PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues McCain's "Audacity of Hopelessness" speech


patteeu
07-28-2008, 05:48 PM
jAZ had a thread about the catchphrase, but the entire speech is a good one. Admittedly, if it had been fed to Obama's teleprompter, it would have been delivered in a more silky, emotion-jerking manner, but McCain didn't do too bad. Here's an extensive excerpt:

...

Eighteen months ago, America faced a crisis as profound as any in our history. Iraq was in flames, torn apart by violence that was escaping our control. Al Qaeda was succeeding in what Osama bin Laden called the central front in their war against us. The mullahs in Iran waited for America's humiliation in Iraq, and the resulting increase in their influence. Thousands of Iraqis died violently every month. American casualties were mounting. We were on the brink of a disastrous defeat just a little more than five years after the attacks of September 11, and America faced a profound choice. Would we accept defeat and leave Iraq and our strategic position in the Middle East in ruins, risking a wider war in the near future? Or would we summon our resolve, deploy additional forces, and change our failed strategy? Senator Obama and I also faced a decision, which amounted to a real-time test for a future commander-in-chief. America passed that test. I believe my judgment passed that test. And I believe Senator Obama's failed.


We both knew the politically safe choice was to support some form of retreat. All the polls said the "surge" was unpopular. Many pundits, experts and policymakers opposed it and advocated withdrawing our troops and accepting the consequences. I chose to support the new counterinsurgency strategy backed by additional troops -- which I had advocated since 2003, after my first trip to Iraq. Many observers said my position would end my hopes of becoming president. I said I would rather lose a campaign than see America lose a war. My choice was not smart politics. It didn't test well in focus groups. It ignored all the polls. It also didn't matter. The country I love had one final chance to succeed in Iraq. The new strategy was it. So I supported it. Today, the effects of the new strategy are obvious. The surge has succeeded, and we are, at long last, finally winning this war.


Senator Obama made a different choice. He not only opposed the new strategy, but actually tried to prevent us from implementing it. He didn't just advocate defeat, he tried to legislate it. When his efforts failed, he continued to predict the failure of our troops. As our soldiers and Marines prepared to move into Baghdad neighborhoods and Anbari villages, Senator Obama predicted that their efforts would make the sectarian violence in Iraq worse, not better.


And as our troops took the fight to the enemy, Senator Obama tried to cut off funding for them. He was one of only 14 senators to vote against the emergency funding in May 2007 that supported our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. He would choose to lose in Iraq in hopes of winning in Afghanistan. But had his position been adopted, we would have lost both wars.


Three weeks after Senator Obama voted to deny funding for our troops in the field, General Ray Odierno launched the first major combat operations of the surge. Senator Obama declared defeat one month later: "My assessment is that the surge has not worked and we will not see a different report eight weeks from now." His assessment was popular at the time. But it couldn't have been more wrong.


By November 2007, the success of the surge was becoming apparent. Attacks on Coalition forces had dropped almost 60 percent from pre-surge levels. American casualties had fallen by more than half. Iraqi civilian deaths had fallen by more than two-thirds. But Senator Obama ignored the new and encouraging reality. "Not only have we not seen improvements," he said, "but we're actually worsening, potentially, a situation there."


If Senator Obama had prevailed, American forces would have had to retreat under fire. The Iraqi Army would have collapsed. Civilian casualties would have increased dramatically. Al Qaeda would have killed the Sunni sheikhs who had begun to cooperate with us, and the "Sunni Awakening" would have been strangled at birth. Al Qaeda fighters would have safe havens, from where they could train Iraqis and foreigners, and turn Iraq into a base for launching attacks on Americans elsewhere. Civil war, genocide and wider conflict would have been likely.


Above all, America would have been humiliated and weakened. Our military, strained by years of sacrifice, would have suffered a demoralizing defeat. Our enemies around the globe would have been emboldened. Terrorists would have seen our defeat as evidence America lacked the resolve to defeat them. As Iraq descended into chaos, other countries in the Middle East would have come to the aid of their favored factions, and the entire region might have erupted in war. Every American diplomat, American military commander, and American leader would have been forced to speak and act from a position of weakness.


