The Trail: A Daily Diary of Campaign 2008

Archives

Obama Fires Back at McCain

By Shailagh Murray
COLUMBUS, Ohio -- Sen. Barack Obama fired back at Sen. John McCain this morning after the Arizona Republican suggested Obama was unaware that al-Qaeda had been causing trouble in Iraq.

Speaking in Tyler, Texas, McCain cast Obama as dangerously clueless for suggesting during last night's debate with Sen. Hilllary Rodham Clinton that he would consider redeploying U.S. troops to Iraq under certain conditions, including if al-Qaeda returned to establish a base of operations there. Or, as moderator Tim Russert put it, if "al-Qaeda resurges and Iraq goes to hell."

"I have some news," McCain said a rally this morning. "Al-Qaeda is in Iraq. Al-Qaeda is called al-Qaeda in Iraq. My friends, if we left, they wouldn't be establishing a base...they would be taking a country. I will not allow that to happen my friends. I will not surrender. I will not surrender to al-Qaeda."

Speaking to 7,000 voters at Ohio State University, Obama answered McCain's mocking tone with his own. "McCain thought that he could make a clever point by saying , "Well let me give you some news Barack, al-Qaeda IS in Iraq.' Like I wasn't reading the papers, like I didn't know what was going on. I said, 'well first of all I DO know that al-Qaeda is in Iraq , that's why I've said we should continue to strike al-Qaeda targets."

He was just getting warmed up. Obama's foreign policy bona fides, after all, would likely emerge as a prime Republican line of attack in the general election, should the Illinois senator become the Democratic nominee.

"I have some news for John McCain, and that is that there was no such thing as al-Qaeda in Iraq until George Bush and John McCain decided to invade Iraq," Obama said, as the crowd roared. "I've got some news for John McCain! He took us into a war along with George Bush that should have never been authorized and should have never been waged. They took their eye off the people who were responsible for 9/11, and that would be al-Qaeda in Afghanistan that is stronger now than at any time since 2001."

"I've been paying attention, John McCain," Obama continued, the cheers growing so loud that the audience could hardly make out the words. "That's the news. So John McCain may like to say he wants to follow Osama bin Laden to the gates of hell, but so far all he's done is follow George Bush into a misguided war in Iraq that's cost us thousands of lives and billions of dollars...I respect John McCain but he's tied to the politics of the past -- we are about the policies of the future! Hes the party of yesterday -- we want to be the party of tomorrow."

Posted at 1:38 PM ET on Feb 27, 2008
Share This: Technorati talk bubble Technorati | Tag in Del.icio.us | Digg This
Previous: Sen. Dorgan to Endorse Obama | Next: Final Debate Changes Little, Though Earlier Ones Changed Obama


Add 44 to Your Site
Be the first to know when there's a new installment of The Trail. This widget is easy to add to your Web site, and it will update every time there's a new entry on The Trail.
Get This Widget >>


Comments

Please email us to report offensive comments.



Posted by: effexor 725 mg daily | August 21, 2008 2:04 AM

Posted by: wolfe effexor xr self magazine | August 18, 2008 4:39 AM

Posted by: antidepressants for anxiety | August 17, 2008 4:02 PM

yrviu fygctev btcwap
http://sandiego1.jvl.com/cymbalta-and-pain-management.html cymbalta and pain management

Posted by: cymbalta and pain management | August 16, 2008 2:25 PM

zldq zdbpv bwtpk
http://imnipiteh.150m.com/give-dog-prozac.html give dog prozac

Posted by: give dog prozac | August 15, 2008 2:42 PM

zldq zdbpv bwtpk
http://imnipiteh.150m.com/give-dog-prozac.html give dog prozac

Posted by: give dog prozac | August 15, 2008 2:42 PM

jfxqwe halmt yjgwpc
http://armsasdrcd.1freewebspace.com/bupropion-cymbalta.html bupropion cymbalta

Posted by: bupropion cymbalta | August 15, 2008 8:49 AM

Posted by: effectiveness propecia | May 11, 2008 9:43 PM

Posted by: effectiveness propecia | May 11, 2008 9:43 PM

Posted by: optimum propecia dosage | May 11, 2008 3:12 PM

knverzd zyrx jymsw
http://www.yourhealthforum.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4600 buy ultram without prescription

Posted by: buy ultram without prescription | May 11, 2008 11:07 AM

knverzd zyrx jymsw
http://www.yourhealthforum.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4600 buy ultram without prescription

Posted by: buy ultram without prescription | May 11, 2008 11:04 AM

cezg ecatwpn dcyqnt iwrajd
http://www.yourhealthforum.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4514 100 er ultram

Posted by: 100 er ultram | May 11, 2008 10:22 AM

cezg ecatwpn dcyqnt iwrajd
http://www.yourhealthforum.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4514 100 er ultram

Posted by: 100 er ultram | May 11, 2008 10:21 AM

Posted by: is ultram addictive | May 11, 2008 7:44 AM

Posted by: is ultram addictive | May 11, 2008 7:43 AM

Posted by: 100mg er ultram | May 11, 2008 5:31 AM

Posted by: ultram order cheap | May 11, 2008 3:22 AM

Posted by: 50 mg tablet ultram | May 10, 2008 6:45 PM

jbucw vrneyd mngcjf runyc zunfxb gspiv brhi http://www.lysiukrp.vqkj.com

Posted by: rpyg sfxz | April 16, 2008 1:51 PM

jbucw vrneyd mngcjf runyc zunfxb gspiv brhi http://www.lysiukrp.vqkj.com

Posted by: rpyg sfxz | April 16, 2008 1:51 PM

nudwrjgmo dqxhk stzu vcitduy xpqcmek zfcmuk yubprtlcq

Posted by: wxcdar mouljzfq | April 16, 2008 1:49 PM

AHA! OBAMA REFUSES ISLAM! HE PRETENDS TO BE A UCC CHRISTIAN? SINCE WHEN? AND WHAT KIND OF LIBERAL CHURCH IS THIS?

BUT, BY THE WAY:

IS OBAMA CIRCUMCIZED? AT WHAT AGE DID HE GET IT AND WHAT KIND OF CIRCUMCISION STYLE AND CEREMONY TOOK PLACE? LET HIM REPLY AND POST THE PICTURE.

EVERYONE IS FREE TO JOIN ANY CULT THEY WANT, BUT NO ONE RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT IS FREE TO FOOL THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WITH A CLOSET AFFILIATION, A SECRET ALLEGIANCE AND A HIDDEN AGENDA.

FOR THE SHARIA PWERS THAT BE, OBAMA IS THEIR THING, THEIR OBJECT. OBAMA MAY CLAIM THAT HE DOES NOT BELIEVE IN SHARIA, BUT HE IS POWERLESS AGAINST THEM, AND THEY HAVE ALL THE LEVERAGE AGAINST HIM.

NOT FOR US. THANKS BUT NO THANKS OBAMA. THERE ARE OTHER MORE RELIABLE CANDIDATES.

Ovadia Salama, Ph.D.

Posted by: ovadia.salama | March 11, 2008 6:24 PM

mplark:

I'm right here.

Posted by: JakeD | March 3, 2008 11:08 AM

i went to obama's rally in ohio it felt like a church cermon. nothing was said to convince me. i need a doer not a talker. words are cheap.
Ralph Nader will get many democratic votes in the general elections if obama will be the nominee and the republicans will win again

Posted by: clinsupor | March 3, 2008 12:46 AM

i trust hillary clinton at 3 am in he morning i don't trust obama he is too close to the muslims

Posted by: clinsupor | March 3, 2008 12:34 AM

Rat-the is a mere idiot. Why waste your time asking him anything? How many of you are willing to continue losing your sons and daughters in Iraq, or if you have no sons or daughters there, how many American lives do you want waste in a war that would not happened in the first place were it not for the likes of Bush, Clinton and McClain. I, like John McClain am a navy veteran and was myself deployed to Vietnam at the time he was shot down. At that time, his father, Admiral John S. McCain, Jr., was the Seventh Fleet Commander whom I saw many times.

By calling Obama Barack Hussein shows the worst kind of stupidity and ignorance. I wonder how many of you so willing to waste American lives in Iraq have ever even been in the military and are dumb enough to see war as some type of grand adventure.

Posted by: williamroberson180 | March 2, 2008 3:50 PM

Hey, where's JakeD?

Out polishing his Ay-Kay, I suppose.

Posted by: mplark | March 2, 2008 12:43 PM

Sen. Obama said that he would bring all the troops home in 16 months. He has also said that he will,

(1) secure the Iraqi borders
(2)to stop the sectarian violence
(3)continue to run combat Ops against al-Qaeda

With what troops?

