Take our user survey and make your voice heard.
world

McCain ridicules Obama over Iraq policy

103 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2008/9 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.

103 Comments
Login to comment

Mccain is nothing but a walking, talking comedy of errors. It's sad really.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Wow what a clever line. Did McCain think of that himself or did one of his advisors come up with that gem?

As for the surge, I recall thinking back then that it was a crap shoot. How many predictions of victory, success, adoring mobs, etc. turned out to be wrong. McCain did not "tell the truth", predictions are not truth-telling.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Swinging them little fists John McCain talks about victory in Iraq. Staying the course in Iraq. As long as it takes in Iraq.

John, when are you going to bring the troops home?

Who declares victory?

Iraq has ask us to leave. They will pick up their own security. That sounds a lot like victory.

Okay John. Victory in Iraq?

Bring the troops home, Barack. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Agree with Buddha4brains. McCain's using a lot of "What If's" to point out all the bad possible endings.

Anyone can do that. We could say "If Senator McCain is elected to office, he will make yet another gaffe which will cause Iran and China to start nuclear wars to end all of existence." How's that? Just as meaningless and just as dire as McCain's "If Obama gets his way,....we'd lose everything." speech.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

it was a crap shoot." that's true. If it didn't work, he wouldn't be using it as a tag line.

Even if he were to be right, it doesn't make a difference. People vote for who they like, or base it off one particular issue.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

And to think that this oaf who not only wants to stay in Iraq for 100 but is also eager to bomb Iran and rekindle a cold war with Russia just might get elected.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

What a crabby old geezer.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

“the audacity of hopelessness” Really? This was a war based on lies and deception for a cause, WMD, that did not exist. That McCain supported this war should automatically disqualify him from office. He supported the lies and deception, which makes HIM a liar and a deceiver. He's also supporting another lying and deceiving anti-Iran campaign. Anybody But McCain!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

“the audacity of peace" I think is more fitting of John McCain. I can see him swinging thise little fist now, telling us that we have to achieve peace!!!! < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

can't wait for mccain's delicious election victory. la riots. LOL

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"America would have been humiliated and weakened."

America was humiliated and weakened. McCain apparently hasn't noticed.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

McCain starts to look - and sound - more and more like an elderly 'loser'. He needs to take more Sanatogen.

Or something.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If Obama had his way, Saddam Hussein would still be running Iraq into the ground from his many luxurious palaces.

"America was humiliated and weakened"

Lessee... The Hussein regime ousted within a month with minimum civilian casualties... conditions set up for free elections... free elections held... al Qaida in Iraq running around like chickens with their heads cut off... overall violence in Iraq continuing to decline...

SezWho2 apparently hasn't noticed these things.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

There would be over 4000 American servemen and women still alive.

There would be over 100,000 innocent Iraqis still living.

There would not be a country bombarded to total destruction.

Maybe we would have the Afghanistan mess completed and a Taliban free country.

Maybe we would not be paying out $3,000,000,000,000.00 now and future cost for the george bush Memorial War in Iraq.

Sarge, hate to break it to you but your highly regarded war in Iraq was unjustified, illegal, unwarranted and just plain wrong.

But keep beefing it up.

Hey Sarge, when is victory? Will John McCain see it? Who do you report to that we have attained victory? The Iraqi government? Didn't they just say, "go home."

I think Obama's Iraqi plan is spot on. Matter of fact, his opposition to the war was spot on. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"his opposition to the war was spot on"

Then Saddam's rule was spot on.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sarge, this whole war thing began with 9-11 and catching bin Laden "dead or alive".You don't think there is humiliation in not being able to catch him after 7 years?

I am still waiting for McCain (or you) to actually define what constitutes victory in Iraq beyond the GOP winning the White House (which seems to be the only measure of victory on offer).

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SezWho2 apparently hasn't noticed these things.

Ah, but Maliki has and he agrees with Obama's 16-month withdrawal timetable. Neither McCain nor Sarge can have it both ways; the surge worked but we don't want to commit ourselves to any withdrawal timetables. If we won, why not?

To answer that question requires revisiting the original rationale for the invasion. Specifically, the one used to sell its necessity to the American public. Within a year, we were told, Saddam could have a nuclear device. He could use it himself or offer it to Al Qaeda.

While many suspected Saddam was gaming the UN inspection system, few people thought he was on the verge of detonating a nuclear device. But that's the story the GWB administration told and that's the one they are stuck with in explaining to a war-weary public why we can't withdraw.

In truth toppling Saddam's regime and replacing it with one which would be a strong ally on the war on terror was the goal of the GWB administration. That's why they want permanent bases.

To appreciate US geopolitical strategy in the ME one needs go back no farther than 1980 when the Carter Doctrine was enunciated after the fall of our close ally the Shah of Iran. In short, any attempt by an hostile force to gain control of the Persian Gulf would be regarded as an assault on the United States that would be repelled by military force if necessary.

These days our naval forces are overburdened protecting the Gulf; an air base in Iraq would do something to relieve that burden (and allow for naval redeployment elsewhere). Yet no self-respecting sovereign government is going to sign off on a foreign troop deployment not subject to local law. This sort of arrangement harks back to the days of colonialism.

Our dependence on foreign oil both binds us to very unstable parts of the world and is a source of that instability owing to the value of those hydrocarbon deposits to the nations which hold them.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sarge "his opposition to the war was spot on" Then Saddam's rule was spot on." Saddam's rule was none of America's business. He was contained. He posed no threat to anyone except internally, and THAT was the Iraqi's people's concern, not America's. Yes he was no gentleman, but that still doesn't justify this war. McCain voted for Bush's lies, and that's what they were are are, L I E S. Isn't one lying president enough? And saying this doesn't make me an enemy of America. Disagreement is democracy's privilege. Not supporting the Mafia doesn't make me anti-Italian. Not supporting Israel doesn't make me anti-semitic or anti-Jewish. Despising Kunio Hatoyama doesn't make me anti-Japanese. This war, which Obama rejected from the outset, is the biggest foreign policy and domestic-economic disaster ever brought on America and the world by its own intellectual laziness and stupidity. Anyone pledging to turn it around deserves support. Anybody but McCain!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

LIBERTAS - actually McCain and Sarge, super delegate, et el voted for bush's lies. Unfortunately they still can't see the error of their ways.

For that matter, they also can't being themselves to actually support John McCain. But they will spend all their frantic energies bashing future president Obama.

Must be real tough being a Republican these days, almost like trying to stop the tide coming in with a rake :-)

LIBERTAS - "Isn't one lying president enough?"

I think this question will be completely lost on war supporters like Sarge and super delegate.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sarge, why do you continually support people who wish to bring harm on your country?

Haven't you harmed your country enough by supporting bush?

McCain only wants to continue bush/cheney's lost war in Iraq - bush has no interest in helping out your family at home with jobs, social security, housing, etc.

Per capita, those dreaded Europeans have read the mood of your country more correctly than you have.

Why? I hate to say this, but maybe you have lived outside America too long. But that doesn't even begin to explain why a typical European knows what Americans want better than you or SuperLib or super delegate do.

And neither the majority of Europeans, nor the majority of Americans, want John McCain. :-)

But I can understand your desperation and frustration at seeing your hopes and dreams for evaporating before your very eyes, it must be very distressing.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Then Saddam's rule was spot on.

Really, you want to cling to that old saw? Saddam was one of about a couple of dozen unsavory dictators. Are you saying we should go to war with every sovereign country which has a leader that we think is despotic, untrustworthy and undemocratic? So by your logic if McCain became President and declared war on Pakistan, Afghanistan, North Korea, Iraq, Cuba, Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, Azerbaijan and half of Africa, drafting every American male into the army and bankrupting the country, not to mention violating all kinds of international laws on the sovereign rights of nations, he would be doing the right thing and those who criticized this suicidal act would be unpatriotic enemies of freedom. This is a pretty apocalyptic view of spreading "freedom and democracy."

Seriously, what kind of logic is this? It's bad enough not to take any responsibility for costly, mistaken decisions but to turn around and accuse your opponents of being seditious enemies of freedom is just appalling.

Bush and McCain criticizing Obama for not having the best plan for getting out of Iraq is like Ken Lay and Jeff Skilling criticizing the Enron bankruptcy trustee for not getting the most out of the liquidation. Who flushed it all down the toilet in the first place? It is just so unbelievably nervy.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Anyone with the US military; in harms way, is likely to be in even more danger after some of these remarks by McCain. Actually both of these candidates should show more restraint in the political rhetoric concerning the current situation.We don't need more war and deaths before either one is elected, they should stop the agitation.But one would expect more from someone that has military experience than to enflame the situation. Ugh.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I am still waiting for McCain (or you) to actually define what constitutes victory in Iraq beyond the GOP winning the White House (which seems to be the only measure of victory on offer).

It's been on his website since day one. Our goal is an Iraq that can stand on its own as a democratic ally and a responsible force for peace in its neighborhood. Our goal is an Iraq that no longer needs American troops. And I believe we can achieve that goal, perhaps sooner than many imagine. But I do not believe that anyone should make promises as a candidate for President that they cannot keep if elected. To promise a withdrawal of our forces from Iraq, regardless of the calamitous consequences to the Iraqi people, our most vital interests, and the future of the Middle East, is the height of irresponsibility. It is a failure of leadership. “

http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/fdeb03a7-30b0-4ece-8e34-4c7ea83f11d8.htm

I agree with him by the way.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Hate to add to the severe beating you're taking on this one, sarge, but your, "If Obama had his way, Saddam Hussein would still be running Iraq into the ground from his many luxurious palaces" is getting SO tired and is still so utterly off the ball in terms of a defensive argument... well, let's just say, the pig's lipstick work off long ago, now you're just grinding the plastic container into the pig's face... and it ain't even a pretty disguise.

Anyway, McCain is a tired old lout, and his copy and paste of Obama's title into his own lame attempt at retort is hilariously transparent and weak. Fortunately, it seems the world, and even most Americans, can see through and are not going to accept all the bull this time around (some, like sarge, are clearly still open for manipulation and to have the wool kept over their eyes).

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sailwind - "And I believe we can achieve that goal, perhaps sooner than many imagine."

Sorry, I really hope you don't actually believe McCain's words, and considering your age and experience, I honestly don't believe you do.

Considering simply the growing number of times bush/cheney have massaged the definition of victory, moved the goalposts and continually put up barriers and more excuses as to why US forces 'need' to remain in Iraq, I think anyone who believes Sen. McCain's spiel is being dangerously naive.

McCain's words, wishes and dreams may sound nice, but that's about all.

Why? First of all, it is incredibly naive to think that Bush and co. actually want to get out of Iraq.

They don't.

They know full well the "war on terrorism" has no end point but they nevertheless keep talking about attaining "victory" while at the same time they continually fail to articulate exactly what that 'victory' looks like.

I have lost count of how many times they have put up barriers and excuses and claimed there are more hurdles to be overcome. And, let's face it - this invasion has and will continue to create terrorists.

And the longer it continues, the greater the anti-American anger will become not only in the ME, but around the world. This anger and the 'terrorists' this continued US presence in Iraq is creating does not and will not have a 'finish line,' and it does not and will not have a clear 'victory.'

In fact, that anti-American anger will only continue to increase.

You may think Obama is wrong to want to get out of Iraq, but then you need to think of what is really important. I mean, do you even know where Iraq is on a map? Most of your countryfolk don't. McCain is saying 'let's laser focus on Iraq.'

That all sounds lovely until you realize your country and our world faces far, far more problems than just Iraq.

Obama, in contrast to McCain, is saying 'America needs to get out of Iraq in part to reasssign America's energy, finances, people and resources on other more pressing issues.

We are of course talking here about climate change, weaning America off oil, dealing with a very potential global economic meltdown, fiximg up the battered US economy and housing market, trying to strengthen the freefalling US dollar (interestingly, which bush has said he strongly supports a strong dollar and yet has done nothing to back up his words).

Obama is saying 'Let's take a wider perspective on the issues facing America.'

Whilst McCain is saying, 'No, let's focus on Iraq (to the detriment of everything else.'

McCain is very likely aware of the ongoing mouting costs of the Iraq war, but is he doing anything about it?

No. His 'stay the course' policy will make an already unsustainable war even more unsustainable.

McCain's policy is like focusing all your attention on fiximg a damaged door handle while your whole house is full of rot.

He needs to take a wider focus - as Obama is - and look at issues beyond Iraq's borders.

My 2 yen.

There goal is to stay there, not to leave and McCain's.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"McCain ridicules Obama over Iraq policy"

the more I have thought about this today the more I have been thinking - John McCain wants Americans to vote for him no doubt partly based on his judgement.

I'm just wondering which judgements by John McCain we should be looking up to.

Is it:

1/ His bad judgement of supporting the invasion of Iraq?

or

2/ His flawed judgement of wanting to stay in Iraq indefinitely?