Senator Obama told the American people what he thought you wanted to hear. I told you the truth. From the early days of this war, I feared the administration was pursuing a mistaken strategy, and I said so. I went to Iraq many times, and heard all the phony explanations about how we were winning. I knew we were failing, and I told that to an administration that did not want to hear it. I pushed for the strategy that is now succeeding before most people even admitted that there was a problem.


Fortunately, Senator Obama failed, not our military. We rejected the audacity of hopelessness, and we were right. Violence in Iraq fell to such low levels for such a long time that Senator Obama, detecting the success he never believed possible, falsely claimed that he had always predicted it. There have been almost no sectarian killings in Baghdad for more than 13 weeks. American casualties are at the lowest levels recorded in this war. The Iraqi Army is stronger and fighting harder. The Iraqi Government has met most of the benchmarks for political progress we demanded of them, and the nation's largest Sunni party recently rejoined the government. In Iraq, we are no longer on the doorstep of defeat, but on the road to victory.


Senator Obama said this week that even knowing what he knows today that he still would have opposed the surge. In retrospect, given the opportunity to choose between failure and success, he chooses failure. I cannot conceive of a Commander in Chief making that choice.

...

full transcript (http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2008/07/mccain_at_gi_fo.html)

Some try to diminish the surge by saying that the Anbar Awakening started before the surge began. While it's true that the Awakening did begin before the Surge, it's also true that the surge strategy was at least partly based on taking advantage of that emerging movement and it's quite hard to believe that the Awakening would have had the same results without the benefit of the surge and the recommitment of the US represented by it.

It remains to be seen which candidate was right about Iraq to begin with, but it's clear as day that McCain had it right about the surge and Obama would have turned difficult circumstances into the Vietnam-like certain defeat and humiliation for which some on the left seem to be yearning.

Taco John
07-28-2008, 06:43 PM
"Obama" count: 13 mentions just in this short exceprt...

Taco John
07-28-2008, 06:45 PM
Marsha, Marsha, Marsha!

http://www.philly2hoboken.com/blog/archives/images/jan_brady.jpg

beer bacon
07-28-2008, 06:45 PM
If John McCain was a few years younger, he'd be stalking the shit out of Barack Obama.

Taco John
07-28-2008, 06:46 PM
So patteeu, do you think that Jan McCain can win an election campaigning solely on the Iraq war and not being Marsha Obama

Taco John
07-28-2008, 06:55 PM
Jan McCain:
Senator Obama made a different choice. He not only opposed the new strategy, but actually tried to prevent us from implementing it. He didn't just advocate defeat, he tried to legislate it. When his efforts failed, he continued to predict the failure of our troops.


He continued to predict the failure of the troops? On top of that, he hates apple pie! Is America ready for a commander in chief who clearly hates America?

***SPRAYER
07-28-2008, 07:01 PM
Senator Obama said this week that even knowing what he knows today that he still would have opposed the surge. In retrospect, given the opportunity to choose between failure and success, he chooses failure. I cannot conceive of a Commander in Chief making that choice.


If the Dem's had had their way, Iraq would be a bloodbath right now. They wanted to pull out. Their constituents wanted us to pullout.

I'm not saying this was a good idea to begin with, but we're this close-- lets keep our fingers crossed and try to finish this thing.

An Arab democracy. Wow.

beer bacon
07-28-2008, 07:15 PM
If Barack had his way, we would have never gone to Iraq. You know, since our reasoning for going was completely flawed, and the Bush Administration sold America a pack of lies to get support for this war. Since Iraq had very little to do with Al Q, and they didn't have any WMDs.

You can't make these judgment arguments without going all the way back to the decision to go to war in the first place. McCain looks like a douche talking about the Surge when he was wrong about the War in the first place.

Ari Chi3fs
07-28-2008, 07:19 PM
Yeah, Bacon... I would rather have the 3 trillion or so that we have spent on the war working for America... instead our economy is in shambles to protect the oil interests of the Douchebags in the White House.

patteeu
07-28-2008, 09:11 PM
So patteeu, do you think that Jan McCain can win an election campaigning solely on the Iraq war and not being Marsha Obama

The Iraq war alone ought to be enough to sink Obama's chance of winning.

Taco John
07-28-2008, 10:51 PM
The Iraq war alone ought to be enough to sink Obama's chance of winning.

The question wasn't about ought. I can rattle off a hundred meaningless "oughts." The question was about what is and what may be.

