Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

McCain Slams Obama Over Iraq

By Robert Barnes
BALTIMORE -- Republican presidential nominee John McCain repeated his charge today that Democratic rival Barack Obama lacks the "judgment" to be commander in chief, and that he pursues a path of retreat and surrender in Iraq.

In a speech before a National Guard convention Sunday afternoon, McCain praised the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan for their achievement, which was "even greater because they had to press on even as some politicians back home were telling America and the world that our cause was too hard, and all was lost, and retreat was our only option."

Chief among them was Obama, McCain said, who opposed both the war and the increased troop presence known as the "surge," which McCain insisted has so improved conditions that "victory in Iraq is in sight."

"Behind all of these claims and positions by Senator Obama lies the ambition to be president," said McCain. "What's missing is the judgment to be commander in chief."

He added: "In short, both candidates in this election pledge to end this war and bring our troops home. The great difference is that I intend to win it first."

Obama has called for drawing down the American presence in Iraq and redeploying some of the troops to Afghanistan, which he said is more crucial to the country's interests. He criticizes McCain for having no timetable to bring home troops and end the costly engagement in Iraq.

Obama spokesman hari Sevugan responded in a statement that "John McCain is so out of touch that he wants to keep spending $10 billion a month in Iraq indefinitely while the Iraqi government sits on a $79 billion surplus and our economy is in turmoil. His predictably dishonorable political attacks make even less sense, since even the Iraqi government has embraced Barack Obama's plan for success through a timetable that redeploys our combat brigades so we can focus on al Qaeda and invest in American jobs at home."

McCain acknowledged his role in sending National Guard troops to a fight they did not ask for.

As the son and grandson of Navy admirals, McCain said it was "nearly pre-ordained that I would find a place in my family's profession, and that occupation would one day take me to war."

But the Vietnam veteran said, "such was not the case for many of you. Your ambitions might not have led you to war; the honors you sought were not kept hidden on battlefields."

Nevertheless, he said, "You answered the call when it came; took up arms and served for your country's sake. You were and are the citizen-soldiers.''

By Washington Post Editors  |  September 21, 2008; 5:37 PM ET
 
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: 13 Cars for the McCains--and not all American
Next: Candidate Interviews Get '60 Minutes' of Prime-Time Attention

Comments

Ok, you guys, if you want to play the cut and pate game:
Obama, Not McCain, Shows Steady Hand in Crisis: Albert R. Hunt
Commentary by Albert R. HuntSept. 22 (Bloomberg) -- For the first time since 1932 a presidential election is taking place in the midst of a genuine financial crisis. The reaction of the candidates was revealing. John McCain, railing against the ``greed and corruption'' of Wall Street, won the first round of the sound-bite war. He came out with a television commercial on the ``crisis'' early on Monday of last week, and over the next three days gave more than a dozen broadcast interviews. He and running mate Sarah Palin would reform Wall Street and regulate the nefarious fat cats that caused this fiasco. It was a great start. It then went downhill as he stumbled over his record of championing deregulation, claimed the economy was fundamentally strong, and flip-flopped over the government takeover of American International Group Inc. For his part, Barack Obama didn't come across as passionately outraged and wasn't as omnipresent or as specific. More revealing, though, was to whom both candidates turned on that panic-ridden morning of Sept. 15, and how the messages evolved before and after that day. McCain called Martin Feldstein, the well-known Republican economist and Reagan administration adviser, John Taylor of Stanford University, who served in President George W. Bush's Treasury and Carly Fiorina, once the chief executive officer of Hewlett-Packard Co. Obama called former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker, and former Treasury Secretaries Robert Rubin and Larry Summers. It was a mismatch. Towering Volcker Feldstein, for all his intellect, was ineffective in the Reagan administration; then-White House deputy chief of staffDick Darman cut him out of important action. Volcker, first at the Treasury and then as chairman of the Federal Reserve, was a towering figure in every way. Taylor is a well-regarded academic. In four years as undersecretary of the Treasury, he left few footprints. Summers, as both deputy secretary and secretary, left a lot. Fiorina is smart and quick; to put it charitably, Rubin will forget more about financial markets than she'll ever know. When it comes to governance, and either Democrat Obama or Republican McCain will inherit this miserable financial mess, the best guide is who they talked to, what they said, where they've been, and how knowledgeable they are. Obama's record and earlier speeches belie some of his more populist rhetoric. Yet they also suggest, as do his advisers, a much more activist government role than is likely under a McCain-Palin administration. Comfortable With Subject Obama called for the overhaul of the financial-regulatory system and tougher enforcement well before this past week's traumas. Detached observers who watched him last week, especially in a Bloomberg Television interview, were taken by how conversant and comfortable he was on the subject, despite his thin record. Few detached observers came away with that impression watching the Arizona senator. Much of the re-regulatory fever focuses on the Federal Reserve and any new agencies created to clean up the fiasco. Central, however, will be a more vigorous Securities and Exchange Commission, or whatever holds that investor-protection function. McCain displayed a sudden interest in the SEC last week when he demanded that Chairman Chris Cox be fired. When his campaign was asked if the senator had ever criticized the current commission's performance before, they failed to respond. All For Obama Tellingly, three former SEC chairmen, a Democrat, Arthur Levitt, and two Republicans, David Ruder and Bill Donaldson, have endorsed Obama. Levitt is a board member of Bloomberg LP, the parent company of Bloomberg News. Donaldson, who was tapped by Bush to head the SEC, says Obama called him last year about the financial-regulatory problems. He has never heard from McCain. ``Obama has been talking about the need for better financial regulation well before this crisis hit and has done some real thinking about it,'' says Donaldson, a lifelong Republican. ``McCain comes across as someone who suddenly realized changes have to be made.'' There is a case for McCain: it's if you believe in less regulation, that the government should get out of the way and let the markets work their will. No `Real Understanding' ``I don't think anyone who wants to increase the burden of government regulation and high taxes has any real understanding of economics,'' McCain said this spring at an Inez, Kentucky, town hall meeting, where he also declared ``the fundamentals of our economy are good.'' Until recently, he repeatedly invoked Ronald Reagan's calls for less regulation. He voted for the 2002 Sarbanes-Oxley corporate-governance regulations -- then last year said he regretted that vote. McCain isn't averse to some regulations. He has strongly championed a greater federal role in campaign finance, tobacco and boxing. In each case, he saw a clear villain -- special- interest money, a tobacco product that puts profits ahead of lives, and unscrupulous boxing promoters. There has been little evidence that prior to last week he ever put financial firms in this category. Although he assailed excessive corporate compensation last week, McCain has opposed a tepid House-passed bill that would give corporate shareholders the right to cast a non-binding vote on compensation of top executives. Turning to Gramm The person he has turned to most for counsel on such matters is his ex-Senate colleague Phil Gramm. Gramm is a political Gordon Gekko, a brainy economist with a Darwinian view of markets and public policy. It's not easy to remember what the financial world looked like 10 days ago much less 10 months ago. Decisions that will be reached after this election will be the most important since the 1930s. On the financial crisis, last week belonged to Obama. (Albert R. Hunt is the executive editor for Washington at Bloomberg News.)