That's what Americans need to be asking themselves.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"But I do not believe that anyone should make promises as a candidate for President that they cannot keep if elected."

And bush hasn't kept a single one... not one...

"To promise a withdrawal of our forces from Iraq, regardless of the calamitous consequences to the Iraqi people, our most vital interests, and the future of the Middle East, is the height of irresponsibility. It is a failure of leadership."

Wrong... promising to KEEP THEM THERE is a failure of leadership, particularly when almost everyone in the country, and in the countries around the world, is against it.

Really, McCain should be focusing more on his health and leading his life into the next year... forget about trying to lead a nation. He's simply unfit, and as has been said by many, a relic of an age that almost past, nearly ALL regret, and everyone simply wants to have behind them.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Why? First of all, it is incredibly naive to think that Bush and co. actually want to get out of Iraq.

What does Bush nad Co. have to do with McCain's position?

This isn't about Bush it is Mccain. As far his belief that we may be out sooner then later, heck yes I agree. Look how rapidly events turned around there the past year. Wonder why???

Oh. yeah that surge thing that Obama still refuses to admit worked and now wants to gut the stragedy. That is asinine. The bottom line is Iraq is a work in progress and a that progress is in a positive direction not negative.

Fact is you can't set a realistic fixed timeline without factoring the the one thing that throws a timeline completely out the window. The insurgents themselves. Once they have been truly marginalized in Iraq and I mean truly marginalized as a threat to stability to the central Government and a threat to the people then we can talk about getting the very best of America home to there families.

We either see this through on those terms or we pursue a stragedy based on a political position to win votes. A position that is short term and short sighted with the extreme danger that it will reverse the positive gains of the surge and may will result in an even bigger Military intervention in the future to stave off radical Islamic fundies from causing even more misery in the world then what they have done so far to this point.

That is the big picture here. I'd rather our troops come home without any possibilty of having to come back, rather than our troops have to return because Iraq become what Afghanistan did after the Soviets left, a Taliban like state that was a welcomed home to Bin Laden and his like minded followers that have no compunction about killing us in the West.

McCain is right on this, Obama wants to have it both ways, and what troubles me about the man is he still won't say the surge worked. As President you should at least be able to see and state the obvious, not a good sign for a future CIC in my opinion.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

And bush hasn't kept a single one... not one...

It's about McCain not Bush please stay focused. The man called Rumsfeld the worse Secretary Of defense we've ever had by the way a position I sure the old man and you would see eye to eye with.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

You may think Obama is wrong to want to get out of Iraq, but then you need to think of what is really important. I mean, do you even know where Iraq is on a map?

Oh Sushi,

Been there, done that and got the T-shirt even have Dinars with Saddam's mug on the front.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

U.S. forces retreating under fire, the Iraqi army collapsing, civilian casualties increasing dramatically, al-Qaida killing cooperative Sunni sheiks and finding safe havens to train fighters and launch attacks on Americans, and civil war, genocide and a wider conflict.

I think McCain is absolutely correct. There will likely be a civil war with the withdrawal of American troops. But I'm with the leftists on this one. I couldn't give a rip about what happens to this miserable Islamic nation after we leave. If after we pull-out there's a genocide, so be it. Let the sectarian violence begin. The world's a better place when Muslims are fighting eachother rather than the Infidel.

And then to waste time and resources to rebuild a nation governed by Muslims who hate you? It's ludicrous. We need to get our American troops out of Iraq and the sooner the better. This is one issue I agree with Obama. Not another single American soldier should lose their life for this futile war and country.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Obama's a substance-less twit, but I appreciate his handlers tellin' him to admit the surge worked.

At least they know what time of day it is if they want to get their man in the Oval Office.

Wally

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sarge,

With reservations, I hereby declare that I, SezWho2, have noticed the 5 things that you mentioned. Saddam was quickly deposed and elections were held. The reservations are that the conditions for free elections were established at gun point, al-Qaida in Iraq is as disorganized as it has always been and has never had a head, and while the violence is now continuing to decrease after having violently escalated the rate of decrease is diminishing.

But none of those things are what I was talking about. You knew that didn't you?

America's humiliation does not inhere in any of those things. It inheres in the fact that the richest nation on earth and the most militarily advanced could not--even with the assistance of some, what, 30 nations--in over 5 years bring order to a country with less than 1/10 the US population. It's humiliation inheres in its blithe disregard of wiser council who warned against invading a country without a viable exit strategy.

You've heard the story about the boy who plugs a leak in a dike with his finger. Well, we are the humiliated nation who blew a hole in the dike and after finally noticing that the water was getting high, jerry-built an expensive patch so that the darn thing now leaks only a little. Adding to our humiliation is that we have turned around to the astonished burghers and said, "There! That'll fix it!"

But I will give you one thing, one is never humiliated until one stumbles upon one's own humility.

As for weakening the US, I don't see that you have offered any refutations of that claim. So I'll just take this opportunity to say how I think we have been weakened. (1) Our international prestige has suffered, especially with Abu Grhaib, Guantanamo and extraordinary renditions; (2) our military is fatigued; (3) our economy is depleted; and (4) our security is less today than it was when we started our adventures.

McCain can talk all he wants about how Obama's prescriptions would humiliate and weaken the US. But I think he is living in the wrong decade and fighting the wrong war. American wants to be a leader in creating the kind of world that Bush talks about, a world where people can enjoy freedom and live free of tyranny and murderous regimes.

But we needn't be ninnies about it. Bombing the world into freedom is a prescription for more tyranny. Just as Bush in his recent speech said that our enemies use distress and despair to recruit people to their cause, we have to be careful not to be the creator of distress and despair.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

3 metre walls separating neighbourhoods to stop reseidents killing each other, hundreds of thousands dead an a 160,000 strong occupation army keeping the "peace" is what sarge calls a success. Heh, I really wouldn't like to see one of sarge's failures.

Sez - good post.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sailwind - "Obama wants to have it both ways, and what troubles me about the man is he still won't say the surge worked."

From a purely militaristic point of view, you are probably right, but what you - and John McCain - are failing to do is to take a look at the wider picture.

The surge may have worked, but has the WOT been won?

Clearly not - there are now more anti-American terrorists than ever before.

Has the Iraq war worked financially?

Well, if you think spending north of $1 trillion dollars, very likely $3 trillion dollars in return for a few hundred less deaths in Iraq per month is some sort of victory, then I've got news for you and it's all bad.

If you think the diversion of funds to Iraq that could have been used in America - to shore up US fed finances, to bail out the increasing numbers of companies, institutions and families going bankrupt - has been a success, then I've got a large tower in Paris I'd like to sell you.

And if you think that continuing to borrow huge sums from the Chinese and subsequently increasing US debt, and having as a result more than a billion a day be given to terror-sponsoring states such as Saudi in the form of payment for skyrocketing gas prices caused in no small part by the tension in the ME caused by the Iraq war you support, then.....well, I'll tell you right now - you need to do your homework and take a clearer look at the bigger picture, my friend.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sailwind - I'm sure you'll agree with Helterskelter - "And then to waste time and resources to rebuild a nation governed by Muslims who hate you? It's ludicrous. We need to get our American troops out of Iraq and the sooner the better. This is one issue I agree with Obama. Not another single American soldier should lose their life for this futile war and country."

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sailwind, I think you should take note of SezWho's bang-on comment -

"Bombing the world into freedom is a prescription for more tyranny."

And John McCain's prescription of staying the course up to a still as yet unspecified endpoint, irrespective of cost to people, treasure or reputation, is the height of irresponsibility.

Sailwind, the US military may have won the battle, but there is little point cheering when you have lost the war and it's time people like McCain faced up to this very obvious fact and stopped wasting peoples' time with trying to get his opponent to admit the surge has worked.

McCain, like Bush and Cheney, is beholden to big business, and should Americans make yet another collasal mistake and actually elect the old guy, they will find that the end point for this war will be extended again and again and again and again and again, and your faith in the heart-warming but ultimately hollow words on McCain's website will become just another lie you bought.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sailwind - But I do not believe that anyone should make promises as a candidate for President that they cannot keep if elected. To promise a withdrawal of our forces from Iraq, regardless of the calamitous consequences to the Iraqi people, our most vital interests, and the future of the Middle East, is the height of irresponsibility. It is a failure of leadership.

Isn't that what John McCain is do0ng if he's elected. He's promising that we'll stay till victory is declared. And he going to be facing an even greater majority of democrats than last 2 years.

He's blind to anything else. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Isn't that what John McCain is do0ng if he's elected. He's promising that we'll stay till victory is declared. And he going to be facing an even greater majority of democrats than last 2 years.

He's blind to anything else. < :-)

He may be blind but he's listening to the Commanders on the ground at least. Something Obama claims he'll do but apparently doesn't mean it.

I think the our Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff (Head honcho to give the President Military advise regardless if Democrat or Republican) is somebody whos opinion on Iraq and the surge and timetables for withdrawal is the person I'd listen to.

Hope Obama would also he heard the same thing from the Commanders in Iraq but put politics first instead of leveling with the his base that he was wrong in his initial assessments about Iraq that requires real leadership something that I thought the man had but now have serious doubts if that is true. I base that on this clip, it isn't like he hasn't heard this before from people who know what is the situation is really like now post surge.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JdGYfyrcQ3A

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sailwind,

To promise a withdrawal of our forces from Iraq, regardless of the calamitous consequences to the Iraqi people,

Obama has put himself on record as being guided by flexibility, not promises (which he never made). Moreover, you and McCain need to address the prospect of remaining there against the wishes of the Iraqi people. Maliki has spoken, are we not obligated to listen?

Obama wants to have it both ways, and what troubles me about the man is he still won't say the surge worked."

This is a lost argument before it begins. Nobody will ever be able to prove either side is right by sketching out, as McCain did, a hypothetical alternative scenario that would have prevailed had we not "surged." (You're entitled to your own opinion, not your own facts.)

If, alternatively, its about judgment, then McCain was out-and-out wrong when he proclaimed in early April 2003 "the end is clearly in sight." Has he acknowledged that error? Did GWB admit to being wrong about the necessity of a pre-emptive strike? Au contraire, he's said many time he would make the same decision again.

Bottom line: Don't have higher standards for the other side than you do for your own.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sailwind - "Hope Obama would also he heard the same thing from the Commanders in Iraq but put politics first **instead of leveling with the his base that he was wrong in his initial assessments about Iraq."

Wow, I almost lost my coffee over that one.

The person who was wrong in his initial assessments about Iraq is John McCain.

McCain is one of many who sucked up the lies and signed on the dotted line to authorize the invasion of Iraq.

Obama, when he is elected, is now going to be tasked with fixing the result of John McCain's massive error of judgment.

Obama knows Iraq was wrong from the start and he knows America has other equally if not greater priorities that need to be focused on.

McCain, on the other ghand, is dangerously fixated with wnning a "war on terror" that has already been lost.

If McCain wants to be taken seriously in this campaign, he is going to have to prove that he has half good judgment, which is something he has so far failed to do.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Also, according to a new NBC News/Wall Street Journal, released on the heels of Obama's visit with Maliki who endorsed his timetable for a US troop withdrawal withdrawal from Iraq not the McCain plan, “60% of registered voters believe it’s a good idea for the US to set such a timetable, while 30% say it’s a bad idea.”

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sailwind, Betzee is on the mark and brings up another point - Maliki has said US forces should get out based on a timetable.

You - and McCain - seem to think otherwise.

The question that must be raised is this - Do you not respect Iraq's sovereignity?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sail, Is Sen. McCain listening to the commanders on the ground or is he cherry picking what he wants to listen to? He seems relatively comfortable with the idea of bombing Iran even though the Adm. Mullen has stated the obvious (that the very last thing he needs is a 3rd war). Shouldn't he listen to the commanders on all fronts? And how about listening to the Iraqis. Is Sen. McCain listening to P.M. al Maliki? I would think there vote would count a hell of a lot more than even the U.S.'s military leaders, being it's their country and all. I am not seeing any evidence of that. If you go to www.johnmccain.com and go to his Iraq plan tab, you'll see nothing indicating that he will listen to the Iraqis. He gives a lot of lip service to the need stay the course for the good of Iraq, but the idea of listening to the Iraqi's opinion on the matter is never mentioned.

Taka

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Both Bush and McCain said that we would leave Iraq when the Iraqi government announced they were ready to run things and asked us to leave, because we had to respect their sovereignty.

Last week, not only Maliki but other top-ranking Iraqi government officials said they agreed with Obama and that end of 2010 seemed like a good time to have most of the US troops out of Iraq.

Bush and McCain immediately attributed this to first a "mistranslation" and then declared Maliki was just "being a politician" and could not be trusted to know what was best for Iraq.

And Obama is a hypocrite and a flip-flopper? He doesn't have any intention of keeping promises? He's more interested in political gain than acknowledging the situation on the ground? Looks like the old, washed up pot sure has no problem calling the kettle black (Let's not forget, "I voted for the Iraq War and its escalation and against every gasoline tax and oil industry regulation, but Obama is responsible for the high price of gas! Nobody but him!")