Posted by: sam51 | March 2, 2008 11:14 AM

National Security? No attacks on Americans since 9/11? Hogwash. The only difference is that we have been sending our people to their neighborhood for them to attack there. Why would they attack Americans here and create unity when they can kill and maim Americans there while creating disunity and divisions here. And the cost to us in ways other than blood has been far more costly to us than anything they could cause by an attack here. How many Americans and their families have been destroyed since we invaded Iraq? They will attack here when we no longer send our people to their place for them to attack. In the meantime the latest report is that crime in America is increasing...since Bush prefers to put cops on every corner in Baghdad while decreasing the number of police in our own cities. Security? Ask the person who was just robbed, beaten or had a loved one killed because no money was spent to protect the population, individually and collectively.

Posted by: Valjean1 | March 1, 2008 3:28 PM

I want to make a very interesting point about how the Republicans and Bush are going after obama already, when he is NOT the Democrat candidate for President. Do people think that he will be able to withstand their attacks when we get closer to the election... that is, unless he has the Republicans under his belt (somthing to think about!). Why would President Bush of all people choose to address somthing that obama said, it is irrelevant! obama is noone and in a couple months we can stop hearing about him, its been old for a while now. obama says he did not support the Iraq war, and yet he voted to support the funding for the war, is that not the same thing?

Unfortunately the media may believe that the American public is unintelligent and cant make their own deductions about the candidates. Doesnt it make you wonder why they are promoting obama as if he is the NEWEST CELEBRITY IN TOWN!". He is a fraud and I refuse to believe that this country is that corrupt, the only hope that I have left is in HILLARY CLINTON. People be aware of propaganda, it is very rooted in this country and any country with such power over the masses. I hope the Republicans rip him into pieces!!!

Posted by: mary_smairat | March 1, 2008 11:42 AM

In law - ignorance is no excuse. Nor is stupidity. Not ignorance of facts or history either. Saddam was more ruthless with al-Qaeda than with his political enemies. He butchered them. But even if they were there - in what way did they threaten the U.S.? Big lies and small lies - W.M.D. - Iraq as sponsors of 9/11. Lies knowingly told the American public and the world. Dubbya's Iraq catastrophe has been a recruiting agent for al-Qaeda beyond belief. If al-Qaeda is crushed in Iraq - how will that make America safer? Is it a co-incidence that Cheney's Halliburton has received over 100 $Billion of no-bid contracts? Oil, money, arrogance and lust of power for its own sake. Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld. And the world victimized as a result.

Posted by: amigo1926 | March 1, 2008 12:34 AM

Barak is a one-hit-wonder on the Iraq War. Somehow he knew better when our President told us in a State of the Union Address that intelligence was that Saddam was recently seeking nuclear material to build a bomb or give Bin Laden dirty bomb material.
There was a story about 900+ misleading statements along with and supportive of the above Address.
We know about the one-hit when he was a State Official not having to actually vote on it, but what about the other crisis he has faced? Oh that's right; he hasn't!

Posted by: CliffinWA | February 29, 2008 6:00 PM

The new word for Barak is Hillary Lite - minus the baggage, but light on substance and weak on National Security.
Bush's contempt of his foreign policy is just the tip of the Republican iceberg about to hit Barak

There are only two clear issues, UHC and National Security.
Somehow debating these is negatively attacking poor Barak and bringing down the Democratic Party!

The issue in Democratic domain is universal health care and despite Barak's attempts to suggest otherwise UHC is clearly dependent on Hillary. Hillary Lite won't do.

The biggest issue is National Security and will be fiercely challenged by the other party. What? Do you think if Hillary does not bring it up the Republicans won't either?

Barak did not flip-flop fast enough (in the debate) on reaching out to dictators as President. Bush hit him soundly as warm up practice before Obama could cover his naivety.

Posted by: CliffinWA | February 29, 2008 4:46 PM

Bush assured the nation that Saddam had WMD and was willing and able to use them on a moments notice. MCs (Members of Congress) assumed the president had concrete information not available to others and gave him the benefit of the doubt. Time and events revealed that that assumption and benefit of the doubt was obviously misplaced. McCain say he still supports the invasion even knowing what he knows today. I think it would be interesting to now poll all MCs whether they support the invasion knowing what they know today. Yes or no. Not how it was progressed. The decision to invade. Do they support McCain in his "knowing what I know today I would still invade" view? If so, then the follow up is Why?

Posted by: Valjean1 | February 29, 2008 12:12 PM

Beside the serious debates on the war and economy, I hope reporters are paying attention to underhanded tricks. The spectacle of girls fainting at Obama's rallies has a feel of tricks to slow the Senator down as he rallies the crowds. The first time I saw it happen--in New Hampshire--it was clear the fainting girl put him off his stride and the rally lost a lot of steam because everyone waited many long minutes for a medical response. This girl recovered and vanished. How many of such fainters are pro-Hillary tricksters put up to "pause" the Senator's rallies?

Posted by: shirleylim | February 28, 2008 3:36 PM

Nominating Obama would be the biggest favor the Democrats could do for McCain, second only to going into their convention without a nominee at all (Clinton vows to fight on)

Obama claims to want to bring the parties together. How many times has he reached across to a republican senator to get legislation done? .... Zero
How many times has he voted for a piece of republican sponsored legislation?.... Zero
Dis he join with other Democratic and Republican leaders in the Gang of 14 to break the deadlock in the Senate? ... No

How would he deal with Iraq in real terms, would he set a date and tell everybody we were leaving? How many 747s would it take to get every soldier and contractor out. 1000? 2000? Can the Baghdad airport handle that many?
What do you with all of the equipment? Give to the insurgents? (Because you know the government would collapse) Would you put it all on ships and bring it home? (Do we have that many ships capable) Then what happens when Iraq devolves into chaos? Send them all home?

This man is naive, MacCain is more bipartisan than Obama ever was.

Posted by: brian68dee | February 28, 2008 1:32 PM

Vote for McCain and send your kid to war, a preemptive war that has nothing to preempt, which is the kind he supports apparently. Given the choices I support President Gore. The Dems need to get real.

Posted by: Valjean1 | February 28, 2008 11:03 AM

May I suggest that the user rat-the be banned from this forum ? Thank You.

Posted by: barakobahamas | February 28, 2008 7:51 AM

Barack Insane Obasama-Congressional Lawyer specialized in Constitutional Law.

John McCain-American Hero specialized in American Military.

Both are running for the Job of Commander in Chief.

Only one is remotely Qualified.

Barack Obasama, I think I hear your Mother calling! Something about "It is time to stop playing, and come inside"!

World behold: RAT-The!

Posted by: rat-the | February 28, 2008 2:20 AM

President Gore. Has kind of a nice ring to it. Time for the Dem convention to select a winner.

Posted by: Valjean1 | February 28, 2008 1:04 AM

Besides, in Iraq, they're mostly fighting with each other, and they don't have the capability to attack the U.S. We probably need to let them slug it out and resolve their own issues, and meanwhile provide humanitarian aid to any refugees. Humanitarian aid is a lot cheaper and more effective than military occupation. Also, our presence prolongs discord, because any side that works with Americans is then suspect as being American-influenced and not legitimate.

Posted by: yihe94703 | February 28, 2008 12:59 AM

You know, we withdrew from Vietnam with horrid fears about communists and "losing" (whatever that means). Well, Vietnam healed itself when left alone, and now it's a lovely country to visit.

Posted by: yihe94703 | February 28, 2008 12:55 AM

I have to put my two cent in, Mccain is a military man that voted for the war in Iraq, saying he will be a better President because of his war service, I come from a military family, we need to bring our troops home, what about the children, wives, mothers, fathers that haven't seen their kids, because of 2, 3, 4 tours to Iraq, and the many that have lost their lives, Mccain is all about wars, he said we would probaly be in Iraq 100 years, our military is at it's breaking point, a vote for Mccain is just an extention of a another war, my heart goes out to all the families that have suffered under the Bush administration, we need a new direction.

Posted by: cuteshytown | February 28, 2008 12:51 AM

Shrink2 - I certainly hope that everyone is on the same side to reduce human suffering, and I am honored to have anyone recognize that military efforts, and those who partake in them, are committed to do the enormous task of reducing human suffering. If you have been working with veterans, I am sure that much of their frustrations come from the conflict and difficult job that they have to do. The men and women that I had the honor of serving with more often than not chose to do the hard right rather than the easy wrong.

