16 Comments Add your own

• 1. rawdawgbuffalo  |  July 17th, 2008 at 1:48 pm

  at this rate, the taliban will be in kabul b4 december

• 2. Josh SN  |  July 22nd, 2008 at 10:47 am

  When did John McCain first say Iraq needed more troops?

  I put a whole post on the surge, with graphs I made myself, on my blog in the last hour.

• 3. Joe  |  July 22nd, 2008 at 11:58 am

  What tactics has McCain actually put forward besides pushing for “The Surge”? McCain continually says “We are winning” and “We will be victorious” yet he doesn’t lay out anything as to how we will win or what he sees as being “victorious”. McCain is basing his whole campaign on the fact that he supported the surge. This has brought down violence, but politically has done next to nothing.

  What are his plans to actually win? After all, McCain says victory in Iraq will solve our high cost of oil, will help our economy, will balance the budget and pay off our debt (amazing how it would do all of that).

  McCain has vehemently said Obama doesn’t know what he is talking about by setting timelines yet the Iraqi government wants a timeline. Iraq will only be able to get their own house in order when we are not there fighting for them.

  By the way… how come McCain has NOTHING under his “Issues” menu about “Foreign Policy” and nothing about Afghanistan? All he has is “Iraq”, Surely that is not the only foreign country that we care about.

  After all, you say in your post “People’s lives hang in the balance; the decisions made by the next president will determine the fate of many people of whom most of us will never know. Like it or not, we are a country at war, and looking forward is incredibly important. “
  So apparently McCain either forgot that we are still at war in Afghanistan or it really doesn’t matter to him.

  One more thing I noticed… on Obama’s trip to the Middle East, he didn’t mix up Sunni and Shia. Doesn’t that count for something?

• 4. Joe  |  July 22nd, 2008 at 12:33 pm

  Oh wait….. more “McCain-speak” about Obama’s foreign policy creds…

  From a new McCain ad:

  “Barack Obama never held a single Senate hearing on Afghanistan,” an announcer states. “He hasn’t been to Iraq in years. He voted against funding our troops — positions that helped him win his nomination. Now Obama is changing to help himself become president. John McCain has always supported our troops and the surge that’s working.”

  First of all… Obama chairs the sub-committee on EUROPE, not Central Asia. You could make the case that his subcommittee “has jurisdiction over NATO”, however… as Sen Richard Lugar (who chaired this subcommittee from 2003-2006) said… something as major as NATO’s role in Afghanistan would typically be held before the full Foreign Relations Committee, rather than the European subcommittee.
  Also… Sen. John Kerry has said that if it were to happen at the subcommittee level, it should go to his subcommittee on Near East and South and Central Asian Affairs.

  So what about McCain’s attendance records????

  It turns out that presumptive Republican nominee Sen. John McCain has attended even fewer Afghanistan-related Senate hearings over the past two years than Obama’s one. Which is a nice way of saying, McCain, R-Ariz., the top Republican on the Senate Armed Service Committee, has attended zero of his committee’s six hearings on Afghanistan over the last two years.
  The findings are surprising given the fact that the McCain campaign loudly criticized Obama this week for failing to schedule any hearings on Afghanistan in the last year and a half. Obama chairs the European Affairs Subcommittee of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which has oversight of military operations in Afghanistan.

  Ain’t that just odd?

• 5. Joe  |  July 22nd, 2008 at 12:46 pm

  Yet more “McCain-speak”…

  “The reason why I have a perfect voting record from organizations like the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the American Legion and all the other veterans service organizations is because of my support of them,” he said.

  But actually……..

  To be sure, the VFW and the Legion have given McCain awards in the past and can be fairly described as McCain supporters. The VFW’s political action committee has endorsed him for re-election to his Senate seat and to his House seat before that, but neither group keeps a voting scorecard.
  At the same time, another veterans service organization cited by the McCain critic at the town hall meeting — the Disabled American Veterans — gave McCain only a 20 percent grade in its 2007 voting scorecard. McCain voted for only one of the amendments that the group tallied as key votes, while voting against the other four.
  Likewise, the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, a relatively new group that was instrumental in pushing for the expanded GI Bill, says McCain only voted veterans’ way on 58 percent of the 155 Senate votes it tallied between 2001 and 2006. Even the Vietnam Veterans of America reports that McCain has voted against 15 of 31 priority bills it tracked between 2001 and 2008.

• 6. KMorrison  |  July 22nd, 2008 at 3:09 pm

  McCain certainly isn’t like Obama coming forward with a new plan or view every 30 seconds, as the political winds shift. Pushing for the surge was huge, because it worked. Good for Obama for saying we shouldn’t go in, but who asked him, he was a state legislator at the time.

  It is easy enough to divert from the issue, but McCain went to the mat for an unpopular strategy change that was successful. Why should he change his position that has been correct? People’s lives are at stake, and Senator Obama isn’t qualified handle foreign policy in peace time let alone war time.