Posted by: CrazyMe | September 22, 2008 9:13 PM | Report abuse

"Get us out!"

Well, we are getting out.

I wish I had that file of quotes from ALL the Dem nabobs at the time, shrilling demanding that SOMETHING BE DONE ABOUT SADDAM !!

YOU ARE SO RIGHT!! - At the time I didn't think anything should have been done about Saddam I was shrilling about Bin Lauden but the Dem Assheads must have been shrilling louder and someone listened to them and not me.

Right on Chuckamonk I hate the Dems and the Libs and I really hate the Lib Dems.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 22, 2008 2:09 PM | Report abuse

My whole life I've been a dopey moron and mystified by the concept of the "undecided voter." and stuff I don't like. I've never had any problem choosing my candidates I'd pick the dopey canidate. I've never had any problem choosing my underwear either. But this year, I've been a real big dope and genuinely on the fence, partly because I'm a life-long dope and haven't been paying close attention, but mostly because I'm a dopey dope.

Posted by: M. Smother | September 22, 2008 2:01 PM | Report abuse

"Get us out!"

Well, we are getting out.

I wish I had that file of quotes from ALL the Dem nabobs at the time, shrilling demanding that SOMETHING BE DONE ABOUT SADDAM !!

McCain should be running those on billboards all around the country, just for some perspective on just who was calling for Saddam's blood, way back when.

Posted by: Chuchamok | September 22, 2008 1:59 PM | Report abuse

If there's no difference between Obama and McCain's truthfulness, I'll take white, Thank You....

Posted by: M. Smother | September 22, 2008 1:49 PM | Report abuse

I hate liberals and their spending and their haircuts. I don't hate black people but I like white people much more mostly because of the smells

Posted by: M. Smother | September 22, 2008 1:47 PM | Report abuse

I'm impressed that we have a war and a bad economy, we should be proud, it is dificult to do. I wish I lived where John and Cindy live. That place looked nice. What ever happened to his first wife? I like white people better then black, that's just me. Oh well, I say to each it's own and stay that way. No regulations on anything I think. McCain for President.

Posted by: M. Smother | September 22, 2008 1:41 PM | Report abuse

the only thing I don't like about McCain, besides the yellow teeth, is his running mate Palin seems blacker then Obama. All the unmarried sex and the teenage pregnancies and the meth and oxy cotton drugs and the funny names Trig and Willow. I'm still voting for him because Cindy seems very white

Posted by: M. Smother | September 22, 2008 1:30 PM | Report abuse

If there's no difference between Obama and McCain's truthfulness, I'll take experience, Thank You....

from the Washington Post-

Closing the Whopper Gap

By Ruth Marcus
Monday, September 22, 2008; Page A15

The symmetry of sin is suddenly looking more equal. Last week, I flayed John McCain for dishonesty -- flagrant and repeated dishonesty -- about Barack Obama's proposals. Obama was by no means blameless, I argued, but his lapses were nowhere near as egregious as his opponent's. I stand by everything I wrote.

But a series of new Obama attacks requires a rebalancing of the scales: Obama has descended to similarly scurrilous tactics on the stump and on the air. On immigration, Obama is running a Spanish-language ad that unfairly lumps McCain together with Rush Limbaugh -- and quotes Limbaugh out of context. On health care, Obama misleadingly accuses McCain of wanting to impose a $3.6 trillion tax hike on employer-provided insurance.

Obama has been furthest out of line, however, on Social Security, stooping to the kind of scare tactics he once derided...

To Democrats who worry about whether their nominee is willing to do whatever it takes to win: You can calm down.

Posted by: Scott | September 22, 2008 11:33 AM | Report abuse

We should never have invaded Iraq in the first place. None of the people involved in 911 were in Iraq. Its another Bush/McCain republican screw-up. Get us out! These folks keep administering first aid to all these different problems(Iraq, financial, economy etc.), but don't forget they are the ones who shot us in the first place.

Posted by: tom cassidy | September 22, 2008 10:19 AM | Report abuse

Barack Obama has ties to Crooks and Radicals:

Wright/Ayers/Rezko/Kilpatrick

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQ0cq4Nytu8

Posted by: Kip | September 22, 2008 9:54 AM | Report abuse

The Atlantic
September 18, 2008
An economist explains why he thinks McCain's economic policies make more sense
by Steven Landsburg

(Steven E. Landsburg (born 1954) is an American professor of economics at the University of Rochester in Rochester, New York. From 1989 to 1995, he taught at Colorado State University.)


Betting on John McCain

My whole life I've been mystified by the concept of the "undecided voter." I've never had any problem choosing my candidates and didn't see how anyone else could either. But this year, I've been genuinely on the fence, partly because I haven't been paying close attention, and partly because there seemed ample reason to dislike all of the options.
But over the past few days, as McCain and Obama have ratcheted up their rhetoric over each others' "disastrous" economic policies, I decided to do a little research. Along the way, I had a few surprises about John McCain's voting record, some but not all of them pleasant. Now I don't think I'm undecided anymore.
Here are some of the things that made my decision easy, and some that made it hard:
1. Free trade and immigration are my top issues, and McCain wins on both.
These are my top issues for several reasons. First, trade is the engine of prosperity not just for the United States but also for the poorest of the world's poor. Nothing matters more than that. Second, the instinct to care about the national origin of your trading partner (or employer, or employee, or landlord, or tenant) is an ugly one, and the instinct to care about the national origin of other people's trading partners—and on that basis to interfere forcibly with other people's voluntary transactions—is even uglier.
Finally, protectionism, like creationism, requires an extraordinary level of willful ignorance. The consensus for free trade among economists is approximately as solid as the consensus for evolution among biologists, and it is a consensus supported by a solid body of both theory and observation. To ignore that consensus betrays a degree of anti-intellectualism that frightens me.
McCain is quite good on this issue, not just in terms of rhetoric (which I've known for a while) but in terms of voting record (which I've just recently researched). Obama, by contrast, promises to be our first explicitly protectionist president since Herbert Hoover. Some intervening presidents (Reagan, Bush I, and to a lesser extent Bush II) have been weak in their commitments to free trade, but none between Hoover and Obama has so explicitly rejected it.
2. McCain is not Bush. This came as a surprise to me. I'd been assuming, in my ill-read, uneducated way, that McCain had been complicit in most of the great travesties of the Bush administration and the execrable Republican Senate. I've learned that's largely untrue. He voted (to my great surprise!) against the prescription drug entitlement, against the Farm Security Bill, against milk subsidies, against Amtrak subsidies, and against highway subsidies.
Obama, by contrast, is in many ways a continuation of Bush. Like Bush (only far more so ), Obama is fine with tariffs and subsidies. Like Bush, he wants to send jackbooted thugs into every meatpacking plant in America to rid the American workplace of anyone who happens to have been born on the wrong side of an imaginary line. Like Bush, he wants a more progressive tax code. (It is one of the great myths of 21st century that the Bush tax cuts made the tax code less progressive; the opposite is true. If you are in the bottom 38% of taxpayers, you now pay zero income tax—and therefore have an incentive to support any spending bill that comes down the pike.) Like Bush, he wants more regulation, not less.

