McCain Falsely Claims That Obama Is Denying The Success Of The Troops
Okay, here's where McCain's claim that Obama got the surge wrong is headed: Obama isn't merely denying that the surge succeeded; Obama is also denying the success of the troops.
In an interview set to air on CBS tonight, McCain was asked to respond to Obama's assertion that the Sunni awakening and the Shiite government targeting militias was responsible for improving security in Iraq, along with the troops' work.
After a long answer, McCain said the following, according to an advance excerpt:
"Our troops will come home with honor. And we won't be defeated. And there won't be chaos in the region. There won't be increased Iranian influence in the region. And it will have a bearing on what happens in Afghanistan, as well as the entire region of the world. And I'm proud of what they've done. And to deny their success -- I think is a fundamental misunderstanding of what happened. The American people will make a judgment."
McCain also accused Obama of denying that the troops had made possible the success of the surge, calling it "a great disservice to young men and women who are serving and have sacrificed."
All of this is false. Obama is emphatically not denying the success of the troops. He's denying the success of the Iraqi political process. He has repeatedly said for months now that the troops were responsible for reducing violence.
Obama, Feb. 21: "I think it is indisputable that we've seen violence reduced in Iraq. And that's a credit to our brave men and women in uniform."
Obama, July 15th: "As I have said many times, our troops have performed brilliantly in lowering the level of violence."
Obama, today: "In Iraq, we reviewed the gains that have been made in lowering the levels of violence thanks to the outstanding efforts of our military, the increased capabilities of the Iraq security forces..."
Not that facts matter, of course.
I'm pretty sure Obama never makes a criticism of our foreign policy without mentioning the troops' service and heroism - or McCain's, for that matter.
July 22, 2008 4:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
yep, and thats the problem with obama:
he only talks about troop heroism as a qualifier to a critique. its never his main point. the next phrase is always something that is critical or minimizes what the troops are doing. its lawyer-speak.
July 22, 2008 7:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow thats a really pathetic attempt at casting aspersions on Obama's support of our troops without actually saying so. Charming, but the McCain campaign in a clear sign of desperation has already dropped such impotent tactics and are goin straight to boldface lies. You didn't get the memo?
July 22, 2008 8:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
yes or no.. was obama wrong about the surge?
July 22, 2008 9:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes...
July 23, 2008 9:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Try as anyone might to support McCain, it is obvious that McCain is not up to keeping facts straight. Those comments do not register in any thinking person's mind since we have all heard Obama repeatedly commending the work of our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. McCain's comments just show that his memory is slipping and that he is even unable to keep simple remarks like this straight in his head. Can you imagine how jumbled up he would get as to what countries actually exist presently, who said what from which country and exactly how things have developed. Obama could not be more explicit but McCain still attacks on this issue. Is he actually so forgetful, are his researchers so inept or is John McCain purposely telling these big lies? Any one of these reasons are very problematic and sound very inept to me. Not on a Presidential level whatsoever. Sad to see this man with such a fine life story sink to these behaviors.
July 22, 2008 11:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know, in 2004 I felt actual hate in my heart for Bush. This year, I mostly expected to feel sorry for McCain. I'm starting to severely dislike him now, however.
More lies from McCain's lackey, Scheunemann along the lines of those above, Greg:
http://strategy08.wordpress.com
July 22, 2008 4:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
ugh
July 22, 2008 4:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
GREG:
This video will be an excellent addage to your timeline quoutes to the story. Here is Barack Obama and the troops in Iraq. This is what he said and how they responded, nothing quells best than this video on the meaningless and baseless GOP attacks.
Greatly appreciate if you can include in the story and thanks for offerring the timeline.
July 22, 2008 5:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Video link, as posted on Huffpo:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/22/obama-greeted-by-cheering_n_114315.html
While McCain tries to devides us here, Obama gives them a message of unity.
July 22, 2008 5:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry for more than a few typos I see now, but you get my request, I hope.
July 22, 2008 5:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry for more than a few typos I see now, but you get my request, I hope.
July 22, 2008 5:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for that video, kash79. I'm forwarding that link to lots of people!
July 22, 2008 5:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
This, as opposed to Scheunemann's vast experience as a neocon who helped lie us into the war in the first place?
I think the press needs to give Mr. Scheunemann the Samantha Powers treatment. Why isn't the press looking at McCain's shady advisors? Why are they taking the words of this nitwit and passing them on without considering the source? Isn't considering the source a big part of journalism?
July 22, 2008 4:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, fine, I'll do it:
A well-connected lobbyist and political insider who serves as an advisor to Sen. John McCain’s (R-AZ) presidential campaign, Randy Scheunemann is the founder and president of the public relations firm Orion Strategies 1 and was an active supporter of advocacy groups aimed at building support for the invasion of Iraq. His firms have represented various military contractor and oil interests. Along with neoconservative figures like Robert Kagan and William Kristol, Scheunemann served as a director of the now-defunct Project for the New American Century (PNAC), a letterhead group that played an important role in building support for the Iraq War and an expansive “war on terror.” 2 He also headed the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq (CLI), a post-9/11 advocacy outfit that pushed for war in Iraq. Like PNAC, CLI played a key role forging a coalition of Beltway figures who supported a Middle East agenda that had at its core toppling Saddam Hussein. 3 CLI members included McCain and Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT). 4
Scheunemann has served as senior foreign policy and national security advisor to McCain’s 2008 presidential campaign since 2007. In May 2008 the New York Times reported that Scheunemann had been working as a lobbyist for foreign governments as a “registered foreign agent” at the same time he was advising McCain. 5 “Over the past several years, Mr. Scheunemann met several times with Mr. McCain to discuss his clients’ interests. He introduced the senator to the foreign ministers of Albania, Croatia, and Macedonia as they tried to win admission to NATO, and a representative of Taiwan as it lobbied for free trade, records show. Mr. Scheunemann also accompanied Mr. McCain to Latvia in 2001 and Georgia in 2006,” the Times reported. 6 In March 2008, Scheunemann ended his registrations with several countries, according to the Times. A new McCain policy prevents campaign workers to be paid for lobbying work, but volunteers need only disclose it. However, “they are not allowed to participate in any campaign conversations about the issues for which they lobby, which would seem to pose a conflict for someone like Mr. Scheunemann. His work as a foreign agent could overlap on any number of issues with his foreign policy advice.” 7
According to the Lobbying Registration office of the U.S. House of Representatives and the watchdog group OpenSecrets.org, Scheunemann's lobbying firm, Scheunemann & Associates, has for several years represented the National Rifle Association. 8 In 2005, the firm also represented the Caspian Alliance, a consortium of oil- and gas-producing nations from the Caspian region. Scheunemann has also led the lobbying firms Orion Strategies (which he owns) and the Mercury Group. The Mercury Group, for which Scheunemann served as president, has lobbied on behalf clients that include Swiftships Shipbuilders, Barrett Firearms Manufacturing, BP America, Air Force Memorial Foundation, Lockheed Martin, National Shooting Sports Foundation, and Sporting Arms and Ammunitions Manufacturers. 9
Scheunemann told the New York Sun that despite a number of “realists” such as Brent Scowcroft among McCain’s other foreign policy advisors, his own influence, as well as that of other like-minded advisers like William Kristol and Robert Kagan, has been paramount. "I don't think, given where John has been for the last four or five years on the Iraq War and foreign policy issues, anyone would mistake Scowcroft for a close adviser," Scheunemann said, adding that even if Scowcroft were close, McCain "was not taking the advice.” 10
Scheunemann has criticized the other presidential contenders, sometimes charging them with having a “September 10 mindset” that was not suited to fighting terrorism. 11 While commenting on former Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney's support for "timetables and milestones" for the Iraqi government, Scheunemann asserted that McCain "does not believe in timetables or deadlines, secret or otherwise. He has made it clear that setting a timetable or deadline is nothing more than setting a date certain for surrender." 12 In mid-2007, Scheunemann called the idea of withdrawing troops from Iraq as “ludicrous. Because the idea that we will be able to better prevent sectarian violence and fight al-Qaida better from Kuwait than how we are doing it now is laughable." 13
Scheunemann worked previously for McCain as an advisor for the senator’s failed 2000 presidential bid during a period when the candidate’s views on foreign affairs evolved dramatically. 14 John Judis writes that the candidate began "seeking to differentiate his views from those of other Republican presidential aspirants and from the growing isolationism of House Republicans ... [placing] his new interventionist instincts within a larger ideological framework. That ideological framework was neoconservatism. McCain began reading the Weekly Standard and conferring with its editors, particularly Bill Kristol." Shortly after his staff consulted with Kristol, McCain hired a bevy of neoconservative-aligned operatives, including Scheunemann, Marshall Wittmann, and Daniel McKivergan. 15
The impact of this group of advisors on the senator's thinking was revealed in early 1999, Judis reported, when McCain spoke at Kansas State University using a speech Scheunemann helped draft. In it, McCain echoed the neoconservative idea of "national greatness conservatism," arguing: "The United States is the indispensable nation because we have proven to be the greatest force for good in human history.... [W]e have every intention of continuing to use our primacy in world affairs for humanity's benefit." Judis reported about the stumping, "The centerpiece of the speech was a strategy that McCain called 'rogue-state rollback,'" a term Scheunemann claimed to have created based on rhetoric used by critics of 1950s Cold War containment strategy. 16
Scheunemann has experience on Capitol Hill dating back to the mid-1980s, when he began working for a number of congressional committees. According to his biography on the PNAC website, between 1986 and 1993 Scheunemann "served on the staffs of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the House Foreign Affairs Committee, and the House Republican Policy Committee." 17 He then became a senior advisor to Republican presidential candidate Sen. Bob Dole (R-KS) in 1996, served on the 1996 Republican Platform Committee, and between 1993 and 1999 was national security advisor for Dole and Sen. Trent Lott (R-MS). 18 In 1997, during the time he was working as a congressional aide for Lott, Scheunemann reportedly forgot to remove a shotgun from his car after a duck-hunting trip; when he drove up to the U.S. Capitol to report for work, he was arrested for possession of an unregistered firearm. 19
Scheunemann's PNAC bio states that during his time working on the Hill, he "was involved in Senate deliberations concerning the use of American military power in Somalia, the Korean Peninsula, Iraq, Haiti, and Bosnia. He also served as coordinator for Senate Republican policy on UN reform, congressional-executive war powers, NATO enlargement, global climate change, economic sanctions, ballistic missile defense, and technology transfers to China." 20
During this period Scheunemann helped draft the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act, which made the toppling of Saddam Hussein an official U.S. policy goal and authorized $98 million for the Iraqi National Congress, a loose grouping of Iraqi dissidents led by Ahmad Chalabi that has been widely blamed for channeling false intelligence about Iraq. 21 Scheunemann also served briefly as an advisor to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld early in the George W. Bush administration as a consultant on Iraq policy. 22
http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1347.html
July 22, 2008 4:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, a part of journalism.
