Monday May 28, 2012

McCain says Obama doesn't understand Iraq

World ( 39 )

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

39 Comments

Login to comment

  • 0

    Betzee

    “Anything is a good timetable that is dictated by conditions on the ground. Anything is good. But the timetable is dictated, not by an artificial date, but by the conditions on the ground, the conditions of security.”

    Yet Maliki, the democratically appointed Prime Minister of Iraq who presumably is aware of conditions on the ground, has endorsed Obama's timetable. What does McCain think the he's doing, levitating?

    “John McCain is always there for our troops.”

    Really, is that how he would characterize his opposition to expanding the GI bill?

  • 0

    Taka313

    In what was seen as **an apparent shift in that position **late last week,

    Sen. McCain seems to be suffering from a great many "apparent shifts in positions" of late.

    I guess shooting around corners is more presidential.

    Taka

  • 0

    Betzee

    If Obama doesn't understand Iraq then, by extension, neither does Maliki since he endorsed Obama's withdrawal timetable. McCain should stick to things he doesn't understand, such as the difference between Sunni and Shia, in making his case.

  • 0

    rjd_jr

    Is there a day or minute this guy is NOT taking potshots at Obama? Now we know who the REAL man is in this race.

  • 0

    Surge

    Hey Obamas got the liberal media supporting him, the rest of the world "loves him", but he is losing popularity. Youve been found out for the unpatriotic liberal you are. Way to go McCain.

  • 0

    Sarge

    "Is there a day or minute this guy is NOT taking potshots at Obama?"

    Well, heck, Obama begs to have potshots taken at him!

  • 0

    smithinjapan

    "Anyone with a grain of sense realises that Obama does not understand patriotic foreign policy. He is more concerned with European libs loving him."

    Oh! Another handle change!

    Anyway, it's clear that the person who doesn't understand Iraq is McCain; after all, more than 70% of his own country is in favour of a withdrawal timetable (as opposed to an open 100 year ticket), and now the 'democratic and free' Iraq is demanding they leave and McCain wants to ignore them. Now, explain to me how THAT is democracy! Sounds more like the dictatorship McCain claims to have overthrown.

    As for the, "...IF we followed Obama it would have been genocide, terrorism, AQ all over again, NUCLEAR ANNIHILATION!" Okay... I added the last part, but you can see how his hysteria is ridiculous, much like the, '..we have to illegally invade the sovereign Iraq because they have WMDs that could strike us in 45 minutes! Not to mention the connections between Saddam and AQ!...' etc., arguments that were not only lies, but completely based on moronic supposition of what COULD happen if such information were even remotely real.

    The usual fear mongering by someone DESPERATE to keep his party in power. Hey, if you can't do it by honest promises and hope, may as well push the people into a state of utter hopelessness, terror, and outright fear.

  • 0

    Betzee

    While Obama was on this tour he took in response to criticism he hadn't visited Iraq recently, McCain made headlines by riding in GHWB's golf cart and getting a rejection notice from the NYT's.

    Back home today Obama admitted he was surprised by the pace at which violence has fallen off in Iraq but, he added, so were McCain and GWB. Now that was obviously an effort to deflect responsibility for a misjudgment, but it's also true. GWB expected to have that bilateral security agreement signed, sealed, and delivered by the end of the month on the assumption the Iraqis were still highly beholden to the US to provide security. Instead the improved security situation has allowed them to contemplate a future without the presence of US troops on their soil.

    The uncertain status of the agreement has left the McCain campaign in the lurch. Even GWB has agreed to a "time horizon," a major concession given his steadfast insistence a time frame was not on the table. I don't think, however, bashing Obama's plan is going to expand McCain's support beyond the base.

  • 0

    Sarge

    "Obama admitted he was surprised by the pace at which violence has fallen off in Iraq..."

    No surprise there. He was against the surge and probably really believed it wouldn't work"

    "... but, he added, so were McCain and GWB"

    They were not. They had and have full confidence in General Petraeus and our troops to get the job done.

  • 0

    SezWho2

    Senator Obama doesn’t understand. He doesn’t understand what’s at stake here.

    Of course Senator McCain doesn't explain. He doesn't explain what's at stake here. He leaves that to the fearmongers.

    I think it's fine for McCain to engage Obama on the issue of understanding. At the current time, however, he wants to do so without putting anything of his own at risk--such as his own cogent statement, if he has one, as to what is at risk for American and how it is at risk. Until he can do that, as far as we know both candidates agree upon what's at risk but disagree as to how to lessen it.

  • 0

    Betzee

    They were not. They had and have full confidence in General Petraeus and our troops to get the job done.

    In fact McCain thought it would take until 2013. Yet the Iraqis have confidence in their own ability to provide security and have endorsed Obama's 16-month plan.

    At some point war supporters are going to have to address the weight they plan to give to the wishes of the democratically elected government of Iraq.

  • 0

    Betzee

    War supporters have long dismissed comparisons to Vietnam. Indeed Nixon, in contrast to this administration, was always looking for a way out, or "peace with honor." He knew it was a losing proposition and would have jumped if the Saigon government has said, as the Iraqis have, "we can handle it."

    The American people could say what we were fighting in that war, namely the spread of communism. Here it's unclear why we need to remain (at great expense) if the Iraqis don't want us there. This is a point McCain needs to address if he wants to claim "greater understanding" of the situation in Iraq.

  • 0

    JoeBigs

    I think he is running on real thin ice when he starts throwing the war into the fray. Old man Mc has had some real weird comments in the past, but as of late he is moving into the twilight zone.

    He is one to speak about not understanding Iraq. On March 18th he seemed to have forgotten that Al Qaeda in Iraq are Sunni when he quoted the following;

    http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/18/mccain-misspeaks-on-iran-al-qaeda/

    Mr. McCain said several times during his visit to Jordan – during a news conference and a radio interview — that he was concerned that Iran was training members of Al Qaeda in Iraq. The United States believes that Iran, a Shiite country, has been training and financing Shiite extremists in Iraq, but not Al Qaeda, which is a Sunni insurgent group.

    I think he needs to rethink this tactic of mud sling when it involves either our troops or our war in Iraq. I think it would be best if he sticks to his plans for the future instead of throwing mud.

    In his case he has way to many flip flops, misspoken, and lack of understandings for him to get into that sort of war.

  • 0

    Taka313

    Betzee,

    Here it's unclear why we need to remain (at great expense) if the Iraqis don't want us there.

    Allow me to provide you with some clarification on the "need" to stay:

    http://quote.morningstar.com/Quote/Quote.aspx?ticker=HAL

    http://quote.morningstar.com/Quote/Quote.aspx?ticker=KBR

    That should clear up any confusion as to why the U.S. "needs" to stay, even if the Iraqis don't think so.

    Taka

  • 0

    Betzee

    As Frank Rich, humorous as always, wrote in his Sunday column of the aging Senator seeking the presidency: "His grim-faced crusade to brand his opponent as a traitor who wants to “lose a war” isn’t even a competent impersonation of Joe McCarthy. Mr. McCain comes off instead like the ineffectual Mr. Wilson, the retired neighbor perpetually busting a gasket at the antics of pesky little Dennis the Menace."

    McCain is going to win, he will carry on GW`s good work,

    If he's seeking to blame someone, McCain should look no further than the current occupant. By dispatching a high-ranking diplomat to attend the ongoing talks over Iran's nuclear future, GWB undercut the criticism, including his own, of Obama's naivete in thinking you can sit down and negotiate with our enemies.

    Then there's the matter of this security agreement. No self-respecting sovereign government is going to allow a foreign army on its soil which is not subject to local law. Nor is it going to sign away the right to determine when it has been attacked. And the Republicans claim to understand Iraq better than Obama....

  • 0

    SezWho2

    The prosperity and freedom of the US was not and is not threatened by al Qaida and other criminals. It was and is threatened more by our reaction to al Qaida.

    I don't think that our friends in the United Arab Emirates or in Saudi Arabia really want to see a thriving democracy in Iraq. In attempting to establish one there by force of arms, we are attempting to stand the Middle East on its head. If anyone does not understand Iraq, it's more likely McCain than Obama.

    According to ABC's transcript of his interview with Stephanopoulos (I couldn't immediately find a video of the interview), McCain made the following statement:

    It's conditions on the ground -- the way that the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said, the way that General Petraeus has said -- conditions on the ground, so that the Iraqi government can have control, can have the sufficient security, so that we don't have to come back. Senator Obama said that if his date didn't work, we may have to come back.

    We're not coming home in victory. We're coming home in victory.

    http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/story?id=5457720/page=1

    (You'll have to replace the last backslash (/) with an ampersand (not shown).)

