Friday February 17, 2012

McCain says rivals' call for Iraq troop withdrawal a 'failure of leadership'

World ( 38 )

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

Back to top

Order by Time Order by Popularity

38 Comments

Login to comment

  • 0

    SezWho2

    In the end I think this boils down to a commitment to stay in Iraq no matter what or to get out of Iraq no matter what. The time frames will always be amorphous.

    McCain can no more deliver on a promise to remain in Iraq than can Obama (or Clinton) deliver on a promise to leave. Inertia may be on McCain's side. But inertia is hardly leadership.

  • 0

    RomeoRamenII

    obama says Mr. McCain supports for an open-ended occupation of Iraq.

    But, but, but .... barack is calling for keeping a strike force near Iraq to deal with crap like what Muqtada Al Sadr is having his militia do right now in and near the green zone. barack hasn't disclosed the numbers of this strike force because he doesn't know. Shows me that he hasn't thought this through completely.

    hillary wants to withdraw 1 or 2 brigades a month until they're all home. With the numbers of Islamoterrorists unknown, this decrease in troop strength increases the likelihood of higher casualty counts. Shows me that she hasn't thought about it at all.

    We are a country at war and as an Army retiree the only person I want pulling our troops out is a fellow veteran who understands offensive and defensive military tactics.

    hillary is offensive enough and goes on the defensive everytime she "misspeaks". barack is clueless when it comes to our national defense.

    Mr. McCain is the best chance to get the troops home with fewer casualties than would be inflicted on them if the democratic dynamic duo were in charge.

    RR

  • 0

    sabiwabi

    McCain is bad. I hope most people have seen his singing of "bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb iran...". For a possible future president to joke about attacking Iran like that is scary. But more scary is the fact that the alternatives on not much different, as explained here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZEhA7HCeeeA

    The only decent alternative left is Nader, but with the media coverage he's getting (or lack of), I'd be extremely surprised if he wins.

  • 0

    SezWho2

    An understanding of offensive and defensive military tactics isn't necessary for pulling the troops out of Iraq. Neither did it seem to be necessary for pushing the troops into it.

  • 0

    frontandcentre

    I'd say that the main "failure of leadership" has been that of the Republicans under Bush, failures which McCain appears to be wanting to persist with. Funny way to try and get elected - pursuing policies which have made the outgoing president one of the most unpopular and derided figures ever in US politics

  • 0

    SushiSake2

    The "failure of leadership" here is McCain's in failing to oppose a war that has cost the U.S. $2-3 trillion with mountainous bills due to be paid in the future for VA healthcare, debt servicing and equipment repair and replacement.

    And while Sen. McCain proudly boasts of an extended U.S. occupation in Iraq, he - along with every single war supporting Republican on this board - is strangely silent on how the U.S. is going to pay for it.

    The fantasy of victory in this war is somehow more alluring to McCain than the nuts and bolts practicality of funding it.

    But admittedly, these were the same people who claimed Iraq had WMD so it's not surprising.

    What is McCain going to do? Simply borrow more from the Chinese and sink his nation even further into debt? So far, Sen. McCain has not come up with any solutions, any ideas for financing the "war on terror."

    Calling him "clueless" is an understatement.

    Sen McCain's other gross "failure of leadership" is his lack of a coherent plan to deal with the tanking U.S. economy.

    Sen. McCain's extreme failure to identify and deal with the real priorities of his nation prove him unfit to lead, from Day 1 of from Day 1000.

    This shows all of us that Sen. McCain hasn't really thought anything through clearly, and is an extremely poor candidate for the country's leadership.

    Sen. McCain is clueless when it comes to fixing the economy - the greatest problem facing Americans today.

    Obama is the best chance to get the troops home with fewer casualties, lower overall costs and a better chance of healing wounds and relationships wrecked by 7 years of the Bush Administration.

  • 0

    RomeoRamenII

    Leave it to barack to be the "authority" as to how long we need to stay in the ME.

    What does he know about foreign affairs and military strategy beyond what his racist pastor has preached to him for 20 plus years?

    How can anyone even listen to barack as though he has an ounce of credibility?

    I would believe hillary before I would even consider one word about the ME out of the mouth of the rookie senator/snake oil salesman from Illinois.

    RR

  • 0

    SushiSake2

    McCain has a lot to answer for.

    His blind support for the "war on terror" has led in no small part to the current dangerous state of the U.S. economy.

    Had Bush - with McCain's support - not launched the WOT, the U.S. government would right now have billions more to spend righting the economy.

    Instead, Bush tosses a paltry $170 billion into the marketplace, much of which will go straight to China via Walmart, and have a negligible long-term effect on the U.S. economy.

    Republicans can't raise taxes because that would go headlong against their low tax philosphy, but they also can't raise taxes out of fear it wil derail an economy already in a precarious state, ironically that they created in no small part due to their idiot spending on the Iraq war.

  • 0

    RomeoRamenII

    Hillary:

    “It is time to end this war as quickly, as responsibly, and as safely as possible.”

    Heh, now if we can just get AQ to listen to the dems.

    RR

  • 0

    SushiSake2

    Romeo - What does McCain know about foreign affairs and military strategy beyond being stuck in a prison for 5 1/2 years, crashing 6 (?) planes, singing "Bomb Iran!" and pushing for a continuation of President Bush's already failed foreign policy?

    You'll have to come up with something better than tackling Obama for listening to a preacher. C'mon, what has that got to do with responsible foreign policy??

    That's right - nothing at all.

    And, I'm keen to very hear your ideas on how the "War on Terror" is going to continue to be funded, so please be upfront about your thoughts.

    More of the same is not an option.

  • 0

    redacted

    "McCain has a lot to answer for.

    His blind support for the "war on terror" has led in no small part to the current dangerous state of the U.S. economy. "

    You definitely sharpened that ax for a long while. Judging from the tone of your posts swinging it so blindly is making you very tired, not to mention tiresome.

    I think any reasonable American who looks at McCain's record and listens impartially to what he has to say understands that his commitment first and foremost is to the men and women that Congress sent to war.

    Clearly, he knows more about terror, its causes and its cure, than either of his Democrat opponents and probably more than any candidate the Democrats (who won't even discuss militant Islam in their staged and hollow debates) could even field.

    Luckily for America - and the rest of the free world - it is from the ranks of the soldiers now in Iraq and Afghanistan that will come politicians who will revitalize both our deadbeat political parties.

  • 0

    SushiSake2

    "I would believe hillary before I would even consider one word about the ME out of the mouth of the rookie senator/snake oil salesman from Illinois."

    Heh, "24"'s actor Jack Bauer has a better grip on foreign policy than your man McCain, who, love him or hate him, doesn't have a clue.

    But I'm sure that won't stop you throwing your support behind him, especialy considering all the other real Republicans have already been booted out of the contest and only the dregs are left.

    "snake oil salesman"

    Heh, can you get any more desperate? I'm betting you can still surprise us. :-)

    While we are on the topic, what foreign policy experience does McCain have?

  • 0

    smartacus

    The simple fact is McCain is too old. If he wins, he'll be 72 when he takes office next January. He'll be 76 if he goes for a second term, and if he wins a second term, he would be 80 in the last year of his presidency. Think about that. An 80-year-old man trying to deal with crises.

    His age hasn't been made an issue by the Democrats or the media but it certainly should be. A man in his 70s and 80s does not have the energy to be president. At 80, he'll be having afternoon naps.

  • 0

    SushiSake2

    redacted, I think that what Sen. McCain understands only too well is that when you are in a hole, you should just keep digging.

    That strategy was employed by Bush and goes a long way to explaining why the president's ratings are scraping 30% and why 81% of Americans think the nation is on the wrong track.

    "Clearly, he knows more about terror, its causes and its cure, than either of his Democrat opponents and probably more than any candidate the Democrats (who won't even discuss militant Islam in their staged and hollow debates) could even field."

    I think what Republicans continue to fail to notice is that a juiced economy is going to cause far more pain than a failed WOT.

    And that throwing untold billions into Iraq instead of using it for America and Americans is damn near a dereliction of duty.

    McCain has his priorities screwed as does Bush in this respect.

  • 0

    RomeoRamenII

    Really makes no difference what barack says. He'll never get the dem's blessings to represent them as their presidential candidate. Heh, the super delegates will see to that.

    RR

  • 0

    SushiSake2

    Romeo, some questions you appear to have forgotton to answer:

    1/ Your ideas on how the "War on Terror" is going to continue to be funded?