Journalism, however, isn't what's being practiced by most of our press corps.
http://strategy08.wordpress.com
July 22, 2008 4:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can't argue with that.
July 22, 2008 4:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I almost despise McLame more than I do Bush because McLame failed a very bright line, glaring, not one bit subtle moral test.
He was tortured, he heard his companions tortured - he should have been the last person in Congress to vote yes on allowing Bush to torture prisoners.
But he did it. Fucker has no soul.
July 22, 2008 4:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
100% agreed.
July 22, 2008 5:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
McCain is increasingly living in a quagmire.
Isn't it last week when his camp run "Obama Iraq documentary" showing Obama repeatedly applauding the troops?
Side Note:
I can see, if Biden were the VP nominee, decimating these ridiculous attacks by his dry hurmor.
July 22, 2008 4:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, that whole "Maverick" title has just been thrown under the bus. McCain is acting like every other Republican.
On the up side I don't see this helping him with inependents. Sure, this kind of thing helps him with his Gooper base, but anyone with an above room tempature IQ will know this for the nonsense it is.
Having not seen the segment in question I can't comment on the reporter, but if the reporter let this slide like walrus shit on an ice flow we can also consider the "the media wants to give Obama a hummer" meme also thrown under the bus.
July 22, 2008 4:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama is boxed.
July 22, 2008 4:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://www.amishrakefight.org/gfy/
July 22, 2008 4:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
congrats fogu2...so glad to see your garbage and twisted logic. Your refusal to "see" with your eyes and ears is typical of a tragic troll just like your tragic support of Hillary and McFuddle!
July 22, 2008 4:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm again sorry for you.
After all your unwavering Hillary support (I assume you thought you were a democrat then?) your are left to carry the shit for McCain.
Good luck. You'll be busy. McSame does crap a lot.
Sorry again, "my friend."
July 22, 2008 4:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Again, not supporting McCain. Just providing the evidence that Obama is a sham and a scam.
July 22, 2008 5:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Evidence"?? Once again you have no clue about the difference between "fact" and "opinion". LOL!
As for being "unable to admit when wrong", wow! Pot. Kettle. Black, sport.
July 22, 2008 6:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry.
Here is part of what Obama said:
Thanks for playing, and we have some lovely parting gifts, troll.
July 22, 2008 4:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sorry, did you snip the part where he also admitted he was wrong and showed bad judgment?
July 22, 2008 5:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
His judgment wasn't wrong.
The Surge initially caused a spike in violence. This forced the Pentagon to scramble in its efforts to negotiate with Sunni tribes, ultimately leading us to begin paying them off for cooperation.
One of the key stated objectives of the surge was to disarm the Sunni militias. This did not happen. In fact, these militias are now more influential and better financed than they were before the surge began.
U.S. forces have helped reduce violence in several areas, as expected, but with tribalism now rampant, one of the key hurdles that we had hoped to cross has not become taller.
Ultimately, I think the course that both Clinton and Obama recommended in 2007 would still have been a better and less problematic path to the long-term stability of the government in Baghdad.
Of course, I'm guessing you hate Clinton now too (if you ever supported her, which I doubt).
July 22, 2008 6:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
"His judgment wasn't wrong."
his judgment now is that he would still be against the surge even after seeing that it was successful. that is HORRIBLE judgment!! he would still risk failure over the sure success?? how can that be more idiotic?
July 22, 2008 6:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sorry, the only thing idiotic is your complete inability to comprehend the complexity of the situation.