    Whatever McCain's last cryptic statement about victory might mean, any victory available in Iraq will by Pyrrhic. And the result of that victory is unlikely to be permanent.

    Conditions on the ground do not dictate timetables as McCain seems to be suggesting. If they do, the results of the dictate are not timetables. They are projections.

    Timetables are put in place to shape conditions on the ground. They are schedules. Schedules once established can be revised but they convey the sense that actions take place in the real world and must be completed in the real world. "Someday" is never a plan.

  • 0

    SushiSake3

    "During the ABC interview, McCain also declared that Iraq now was “a stable ally in the region”

    What planet is this guy living on? The idiocy of this comment brings back memories of the one he made a couple of years ago when he said Baghdad was "safe" while he was wearing bullet-proof armor, surrounded by 100-odd SWAT guys and covered by attack 'coptors.

    Can someone please tell Sen. McCain to stop dreaming and come back into the real world? :-)

  • 0

    undecidedbout08

    On this one I think Senator McCain is correct. Obama seems to be all talk. He is too much the opportunist. He called for legislation preventing Blackwater from operating in Iraq, he attacked their outfit, but he let their security forces provide protection for his recent much - publicized tour of Iraq...

  • 0

    Taka313

    undecided, I hope your realize that your Sen. Obama/blackwater thingy could also apply to Sen. McCain. Sen. McCain spoke out and voted against extending educational benefits for the same military personnel that escorted him on his little shopping jaunt in Bagdad. I wouldn't hang my hat on that argument, if I were you.

    Taka

  • 0

    skipthesong

    taka,

    That should clear up any confusion as to why the U.S. "needs" to stay, even if the Iraqis don't think so." Was that a personal pop shot at me?

  • 0

    adaydream

    McCain said the 16-month plan was a “pretty good timetable.” But he clarified that statement Sunday, saying “conditions on the ground” still should determine when the bulk of U.S. combat forces depart.

    Talk about trash talk, flip flopping and just plain double talk. For the past few months John McCain has said no matter what we need to stay till victory, even if it takes 100 years. Now he's starting to fall into lockstep with Obama and Al-Maliki.

    McCain also stood fast on his vow to evict Russia from the G-8, the group of powerful industrial nations.

    Boy he's a wild little man. He's got plans to oust Russia from the G-8. He's something else. < :-)

  • 0

    Taka313

    Skip, That was absolutely not a personal attack on you. To be perfectly honestly, I am confused as to why you would think it was.

    Taka

  • 0

    SezWho2

    adaydream,

    A plan like ousting Russia from the G-8 can only resonate among the ignorant. No idea is a good idea if it is a non-starter and the Europeans will never sign on to it--nor should anyone else.

  • 0

    Proffessor

    I always wonder why it's called 'the Iraq war'. I see no war there but simply an occupation. An occuapation that should have not happened in the first place. Which enemy are we at war with? Sen.McShame should wake and face up to reality. we don't need another McBush term. We have had enough it.

  • 0

    undecidedbout08

    Sen.McShame should wake and face up to reality. we don't need another McBush term.

    So, you too are voting for Senator Barack Hussein Obama ?

  • 0

    Proffessor

    There is no better option

  • 0

    skipthesong

    Taka, as much as you disagree, Halibuton is a good investment! Sorry, I had you confused with another taka several months back when I was talking good about it. Depending on how you buy into it, it can be a worthwhile investment.

    No, I am not saying stay there because I benefit, I also lose out in other areas with us being there too.

    Anyway, why don't these two sit down to a one on one live debate?

  • 0

    skipthesong

    Taka, as much as you disagree, Halibuton is a good investment! Sorry, I had you confused with another taka several months back when I was talking good about it. Depending on how you buy into it, it can be a worthwhile investment.

    No, I am not saying stay there because I benefit, I also lose out in other areas with us being there too.

    Anyway, why don't these two sit down to a one on one live debate?

  • 0

    Surge

    Obama is to busy feeling proud over all his new friends in Europe (fair weather friends). McCain is a fully fledged American hero, who understands the needs of the military and the US economy. When McCain wins, watch the Dow Jones raise by over 10% in a week, as everyone celebrates. Gonna be a great party.

  • 0

    SushiSake3

    Surge - "Gonna be a great party."

    As your near namesake Sarge often says - "ain't gonna happen!" :-)

    "McCain is a fully fledged American hero."

