Senator McCain’s Statement on Barack Obama and National Security
May 21st, 2008 at 12:46pm KMorrison
John McCain today issued the following statement:
“After Senator Obama’s own advisors and supporters backtracked from his stated desire to hold summit meetings with the leaders of the world’s worst regimes, Senator Obama himself has begun to reinterpret his stand. He now claims that some ‘fear’ to ‘negotiate’ with the likes of Iranian President Ahmadinejad, who has called Israel a ’stinking corpse’ or Ayatollah Khamenei, who called Israel a ‘cancerous tumor.’ I have news for Senator Obama: I have met some very bad people before in my life. It is not fear that drives my opposition to unconditional meetings with Ahmadinejad, Khamenei, Kim Jong Il, and Raul Castro; rather it is my clear understanding that such a course will fail to eliminate the threat posed by these rogue regimes. I don’t fear to negotiate. Instead I have the knowledge and experience to understand the dangerous consequences of a naive approach to Presidential summits based entirely on emotion.
“The question before the American people is which candidate is best able to secure the peace for the next generation of Americans, a peace that will keep our nation safe, prosperous and free. Senator Obama’s desire to meet unconditionally in his first year at the presidential level with Iranian leaders is reckless, and demonstrates poor judgment that will make the world more dangerous. With respect to Cuba, it is not America that needs to make unilateral concessions to the Castros — a ‘gesture of good faith’ as Senator Obama said yesterday — it is the Castro brothers who must allow the freedom they have so long denied to the Cuban people. Free the political prisoners, open the media, allow people to worship, schedule free and fair elections, and the United States will be happy to meet and talk. Until then, we cannot compromise our principles.
“Senator Obama has consistently offered his judgment on Iraq, and he has been consistently wrong. He said that General Petraeus’ new strategy would not reduce sectarian violence, but would worsen it. He was wrong. He said the dynamics in Iraq would not change as a result of the ’surge.’ He was wrong. One year ago, he voted to cut off all funds for our forces fighting extremists in Iraq. He was wrong. Sectarian violence has been dramatically reduced, Sunnis in Anbar province and throughout Iraq are cooperating in fighting al Qaeda in Iraq, and Shi’ite extremist militias no longer control Basra — the Maliki government and its forces do. British and Iraqi forces now move freely in areas that were controlled by Iranian-backed militias. The fight against al Qaeda in Mosul is succeeding in further weakening that deadly terrorist group, and many key leaders have been killed or captured. As General Petraeus said last month, ‘As we combat AQI we must r emember that doing so not only reduces a major source of instability in Iraq, it also weakens an organization that Al Qaeda’s senior leaders view as a tool to spread its influence and foment regional instability.’ Iraqi forces have moved unopposed into Sadr City, a development the New York Times characterized today as a ‘dramatic turnaround’ as the government of Prime Minister Maliki ‘advanced its goal of establishing sovereignty and curtailing the powers of the militias.’
“We continue to face challenges in Iraq, and we have a lot of work ahead. Yet the American people must ask whether we are more or less likely to succeed there if Senator Obama has his way. Each of these positive developments in Iraq is the direct result of the new strategy that Senator Obama opposed. Senator Obama consistently predicted the new strategy would fail, and at every step events have demonstrated his judgment was consistently wrong. He now says that he intends to withdraw combat troops from Iraq — one to two brigades per month until they are all removed — regardless of the conditions in Iraq, irrespective of the consequences for our national security, and despite the best advice of our commanders on the ground. He is wrong again, and the American people deserve a President who has the strength, judgment and experience to keep our country safe and secure.”
Entry Filed under: Barack Obama, John McCain, Military, War on Terror, iraq
3 Comments Add your own
1. Danish Artist | May 21st, 2008 at 3:25 pm
mr. Obama, what iteration are we on now??????
mr obama what is your instantaneous stand on the ME, the war in Iraq, appeasement er diplomacy?
It just gets so confusing.
2. Christian Wright | May 22nd, 2008 at 6:55 am
Since it was very much in Iran’s interest for the U.S. to invade Iraq, it would have been natural for Iranian agents to have done what they could to promote that invasion. (Four years ago, Ted Galen Carpenter of CATO called for an investigation on that issue.) And indeed we now know that was the case: Ahmed Chalabi, who did more than any other Iraqi to stir up the U.S. against Saddam Hussein, turns out to be working for Teheran (specifically for the head of the Revolutionary Guard’s Quds Force, formally proclaimed by the Senate as a terrorist organization).
Of course, Chalabi couldn’t move American policy without hiring American lobbyists to move American politicians: lobbyists such as Randy Scheunemann and Charlie Black, and politicians such as John McCain. I have no reason to believe that Scheunemann and Black knew they were doing Teheran’s bidding, though it should have been obvious that the course of action they helped promote would have as one of its side-effects a big enhancement of Iran’s regional power.
McCain was doing Iran’s bidding when he supported the invasion of Iraq. Iran wanted Saddam removed from power but could not do it on their own. Iran knew that the Shia majority of the population of Iraq was loyal to Iran because Iran gave them shelter during Saddam’s ethnic cleansing campaign.
Bush wanted to invade Iraq for the oil, and Iran wanted the US to invade Iraq because it knew it would make them far more powerful while destroying the US armed forces.
McCain was played by the Iranians and he is still too senile to know it. We cannot put a guy that can be fooled by our enemies in the White House.
3. J Mora | May 22nd, 2008 at 10:29 am
On the Election 2008, as one who has defended the Constitution of the United States for 14 years,
I am disappointed that it may have all been in vain
if the stupidity of the general public elects Barrack Obama to the Commander in Chief’s duty position.
Any attorney who answers questions with gartbled answers is either a bad lawyer, or a genius (so he can’t make sense to the court).
I choose to believe that Barrack Obama has too much undesireable baggage for me to even consider him as a Commander in Chief.
Billary Clinton, with all the immoral, and illegal scandals that the Clinton Administration brought to the White House, and White Water, I’ll pass on that ticket…although some of what Hillary Clinton
has brought as her platform is desireable. The problem there is you can promise the world, and never deliver it. So Hillary and her husband are out of the question.
McCain is plausible but being a veteran and a POW that was subjected to torture for 7 years scares me. While I have been in the Military, I have seeen the effects of the Vietnam War on
its veterans. McCain would be my pick out of the
three mentioned. I would like Mitt Romney or Mike Huckabee to be his running mate but unlike other Republican Presidents…I would like him to hit the proverbial nail on the head and fix what past presidents could not and would not fix. What is that?…Reduce our dependency on Arab Oil, Increase public transportation, bring back big business to the USA, regulate the price of gasoline,
stop making concessions to OPEC, France, and Germay, we need to take care of our own before the needs of the world. WQe fed the Russians while they were our adversaries in the Cold War…
honestly, does that make sense? Stop borrowing from China to dump it into Iraq. It is clear that Iraq does not appreciate what we have done at such an expense, it’s time we leave it in their laps.
Bring our men and women home. Rebuild the national arsenal and become the world power we once were. We need to focus on National Security
before the rest of the world.
We need to feed, educate, and house our people before we take on any other problems of the world. USA 1st, everyone else second.
Leave a Comment
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed