About Channel '08  |  Blog Partner: PrezVid.com  |  RSS Feeds RSS Feed  (What's RSS?)

MoveOn Strikes McCain on Iraq

MoveOn.org is concerned that John McCain is "on the air unopposed" in some states, so it's airing a new ad attacking him on the Iraq war.

"Candles" starts with a birthday cake with five candles, to mark the five years since President Bush's "Mission Accomplished" speech. It also uses images we'll probably be quite familiar with by November: Bush hugging or kissing McCain (on the forehead).

Here's the script:

"Five years ago, George Bush stood under a 'Mission Accomplished' banner and announced: 'Major combat operations in Iraq have ended.'
John McCain said the end of the Iraq war was very much in sight.
Now, we need to know how long we'd be in Iraq if John McCain were president.
'And then I don't think American's are concerned if we're there for 100 years or 1,000 years or 10,000 years.'
One hundred years in Iraq? And you thought no one could be worse than George Bush.

An e-mail to reporters states that MoveOn will spend $160,000 to air the ad on cable, and on broadcast television stations in Iowa, and New Mexico, where the group says McCain is currently airing ads, "unopposed." (Indeed McCain is airing a new health care ad in Iowa.)

The Republican National Committee calls the ad a "Radical Distortion" and is calling on Barack Obama, who is supported by MoveOn, to denounce the ad.

-- Ed O'Keefe

By Ed O'Keefe |  April 30, 2008; 5:50 PM ET Ad Watch , John McCain
Previous: Maya Angelou in New Ad for Hillary Clinton | Next: Obama Speaks Gas Tax 'Truth' in Ind. and NC

Comments

Please email us to report offensive comments.



I know some feel that Senator McCain is an authority on all things war and therefore anything he says regarding foreign policy is immediately considered credible. Here's the problem I have with the long term footprint (100 years -- just no casualties) premise:

That begun for false reasons has a foundation that is weak if not missing. Anything you put on top of it is therefore weak (ask a structural engineer about this). A long term U.S. presence in Iraq may not be a bad thing but it cannot be placed on top of the initial blunder of invading Iraq for no reason known to anybody outside of a certain small circle of people. The entire structure of the presence needs to be demolished (full withdrawal -- not to be confused with retreat) and once the Iraqi's start acting like it is in their best interest to govern themselves and secure themselves then they can call for negotiations with America for troops on their soil to function as a forward guard for American interests in the region, not as the Iraq police department. The U.S. Military should not be playing Starsky and Hutch, or be characters in a complex episode of Law and Order -- The Iraq Years. There will always be a potential for casualties for U.S. forces due to the bad foundation on which there presence there now stands. I am not a Republican, a Democrat, or an Independent. I am just a person with a brain, eyes to see, people I care about, a heart that beats, and experience that tells me that self defense is righteous and invading a country for undisclosed self-interest is wrong, and it will be wrong a hundred years from now long after I am dead and gone.

Iraq was not invaded for self defense but for the self interest of some people who are not putting their family on the battlefield to die.

Posted by: BluSage | May 1, 2008 7:44 AM

WE SURE DO PICK OUR GOP AND OBAMA CANDIDATES OUT OTHE BOTTOM OF THE BARRELL, THE PICKLE BARRELL NO LESS.

IF EITHER OF THESE TWO SOUR, ROTTEN CANDIDATE GET ANYWHERE NEAR THE WHITE HOUSE, WHERE WILL THE AMERICANS GO. CANADA WILL NOT LET US COME TO THEIR COUNTRY.

THE MORE I READ ABOUT MCCAIN THE MORE CERTAIN I AM THAT THIS MAN IS UNQUALIFIED TO BE PRESIDENT. WHAT IS THIS COUNTRY THINKING. HAVEN'T THE PEOPLE HAD ENOUGH OF THE REPUBLICAN MENTALLITY. GEORGE W. BUSH IS THE CLOWN OF THE CENTURY, CHENEY AND ROVE ARE SO ROTTEN WORDS CANNOT BE FOUND TO EXPRESS THEIR UNDERHANDEDNESS IN RUINING THIS COUNTRY JUST TO FILL THEIR POCKETS WITH MONEY AND OUR YOUNG PEOPLE'S BLOOD IS RUNNING LIKE WATER IN IRAQ. WHAT FOR???????

AS FOR OBAMA, THERE MUST BE INFO. ABOUT HIM THAT IS BEING HELD SECRET AND WOULD DIMINISH HIM SO THAT HE COULD NEVER ENTERTAIN REPRESENTING OUR NATION. HINTS HAVE LEAKED OUT THAT THEIR IS SOMETHING VERY, VERY WRONG WITH OBAMA'S BACKGROUND , WE HAVE A RIGHT TO KNOW WHAT THIS IS, BEFORE IT ICOULD POSSIBLY BE TOO LATE.

Posted by: LYNN PARKER | May 1, 2008 8:16 AM

Mission Accomplished...hmmm...Okay, which mission? I keep losing track of this week's reason for why we are in Iraq.

I think this week we're supposed to be in Iraq to bring Democracy. .


And yet, nobody ever calls them on the fact that whatever form of government Iraq has...it will most assuredly NOT involve equal rights for female Iraqis and therefore will be anything BUT a Democracy. .


Each time these warmongers get caught in a lie, they find new and improved talking points to explain the need for our soldiers to die in that hell hole. .


They got weapons of big and badness. (gosh, sorry 'bout that...they must be here somewhere) .

He's trying to buy nasty nuke stuff. (But we really really believed Niger nukies, we swear!) .

He's helping Al-Qaeda. (how were we supposed to know that Bin and Sad were enemies?) .

Iraqi oil will PAY for everything! (umm where'd we put all that oil money anyway?) .

Hussein was a brutal dictator (we know we hung him...but we gotta stay in case he haunts the place.) .


Wait! We have it! We're bringing Democracy to Iraq!...Yeah... yeah...that's it... and umm umm next week, we'll bring it to Syria!...oooh wait! We have it...a BETTER Democracy for Iran! .


There will always be a "new" mission until they finally give up and say it: .


We're in Iraq for the oil. It's about the oil, stupid. .


Menopausal Mick

Posted by: Mickss | May 1, 2008 9:00 AM

2008 Presidential Election Weekly Poll
http://www.votenic.com
New Poll Started, Latest Results Just Posted.
Enter to win a Votenic t-shirt!

Posted by: votenic | May 1, 2008 11:23 AM

As a former Marine and father of a current Marine, I feel and understand the angst pervasive in the U.S. about Iraq and an indefinite American presence there. I don't like the war and I am very concerned for my son and our friends and family who have served and will continue to serve in Iraq and Afghanistan. However, I also understand the realities in the region.

Regardless of why we invaded or if the invasion was justified, there is now a power vacuum in Iraq preparing to draw multiple competing states in the region into a major conflict over control of the territory, resources, respective religions, etc. Currently the vacuum is filled by a fractured government and military openly and blatantly propped-up by the U.S. military. If we pull out before there is a stable and self-sustaining government, military and security regime, we will be called to reinvade within a very short period of time to stop a larger regional conflict. If you think we are suffering casualties now, just consider what another invasion will cost in human lives.

If you think I'm deluded, consider that Iran and Iraq have battled over the southern oil fields and ports now part of Iraq for decades. Syria and Iran are united in their suspicion of the United States, but share neither religion nor culture and Syria is a resource poor nation with a large standing and well armed military. Do you think they will stand passively by while Iran moves into the vacuum (the Iranians are already exerting tremendous influence in Iraq through their surrogate Moqtada al Sadr and others). Saudi Arabia, while an American ally, has a majority Sunni population compared to Iran's majority Shiite population. The Saudi's are Arabs while the Iranians are predominantly Persians. There is a long standing war between the two dating back hundreds of years and recent clashes (within the last 20 years) in the waters of the Persian Gulf. Then there's Turkey and the Kurds. With the U.S. gone, why should Turkey refrain from attacking the Kurdish rebels across the border in Iraq? The U.S. has a close relationship with the Turks and with Kurds in the Iraqi north and has applied pressure on the two to refrain from cross border incursions.

Lastly, the U.S. military presence has been responsible for quelling some of the sectarian violence native to Iraq. What would happen without our military there? It's anyone's guess, but I'm betting on civil war.

During a campaign, candidates are forced to make definite and seemingly binding statements in order to attract votes. Promises to cut taxes, not cut taxes and promises of immediate and unconditional withdrawal are all examples of this. I believe, regardless of who gets elected, the President-elect will have to deal with these realities and our men and women in the military will be in Iraq for the foreseeable future.

Posted by: Brad Bailey | May 1, 2008 12:35 PM

First the add says "Iraq War"... then it easily slides to "100 years in Iraq" creating the impression that McCain wants a 100 years war.

Never expected Moveon.org to be such big liars!

Posted by: Jaycal | May 3, 2008 3:19 AM

Wow, cool man, big thanks! http://evnbvhgsnzh.com

Posted by: ylpxhqyrzu | May 14, 2008 5:44 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 

© 2007 The Washington Post Company