Can Jan McCain can win an election campaigning solely on the Iraq war and not being Marsha Obama?

patteeu
07-29-2008, 06:41 AM
The question wasn't about ought. I can rattle off a hundred meaningless "oughts." The question was about what is and what may be.

Can Jan McCain can win an election campaigning solely on the Iraq war and not being Marsha Obama?

I don't understand what Jan McCain and Marsha Obama means. Forgive me for not recognizing this as a serious question.

If you're asking whether McCain can beat Obama on the Iraq issue alone, my answer is that he won't try so we'll never know. But it's an issue that damages Obama in the eyes of anyone who doesn't want to see the US lose the war.

mlyonsd
07-29-2008, 07:30 AM
If Barack had his way, we would have never gone to Iraq. You know, since our reasoning for going was completely flawed, and the Bush Administration sold America a pack of lies to get support for this war. Since Iraq had very little to do with Al Q, and they didn't have any WMDs.

You can't make these judgment arguments without going all the way back to the decision to go to war in the first place. McCain looks like a douche talking about the Surge when he was wrong about the War in the first place.

And Obama looks like a douche for not addressing something he did have a say in when it was announced. The surge. He said it would make Iraq worse and that's clearly not the case.

I'd have some respect for him if he'd just admit he was wrong. But guess what....he's just another politician. Messiah? bleh.

patteeu
07-29-2008, 07:33 AM
And Obama looks like a douche for not addressing something he did have a say in when it was announced. The surge. He said it would make Iraq worse and that's clearly not the case.

I'd have some respect for him if he'd just admit he was wrong. But guess what....he's just another politician. Messiah? bleh.

Where are all those people who constantly complained that Bush didn't admit any mistakes? This mistake is far more obvious than anything they had in mind with Bush.

beer bacon
07-29-2008, 08:20 AM
Why doesn't John McCain or any of the other 27%ers want to talk about stuff like this?

http://washingtonindependent.com/view/the-cricketers

Asked for comment, the handbook's chief author, David Kilcullen, a former Australian Army officer who is now an adviser to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, explained that it tells policy-makers to "think very, very carefully before intervening." More bluntly, Kilcullen, who helped Petraeus design his 2007 counterinsurgency strategy in Iraq, called the decision to invade Iraq "stupid" -- in fact, he said "****ing stupid" -- and suggested that if policy-makers apply the manual's lessons, similar wars can be avoided in the future.

"The biggest stupid idea," Kilcullen said, "was to invade Iraq in the first place."

beer bacon
07-29-2008, 08:53 AM
Why doesn't McCain or anyone else talk about this?

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/206004.php

This is a story I've been wanting to dig into for a while.

We're regularly told that we should be looking into the background of a presidential candidates key advisors. And in the on-going contretemps over who's got the best judgment and experience on Iraq, John McCain voice and brain is Randy Scheunemann. Look at the key statements from the campaign, the enunciations of policy and so forth and you'll see they're almost all statements from him. So who is it that's speaking for John McCain on Iraq and shaping his views of what our policy there should be?

It comes as no surprise that Scheunemann was a staunch supporter of the war. But he was much more that. He was not only a key behind-the-scenes promoter and architect of the war. He also had a troublingly close relationship with Ahmad Chalabi -- the Iraqi exile we now know fed the US reams of bogus intelligence about phantom WMD and ties to al Qaeda and allegedly also shared highly classified US intelligence with the Iranians. Indeed, something I didn't realize, back when he and other neoconservatives were cooking up the Iraq War in 2002, Scheunemann's lobbying firm, the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, which he set up with the White House's blessing to gin up support for the Iraq War and Chalabi's handler/spokesman Francis Brook all shared an address. Almost as if they were different arms of the same operation.


And it's not just what happened before the war. He was also a big time advocate of most of the biggest policy screw ups of the post-war period -- like the aggressive 'debaathification' program that everyone now realizes was a disaster as well as the decision to freeze the UN out of any role in the reconstruction of the country.

All of this information is contained in Zachary Roth's first installment of his reporting on Scheunemann. John McCain is basing his campaign now on his judgment and experience on Iraq. So why is he still taking the advice of the guy who was the conduit between him and Ahmad Chalabi an who has been wrong about Iraq so many times?