My objection to Obama is that this is not the time learn on the job or to gamble on the hope that the next President will stand up and do the hard right. I don't want to make fun of Obama, but I do want a record of accomplishments and a demonstration that he is willing to the hard right, stand up against his base, and to be candid with the American people about the choices we face. Thus far, Obama has disappointed me on every front.

In 2006, Democrats ran for congress because the Republican leadership refused to do its job and exercise its oversight responsibilities. That Senator Obama claims he can not hold oversight of NATO efforts in Afghanistan because he is to busy on the campaign trail, this is a sustenance failure and a demonstration that he places his political ambitions ahead of his responsibilities. He has missed important votes, like on Iran, and has consistently refused to stand up to the most liberal elements of his party like Moveon.org that insulted every person in a uniform by calling General Petreaus a traitor. He has never joined those moderates in both parties seeking to end the politics as usual such as the gang of 16 in judicial appointments, or even on the immigration bill. If he is unable to execute his job as a senator representing the people of IL, he should resign rather than use his campaign as an excuse for not doing his job.

There is a long history of Obama not living up to his rhetoric here in Chicago and delivering or supporting much needed change in our governments. They are some of the most corrupt and incompetent in the nation, and he has consistently endorsed and benefited from his association with the likes of Rezko. The unethical, self-described 'boneheaded' association with Rezko in the purchase of his home, in which it appears he benefited by hundred of thousands of dollars, is not the kind of change America needs - it is the same kind of petty corruption that those of us who served in Iraq are all too familiar with.

The torture issue is not a trivial issue. The Chicago Police Department for years used torture under commander Burge. The top law enforcement official in Cook County at that time was State Attorney Richard J. Daley, now the mayor of Chicago. Obama has never called for some accountability of Mayor Daley's turning a blind eye toward the torture that occurred within a US city police department, why would we believe he is going to call for change within the CIA?

Senator McCain has consistently demonstrated that he puts his principles ahead of his political fortune. He clearly stands head and shoulders above Obama on being able to deliver on the much needed reforms and leadership this nation needs. Obama seems to me to the individual tied to the politics of the past, refusing to stand up to vested interest that have corrupted politics throughout IL, and seeking a position that he is clearly unqualified for.

That some of McCain's supporters choose to concentrate on the trivial issue or perceptions, wrong perceptions, because of his last name is not the way to beat Obama at the poles. Focusing on the issues, and that this nation needs a leader with a record of fighting the vested interest that have corrupted our politics, a leader willing to take tough stands despite their political consequences, and a leader who will be candid about the situation we face on the war front is what this nation needs. Cheap shots, political grandstanding, and empty slogans are not what this nation needs.

Do the right thing and support McCain.

Posted by: clawrence35 | February 27, 2008 11:31 PM

Oh this is fun to read - and I want to add an idiots rant to some idiot ranters comment.

Our Great Nation, The United States of America, was founded because we threw off the tyranny of King George 3rd of England.

Did you hear that-King GEORGE. All Georges MUST be crooks ! Damn .. am I glad I voted for an Al ... Now about that Hussein guy - it's a good thing a Hussein never ever attacked me. In fact he never helped, aided or abetted in anyway the guys who did attack my Great Nation!! Nope - My country was attacked by friends of - you GUESSED IT - Friends of GEORGE! The Saudi's and their Bin Laden's who've done business with George's family for years ! Well - We know Georges are bad, and since Hussein never attacked me and are enemies of George, I will Back the enemy of my Enemy - Go Barack Hussein Obama in '08 !!!

Posted by: jdolza | February 27, 2008 11:16 PM

Rat is a much lower form of rat.

Posted by: dhhd4 | February 27, 2008 10:58 PM

I cant wait to watch the GOP try to use their tired old attack machine on Barack Obama and watch it blow up in their faces.
- Muhahahahahaaaa - this is gonna' be fun to watch. - All the uncontrollable Jethros running around spouting hate and cheezy backwards blather while McCain tries to distance his campaign from them... Muhahahahah! - I cant wait !

Posted by: PulSamsara | February 27, 2008 10:07 PM

For the good of the country and party, Billary must put their self entitled narcissism aside now and stroll into the sunset.

Obama, the Democrats and Independents do not need a two theater war. One against the ugly smears from Billary and another against Lieberman/McCain.

Posted by: ben2 | February 27, 2008 9:36 PM

ovadia.salama

Wooo oooohh
Soo scary.

Hillary is toast so just give up.

Posted by: shrink2 | February 27, 2008 9:15 PM

ISLAM is a PATRILINEAL religion (passed down through the father). Furthermore, if any Moslem, such as Obama's father, marries a woman from a "Religion of the Book", the children, by Shari'ah (Islamic) law , are considered Moslem by nature. Therefore, Obama is Moslem, as are his father and his grandfather. Period.
People like Obama, swiching from Islam to another religion are still forever recognized as Moslems. Those "kaafir" (renegades) are automatically condemned to a sure death by "Fatwa" (Shari'ah law decree), in this World and in the Next.
Hussein Obama, who lived among Moslems from ages 6 to 10, cannot pretend ignoring these facts. So, please Obama, stop try fooling people for an unclear motive, stop the masquerade, spare the USA from being ruled by a living-dead President, and just QUIT this race immediately.
Ovadia Salama, Ph.D

Posted by: ovadia.salama | February 27, 2008 8:35 PM

The side I was referencing had to do with human suffering.

You know, I have been so sure that the Clintons are wrong. Not so sure Obama is right.

I just started here by objecting to McCain making light of what is going on.

Obama has the ability to think and move very fast. He is going to win.

But the points you make are valid. People who have not lived in and around death and dying have no idea. McCain knows, but he should not make fun of Obama pretending. Clinton tried that. Obama will learn fast. Hillary and John McCain think they already know everything.

Ignore his wife. Obama can learn. Watching him learn has been fascinating.

I think he will figure out how to get our kids out of this faster than McCain. McCain needs to avoid all sarcasm in re war.

All over the world we see generals put on bad suits and sunglasses and declare themselves President. In this country we don't want presidents who think they are generals, let alone war marshalls.

Obama supporters think he has respect for what he does not know. We hope we are right. McCain needs to stop making wise cracks about war. It is scary.

Posted by: shrink2 | February 27, 2008 7:56 PM

This Al Qaeda in Iraq argument thing me nuts. Al Qaeda is only one of the factions fighting in Iraq, and a minor one at that. Were we to leave, there would a battle for turf, but it would not be won by Al Qaeda! The Shiite and Sunni Iraquis will never allow a takeover by an organization from outside Iraq! The argument that Al Qaeda will own Iraq is specious and McCain knows it, or should. That's why it's so discouraging that he advances this argument, playing to peoples' ignorance.
Barack Obama, a true student of world history and politics, knows better.

Posted by: thrapp | February 27, 2008 7:48 PM

Obama has said that he was going to bring the troops home within 16 months if he is elected. Now he says that he will "continue to strike al-Qaeda targets", how , with what troops?

Posted by: sam51 | February 27, 2008 7:11 PM

Sadly, I don't think we are on the same side. Senator Obama is nothing more than a fraud in my opinion, and he has done nothing of substance to live up to rhetoric.

This man for 13 months has had a position on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to influence and provide oversight of what we are doing in the war on terrorism - and Obama has been too busy campaign for his own political ambitions and is failing our troops. He has been in a position even longer on the Senate Veteran Affairs committee to influence our veteran services, and the best he can deliver is phone cards and a few free meals?

I thank you for your extended respect, and I hope that people can have a civil debate, but they need to look objectively at Obama. This nation needs leadership, not inspiration.

Posted by: clawrence35 | February 27, 2008 7:08 PM

clawrence35, well now I have nothing but respect for you.

If you are right, I sure hope you are, then fewer of you vets and your families and all the others who suffer as a result of poorly led foreign adventures will be created.

I think Obama will generate more peace and you think McCain will. We have no way of knowing, but we are on the same side.

Posted by: shrink2 | February 27, 2008 6:49 PM

shrink2

If you think I am going to be moved by your working with veterans, I am not. I myself am a veteran of Bosnia, Kosovo, and Iraq. I returned from Iraq and joined the Kerry campaign because they were arguing for a different strategy, to not engage in war on the cheap, and to carry through on our commitments to our troops and to the Iraqi people.

It takes time to create a safe and secure environment within a post-conflict environment. It did in Bosnia - and as we are seeing in Kosovo, the political decisions and reconciliation can take decades. The idea that we are going to abandon the Iraqi people to a fate of being ripped apart by factional and regional powers that are beyond their ability to control is completely un-principled from the Democratic Party that I belonged too.