3. But there's a lot about economics that McCain just doesn't get. This shows up most significantly in his energy policies. Every economist knows that the best way to discourage carbon emissions (or anything else for that matter) is to tax them. But McCain rejects a carbon tax in favor of one slightly inferior policy (cap and trade) and one grossly inferior policy (direct regulation, such as the CAFE standards for fuel efficiency).
In a world of perfect capital markets and perfect information, a cap-and-trade system (provided the government auctions off the permits rather than giving them away) is exactly equivalent to a carbon tax – same effect on everything down to and including the prices of consumer goods. In the real world we live in, it's inferior for two reasons: First, small firms might find it difficult=2 0to raise the necessary capital to buy a permit; this gives an inappropriate advantage to big firms over small ones. Second, I believe it will be harder (for technical reasons I won't go into here) to calculate the efficient number of cap-and-trade permits than to calculate the efficient per-ton carbon tax. Aside from that, the two policies are equivalent in every way. McCain presumably doesn't get this, or he wouldn't have such a strong preference for cap-and-trade.
Worse, he endorses the CAFE standards, which are just a terrible way to control carbon emissions. While a carbon tax gets incentives right at every decision point, fuel efficiency standards give people no incentive, for example, to bike to work instead of drive (in fact, they flip the incentive in the wrong direction). Worse yet, they concentrate brainpower on improving fuel efficiency when there might be far more effective ways to control carbon emissions; with a tax, all innovations are rewarded.
In his support of CAFE standards over carbon taxes, McCain betrays a serious failure to understand how incentives work. The same problem shows up when he thinks you can simply mandate campaign finance limits, as if people who are competing for control of a $15 trillion economy won't be creative enough to find some way to spend hundreds of millions in the effort, no matter how you write your laws.
4. McCain gets health care right. The reason poor Americans get too little health care is that rich Am ericans get too much. The reason rich Americans get too much is that they're overinsured, and therefore run to the doctor for minor problems. The reason they're overinsured is that employer-provided health benefits aren't taxed, so employers overprovide them.
It has been clear for decades that the single most effective way to control health care costs is to eliminate the tax break for employer-provided health care. According to one careful study by my colleague Charles Phelps (admittedly several years old, but I'm not sure anything relevant has changed), this single reform could reduce health care costs by 40% with essentially no effect on health care outcomes.
Essential as this reform may be, I'd always assumed it was a political non-starter. I was therefore astonished to learn that it's the essence of McCain's health care reform. (At the same time, he would give each individual $2500, and each family $5000, to use for health care.)
I am astonished that I hadn't heard about this, and particularly astonished that Barack Obama hasn't thrust it in my face with a negative spin. Possibly he has and I just wasn't paying attention. In any case, this is just what the doctor ordered, and I am delighted that McCain has put it on the table.
Obama, by contrast, wants poor people to get more medical care without addressing the problem of overuse by rich people. Where is that extra medical care going to come from? If the answer is "nowhere," then a primary effect of the Obama plan must be to raise prices, making doctors and hospitals the big beneficiaries.
Of course, there are other things that matter. Foreign and defense policy might matter more than anything, and if I were sure that one or the other candidate were far wiser about these issues, that might be enough to win my vote. But I have no expertise on these matters and no particular reason to trust my own judgment.
I'm sure I'm right about trade and pretty sure I'm right about taxes and health care, but that's because I've thought long and hard about these issues for decades. It seems to me that we ought to be humble about the things we haven't thought hard about, and for me that includes foreign policy. The best I can do is bet that whoever's getting most of the other stuff right is getting this right too.
The bottom line is that I support John McCain. With trepidation.

Posted by: Scott | September 22, 2008 8:47 AM | Report abuse

Why is McCain losing steam, could it be that too much has come out about Palin? Is Sarah Palin's scandals finally pulling down the mccain ticket??
http://www.veeppeek.com

Quote from someone close to Palin.
"Im a redneck, if you got a problem with that Ill kick your a@@.
http://www.hotpres.com I dont know? She just doesnt seem presidential to me.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 22, 2008 8:17 AM | Report abuse

"since even the Iraqi government has embraced Barack Obama's plan "

I wouldn't admit that if I were you, since, essentially, it meant that Obama has indeed violated the Logan act.

Posted by: pete | September 22, 2008 8:00 AM | Report abuse

UNDERSTANDING ECONOMICS – WHO NEEDS IT?

Not long ago, McCaint stated to a journalist that, “Economics isn’t my strong suit.” But, he added, he is reading Greenspan.

That would be Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan who, during his tenure, expanded the money supply more than in all the years since 1913.

The Greenspan who kept the printing presses running at warp speed, turning out little pieces of paper called money and backed by the promises of politicians. Alan the Inflator fueled the dotcom bubble, the stock market bubble, and more recently the real estate bubble.

It is no wonder that the LONDON ECONOMIST recently pegged 2007 true U.S. inflation at 17%. Just what we need – another president who is an economic illiterate. It’s small consolation that McCain admits it, because if elected, he’d appoint the wrong advisors.

....What?????

The Candidate does not speak for the Campaign......

Posted by: AlexP1 | September 22, 2008 7:54 AM | Report abuse

--Factcheck.org------------------------------------------

Obama's Social Security Whopper
September 20, 2008
He tells Social Security recipients their money would now be in the stock market under McCain's plan. False.
Summary
In Daytona Beach, Obama said that "if my opponent had his way, the millions of Floridians who rely on it would've had their Social Security tied up in the stock market this week." He referred to "elderly women" at risk of poverty, and said families would be scrambling to support "grandmothers and grandfathers."

That's not true. The plan proposed by President Bush and supported by McCain in 2005 would not have allowed anyone born before 1950 to invest any part of their Social Security taxes in private accounts. All current retirees would be covered by the same benefits they are now.

Obama would have been correct to say that many workers under age 58 would have had some portion of their Social Security benefits affected by the current market turmoil – if they had chosen to participate. And market drops would be a worry for those who retire in future decades. But current retirees would not have been affected.