McCain's whole campaign now is based on his judgment on Iraq. So why aren't the campaign reporters telling you more about his top foreign policy advisor's iffy past?

patteeu
07-29-2008, 08:57 AM
Why doesn't John McCain or any of the other 27%ers want to talk about stuff like this?

http://washingtonindependent.com/view/the-cricketers

Asked for comment, the handbook's chief author, David Kilcullen, a former Australian Army officer who is now an adviser to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, explained that it tells policy-makers to "think very, very carefully before intervening." More bluntly, Kilcullen, who helped Petraeus design his 2007 counterinsurgency strategy in Iraq, called the decision to invade Iraq "stupid" -- in fact, he said "****ing stupid" -- and suggested that if policy-makers apply the manual's lessons, similar wars can be avoided in the future.

"The biggest stupid idea," Kilcullen said, "was to invade Iraq in the first place."

Probably because we've already had that election. Now we're trying to decide where to go from here. Do we want the guy who had the right idea about how to win in Iraq or do we want the guy who was content to lose and blame Bush. I know which one I prefer.

beer bacon
07-29-2008, 09:03 AM
Probably because we've already had that election. Now we're trying to decide where to go from here. Do we want the guy who had the right idea about how to win in Iraq or do we want the guy who was content to lose and blame Bush. I know which one I prefer.

Going forward, do we want the guy with the sense not to get us into quagmires like this in the first place, the guy who's plan has already endorsed by the head of the Iraq's government?

On the other hand, do we want the guy who still supports the war, who recently chose Randy Scheunemann as his senior foreign policy advisor, one of the architects of the war, who worked with Chalabi to pull this scam on America?

You can't divorce the Occupation of Iraq from the terrible decision to invade and occupy in the first place, and the people who supported the war then and support the war now can't escape responsibility for that.

patteeu
07-29-2008, 09:15 AM
Going forward, do we want the guy with the sense not to get us into quagmires like this in the first place, the guy who's plan has already endorsed by the head of the Iraq's government?

On the other hand, do we want the guy who still supports the war, who recently chose Randy Scheunemann as his senior foreign policy advisor, one of the architects of the war, who worked with Chalabi to pull this scam on America?

You can't divorce the Occupation of Iraq from the terrible decision to invade and occupy in the first place, and the people who supported the war then and support the war now can't escape responsibility for that.

There's no excuse for being in a hurry to lose a war. None.

beer bacon
07-29-2008, 09:20 AM
There's no excuse for being in a hurry to lose a war. None.

The spin isn't going to work. McCain's "The world began with the Surge" is a pathetic attempt to draw attention away from the fact that Bush and McCain himself made a gigantic strategic blunder deciding the Invasion and Occupation of Iraq was a swell thing and they then knowingly lied to and misled the people of this country to get support for it.

McCain's right hand man on the economy thinks America is "a nation of whiners," and McCain's right hand man on foreign policy was an architect of the Iraq War. That is what we would be electing if we elect McCain.

patteeu
07-29-2008, 09:28 AM
The spin isn't going to work. McCain's "The world began with the Surge" is a pathetic attempt to draw attention away from the fact that Bush and McCain himself made a gigantic strategic blunder deciding the Invasion and Occupation of Iraq was a swell thing and they then knowingly lied to and misled the people of this country to get support for it.

McCain's right hand man on the economy thinks America is "a nation of whiners," and McCain's right hand man on foreign policy was an architect of the Iraq War. That is what we would be electing if we elect McCain.

I guess if you're worried that McCain is too "hard" on national security and foreign policy, then I can understand why you won't be able to vote for him. I won't vote for Obama because he's too "soft", IMO. His willingness to lose in Iraq may be alright with you, but it's a showstopper for me. Hell, I like Ron Paul a lot and have often called him my favorite Congressman, but his foreign policy softness made him dead to me as a POTUS candidate. Obama adds big government socialism on top of a feckless foreign policy. No thanks.

beer bacon
07-29-2008, 09:29 AM
I guess if you're worried that McCain is too "hard" on national security and foreign policy, then I can understand why you won't be able to vote for him. I won't vote for Obama because he's too "soft", IMO. His willingness to lose in Iraq may be alright with you, but it's a showstopper for me.

Everyone that frequents this forum knows that you have a boner for war.