I have been called a traitor by liberals because I want to support our troops, a communist by the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" because it they were liars who destroyed an honorable man, and I will stand up and do the right thing and support John McCain, regardless of how much the cultish following of Obama tries to belittle me.

If Senator McCain does use his military experiences to influence his decisions, good. He won't be so reckless with their lives, because it isn't academic to him. He can speak with authority on why torture is a "tool" that should never be used because he was a victim of it. He can also use his years of reaching across party lines to find common ground to address the most divisive issues this nation has to confront - not talk about getting a few free meals and phone cards.

I know in my heart Obama is not a change agent who is ready to be Commander in Chief. I don't care about party affiliation at this point. This nation is facing far too many critical choices, and Obama simply does not merit support for the highest office in the land.

If standing up and doing the right thing makes me a fool in your eyes, so be it.

Posted by: clawrence35 | February 27, 2008 6:36 PM

See clawrence!

J_thinks knows.

No one will defeat this country.
It is fantasy driven adventures that we are talking about.

Posted by: shrink2 | February 27, 2008 6:21 PM

All vets (me included) - are proud of serving, and proud of anyone who did. However, most military personnel resent being pawns in ANY game. They are not in on the decision to go, but go they do.

Fact is we are where we are, but just because you are at war - does not remove from the debate whether it was the right decision to go in or not.

I disagree with a staunch argument that we cannot let anyone shout from the mountaintops that we defeated USA. That is pure baloney - we are playing nation building and world cop at this point. Everyone knows if the "war" ended three weeks after it started, these guys dd not stand a chance against the US Mil, and teh world knows it.


Posted by: J_thinks | February 27, 2008 6:12 PM

clawrence35

If you don't think John McCain views all of his thoughts about the war in Iraq through the prism of his experience in Vietnam then it is you, sir, who is a fool.

Sanctimonious regard for veterans of wars that should never have happened does not show you are smart, or even caring.

Oddly, I am now working with veterans of this war and of Vietnam. It is real for me, it is my job. I am a psychiatrist.

Those who do not learn from the past are doomed; the party of the future will not keep fighting for nostalgic visions.


Posted by: shrink2 | February 27, 2008 6:10 PM

Obama isn't going to be running against The Bush-Cheney team.

Senator McCain was an outspoken critic of the failed strategy of The Bush-Cheney team (including Rumsfeld) and advocated for the change in strategy that led to Gen. Petreaus being given responsibilities to be our ground commander in Iraq. They have made tremendous strides in Iraq since that time.

America needs to live up to its obligations toward the people of Iraq and our troops on the ground their to ensure they have future worthy of the enormous sacrifices so many have made.

To make yet one more failed strategic mistake and abandoned that country to be ripped apart by forces beyond their control would have a lasting impact on America's image abroad. You don't quit when the going gets rough. You don't step in (no matter how wrong the decision was) destroy a country, and then walk away simply because it was a bad decision.

Two wrongs don't make a right. Bush was wrong - so would be making Obama president and following his cut and run strategy.

Posted by: clawrence35 | February 27, 2008 6:09 PM

The above comments make me realize how ignorant most Republicans are. Someone says something smart and they're so dumbfounded all they can do is shout about 9/11, terrorists and think they're being insulting and politically tactful by capitalizing Obama middle name to make him seem like a terrorist. Man, I'm proud to be an independent.

Posted by: hellremnant1220 | February 27, 2008 6:06 PM

dowelm
USAEUR

Posted by: dowelm | February 27, 2008 6:02 PM

Hi folks !!!!
I was 3 times in Iraq (USAF PILOT) . . .
War sucks . Obama is right . Respect . Hillary voted for the war . I lost many friends over there cuz of her blunders . the GOP candidate gonna do the same stuff Bush did .
I understand many peeps writing here are RACISTS ...but i do believe that Obama is the BEST so far .
Leave aside your racist comments ...
Sean

Posted by: dowelm | February 27, 2008 6:00 PM

The Bush-Cheney team cut and ran from the war on terror in Afghanistan and chose to enter the box canyon of Iraq, for reasons still not provided. He complains of others that want to get out of that box canyon mess he made and return to fighting the terrorists that he left to grow and expand. It's Bush-Cheney who surrendered to the terrorists hiding in the hills and they have gained strength since, worldwide. Iraq has been nothing but a world class training camp for terrorists of many stripes, when it was not before we made it so.

Posted by: Valjean1 | February 27, 2008 5:54 PM

Obama's response was positively hot.

Go Obama!

Posted by: Charlene-K | February 27, 2008 5:53 PM

John, McCain, how exactly would you have won in Vietnam if you were President?

Posted by: shrink2


The Obama cult members are idiots. They talk about being members of the party of the future, and they are stuck talking about a vote in 2002 and trying to make arguments about things that occured before many of were even born.

They claim they honor the service of Sen. McCain, and then turn around and belittle the experiences of someone who spent over 5 years as a POW.

They are as ungrateful, and as unwilling to share in the sacrifices to defend our nation and its constitution as Sen. Obama and his wife appear to be. You can not claim that "just words" are important only when you want them to be. Stating that our fallen hero's have wasted their lives, that for the first time in your adult life you are proud of country. That you are honoring our wounded veterans by getting them a few free meals and a couple of phone cards, while they are denied the adequate medical care we owe them, as a measure of commitment to honoring our troops and their service to our nation. You can vote against the funding of MRAP vehicles and the other supplies they need to successfully execute their mission, and then blame the President (and I am no fan of Bush - who's incompetence has harmed our military immeasurably).

Obama lacks any demonstrated economic, diplomatic, or military experience to qualify him for President and Commander in Chief. I don't care how inspirational a speech is.

Party of the future - get real. His supporters are still talking about Vietnam.

Posted by: clawrence35 | February 27, 2008 5:52 PM

Obama is getting taken out of context here. The debate question was about a resurgence of Al Qaeda following a withdrawal. To those who keep referring to Sen. Obama as Barack Hussein in their posts: you ought to be ashamed. But I suspect that you have no shame. Yes, that's his middle name. But there is nothing honorable or decent in the way that you reference it.

Posted by: tom | February 27, 2008 5:34 PM

But I voted for Nader last time and... well...

You are correct, with Obama we can not know. But with all the others, we know for sure.

So many of us who have wrestled with this have watched him intently. We care, we think. We study.

It is creepy to be a caring, careful person and an Obama supporter. But it would be even creepier to be a McCain supporter and no one else matters.

As far as I can tell, McCain or Obama and at least as important, the people they choose to be designated leaders, will determine the fate of millions.

Posted by: shrink2 | February 27, 2008 5:21 PM

shrink2 said: No PhilTR. Lets simplify this another way.

Obama needs to be President, not McCain.

As noted elsewhere by me:

Barack's camp has been spectacularly successful at manipulating critics painting them as racists. Now his supporters claim he's bullet proof. I see this as a fatal weakness that will be exploited by the Republicans and our nations enemies if he is elected.

I'm anxious about voting for McCain as to me he represents fear, war and hate mongering. None of which is in our nation's interests.

Hillary seems to be falling behind and is likely not to be able to get the party nod.

So each day Nader looks more and more attractive.

Posted by: PhilTR | February 27, 2008 5:08 PM

LOL! Dimocrat Socialists are sooooooooo astute and thought provoking!

Profound! ;~)

Posted by: rat-the | February 27, 2008 5:07 PM

Check out this myspace page from an Iraq veteran:

http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=153807570

Those that we should be listening to are those that have a right to speak about this war. The men and women who have been there and have seen it first hand. Easy for generals, officials and McCain to tell us we should be in Iraq, we are succeeding in Iraq, we will never leave Iraq while sitting here in the states. Ask an Iraq veteran what they think. Go to the source.

Posted by: tronandlori | February 27, 2008 5:02 PM

No PhilTR. Lets simplify this another way.

Obama needs to be President, not McCain.

McCain glorifies another tragic disaster in the history of American foreign military adventures and today makes light (watch his face) of those who think this is dead serious.

Then Obama said:

"That's the news. So John McCain may like to say he wants to follow Osama bin Laden to the gates of hell, but so far all he's done is follow George Bush into a misguided war in Iraq that's cost us thousands of lives and billions of dollars...I respect John McCain but he's tied to the politics of the past -- we are about the policies of the future! Hes the party of yesterday -- we want to be the party of tomorrow."

McCain implied Obama will "surrender" to Al Q.

John, McCain, how exactly would you have won in Vietnam if you were President?