Analysis
In our "Scaring Seniors" article posted Sept. 19 we took apart a claim in an Obama-Biden ad that McCain somehow supported a 50 percent cut in Social Security benefits, which is simply false. Then, on Saturday Sept. 20, Sen. Barack Obama personally fed senior citizens another whopper, this one a highly distorted claim about the private Social Security accounts that McCain supports.


What Obama Said


In Daytona Beach, Florida, Obama said in prepared remarks released by the campaign:

Obama, Sept. 20: And I'll protect Social Security, while John McCain wants to privatize it. Without Social Security half of elderly women would be living in poverty - half. But if my opponent had his way, the millions of Floridians who rely on it would've had their Social Security tied up in the stock market this week. Millions would've watched as the market tumbled and their nest egg disappeared before their eyes. Millions of families would've been scrambling to figure out how to give their mothers and fathers, their grandmothers and grandfathers, the secure retirement that every American deserves. So I know Senator McCain is talking about a "casino culture" on Wall Street - but the fact is, he's the one who wants to gamble with your life savings.

That's untrue. All current retirees would be covered by exactly the same Social Security benefits they are now under what the Obama campaign likes to call the "Bush-McCain privatization plan," which Bush pushed for unsuccessfully in 2005.


Who Would Have Been Affected


As the White House spelled out at the time, on page 5 of the document titled "Strengthening Social Security for the 21st Century," released in February 2005:

Bush Plan: Personal retirement accounts would be phased in. To ease the transition to a personal retirement account system, participation would be phased in according to the age of the worker. In the first year of implementation, workers currently between age 40 and 54 (born 1950 through 1965 inclusive) would have the option of establishing personal retirement accounts. In the second year, workers currently between age 26 and 54 (born 1950 through 1978 inclusive) would be given the option and by the end of the third year, all workers born in 1950 or later who want to participate in personal retirement accounts would be able to do so.

Nobody born before Jan. 1, 1950 could have participated, and anyone born on that date would be 58 years old now. The earliest possible age for receiving Social Security retirement benefits is 62, for early retirement at reduced benefits. Full retirement age is currently 66, and scheduled to go up to age 67 in coming years.

It is certainly true that the stock market carries risks, as recent events remind us. The Dow Jones Industrial Average is down nearly 17 percent for this year, for example, and despite gains in other years it is still barely above where it was at the start of 2000. But historically there have also been rewards for those who make diversified investments and hold for long periods. When Obama spoke, the Dow Jones average still stood 305 percent higher than it had at the start of the 1990's.


Disappearing nest eggs?


Also worth noting here:

The private accounts would have been voluntary. Anybody fearful of the stock market's risk could simply stay in the current system.


Obama's reference to "casino culture," disappearing "nest eggs" and gambling with "your life savings" are also misleading exaggerations. Only a little over one-fourth of any workers' total Social Security taxes could have been invested (a maximum of 4 percent of taxable wages, out of the total 15.3 per cent now paid, split equally between worker and employer.)


Speculation in individual stocks would not have been permitted. Workers would have had a choice of a few, broadly diversified stock or bond funds.


While McCain has voted in favor creating private Social Security accounts in the past, and endorsed Bush's 2005 proposal (which never came to a vote in Congress), he is not making a strong push for them as part of his campaign. In fact, a search for the term "Social Security" on the McCain-Palin Web site brings up the following: "No documents were found."

Footnote: When we contacted the Obama campaign for comment, spokesman Tommy Vietor defended Obama's remarks as accurate:

Vietor: You don’t have to be retired to rely on Social Security. Millions of people who will one day retire rely on Social Security as they plan their future. Senator Obama's bottom line is absolutely true. If McCain got his way and we had private accounts . . . people who are relying on that money for their retirement would be in a very difficult situation.

We would grant Vietor a point if Obama had made any mention of workers being fearful of their future retirement (although this would apply only to those who had chosen to participate in private accounts, and not to everybody.) But Obama did not say that. Instead, he referred to "elderly women" in danger of poverty. He spoke of families "scrambling to figure out how to give their mothers and fathers, their grandmothers and grandfathers" a secure retirement – not to families worrying about their own retirement. If Obama did not mean what he said to be a reference to current retirees, he could say so clearly and amend his words.

-by Brooks Jackson
Sources
The White House, "Strengthening Social Security for the 21st Century," Feb 2005.

Dow Jones & Co. "Dow Jones Industrial Average Historical Performance" Spreadsheet accessed 20 Sep 2008.


Related Articles
Scaring Seniors
An Obama-Biden ad says McCain supports "cutting benefits in half" for Social Security recipients. False!
Bush Proposes Slowing Growth of Social Security Benefits for Future Retirees
Democrats call it a "cut." Compared to what?

Posted by: Scott | September 22, 2008 7:53 AM | Report abuse

McCain as usual brings up old arguments yet, swears up and down Hw is about change...That's change that's pocket

From "Fact Of The Matter"

http://www.need4trth.blogspot.com

Sunday, September 21, 2008
Does the Press Indeed Fear McCain and the Rebushagain Party?
As you will note in almost every POST, one question I continuously ask myself is this, "why does the press suppress the TRUTH about John McCain and not report on it? Why is the press that he receives almost 70% positive or apologetic or advice for him, when in fact the things that he does are not very positive at all. His stances against a woman's right to choose, his desire to overturn Roe vs Wade, his desire and agreement with conservative talker Michael Medved on doing away with the Department of Education, doing away with the Department of agriculture, (side note:

Republican presidential candidate John McCain opposes the $300 billion farm bill and subsidies for ethanol, positions that both supporters and opponents say might cost him votes he needs in the upper Midwest this November.His Democratic rival, Barack Obama, is making a more traditional regional pitch: He favors the farm bill approved by Congress this year and subsidies for the Midwest-based ethanol industry. McCain instead has promised to open new markets abroad for farmers to export their commodities.In his position papers, McCain opposes farm subsidies only for those with incomes of more than $250,000 and a net worth above $2 million. But he’s gone further on the stump.“I don’t support agricultural subsidies no matter where they are,” McCain said at a recent appearance in Wisconsin. “The farm bill, $300 billion, is something America simply can’t afford.”...side note ends)

Which is definitely a sign that he does desire to get rid of the Department of Agriculture. He opposes $300 million dollars for American agriculture needs, yet from day one he has supported this quagmire and occupation of Iraq. I'm definitely not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but I'm far from the dullest. He stated that it was really those farmers with $250,000 dollars of earnings or with farms worth over 2 million dollars, yet, he wants to make the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest 1% permanent. So on the one hand if they are rich farmers give them no tax breaks but on the other hand if they are rich business owners (corporate) give them tax breaks? That's a tad confusing wouldn't you say? A sort of speaking out of both sides of the mouth or speaking with a forked tongue, if you will....This just more evidence that as Senator Kerry put it at the Democratic National Convention that, "Candidate McCain needs to finish the debate with Senator McCain,"...John McCain needs to finish the debate with him self. McCain is 2 faced.