VAChief
07-29-2008, 09:31 AM
There's no excuse for being in a hurry to lose a war. None.

What are we losing? Less opportunities for Americans to die for a people most Americans couldn't give two sh**s for anyway...at least not most of the ones who support this war...We started this fiasco, we are only at war with our own stubborness to admit we made a mistake in the first place.

patteeu
07-29-2008, 09:33 AM
Everyone that frequents this forum knows that you have a boner for war.

:rolleyes:

beer bacon
07-29-2008, 09:35 AM
I guess if you're worried that McCain is too "hard" on national security and foreign policy, then I can understand why you won't be able to vote for him. I won't vote for Obama because he's too "soft", IMO. His willingness to lose in Iraq may be alright with you, but it's a showstopper for me. Hell, I like Ron Paul a lot and have often called him my favorite Congressman, but his foreign policy softness made him dead to me as a POTUS candidate. Obama adds big government socialism on top of a feckless foreign policy. No thanks.

The fact that you think you can misconstrue this foreign policy as "hard" or "soft" is laughable. We are still in the throes of the most pointless and wasteful war in the history of our nation, orchestrated by one of the most corrupt and incompetent administrations in the history of our nation. You want to elect the guy that thinks all the above was not just OK, it was right.

If McCain and the neocons had their way, we wouldn't just continue occupying a sovereign nation that wants us to leave, we would expand the conflict and invade their neighbor as well. I guess that is just dandy for people like you who are "hard" for war.

Taco John
07-29-2008, 09:37 AM
:rolleyes:

Bullshit. Don't roll your "you guys want to lose the war" eyes at us. It's absolutely valid to say you get boners from dead innocent people if this is your tact. You can't sit there and piss on people, and expect that they're not going to piss back.

patteeu
07-29-2008, 09:39 AM
What are we losing? Less opportunities for Americans to die for a people most Americans couldn't give two sh**s for anyway...at least not most of the ones who support this war...We started this fiasco, we are only at war with our own stubborness to admit we made a mistake in the first place.

Even if there were nothing else at stake, losing a war damages American prestige which negatively impacts our diplomatic effectiveness and our ability to deter our enemies. Likewise, the prestige of our adversaries is inversely effected.

penchief
07-29-2008, 09:40 AM
There's no excuse for being in a hurry to lose a war. None.

There is no excuse for trying to reduce such an important debate to an accusation that those who want out of Iraq want to "lose" the war. It's the typical right wing PR tactic of reducing every debate to its lowest common denominator. It's gutter politics and it's divisive in nature. It's exactly what has been wrong with this country and exactly why we end up starting phony wars and debating bullshit topics like gay marriage instead of having responsible government.

Thank you for your contribution.

Taco John
07-29-2008, 09:44 AM
Even if there were nothing else at stake, losing a war damages American prestige which negatively impacts our diplomatic effectiveness and our ability to deter our enemies. Likewise, the prestige of our adversaries is inversely effected.


Which is why you war mongers should really think long and hard about getting our country wrapped up in these police actions where the only people can win are the ones who use us the best.

Taco John
07-29-2008, 09:46 AM
These are the people winning the war right now (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Dawa_Party). A terrorist group funded by Iran.

beer bacon
07-29-2008, 09:47 AM
The war in general has been pretty damn good for Iran.

patteeu
07-29-2008, 09:49 AM
The fact that you think you can misconstrue this foreign policy as "hard" or "soft" is laughable. We are still in the throes of the most pointless and wasteful war in the history of our nation, orchestrated by one of the most corrupt and incompetent administrations in the history of our nation. You want to elect the guy that thinks all the above was not just OK, it was right.

If McCain and the neocons had their way, we wouldn't just continue occupying a sovereign nation that wants us to leave, we would expand the conflict and invade their neighbor as well. I guess that is just dandy for people like you who are "hard" for war.

They don't want us to leave. At least not yet. BTW, did you see that Obama has adopted the McCain policy and he now admits that he plans to leave a sizeable force in Iraq well beyond his fake 16 month withdrawal period? Apparently not since you're still running this "they want us to leave" BS.