• 7. Joe  |  July 22nd, 2008 at 3:17 pm

  But again… he pushed for the surge and it decreased violence. Fantastic.
  What are his next steps? How does he plan on ending the war victorious? So far it just sounds like keep things as is. If violence rises, then what? Send in more troops?

  None of this is going to solve things politically. Iraq can take ownership of their own issues once we force them to by saying we are starting to draw down.

• 8. KMorrison  |  July 22nd, 2008 at 4:01 pm

  I’m going to have to reference my media complaint from the other post. I wish these town halls were covered beter because he does talk about reconciliation, the Iraqi people, the different groups, and the different players. You’d never know it watching the news, but the strategy he has been promoting isn’t just military based.

• 9. Joe  |  July 23rd, 2008 at 10:01 am

  But KM, he still doesn’t even have a Foreign Policy section on his website. All he has is “Iraq”.

  If you read thru the Iraq section, it still doesn’t lay anything out. One would think that he would at least put something on the web site about his plans.
  Instead, the website only has generalities… “We must continue until we win” and “Obama is for losing”, etc.

  This is his plan…

  John McCain believes it is strategically and morally essential for the United States to support the Government of Iraq to become capable of governing itself and safeguarding its people. He strongly disagrees with those who advocate withdrawing American troops before that has occurred.
  It would be a grave mistake to leave before Al Qaeda in Iraq is defeated and before a competent, trained, and capable Iraqi security force is in place and operating effectively.

  AQ in Iraq is defeated? Is someone from AQ in Iraq going to actually surrender or does this mean that every last terrorist must be killed? What exactly does it mean to “defeat” them? Is it even possible to kill every last terrorist?
  Plus… we’ve been fed the same bull for the last 4 years that the Iraqi military is getting stronger and taking the lead. Are they or aren’t they? If they are, then it is time to draw down. If they are not, then why the hell not after this many years???

  Another thing he says regarding the surge that he is so proud of…

  Those gains would be lost if we were to follow the policy advocated by Senator Barack Obama to withdraw most of our troops and leave behind only a small “strike force” to battle terrorists. That is, in essence, the same strategy of withdrawing from Iraq’s streets that failed in 2006. John McCain advocates continuing the successful counterinsurgency strategy that began in 2007.

  Notice that he even says here that Obama is not saying to bring out ALL the troops.

  Then about the Iraq political piece…

  The key condition for successful elections is for American troops to continue to work with brave Iraqis to allow the voting to take place in relative freedom and security. Iraqis need to know that the U.S. will not abandon them, but will continue to press their politicians to show the necessary leadership to help develop their country.

  Nobody is claiming that we should “abandon them”. See previous blockquote… “leave behind a small ‘strike force’”. I believe Democratic plans for the last 3 years have been to redeploy troops to the horizon (i.e. Kumait, etc). Close enough to be a force, but far enough to allow the Iraqis to take ownership of their own affairs.

  I would welcome the Media to actually report on issues and to stop playing “gotcha” when a politician flubs a comment. If McCain has talking in specific plans, then I would welcome hearing about it.

  Just saying we are winning and we must win is not a plan. Especially when so many neocons have claimed this for the last 5 years and have even declared victory a couple of times.

• 10. Joe  |  July 23rd, 2008 at 12:31 pm

  Regarding negotiating and talking with the enemy…

  Obama today:

  “My whole goal in terms of having tough, serious direct diplomacy is not because I’m naive about the nature of any of these regimes. I’m not,” Obama said at a press conference. “It is because if we show ourselves willing to talk and to offer carrots and sticks in order to deal with these pressing problems, and if Iran then rejects any overtures of that sort, it puts us in a stronger position to mobilize the international community to ratchet up the pressure on Iran.”

  Hmm… sounds like something I’ve said before.

  Then there is this on Obama’s meetings…

  His [Obama’s] meeting with the Palestinians stands in contrast to the decision by Republican presidential hopeful John McCain to visit only Israel in March, without stopping in the West Bank.

  That sure reeks of “blah blah blah I don’t want to talk to mean people” from the McCain camp. This is certainly following the Bush theory of never talking with or even acknowledging the enemy.

  I think people are starting to realize that conversations are actually more powerful than sabre-rattling.

• 11. KMorrison  |  July 23rd, 2008 at 3:04 pm

  Well, I’ll give you that the McCain website could be better, and provide much more detail. Also, I’m not sure I’m the one to make definitive statments about the campaign’s foreign policy. What I can say is that the surge has worked. Back in January of last year he was laying out in town hall meetings who’s who, how they interact with each other, who supports them, etc. Senator Biden was actually the one who in around about way convinced me that Senator McCain had the right idea. Biden said, ‘You know if we don’t leave Iraq the right way, all those people who helped us are dead.’ (not an exact quote) Senator McCain has shown he knows his foreign policy and military strategy inside and out. Haven’t seen that in any other candidate.