    2/ What foreign policy experience does McCain have?

    Looking forward to your answers.

  • 0

    redacted

    The little regard pacifists have for the lives of those whom they want so badly to believe they are saving never ceases to amaze, and disgust.

    Even Time magazines's Mid East correspondent, no doubt opposed to a war on terror - and to all wars, on "principle" and because it's hip to be "anti-war" - concedes that in Iraq they are watching very closely how the US election shapes:

    "The Baghdadis caught between these extremes know that the only thing standing in the way of another sectarian conflagration is the U.S. military. This may explain why every Iraqi who offers me a view on American politics seems to be praying for a McCain victory. "

    Apr 3 2008

    http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1727692,00.html

  • 0

    frontandcentre

    It is so obvious that what America needs is a fresh start with a young, dynamic president.

    ...that's not John McCain, is it?

  • 0

    SushiSake2

    "The little regard pacifists have for the lives of those whom they want so badly to believe they are saving never ceases to amaze, and disgust."

    Whereas war mongers make no mention of the fact their support for the WOT has already cost the lives of more than 500,000 Iraqis, likely 6-7,000 Americans, wounded and permanently maimed untold thousands and will ultimately cost north of $3 trillion.

    That, is amazing.

  • 0

    Hikozaemon

    I'd say that a vote for McCain is a vote for a new war with Iran.

    Why are there 100,000+ troops in Iraq, and only a few thousand troops in Afghanistan, backed up in equal numbers by Canadian and French troops in the REAL war on terror?

    I'd say that Clinton would be the best candidate for a thought through military foreign policy (certainly not economic though) - but McCain can take the spot for economic and military foreign policy if he can keep the discredited right wing of Republican neocons at arms length.

    Peace

  • 0

    Hikozaemon

    Taken as a three-way race, and viewed as a comparison purely of politics and policies, I honestly think that McCain is the best candidate, if he can stay true to his bi-partisan social liberal tendencies he has shown to date, that have made the right of the Republican establishment such enemies of his.

    Clinton is the other contender for the policy middle ground, but the problem is that she is competing with a Democrat left winger for votes of union and interest group delegates who are primarily isolationist in outlook. So she and Barack are competing to say how much each other opposes free trade, and Barack going further saying that the US should not go out of its borders at all, while the only candidate free and able to talk sense is McCain. Yes, Barack would be a change, and he is young and hansome and all that, but if you put the three candidates on a sheet of paper, without photos, and line up what each stands for, I think that he would be a weak candidate against McCain.

    McCain should be able to enjoy the next few months as the two democrats alienate middle America campaigning to the vested interests on the left of the democrats who will decide the nominee.

    However, if Obama does get the nomination, I won't pretend that the minority of Americans who actually do get out to vote really think about or care deeply about the substantive policy issues at stake in the election. So Obama still has a chance.

    Peace

  • 0

    redacted

    "Whereas war mongers make no mention of the fact their support for the WOT has already cost the lives of more than 500,000 Iraqis..."

    500, 000? Can we have the link for that one? With a figure that inflated you give al Qaeda, the Mahdi Army, and the various Sunni and Shia death squads reputations and a ferocity that would keep even the most paranoid neo-con awake at night. One minute you are a pacifist, the next you appear as some sort of alarmist...

    Kindly explain how American support for a war against militant Islam is the direct cause of Muslims killing Muslims. You allow Muslims no free will of their own.

    "...6-7,000 Americans, wounded and permanently maimed untold thousands and will ultimately cost north of $3 trillion."

    And yet, US armed forces keep meeting and even exceeding their enlistment quotas...

  • 0

    skipthesong

    this is so comical all you fighting each other about the best candidate when you really know deep down inside, you have all been played.

    frontandcentre "It is so obvious that what America needs is a fresh start with a young, dynamic president." No, what America needs is a fresh new government, and it doesn't include any one of the candidates. It also needs a kick in the butt and a very big wake up call..

    and I believe its coming sooner than most think......

  • 0

    Sarge

    "what America needs is a fresh start with a young, dynamic president"

    Nah, what America needs is to continue to be the leading light and hope of the world with an experienced, wizened president.