I also think that Maliki recognizes that they’re going to need our help for some time to come, as our commanders insist, but that the help is of the sort that is consistent with the kind of phased withdrawal that I have promoted. We’re going to have to provide them with logistical support, intelligence support. We’re going to have to have a very capable counterterrorism strike force. We’re going to have to continue to train their Army and police to make them more effective. - Barack Obama (http://www.newsweek.com/id/148986/output/print)

And

... "We can safely redeploy our combat brigades at a pace that would remove them in 16 months." But he added, cryptically, "We'll keep a residual force" for "targeting any remnants of al-Qaeda; protecting remaining U.S. troops and officials; and training Iraq's security forces" provided they "make political progress."

How big would this more or less permanent "residual" force be? Obama did not say, but advisers leaked that it could reach 50,000. That would be far too much for the candidate's net-roots to swallow, but a token force of around 2,000 would be ludicrous.... - Bob Novak column (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/20/AR2008072001668.html)

penchief
07-29-2008, 09:54 AM
The war in general has been pretty damn good for Iran.

Too bad this board can't go back and look at the debate that was occurring as the war progressed. Those of us who opposed the conduct of the war were vilified for even suggesting that we were gift-wrapping Iraq for Iran.

It's kind of ironic that almost all of my concerns about the conduct of this administration and the direction our country was heading have been borne out over time. I guess I wasn't such a moonbat after all.

Shock and Awe, baby! Shock and Awe!!!

beer bacon
07-29-2008, 09:57 AM
They don't want us to leave. At least not yet. BTW, did you see that Obama has adopted the McCain policy and he now admits that he plans to leave a sizeable force in Iraq well beyond his fake 16 month withdrawal period? Apparently not since you're still running this "they want us to leave" BS.



And

Right, McCain's policy. Maliki endorsed Obama's plan by name. McCain didn't start to alter his public stance until after Maliki endorsed Obama's plan about a dozen times over the course of the week.

"Oh, the Iraqi people want us out of their country? The American people want us out of Iraq? Prime Minister Maliki wants us out of Iraq?! I won't get elected if I don't start saying during interviews that I will get out us out of Iraq!?! I better doing a 180 degree turn. Maybe I can pull this off if I can convince the country that this was my plan all along, and Obama is the one that is flip-flopping!"

"John. Dear. Nobody is stupid enough to believe that."

patteeu
07-29-2008, 10:02 AM
Right, McCain's policy. Maliki endorsed Obama's plan by name. McCain didn't start to alter his public stance until after Maliki endorsed Obama's plan about a dozen times over the course of the week.

"Oh, the Iraqi people want us out of their country? The American people want us out of Iraq? Prime Minister Maliki wants us out of Iraq?! I won't get elected if I don't start saying during interviews that I will get out us out of Iraq!?! I better doing a 180 degree turn. Maybe I can pull this off if I can convince that this was my plan all along, and Obama is the one that is flip-flopping!"

"John. Dear. Nobody is stupid enough to believe that."

The big flaw in your analysis, aside from your misreading of Maliki, is that McCain hasn't altered his position on Iraq. I can only assume that as you run along beside Obama as he races from position to position, the fixed landscape appears to be in motion.

So, what do you think about Obama admitting that American troops are going to remain in Iraq in fairly large numbers well beyond the 16 months he keeps feeding to his non-skeptical base?

beer bacon
07-29-2008, 10:05 AM
The big flaw in your analysis, aside from your misreading of Maliki, is that McCain hasn't altered his position on Iraq. I can only assume that as you run along beside Obama as he races from position to position, the fixed landscape appears to be in motion.

So, what do you think about Obama admitting that American troops are going to remain in Iraq in fairly large numbers well beyond the 16 months he keeps feeding to his non-skeptical base?

Obama has been saying that since before the democratic primary. It isn't a new development.

patteeu
07-29-2008, 10:12 AM
Obama has been saying that since before the democratic primary. It isn't a new development.

He's been on both sides of the issue since he took his seat in the Senate. Getting us out of Iraq and ending the war there are incompatible concepts with the idea of leaving behind a substantial force for an indefinite timeframe to continue to attack al Qaeda and support the Iraqi government troops in their counter-insurgency activities.

Obama speaks with forked tongue.

Silock
07-29-2008, 10:22 AM
I'd have some respect for him if he'd just admit he was wrong. But guess what....he's just another politician. Messiah? bleh.

