger, more capable Army. Oil production is dramatically increasing.

(Depends on your definition of dramatically.)

This week, Anbar Province, once an Al Qaeda stronghold, was turned over to the Iraqis. And all American combat brigades who made up the surge have returned home.

We know the surge has worked. Our men and women in uniform know it has worked.

I promise you -- above all others -- Al Qaeda knows it has worked.

The only people who deny it are Barack Obama and his buddies at MoveOn.org.

(Bad timing, senator. Obama was actually interviewed on Fox News tonight with Bill O’Reilly(!) and had this to say: I think that the surge has succeeded.)

Why won't they admit it?

(He just did.)

Because Barack Obama's campaign is built around us losing in Iraq. Without John McCain's courageous leadership there would be no surge.

(The Democratic response: and without President Bush and support from John McCain, we never would have been in Iraq, and thus needed to add additional troops to keep from losing. Obama opposed the war from the start.)

I know.

I was there with John McCain and Joe Lieberman every step of the way.

In our visits to Iraq, we saw the situation deteriorate.

The troops we met - the sergeants, captains, and colonels - had such respect and admiration for Senator McCain they felt comfortable giving him something he knows a lot about -- Straight Talk.

(Just like the bus.)

They said -- Senator McCain, this ain't working. John heard their message and put their interests ahead of his own. He came back to Washington and told everyone, including Republicans, - we must change course.

For his honesty, some accused him of being disloyal. But John McCain's loyalties have always been to his country and to our men and women in uniform.

Not a political party.

Calling for more troops to be sent to Iraq was one of the most unpopular things John McCain could have done. Some said it was political suicide. But you know what?

It WAS THE RIGHT THING TO DO.

(All Caps = Loud.)

(The story of the resurrection of McCain’s candidacy, all but left for dead last summer, really is one of the more amazing stories in recent political history. He was literally carrying his own bags through the airport, that’s how strapped for cash he was.)

(And it was largely because of his support of the surge that he was in such dire straits. He essentially doubled down on the war in Iraq when even many Republicans were starting to talk of a pullout without first stabilizing the country. It looked foolish then, like political suicide. Today, it looks genius.)

Because losing in Iraq would have been a nightmare for America. Al' Qaeda would have claimed victory over our nation. Sectarian violence would spread throughout the region. And Iran would fill the vacuum.

Last summer, we came within 2 votes of a congressionally mandated surrender. One Democrat broke with his party to support the surge.

Ladies and gentlemen, thank God for Joe Lieberman.

(That would be Joe “I have now burned all my bridges to the Democratic Party” Lieberman, who spoke in favor of McCain on Monday night here.)

It was John McCain's voice and credibility that stopped Congress from losing this war.

The Petraeus plan will be a model for generations to come, and our troops will be heroes for the ages.

Those who predicted failure, voted to cut off funding for our troops, and played politics with our national security will be footnotes in history.

(He’s talking about Obama here. Latest polls, Obama up four over McCain. InTrade political futures market: Obama better than 60 percent chance of winning; McCain, less than 40. He sounds pretty optimistic.)

There's no doubt about it, we are on the road to victory.

America is safer by winning in Iraq - A Muslim nation in the heart of the Arab world that rejects Al Qaeda.

A nation where the rule of law replaces the rule of gun.

A place in the Middle East where a woman can finally have a say about her children's future.

While Barack Obama expresses appreciation for our troops' service, he refuses to acknowledge their success.

(False. See above. Senator, do they really not have Fox News on in the green rooms at the GOP convention?)

They have worked too hard and sacrificed too much for a patronizing pat on the back.

(That’s certainly true. But arguing that Obama is patronizing in his support of the military is a bit of a stretch.)

Barack Obama went 2 and a half years between visits to Iraq and never once sat down with General Petraeus. If Barack Obama cannot appreciate that our troops are winning in Iraq, he should not be their Commander in Chief.

(This again. Someone please get Graham a transcript of the interview.)

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying Barack Obama doesn't care.

(Um, it sort of sounds that way.)

I'm just saying - he doesn't get it.

Not once was Barack Obama's eloquent voice ever raised in support of Victory in Iraq. Not once was it used to rally our troops in battle. Instead, he inspired those who supported retreat and would have accepted our defeat.

We should all be grateful that Barack Obama was unable to defeat the surge. The surge was a test for Barack Obama.

He failed miserably.

Our troops deserve a Commander in Chief who acknowledges their success. Has walked in their shoes. Speaks their language. Shares in their sufferings. And will lead them to victory in a war we cannot afford to lose.

(The military argument. It is kind of striking that Obama-Biden represent the first ticket without military experience in many, many decades. Democratic counter-argument: Being in the military and a prisoner of war makes him a hero, but doesn’t necessarily mean he’d be a great president.)

That person is my dear friend John McCain.

(One funny quirk about McCain. He calls Lindsey Graham “little jerk” because he likes him. But his enemies or people he opposes, he often addresses them as “my friends.”)

John often says he would rather lose a campaign than lose a war. Here's the good news.

We are going to win this war.

And John McCain will be our next President of the United States.

But wait, it gets even better. Because John McCain has one of the toughest and most talented political reformers in America as his running mate.

Let's watch to learn more about the phenomenal Governor of Alaska, Sara Palin.

(Yes, in the prepared text, they misspelled Sarah Palin’s name.)

***

By the way, after I finished this, the Obama campaign sent out their "fact check" of Graham's speech. It's below:

Graham’s False Attack: Obama Voted Against Funding for the Troops

The Facts: Obama Supported the Troops, GOP Attack is “Seriously Misleading”

Obama Said That We Must Fund The Troops But We Also Owe Them A Clear Plan And His Vote Says To The President That “Enough Is Enough.” Obama said in a statement, “This vote is a choice between validating the same failed policy in Iraq that has cost us so many lives and demanding a new one. And I am demanding a new one. We must fund our troops. But we owe them something more. We owe them a clear, prudent plan to relieve them of the burden of policing someone else's civil war. We need a plan to compel the Iraqi people to reach a political accommodation and to take responsibility for their own future. It's time to change course. I opposed this war in 2002 precisely because I feared it would lead us to the open-ended occupation in which we find ourselves today. This President has led us down a disastrous path and has arrogantly refused to acknowledge the grim reality of this war, which has cost us so dearly in lives and treasure. After he vetoed a plan that would have funded the troops and begun to bring them home, this bill represents more of his stubborn refusal to address his failed policy. We should not give the President a blank check to continue down this same, disastrous path. With my vote today, I am saying to the President that enough is enough. We must negotiate a better plan that funds our troops, signals to the Iraqis that it is time for them to act and that begins to bring our brave servicemen and women home safely and responsibly.” [Obama Press Release, 5/24/07]

AP: McCain Campaign's Charge That Obama Voted Against Troop Funding Is “Misleading.” “The ad's most inflammatory charge — that Obama voted against troop funding in Iraq and Afghanistan — is misleading. The Illinois senator consistently voted to fund the troops once elected to the Senate, a point Democratic rival Hillary Rodham Clinton made during the primaries when questioning whether his anti-war rhetoric was reflected in his actions.” [AP, 7/18/08]

Factcheck.org: McCain Campaign's Attack On Obama's 2007 Supplemental Vote Is "Oversimplified To The Point Of Being Seriously Misleading.” The Annenberg Public Policy Center’s factcheck.org wrote, “Prior to the sole 2007 vote cited by the McCain campaign as justification for this ad, Obama voted for all war-funding bills that had come before the Senate since 2005, when he was sworn in. So did all other Senate Democrats, except for a few absences. As recently as April 2007, Obama voted in favor of funding U.S. troops again, but this time Democrats added a non-binding call to withdraw them from Iraq. McCain (who was absent for the vote) urged the president to veto that funding measure, because of the withdrawal language. President Bush did veto it, and McCain applauded Bush's veto. Based on those facts, it would be literally true to say that ‘McCain urged a veto of funding for our troops.’ But that would be oversimplified to the point of being seriously misleading, which is exactly the problem with McCain's ad. Furthermore, by saying that ‘John McCain has always supported our troops,’ the ad insinuates that Obama doesn't. But funding a war and supporting troops are not necessarily the same thing. If they were, we'd reiterate our point above, that both men expressed a willingness to see a war-funding bill killed unless it met their conditions. For the record, here are Obama's votes in favor of war funding bills. We count 10 votes on five separate measures.” [Factcheck.org, 7/22/08]