« Poll: McCain Pulls Even With Obama In Ohio, But... | Home | McCain Just After 9/11: "Next Up, Baghdad!" »

McCain: Obama Wants To Lose In Iraq Because Of His "Ambition"

John McCain is ratcheting up his attacks on Obama over Iraq in a speech this morning, declaring flatly that Obama wants the U.S. to fail in Iraq because of "ambition."

In the speech, which is going on now, McCain accuses Obama of having tried to "legislate failure" in Iraq. He adds his familiar charge that Obama would rather lose the war than lose the election, and declares that Obama's desire to lose in Iraq is motivated by nothing but his desire to be president:

Senator Obama still cannot quite bring himself to admit his own failure in judgment. Nor has he been willing to heed the guidance of General Petraeus, or to listen to our troops on the ground when they say -- as they have said to me on my trips to Iraq: "Let us win, just let us win." Instead, Senator Obama commits the greater error of insisting that even in hindsight, he would oppose the surge. Even in retrospect, he would choose the path of retreat and failure for America over the path of success and victory. In short, both candidates in this election pledge to end this war and bring our troops home. The great difference is that I intend to win it first.

Behind all of these claims and positions by Senator Obama lies the ambition to be president. What's less apparent is the judgment to be commander in chief. And in matters of national security, good judgment will be at a premium in the term of the next president -- as we were all reminded ten days ago by events in the nation of Georgia.

Here you have the Roveian strategy at its most naked: Keep repeating that your opponent's strong point -- his judgment in opposing the war, something that majorities agree was a bad idea -- is a negative.

Also, it bears repeating that here McCain is basically accusing Obama of treason. Full speech after the jump.


Late Update: The Obama camp responds.

Thank you all very much. National Commander George Lisicki, thank you for the kind introduction. Ladies Auxiliary President Virginia Carmen, Incoming National Commander Glen Gardner, Incoming Ladies Auxiliary President Dixie Hild, Adjutant General Gunner Kent, Executive Director Bob Wallace: I thank you all for the warm welcome. I am honored to be in the company of all my fellow members of the VFW, and especially anyone here who might hail from Post 7401 in Chandler, Arizona.

I'm proud to count many of you in this room as personal friends, including my good friend retired Marine Corps Sergeant Major Paul Chevalier of New Hampshire. And there's another gentleman here I know you'll want to welcome. He's as fine a friend as a man could have in a tough spot, Lieutenant Colonel Orson Swindle of the United States Marine Corps.

All of us take pride in being members of this great organization. After its founding in 1914, the VFW served many of the more than four million American veterans of the First World War. Today just one of those veterans survives, a man of 107 named Frank Buckles. Frank lives in West Virginia. And I have a feeling that word will reach him if we all join in a round of applause for the last doughboy.

In all the years since, the men and women of the VFW have stayed faithful to their mission of serving those who have served their country. In Europe, Asia, the Middle East, and elsewhere, America's veterans have faced different enemies, but they have always found the same friend and ally in the VFW. All of us returned from war with a few experiences we'd gladly forget, but the friendships and camaraderie we brought home are forever. For keeping us all together, and helping those most in need, we're all in the debt of the VFW.

The men and women of the VFW know the value of freedom, because you have been its protectors. You were there when your country needed you. You shouldered heavy burdens and accepted great risks. I'm sure many of you will also recall from your experiences in war, as I do from mine, that when you're somewhere on the other side of the world in the service of America you pay attention to the news from back home. It affects morale. And even during this election season, with sharp differences on the wisdom and success of the surge in Iraq, Americans need to speak as one in praise of the men and women who fight our battles. They are the best among us, as you were before them, and I know you will join me in applauding the courage and skill that will see America through to victory.

Though victory in Iraq is finally in sight, a great deal still depends on the decisions and good judgment of the next president. The hard-won gains of our troops hang in the balance. The lasting advantage of a peaceful and democratic ally in the heart of the Middle East could still be squandered by hasty withdrawal and arbitrary timelines. And this is one of many problems in the shifting positions of my opponent, Senator Obama.

With less than three months to go before the election, a lot of people are still trying to square Senator Obama's varying positions on the surge in Iraq. First, he opposed the surge and confidently predicted that it would fail. Then he tried to prevent funding for the troops who carried out the surge. Not content to merely predict failure in Iraq, my opponent tried to legislate failure. This was back when supporting America's efforts in Iraq entailed serious political risk. It was a clarifying moment. It was a moment when political self-interest and the national interest parted ways. For my part, with so much in the balance, it was an easy call. As I said at the time, I would rather lose an election than lose a war.

Thanks to the courage and sacrifice of our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines and to brave Iraqi fighters the surge has succeeded. And yet Senator Obama still cannot quite bring himself to admit his own failure in judgment. Nor has he been willing to heed the guidance of General Petraeus, or to listen to our troops on the ground when they say -- as they have said to me on my trips to Iraq: "Let us win, just let us win." Instead, Senator Obama commits the greater error of insisting that even in hindsight, he would oppose the surge. Even in retrospect, he would choose the path of retreat and failure for America over the path of success and victory. In short, both candidates in this election pledge to end this war and bring our troops home. The great difference is that I intend to win it first.

Behind all of these claims and positions by Senator Obama lies the ambition to be president. What's less apparent is the judgment to be commander in chief. And in matters of national security, good judgment will be at a premium in the term of the next president -- as we were all reminded ten days ago by events in the nation of Georgia.

It's been a while since most Americans -- including most of our leaders and diplomats -- have viewed Russia as a threat to the peace. But the Russian government's assault on a small democratic neighbor shows why this needs revising. As I have long warned, Russia under the rule of Vladimir Putin is becoming more aggressive toward the now democratic nations that broke free of the old Soviet empire.

Russia also holds vast energy wealth. And this heavy influence in the oil and gas market has become a political weapon that Russia is clearly prepared to use. Georgia stands at a strategic crossroads in the Caucasus. The Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline, which brings oil from the Caspian to points west, traverses Georgia. And if that pipeline were destroyed or controlled by Russia, global energy supplies would be even more vulnerable to Russian influence with serious consequences on the world energy market.

For some time now, I have been making the case for a dramatic acceleration of domestic energy production. With high prices and growing demand for oil and gas, Americans cannot remain dependent upon others for the most vital of commodities. Now we are reminded that energy policy is also a matter of the highest priority not only for our economy, but for our nation's security. Disruptions of supply abroad can suddenly raise energy prices, inflicting great harm on our economy and on America workers. And in the term of the next president, skillful handling of such a crisis could be the difference between temporary hardship and far-reaching disaster.

When Russia first invaded Georgia, some people may have wondered why events in this part of the world should be any concern of ours. After all, Georgia may seem a small, remote and obscure place. But many of you served in places that once seemed remote and obscure. And the veterans of foreign wars know better than anyone how inattention to small crises can invite much larger ones. There are many reasons why the Russian invasion of Georgia is of grave concern to America and to our allies. Above all, Georgia is a struggling democracy where Soviet tyranny is still fresh in memory. There are reports now of Georgian villages being razed, civilians being rounded up, and innocent civilians shot. We have seen such things before, as in the Balkans and in earlier periods of European history, and now we must ensure that events in Georgia do not unfold into a tragedy of greater scale. When young democracies are threatened or attacked, and innocent civilians are targeted, they should be able to count on the free world for support and solidarity.

If I am elected president, they will have that support. And in cooperation with our friends and allies in Europe, we will make it clear to Russia's rulers that acts of violence and intimidation come at a heavy cost. There will be no place among G-8 nations, or in the WTO, for a modern Russia that acts at times like the old Soviet Union. The Cold War is over, the Soviet empire is gone, and neither one is missed. Least of all is that empire missed by the once captive nations of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Ukraine, and Georgia. These brave young democracies have joined the free world, and they are not going back.