Yup. He was probably not getting my vote before now, but now he's DEFINITELY not.

beer bacon
07-29-2008, 10:26 AM
He's been on both sides of the issue since he took his seat in the Senate. Getting us out of Iraq and ending the war there are incompatible concepts with the idea of leaving behind a substantial force for an indefinite timeframe to continue to attack al Qaeda and support the Iraqi government troops in their counter-insurgency activities.

Obama speaks with forked tongue.

Obama has consistent. Set timetable for withdraw. Remove all combat troops and drastically cut down on the number of troops we have in the region. No permanent bases in Iraq. No occupation against the will of Iraq.

The people who say otherwise have a vested interest in attempting to muddy the issue since they know that if they can't make McCain's position at least look like Obama's then it will continually haunt McCain throughout the entire election. Since McCain will be crucified for flip-flopping if he just outright adopts Obama's plan or at least says he will adopt Obama's plan, he must do something very difficult.

McCain must move closer to Obama's plan. This is the plan that the majority of Americans, Iraqis, and the government of Iraq agrees with. While attempting to make his plan in-line with the above, he must also make it look like it is actually Obama that is flipping on the issue.

There are a few snags. While at the same time trying to make Obama look like flip-flopper on this issue, McCain is also saying that that Obama had his mind made up about a 16 month withdrawal before he went to Iraq, and since Obama still strongly believed in the 16th month withdrawal after the visit, he is obviously too rigid. So McCain is caught arguing that Obama is both a flip-flopping pol and a rigid ideologue at the same time. A very difficult maneuver.

Silock
07-29-2008, 10:27 AM
He's been on both sides of the issue since he took his seat in the Senate. Getting us out of Iraq and ending the war there are incompatible concepts with the idea of leaving behind a substantial force for an indefinite timeframe to continue to attack al Qaeda and support the Iraqi government troops in their counter-insurgency activities.

Obama speaks with forked tongue.

But he's so eloquent about it, that people refuse to look past the messenger and look at the actual message (or lack thereof).

patteeu
07-29-2008, 10:37 AM
Obama has consistent. Set timetable for withdraw. Remove all combat troops and drastically cut down on the number of troops we have in the region. No permanent bases in Iraq. No occupation against the will of Iraq.

The people who say otherwise have a vested interest in attempting to muddy the issue since they know that if they can't make McCain's position at least look like Obama's then it will continually haunt McCain throughout the entire election. Since McCain will be crucified for flip-flopping if he just outright adopts Obama's plan or at least says he will adopt Obama's plan, he must do something very difficult.

McCain must move closer to Obama's plan. This is the plan that the majority of Americans, Iraqis, and the government of Iraq agrees with. While attempting to make his plan in-line with the above, he must also make it look like it is actually Obama that is flipping on the issue.

There are a few snags. While at the same time trying to make Obama look like flip-flopper on this issue, McCain is also saying that that Obama had his mind made up about a 16 month withdrawal before he went to Iraq, and since Obama still strongly believed in the 16th month withdrawal after the visit, he is obviously too rigid. So McCain is caught arguing that Obama is both a flip-flopping pol and a rigid ideologue at the same time. A very difficult maneuver.

So after Obama removes "all combat troops" from Iraq, what is he going to use to "[target] remnants of al-Qaeda"? Is he going to go after them with paper pushers and engineers?

I agree that Obama has been consistent on Iraq. He's consistently said what he thinks will be the most politically beneficial to him while consistently remaining vague enough to avoid actually articulating a specific policy that can later be held against him.

beer bacon
07-29-2008, 10:37 AM
John McCain, the genious we need to solve our little Iraqi problem:

BEFORE

McCain 9/29/02: “We’re not going to get into house-to-house fighting in Baghdad. We may have to take out buildings, but we’re not going to have a bloodletting of trading American bodies for Iraqi bodies.”

McCain 1/22/03: “But the point is that, one, we will win this conflict. We will win it easily.”

AFTER

McCain: 1/4/07: "When I voted to support this war, I knew it was probably going to be long and hard and tough, and those that voted for it and thought that somehow it was going to be some kind of an easy task, then I’m sorry they were mistaken. Maybe they didn’t know what they were voting for."

beer bacon
07-29-2008, 10:40 AM
So after Obama removes "all combat troops" from Iraq, what is he going to use to "[target] remnants of al-Qaeda"? Is he going to go after them with paper pushers and engineers?

I agree that Obama has been consistent on Iraq. He's consistently said what he thinks will be the most politically beneficial to him while consistently remaining vague enough to avoid actually articulating a specific policy that can later be held against him.

McCain and Company, people like you, have definitely already held his consistent policy on Iraq against him. The only time you don't is when it isn't politically expedient to call him too rigid and arrogant to be President, but instead when you see more value in calling him a flip-flopper that is too inconsistent to be President. You flip stances as the situation dictates.

patteeu
07-29-2008, 10:44 AM
McCain and Company, people like you, have definitely already held his consistent policy on Iraq against him. The only time you don't is when it isn't politically expedient to call him too rigid and arrogant to be President, but instead when you see more value in calling him a flip-flopper that is too inconsistent to be President. You flip stances as the situation dictates.

So what is Obama's position on Iraq today? Is he going to end the war and withdraw our troops in 16 months or is he going to take the Bush approach to withdraw as many troops as conditions permit and leave behind a force that can continue to adequately support the Iraqi government? Or is there some other possibility? You tell me what the real (not rhetorical) distinction is between Obama's Iraq policy and that of McCain or Bush. Now that the war is going well again, I'm sure there isn't much difference again, contrary to what Obama was claiming just a few months ago before the primary season ended.

The fact is that I've criticized Obama from the beginning of this campaign for waffling back and forth on Iraq according to the prevailing politics of the situation. I only hold his "consistent" policy against him when he insists that his policy against the war and in favor of withdrawal despite conditions on the ground is consistent. Either he's consistent and has been wrong all along or he's a politically motivated waffler. The reality, IMO, is the latter.

beer bacon
07-29-2008, 10:54 AM
So what is Obama's position on Iraq today? Is he going to end the war and withdraw our troops in 16 months or is he going to take the Bush approach to withdraw as many troops as conditions permit and leave behind a force that can continue to adequately support the Iraqi government? Or is there some other possibility? You tell me what the real (not rhetorical) distinction is between Obama's Iraq policy and that of McCain or Bush. Now that the war is going well again, I'm sure there isn't much difference again, contrary to what Obama was claiming just a few months ago before the primary season ended.

The fact is that I've criticized Obama from the beginning of this campaign for waffling back and forth on Iraq according to the prevailing politics of the situation. I only hold his "consistent" policy against him when he insists that his policy against the war and in favor of withdrawal despite conditions on the ground is consistent. Either he's consistent and has been wrong all along or he's a politically motivated waffler. The reality, IMO, is the latter.

You have criticized Obama consistently. I wonder why you haven't gone after McCain all that thoroughly for his dozens and dozens of flip flops?

patteeu
07-29-2008, 10:58 AM
You have criticized Obama consistently. I wonder why you haven't gone after McCain all that thoroughly for his dozens and dozens of flip flops?

That's not true. I addressed several McCain flip flops during the primaries.

beer bacon
07-29-2008, 10:58 AM
Spend a week critiquing McCain for all his flip flops, and then maybe you might find some credibility.

beer bacon
07-29-2008, 10:58 AM
That's not true. I addressed several McCain flip flops during the primaries.

And now that he is your party's candidate? Obviously, many conservatives went after McCain during the primaries because he only shifted to a more conservative, actually neocon, philosophy after he lost the 2000 republican primary. Most of those people haven't said one bad word about him since he took your party's nomination.

patteeu
07-29-2008, 10:59 AM
Spend a week critiquing McCain for all his flip flops, and then maybe you might find some credibility.

Since I spent well over a week doing it during the primaries, apparently it didn't buy me much with you so what's the point?

Speaking of a lack of credibility, what's Obama talking about today?

patteeu
07-29-2008, 11:02 AM
And now that he is your party's candidate?

I've got a bigger flip flopper to fry now. When it comes to the Iraq issue, McCain is a guppy to Obama the lunker.

mlyonsd
07-29-2008, 11:07 AM
McCain and Company, people like you, have definitely already held his consistent policy on Iraq against him. The only time you don't is when it isn't politically expedient to call him too rigid and arrogant to be President, but instead when you see more value in calling him a flip-flopper that is too inconsistent to be President. You flip stances as the situation dictates.

I couldn't get through the first sentence without snorting.