And for the people like Sarge and McCain who are patting themselves on their backs for the "success" of the Surge . . . violence decreased in 2005 too, before it flared again in 2006 and 2007 requiring the Surge and an escalation of the war after FIVE years of being there. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that sending 30,000 more troops to Iraq would make the U.S. Army presence stronger there. But one would think that five years after "mission accomplished" we should be able to expect a better plan than "let's send more troops."

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Keeping strictly to the people mentioned in the above article, the bottom line here, I think, is that we would not be having this conversation, let alone this war, if John McCain had not made a collossal error of judgment and voted to authorize the invasion of Iraq in the first place.

Criticize Obama all you like, but he did not make the same massive mistake McCain did.

Who, exactly, has the better judgment here??

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sushi - "Sarge, why do you continually support people who wish to bring harm on your country?"

I don't. Why do you continually criticize the people who are doing their best to protect my country?

smithinjapan - "

0 ( +0 / -0 )

smithinjapan - "The severe beating you're taking on this one, sarge"

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!

"If Obama had his way, Saddam would still be running Iraq into the ground from his many luxurious palaces" is getting SO tired"

You mean you're getting tired of hearing the truth.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

smithinjapan - "The severe beating you're taking on this one, sarge"

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!

"If Obama had his way, Saddam would still be running Iraq into the ground from his many luxurious palaces" is getting SO tired"

You mean you're getting tired of hearing the truth.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sushi - "Sarge, why do you continually support people who wish to bring harm on your country?"

Sarge - "I don't."

Yes, you do.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sarge: "You mean you're getting tired of hearing the truth."

The truth that you support those who wish to kill you without looking at you sideways? nope... I just think it's boring that you can't ever come up with anything original, hence the 'getting tired'.

Oh, and if you don't think you took a real beating to your comments, read all those against them (without pretending they don't exist, and without averting your gaze). We all know you won't go so far as to acknowledge them as being the facts they are to your odd suppositions, but at least you can read them and see the truth.

Hehehehe.... nah, not getting tired of hearing the truth at all, but that doesn't come from you; in fact, many posters on here pointed out the illegalities of the invasion, and how it was based on lies; and THAT is something that YOU cannot accept. I'd say you're getting tired of hearing it, but the thing is, you never hear it at all....

Anyway, again, McCain is an out and out loser, and everyone sees it. Those few... VERY few remaining bush supporters are simply embarrassed by the fact that Obama is going to wipe the floor with McCain, who is still even a big step up from bush, and so they cannot accept anything but the same old crap and pray to god McCain gets in their in order to semi-justify their foolishness.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sailwind, after all you have rad on this thread, do you still think McCain has sufficiently good judgement to lead America?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I can sense "the wind of change is coming...fast and furious"but why so many people never give President Bush ANY credit for keeping America free from terrorist attack since 9/11? John McCain is old and boring but what if his theory will be completely correct after America leave Iraq?If America lose ME to Arab,lose Asia Pacific to China/Russia,EU is its own boss,what is left?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SushiSake3 - "Yes, you do."

No, I don't.

I can't wait for the presidential debates - McCain is going to wipe the floor with the Messiah.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The other problem with McCain's position is his definition of victory.

Our goal is an Iraq that can stand on its own as a democratic ally and a responsible force for peace in its neighborhood. Our goal is an Iraq that no longer needs American troops.

Specifically, there's no way to tell when you've achieved those conditions because there's no one to sign a peace treaty with, the usual way wars are ended. The Iraqis, in short, feel we're at the point, or will be over the next 16 months. McCain needs to stop flailing around and explain why he disagrees.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Betzee - The other problem with Obama's position is Iraq could very well fall into chaos, making al-Qaida and the terrorists stronger.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

tclh - "If America lose ME to Arab,lose Asia Pacific to China/Russia,EU is its own boss,what is left?"

Area 51.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

but why so many people never give President Bush ANY credit for keeping America free from terrorist attack since 9/11?

There's a VERY good reason why many people never give bush ANY credit for keeping America free from terrorist attack since 9/11.

First of all, it's not true. Weeks after 9/11, several letters filled with anthrax were mailed to members of Congress.

Secondly, is..."you know, after that one time when we dropped the security ball completely and utterly by ignoring a report stating 'Bin Laden determined to attack' we've done a bang up job" is not really much to brag about.

Taka

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"If America lose ME to Arab, lose Asia Pacific to China/Russia, EU is its own boss, what is left? Area 51"

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SushiSake3 - "Yes, you do."

Sarge - "No, I don't."

Oh, yes, you do.

McCain - "Our goal is an Iraq that no longer needs American troops."

What happened to the "We must rid Saddam of WMD" goal?

Oh, sorry, that was the goal about 25 goals ago.

It seems this week's goal is: "an Iraq that no longer needs American troops."

Any bets on what next week's goal will be?

Let me put it out there - next week's stated mission of the U.S. Armed Forces in Iraq will be "to ensure at least 50% of decent Iraqis have seen all Seinfeld re-runs by June 22nd, 2009."

My apologies for the sarcasm, but I am trying to show just how pathetic this "mission" - that John McCain still supports - has become.

The mission he supported at the start has now morphed into something completely different.

And now, 5 long years, hundreds of thousands of deaths, $2-3 trillion dollars and one seriously ruined country later, Sen. McCain STILL doesn't know and cannot clearly articulate what the goalposts look like.

And yet people like Sarge and co., people who one would think would want the best for America, still seem to think McCain is onto a good thing.

The near criminal lack of judgment on the part of McCain and his "supporters" is bordering on the lack of judgment that got us into this war in the first place.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Weeks after 9/11, several letters filled with anthrax were mailed to members of Congress"

Yeah, Bush should have resigned in disgrace following that failure.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sarge - "The other problem with Obama's position is Iraq could very well fall into chaos, making al-Qaida and the terrorists stronger."

I'm afraid your support for this failed invasion has already accomplished that.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sushi - "failed invasion"

Is this the failed invasion that has brought to justice the awful dictator of Iraq, Saddam Hussein, and provided conditions for free elections resulting in a government that doesn't threaten its neighbors?

Checking...

Yeah, it is!

