Here's more George Will on John McCain.

For three years [McCain] has been saying, correctly, that there are far too few U.S. troops in Iraq. For months he has said we cannot win without many more troops. That, too, is correct -- if it does not imply that some surge of troops can now guarantee winning. He has also said: Absent a commitment to send significantly more troops to Iraq, it would be "immoral" to keep asking the same number of troops "to risk life and limb so that we might delay our defeat for a few months or a year."

The senior Senator from Arizona has made his most prominent calls for more troops not from Arizona or the floor of the Senate, but from New Hampshire. From the New York Sun, 10/30/06:

"At a time when many national political figures are trying to figure out how America can diminish its presence in Iraq, Senator McCain is again bucking the trend.

"Roughly, you need another 20,000 troops in Iraq," Mr. McCain said Friday during a visit to northern New Hampshire. "That means expanding the Army and Marine Corps by as much as 100,000 people. ... It's just not a set number."

Mr. McCain's comments were carried Friday evening by the Associated Press and on Saturday by the Union Leader of Manchester, N.H., but attracted little attention.

More from John McCain, this time in an Op-Ed in the Manchester Union Leader, 11/24/06:

We must be honest about the war in Iraq. Without additional combat forces we will not win. We must clear and hold insurgent strongholds, provide security for rebuilding local institutions and economies, arrest sectarian violence in Baghdad and disarm Sunni and Shia militias, train the Iraqi army, and embed American personnel in weak and often corrupt Iraqi police units. We need to do all these things if we are to succeed. And we will need more troops to do them.

They will not be easy to find. We should have begun to increase significantly the size of the Army and Marine Corps the day after 9/11. But we did not. So we must turn again to those Americans and their families who have already sacrificed so much in this cause. That is a very hard thing to do.

To sum up, John McCain wants aprox. 20,000 more troops in Iraq, and 100,000 more troops total in the Army and Marines. McCain has consistently called for more troops since 9/11/01. That's the McCain talking points, circa December 2006. But what is the record?

11/7/01 - Sens. McCain and Bayh introduce the National Call to Service Act. S.1792 proposed a huge increase in the Americorps ranks, adding 200,000 people. The idea was to compliment the Homeland Security role played by the National Guard. An additional component as the '18-18-18' option for military enlistment, 18 months active, 18 months reserve, $18,000 for college. If you remember Bush had a  lot of soaring rhetoric about national service but never funded any of his plans. This idea went nowhere. John Kerry proposed a similar plan in 2003. It also went nowhere.

Result: Proposal, no action.

I cannot find any other proposals by Sen. John McCain from 2001 thru 2004 that are meant to increase the size of the military. They may exist, I only did my amateur search of Thomas.gov and Google but I didn't find any instance of McCain introducing legislation that expanded the military.

Let's fast forward from November 2001, through the first fighting in Afghanistan (successful save Bin Ladin and Zawari escaping), past the debate in the run up to the Iraq War, the start of the Iraq War itself, past 'Mission Accomplished' and get to the Presidential campaign of 2004. Here's John McCain at the Republican National Convention, 8/30/04.

I believe as strongly today as ever, the mission [Iraq] was necessary, achievable and noble.

For his determination to undertake it and for his unflagging resolve to see it through to a just end, President Bush deserves not only our support, but our admiration.

Am I going out on a limb to suggest 'unflagging resolve' and 'not only our support but our admiration' are an endorsement of the Bush policy in Iraq to date? On to the election. Bush beats Kerry. The 109th Congress is seated. John McCain co-sponsors a bill submitted by Sen. Jack Reed.

3/4/05 - Sen. Reed introduces S.530 in the Armed Services Committee co-sponsored by Sen. McCain.

SECTION 1. INCREASE IN END STRENGTHS OF THE ARMY AND THE MARINE CORPS FOR FISCAL YEARS AFTER FISCAL YEAR 2005.

(a) Increase in End Strength of Army- Paragraph (1) of section 691(b) of title 10, United States Code is amended by striking `502,400' and inserting `532,400'.

(b) Increase in End Strength of Marine Corps- Paragraph (3) of such section is amended by striking `178,000' and inserting `183,000'.

That's an increase of 35,000 troops. This bill was read twice in the SASC and never saw the light of day.

Result: Proposal, no action.

Fast forward ten months to December 4, 2005. It's a bad 10 months in Iraq and the US. The competence of the US government is in question after Katrina. Foreign policy analysts calling for more troops in Iraq have been replaced by Gov. Blanco calling for more National Guard in Louisiana. Here's John McCain again from MTP, exactly 1 year ago today, in the quote that led this diary.

MR. RUSSERT: Should we send more American troops and do we have the troops to send?

SEN. McCAIN: I've wanted to send troops. I still think we should have more troops there. But it's not going to happen. And that's just reality. It's not going to happen. But we really needed to expand the size of the Marine Corps and the Army so we didn't have this terrific strain on our Guard and Reserve, particularly our Guard units.

In December 2005 Congress is solidly in GOP control. Did McCain fight to have the Reed S.530 bill brought to a vote? No he did not. On Meet the Press John McCain is resigned to the idea that the size of our military is not going to grow. If you need evidence look at his actions. He co-sponsors a bill but does nothing to fight for it's passage in the Senate.

So in December 2005 Sen. McCain sponsors legislation to increase the size of Army and Marines by 35,000 - that bill never so much as gets a vote in committee, let alone a hearing on the floor of the Senate. This is all entirely under GOP control. In October 2006, John McCain makes remarks on the stump in New Hampshire calling for 20,000 more troops in Iraq and 100,000 more Army and Marines total. Let's look at the corresponding legislation that McCain introduced in the Senate.

