Would you have any problem if I used this paragraph as song lyrics for the new death metal band I’m forming?
The War of 1812?
Well, in eighteen and fourteen we took a little trip
along with Colonel McCain down the mighty Mississip.
We took a little bacon and we took a little beans,
And we caught the bloody British near the town of New Orleans.
I didn’t hear that interview, but Obama isn’t making much sense in that he claims that we can’t know whether the surge in Iraq was responsible for quelling the violence there, but he wants to surge troops into Afghanistan to… quell the violence there. Also, keep in mind that “the surge” was more than just sending in more troops-- it represented a change in strategy, too. Not sure if we need to change our strategy in Afghanistan where the population is largely (I think) in favor of keeping the international troops there and supportive of what they are doing.
Just about. There are about 53k troops in Afghanistan, of which about 32k are Americans.
Gosh, Lib, why so circumspect and diplomatic? You’re usually so outspoken that you leave no doubt where you stand.
There is an enemy in Afghanistan. AQ and the taliban have been resurgent there. If this “war on Terror” has any validity to it, that’s where the front is, not in Iraq. The violenec in Iraq is only our problem because we have troops there. Once we pull them out we no longer have a problem with violence against US troops. Problem solved. Escalating troops is counterproductive there.
Years after it was shown that it was false. I think he alluded to it in a speech to AIPAC in 2007, at least 3 years after those contentions were dismissed by the September 11 Commission.
Violence against our troops is not the sum total of violence in Iraq. In fact, civilian deaths far outnumber military deaths. The surge troops weren’t sent in simply to prevent attacks against US troops-- it was to quell the violence against civilians
That’s a pretty weak backup argument.
Yeah, the side-by-side comparison was almost embarassing on the news last week.
Clip #1: Obama talking to tens of thousands of people in Germany.
Clip #2: McCain talking to up to 10 people in a German restaurant in America.
The surge, or rather the strategy put into place simultaneously with it, has been “successful” in assisting the ethnic cleansing of the cities, helping enforce the divisions and the ultimate effective partitioning of the country that Bush’s rhetoric had it opposing. That was Petraeus’ tightrope, doing the only thing that would let the killing subside while pretending to support the administration’s public position about unification.
Perhaps the next President can be more open about what has been happening, and what strategy has actually been put into place - as long as there’s no vague, time-horizonless talk of “victory” without providing any definition of the word.
I can’t for the life of me figure out why McCain did that. It made him look small. And then to go whining about all the press coverage Obama is getting. He needs to get a positive, focused message out there, and so far, he’s failed miserably at doing that.
It’s the only violence that concerns the US, though. The civil war is not our problem.
It was just the first cite I could find. There are others, but I’m putting my kids to be and don’t have time. I am not making an extraordinary claim here, anyway.
Here’s another cite that shows that his contention was not supported by the commission. The thing is, he knew damn well the contention was false the whole time he was making it; it’s not like the 9/11 commission uncovered a smoking gun in the 11th hour.
Many people, including Obama, disagree with you on that. But at any rate, that has nothing to do with what I posted about Obama earlier.
Or rather, hanging from his dislocated arms, which he received for refusing to be released and used for propaganda.
Your dinner party guest should be ashamed.
And before McCain was ‘sitting on his ass’, he was flying extremely dangerous missions, and had nearly been killed several times. Maybe your dinner party guest should see if he or she can get strapped into a jet fighter and launched off a carrier at night.
Clearly, McCain’s “I know how to win wars” statement comes not from his years in Vietnam, where was just a fighter pilot and POW, but from his decades of service and study after that, and his two decades on the Armed Services Committee, which did preside over the end of the cold war.
In contrast, I imagine Obama has seen some war movies. But maybe not. He hasn’t shown much interest in military matters, and the few decisions he’s made have been completely wrong.
I actually found that cite earlier, and I think the reporting is misleading. He doesn’t say SH was behind the 9/11 attacks, at least not in any direct quotes they give us.
Calm down. The intended irony of the joke is that McCain did actually see service and great personal hazard in a combat zone, but the Democratic complement of “Swift Boat Veterans For Truth[sic]” would claim that McCain was cowardly avoiding combat, et cetera. Perhaps it is not in especially good taste, but neither is McCain’s support for torture and cognitive dissonance over the conduct and success of the Iraq effort to date.
Regardless, having served in a war–even as a staff level commanding officer–is no guarantee of being a good chief executive, either in peacetime or wartime. We’ve had Presidents with no military service preside over successful wars (with advice from experienced and trusted Cabinet members) and people with direct combat experience preside over disastrous war efforts like Korea. That McCain has fought in a war, displaying heroism and suffering grave injury, does not by default make him the best selection for President, even in a wartime environment. What would make him a good President in this regard is having a decisive and well-conceived plan for resolving the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq. Unfortunately, from everything I’ve seen from him, he does not; his plan is to keep doing more of the same until it starts working, even as military planners are having difficulty maintaining existing staffing levels. On that basis alone I’d support Obama over McCain.
Stranger
Shit, John, you know, you’re right. I conflated his continued claims of a Saddam/al-Qaeda connection prior to 9/11, years after he was informed that it was not an operative one, if one at all, in late 2001, with the bloggy claims of him asserting Iraq was somehow involved in 9/11. There’s quite a difference between the two, and I’m not going to try to sugarcoat the fact that I posted recklessly. I apologize for that. :o Now I’ve really got to get my kids to bed, or my wife will kill me, because I won’t be able to blame it on Saddam or Cheney…
Obama agrees with me on the essential point that the US has no defensive reason to keep troops in Iraq, while it does have a defensive reason to send more to Afghanistan.
Obama is going to leave troops in Iraq. He’s said so.
And since when have you supported the Afghanistan invasion? Weren’t you opposed to that?