• 12. Joe  |  July 25th, 2008 at 8:26 am

  Ok McCain backers of this blog. Please explain this?.

  McCain is whining because Obama made a speech in a foreign country as a mere Presidential candidate.

  McCain says?

  “I’d love to give a speech in Germany … a political speech or a speech that maybe the German people would be interested in, but I’d much prefer to do it as president of the United States rather than as a candidate … for the office of presidency,” McCain told reporters in Ohio.

  Meanwhile not even a month ago McCain said this of this trip to Latin America?

  Going to Latin America in the midst of a presidential campaign, he said, speaks less to his role as a senator than to what he’s hoping to achieve if elected this fall. “It’s more my ability to govern as president,” he said, “my ability to lead as president, to keep up with these major issues.”

  So WTF??? Why is it ok for him to do it, but not for Obama to do it? Why is it ok for McCain?s surrogates to say something stupid, but not for Obama?s? Why is it ok for McCain to have ?evolving opinions?, but when Obama changes, it is a flip-flop and a horrible thing?

  Then there is this from McCain?s own website?

  ARLINGTON, VA — Today, McCain 2008 spokesman Tucker Bounds issued the following statement on Barack Obama’s speech in Germany today:
  “While Barack Obama took a premature victory lap today in the heart of Berlin, proclaiming himself a ‘citizen of the world,’ John McCain continued to make his case to the American citizens who will decide this election. Barack Obama offered eloquent praise for this country, but the contrast is clear. John McCain has dedicated his life to serving, improving and protecting America. Barack Obama spent an afternoon talking about it.”

  Damn that Obama! In this campaign he shouldn?t just talk about protecting America! He should get his ass out there with a gun!!! That comment from the McCain spokesman is just foolish.

  Is it November yet for cryin? out loud???

• 13. Joe  |  July 25th, 2008 at 3:06 pm

  I hate to pile on, but another thing if you could please explain…

  Obama cancels a visit to a Military Base in Germany.

  McCain spokesman…

  “Barack Obama is wrong. It is never ‘inappropriate’ to visit our men and women in the military,” McCain spokesman Brian Rogers said in response to the news.

  Meanwhile, now the PENTAGON has chimed in…

  A campaign adviser said the U.S. military saw the visit as a campaign stop.

  “We learned from the Pentagon last night that the visit would be viewed instead as a campaign event,” the adviser, retired Air Force Maj. Gen. Scott Gration, said in a statement. “Senator Obama did not want to have a trip to see our wounded warriors perveived as a campaign event when his visit was to show his appreciation for our troops and decided instead not to go.”

  That is because…

  The Pentagon in a statement cited longstanding Defense Department policy that prohibits military personnel or facilities from association with partisan political campaigns and elections.

  “We told him he could visit Landstuhl (Regional Medical Center in western Germany) with his Senate staff, but not with his campaign staff,” said Army Lt. Col. Elizabeth Hibner.

  Now why did the McCain campaign opt to blast Obama on this???

  Back in April…

  With Department of Defense rules prohibiting political campaigning on military bases, it was determined that in some cases McCain could visit the installations as a senator but could not engage in any political activity or have news media present.
  McCain campaign officials said Thursday they intentionally did not campaign on military property.

  “We follow the rules,” said senior McCain adviser Steve Schmidt.

  So AGAIN……… it appears to be ok if McCain does it, but if Obama does it he obviously hates America.

  The McCain “Double-Talk Express” is getting more laughable.

• 14. Mary  |  July 28th, 2008 at 11:15 pm

  Joe: You’re right. Obama didn’t the terms Sunni and Shia during his Middle East publicity stunt. But in Israel, he did say that “his” committee voted certain benefits for Israel. In reality, that particular benefit was voted by the Banking Committee, on which Obama does not serve. But, of course, reality is not Obama’s long suit, especially when he’s out there pandering.
  Re: your last comment, of course you love to “pile [it] on.” You realize that Mr. Hopey-Dopey keep hooting himself in the foot. And when your feet are made of clay and you’ve shot yourself in both of them–why, you don’t have a leg left to stand on.

• 15. Mary  |  July 28th, 2008 at 11:19 pm

  In previous post by Mary, Typo Correction: 2nd to last line should read “keeps shooting”

• 16. ExcuseMeWhileIKissTheSky  |  July 31st, 2008 at 7:07 am

  Obama / Osama Whats The Difference
  He wants America out of Iraq and Afghanistan. He is OK with letting 12,000,000 illegal aliens remain in the United States. He is OK with negotiating with Iran. He had a Muslim Father. His stance is arguably Anti Israel. Hard to spot the difference isn’t it?

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