  • 0

    Maruku

    Sarge, that would be true if the light still shone. Let's be honest, after this administration, it doesn't really matter who gets in - the only way is up.

    For now the Reps can kick back and watch the Dems rip each other apart, but the choice of VP will probably make or break the Rep ticket. So the question may not be how able McCain is now, it's more like who would lead the US if something had to happen to the wizened President.

    Can the US really afford that risk now? After Cheyney did what he did as VP/P? Nancy did a good job covering Ronnie ... maybe we need to looking at Mrs. McCain?

    Skipthesong is right ... um, correct ... you might want to start thinking about change. It's scary, but if you want your respect back, you might have to shake Washington up a little.

  • 0

    SushiSake3

    It seems like RomeoRamen doesn't have any answers at all to the questions I posed above, namely:

    1/ Your ideas on how the "War on Terror" is going to continue to be funded?

    2/ What foreign policy experience does McCain have?

    John McCain himself cannot answer Q1.

    I challenge any Republican to post answers to these questions.

    Redacted - "500, 000? Can we have the link for that one?"

    No one is sure and the U.S. sure isn't counting. Some figures go to 750,000, others as high as 1,000,000+.

    And it seems like you've been confusing 'terrorists' and 'insurgents' with innocent men and women, much like your womble president.

    And yet, US armed forces keep meeting and even exceeding their enlistment quotas...

    Maybe this is why -

    Army Cash Bonuses The Army’s cash bonuses include bonuses for choosing a high demand military occupational specialty (MOS), for selecting a specific date to begin basic training, for being willing to leave for boot camp as soon as possible, for advanced civilian skills, and more.

    The following is a quick summary of the current Army Cash Bonus:

    Seasonal Bonuses – up to $25,000 High School Sr. Bonuses – $1,000 National Call to Service Bonus – Combined incentives equal to more than $23,000. Prior Service Incentives – up to $20,000 Army Hi Grad - Education Bonus – up to $6,000 Airborne Training Bonus - $6,000 Army Bonus for civilian skills – $5,000

    =====

    And they keep getting higher.

    You can see more bribes - ehrr - "enlistment bonuses" at:

    www.military.com/recruiting/bonus-center/news/armys-2007-enlistment-bonus-update-

    bonuses are paid in cash too - that must be enticing!

  • 0

    Sarge

    "McCain is too old"

    I'd rather have an old wizened president than a young wizenheimer president.

  • 0

    SushiSake3

    Sarge - no you wouldn't.

  • 0

    Sarge

    SushiSake3 - Yes, I would.
    BTW, did you know there's a SushiSake2 running around this site, including a few posts on this thread? Check it out!

  • 0

    redacted

    sushi sake 2/3:"I challenge any Republican to post answers to these questions."

    Are you going to tell us McCain's opponents have answered those questions to your satisfaction?

    McCain, as most diehard Republicans would tell you, is basically a centrist. Don't forget - even the openly partisan liberal media like this guy. He's "the Maverick."

    Over the last five both Barak Hussein Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton have quite casually changed their positions on the Iraq War whenever it suited them.

    It's obvious your posts aren't about the War on Terror so much as they are about attacking US Republicans and or conservatives.

    Is it because they are the party that even you recognize seeks to keep America strong?Or is it that they're the party you blame for your country's demise?

  • 0

    jeancolmar

    .

    It was a "failure of leadership" that started this useless war and has kept it going.

    The reasons for the war were lies. When Bush said mission accomplished that was B.S. (Most G.I.s died after that.) Lame Brain McCain has been nicknamed "Bagdad Bob" after the Iraqi general who was saying that the forces of Saddam were winning when Bagdad was falling. Lame Brain McCain said the US is going to have to occupy Iraq for a century. Your grandchildren will be getting their legs blown off there.

    Yeah, the Repugs have shown great leadership, starting with Bush.

    Unfortunately, McCain just might get elected and like his puppeteer, Bush, might start more wars.

  • 0

    RomeoRamenII

    I will be casting my ballot for Mr. McCain; a person who's dedicated his entire adult life to pubilc service.

    Besides, the more who comes out supporting barack (jane fonda, farrahkan) the more Americans will not want him as president. The super delegates know this, too. That is one reason why they will never give him the nomination. So, it really makes no difference what barack says. Heh, only non-voting, American wannabes believe otherwise.