Through decades of struggle, free nations prevailed over tyranny in large measure because of the sacrifices of the men and women of the United States armed forces. And it will fall to the next commander in chief to make good on the obligation our government accepts every time any man or woman enters the military, and again when they receive their DD 214. Those we depend on as troops should know, when they become veterans, that they can depend on us. Honoring this obligation will require leadership. And I pledge to you that as president I will lead -- from the front -- to reform our VA system and make sure that veterans receive the respect and care they have earned.

The Walter Reed scandal was a disgrace unworthy of this nation -- and I intend to make sure that nothing like it is ever repeated. There are other problems as well that have not received as much media attention. And my administration will do the hard and necessary work of fixing them, even when the press and the public are not watching.

Reform begins with appointing a Secretary of Veterans Affairs who is a leader of the highest caliber, and who listens to veterans and veterans' service organizations. My VA secretary must be a forceful advocate for veterans and forthright advisor to me, so we can make the right choices about budgeting, health care, and other veterans' benefit issues. He or she will also need to be a high-energy leader, too, because we'll have a lot of work to do in improving service to veterans.

Veterans must be treated fairly and expeditiously as they seek compensation for disability or illness. We owe them compassion and hands-on care in their transition to civilian life. We owe them training, rehabilitation, and education. We owe their families, parents and caregivers our concern and support. Veterans should never be deprived of quality medical care and mental health care coverage for illness or injury incurred as a result of their service to our country.

As president, I will do all that is in my power to ensure that those who serve today, and those who have served in the past, have access to the highest quality health, mental health and rehabilitative care in the world. And I will not accept a situation in which veterans are denied access to care on account of travel distances, backlogs of appointments, and years of pending disability evaluation and claims. We should no longer tolerate requiring veterans to make an appointment to stand in one line for a ticket to stand in another.

I'm not here to tell you that there is a cost that is too high to be paid in the care of our nation's veterans. I will make sure that Congress funds the VA health care budget in a sufficient, timely, and predictable manner. But I will say that every increase in funding must be matched by increases in accountability, both at the VA and in Congress. And this requires an end to certain practices and abuses that serve neither our veterans, our country, nor the reputation of Congress itself.

Exactly because funding VA programs command bipartisan support, some in the Congress like to attach unrelated appropriations and earmarks to VA bills. The result is to mix vital national priorities with wasteful and often worthless political pork. Earmarks show up in bills of every kind, and not just VA bills. That's how we end up budgeting hundreds of millions of dollars for bridges to nowhere, or lesser sums for Woodstock museums and the like. When that earmark for a million bucks to fund a Woodstock museum didn't come through, I don't imagine that many veterans had to change their vacation plans. And the principle here is simple: Public money should serve the public good. If it's me sitting in the Oval Office, at the Resolute desk, those wasteful spending bills are going the way of all earmarks, straight back to the Congress with a veto.

When we make it clear to Congress that no earmark bill will be signed into law, that will save many billions of dollars that can be applied to essential priorities, and above all to the care of our veterans. But reform doesn't end there. We must also modernize our disability system to make sure that eligible service members receive benefits quickly, based on clear, predictable, and fair standards. And we must address the problems of capacity and access within our VA health care system. While this will involve a wide range of initiatives, I believe there is a simple and direct reform we should make right away.

My administration will create a Veterans' Care Access Card to be used by veterans with illness or injury incurred during their military service, and by those with lower incomes. This card will provide those without timely access to VA facilities the option of using high-quality health-care providers near their homes. For many veterans, the closest VA facility isn't close enough. And many of their local providers are already familiar with the most common needs of veterans. Often, all that prevents them from receiving local care is a system for sharing medical records among VA, DOD, and civilian hospitals and doctors. My reform will improve care, reduce risks, and broaden access all at the same time.

This card is not intended to either replace the VA or privatize veterans' health care, as some have wrongly charged. I believe the VA should always be there to provide top-quality care for our veterans. And I believe that the VA should continue to provide broad-spectrum health care to eligible veterans, in addition to specialized care in areas such as spinal injuries, prosthetics, and blindness -- services in which the VA sets the standard in medical care.

Even so, there are veterans eligible for care who are not currently able to receive it, on account of distance, wait times, or the absence of certain specialties. And for this group, the new card I propose will offer better alternatives, to provide the benefits they have earned.

Reform must also recognize that greater care is needed for certain types of injuries. In the Senate, I co-authored the Wounded Warrior Act, which was the first major legislative initiative to address post-traumatic stress disorder and traumatic brain injury. As president, I will build on this legislation to improve screening and treatment for these severe injuries suffered by many in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The VA must also broaden its care for the women who are entering the armed forces in greater numbers than ever. The growing ranks of women in uniform have left the VA lagging behind in the services it provides. And here the Veterans Care Access Card will prove especially valuable, affording women medical options while the VA improves capacity and expands services.

These are among the elements of my reform agenda for the VA system. And today, as other occasions, I have stated in the plainest, most straightforward terms that the Veterans Health Care Access Card will expand existing benefits. I don't expect this will deter the Obama campaign from misrepresenting my proposals, but lest there be any doubt you have my pledge: My reforms would not force anyone to go to a non-VA facility. They will not signal privatization of the VA. And they will not replace any scheduled expansion of the VA network -- including those facilities designed to serve veterans living in rural and remote areas.

I suppose from my opponent's vantage point, veterans concerns are just one more issue to be spun or worked to advantage. This would explain why he has also taken liberties with my position on the GI Bill. In its initial version, that bill failed to address the number one education request that I've heard from career service members and their families -- the freedom to transfer their benefits to a spouse or a child. The bill also did nothing to retain the young officer and enlisted leaders who form the backbone of our all-volunteer force.

As a political proposition, it would have much easier for me to have just signed on to what I considered flawed legislation. But the people of Arizona, and of all America, expect more from their representatives than that, and instead I sought a better bill. I'm proud to say that the result is a law that better serves our military, better serves military families, and better serves the interests of our country.

No one who has worn the uniform of his or her country can ever take these matters lightly. We all learned an ethic in the service of looking after one another, of leaving no one behind, and this commitment did not end when we left the service. As a matter of duty and of honor, whatever our commitments to veterans cost, if I am president those commitments will be kept.

The next president will have many responsibilities to the American people, and I take them all seriously. But I have one responsibility that outweighs all the others and that is to use whatever talents I possess, and every resource God has granted me to protect the security of this great and good nation from all enemies foreign and domestic.

It is every veteran's hope that should their children be called upon to answer a call to arms, the battle will be necessary and the field well chosen. But that is not their responsibility. It belongs to the government that called them. As it once was for us, their honor will be in their answer not their summons. Whatever we think about how and why we went to war in Iraq, we are all humbled by and grateful for their example. They now deserve the distinction of the best Americans, and we owe them a debt we can never fully repay. We can only offer the small tribute of our humility and our commitment to do all that we can do, in less trying and costly circumstances, to help keep this nation worthy of their sacrifice.

Many of them have served multiple tours in Iraq and Afghanistan. Many had their tours extended. Many returned to combat sooner than they had been led to expect. It was a sad and hard thing to ask so much more of Americans who have already given more than their fair share to the defense of our country. Few of them and their families will have received the news about additional and longer deployments without aiming a few appropriate complaints in the general direction of people like me, who helped make the decision to send them there. And then they shouldered a rifle or climbed in a cockpit and risked everything -- everything -- to accomplish their mission, to protect another people's freedom and our own country from harm.

It is a privilege beyond measure to live in a country served by them. I have had the good fortune to know personally a great many brave and selfless patriots who sacrificed and shed blood to defend America. But I have known none braver or better than those who do so today. They are our inspiration, as I suspect all of you were once theirs. And I pray to a loving God that He bless and protect them. Thank you.