Jordan fades back...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

McCain is of course correct in his assessment of Obama. Senator Obama would be perfectly happy with chaos in Iraq and an al-Qaeda presence there. Obama wasn't a member of the Senate when the decision to go to war with Iraq was made. Therefore, to say he was "right" (or even "wrong") about the Iraq War is an invalid statement. He had no so say in the matter at all. To oppose or be for the war when you have no responsibility on the issue (like Bush, Clinton, Edwards, and McCain) is meaningless. Based on the information at the time, these politicians, and the majority of the American people were correct in the decision that was made. Heck, even Hillary said that she doesn't trust the Bush Administration and said that she based her vote for war on the information she gathered when her hubby was president (yes, you read that right). However, even if McCain hade voted against going to war, the war would still have happened because there was sufficient Democrat support for war - at the time.

Neither McCain or Obama can say that they are 100% correct in the past views on the war (and what would happen in the future). However, when it comes to the surge, Obama was clearly wrong and isn't now capable of admitting it. What is ironic about Obama's present view is that he now wants to have a military "surge" in Afghanistan while at the same time trying to say that the same policy in Iraq until similar circumstances was a failure. Obama is all fluff. McCain is right about him, he would rather lose the war in order to try to win the election. Pretty cynical way of thinking if you ask me.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Obama wasn't even a member of the Senate when the decision to go to war with Iraq was made"

Yeah, but he gave moral support to keeping Saddam in power.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Betzee - The other problem with Obama's position is Iraq could very well fall into chaos, making al-Qaida and the terrorists stronger.

Well, then, McCain has to explain how we will know when we're past that point. I know what your response is going to be because it's the same one I got from Sailwind: He'll wait for word from the commanders on the ground. But how will they arrive at this determination? In the absence of definable markers, a problem in assessing success GWB touched upon when he observed "a drop in violence doesn't have to mean there's no violence," it's a crap shoot no matter who makes the call.

Yesterday on CNN McCain was forced to concede the "16 months sounded good because this timetable was based on conditions on the ground."

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Senator Obama would be perfectly happy with chaos in Iraq and an al-Qaeda presence there.

Presumably you can agree the Iraqis don't want that yet they've signed off on Obama's 16-month timetable.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

There is no need to have been a member of the Senate to have been right or wrong about the involvement in Iraq. Also it might be good to remember that none of the Senators voted to go to war in Iraq. They voted to allow the president the power to go to war on his say-so that diplomacy had failed and that the war in Iraq would not impede efforts to capture the terror network responsible for 9/11. And there sure wasn't much diplomacy nor do all the denials that we haven't forgotten about bin Laden tend to reassure us that we did everything we could to capture him.

I think the decision to go to war in Iraq was wrong. Anyone who opposed it, member of the Senate or not, American citizen or not, was--in my opinion--right about the war. Of course, those who believed that going into Iraq was the right thing to do--and who still believe so--will see it differently. And they have every right to their opinion.

Ultimately, it was not the president who got us into this war. It was not the Congress. It was the popularity of war as an expedient solution to a grave and gathering problem that allowed the Congress to cave to the manipulations of the Executive. Every American has the responsibility of this war on their hands. Some called it right, I think, and some did not. It seems to me that most did not.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The surge worked get over it.

McCain supported it Obama didn't period.

All the posts here is hot air until Obama comes to terms with that, and he will never have my vote until he does.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

McCain certainly has some spunk in him. Although he is not my first presidential choice and will probably sink further when he announces a VP, he is a far superior option than Hussein Obama. Then again, I guess it would not be too bad to have someone as liberal as McCain in office. He'll just pander to the Democrats for four years then hand it over to another candidate.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The surge was effective in reducing casualties to an unacceptable level. It was effective in creating conditions in which the Iraqis could reach agreements which have not yet been reached. It was effective in drawing Iraqi attention to exactly how much they did not want us in their country. It was effective in being an improvement upon the mismanaged and mangled invasion. It was effective in creating a condition which is described as "fragile and reversible".

Iraq is a mess. Nothing has worked until that condition is changed.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It was effective in creating a condition which is described as "fragile and reversible".

Seems you would like it see reversed to support your political opinion much like Obama . I find that very sad myself, very sad.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Obama did not support the surge, and the surge turned out to be a good decision. Obama was wrong.

McCain supported the invasion, and for the majority of the people (not including myself), they feel he was wrong.

It's not really rocket science to me. Both men are open to criticism. End of story. Time to move on.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

meantime the Taliban and AQ are getting stronger and stronger and USA gets deeper and deeper into Chinas pockets. Biggest losers are the American public who collectively filled their pants after 9-11 and gave carte blanch to their govt to do whatever it takes, whatever that is/was? no one knows.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

You have to love people who compare being wrong on the surge to being wrong on going to war in the first place, "they were both wrong, it all evens out." I guess we now live in a fantasy world where the magnitude or consequences of being wrong are irrelevant to the mere fact of being wrong. Unbelievable that anyone could have such a skewed sense of responsibility like this. Well, I ate at a restaurant that wasn't that good, I made a mistake, I guess that's the same as a decision that's killed 150,000 Iragis and 3,000 U.S. soldiers.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The surge was effective in reducing casualties to an unacceptable level. It was effective in creating conditions in which the Iraqis could reach agreements which have not yet been reached. It was effective in drawing Iraqi attention to exactly how much they did not want us in their country. It was effective in being an improvement upon the mismanaged and mangled invasion. It was effective in creating a condition which is described as "fragile and reversible".

Indeed. Tne cloud on the horizon is the upcoming provincial elections. They were supposed to be held in November but have been postponed until next year, date still to be decided, because the legislature can't get its act together.

Those who expect to do well at the polls will likely view this through conspiratorial eyes. Then the issue of "fairness" will come up. Those on the losing side will immediately call foul play in the way the election was carried out. They may or may not have grounds to make that claim. But the system is ill-equipped to deal with electoral malcontents making violence more likely. Kenya was a relatively peaceful country until a rigged election pitted the tribes against each other. And of course there's no oil revenue to fight over.

If that were to come to pass those who claimed "the surge worked" would look at ridiculous as McCain did when he claimed "the end is clearly in sight" on 9 April 2003.

But, anyway, violence had dropped and that offers us a honorable exit (with the Iraqis holding the door open no less). This is different from Vietnam where the succession of people who headed the Saigon regime never wanted us to leave. They knew they couldn't hack it alone. Well, the Iraqis think they can. And they also want to escape a quasi-colonial fate.

In the United States, few Americans want another presidency consumed by Iraq. Nor can we afford another administration which adds five trillion to the national debt. GWB claimed he was going to "leave no child behind." A more accurate slogan would be "leave no child a dime."