    RR

  • 0

    SushiSake3

    redacted -

    "Are you going to tell us McCain's opponents have answered those questions to your satisfaction?"

    No, I'm waiting for RomeoRamen and other war supporters like yourself to front up and answer the question. You or Sen. McCain can't evade it forever.

    I will ask again: Where is the money to fund the war going to come from?

    "McCain, as most diehard Republicans would tell you, is basically a centrist. Don't forget - even the openly partisan liberal media like this guy. He's "the Maverick."

    He is also a loser who has warped priorities.

    The economy is right now the number one concern for Americans. But what is McCain doing? He's mumbling stuff about security and keeping America safe, not mentioning that his support for Bush's policies are one of the key reasons his country's economy is now teetering on the brink of recession.

    If that wasn't bad enough, he also has no clear, coherent plan to reinvigorate the economy.

    It worries me that this doesn't worry you, amnd I am assuming you are American.

    "Over the last five both Barak Hussein Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton have quite casually changed their positions on the Iraq War whenever it suited them."

    Wrong. Obama has been against the war from the start.

    "It's obvious your posts aren't about the War on Terror so much as they are about attacking US Republicans and or conservatives."

    Correct. Because the US Republicans are primarily the ones who are behind the tanking U.S. economy, which will have a worldwide fallout when it sinks deeper into recession.

    "Is it because they are the party that even you recognize seeks to keep America strong?"

    No, that's because the Republican party has weakened America economically, militarily, diplomatically and in terms of nearly every major alliance.

    "Or is it that they're the party you blame for your country's demise?"

    FYI, my country has never had it better.

    RomeoRamen - "I will be casting my ballot for Mr. McCain; a person who's dedicated his entire adult life to pubilc service."

    I just wish the latter part of it was in the right direction. Pity it isn't.

    BTW, has Sen. McCain decided whether he is for or against Bush's tax cuts?

  • 0

    SushiSake3

    Honestly, I love you Republicans - debating with you is about as difficult as falling over and missing hitting the floor.

    Keep it up! :-)

  • 0

    frontandcentre

    Is it because they are the party that even you recognize seeks to keep America strong?

    mmm...keeping America strong by bankrupting it.... good policy!

  • 0

    redacted

    "Obama has been against the war from the start."?

    You might want to actually do a little research there, sushi sake.

    Barack Obama discussed the Iraq War in his book The Audacity of Hope (2006):“I began to suspect that I might have been wrong...”

    He told the Chicago Tribune in July 2004: “There’s not that much difference between my position and George Bush’s position at this stage.”

    In Nov 04 he gets elected to the Senate and tells the press:

    "[O]nce the decision was made, then we’ve got to do everything we can to stabilize the country, to make it successful, because we’ll have too much at stake in the Middle East. And that’s the position that I continue to take."

    But once his base on the Left decided that their 08 candidate - unlike John Kerry and John Edwards and Hillary - must be against the war, he then began trumpeting his supposedly prescient opposition to regime change from back in 2002, confident I'm sure that the media would not remind his fans that in the same year in a speech he gave in Chicago on October 2, 2002, he declared that the Iraqi despot Saddam Hussein had “repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity,” and that he “butchers his own people...”

    What he says to get himself the nomination and to get elected are obviously different from what he'd do should he win.

    He has made that more than clear to any American who has taken time enough to stop repeating the mantra - "change!" - and take a look at the Empty Suit and his record.

  • 0

    RomeoRamenII

    Should barack, heh, win it all, I'm willing to bet he'll come up with a reason why he's not going to bring the troops home.

    He'll probably say something along the lines, "Now that I have the bigger picture of what's going on over there and after consulting with the commanders on the ground in Iraq, it is my opinon that it would be not wise to lower troop numbers at this time or in the forseeable future."

    And barack's supporters inside and outside the media will fall all over themselves hailing his decision as the right move.

    RR

  • 0

    RomeoRamenII

    redacted - Yep, barack was for the war before he was against the war.

    barack will say anything to get the nomination. Heh, shame he won't get it, though. The super delegates will see to that. They will be making their decision of what's good for the democratic party. And it sho ain't barack.

    RR

Back to top

Login to leave a comment

OR

Follow us

Facebook
Twitter

More in World

View all

View all