Posted by: shrink2 | February 27, 2008 4:57 PM

eebortot erroneously claims: "There was no Al Qaeda in Iraq because Osma Bin Laden and Saddam Hussin were sworn enemies. Hussin being the Suni and Laden being the Shi'ite. Get clue before you post! It is true!"

Obviously not true. Just because Saddam hated al Qaeda does not mean they were not in Halabja. It's really quite simple. Hard to accept but, quite simple.

And btw, I'm an Independent.

Posted by: PhilTR | February 27, 2008 4:54 PM

eebortot,

Almost correct: Saddam was SECULAR - alcohol, movies, music, etc. OBL is a Wahhabi fanatic who hated Saddam and vice-versa.

Posted by: vmathis | February 27, 2008 4:53 PM

There was no Al Qaeda in Iraq because Osma Bin Laden and Saddam Hussin were sworn enemies. Hussin being the Suni and Laden being the Shi'ite. Get clue before you post! It is true!

Posted by: eebortot | February 27, 2008 4:43 PM

I am a registered Independent and voted Republican all my life. I agreed with George Bush in invading Afganistan, but not Iraq. All we did in Iraq was stir up a hornets nest. Come this election I will be casting my vote for Barrack Obama and in 2012 I will be casting my vote for Barrack Obama. He is the man of people and the people's champion.

Posted by: eebortot | February 27, 2008 4:40 PM

Lets simplify this. Barack said that there were no al Qaeda in Iraq before the invasion. Obviously this is not true.

Posted by: PhilTR | February 27, 2008 4:33 PM

mjames2 with his cart stuck in the ditch laments: Moreover, captured Ansar members failed to confirm any link between Saddam and Al Qaeda.
"None of the former Ansar members remembers ever seeing or even hearing that Jordan-born Abu Musab Zarqawi was in Sargat, or anywhere else in the small Ansar enclave. Washington accused Mr. Zarqawi - "

So let me get this straight. al Qaeda did not exist with out Mr. Zarqawi?

Posted by: PhilTR | February 27, 2008 4:22 PM

mjames2

Posted by: PhilTR | February 27, 2008 4:15 PM

Indlouis, it was Republicans with military experience - like Tommy Franks and Donald Rumsfeld - who led the way in screwing up Iraq.

Posted by: bourassa1 | February 27, 2008 4:09 PM

Guys,
This is what you got to think if you continue to chat with rat-t.

"Respond to rat-t one time, shame on him, debate with rat-t endlessly, shame on me"

The guy lacks substance and one can NEVER win an argument with such people.

Posted by: jj2000 | February 27, 2008 4:08 PM

mjames2 while driving his cart off into the ditch said: "But the picture now emerging shows, too, how Washington exaggerated aspects of the threat from the 600 to 800 Ansar members."

Well I guess the article you site is dated as Ansar al-Islam continues to operate in Iraq to this Jan of '04 as noted by:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ansar_al-Islam

Ansar al-Sunna is an umbrella organization comprising former members of the Kurdish opposition group, Ansar al-Islam.

http://www.metimes.com/Security/2008/01/31/iraqi_forces_detain_militants/bf96/

And even up to today.

Posted by: PhilTR | February 27, 2008 4:07 PM

'Al-Qaeda, arguably, has been in Iraq since '01.'

Only if "arguably" means "not".

Posted by: bourassa1 | February 27, 2008 4:06 PM

comingawakening

I am with you.

This guy has a lot more under the hood than the Clinton crowd had in mind.

The Rs are all muttering "uhh ohh" this afternoon.

"What are we going to do, hey lets start by making fun of him! That'll work...won't it?"

Posted by: shrink2 | February 27, 2008 4:06 PM

rat-t
Mr Obama was not born in Kenya - his Father was. So whats your POINT???

If you were born in Russia but now live in the US and your daughter was born in America is she from Germany too????

Posted by: djwinfield | February 27, 2008 4:05 PM

At a Republican dinner in 1998, McCain joked.."Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly? Because Janet Reno is her father." Maybe the reason McCain was never promoted to Admiral is because Navy superiors had already witnessed enough of this man's "judgement." This tailhook brute who picks on children should not be the leader of the free world.

Posted by: soonipi6 | February 27, 2008 4:00 PM

rat-t
It is your opinion of Mr Obama but his experience at running a successful campaign is better that all of the candidates. I guess you were looking at Hillary's record becasue he has introduced bills and has had them pass Sufer Boy!!!
Got water in your brains??


Posted by: djwinfield | February 27, 2008 3:59 PM

lndlouis

I thought I was asking a rhetorical question but apparantly you would have voted for General Westmoreland had he run against Nixon. Right?

A "war management" problem. Is that what we face here? Better get the focus groups going. What will the public think of as an "objective positive". Lets establish some Benchmarks (again). Go away lndlouis.

Posted by: shrink2 | February 27, 2008 3:54 PM

bourassa1 said: "First off, it wasn't Al Qaeda, so no, Obama is still right. Secondly, it had never posed a threat to Americans, so it's irrelevant.

Thirdly, it was in the no-fly zone, out of Saddam's reach and jurisdiction. "

First, that the group "wasn't Al Qaeda" really doesn't matter. For all practical purposes al Qaeda had a foot-hold in Iraq since 2001. Second, it does matter as the group continues to operate in Iraq. For Repub purposes your distinction is irrelevant. Third, how is thirdly relevant to this discussion? al Qaeda, arguably, has been in Iraq since '01.

Cheers.


Posted by: PhilTR | February 27, 2008 3:49 PM

Obamacan here.

This is why I voted for Obama. Clinton could not have responded to McCain the way Obama did. Get ready to rumble.

I will turn it around. I don't think the Republicans know what's headed their way.

You under estimate Obama at your own peril.

youtube.com/user/comingawakaning/

Posted by: comingawakening | February 27, 2008 3:49 PM

Keep an eye on Barack Obama, get to know him and the views (for and opposing him). I monitor this site:

http://obama.myfeedportal.com/

For better or worse, he very well may be the Democratic nominee, so we better know what he really stands for.

Posted by: davidmwe | February 27, 2008 3:48 PM

djwinfield-Forgot to add:

Yeah, I am quite aware of the Happa Haole's Racial Background.

See, the phrase Happa Haole is designed to point out the weakness!

Barack Hussein Obasama is Half White! But, even that is not entirely true. Nomadic Muslims from Africa mixed with Caucasians traditionally are referred to as "Arab"!

They are what resides between Africa, and the Caucasus Mountains! ;~)

Posted by: rat-the | February 27, 2008 3:46 PM

The question is no longer who voted to go to war. That is a dead horse. Beating it is useless.

The question is, who is the best person to manage it now that we are there.

Answer - Who ever can prove they can manage it the best.

An inexprienced Senator
A more experienced Senator
A more more experienced Senator with a Military background

duh

Posted by: lndlouis | February 27, 2008 3:45 PM

Folks,
I think rat-the is right. I can't believe that I didn't notice (until rat so intelligently pointed it out to me) that Barack's last name sounds kinda like Bin Laden's first name. They must be of the same mindset and believe the same things. Ditto on the fact that Barack's middle name is the same as the last name of a dead guy that was evil. If their NAMES are the same, what ELSE about them is the same? I can't believe that Barack thought he could become president with such an obvious loyalty towards the terrorists. Now JOHN McCain must be a presidential assassin as Mr. Wilkes Booth was ALSO named John. And what about the white powdery drug, coCAINe. Rhymes with McCAIN. He must be a drug addict. And Hillary CLINTON has the same last name as that guy who was our prez in the 90's so they MUST be of the same... OK, bad example.
-Eric J. Wexler, sarcastically (in case it went over your head)

Posted by: ewexler1 | February 27, 2008 3:44 PM

Iraq is so bad that the Iraqi's do not know how to fix it. The FBI agent on 60 minutes said that Saddam said he had WMD's so that his enemies would stay away - America has destroyed that - we are using humans instead of stages. I feel that no matter if the US stays in Iraq for 100 years or if the US leaves in 60 days the muslims never forget. George Bush has dealt the American people a horrible HAND!!

Posted by: djwinfield | February 27, 2008 3:41 PM

djwinfield-Bad News! First Google "Kenya", and you will find it is one of the most Ethnically Diverse Countries in the World. There is no such such thing as a "National" Ethnic Dress!

Second, I support Barack Hussein Obasama right where he is, and possibly as a Supreme Court Justice(Eventually). He just has NO Qualifications to be running for President, one look at the scope of the Legislation he has ATTEMPTED to get RATIFIED-Not just Passed in the Senate, should be a serious "Wake-Up" Call to his supporters about what I am talking about!