195 Comments

| Leave a comment

Obama is going to hit back hard on this, iam willing to bet.

user-pic

Wouldn't that be a refreshing change.

Amen to that. A refreshing change indeed.

user-pic

I think Obama needs to hit McSame, but not necessarily hit back.

Hit McSame where he's vulnerable.  Don't accuse him of lying or otherwise try to defend yourself.  Go on the offensive.  Don't let him dictate your message.

McSame == Big Oil Cowboy

Big Oil is a lever that can open several cans of worms:
-- Same as Bush and Cheney
-- Domestic economy
-- National security
-- Lobbyist puppet

Cowboy, of course, reminds people of his unstable personality.
-- Loose-cannon temper
-- Gaffe-o-rama
-- Deteriorating memory
-- Advancing senescence

As Josh posted today, "The lack of any consistent lines of attack against McCain is becoming palpable."

Big Oil Cowboy is a punch that can be thrown over and over again.  It's a brand that can stick.

How about:

"John McCain is a liar."

Listen. We simply do not have enough time to re-educate the American populace on every issue. On ANY issue. 2 1/2 months, folks.

Time to get tough and show Barack as a Strong, Decisive Leader. Or we will lose. Keep the progressive policies obviously, keep the specifics for when they are needed, but in the meantime we need to rally on the strength of his personality and not bore the voters to tears with details.

Sadly... You'd think that Americans would want what is right and factually what is best for the country, but I just don't think that is the case. We cannot afford to lose this election. So we need to give them what they want: a strong leader. Let's get Barack elected first. And then we can talk policy. My $.02.

I'll take that bet. I've yet to see that gun he'd bring to a knife fight.

That might be because you're too busy looking for him to pull out a bigger knife.

Doesn't this speech amount to an accusation of treason against Obama? Pretty serious indeed

This is all about getting the topic back to foreign policy. He wants Obama to engage. But rhetoric like this has to be answered - and answered harshly. Time to take off the gloves. Get under his skin. Question McCain's own judgment(supporting sending ground troops to Kosovo, for example). That won't sit well with McMaverick.

http://pufferfish.typepad.com/

Eh. I expect we'll be seeing another milquetoast "same old politics" refutation that simply tries to change the subject.

And it's worked so well too. Notice how his lead nationally and state-by-state is evaporating. Gosh, I can't imagine why.

the obama response is hard hitting, but too long, dont have time to read it all. so at least the beginning of the obama response is hard hitting.


Warren Lied, McCain Wasn’t In The Cone of Silence

Failure in judgment???? John McCain voted for this debacle in Iraq that has cost our nation heavily. To attempt to claim other's judgment on this topic is flawed is absurd. Simply put, McCain put politics before the nation when he authorized this war.

user-pic

That's pretty much the response it's time for Obama to start using. He did it effectively in the primaries. His response should be, essentially:

"The most vital foreign policy decision this country has made since Vietnam isn't 'the surge,' as John McCain would like to make it. It was the decision to go to war in the first place. And that decision was the most catastrophic in modern history. It's cost us a trillion dollars, thousands of lives, ruined our reputation in the world, bogged down our military, and for what exactly?

On the issue of that decision, I was right, and John McCain was wrong. Wrong to support it. Wrong to say we would be greeted as liberators. Wrong to say the war itself would be easy. Wrong to support George W. Bush at every turn, including his enthusiastic endorsement and campaigning for him in 2004. John McCain, on the most fundamental issues of judgment wasn't just wrong, but catastrophically wrong. And America is paying the price.

Remember one thing, America: if it's a question of judgment, we wouldn't be in Iraq in the first place if it were up to me."

http://strategy08.wordpress.com

user-pic

"Remember one thing, America: if it's a question of judgment, we wouldn't be in Iraq in the first place if it were up to me."

True, but Saddam would and Kusai and Uhdai and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and Khattab al-Turki and Mehmet Yilmaz and Abdullah Mohammed Rashid al-Roshoud and...

There are a lot of very bad people in this world, SFC Wallace....is it our job to take out every single one of them?

user-pic

Just the ones we feel pose a legitimate threat to our national security...

Which Saddam didn't. His regime was a paper tiger.

user-pic

SFCWallace says

Just the ones we feel pose a threat to our national security...

And what legitimate threat to our national security was Saddam?

user-pic

Don't tell me...tell them:
"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998

"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998

"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002

"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Bob Graham, December 2002

"Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who is willing to deprive his people in order to acquire weapons of mass destruction." -- Jim Jeffords, October 8, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002

"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry, October 9, 2002

"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. ...And now he is miscalculating America�s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." -- John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002

"Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States." -- Joe Lieberman, August, 2002

"Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction." -- Patty Murray, October 9, 2002

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Saddam�s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq�s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration�s policy towards Iraq, I don�t think there can be any question about Saddam�s conduct. He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts." -- Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002

user-pic

SFCWallace,

As it turned out, he was no threat, they were all wrong. So I ask YOU again, how was Saddam a threat our national security?

And, unless I missed it, no one on that list suggested we invade Iraq to disarm him of the alleged weapons he supposedly had, though the neocons tried to get Clinton to invade. Clinton denied them and it wasn't until the Bush/Cheney gang came along, sided with the neo-cons, ignored and kept to themselves evidence to the contrary regarding the alleged WMD, and took the country to war on a litany of bullshit.

So I ask YOU again, how was Saddam a threat our national security?


Maybe he was afraid that Uday and Qusay would make their way over here and garrishly decorate his house?

user-pic

Maybe your concensus VP pick can clear it up for you...

user-pic

SFCWallace,

you keep presenting people who were wrong about Saddam/Iraq as proof of your position, that Saddam was a threat to our national security.

You have things backwards, you're supposed to refer to people who were correct if you want to make debate points.


I think your upside down tactic is hilarious. :-)

user-pic

Dude, the point is (like Biden's last year) Saddam was a threat...you may not to admit it but he was. That tape of Biden was from last year...after we know everything that we know Sadam was still a threat that needed to be dealt with.

user-pic

SFCWallace, says:

Dude, the point is (like Biden's last year) Saddam was a threat...you may not to admit it but he was. That tape of Biden was from last year...after we know everything that we know Sadam was still a threat that needed to be dealt with.

hey, Jerome Corsi,

give it up; its been shown 100 ways from Sunday that Saddam was no threat to US, which was your original point. You and your witness Biden are/were wrong.

user-pic

"... your witness Biden..."
My witness is your first choice for VP down thread...talk about "detached" from reality...you're today's winner for "number one disconcerted train of thought."

user-pic

SFCWallace,

hey Santorum,

yes, YOUR witness, the guy who's YOUTUBE video you posted.

Now stop living in Bizarro World and face reality.

user-pic

Wallace, you didn't answer the question which was "just how was Saddam a threat?

Saddam didn't destroy his weapons of mass destruction becuase he didn't have any. All you're doing is posting a bunch of quotes from people who demanded that Saddam destroy weapons which didn't exist. Your argument is BS, because despite the quotes there was no threat.

So again, JohnW's question is on point:
Just how was Saddam a threat?

...would still be contained.

So, John McCain is trying to make sure the key question of this election continues to be national security. Not economy, not change, no no no. Why is Obama letting him?? What the hell is happening?

Good question. Some sort of retooling is in order. I keep telling myself Axlerod and Co. know what they're doing, but they don't seem to be doing much of anything. Wake up, people!

Personally, I'm becoming more and more convinced that the Obama gamble is centered on the ground game.

He said the other day that he will win. I think the only way he can be so very confident is if he thinks he can get out massive GOTV effort, including his "red state" experiment.