The surge, initially, caused a spike in violence. We were largely forced to begin funneling resources to Sunni tribes in exchange for temporary cooperation, a tactic that was counter to one of the stated goals of the surge: the disarmament of nongovernment military groups.
So, as of now, we are facing a situation where violence has been reduced but one of the key factors preventing long-term stability (non-government military groups) is actually worse than it was in 2006.
While the surge has probably had some benefits, it has also produced major problems (namely, rampant tribalism and empowered warlords). Consequently, foreign policy realists like Chuck Hagel and Colin Powell will tell you that another course of action would have likely produced many of the same advances without creating severe problems for the achievement of one our key objectives.
July 22, 2008 6:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
And yes, given the grotesque amount of resources put into a strategy that has had mixed results, I would very much prefer to go back in time and 'risk' a more sensible, less costly strategy that actually sought to secure all of our objectives in Iraq, not just a temporary PR coup for partisans back home.
July 22, 2008 6:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Obama is boxed."
Objectivity on Obama coming from the likes of you is as natural as a oral bowel movement - you're a clown. McCain is the one boxed in you drooling lunatic.
July 22, 2008 4:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for that substantive reply. Sure sign that you know you are wrong but like Obama just can not admit it.
July 22, 2008 5:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Thanks for that substantive reply. Sure sign that you know you are wrong but like Obama just can not admit it."
..this coming from someone who actually believes that Obama is boxed in, despite damning evidence to the contrary - talk about not being able to admit when you're wrong..
July 22, 2008 8:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually fogu2, while you may have a point, the entire picture is still very unclear. The entire war is a horrible boondoggle and the surge plan has not resulted in the Iraqi's making the adjustments required by Bush himself, you know the benchmarks. What benchmarks the Iraqis have met - or met according to the Bush Press folks - have not resulted in reconciliation between the Sunnis and the Shias. Further, we are still paying huge bills for this hapless invasion. And the idea of asking Iraq to pay for reconstruction has been abandoned. I note that to date, no big influx of income from Iraq. The entire boondogle is a mess. Obama's trip to Iraq has been wonderfully successful and he gets it right. They want us out of there. The damage and loss of human life is staggering over there. This nut in the White House now had mucked that country. And further we have not paid for the damage to that country. Hussein's death is only that. Iraq has been bombed to hell and we expect them to fix our mess. This administration will go down in history as the most cruel, inept, maniacal in our history.
July 22, 2008 11:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nope. Until Obama admits that his judgment was wrong about initiating the surge he will not be permitted to now get away with saying that it is a success.
... yawn ...
With one admission must come the other. Otherwise it is hypocrisy pure and simple. And the whole basis of his candidacy was his transcendent judgment...
... yawn, stretch ...
which now turn out to be completely wrong on the surge. Like Bush, he just cannot admit that he was wrong.
... fist on cheek, eyes glazing ...
Why? Because it would provide the soundbite that McCain ....
zzzzzzzzzzzzzz
July 22, 2008 5:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, did I wake you from your coma?
July 22, 2008 5:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think it's obvious to anyone with even modest comprehension skills that you're not waking me . . . but putting me to sleep with your pathetic ramblings.
July 22, 2008 5:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
zzzzzzzzzzzz
July 22, 2008 9:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
You completely missed the point of Greg's post in equating the surge with tactical operations.
July 22, 2008 6:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
And yet more hilarity from the McCain trolls -- the war didn't start with the surge boys and girls. McCain supported the war (terrible judgement) and actually the purpose of the surge has not been met. If i were McCain i'd like to say that "We Won cuzza ME" as well, but its not like anyone is buyin it. Give McGrampa some milk and cookies and put him to bed. and try again.
July 22, 2008 8:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama is taking the high ground while overseas and won't take McFuddle's bait to sling shit across the world like he is. But I have a feeling that when the timing is right Obama will let McFuddle have it with both barrels. He is more tragic than his age, spouse, military service or campaign disasters. He is nothing but a complete disgrace and his payback will be in November with a huge defeat!
July 22, 2008 4:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly - he's been doing that all along. It's been working very well indeed.
July 22, 2008 5:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I heard today that McCain used offensive language towards his wife a few years ago.
What I heard was really quite offensive - and I don't know how any woman or man for that matter could vote for McCain if true.
Does anyone have any links or information on this
which was purportedly said in public.
thanks
July 22, 2008 4:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Euu_DMhsXQo
July 22, 2008 4:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
What was that word again, you know, the one John McCain called his wife?
July 23, 2008 6:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
And Katie Couric of course followed up with a question that said "Why do you say that? Obama hasn't ever denied the success of the troops", right?
sigh.
How is this going to play? YOu have the interview with Obama clearly crediting the troops, followed by this interview with McCain.
This is the only weapon that McCain and his campaign has, and we're going to be hearing a tone of this.
Antidote to this? Chuck Hagel coming out and rapping the McCain campaign, bad, and then endorsing Obama.
July 22, 2008 4:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, but there is a clear failure in all of this on the Democratic side: Why are there not Democratic leaders out there EVERY DAY expressing outrage taht Obama's statements are being lied about by McCain and his surrogates? There needs to be a chorus on every point -- and on every rebuttal. But the conservatives are doing that better this week than the Democrats -- and that seems ALWAYS to be true. Say reasonable things once seems to be the Obama/Democratic approach, and that is not going to work in an attack campaign!
July 22, 2008 4:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
You might think they would have learned from previous campaigns. Evidently not. It is extremely frustrating.
July 22, 2008 4:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, Kerry is out there (http://thepage.time.com/2008/07/22/tv-interview-potpourri-16/). But I agree with CT that it is very frustrating not to have others pushing back on this rubbish as well. McCain is obviously taking advantage of Obama's class in not sending partisan attacks over the ocean.
July 22, 2008 4:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
All Obama has to do is admit he was wrong about initiating the surge.
July 22, 2008 5:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama said that the surge, while it might reduce sectarian violence, would not solve the central problem of getting Iraqis to take control of their government.
Given that we're still 15,000 troops over pre-surge levels, there is absolutely NO exit plan of any kind, and the Iraqi government is calling for the US to leave no later than 2010, I don't see how Obama was wrong.
Of course, there's always the backup hammer: Had we not attacked the wrong country in the first place, no "surge" would have been needed. But I digress.
July 22, 2008 6:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why won't McCain admit he was right about the surge and advocate immediate withdrawal?
Because the Sunni tribes that the surge has empowered now represent an even greater threat to the authority of the Iraqi government than they did in 2006.
July 22, 2008 6:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
They may very well be countering these lies in speeches and statements to the press. That does not mean the msm picks up every rebuttal.
July 22, 2008 6:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, if you disagree with McCain that the troops and only the troops were responsible for everything good that's happened in Iraq since the Surge™ began, you're dishonoring the troops. He seems to think the troops are like a class of third-graders -- they'll be demoralized unless they all win first prize, and saying that's true is more important than making sound decisions based on the real facts on the ground.
Most of this is just the usual phony "support the troops/the Surge is working!" BS, but there's also an element of McCain's weird obsessive need to redeem Vietnam. The wingnut crew will continue to declare the primary importance of "coming home with honor," right up to the point where they accuse Obama of dishonoring the troops when he brings them home (thereby implicitly saying that the troops are dishonored) -- and never grasp the irony of what they're doing.
July 22, 2008 4:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
O well, everyone should have seen this one coming.
And then they'll roll out the Vietnam Justification: The only way to honor our troops who have died is to keep fighting so more die.
July 22, 2008 4:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
FUCK! i am PISSED! he's questioning obama's patriotism AND saying he is disrespecting the troops.
FUCKING WEASEL. FUCK
July 22, 2008 4:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
The real pisser, in my opinion, is that Obama can't respond while over seas. That didn't stop Bush, but adult American politicians consider engaging in domestic politicks while over seas a big no no.
July 22, 2008 4:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
It actually doesn't bother me that much and chances are we'll hear a surrogate for Obama respond sooner or later.
I like that Obama continually is seen as above this crap - it makes him look that much more presidential, frankly. It's not like Kerry, ducking all the time.
July 22, 2008 5:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
It bothers me immensely. These claims are going unchallenged and will linger in the media's minds, and voters minds. They need to be rebutted.
The McCain camp descends into sleaziness, and someone (other than Greg Sarget and TPM) needs to be pointing this out.
Right now, the media is going to engage in a collective "Oh, golly, maybe we've been to easy on Obama". That, combined with these slurs on Obama by McCain, could create quite the toxic environment.
The problem with the Swift Boats debacle was that the Kerry campaign didn't respond quickly and forcefully enough. I do not want to see that again.
July 22, 2008 5:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I don't really think there's much if any harm done, ye ye ye.
On the one hand is an 864 year old choleric dwarf who spent the weekend (I take it) riding around in Bush 41's golf cart with the big ol' Hands Off notice on it. On the other, is Obama riding in a helicopter with Petraeus, looking extremely presidential.
And the enlisted personnel in Iraq already support Obama by quite a margin, I believe.
July 22, 2008 4:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/22/obama-greeted-by-cheering_n_114315.html
Here is the video of troops and Barack in Iraq. Beautiful sight, unless you're a Repig.
July 22, 2008 4:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Anyone want to wager on a game of horse between Obama and McFuddle? I thought Obama's three pointer was nothing but SWEET! and the troops loved it as well!
July 22, 2008 5:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Senator McCain is accusing Senator Obama of treason. The media should make McCain provide proof of why McCain feels that Obama is commiting treason.
This is an issue that needs to be attacked head on.
July 22, 2008 5:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Be my guest - attack away. I disagree completely.
July 22, 2008 5:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
And if you really want to scream, take a look at the July 20 Nightly News on NBC with Lester Holt.
Holt, Richard Engel and Andrea Mitchell all ran with the idea that Adm. Mullen had called Sen. Obama's Iraq withdrawal plan "very dangerous", offering "conditions on the ground" as his own preferred strategy.
Even when Andrea Mitchell mentioned that Obama's own withdrawal plan is based on "conditions on the ground" she STILL didn't note that Adm. Mullen's criticism made no sense.
July 22, 2008 5:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
We all know how the GOP used the Iraq war as a way to elect a "permanent Republican majority." We all know how the Terror alerts were used to shore up Bush's approval raitings. Given these things that we know, and the press must know them too, why is McCain being allowed to accuse Obama of his own party's sins?
It was the GOP who waged a war for political purposes, not the Democrats.
So will anyone, other than Olberman, call bs?
July 22, 2008 5:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
No.
Because the media is just so biased against Republicans and John McCain.
July 22, 2008 5:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jedreport has a new video out, it is worth watching.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ieHwOm4ljA
July 22, 2008 5:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
It seems that the price of even entering into the discussion of the so-called "surge" is reciting the formula about how much violence was reduced.
In fact, the re-invasion of Iraq with five more combat brigades and aggressive use of artillery and air strikes made 2007 the bloodiest year of the entire war.
Thousands of noncombatants died and millions were driven from their homes in the midst of the "surge" that was supposed to bring security to Iraq.
July 22, 2008 5:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right - as usual. The Repugs and really all hawks everywhere always try to rig the game that way. You cannot mentions some things without getting accused of being: unpatriotic, anti-American - the whole schmeer.
In Carlo Levi's memoir of his year in political exile in the south of Italy under Mussolini, he says that when Mussolini invaded what was then Abyssinia, he said this on the radio to justify what he had done - and this is word for word from this book published in 1947:
"They hate us for our freedoms."
How many times did that fucking jackass, Commander CooCoo Bananas say that to us in the aftermath of 9-11 and run-up to the war? Word for fucking word. And it got to the point where you couldn't argue with this bullshit - you were unpatriotic.
Well where is it fucking written that we have to worship our goddamn men and women in uniform? Really? They aren't over there protecting our freedom - why is it we are supposed to automatically respect them -seriously? Just like as children we are automatically supposed to respect teachers, parents, and then it just keeps going - I'm sick of this reverence for soldiers and war, myself.
July 22, 2008 5:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
As a liberal veteran who served under Reagan, Bush I and Clinton, I have to take issue with this. Americans should respect the men and women who choose to serve their country, regardless of the strategies employed by their civilian leaders. Bush's illegal war is not the fault of the soldiers. I usually agree with most of your posts, but this one . . . nah.
July 22, 2008 6:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know, you assume that everything is the fault of the leaders and never the people in uniform on the ground.
I'm sorry, but enlisted personnel were responsible for My Lai, for Falujah -
I do not think it is healthy for us to turn a constant blind eye to what people do in our names just because they are wearing uniforms and are subject to orders.
Dude - think about it. I don't mean to insult our military, but it's wrong to continually let them slide from responsibility for their actions because of who they are.
July 22, 2008 7:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed that there are other ways to serve than in the military, and at community rather than national levels.
The soldiers who commited murder in My Lai, Fallujah and other places aren't representative of the majority of people who serve. And none of them started either of those bloody, tragic and misguided wars.
I don't post a lot here, so you can't have a very good idea of my viewpoints, but I've read a lot of yours and I think we agree on most issues. I just think vitriol directed at people in uniform is better directed at the civilian leaders who often mis-use them.
July 22, 2008 7:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think Tena's commenting more on the blind devotion to the military exhibited by non-military individuals more than criticizing the military itself.
July 22, 2008 7:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Probably true. I guess it was the "goddamn men and women in uniform" remark that threw me.
July 22, 2008 8:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
We should all be ashamed of ourselves . . . Picking on poor old Senator McCain.
Age has calcified the bones of his inner ear and he can not hear the 24-7-365 positive coverage of Obama's trip to the Middle East. His eye-sight has grown so dim that he can not read the text for the deaf and hard of hearing scrolling across the bottom of his 62" plasma television set. His mind is crippled from decades of rage bottled up against the torture he suffered in the Veitnam War and the 2000 Presidential race. His soul was shrived from the husk that once housed his humanity by the heavy hand of time and whithered to memory dust damn near eight decades ago.
Sure, it is easy to mock and cajole the animated corpse that is McCain . . . But is it right?
July 22, 2008 5:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I thought partisanship stopped at the water's edge.
Shame on Obama.
July 22, 2008 6:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
July 22, 2008 6:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
?
July 22, 2008 6:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
I bet you that Andrea Mitchell picks up on McCain's comment as fact. Any takers?
July 22, 2008 6:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
i think obama is being dishonest. he acknowledges the surge success but would have still been against it. does this mean he would risk not having it been a success? this is poor judgement even with 20/20 hindsight.
As for whenever he acknowledges the success of the troops, the real problem is that he always uses it as a qualifier. His next phrase is always going to be something that minimizes the troops success. So, overall, the troop success is never his main point, its the next part of his thought which is. This is lawyer-speak intellectual dishonest.
July 22, 2008 6:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, you are being dishonest saying that the point of the surge was simply to reduce violence.
One of the main goals was to disarm non-government military groups. In fact, in order to redirect violence against the surge troops, we began to pay off and arm Sunni tribes in exchange for cooperation. These militias are now more powerful and more influential than they were in 2006 and they represent a much greater threat to Iraqi stability and the power of the elected government than they did prior to the modified surge strategy.
The fundamental dishonesty of McCain's argument comes up when he insists that we cannot leave Iraq without all the progress being lost. If the surge worked, why does he believe this? Because Sunni military groups have actually been empowered by the surge, and the prospect of these groups being further empowered is why the Shiite government wants us out as soon as possible.
So before you accuse Obama of being honest, perhaps you should ask McCain this: if the surge worked and brought complete political reconciliation and the neutralization of non-government military groups, why can't we withdraw within sixteen months?
His answer, basically, is that the surge hasn't worked, it has only temporarily reduced violence. That is Obama's point, and it is the correct one. We need to begin putting pressures on the Iraqis to pursue meaningful reconciliation, financing opposing sides of a sectarian divide will only yield disastrous consequences in the long term.
July 22, 2008 6:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
And comments like yours demonstrate why I am worried about McCain taking office. The GOP continues to act like it's a matter of principle to ignore the nuances and complexities of the situation in Iraq. It's all about proving Bush's ideological fantasy right, not pursuing a strategy that will help secure American interests. This is why foreign policy realists like Sam Nunn, Lee Hamilton, Chuck Hagel, and Colin Powell have either endorsed Obama or are leaning that way.
July 22, 2008 6:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
clearly both sides are politically spinning what is goin on.
the surge has achieved success, maybe not 100% of its goals, but its significantly better than before and currently on a better path.
it seems obvious that the certainty of the success achieved is better than the uncertainty of what would have happened if the surge was not done. it is idiotic judgment to choose the latter.
obama is not reversing his position only because of politics. i really do not see how anyone can support him as far as his position on the surge, except to not able to admit being wrong.
July 22, 2008 7:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, gee whiz, when you ask John McCain it sure sounds like there's a LOT of uncertainty about the success of the surge which was, again, supposed to achieve the conditions for LONG-TERM SECURITY.
However, when you ask John McCain, he says that withdrawing would cause a collapse, which suggests he's worried about the Sunni tribes that were empowered at the expense of the democratic government. And that's to say nothing about the complete degeneration of the situation in Afghanistan as we've expended all our resources in Iraq...
You can continue to ignore my points and say "wah wah, boo hoo, ur wrong," but the reality is that even John McCain won't acknowledge that the surge "worked." If he did, we would be out of there. We're not. Why? Because the surge has only exacerbated one of the key problems that it was supposed to resolve.
July 22, 2008 7:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
And once again, I would be more than willing to take the course proposed by the Democrats in 2007 if it meant we wouldn't be facing a resurgent Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and vastly empowered non-government militias in Iraq.
July 22, 2008 7:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
so there's a good level of success; however, long term is still uncertain. thats where the judgment of "conditions" vs "time" come in. uncertain long term success deems "conditions" as a better basis of withdrawal, whereas certain long term success favors "time". I think the military is saying its still uncertain so "conditions" seems like better judgment.
i would guess the iraqi gov't would want us out cause they want to own their own gov't not because of any increasing influence from sunnis. they don't want USA to continue to have influence in their country. it also seems like they would prefer obama cuz they can push him around more. on the other hand, mccain, would more likely ensure that the usa has secured interests their (military-wise, eg airspace; and economic-wise).
i don't think afghanistan would be much different. just my opinion.. i mean the taliban fought off the soviet union. i think it still be a problem and is going to be one for a long time.
July 22, 2008 7:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
By the way, here is "Clinton supporter" fogu2 complaining about illegal immigrants back in 2007: http://marcchamot.blogspot.com/2007/09/san-francisco-to-issue-new-id-cards-to.html
Obviously, fogu2 is a long-time Democrat who is really upset about the choice of his party's nominee, that's why a quick googling will yield his racist, right-wing rants from just a year ago.
July 22, 2008 6:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
The SURGE????
That's all you got - the fucking surge? Come on now...
The "surge" is nothing more than a temporary bump up in troop levels to somewhere south of WHERE THEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN IN THE FIRST PLACE! How many commanders on the ground said we needed that level from the beginning? Powell. Shinseki said we needed at least 200,000. Abizaid later said he was right. But the commanders on the ground were overruled by Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and all the other PNAC hustlers and Halliburton cronies.
Bush was saying "Stay the course" until it cost the Republicans the majority in 2006. McLame's big stand, his "maverick" disagreement with the president and party? Higher troop levels. Of course he waited until the polls clearly showed a lack of support for the war and Bush's policies to speak up - didn't him defending SHinseki, whose career was ruined by speaking common sense.
The surge is a bandaid on a colossal fuckup.
Invading Iraq was a mistake. Just like invading Vietnam was a mistake. Nothing any troll types can change that fact.
Stop attacking Obama and tell me what Mcbrainfart has to offer...I'm waiting.
July 22, 2008 6:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
should have read "Didn't SEE him defending..."
July 22, 2008 6:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
And there are more ways to serve your country than joining the all-volunteer army.
July 22, 2008 7:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ahem; Senator Janus McCain.
The Neo Con Warmongering Chicken Hawks of the Republican party are the cluster of imbeciles that created the Iraq Inferno. Surge my Arse. Real leaders would not have created the mess that required a surge that stretched our military to a breaking point, and is destroying military families with excessive tours of duty, while allowing The Taliban and al Qaeda to flourish. You can keep on spraying turdblossom perfume on it all you want to, but you still own that stinking pig.
July 22, 2008 7:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
McSame keeps going further and further off the deep end. Now he claims that the so-called "Anbar Awakening" -- which is universally understood to have begun PRIOR to the surge -- was a direct result of the surge, and that Obama is reciting a "false history" when he describes the role the surge played. He really does appear to believe that facts become true merely because he claims them to be.
July 22, 2008 8:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama has a multi-dimensional view of the Middle East and how the various conflicts interrelate with each other, our military, and our economy. This was apparent in his interview with Katie Couric this evening.
John McCain, on the other hand, fixated on Iraq, bleats out one-liners designed to inflame and piss people off. He clearly has no idea what the big picture looks like and hooks people to his narrow view through their emotions.
I'm concerned that we're at risk of a repeat of 2004 in which an ignorant, sound-bite driven public votes with their emotions, not their brains.
July 22, 2008 8:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I'm concerned that we're at risk of a repeat of 2004 in which an ignorant, sound-bite driven public votes with their emotions, not their brains."
hahahaa.. how did obama get the democratic nominathion in the first place???
July 22, 2008 8:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ah it's wonderful that we get to start celebrating Obama's victory early, isn't it? Watchin Republican trolls twist themselves into ever more ridiculous positions for our amusement over the next few months is definitely my kind of entertainment. As one commenter here put it recently: "I love the smell of Republican panic in the morning. It smells like Victory."
w00t!
July 22, 2008 8:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
If the MSM were serious about the news they should hire the following:
Homer
Aldous Huxley
Herman Wouk
Tacitus
At least it would be entertainging and partially true.
July 22, 2008 8:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
McCain is determined that he will not lose this war. NO WAY.
No matter what anyone says. He will stay there until we shut down the North Vietnamese and the Viet Cong.
July 22, 2008 10:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hope that in the future all these overpaid blowhards ask one final question of McCaine. Is this your final answer?
July 22, 2008 10:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is out of no where but...yesterday McCain lifted his hand to his face while he was speaking and his hand was all wrinkled and covered in liver spots (very old looking). The comparison between his hand and face made it obvious that he has had a lot of plastic surgery done. Wonder if he and Cindy get a package deal?
After McCain's comment today accusing Obama of being a traitor, I really despise him. I think we should let him have the microphone 24/7 because he comes off really bad. It's McCain's maverick image we have to beat, and the more he talks the more his image disappears. He's a has-been.
July 23, 2008 2:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bold faced lies. Will it win the office?
He should not run for this office. As the Grand Seignor of the Party in Power, you should give him the office. Ungrateful gnats!!!
July 23, 2008 2:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Few things to remember about Sen. McCain: as much as he tries to distance himself from the Bush administration, ideologically he is mired in the world view of the neo-cons (neo-fascist thugs, really) who have brought havoc for the last 7+ years, committed war crimes and crimes against humanity. Their view of the world is rooted in historical times that have gone by. People and the media seem to forget that he was a war criminal in Vietnam, and not a war hero: he was not strewing rose petals over Vietnam when he was shot down! And people and the media forget that simply because he was a prisoner of war does not make him a competent and intelligent politician. In fact he, who graduated at the bottom 2nd or 3rd in his graduating class of over 400 at the Naval Academy, is trying to match his intellect with perhaps one of the most educationally accomplished Presidential candidate this country has ever seen. McCain’s bitter invectives against Sen. Obama shows his desperation; he may yet succeed, if people and the media continue to assume that just because he was a prisoner of war, makes his ideas and policies worth giving credence.
July 23, 2008 8:22 AM | Reply | Permalink