Third, I am a Surfer, in my Forties, who is appalled by NASCAR, What-a-Rush Limbaugh, and Most Cable News Stations(The Source of the Spin!).

Sorry to say, I do not have a Gut, my Red Fur is well kept, and I have all my Teeth! ;~)

Wanna hear about the Hawaiian Islands, Southern Cal., or the Third Coast? ;~)

LOL! Katrina was FUN! Off the Flagship Pier in Galveston! ;~)

Posted by: rat-the | February 27, 2008 3:40 PM

PhilTR said :- hmmmmm... guess you never heard of "might makes right" and "the winners write the history books"?

mighty egytian tried to make it right by making jews slaves to work more. that never happened. mighty hitler tried to make it right by killing jews, that never happened. there is nobody as might in this world. there is only right or wrong.

Posted by: skirubak | February 27, 2008 3:38 PM

The "were they there first" discussion is irrelevant.

The American strategy is to draw them, to attract them there by being there (our kids are the phermone), then we destroy them there.

Same as Vietnam. We create a war in a place whose people we despise and draw the people whom we really want to bleed to that place. The idea is (1)our economy is so strong we "win" in the end and (2)the fight never comes to us so our innocents don't die.

So the economy is once again heading off to stagflation, our kids are dying as bait and the enemy will never stop fighting us, never, ever stop, as long as we are there...being bait.

Would you like to vote for this?



Posted by: shrink2 | February 27, 2008 3:38 PM

McCain's POW saga got old a very long time ago.

Being POW does not automatically make you presidential material.


Posted by: bobnsri | February 27, 2008 3:34 PM

Hey PhilTR, thanks for your link to the Christian Science Monitor.

What part of "possible" in "This group had possible ties to both Osama bin Ladeen and Saddam Hussein." do you not understand? Or as a true Bushie you are confused between 'what reality is' and 'possibly what reality is'.

For that matter what is the difference between "Taliban - style" and Taliban.

Are you the same person that told Bush there are WMD in Iraq?

Do comprehand the term "subjective"?

Do you have any reading comprehension capability?

Posted by: Facilitator | February 27, 2008 3:34 PM

Why doesn't anyone ask McCain how he plans to fill the ranks of the military for his 100 year war? At some point, there will be too few volunteers. Who would sign up to go fight a war that started 20, 30, 50 years ago by some long-forgotten president with Daddy issues? If the answer to his hundred year war is a draft, that's when voters go to the polls and tell McCain to GFH.

Posted by: GreenRich | February 27, 2008 3:33 PM

mjames2

Is this George Bush intelligence reporting this???

Posted by: djwinfield | February 27, 2008 3:32 PM

Rat-t
Let me remind you and others that Mr Obama mother was white and his grand parents. Also at least some other countries have an attire too wear to suggest which tribe they belong to but here in America you probably have a big gutt belly, long hair and wear your pants underneath your belly. What a disgusting thought urhhhhh!!!

Posted by: djwinfield | February 27, 2008 3:29 PM


I have some news for Barack Obama, if your sole qualification for being Commander In Chief is based one speech given in 2002 on the most important foreign policy decision of our time, that is the voice of someone tied to the politics of the past. This nation committed itself, and our troops, to the Iraqi people. If Senator Obama has been reading the papers (the same press that was imbedded with our troops and the Democratic party criticized for their 'good news' stories that allowed the Bush/Cheney administration to see everything through rose colored glasses in 2004), he should not be denying the success that the change of strategy that Sen. McCain pushed for, and that General Petreus has been successfully implementing, is having in Iraq. If he has been paying attention, he would know that the American people are not interested in empty slogans of 'mission accomplished' or 'change we can believe in' - we want someone who has the courage and leadership skills to salvage the misguided execution of the war in Iraq that has cost us thousands of lives and billions of dollars - that respects the sacrifices of those thousands who sacrificed their lives and not a policy that 'WASTED' their lives (just words). The politics of what could have been is not the politics of tomorrow, and constantly revisiting a vote that occurred when well over 70% of Americans supported our actions in Iraq and that an overwhelming number of Senators in both parties supported the resolution, is not addressing the problems of tomorrow.

Obama has stated that 'well first of all I DO know that al-Qaeda is in Iraq , that's why I've said we should continue to strike al-Qaeda targets." Is he going to accomplish that by withdrawing all combat forces? How about a whole lot of candor, and a lot less politics. People's lives are at stake - both Iraqi's and American soldiers - which is far more important than Senator Obama's political ambitions and silly political shots.

Posted by: clawrence35 | February 27, 2008 3:27 PM

There seems to be a concensus that Al-CIAida is in Iraq and other places. Can someone tell how these people are identified? (badge, uniform, signs...something)

The CIA created this bunch and used them to assist in the CRIME OF American History. WHen are you people gonna wake up?

Posted by: OneFreeMan | February 27, 2008 3:26 PM

Posted by: PhilTR | February 27, 2008 02:31 PM

"McCain will win this one as there was a Taliban-style group in Halabja, Iraq since Sept of 2001 as reported by the Christian Science Monitor on 03/15/02.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0315/p01s04-wome.html

This group had possible ties to both Osama bin Ladeen and Saddam Hussein."

Wow! I cannot believe how dumb some conservatives are. PhilTR fails to cite a later article from the Christian Science Monitor, the source he quotes, showing that the alleged links between Al Qaeda and Ansar were largely hyped up by Bush and co.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/1016/p12s01-woiq.html
"But the picture now emerging shows, too, how Washington exaggerated aspects of the threat from the 600 to 800 Ansar members."

"Ansar was once part of a long-term Al Qaeda dream to spread Islamic rule from Afghanistan to Kurdistan and beyond. But that idea was embryonic at best, and when US forces attacked Afghanistan in October 2001, Al Qaeda support for Ansar dried up."

Lo and behold, attacking Al Qaeda in Afghanistan in 2001, a just and noble military act, dried up support for Ansar. Attacking Iraq three years later had no effect on them, other than giving them American soldiers to target. See this from the same article:

"And instead of just attacking secular Kurdish authorities - the root motivation of Ansar and its predecessor Islamist groups - these cells may be shifting to an anti-US mission, in tandem with Saddam Hussein loyalists."

So the US invasion managed to unite Ansar (a Kurdish separatist group) with supporters of Saddam, who tried to eradicate the Kurds.

Moreover, captured Ansar members failed to confirm any link between Saddam and Al Qaeda.

"None of the former Ansar members remembers ever seeing or even hearing that Jordan-born Abu Musab Zarqawi was in Sargat, or anywhere else in the small Ansar enclave. Washington accused Mr. Zarqawi - whose leg was amputated in a Baghdad clinic in 2002 - of being Iraq's prewar link with terrorism."

So let's just put this and any other fake links between Iraq and Al Qaeda to rest, along with the fake claims that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction.

Posted by: mjames2 | February 27, 2008 3:24 PM

Last I checked, George Bush has only passed some 6 Bills since the 2006 Elections. Most of them were simply Spending Bills.

Which ones were Baracks?

Inquiring Minds do want to know?! ;~)

He has gotten no further than the Senate with most of his Bills, and Most of those were all related to Battle Stress!(Fatigue). :-(

Posted by: rat-the | February 27, 2008 3:22 PM

Barak is correct..

McCain equals Bush....and his tough talk about following Osama to the gates of hell and defeating Islama fascism will come at cost of more lives and money...McCain is a military guy, he's going to keep the money flowing to the crooks in our military industrial complex...which is really the reason Bush and Co. lied and fabricated evidence invaded Iraq in the first place

Average Americans are suffering terribly, our economy is in toilet, and the future looks dark..all the while the rich are getting richer and our government is being run by big corporations and lobbyist. All McCain will do is to perpetuate this...
arak offers hope and a new day..

Posted by: hebert | February 27, 2008 3:20 PM

PhilTR: "McCain will win this one as there was a Taliban-style group in Halabja, Iraq since Sept of 2001 as reported by the Christian Science Monitor on 03/15/02."

First off, it wasn't Al Qaeda, so no, Obama is still right. Secondly, it had never posed a threat to Americans, so it's irrelevant.

Thirdly, it was in the no-fly zone, out of Saddam's reach and jurisdiction. The only military forces operating in that area in 2001 were Americans and their Kurdish allies. Knocking over Saddam was completely irrelevant to Ansar-al-Islam. US forces could have easily walked in and destroyed it in 2001 - if they'd wanted to - without invading sovereign Iraq, without occupying the Arab Iraqi people's homeland and without coming anywhere near an Iraqi soldier.

Posted by: bourassa1 | February 27, 2008 3:17 PM


The knucklehead republicans commenting on this board, defending McCain and taking fifth-grade swipes at Obama really disgust me.

Why should anyone pay any attention to the people who gave us George W. Bush, who put us in Iraq and the dead in the ground there? Who shredded the constitution and the economy? Who presided over 9/11 by clearing brush and reading fairly tale?

These people had their chance. The person they gave us was George W. Bush. Which makes everything they say in this or any other election ... suspect, to say the least

Posted by: monk4hall | February 27, 2008 3:17 PM

People, best not to respond to Trolls like rat the, svthinker, JakeD and etc. I have always wondered if they are the same person? Forget people who use Caps Lock and multiple exclamation points.

It is time to focus, time to get after McCain.

Vietnam was an atrocity. This war is an atrocity. McCain's glorifiction of war is disgusting.

Posted by: shrink2 | February 27, 2008 3:17 PM

bourassa1, I believe the idea is to keep the bad guys on the run until they've been eliminated.

bradcpa, it's unfair to lump McCain with in the shortsighted strategies earlier in the war. Sen. McCain advocated more troops from Day 1, the strategic errors of this war go back to them wanted to fight with economy of effort, seems to me that he had the strategy right.

Posted by: kolbkl | February 27, 2008 3:15 PM

LOL! I guess attacking Obasama with his Name, is about like shooting Fish in a Barrel.

I'll rise to the Challenge!

I'll now consider the Quote "The Clothes Make the Man"!

Hey, Obasama! Nice Dress!

I still get a kick out of his petty excuse-"It's Traditional Attire".

Traditional for ALL Muslim African Nomadic Traders!

NOT, for Kenya!

Birdies of a Feather, Pray together! ;~)

Posted by: rat-the | February 27, 2008 3:13 PM

John McCain and the George Bush delusionist have totally screwed this deal up. It is refreshing to see someone tell the truth. The American people understand that this war was the greatest strategic mistake ever made. I guess there was a reason why McCain was passed over for Admiral. It seems he is a tactical not strategic thinker.

Posted by: bradcpa | February 27, 2008 3:11 PM

Obama worries me.
Is he ignorant, or a racist? He was very kind to Farrakhan, Obama referred to the leader of the deeply racist and probably worse Black Muslim cult with respect as 'Minister'.
I visited black muslim mosques many times for business reasons. What a unhappy bunch. They just stare and glower at you and mutter under their breath, and seem to have no sense of humor or joy in life. A friends son joined the black muslims, to my friends chagrin. His son has no freedom, he is told what to do, even his wife was picked for him sight unseen.

Posted by: dmbrooks1 | February 27, 2008 3:09 PM

McCain: "My friends, if we left, they wouldn't be establishing a base...they would be taking a country."

Really? So all that GOP talk about how Al Qaeda in Iraq is now on the run was just more BS then?

The supposed strengthening of the Iraqi govt and security forces hasn't worked? They could still be knocked over by a few hundred poorly-armed lunatics?

So the claimed improvements are all illusory and US forces are still just a band-aid on an open wound?

Thought so.

Posted by: bourassa1 | February 27, 2008 3:08 PM

To: Rat-The
"Irregardless" is n erroneous redundancy for the word regardless. That is just the tip of the iceberg. Your use of "Obasama" and then authoring a fictional dialog are other examples of your ignorance. Let's concentrate on real issues and not resort to name calling, cheap parlor tricks, or fantasy politics. I'm surprised that someone of your intellect can walk upright, let alone use a computer. As for November, never underestimate the power of stupid people in large numbers (see 2000, 2004).
-Eric J. Wexler, ewexler@yahoo.com

Posted by: ewexler1 | February 27, 2008 3:08 PM

aarondalton hits on a key issue. As much as the current administration can be faulted for not adequately planning for a post-invasion Iraq, the two Democratic candidates should be faulted for not adequately planning for a post-withdrawal Iraq.

Posted by: kolbkl | February 27, 2008 3:07 PM

John McCain is afraid of Bush. So he might not want to surrender to AlQaeda as he idiotically says. McCain backed off on bush's tax cuts, torture plan, rendition, Guantanamo, immigration. McCain is weak and easily caves in. He will follow Bush to hell because he will make the same mistakes. Iraq is a very bad mistake made by Bush and Cheney. Lying made it worse. Bin Laden is happy roaming in Afghanistan and comes out to taunt Bush from time to time. Bush should be ashamed of this - he has not gotten Bin Laden "dead or alive".

Posted by: mstratas | February 27, 2008 3:07 PM

Actually, Rat, several bills passed.

The Coburn-Obama Government Transparency Act of 2006

The Lugar-Obama Nuclear Non-proliferation and Conventional Weapons Threat Reduction Act

The 2007 Government Ethics Bill

Now go find a fact or two before posting.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | February 27, 2008 3:06 PM

We may be unhappy to be in Iraq now, but pulling out could make things much worse.

Even with the US in Iraq, Turkey has already invaded in the North.

Let me paint one scenario - we pull out and create a power vacuum, Sunni insurgents slaughter Shiite pilgrims (happening already), the Shiite Mahdi army responds with a real war of its own and Iran rushes in to support its fellow Shia. This goes so well that Iran basically wins and now controls its own oil supply *plus* the Iraqi oil supply.

In that scenario oil spikes to $200 / barrel. Gasoline in the US spikes to $6 or $8 per gallon.

Maybe the Saudis and the Emirates and the Egyptians don't like the idea of the Iranians owning all the oil and getting too powerful. Maybe Sunnis are getting massacred, so a coalition of Arab powers attacks Iran, which retaliates by bombing the Saudi oil fields. Hm. Maybe $500/barrel oil and $20/gallon gasoline?

I'm not saying that any of this will happen, but a President has to be prepared to at least consider these possibilities.

Clinton simply brushed off a question as to what post-withdrawal Iraq chaos as full of hypothetical assumptions. That's pretty scary because it suggests she's not thinking past the withdrawal plan at all.

Obama said he'd go right back into Iraq if necessary, but it's no simple to stop and start a war at whim.

My point is simply that it's very costly to be in Iraq, but it could be far more costly to flee Iraq precipitously.

I hope reporters and future debates ask lots of 'what if' questions to the candidates. And I hope that the candidates are brave enough to answer those questions.

By the way, one way to reduce the costs of the war might be to leverage technology. The costs of computers fall every year. As robots and automated vehicles take up a greater role in the US military, perhaps a President that holds the military's toes to the fire on cost controls and bids (i.e. someone like McCain) can start bringing down the cost of the war and the occupation by promoting more military robotics and bringing humans home...

Posted by: aarondalton | February 27, 2008 3:03 PM

As the ignorance spewed on here shows there is blind hatred in America as well as in the al-Qaeda camps. Perhaps you should all get together for one big cluster ****!

Posted by: AverageJane | February 27, 2008 3:02 PM

McCain is going to croke before the general election, so they better have a good baclk up.

No country for old men!!!!!

Posted by: Angela | February 27, 2008 3:02 PM

When we leave Iraq the Sunni, Shiites and Kurds will take care of al-Qaeda, they hate them more than each other.

Posted by: AverageJane | February 27, 2008 2:59 PM

rat-the said "Barack Hussein is very good at saying what People want to hear.

But what has he DELIVERED?

Squat! Not a SINGLE Bill of his has been Ratified and voted into law."

Rat, let me just say the computer should be used for more than just video games....use it to do research and you just might find that Obama has introduce/sponsored more legislation that has actually become MEANING law in the 2 plus years in the senate than either hillary or mccain....I could list it for you but then why take all your fun....

Posted by: Smoothjazz | February 27, 2008 2:58 PM

My friends, Sen. Mclobbyist is trying to have it both ways- the surge is a big success because of me: we are driving AQ out of Iraq but they are still there so be very afraid and vote for me?

Posted by: barnardj1 | February 27, 2008 2:58 PM

John McCain..."I've got some more news for you Barack; we will attack those pro-choice, gay loving, godless evolutionists in America with the same zeal that we attack Al Qaeda anywhere we find them. We'll have a hundred year war with them too. Huh?...ohhhh....If I may I'd like retract the ......"

Posted by: soonipi6 | February 27, 2008 2:57 PM

"rat-the"

That is the dumbest comment onthis page, you have no idea what you are talking about.

Posted by: tinalynnmcbride | February 27, 2008 2:57 PM

skirubak said: "But it is about what is right or wrong. If you stand on the side of what is right, people will follow you."

hmmmmm... guess you never heard of "might makes right" and "the winners write the history books"?

Posted by: PhilTR | February 27, 2008 2:55 PM

Hussein was also the name of one of America's strongest allies in the Middle East: King Hussein of Jordan.

Posted by: Christina3 | February 27, 2008 2:55 PM

when obama rightly remembered Jews standing for righteousness during civil right movements, i thought that is a great leadership. Well all can say that jews are the powerful now in US and that is the reason why he wants them. When he could have given any reason why he wants their support, he chose the reason of Jews standing for righteousness. He remembers what is right and what is wrong all the time. this world is not about white or black. This world is not about strong or weak. This world is not about rich or poor. But it is about what is right or wrong. If you stand on the side of what is right, people will follow you.

Posted by: skirubak | February 27, 2008 2:52 PM

Why does this guy always say..."I told you so!!".. So..what is your solution on the table? Withdraw??If that is your solution..God save this country!!!

Posted by: rationalthinker | February 27, 2008 2:50 PM

Oops. I got that wrong. The state department puts Al Qaeda in Iraq at 1% of the insurgency (not 15%). And the Congressional Research Service says AQI is responsible for less than 2% of the violence. The rest of the groups fighting in Iraq are tribal militias fighting for power in a country that we destabilized and in which we installed an incompetent and illegitimate (in the eyes of Iraqis) government.

Posted by: carchick74 | February 27, 2008 2:36 PM

McCain will win this one as there was a Taliban-style group in Halabja, Iraq since Sept of 2001 as reported by the Christian Science Monitor on 03/15/02.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0315/p01s04-wome.html

This group had possible ties to both Osama bin Ladeen and Saddam Hussein.

"The group - Ansar al-Islam - emerged just days before the Sept. 11 attacks on the US. It delivered a fatwa, or manifesto, to the citizens in mountain villages against "the blasphemous secularist, political, social, and cultural" society there, according to Kurdish party leaders. "

Barack is a bit too cocky and arrogant. Should be interesting.

Posted by: PhilTR | February 27, 2008 2:31 PM

It would really be in good fashion not to personally attack McCain, Obama, or Hillary. Stick to the issues, please!!!

Posted by: setariq | February 27, 2008 2:30 PM

"He's the party of yesterday -- we want to be the party of tomorrow."

That message, delivered well over the next 9 months will be all she wrote for John McCain.

Hmmm, I wonder if Obama knows how to deliver a message well...?

Posted by: BBpd | February 27, 2008 2:28 PM

Hey, Rat-the: Every single person who lobs a stupid reference to Obama's middle name between now and, say, January 2017 is a complete and total idiot. That includes you.

Posted by: jonfromcali | February 27, 2008 2:28 PM

John McCain is an old philandeering fool

Posted by: lgregory2 | February 27, 2008 2:26 PM

Hey rat-the,

You lost me at "irregardless". You must have dropped out of high school very early!

If Ol' Mac makes Iraq the issue, he will lose because over 60% of voters disapprove the McCain/Bush approach.

We don't want another 100 years in Iraq at $10 BILLION per month.

Posted by: vmathis | February 27, 2008 2:25 PM

>Barack HUSSEIN Obama

Your subtle and well supported argument has completely convinced me! Where do a sign up to the GOP?

Posted by: bloodynewspapers | February 27, 2008 2:24 PM

Sen. Obama's only solution to Iraq is that he (correctly) never wanted it. That's a great solution for 2002/2003, but doesn't do squat for anyone in 2008 and beyond.

The mess is there Senator, come up with a sane way to fix it, otherwise, please put away your "I told you so" foreign policy speech.

Posted by: kolbkl | February 27, 2008 2:23 PM

Um, did Americans accept defeat in Vietnam? In Somalia (was Muhammad Farid Adid ever captured)? You don't stay in an adverse situation that will only get worse and demoralize military morale for the sake of pride. Let me pose another question for all those who want to stay in Iraq, why aren't you volunteering for a 15 month tour of duty? Oh, wait a minute, I meant a 12 month tour of duty since the Army wants to reduce the tours by 3 months since the military is STRAINED as it stands at the moment!

Posted by: setariq | February 27, 2008 2:23 PM

An excellent response from Obama and 100% correct. Al-Qaeda in Iraq is only one of many groups responsible for the violence there. (I think the last estimate from the military was 15% of the fighters) They are only loosely tied to OBL. The only reason their presence has even been tolerated by some Iraqis is that certain insurgent groups think that they will be helpful to expel America. Once we are gone, Al-Qaeda in Iraq will not be as tolerated--after all, they are foreign fighters, and Iraqis don't want Saudis meddling in their affairs--nor will they be able to continue use the American occupation as their primary recruiting tool.

So nice to have a real choice in November!

Posted by: carchick74 | February 27, 2008 2:20 PM

Want to say, Shailagh Murray, that to now your account of this McCain-Obama exchange is the best I've seen across several sources. Thanks.

Part of what's involved here is that the war(s) have remained relatively uncovered in the context of the primaries, and not entirely out of consideration for Hillary Clinton's vulnerability. Here however we saw McCain trying to make political capital with an audience in East Texas, thereby opening quickly to what must surely be a central issue from now to November.

McCain seems to know who the Democrats' nominee will be. If Democratic partisans are clever, they won't linger long in internecine battle. Heroic though it may appear for Obama to be fighting a 3-front war, it's apt to occur to more and more Party loyalists that it's unbecoming and unwise for the Party establishment to force Sen. Obama to defend anti-war Dems against McCain with one hand while entertaining Nader and the Clintons with the other.

Posted by: FirstMouse | February 27, 2008 2:19 PM

You don't hire the arsonist to put out the fire he started. Time to end the 100 year Bush-McCain war.

Posted by: thebobbob | February 27, 2008 2:16 PM

Barack Hussein is very good at saying what People want to hear.

But what has he DELIVERED?

Squat! Not a SINGLE Bill of his has been Ratified and voted into law.

Against Iraq, but will still do what it takes-irregardless. Uhhh, Dims. Haven't you caught on to THIS Doublespeak YET? See: 2006, Dimobratic Platform. "We will get OUT of Iraq!"(When we can). LOL! ;~)

Barack Hussein IS an unqualified Poser, trying to get a Position he should NEVER have been allowed to try for!

Commander in Chief? LOL! I would feel sorrier for Barack Hussein having a Gun in his hands, than for anyone who he would need it to protect himself with! LOL! First President assassinated by his own Gun! ;~)

The thought of him directing a Military strategy is SCARY!

LOL! I can hear it now!

Obasama-"Send in the Marines"!

Sir, we need to get them there first, that requires the Navy.

"Then just attack them with the Navy!"

Yes sir, that is what you said.

"I said "Send in the Marines"!"

THEY, are Part of the Navy, but the Fleet needs to be deployed first-it is the Base of operations!

"Operations? How can we already need Operations? We have not even sent in the Marines YET! Did they get hurt in Training?"....

"Maybe I'll take them to Court instead"! ;~)

Posted by: rat-the | February 27, 2008 2:14 PM

Actually, there were al Qaeda operatives in Iraq before we invaded -- but that's besides the point -- al Qaeda is IN Iraq now. Barack HUSSEIN Obama's planned surrender is no plan at all. Americans do not accept defeat!

Posted by: JakeD | February 27, 2008 2:08 PM

McCain and the truth do not match. Does he want us to forget that Iraq did not attack us on 9/11? Or, has he taken so much money from the oil industry that he can't admit that Bush invaded to secure Iraqi oil fields for American oil companies? We need McCain to be President like we need Bush to have a third term -- the end of middle class America.

Posted by: owens1 | February 27, 2008 2:04 PM

McCain needs to back as far away from Iraq as he can at this point in time. It's won't be Obama who beats him in November, it will be his vote to go to war in the first place.
Obama has proven time and again to vote the way the majority of people in this country want to see done regardless of their political party. I am a republican and have been my entire life and I am casting my vote for OBAMA...As someone posted earlier, This is NO country for old me!

Posted by: Bulldoglover100 | February 27, 2008 1:51 PM

i've got some more news for john mccain:
this is

no country for old men

Posted by: shmaryahoopizzaman | February 27, 2008 1:48 PM

Obama said, "I've got some news for John McCain! He took us into a war along with George Bush that should have never been authorized..."

He is right and that is why people are going for Barack over John at this point;

Obama vs. McCain- The Internet Indicators:

http://newsusa.myfeedportal.com/viewarticle.php?articleid=48

Posted by: davidmwe | February 27, 2008 1:43 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 

© 2009 The Washington Post Company