But given how his donations are slowly going down just as McCain is about to get $80mio in public money, given the tightening of polls, I'm wondering if we are seeing a slow encroachment of Republicans and sort of not paying attention. Until it's too late and the train left the station.

Donations slowly going down? He has been over $50 million for a couple of months in a row now. He is playing in his own league in terms of fund raising. He raised over 50 million in July though he held no fundraisers while overseas.

He is, but compare the last two months. Then compare his trajectory to McCain's. Then throw in the public money McCain is about to get. It's not going to be a simple "money buys everything" game. And, not to offend, but remember how Hillary won a few states on a dime while he was throwing money around. To top it all, take a look at his spending in Ohio and compare with the latest poll numbers. I don't know if it's as simple as it looks.

I think you're right. I think they're banking on the ground game and just assuming they'll be within reach by Election Day. They are aware that a good ground game doesn't get you from 3 points down to a win, they just don't believe they'll be 3 points down in the polls by November. Yet.

Once they start believing that's a real possibility, maybe they'll get serious about attacking McCain.

user-pic

Because "Hope and Change" look good on a bumper sticker but suck as policy positions...rember "1000 points of light...we're on the right track..."

But he's not questioning his patriotism. He'd never do that. He was a POW!

I think mcCain thinks he can get away with this because he said ambition instead of "winning the presidency", either way Obama's going to hit back hard. so much for a respectful campaign



Faith Forum: Sincerity Versus Stump Speech

The more McCain pulls this shit, the more I want Biden on the ticket.

user-pic

1 week until the convention. Any day now...

It would be nice to have Biden on the talking head circuit just repeating 'mccain is full of shit! look, this is a guy who...'

An Obama/Biden ticket would rock my world. His aggressiveness on the campaign stump is just the thing the Obama campaign needs right now. Plus, he's got the foreign policy cred and experience.

I know he talks too much, I know he is gaffe-prone and all of that. But I want him to whip out one of his one-liners that totally blows the McCain came up the way he single-handedly destroyed the Giuliani campaign.

Obama is not good at sound bites. Biden is.

came=camp

Totally agree.

As I said in another thread, I think that Obama needs a non-evil version of Cheney at his side: an unapologetic asshole who will say it like it is.

user-pic

Plus Biden has always thought so highly of Obama:
"I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy ... I mean, that's a storybook, man."

He doesn't think, though, that Obama can win the presidency because he is "a one-term, a guy who has served for four years in the Senate. ... I don't recall hearing a word from Barack about a plan or a tactic."

http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2007/01/biden_on_obama_.html

I knew you were going to bring up that Biden quote. You're becoming predictable.

..republicans are reeling.

user-pic

I could've used Jessie's but it wasn't relevant...

..reeling I tell you.

And Biden's quote is relevant to what?

user-pic

His opinion of Obama...

So...Biden likes Obama.

Your point?

user-pic

Just that Biden likes him cuz he's an articulate and clean African American...as opposed to...?

I would recommend not engaging the pathetic little twerp. Just imagine the actual individual you’re conversing with, the person not the posts… He’s obviously a very lonely boy with a whole host of deep seeded emotional problems. Like any other emotional wreck lashing out for attention at someone else’s expense, if you ignore him consistently enough he’ll just go away and hopefully chew on the end of a pistol.

user-pic

You gotta love the "Tolerant progressives."

I'll also recommend a .45 - More than enough umph to destroy the brain stem without completely ruining the kitchen cabinets behind you. Relax, this won't hurt.

user-pic

Yail Bloor,

sadly, we do get our share of attention whores from FreeRepublic.com

user-pic

Actually, this is the only place I've ever posted (of the biggies, there's a local GA politics one I go to)...why do y'all fear opposing views so much. I'm out numbered 2,375 to 1.

Do we need to bring up all the anti-McCain quotes from the far-right?

user-pic

Sure, but we realize McCain is the lesser of 2 evils...we don't have the mass messianic hysteria on the right.

Sure thing. That's what I tell myself as I drive around and see all those "W" stickers on cars. Nothing to do with the cult of personality. I'm sure everyone on the right voted for him because of his scintillating intellect.

And don't even fucking get me started on Reagan.

user-pic

...except Bush was the Governor of Texas for 6 years before he ran for President.

user-pic

...and Reagan for 8 years of CA and it was his second run for Pres.

I grew up in TX....being governor of TX is like being Queen of England....a lot of handshaking and ribbon cuttings, but that's about it.

C'mon, don't be disingenuous...your point about messianic hysteria didn't have anything to do with experience and neither did the republican obsessions with "W" or Reagan. You know as well as I do that there was a cult of personality that was built up around "W" especially after 9/11. They did the same thing with Reagan....folksy, humorous, god-fearing....nevermind that Bush was a c-student, coke-head, frat-boy who Daddy didn't even think would amount to anything and that Reagan was a semi-senile man who relied on astrology charts and wasn't even aware most of the time what was going on in his administration. Democrats don't have anything on Republicans when it comes to sanctifying their political leaders.

user-pic

SFC Wallace,

quoting Biden on Obama is childish, is that all ya got?? Every politician alive can be quoted to show anything you wish to show.

Republican Senator Thad Cochrane on McCain:

"The thought of his being president sends a cold chill down my spine," Cochran said about McCain by phone. "He is erratic. He is hotheaded. He loses his temper and he worries me."

Senator Charles Grassley of Iowa said in an interview that he was so upset by a McCain tirade that he didn't speak to him for two years.


updated 5:41 a.m. ET, Tues., June. 3, 2008
WASHINGTON -

Vice President Dick Cheney on Monday rejected a suspension of the federal gasoline tax as proposed by his party's presumptive presidential nominee, Sen. John McCain. Cheney said it would offer little help to consumers coping with gas prices around $4 a gallon.

user-pic

Thad Cochran and Charles Grassley aren't on McCain's short list for VP.

user-pic

Neither are virtually all of the Dems you quoted in your post above when you first brought it up.

Red herring.

And proof, by the way, that you're not here to talk about substance.

Nice try. Try again.

Biden, OK, but Wes Clark would be by far the most effective in dealing with this quasi-militaristic shit.

I dunno. Clark has the resume, but not the campaigning chops that Biden does.

Jmac definately needs mental counseling.

Whoever owns the media wins this election. McCane, right now, is the media's darling. Period.

I am an Obama guy, but he has spent way too much time letting McCain slap him around. I know he didn't hit back too hard vs Hillary because he knew he needed her and her supporters, but there is no excuse for not pile-driving McCain into the ground. He needs to put an end to his "bitchassness."

"I am an Obama guy, but he has spent way too much time letting McCain slap him around. "

Agreed.

W3rd up. He let plenty of opportunities slip by with Hillary, which I took to be a show of class for a fellow Democrat. Once McCain was in his sights, I thought (and he promised), we'd see a little more muscle. Well, I've yet to see any of that.

user-pic

Since Obama seems to be able to go only so far in attacking McCain, perhaps he needs an attack dog VP, someone who can go toe to toe with McCain's attacks. I've seen Biden do this a few times, even to taking on a network newscaster.

Agreed. See comment above.

WHERE THE HELL IS THE DEMOCRATIC LEADERSHIP??

WHY ARE THEY LETTING MCCAIN SAY THAT? THIS IS OUTRAGEOUS

A good question. Where the hell are they ? Are they closet racists too ?

user-pic

Dean is...not so much "closet" though...

Jesus Fucking Chirst people, McCain barely even finished this speech and you're all on here stamping your feet in outrage because there hasn't been a response yet?

You guys are all suffering from what I call "Blackberry poisoning," the belief that the failure to instantaneously react to every event is a catastrophic error and the failure to base every decision on how respond to events on your first blush instant gut call is evidence of dereliction.

To my mind, this new wave of pathological thinking is an even greater threat to our economy and to the quality of our discourse and decisionmaking processes than Powerpoint. (Although I do often wonder if people are spurred into making instant, off the cuff, decisions because they're afraid that if they leave any space between event and response, someone will work up an inane Powerpoint presentation and force them to watch it.)

The pattern has been pretty consistent: Outrageous comment by Mccain in the morning, canned response blurb from the campaign within a few hours, more detailed response by Obama and/or surrogates within 24 hours. But for a bunch of people here, the fact that he wasn't up nationwide with a counterattack ad within seconds of the initial attack means no attack was made.

Take a breath and repeat after me. Politics does not run on Internet time. It still runs on TV time. The only people who even notice the lack of a real time response are the ones who are firmly in one camp or another.

user-pic

"To my mind, this new wave of pathological thinking is an even greater threat to our economy and to the quality of our discourse and decisionmaking processes than Powerpoint."

Ha ha...and I thought only people with military experience truely understood the "Bane of time management" aka Powerpoint...

This is my PowerPoint. There are many like it but mine is 7.0.

My PowerPoint is my best friend. It is my life.
I must master it as I master my life.

My PowerPoint without me is useless.
Without my PowerPoint, I am useless.

I must format my slides true. I must brief them better than the other J-cells who are trying to out brief me. I must brief the impact on the CINC before he asks me. I will!

My PowerPoint and myself know that what counts in this war is not the number of slides, quantity of animations, the colors of the highlights, or the format of the bullets.

We know that it is the new information that counts. We will brief only new information!

My PowerPoint is human, even as I, because it is my life.
Thus I will learn it as a brother.

I will learn its weaknesses, its strengths, its fonts, its accessories, its formats, and its colors.
I will keep my PowerPoint slides current and ready to brief.
We will become part of each other. We will!

Before God I swear this creed. My PowerPoint and myself are defenders of my country. We are the masters of our subject. We are the saviors of my career.

So be it, until victory is America's and there is no enemy, but peace (and the next exercise)!

user-pic

You know, I'm going to try to swing a POW gig in some Southeast Asian country. I know we're not at war with any of them right now but maybe a President McCain could engineer one for me. I mean, if being a POW gives you a free pass to be an asshole for the rest of your life, why would I pass up the opportunity?

OBAMA U PROMISED U WOUDLN"T LET ANYONE QUESTION YOUR PATRIOTISM! COME ON MAN

user-pic

One more point. As I said in another post; hopefully Obama is sitting on a mountain of opposition research which he is just waiting for the right time to start firing, which in turn will drive McCain's numbers down.

McCain's attacks are simply unacceptable. Obama and the Democrats need to hit this sleazy bastard HARD.

user-pic

He is:
"The Obama Nation"
“Fleeced”
“The Case Against Barack Obama: The Unlikely Rise and Unexamined Agenda of the Media’s Favorite Candidate”...

user-pic

SFCWallace says:

He is: "The Obama Nation" “Fleeced” “The Case Against Barack Obama: The Unlikely Rise and Unexamined Agenda of the Media’s Favorite Candidate”...

I like your reading choices, Pulitzer Prize winners all. Jerome Corsi, Dick Morris, David Ferroso.

"In a town hall discussion Monday morning, McCain half-jokingly referred to the media as "my base" and promised to hold biweekly press conferences should he become president."

On the September 10, 2006, edition of The Chris Matthews Show, Matthews asserted: "The press loves McCain. We're his base."


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xp0iHOk0mEQ

user-pic

Yeah, but who gives Cris that "tingely feeling" up his leg?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3m9Gbb6NSwM

user-pic

SFCWallace;

Who gives McCain that tingly feeling?

During MSNBC's January 28 coverage of President Bush's final State of the Union address, Chris Matthews -- host of MSNBC's Hardball -- began an interview with Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain (AZ) by saying, "Senator McCain, you know you're in my heart!"

user-pic

...and Obama's up his leg...

I'm confused. I thought Republicans were all about ambition: working hard, making money, pulling yourself up by your own boot straps, etc.

So now ambition is BAD? So should we all now strive to be underachieving, welfare recipients?

Remember when the republicans say "Arrogant" or "Ambitious" you need to read the code for "Uppity Ni**er." Unpleasant but true.

Crap...I keep forgetting to use my "wingnut-to-English" translator.

user-pic

Actually, when we say Arrogant we mean: exaggerating or disposed to exaggerate one's own worth or importance often by an overbearing manner.
and when we say Ambitious we mean: controlled by ambition.

So, answer my original post....from a Republican point of view, what's so bad about ambition?

user-pic

I don't think there's anything wrong with ambition or aspiration; pretension (Obama's problem) is another story though.

I'll take pretension in Obama over confusion in McCain.

user-pic

We don't cry and break our toys when y'all call McCain confused...that's the only difference

Excuse me? Remind me again whose head exploded when Obama referred to "bearings"? I seem to recall days and days of fake outrage.

Lets see what Obama says in Albuquerque today at the town hall meeting. This is McCain's only scheduled event, so Obama will get the last word.

user-pic
Instead, Senator Obama commits the greater error of insisting that even in hindsight, he would oppose the surge.
And Senator McCain commits the even greater error of insisting even in hindsight, he would support the war.

To McCain, America is War, and it's him who'd rather use a war to win an election.

McCain believes he can not only accuse Obama of treason but flat out lie and get away with it because (1) he was a prisoner of war, (2) he calls himself "pro-life" - sort of a double King's X.

You are supposed to ignore the other facts of his life that say he is a belligerent, nasty old man. He accuses Obama of being willing to "lose a war" to win an election, while he is willing to divide this country to the point of civil war to win an election. He is as diplomatic as a meat axe and as truthful as Jerome Corsi.

Obama is KILLING me right now. This election going to be over before it even starts if he doesn't get an attack dog out there to counter this bullshit.

Put Joe Biden or Jim Webb on the ticket NOW. McCain has shown what type of campaign he plans to run -- sleazy attacks. The last few weeks have been a slow-motion Swift Boat assault by McCain, and I have yet to see Obama taking it seriously enough.

Everyone take a deep breath. This speech is happening as we type. Obama may or may not respond forcefully enough, but chill out that he hasn't responded yet.

No kidding. WTF is with the sky is falling crowd?

Well, my "Blackberry poisoning" comment notwithstanding, I'd rather have 'em angry than panic-stricken, though the line between the two can be pretty thin.

a href="http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/08/18/obama_to_donors_stay_cool.html">Obama to doners yesterday:

The Republicans are using an old playbook, Obama said. But this year, he continued, "Not only do you have a candidate who doesn't take any guff. Not only do you have a candidate who will hit back swiftly and forcefully and truthfully. But you've also got American people who are rising up all over the country and saying, enough is enough."

He told a small reception hosted by supporters of South Asian heritage, "It's going to be difficult. Change is always tough. And electing me is change. It means that people are going to hesitate a little bit. Ba-rack O-bama. They're still getting past that name. But it's a testament to the American spirit that I'm even standing before you as the Democratic nominee."

About 350 people paid $28,500 for a VIP dinner, and were urged to stay cool for the next 79 days. "Democrats, because we've burned in the last few elections, get nervous and skittish right around this time," Obama said. "They say, 'oh no, here the Republicans come - they're so mean and they're going to be doing all these things. Obama is a funny name and who knows what they're going to do.' " The audience laughed nervously.

"So keep your stress to a minimum," he instructed them.


user-pic

Hmmm...I notice he made no reference to not looking like the guys on the money...at least he's a quick learner.

They're really becoming unbearable.

John McCain - Ronald Reagan (makes sh t up, gets confused) without Ronnie's cheerfulness. A grumpy, nasty Ronnie.

The press won't start calling him out until the middle of his second term, when it's obvious even to them that the dementia's set in.

Does anybody other than the Republican dittohead base believe a Presidential candidate wants to lose a war?

Obama should come out hard and hit him on the ridiculousness of the statement, make McCain look absolutely silly for making such statements.

However McCain keeps making these charges to he can keep the discussion on the war issues.

It does bring up the question of how hard to push back. If Obama goes after him too hard today then that will be the media's focus and not on the economy, which is, based on Nevada on Sunday, where Obama wants to steer the message.

It's difficult, because when Obama responds to this garbage the same day, it does validate McCain's preferred narrative.

You have to respond sometimes and get the opposing perspective or a little well-deserved ridicule out there. But if you swing back tit-for-tat every time, the election starts being about who can say the stupidest shit before breakfast.

"McCain has shown what type of campaign he plans to run -- sleazy attacks. The last few weeks have been a slow-motion Swift Boat assault by McCain, and I have yet to see Obama taking it seriously enough."

I agree. The worst part is the MSM is lapping it up. Whenever they stray too far from GOP talking points, McCain and the GOP attack machine bitchslap them too, and they get back in line.

I'm fed up.

user-pic

But reporting on issues that people care about is hard!!!!

user-pic

On the "take a deep breath" note. With Obama out of the news for a week, with McCain's sweet spot - Cold War tensions - in the headlines, with all of these nasty attacks, Obama is still ahead in almost all of the polls and doing quite well in several key swing states, a number of which we wouldn't even have dreamed of winning just four years ago. I get worked up over the polls as much as the next person - sometimes even moreso - but what I've started to do is put it in perspective, remember that this guy took on the Clinton machine and won, and note that the Obama camp still doesn't seem worried at all.

I love this stuff. "Ev-ry thing's com-ing up roooo-ses...." Over the last three weeks we have been witnessing nothing less than the defeat of Obama for president. The McCain campaign has successfully thwarted Obama's urgent need to establish a big lead before the inevitable narrowing of the GE and has thoroughly laid the groundwork for their Fall assault on Obama's character (they've only been warming up till now). In the MSM, despite these scurrilous attacks, McCain is still projected as the American hero, the maverick, the known commodity, the one who has passed the commander in chief threshold, the one who can get away with saying anything because he's basically a good guy and tells good jokes. Obama is, eh, vaguely foreign, a bit untested, something of an accident politically, an unknown commodity, smart, yes, but a tad too "intellectual", a gamble for change but a gamble nonetheless. You don't need to be Nostradamus to see where this is going. THINGS ARE LOOKING BAD. If Obama continues to spend all his time constantly trying to defend his own image against these attacks while allowing McCain's image to stand out their unchallenged, he's going to lose. Period. It may already be too late to give the campaign the kind of EDGE (and I'm talking blades) it needs to cut McCain down to size, but I am glad to hear the many voices now calling for the Obama campaign to get tough at long last.

MCCAIN IS A RECKLESS, WARMONGERING, BUSH-AND-CHENEY -CLONED, UNPRINCIPLED TOOL OF OIL INTERESTS WHO WILL DO AND SAY ANYTHING TO GET ELECTED. VOTE FOR HIM AND YOUR LIFE WILL GET WORSE, MUCH WORSE, WORSE THAN YOU EVER IMAGINED IT COULD. (Pass it on.)

P.S. I'm tired of hearing this blithering nonsense about how good the polls look. Take a gander at the Pollster.com trend lines. Those ain't good and they will soon be showing up in a state poll near you.

I think you should consider changing your moniker.

Will that change the weather?

No, but it will be truth in advertising.

One Word. Deterrence. McCain wants to play these games. Fine then. Obama needs to hit him on the fact that If we were not occupied with a pointless war in Iraq then Russia wouldn't have had the balls to invade Georgia. Drive home the point that Iraq has weakened us and use Georgia to drive the point home. I am betting that is the angle he takes tomorrow when He speaks to the VFW.

I am going to change my registration to the Republican party. No, Obama will not do what is necessary to win this election. He will play mamby-pamby with McCain while McCain knifes him in public.

I have finally had it. The democrat party simply does not have the guts to lead. So screw you,.

hahaha.

user-pic

I see the despair trolls are coming out of the woodwork.

user-pic

Out from under the bridge, rather.

I don't see despair. I see the truth.

The way this war, this economy and this country are currently headed, the presumptive Democratic nominee should be up by 80 points against any Republican challenger.

Love it or hate it, Republicans will do what it takes to win. The ends justify the means if it results in a Republican agenda.

Democrats would rather take the high road and lose than actually work towards change. It is a frustrating dynamic to watch. I'm tired of believing in and voting for losers. Fight or get out of the way for someone that will.

I need to add that I am not changing parties, but I certainly feel the angry sentiment of watching my party make the same bone-headed mistakes over and over again.

Wait, that was satire, right?

This is a brilliant piece of trollery. Congrats.

user-pic

I don't care why you're leaving the Democratic Party. I want to know why you left SNL!

user-pic

lol...that was good...you can tell it's a fake cuz there're 13 other parties I'd join if I left the Republicans before I'd even contemplate the Democrats.

I'm tired of McCain putting Obama on the defensive. Obama needs to re-frame this argument as McCain having TERRIBLE judgement, and how his decision to go to war with Iraq cost thousands of lives and billions of dollars.


"McCain's wrong on Iraq to the tune of $500 billion dollars. I was right in opposing the war because I knew that the evidence presented at the time wasn't strong enough, and it would cost thousands of lives, and millions of taxpayer dollars.

Our schools right here in America are crumbling, gas prices are going up because of the Iraq war, and groceries cost even more than ever. Do you know how much the Iraqis benefit from our taxpayer money? That's $4,988 per Iraqi, and their government has a $79 billion surplus while we're footing the bill for reconstruction and rebuilding of THEIR infrastructure.

Now, don't you think it's time to invest in America's schools, roads, and education? McCain doesn't seem to agree with me on this.

Wrong on Iraq. Wrong for America."

Every so often, I'm one of the most egregious hand-wringers when it comes to what I perceive to be Team Obama's inactivity in forcefully answering McCain's clumsy charges. But deep down, I trust the Obama strategy, simply because McCain's elderly taunts just seem so fucking easy to answer. I mean, "Obama is ambitious" can be countered with - "..when a man has been running for President for eight years, there is no telling how many of his core principles he's willing to abandon to get elected!" The "Celebrity" tactic can be turned on its head, Obama could just have a commercial with McCain's sparse crowds and that picture of old men sleeping with McCain signs in their hands as the narrator asks "Why isn't John McCain's message resonating with Americans?"

Yes, it is so easy to respond and defend against these attacks. So, why is Obama not doing it? I live in Ohio and I have had too many people turning away from Obama because he is just too weak and inexperienced. Why do they think he is too weak? Not because of his position on the issues but because of his cowardice in standing up to McCain. His inexperience? Because of his obvious inability to grasp the fundamentals of fighting for the office. This is why Ohio is turning away from Obama despite his earlier lead. This is why I will switch parties. The Democrat party is nothing but a bunch of girlie boys. They whine about how unfairly they are treated and refuse to stand up and do anything about it.

I almost took your response seriously until I read this drivel:

"I have finally had it. The democrat party simply does not have the guts to lead. So screw you,."

..get the fuck out of here..lol

Yes, I will stick it out. However, there are far too many fence sitters in Ohio and Obama's failure to fight back is really beginning to hurt. Look, there are some of us who spend a lot of time on the blogs, reading and otherwise becoming educated on the issues. However, there are far more Low Information Voters. They know that Iraq was a mistake and that the economy is in tatters (yes, I retired early to open my own business which is now going to close because I live in one of the ten fastest dieing cities in the US) and the people around here are looking for leadership. McCain is looking to demean Obama and it is working in this state. People who used to say that they were going to vote for Obama are beginning to say that they will go for McCain because Obama does not come across as strong enough. We have always failed to understand that the only real Republican tactic has been painting the Democrats as wimps. I hear too many saying that the Republicans are horrible but better than going with the Democratic contender because they just can not take a chance with a weak leader. Strength is not a matter of being a war hawk. Strength does mean fighting back.

user-pic

Hm. 'Democrat' party, twice in two posts.

No Johnny Mac POW Toaster for you.

I can hear it now... "John McCain is just like Rudy Giuliani, every sentence he utters is a noun and a verb and the surge, or a noun and a verb and off-shore drilling. The American people are smarter than that."

I tend to not agree with the latter part of that, but it essentially writes itself

user-pic

At least our verbs (Surge...drill) aren't empty (hope...change).

I'm not so sure about "drill"....

user-pic

First of all...

McCain keeps calling this a war, but insisting the war is against islamic extremism. In this case, Iraq is but a battle in a larger war... whether we leave now or later after many more deaths has little to do with actually winning the "war". Which is it? We seem to have believed that the overthrow of Iran's democratic government was a win back in 1953... was it? We now have an Iran, with its ancestors of 1953 hating us and perhaps ready to continue the 55 year old war (albeit with fewer deaths than our current Iraq fiasco.

Also, McCain continues to inject experience into the equation, while at the same time expressing disagreement with Bush's policies... policies coming directly from he and Chaney and Rumsfield and McCain others with entire lifetmes of experience... experience which has directly resulted in this economic, political, and military mess we have to clean up now.

If all this experience has caused this, why does McCain believe this same experience will now solve our dilemmas, considering he has yet to name his own advisors... if and when he is elected?

Too bad the public has to wait to get this information, because who he chooses as advisors is just as important as his own beliefs... and look at what a good job he has done so far, just during his campaign...

HE has to change the context of McCain's attack. Obama's plan is NOT about "losing" the war. It is about winning both wars.

It is about letting Iraqis govern themselves.
It is about bringing Americam troops home.
It is about winning in Afghanistan
It is about bringing stability to the region
It is about using that war money to fix problems at home

That's a winning platform.

McCain is the one who wants to "lose" the war(s):

by staying in Iraq indefinitley
by continuing to lose the war in Afg.
by driving America into massive debt
by further destroying our reputation in the region and around the world

NOT TO MENTION his outrageous antics over the whole Georgia affair

What the hell are Lieberman and Lindsey Graham supposed to do over there? It is Commedia Dell' Arte adn they are the jesters.

Obama has to say that he is running to, in part, to clean up the mess that McFrankenstein and compacy have created.

Oddly, McCain doesn't want to WIN in Iraq. He just wants to stay forever because HE has defined "Losing" as being for the US to pull out the troops out of Iraq.

There is no goal in Iraq that defines winning. Instead there are a series of perpetually shifting rationales that each replace an earlier, failed reason for even being there. There will continue to be more and different definitions of "winning."

The one thing that McCain knows is that leaving Iraq is losing, and he learned that from Vietnam. There was no rationale for winning there, either.

"Leaving is losing" is pure sophistry. There is no "winning" in Iraq.

We're paying lives and treasure we can't spare for the sophistry McCain is spouting, and I seriously doubt he understands what he is saying. But his handlers understand it.

user-pic

To paraphrase Jon Stewart, the war now has "horizons", which are always out of reach. Like a rainbow, the horizon is always ahead.

HE has to change the context of McCain's attack. Obama's plan is NOT about "losing" the war. It is about winning BOTH wars.

It is about letting Iraqis govern themselves.
It is about bringing Americam troops home.
It is about winning in Afghanistan
It is about bringing stability to the region
It is about using that war money to fix problems at home
It is about mending relations around the world so we are SAFER and MORE prepared tan before.

That's a winning platform.

McCain is the one who wants to "lose" the war(s):

by staying in Iraq indefinitley
by continuing to lose the war in Afg.
by driving America into massive debt
by further destroying our reputation in the region and around the world

NOT TO MENTION his outrageous antics over the whole Georgia affair

What the hell are Lieberman and Lindsey Graham supposed to do over there? It is Commedia Dell' Arte and they are the jesters.

Obama has to say that he is running to, in part, to clean up the mess that McFrankenstein and compacy have created.

GAME ON!

Too bad that Clark is still under the bus, Mr. Obama.

This is charge that Obama has take on directly and not through any surrogates. McCain is the one attacking (or is he just having some fun) Obama's patriotism, so it has to Obama who responds.

Please.

He has no cred by himself. McCain is hammering him that he won't even accept the surge is working out of sheer arrogance. McCain is putting out these little dots and keeps connecting them all back to "Celebrity".

Obama is in a bind on national security and he throws his best bone under the bus.

For the life of me, I cannot understand why he wouldn't use good surrogates and keeps everything on himself.

I would posit that the celebrity angle hasn't been very effective, in that everyone agrees he's a celebrity and the only ones buying the Obama is as empty as Hilton offering are the ones already firmly in McCain's camp.

This attack regarding his ambition is larger than his military cred, i.e. his patroitism. To the effect that it anyway effective, only Obama can convince these people that he is truly a patriot.

why in hell is the VFW yet again allowing McCain to use them as a campaign forum ?!?!? -

this was the guy busy doing Cheney's bidding by working AGAINST the New GI Bill they had been pushing for a year before it's passage

and then of course, the vaunted Maverick didn't bother to show up and vote

McCain's arguments are numbing...
He lacks so much substance that all he can come up with is
distractions and lies-
This morning I watched his speech to vets, that was garbage!
I'm a vet., and listening to McCain is painful, because of his lack of "committment" to folks in the armed services.
He jumped of the bandwagon last, after problems were discovered at Walter Reid.
All of his ideas place more of the cost on vets. who are unable to afford the services. Its a shame that a brother-in-arms such as him can not be relied upon with all the soliders we have returning from war.

The answer to this, as always, is to play offense--ON THE FIELD OF YOUR CHOOSING. In Obama's case, it's the economy. Attack McCain as a corporate whore and don't stop until America hates him.

Obama has to frame Iraq as an economic blunder that cost us $568,000,000,000 dollars. Iraqis get $4,998 per person of our taxpayer money. That's more than the average tax cut we give to a family of four right here in America.

What I don't get is why the Democrats have let him keep using the win vs. lose language. Somebody needs to push back hard and explain that we already "won" the war. We already had the "mission accomplished" banner. Saddam is out of power. Our goal was achieved. The only argument left is what shape we leave Iraq in.

user-pic

"...we already "won" the war. We already had the "mission accomplished" banner. Saddam is out of power. Our goal was achieved. The only argument left is what shape we leave Iraq in."
Because running in 2004 and 2006 y'all used the other side of the "Mission Accomplished" argument to say that we were losing...remember?

user-pic

As far as political strategy and execution, this is men against the boys. McCain has been tearing the paint of Obama for an entire month now.

It's painful to watch but the Obama campaign has to be considered fairly incompetent at this point.

This is Dukakis redux.

There is little in Obama's past which would suggest that ambition is not his 1, 2, and 3 motivators. Obama is a chameleon and will believe, say, and do whatever it takes to get elected.

I know! I was so glad to see McCain so reluctantly agree to run for President after the entire country begged, and begged, and begged him to do it. I'm so convinced he's only doing it to help us! That man has NO ambition whatsoever...he's so selfless.

And the way he has stood against Bush's tax cuts, and against off-shore drilling, and refused to cuddle up to the religous right, and the way he refused to make-up with those people who said all those awful things about him in 2000- this is definitely a man that says it like it is and doesn't do the politically expedient thing.

Here's a draft response:

"Senator McCain spent quite a bit of time pumping up your esteemed membership with talk of 'winning' in Iraq, without any definition of what form this 'winning' might take. With all due respect to your esteemed membership, many of you survived the last major US foreign policy blunder, as did Senator McCain. I must remind you that 60,000 did not, and they are not here to speak for anyone today. I, for one, as President, will have no intention to add to the list of those who died for an arrogant and mindless American foreign policy. If this is what your membership favors, vote for McCain."

Accusing your opponent of what you yourself are guilty of is also a Clintonian tactic. It makes you wonder, where's Hillary been lately?

Stumping for Barack Kerry-Dukakis, it seems like.

user-pic

It's easy for McCain to make remaks such as this:

"Nor has he been willing to heed the guidance of General Petraeus, or to listen to our troops on the ground when they say -- as they have said to me on my trips to Iraq: "Let us win, just let us win."

When there's no one around to fact check. Besides, look at the group he's talking to. The VFW is the country club of veteran organizations. For decades they swaggered about as if theirs were the only important war in human history. They excluded not only those didn't serve in a foreign country during a war, but excluded veterans of Korea, Vietnam, and Desert Storm. Why? because those were not declared wars. It wasn't until their membership began to die off that they changed the rules. McCain is speaking before traditional veterans who will vote Republican anyway. But I hope there is a stong response from the Obama campaign. My gut feeling is that the gloves will come off as soon as the convention is over. Remember that unlike us, much of the electorate has a very short attention span.

user-pic

yern4truth;

the biggest con job the Republicans pulled on veterans is that the Republicans are strong on defense. The Republicans are strong on the military industrial complex, you can't find them if you're a rifleman in the infantry. Look at their record under Bush and the Iraq/Afghanistan wars.

One of the Bush bananas in the Vet Adm sent out an e-mail to a number of VA employees, including psychologists, social workers, and a psychiatrist stating that due to an increased number of “compensation seeking veterans,” the staff should “refrain from giving a diagnosis of PTSD straight out” and they should “R/O [rule out] PTSD” and consider a diagnosis of “Adjustment Disorder” instead.

user-pic

...at GWB's personal direction I'm sure...you might want to check the registration of your "banana" there's quite a few Dem's deeply entrenched in the Lifetime civil service ranks...

user-pic

SFCWallace says:

"...at GWB's personal direction I'm sure...you might want to check the registration of your "banana" there's quite a few Dem's deeply entrenched in the Lifetime civil service ranks..."

Hey Inhof,

GWB, as President, appoints the civilian leadership of all Government Departments and they follow his philosophy of governing.

As to Dems in civil service, get a hold of a dictionary and look up "non sequitur"

user-pic

So McCain accuses Obama of blind ambition...and just how many times has McCain run for president? We know this is the first time he made it as the nominee, but if I remember correctly, he has persistently aimed for the Oval Office.

Project much, John?

Worse, Mccain has sold out on every conceivable issue for his ambition. He even abandoned his first wife to get his millionaire trophy wife with political connections.

No kidding. McBrownnose knows better than anyone dead or alive the intricate bouquet of Bush's backside.

Talk about a journey the dark side.

He's never come back.

Anyone who is so willing to humiliate himself for power cannot be trusted. He is the most dangerous type.

There he goes again.
When is Obama finally going to call him out for 'willing wanting to sacrifice american lives for his personal ambition'. What's taking so long.

Am I the only one that notice that whenever women and blacks run for national office, they get charged for being "ambitious"? As in, they don't know their place?

user-pic

McCain to VFW;

I don't care what anyone says my friends, I will ALWAYS love our flag....I will ALWAYS love our flag! (psst, the other guy won't)

McCain to Evangelicals;

It was Christmas....and the guard drew a cross in the dirt, and there we were, two Christians!
(psst, the other guy is a Muslim)

McCain to the country; I will protect you from the radical muslim extremists and cut your taxes!
(psst, the other guy wants us to lose in Iraq so he can get elected President and raise your taxes!)

user-pic

In McCain's world, a candidate's patriotism is measured by how willing the candidate is to apply military force. He's promised more wars. Easy to do with a bunch of guys whose warrior days are behind them.

user-pic

I truly believe that Obama needs someone like Biden to be his VP. He would blast McCain out of the water.

Part of this is an easy one for the Obama campaing. McCain is promising to improve/expand veterans' health care, but his voting record says the opposite, including votes against increasing funding for the VA in the last 2 years, after the Walter Reed problems that he calls a disgrace.

"Senator McCain has said he will improve health care for our veterans, who richly deserve it. But if you look at his voting record, you will see that he has voted against the positions he now claims to support."

Part of this is an easy one for the Obama campaing. McCain is promising to improve/expand veterans' health care, but his voting record says the opposite, including votes against increasing funding for the VA in the last 2 years, after the Walter Reed problems that he calls a disgrace.

"Senator McCain has said he will improve health care for our veterans, who richly deserve it. But if you look at his voting record, you will see that he has voted against the positions he now claims to support."

"when a man has been running for President for eight years, there is no telling how many of his core principles he's willing to abandon to get elected!"/

Actually, McCain has been running for president longer than 8 years. I seem to remember the Keating affair thwarted his Presidential plans in 1988.

I am outraged when I listen to all this garbage McCain spews..
Is Obama waiting to play offense for financial reasons?

Every time McCain brings up this point - "Nor has he (Obama) been willing ... to listen to our troops on the ground when they say -- as they have said to me on my trips to Iraq: "Let us win, just let us win" Obama and his surrogates should hit back with the fact that deployed troops donate to Obama over McCain 6:1. This is a fact the campaign should be using. http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/08/troops-deployed-abroad-give-61.html

user-pic

Maybe your concensus VP pick can clear it up for you...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y0OqCIxSCw

user-pic

SFCWallace,

hey Santorum,

there ya go again....putting forth people (Biden) who were wrong about Iraq as reinforcement of your position.

And by the way, no where in that video does Biden say Saddam was a threat to our national security, the point you offered that started this line.

user-pic

0:35 "He was a threat..."
0:53 "He was a threat..."
1:45 "He did have materials that could be weaponized..."

user-pic

SFCWallace,

thanks for proving my point that Saddam was not a threat to our National Security,as you stated, and that in that video Biden didn't say that he was.

Hey, Hannity, you're not in a hole, you're in a quarry, stop excavating.

Can someone please tell me who exactly Obama is trying to persuade to vote for him? Who is the target population?

Looks like I was wrong. I thought that I had discerned a real and effective strategy out of the real McCains. Tear down Obama the International Celebrity and follow with a relentless couple of weeks of positive stuff


Over the weekend, I noticed that McCain had replaced the Celebrity negative ads with positive ones. Thought my analysis had been confirmed

Great balls of confusion

McCain didn't get the memo--Iraq is all but settled the troops are coming home. The war will soon be over in Iraq. No matter who wins, the government in Iraq want us out. Can McCain say the word OUT.

user-pic

"Obama wants to lose in Iraq because of his ambition"?

That statement is just flat out STUPID.

A person can want to win becuse of their ambition, and they can be willing to lose because of their lack of ambition. But it makes no sense to say that a person "wants to lose because of their ambition"


Time for Obama to go on offense.
Attack McCain on his strongest point -National Security- and make it a weak point.

McCain wants us to go to war if necessary to protect former Soviet clients from Russia. He is a warmonger. Obama needs to make that case. How many Americans want more war?

Except this time, with a major nuclear power?

Ambition = Uppity

Leave a comment

Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address