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Obama wasn't even a member of the Senate when the decision to go to war with Iraq was made" Yeah, but he gave moral support to keeping Saddam in power." And there would have been nothing wrong about keeping a contained Saddam in power. Better than what transpired.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sailwind,

It seems to me that you read into statements ideas that are not there just so that you can be a drama queen about them. Do you have any support for your opinion that I and others who judge the surge to have had limited effectiveness would like to see the gains reversed?

The gains would not have to be reversed in order to support my political opinion. That the gains are "fragile and reversible" is the opinion of Petraeus. My opinion is that nothing has worked until they are no longer fragile and reversible.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SuperLib,

Almost. For a fair and balanced revision, let's change

Obama did not support the surge, and the surge turned out to be a good decision. Obama was wrong.

to

Obama did not support the surge, and for many of the people (including myself), they feel he was wrong.

Now we can move on.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Major General John Allen, the Marine Corps officer responsible for tribal engagement in Anbar in 2007, recently told me [General William Odom] that among Sunni leaders, the Democratic victory [in 2006] and the rising pro-withdrawal sentiment "did not go unnoticed.... They talked about it all the time."

According to Allen, the marines, from top to bottom, reinforced the message sent by the Democratic takeover by saying, "We are leaving.... We don't know when we are leaving, but we don't have much time, so you [the Anbaris] better get after this." As a result, U.S. forces came to be seen as less of a threat than either AQI or the Shiite militias -- and the risk that U.S. forces would leave pushed the Sunnis to cut a deal to protect their interests while they still could.

As Major Niel Smith, the operations officer at the U.S. Army and Marine Corps Counterinsurgency Center, and Colonel Sean MacFarland, the commander of U.S. forces in Ramadi during the pivotal period of the Awakening, wrote recently in Military Review, "A growing concern that the U.S. would leave Iraq and leave the Sunnis defenseless against Al-Qaeda and Iranian-supported militias made these younger [tribal] leaders [who led the Awakening] open to our overtures."

In short, contrary to the Bush administration's claims, the Awakening began before the surge and was driven in part by Democratic pressure to withdraw.

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20080701faresponse87413/colin-h-kahl-william-e-odom/when-to-leave-iraq.html

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Campaigns continually require a dig at the other candidate to show you are the one to choose. Unfortunately, neither of the candidates offer real change.

Barack Obama: Moving troops from Iraq to Afghanistan is not change. Creating more jobs, and projects paid for by taxes we pay is not change. Getting foreign troops to fight wars we started is not change. This is not the unity and international relations the US people or other nations want.

Neither John McCain nor Barack Oboma recognize we are going the wrong way. We are making life more difficult than it has to be. The goal in life is not employment; that caused our problems. The goal is retirement in a garden paradise that we create here and now. That restores our health, stops pollution, energy-food crisis, global warming, immigration, wars, and social security concerns all at the same time. Solving problems and bringing equality, security, and stability are the role of all leaders.

We can start planting food bearing plants and choosing pets that produce food. These Victory Gardens will give us a victory over world problems that will be long lasting.

Divine-Way.com has letters at Solutions Sent and Solutions at Helium.com that show how to solve world problems. All religions have a warning from the Supreme to avoid a world system of pride, vanity, and exalting one another over others. Now we know why. We have the solution in our hands.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

mccain is mad cause the US wont be fighting in Iraq for the next 100 years as he proposed.

All the yahoos braying about the surge, why was that not done when the invasion by bush started. Why five years on? Oh, I remember. This invasion was suppose to be over in 60 days and did not need massive troop support according to the bush braintrust. After 60 days the locals would be passing out flowers to the invader troops. Right. General Shinseki was fired for stating that more troops were needed. So five years on his recommendation was accepted. Wow, impressive. 4000 dead American soldiers later the bush idiots get it. The repubs on this issue are cheering a five yard gain after a mile and half loss.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sarge: "Is this the failed invasion that has brought to justice the awful dictator of Iraq, Saddam Hussein, and provided conditions for free elections resulting in a government that doesn't threaten its neighbors?"

The original mission was to rid Saddam of WMDs...not playing the hero by violating international laws and invading a country. Nice bait and switch. The "free" elections have come at a terrible price: over 4000 dead US troops, 100000 innocent Iraqi civilian deaths, a failed US economy, $2.3 trillion in mounting debt, tarnishing of national image, and more global instability through the increase in more terrorists. Gee, doesn't sound like a fair deal now does it? Iraq was never a credible threat to its neighbors in the first place, seeing as it lacked WMDs in the first place.
0 ( +0 / -0 )

blaze - "invading a country"

That would imply taking the country over and subjugating its people. We haven't done that - we've liberated Iraq.

"100,000 innocent Iraqi deaths"

Implying that coalition forces killed all these innocent people, when the wacko extremists are responsible for the vast majority of the deaths. And where do you get this 100,000 figure?

"The "free" elections..."

What's with the quotation marks around "free"? Even the U.N. admits they were free and fair.

"... have come at a terrible price"

Yeah, freedom's never been free.

"Iraq was never a credible threat to its neighbors"

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Go talk to the Iranians and the Kuwaitis and get back to us on that one, OK?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Go talk to the Iranians and the Kuwaitis and get back to us on that one, OK?

The U.S. armed and supported Saddam when he was fighting the Iranians and slightly older folk will recall that in the 80's Saddam was sold to Americans by their government as the relative "good guy" much the same way as Dubya presented Musharraf after 9/11. Until he attacked a closer ally in Kuwait, America was perfectly content letting Saddam raise hell on the "the enemy of our enemy is our friend" principle. So while his belligerence toward Iran in the brutal war between these countries may indeed be proof of Saddam's evil ways, the U.S. is probably not in a position to point an accusatory finger at him in that regard.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Invading or liberating - depends on one's point of view. What gives the US administration the right to waltz into Iraq because it feels that Saddam should be removed for the betterment of the Iraqi people? Anyhow, that was not the original goal was it? Fact of the matter is that the US decided to attack another nation under false pretenses. The war was a pre-emptive strike aimed at removing WMDs when none existed.

If the Iraqi people want the US military out of Iraq, and McCain is talking about staying longer, is that not taking the country over and subjugating? With regards to being a credible threat, I should have been more clear. Iraq was in no position to launch a full scale war on its neighbors at the time the war started.

My original post did not state that the Coalition forces killed the innocent civilians. You're putting words in my mouth. It seems I over estimated the death toll. According to the site below, it is between 86000 - 94000. http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

0 ( +0 / -0 )

So entering a country not at war with you with your military, deposing the standing government and installing a government with an ideology and personnel more in line with your own is by definition "liberation" so long as you don't colonize or annex it outright? And here my American history textbooks have been incorrectly characterizing the Soviet "liberation" of Czechoslovakia, Afghanistan et al. during the Cold War as "invasions!" To think we should be so unfair to the memory of the Soviet Union, it is downright un-American.