McCain also agrees with Michael Medved's idea to get rid of the Department of Health care, Isn't that special? Problem with all these facts you will not hear a peep about in the press. Just as the Corporate Media kept it silent when it was discovered that Senator McCain's Campaign begin sending out millions of absentee ballots to guess who? Barack Obama supporters. This storey surfaced the first week of September and was first reported by a stand-in on the Tom Hartman show on Green960, the following day Newsweek reported it.

Here is an article the mainstream press refused to touch...

Monday, September 15. 2008
McCain's Absentee Ballot Mailer Fiasco Spreads - Could Disqualify Some Voters
Reports from around the country advise that John McCain's campaign has sent confusing or incorrect absentee ballot request forms to voters in ten states at least. Affected so far are Florida, Iowa, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon (reported by blogger, not confirmed) Minnesota, Missouri, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Wisconsin so far. In each state, the mailers have a different error, in any of these cases, the voter could be disenfranchised by the error. In at least one state a voter could disqualify themselves or be vulnerable to election challenges if they mailed these forms in. Mailers sent to Wisconsin voters are encouraging voters to send their applications to clerks in communities where they do not live. If you receive an absentee ballot request form from the McCain campaign ( or any private entity) and you do want to vote absentee, then instead check with your County Board of Elections to get the correct information.
Florida..


Florida Voter Caging Warning: McCain mailer w/absentee ballot requests September 9. 2008. Sasha Rethati of "Sound off with Sasha" on WGCU radio warns "snow birds" about a big caging scam in Florida. McCain mailers are sending people unsolicited absentee ballot requests. These mailers can be used to remove voters from the rolls.

Iowa.

Fraudulent Absentee Ballot Requests in Iowa? by mshakir1 Fri Sep 12, 2008 (blog, not confirmed independently)

Several days ago, I received an interesting piece of mail from John McCain 2008. It was a vote-by-mail application, which I thought was curious because I have never registered as a Republican or donated money to his campaign...After opening the application placard, I noticed that the application was asking for the usual info (name, address, date of birth, etc.), but was unusual was what else it was asking for.

At the bottom of the application, there were 3 check boxes that could be filled out, any one of which could serve to prove one's identity. One of the check boxes was for an OHIO driver's license number. This was curious for me, because as you have probably guessed by now, I live in IOWA. Then I looked at the back of the application card, and the mailing address was for the Director of the board of elections in Columbus, OHIO.

Michigan.

Although many other states have moved to give voters the right to cast their ballots in advance of Election Day, either in person or by mail, there is no provision for it under Pennsylvania law.

...An absentee ballot cast under improper circumstances — by someone who just didn’t want to be bothered to leave the house, for instance — could be subject to challenge and disqualification, she said.


Virginia:

Be careful if you receive unrequested absentee ballot application WDBJ7 September 10, 2008

"Why is a Republican, Democrat, anybody sending out an unsolicited request?" wonders Murdock.

McCain's mailer creates controversy By MARK PITSCH 608-252-6145 FRI., SEP 12, 2008 mpitsch@madison.com

The state elections agency is investigating complaints about a massive campaign mailing Republican Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign has directed toward Wisconsin Democrats and other voters.

... in some cases, the incorrect clerk's address is printed on the application, leading some Democrats to wonder if the Arizona senator's campaign is deliberately trying to get them to apply for absentee ballots in places where they aren't eligible to vote.

"They're trying to knock me off the rolls," said Democrat Beverly Jambois, of Middleton. "I can't tell you how upsetting it is to me. This is how you win elections? By disenfranchising other voters?"

Her household received the flier this week addressed to her husband, Robert, a lawyer for the state Department of Transportation. The couple are registered to vote in Middleton, but the absentee ballot application was addressed to the city clerk's office in Madison....

A Wisconsin paper calls upon McCain campaign to set things right:

McCain camp must resolve mailing fiasco The Capital Times. An editorial — 9/15/2008

When it comes to the right to vote, it is not enough after a dramatically inappropriate move to say, "Oops."

The campaign of Republican presidential candidate John McCain has dispatched a mass mailing to Wisconsin voters -- including many Democrats and liberals who are not likely to be McCain backers -- that encourages eligible voters to send their applications for absentee ballots to clerks in communities where they do not reside.

Following the instructions of the McCain mailing could lead voters to run afoul of election rules and regulations -- and that might lead to the disqualification or even the prosecution of an innocent citizen for supposed wrongdoing.

UPDATE at 9:12 pm CDT September 15, 2008

State Republican Mailer Under Fire As Unfair Confusion Tactic Mailer Directs Voters To Return Absentee Ballot To Wrong Address


MADISON, Wis. -- Absentee ballot mailers are under fire from Democrats.
Democrats believe a mistake by the Republican Party could be an effort to mislead or even disenfranchise voters. More than a 100,000 mailers from the John McCain campaign were sent out with an application for an absentee ballot. The problem is that the mailers were sent to a particular address, but if the voters returned the application it was addressed to another city.

The state Republican Party called it an honest mistake......YEAH RIGHT, and John McCain's PROPAGANDA ADS are honest mistakes right? 26 honest mistakes in a row, WOW, either McCain and his camp are suffering from a group experienced bout of dementia and Alzheimer's or THEY ARE CROOKS AND LIARS. Yet the press refuses too report these huge stories that reveal the BASE CONNIVING and SCHEMING character of Candidate McCain. They keep it covered up.

THIS WAS AN OBVIOUS ATTEMPT BY THE MCSHAME CAMPAIGN OF DIRTY TRICKS AND THE POLITICS OF REVIVING JIM CROW VOTING PRATICES......The Corporate Media remains silent on this fact......

Media Matters reported Friday September 19, this piece about the press and it's fear of McCain....

Despite attacks on media by McCain campaign, case studies show disparate coverage in McCain's favor


Summary: The media have for months reported complaints by the McCain campaign that they have favored his opponent in their coverage of the presidential race, while making little attempt to assess the accuracy of those complaints or to confirm or refute them. But in a review of the media's coverage of two stories negatively affecting or reflecting on Sen. Barack Obama and two stories negatively affecting or reflecting on Sen. John McCain -- specifically Obama's ties to Bill Ayers and Antoin Rezko, and McCain's dealings with donors whom he reportedly benefited and his association with G. Gordon Liddy -- Media Matters found that the five major newspapers and the three evening network news broadcasts have frequently mentioned Obama's ties to Ayers and Rezko, but have rarely mentioned McCain's dealings with donors and have ignored his association with Liddy.


Here's one more.....

CBS' Reid aired McCain attacking Obama for purportedly being in the "Washington culture of lobbying" without noting McCain's own lobbying ties


Summary: On the CBS Evening News, Chip Reid uncritically aired video of Sen. John McCain claiming that the "crisis on Wall Street, my friends, started in the Washington culture of lobbying and influence-peddling, and [Sen. Barack Obama] was right square in the middle of it." However, Reid did not mention McCain's own ties to the "Washington culture of lobbying." According to a Mother Jones report, "at least 83" McCain aides, policy advisers, or fundraisers "have in recent years lobbied for the financial industry McCain now attacks."

Here's just one more example....

Jameson Foser exposed how the CORPORATE BLATANTLY LIES AND EVEN AIDS MCCAIN INB HIS LIES BY OUTRIGHT ATTACKS ON SENATOR OBAMA

"Media Matters"; by Jamison Foser


The media's counterproductive focus on negative campaigning

It's getting awfully hard to pick up a newspaper or turn on the television without seeing a news report about the presidential campaign turning negative. It often seems the media consider the tone of the campaign more important than the collapsing economy, the war, our continued failure to capture or kill Osama bin Laden, and the Bush administration's apparent disdain for the Constitution -- combined.

Before we go any further, let me be clear: I'm not saying that negative campaigning isn't as bad as the media makes it out to be.

I'm saying negative campaigning is essential to American democracy.

See, for voters to make good decisions, they have to have good information. And, unfortunately, candidates aren't in the habit of telling voters things they've done (or plan to do) that are unpopular, or of running ads about the flaws in their own proposals. And since voters need to know the candidates' weaknesses as well as their strengths, and the disadvantages to their proposals, they need somebody to talk about those things.

Oh, sure, we could rely on the media to do that. How have they been doing lately? Anybody think they did a good job of assessing the candidates' relative weaknesses in 2000? Of poking holes in the Bush administration's tragically flawed arguments for the Iraq war? Of putting down the doughnuts and barbecued ribs long enough to pin John McCain down on how long he's willing to keep fighting in Iraq, what, exactly, he plans on doing to Social Security, how he would pay for his tax cuts and wars, or how much you have to make in order for him to consider you "rich"?

Anyone who thinks we can rely on the media to tell us what the candidates don't want us to know should head over to the Swampland blog, where Time reporter Michael Scherer insists that it is unfair to bring up John McCain's lengthy history of voting and speaking in favor of Social Security privatization. Scherer says we should instead simply look at the position statements on McCain's campaign Web page (statements that actually don't provide any reason to think that McCain no longer supports privatization, though Scherer seems to think they do. See my posts on Media Matters' new blog, County Fair, for further explanation.)

So, we need candidates to engage in negative campaigning -- that is, in criticizing their opponents' positions, experience, and previous performance. That's far different from dishonest campaigning. Or from tactics that cross the line from "negative" to downright sleazy. Those tactics should be called out by the news media, and frequently. But the media's reflexive focus on simply "negative" campaigning is unnecessary and often counterproductive.

It is unnecessary because the question of whether a candidate or campaign is "too negative" is a visceral question, not a logical one. Voters don't need reporters to try to measure negativity for them or to keep reminding them of it. If something is too negative for them, voters will have a visceral reaction against it; if not, they won't. Either way, they are perfectly capable of coming to that conclusion on their own. (With the important exception that if a campaign is running a viciously negative below-the-radar campaign, such as a whispering campaign like the one George W. Bush waged against John McCain in 2000, voters can benefit from the media shining a light on those tactics.)

What voters can't easily do on their own is assess whether ads are true, false, or somewhere in between. That's where the media can be useful. They have the resources -- and, ideally, some expertise -- to assess the validity of claims made in campaign ads. That's how reporters can actually be useful -- by doing what the voters can't do for themselves, and doing it well.

Unfortunately, the news media often lump true criticism together with dishonest or sleazy criticism, as though all negative campaigning is equal, and equally bad. This week, a study concluded that a larger percentage of Barack Obama's ads since the political conventions have been "negative," bringing another round of news reports that drew false equivalence between very different tactics.

The Wisconsin Advertising Project looked at a single week's worth of ads in determining that 56 percent of McCain ads and 77 percent of Obama ads were "negative." Aside from the dangers in drawing conclusions from such a small sample of campaign ads, the findings are of limited value given that the project made no effort to assess the veracity or fairness of the ads in question. In fact, according to the San Francisco Chronicle, the study counted any ad that so much as mentioned the opponent's name as "negative."

I suppose it might be mildly interesting to know that 56 percent of John McCain's ads mention Barack Obama, or that 77 percent of Obama's ads mention McCain. But it doesn't really tell us anything useful. How did they mention each other? Did the ads criticize policy positions or personality? Were they honest? The answers to those questions are essential to any meaningful assessment of the candidates' campaign tactics. (If you do find the project's findings compelling, you should keep in mind that in July, based on a much larger sample, the project found that more of McCain's ads were negative.)

Despite the study's failure to even attempt to assess the validity of the ads it declared "negative," several news organizations hyped the findings. Worse, some suggested the finding that more of Obama's ads have been negative undermines the recent conclusions of many impartial observers that the McCain campaign ads have been more dishonest than those of the Obama campaign.

The New York Post, for example, reported that the results of the study "clash with recent media coverage accusing McCain of distorting Obama's record in ads." Nonsense. That's like saying that the fact that this is September clashes with the fact that it is Friday.

On Hardball, MSNBC's Chris Matthews also touted the study:

The McCain camp's been getting a lot of attention for some recent hard-hitting ads. In fact, the Wisconsin Advertising Project, a group that studies politics ads nationwide, deems that 56 percent of the ads aired by the McCain campaign last week were negative. That's 56 percent of McCain's ads, negative.

But here's a number that may surprise you. How many of Obama's ads in that same time period last week were negative? Seventy-seven percent -- an indication, perhaps, that Obama intends to come out swinging -- or these are the next couple months. He's going to be doing it. Nearly four out of five ads Obama aired last week were negative -- tonight's "Big Number."

But the more significant "attention" McCain has been getting has not been for negative ads -- it has been for false ads. Matthews disappears that criticism, suggesting that the criticism of McCain has been for negativity rather than dishonesty.

On Race to the White House, Matthews' colleague David Gregory said, "Obama says he wants a new kind of politics. Why is he running more negative ads than Senator McCain?" Later, Gregory played an Obama ad accusing McCain of dishonest attack ads -- but look at how Gregory characterized the Obama ad:

GREGORY: That is a new campaign ad from the Obama campaign. It is out this week, taking a swipe at John McCain for his negative ads. Take a look at this, a new study from the Wisconsin Advertising Project says that it is Obama slinging the most mud on TV; 77 percent of Obama's ads after the GOP convention were negative, compared to 56 percent of McCain's.

No. Obama's ad took a "swipe" at McCain for dishonest ads, not merely for negative ads. By changing Obama's criticism, Gregory was able to use the Wisconsin study to paint him as a hypocrite. And note the phrasing Gregory used to describe the study's findings -- the loaded phrase "it is Obama slinging the most mud on TV." Remember, the study made no effort whatsoever to assess the content of the ads; it simply counted as negative any mention of the opponent's name. On that flimsy basis, Gregory accuses Obama of "slinging the most mud" -- even as the consensus among neutral observers has been that McCain is leveling more false attacks.

Lumping all negative statements together as "slinging mud," without differentiating between true claims and false (or fair and unfair) doesn't inform viewers; it is a false equivalence that serves only to advantage truly dishonorable attacks by making them appear no worse than run-of-the-mill factual criticism. It plays into the hands of liars and smear merchants. And it penalizes honest and fair criticisms -- though such criticisms are essential to the voters' ability to make informed decisions.

What does this say to us about the CORRUPT CORPORATE MEDIA? There is obviously an agenda being pursued here...The facts state this, McCain is being aided by a CORPORATE AGENDA WHILE HE STANDS ON THE STUMP and pretends to condemn the very ones who hold his purse strings.

Conclusion, I don't think the media ands the press are afraid of McCain no to the contrary, they have thrown a full throttled support behind, Chris Matthews, David Gregory, The Wisconsin Advertising Project (biased agenda), The New york Post, John McCain and the Rebushagain party give you a full throttled SHOUT of, "THANKS FOR UNABASHEDLY SUPPORTING US"

These Press corps and Anchorman or in need of an unequival reproof, censoring, and sanctions

Posted by: need4trth | September 22, 2008 3:33 AM | Report abuse

Just imagine what all your troops could do for you the people of America if they were out of Iraq. Billions for recovery of Texas, Real time Homeland Security. But it's rather late and the melt down has just started.

Posted by: justada55+ | September 21, 2008 11:39 PM | Report abuse

America cannot sustain the costs of the Iraq and Afghanistan occupations indefinitely.
The trade imbalance has reached the tipping point.
Bush tax cuts have drained the treasury.
McCain advisor Phil Gramm's bank deregulation and Enron loophole have facilitated the further looting of the economy.
In the years ahead we will see more leasing of interstate roads to foreign interests, sales of infrastructure like ports and railways to countries holding our debt.
Those offshore oil leases will also go on the chopping block.

In short, what we have done to others will be done to us in an economic coup d'etat.

Enjoy yourself, it's later than you think.

Posted by: seems to me | September 21, 2008 11:01 PM | Report abuse

America cannot sustain the costs of the Iraq and Afghanistan occupations indefinitely.
The trade imbalance has reached the tipping point.
Bush tax cuts have drained the treasury.
McCain advisor Phil Gramm's bank deregulation and Enron loophole have facilitated the further looting of the economy.
In the years ahead we will see more leasing of interstate roads to foreign interests, sales of infrastructure like ports and railways to countries holding our debt.
Those offshore oil leases will also go on the chopping block.

In short, what we have done to others will be done to us in an economic coup d'etat.

Enjoy yourself, it's later than you think.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 21, 2008 10:59 PM | Report abuse

We need an intelligent,thoughtful,detailed person,who will listen to all sides. A person who knows that the real secret to success in the Middle East is a political settlement. We will never solve this with sole military action. Obama is committed to these ideas. Also,the real threat is in Afghanastan and Pakistan.We are told we need more troops-NOW.We do not have enough troops to do both. The government of Iraq wants us out soon.McCain himself said that we should leave when asked.
All experts,including the Generals,say the "surge" was only a part of the improvement. The rest was the recruitment of sons of Iraq,giving the Iraq Army more control and the cooperation of the Shia militias.We are now in the position to remove troops and turn over the running of Iraq to their elected government. There is NO NATIONAL INTEREST for us to stay. This will further weaken our fight against the real terroists and continue to bleed us financially.
John McCain is handicapped. He only understands "BOMB BABY BOMB" as his answer to foreign policy.
If we allow the Fear card to be played during this election we will continue our losses in the Middle East.

Posted by: R Head | September 21, 2008 10:30 PM | Report abuse

We're 9 trillion in debt and he want let that iraq thing go.

Posted by: brock101 | September 21, 2008 9:23 PM | Report abuse

John McCain continues to play the George Bush shell game to avoid the real purpose of military action in the middle east. ..........
http://thefiresidepost.com/2008/09/22/the-iraq-surge-has-not-worked/

Posted by: Ohg Rea Tone | September 21, 2008 8:59 PM | Report abuse

BLUE STAR FAMILIES FOR OBAMA

As military family members who support Barack Obama, we knew there was something different this election cycle. More interest in the Dem candidate, fewer Republican bumper stickers. Our new Blue Star Families for Obama website went live yesterday (www.bsf4o.com).

Blue Star Families for Obama was started by five Army and Marine Corps wives back in July. We have a budget of zero.

Military families are flocking to Senator Obama because we recognize real respect when we see it.

If you need proof, look no further than the new GI Bill. Supported by every major veterans' group in this country. Passed by a veto-proof bipartisan majority (hello, Governor Palin?). Senator McCain inexplicably and inexcusably opposed the bill for budgetary reasons.

Join us in electing a president who will restore our respect and sense of community with our civilian brothers and sisters, not one who will continue to ask us to serve in silence.

Barack Obama 08

Posted by: SueMVetforObama | September 21, 2008 8:53 PM | Report abuse

Forrest,

I think what everyone wants to bury their head in the sand about with respect to Iraq is there isn't any such thing as "winning". Iran and the Shia militants are simply biding their time. Once we are gone it is going to collapse. Gee, just like Vietnam!

The Kurds don't like the Shias and Sunnis, the Sunnis hate the Shia and dislike the Kurds and the Shia hate the other two. Who in their right mind believes there will ever be real peace in Iraq with the geographical borders which exist today?

If Iran helps the Shias, the Saudis are going to have to intervene for the Sunnis. Turkey is just waiting for us to leave to squash the Kurds. Iraq was a colonial fabrication, it will never survive once we pull out. People ridiculed Biden for his division plan for Iraq, but I believe he will be proved out to have been correct.

Don't be too surprised if Bush, no matter who wins the election, decides to launch a preemptive strike against the Iranian nuclear facilities. The convergence of all of the inertial forces in the region are pointing to it I believe. Even though they don't say it aloud, maybe as much as Israel, the Saudis don't want Iran to have nuclear capabilities. Again, time will tell.

Posted by: Oh brother! | September 21, 2008 8:21 PM | Report abuse

Would someone tell me how we can afford these bailouts and no win wars?

That's right. Iraq is, and always will be a no win war.

Now, when it's medical care for the people as they have in every NATO country, we're told America can't afford it.

Then how can we afford Iraq and the bailout of the wealthy class?

How?

Posted by: santafe2 | September 21, 2008 8:11 PM | Report abuse

I have carefully gone through all the comment on here, and it seems to me everyone has a bitter opinion with John, from the Vietnam syndrome to the Neocon Brethren. Well, i say, someone needs to tell Obama to step it up a notch. As much as i want Him {OBAMA} to win, i still think the American people will have an issue voting for a Black man. I pray they prove me wrong. John McCain will destroy this country, its going to be the Said-Apocalypse. The greatest country in the world would be alienated, our embassies would go up in flames, citizen abroad will be at greater risk and here at home we all would be in a mess, crime rate will escalate, even Mexico willbe fighting with us becuse we would have killed and hurt illegals crossing the border, its all in the mentality on th NeoCon punks to have a new world order.
Anyway, i just thought i shared my last nights dream with you guys...lol...more like a night mare.

Posted by: Patric | September 21, 2008 7:58 PM | Report abuse

I think what you Obama and retreat supporters fail to realize is that we will never be out of Iraq.(aren't we still in Japan,Germany,etc.?)---pulling out now would insure the fact that terrorists would take control, imagine what a gallom of fuel would cost in this country if that did happen.

Posted by: Forrest | September 21, 2008 7:49 PM | Report abuse

How about someone slams McCain over Iraq. First of all McCain, the USA shouldn't even be in Iraq. We don't belong there. Second of all the USA is BANKRUPT, because of Iraq and the idiot Bush who YOU voted "over 90% of the time with" in your own words. Third, stop using Iraq and every thing else that is your party's fault as an excuse to scare people into voting for you. Fourth, none of the human and financial DISASTER that was created because of Iraq is Obama's fault. As far as YOU slamming, criticizing or other wise being a spoke person for Iraq and the mess YOU helped BUSH create there, you have ZERO credibility to be dissing ANYONE on the subject, so why don't you just SHUT IT now before you make a bigger jerk out of yourself than you already are.

Posted by: Democrats 08 | September 21, 2008 7:34 PM | Report abuse

He will never admit he's wrong about Vietnam, Buck, nor how he treated the families of POW/MIAs wanting to know more about their loved ones' disappearances.

http://www.nationinstitute.org/p/schanberg09182008pt1

Don't hold your breath for McCain to treat other people like human beings that have a right to have feelings about war that are at odds with his feelings.

Posted by: Wilbrod | September 21, 2008 7:02 PM | Report abuse

It seems to me McCain should have no argument with Obama being against the war in Eye-raq, he was right, it was wrong.

What McCain fails to acknowledge is there wouldn't be any need for "THE SURGE" if we hadn't gone off to fight GBW's personal vendetta against Sadam.

I know, this election isn't about the facts, it's about personality. Whoops! McCain looses on that one too. What a sell out he has become.

Posted by: Oh brother! | September 21, 2008 6:50 PM | Report abuse

Graduating on the bottom of his Naval Academy class, John McCain never understood the requirements of strategy vs tactics.

Here is the Obama quote, from the Interview with Bill O'Reilly, about the surge the McPains like to quote: "I've already said, it's succeeded beyond our wildest dreams", falsely suggesting that Obama said during his interview that he was wrong to oppose the surge.

Because Obama continued:
"There's an underlying problem with what have we done. We have reduced the violence, but the Iraqis still haven't taken responsibility, and we still don't have the kind of political reconciliation. We are still spending, Bill, $10 to $12 billion a month."

Add to this that more than 1000 Americans have died since the surge began and that the Shiites have started to round up up and eliminate/jail/kill members of the Anbar Awakening. Which means in no time we will be back to violence.

By standing firm to his strategic correct insight, which requires thinking and explanation on top of bomb, bomb, bomb, Obama is the one who puts National Interest above getting elected, not McCain.

Posted by: abraham2 | September 21, 2008 6:49 PM | Report abuse

Heck, based on this story, McCain is still trying to bury the mistakes of Vietnam.

http://www.nationinstitute.org/p/schanberg09182008pt1

Nice quote:

"This is not a man at peace with himself."

Is this man really capable of thinking rationally and managing decisions about a large-scale war?

Bush lied to get us in Iraq. I have no doubt McCain would continue lying as long as he lives to keep us there.

Also, he will and already has attacked others for saying we must seek other options to giving up and continuing with the daily slog.

Do you really trust your loved ones aboard to be brought back safely under McCain, alive, captured, dead, or missing in action?

1,000 that may have had their bones rotting in a vietnamese jungle while their families agonized for 35 or more years not knowing if they were alive or dead.

And McCain directly blocked those families from the relief of knowing something, anything.

They deserved better, and so do all of our enlisted people serving aboard.

Posted by: Wilbrod | September 21, 2008 6:48 PM | Report abuse

I'd like to suggest credits or bylines for the headline writers. It's time we know who's responsible for this childishness.

Posted by: zukermand | September 21, 2008 6:38 PM | Report abuse

McCain's Vietnam Neurosis

What McCain has failed to grasp is that America is different than it was in 1968, and that America will not reject its soldiers, but will welcome them as heroes and thank them for a job well done. There is no reason to keep them there until Americans will respect them. We already do. John McCain is guarding against a forty year-old phantom.

Secondarily, he is waiting for a resolution that, unlike World War II, will never come. There will be no surrender from the Sunni extremists and Iranian-allied Shia. There will be no peace treaty on our terms and Marshall Plan for Iraq. Any reasonable person can see this. But John McCain is not reasonable. He is suffering from Vietnam syndrome and it puts our troops in danger.

The fact is, the Iraqi military is ready to stand up, so it is now time for America to stand down. Not on our knees, as John McCain would have it, but with pride, honor, and yes, John McCain, victory.

What happens after that? Well, that’s a political issue, and that battle was lost from the start by McCain, George W. Bush, and the rest of their neocon brethren. Don’t hold our troops hostage to your ideological dreams.

For John McCain, the best thing to do might be to seek psychological help. The Vietnam War is over. It would be a good thing for him and for us, if he came to that realization.

Posted by: ES | September 21, 2008 6:34 PM | Report abuse

Sarah Palin: Did you know she wanted rape victims to pay for their own rape kits? Funny and horrifying. Check out the animated cartoon:
http://www.236.com/video/2008/get_your_war_on_sarah_palin_an_9028.ph

Posted by: Morgan Walker | September 21, 2008 5:59 PM | Report abuse

McCain would carry more credibility in some quarters if he acknowledged that he was wrong about going to war on Iraq, not merely critical about the disastrous way his friend George W. Bush has run this war and the occupation that followed and that consumes us still.

Posted by: Buck TX | September 21, 2008 5:50 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company