. . .

. . .

We're waiting...

. . .

. . .

There is no corresponding legislation in the Senate!

Senator John McCain is all over New Hampshire and all over my TV calling for 100,000 additional troops in the Army and Marines but he can't be bothered to introduce legislation calling for the same additional troops!

Back to George Will on John McCain's rigorous morals.

For three years [McCain] has been saying, correctly, that there are far too few U.S. troops in Iraq. For months he has said we cannot win without many more troops. That, too, is correct -- if it does not imply that some surge of troops can now guarantee winning. He has also said: Absent a commitment to send significantly more troops to Iraq, it would be "immoral" to keep asking the same number of troops "to risk life and limb so that we might delay our defeat for a few months or a year."

McCain has been saying a lot of things, inconsistent things.

22 months ago - McCain introduces S.530 adding 35K troops, then does nothing to pass bill.

12 months ago - "I still think we should have more troops there.  But it's not going to happen.  And that's just reality.  It's not going to happen."

2 months ago - "Roughly, you need another 20,000 troops in Iraq...That means expanding the Army and Marine Corps by as much as 100,000 people. It's just not a set number."

2 weeks ago on This Week with George Stephanopoulos -

George Stephanopoulos: "President Bush has said he doesn't want to send more troops now. So by your own standards isn't it currently immoral to keep Marines and soldiers, other service people in Iraq?"

McCain: "Yes it is."

Moments later, Stephanopoulos asked: "At what point do you say, I am not going to be complicit with an immoral policy?"

McCain: "When I think we've exhausted every possibility to do what is necessary to succeed and not until then, because the consequences of failure are catastrophic. . . . We left Vietnam, it was over, we just had to heal the wounds of war. We leave this place, chaos in the region and they'll follow us home. So there's a great deal more at stake here in this conflict in my view. A lot more."

Stephanopoulos: If the Iraq Study Group does not call for an increase in troops as you've advocated, "will you call for American troops to come home?"

McCain: "I will if at the point I think that we have exhausted every option and that we are doomed to failure."

Again...

Stephanopoulos: "At what point do you say, I am not going to be complicit with an immoral policy?"

McCain: "When I think we've exhausted every possibility to do what is necessary to succeed..

In the 22 months since S.530 was introduced in the Senate Armed Services Committee increasing the size of the US military, a precondition to adding troops in Iraq according to none other than John McCain, what, exactly, has Sen. McCain done to address the problem other than talk to reporters, declare additional troops in Iraq as "not going to happen", and bitch about the status quo to journalists on TV and in New Hampshire?

You are a United States Senator Mister McCain, not a professional talk show guest. You have the power to introduce legislation calling for the very 100,000 additional troops you propose. You've had that ability in the intervening months since 3/05 when the Reed/McCain bill was introduced and died an immediate death in the GOP controlled Armed Services Committee, you've had the ability to introduce a stand alone bill on the floor of the US Senate, you've had the ability to offer amendments to the same end, AND YOU HAVE DONE NOTHING.

More Will on McCain.

At long last, rigor. McCain applies two principles of moral reasoning. There can be no moral duty to attempt what cannot be done. And: If you will an end, you must will the means to that end.

McCain is exhausted by the run of events in Iraq, too exhausted it turns out to fight any legislation would have enabled the plan he now submits as the last best hope for Iraq - 20,000 more troops in Iraq from 100,000 new Army and Marines total.

McCain never fought a day for an increase of 35,000 more Army and Marines in March 2005 - a plan that by his calculations would make 7,000 more troops available for rotation in Iraq. Yet today we are to believe unless 100,000 new troops are added to our Army and Marines and 20,000 of those are send to Iraq and all of this happen at the snap of John McCain's fingers then the war in Iraq is immoral?

And George Will calls this sorry display by John McCain principled moral reasoning?

So Happy Anniversary John McCain. You said this one year ago today.

SEN. McCAIN: I'd also suggest--and again, I'll probably--I'm not in any way concerned about saying this--that we will probably see significant progress in the next six months to a year.

MR. RUSSERT:  And if we don't?  And if we don't?  If six months, a year from now it's status quo, would you then consider withdrawal of the American troops, saying the Iraqis simply aren't willing to stand up?

SEN. McCAIN:  I would say that we would have to evaluate our strategy, but we also have to consider the consequences of failure.  If we fail--don't take my word for it.  Take Zarqawi's.  Zarqawi's and bin Laden's version in history is that we were driven out of Vietnam, we were driven out of Lebanon, we were driven out of Somalia, and they're going to go after us in the United States of America.  Now, that's not my saying, that's not anybody else--that's what they're saying.  This is why there's so much at stake here.  This is why I made a controversial comment that this is more important than Vietnam was. The Vietnamese weren't going to come after us.  These people are dedicated to our extinction.

You didn't work in the year since you made these remarks to increase the size of our military. You say if we fail in Iraq 'these people' are coming after us in the US, dedicated to our extinction. Yet if you don't get your 20,000 magical troops, 15% of the total, it's better to call the whole endeavor "immoral" and bring the troops home. Nevermind that you also simultaneously said of sending more US troops to Iraq "it's not going to happen. And that's just reality."

George Will calls these mutually exclusive positions intellectual rigor and principled moral reasoning.

I call it bullshit.