    LOL! He is a loser whose seriously flawed judgment helped lead us into this war without end (until Obama ends it)

  • 0

    Taka313

    Skip, There is no doubt halliburton is a good investment. Heck, they get caught over-charging and don't face a penalty, they promise clean water and deliver sub-standard water to the troops in Iraq. When a company is willing to cut corners financially at the expense of their customer, who has no other recourse since the company has a monopoly on that business, and that company is also willing to engage in business practices that are less than ethical, odds are, that company will be profitable and a great investment opportunity. But...I'd rather be dirt poor than a halliburton stockholder. There are things money cannot buy.

    Taka

    Moderator: Back on topic please. Halliburton is not relevant to this discussion.

  • 0

    Sarge

    "He ( McCain ) is a loser"

    He did lose the Republican nomination to GWB in 2000, so, OK, he's a loser in that respect. We'll see if he loses to Obama or whoever the Democrats nominate in November. I still think it's possible the Democrats will realize their colossal mistake before their convention and dump the Messiah.

  • 0

    netvistafire

    McCain is a fully fledged American hero, who understands the needs of the military and the US economy.

    During his stay at the Hanoi Hilton Mc Cain was not only a Communist collaborator but became a Comminist sympathiser. How psychologically twisted is McCain? Mc Cain calims it was abuse that made him become a Communist collaborator or could it be that he collaborated to such extent that he has to cover up? The truth is about to explode.

    Mc Cain was brought to Hanoi Hilton and after a few deays he swore the Communists that he would reveal all the millitary information available. Mc Cain was used as a propaganda tool by the COmmunists in Vietnam. Because of his speacial status as a Millitary elite he recieved good medical attention and was taken care of more as a guest of honour. The Vietnamese Press started quoting him. Mc Cain was a tool for the COmmunists as well as the best informer. Mc Cain collabortated with the COmmunists for well over 3 years. McCain was repaying his captors for their kindness and mercy. Mc Cain was Vietnamese's favourite in return he danced to their tune.

  • 0

    skipthesong

    He did lose the Republican nomination to GWB in 2000" Yes, but there is one thing I just found out about McC, one group of people he does have solid is the older voters, voters that is going to be hard for O to get to for the main fact that they are not on the internet. I couldn't believe how big this group is, but it is large. They are basically in the dark for the most part. Today's news is not geared towards them, geared to the younger crowed and that is where O is strongest.

    not only a Communist collaborator but became a Comminist sympathiser." Is that really true?

  • 0

    netvistafire

    not only a Communist collaborator but became a Comminist sympathiser." Is that really true?

    A former Vietnamese Communist Party official is claiming Sen. John McCain was "quickly singled out for softer treatment" as a POW because "he was the son of an American admiral. Phung Van Chung, 70, who was a Communist Party official at the time McCain was captured said "top" Vietnamese leaders wanted to use McCain "for negotiations." Chung also said McCain is refusing "to acknowledge" the heroism of Mai Van On, a Vietnamese peasant who the Vietnamese say swam out during the bombing raid and rescued McCain from drowning. McCain's refusal to publicly recognize Mai Van On for saving "his life" has some in the media speculating that McCain is afraid that to do so would "fuel other, more damaging allegations that McCain exaggerated elements of his PoW ordeal in Hoa Lo prison.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-542277/How-war-hero-John-McCain-betrayed-Vietnamese-peasant-saved-life.html

  • 0

    SushiSake3

    McCain "a Communist collaborator but became a Comminist sympathiser."

    All in a day's work for McShame from Arizona. :-)

  • 0

    JoeBigs

    undecidedbout08 So, you too are voting for Senator Barack Hussein Obama ?

    Got a funny question, why is your handle "undecidedbout08" when from your post everyone can see where you stand? Not a jab, just wondering from an Independent voter. Are you trying to make the undecided voters think that you were not sure but now are? Just wondering.....Hm now that would be a good handle......

    A former Vietnamese Communist Party official is claiming Sen. John McCain was "quickly singled out for softer treatment" as a POW because "he was the son of an American admiral.

    That traitor Old man Mc hates the troops.....He is nothing more than a traitor! Down with the pinko Old man Mc!LOL

  • 0

    freakashow

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080728/aponremiea/iraqvacantprison

  • 0

    kinniku

    skip,

    Is that really true?

    Unsurprisingly, reading the article netvistafire linked leads me to believe it is not true. I always find it interesting when people actually provide a link that proves what they are saying is false.

Back to top

Login to leave a comment

OR

Follow us

Facebook
Twitter

More in World

View all

View all