I can't wait for the "liberation" of China, AKA World War III. But hey, as long as you are spreading democracy it's all good right?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

You have to love people who compare being wrong on the surge to being wrong on going to war in the first place, "they were both wrong, it all evens out." I guess we now live in a fantasy world where the magnitude or consequences of being wrong are irrelevant to the mere fact of being wrong.

Very well put. As far as "understanding Iraq," McCain's claim is hardly defensible:

He didn’t just vote to authorize the war; in response to a question from Tim Russert in September 2002, he lent his military credibility to the administration’s undermanned war plan. When Gen. Eric Shinseki, the Army chief of staff, challenged that strategy in a February 2003 Senate hearing by calling for “several hundred thousand soldiers,” Mr. McCain did not speak up in support. That month he went on “Hannity and Colmes” to say that the war “will be brief,” that post-Saddam Iraq is “going to be paid for by the Iraqis,” and that America will “send a message” from Syria to Saudi Arabia that “democracy can take hold in the Middle East.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/02/opinion/02rich.html

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Way to go McCain.

Of course he can ridicule Obama, the lib has no substance of sincerity.

McCain is the best option for the US and the world, the guy is a genius.

How about Sean Hannity as VP, wow!!now that would be a dream ticket.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Obama seems unable to admit that he has been wrong about the surge. Also, opposing the war in his ultra-liberal state senate district was not politically courageous.

McCain didn't get an endorsement from the Dalai, but "total consciousness" (much like the groundskeeper in Caddyshack). Obama could use some of that.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

wow another bla bla bla from the FoxNews fans, The Murdoch Syndrome has worked it's magic. just bring back the troops home with HUMILITY and DIGNITY. We didn't have that chance in 'Nam. All the political stalling that dragged that war on for years, when it could have been ended, here we are now today in the same position. Obama Iraq policy is simple. Bring the troops home NOW, That's the BEST policy anyday,anymonth,anyyear.

I wonder if Mccain thinks that the vietnam war was justified. I really want to know his take. OBAMA iraq policy is smart and honest.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The war in Iraq is nearing completion.

The Iraqi`s love our troops , and all the hard work they put in to helping them rebuil their country destroyed by the terrorists.

Iraqi¬s are now ina democracy, women are equal, business is booming.

It`s all good!!!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

hahahahaha, ok, ok, it's all good as you say , then why don't GW pull the troops?. Now if he WAS smart, he could pull the rug under Obama, and start cleaning up before he leaves office, Now that's a thought,SINCE its Obama's biggest platform for presidency. SO, if it's all good then GW , should declare the war he started is over and the families of the troops in Iraq will be happy when their loved one return with pride

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Damax6;

The troops will be pulled sooner than you think.

Sean Hannitty thinks they will be out within 18 months, and hes a guy who knows what hes talking about.

Iraq is doing great, millions are free and happy. Democracy, isn`t it wonderfull?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

whopeee!!!!!. that's 18months TOO long, have you been to Iraq, or should i say LATELY, where are getting your info from????. FoxNews????. i have the opportunity to go there 4 times this year, and i will go again at the end of August again. And, i am yet to see"REAL" groundlevel satisfaction on the part of ordinary iraqis, i dont know where the millions of free and happy iraqis are, could you tell me where to look before my next trip??? Surge

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Damax6;

Most of the free and happy Iraq`s are in the south in central Baghdad, north of Baghdad and in the KUrdish areas up north.

Yes my information is from Fox news.

I think you will be pleasently surprised going back to Iraq. Cafe culture is back and prople are relaxing and enjoying life again.

Hope you enjoy your trip.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Obama is the Paris Hilton of politics. A celeb, but nobody knows why.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Quite frankly, both of the candidates are a bit daft on foreign policy. At least Obama, celeb or not, strikes one as intelligent in some regards, unlike McCain.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

otis123

McCain is a giant intellectually. He knos how to keep AMerica great.

Most of Iraq is safe now, heck!! I guess you havent heard the good news, people are going to start vacationing is Iraq soon, thats how well its going.

If you watched unbiased news then you might see the good news too.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

A cast of 300 advises Obama on Foreign Policy - NY Times, July 21

Well, if that's what he needs, so be it. They brief on the major developments of the past 24 hours and provide him with answers to questions likely to be asked.

Q: Should new security agreements include a timetable for troop withdrawal? Obama!: "Genuine opportunity."

Why is Obama being handed bullet points to answer the most basic of foreign policy questions?

"Withdrawal" turns out to be a mistranslation, by the way, but it's besides the point. The point is, why does he need a running tutorial from recycled Clinton administration officials (nine of 13 were high-ranking members of Clinton's staff)? This is the team that prepared the way for 9/11 attacks, pushed frantically for failed Middle-East peace with terrorist Arafat, allowed Baby Kim to develop nuclear weapons on their watch, allowed the Oil For Food scandal to occur right under their noses ... the list goes on an on.

The drive-by media has yet to apolgize for the reporting of the mistranslation. Now, they've decided the translation is "time horizons". With the associated press doing Obama's! dirty work for him, how is it possible to have a fair debate on his policies and viewpoints?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

otis123: At least Obama, celeb or not, strikes one as intelligent in some regards,

He strikes me as intellectually dishonest.

Let's set the record staight: He made a spectacularly incorrect prediction about the surge in Jan 2007, and in July 2007 and November 2007, he claimed it was not working. Later, in 2008, when the surge was clearly working, he suddenly decides that he has been supporting it all along. Yeah, that sure does strike me as intelligent, too. Maybe no one will notice he's lying....

It's interesting how you assess intelligence. How about answering this question: Was the surge a "tactical adjustment" or "strategic shift"? McCain could answer this. BHO could not.

While not actually intelligent, Obama is indeed stubborn. His oppostion to the surge was indisputably mistaken. He's sinking in quicksand. He can't admit his mistake (which is a forgiveable mistake) which calls his character into question as well as his ability to recognize reality.

I thought he was going to be something new. I thought he was going to speak honestly and candidly and eschew "spin." He actually embodies the "old politics". The hype is a mirage. He has become the man he preached against.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"People are going to start vacationing in Iraq soon"

Heck, they've been doing that for several years, in the Kurdish north!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"McCain has inched ahead of Obama in Colorado"

Hee hee!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites