Top GOP Senator Rebuffs McGavick For Misrepresenting His Iraq Position

Coming just 22 days before an election where he continues to trail badly in polls, McGavick's gimmick was swiftly rebuffed in a press release by Armed Services Committee Chairman John Warner.

Although McGavick's press release invoked Warner and Hagel's names in the subject line and heavily implied his proposal was warmly received by the GOP Senators, both felt the need to clarify that McGavick's statements did not represent their views on the course forward in Iraq. And even though McGavick used the word "we" when articulating his position on Secretary Rumsfeld, both Senators felt the need to clarify that neither spoke to McGavick about Rumsfeld.

Why would the Chair of the Armed Services Committee feel the need to proactively issue a press release clarifying that McGavick's characterization of their conversation was inaccurate? Why would a senior member of the GOP leadership throw cold water on a GOP challenger in the press?

And the most important question:
Will McGavick apologize for twisting his conversations with a serious GOP leader like Warner - someone who has consistently put partisanship aside and stood up to Bush on his conduct of the war and detainee policies - and say he was wrong to imply Warner supported him?

The reality is that McGavick-s new position is simply Stay the Course, Version 9.0 - "Stay the Course, But Pretend You're For Changing the Course":

"McGavick's latest statements on Iraq show the true desperation of his campaign, and even the senior GOP leadership whose support he dishonestly tried to claim has given his gimmick the cold shoulder," said Dwight Pelz, Chair of the Washington State Democrats. "As McGavick takes his 9th different position, the only thing we know for sure is he'll do or say anything to hide his support for Bush's failed course in Iraq."

After months of parroting Bush Administration rhetoric and claiming it's wrong to debate the war in Iraq, McGavick has changed course - or so he would like people to believe. In September, he hit Washingtonians with a monumental reversal of positions, saying we should have a vigorous debate on the war. And yesterday, he finally suggested, at least rhetorically, we form a new committee to consider new recommendations. As his record - spanning no less than 9 different positions on Iraq - suggests: McGavick will do or say whatever he thinks it takes to shake the albatross that is his lockstep support for Bush's failed course in Iraq. Anxious times indeed.

Position #1: We're in Iraq because we were attacked, critical to War on Terror

• "[McGavick]'s developing the obligatory platform, mostly recitations of mainstream Republicanism, 2006-style. He supports the Iraq war: 'We didn't choose this war. We were attacked... But now we must win the War on Terror.'" [Seattle Metropolitan, May 2006]
• "McGavick outlined his priorities by number: No.1, the war in Iraq. 'I think it's quite clear, we didn't choose this war, we were tapped,' he said." [Peninsula Daily News, 2/1/2006]

Position #2: Must stay the course with Bush in Iraq, shouldn't have more info about Bush' plans

• "'We must stay the course' in order for Iraq's fledgling democracy to succeed. But the Iraqis must also do their part to make it work, he stressed." [The Port Townsend Leader, 4/26/2006]
• "The bottom line for me when it comes to the war in Iraq is to support the course we are on." [Tacoma News Tribune, 6/15/06]
• "It would be a mistake to call for timetables or the president to reveal the game plan. That would be to tell our enemy how to win, not for us to win." [Bellingham Herald, 1/28/2006]

Position #3: If I knew then what I know now, I still would have voted for invasion

• When asked that question point blank in May 2006, McGavick said: "I support the war in Iraq, and I would have voted for it. I believe removing Saddam Hussein was important in the war on terrorism." [Seattle Stranger, 8/15/06]
• "I asked him if he would have voted for the war if he knew what we know now about the lacking WMDs. He told me: 'Removing Saddam Hussein was important in the war on terrorism.' I took that to mean McGavick stood by the President's belief that Saddam had to go regardless of what we know today. I told McGavick that, and he said I understood his position correctly." [Seattle Stranger, 8/15/06]

Position #4: If I knew then what we know now, would've voted no in hindsight

• "McGavick said he would have opposed the war in 2003 if he knew then the truth about Saddam Hussein and weapons of mass destruction in Iraq." [Seattle Times, 8/15/06]

Position #5: Wrong to debate the war while it's still going on

• "It's Wrong To Debate War" was the headline in the Lewiston Tribune when they wrote "Republican challenger for Cantwell's Senate seat defends Iraq action during Clarkston stop" and "In an earlier stop at the Lewiston Tribune, he said it is wrong to debate the war." [Lewiston Tribune, 7/20/06]
• "It's inappropriate to have those debates until our troops are out of harm's way. I would not take up the Congress's time right now debating those things. I can learn about them later." [Seattle Stranger, 7/27/06]
• "McGavick says we shouldn't argue about the legitimacy of the war until the soldiers have all come home. But that might be in a year, 10 years or - we are thinking of Korea - 50 years." [Seattle Times, editorial, 8/16/2006]

Position #6: Vigorous debate on how the war has been conducted

• "[McGavick] runs against the party's grain by welcoming vigorous debate on how the war has been conducted. 'Debating where we are and where we are going is always healthy,' McGavick said, even when the discussion is intense and divisive." [Seattle PI, 9/5/06]

Position #7: Things are going well and we're making progress (Even as Generals were telling Congress we're approaching civil war)

• "Mike McGavick said the following today regarding statement from Iraqi President Talabani that Iraqi forces will take control of security for the country by the end of the year: 'Today's statement from Iraq's President shows that its leaders are steadfastly working toward their own security. I'm also hopeful that the situation in Iraq will continue to improve on a pace that allows for this statement to come true and for Iraqi forces to take control of securing their country.'" [McGavick release, 8/02/06]

Position #8: Things going poorly, McGavick supports increased troop levels

• "Like Kyl, Washington Republican Senate candidate Mike McGavick said last week that he would support sending additional troops if military experts said it was necessary. In his state, the poll indicates just 16 percent of people would send more troops." [The Hill, 10/11/06]

Position #9: Change the course, fire Rumsfeld and more Congressional oversight

• "[T]hings are not getting better in Iraq and a course correction is needed. The President needs to make it an urgent priority to start listening to Congressional leaders." [McGavick release, today]
• "As a show of faith that he is willing to set a new direction, the President should appoint a new Secretary of Defense - The bottom line is we need fresh eyes examining this problem." [McGavick release, today]

Position #10: ANYONE'S GUESS'

###