Comments on: McCain, Obama Spar Over Al Qaeda in Iraq

Frontrunners Trade Barbs Following Obama's Debate Comments

Add a Comment See all 249 Comments
by watcher269-2009 February 28, 2008 7:07 AM EST
This is the REPUBLICAN strategy for the Iraq War!

On Monday, the US military announced that the number of troops in Iraq following the %u201Csurge%u201D begun last year will be some 10,000 more than pre-surge levels. What was originally presented as a temporary increase of US occupation forces will result in the indefinite presence of 140,000 US soldiers in Iraq.

Pentagon Joint Chiefs of Staff operations director Carter Ham told reporters during a press conference that by July of 2008, the total standing occupation force would be reduced to 15 brigades from 20 brigades at the height of the surge, still leaving 8,000 of the 30,000 additional forces introduced under the surge.

Ham refused to give an estimate of troop levels by the end of Bush%u2019s presidential term, calling it %u201Cpremature%u201D to talk of future reductions. %u201CThis will be very much conditions-based,%u201D he said.

Ham%u2019s remarks came two weeks after US Defense Secretary Robert Gates said a %u201Cpause%u201D in the drawdown of US forces %u201Cprobably does make sense.%u201D
Reply to this comment
by samthetvcat February 28, 2008 5:02 AM EST
PS oops I forgot to finish my thought - I guess I meant to say that McCain seems to be trying to back off his 100 years statement, but I''m not sure whether he''s really backed off his doctrine of not setting timelines or whether he''s just trying make people think that he has. So I''m eager to see how he goes with that . . .
Reply to this comment
by samthetvcat February 28, 2008 5:00 AM EST
I think Obama''s opposition to the war in Iraq from the start not only gives him greater leverage at home in terms of the election, I think it also gives him greater leverage to negotiate with Iraqis to get them to take responsibility for their future.

Like I guess McCain''s ''surge'' doctrine was really a two-parter . . . there was the troop increase (contain and hold, or whatever) and there was the political aspect - no timelines otherwise Iraqis will side with militias rather than trust troops to stay the course. As compromise for the surge, McCain apparently laid out ''benchmarks'' with no consequences for failure to meet them. Hence, the statements of his predicting that we could be there for as long as 100 years . . .

So, Obama might be able to argue that although the ''surge'' aspect quelled the violence, the second part of McCain''s doctrine is faulty and that Obama''s in a better position to extract concessions from the warring factions because he can say that if it had been up to him none of the mess in Iraq would have happened.

I''ll be interested to hear more from McCain about what he said the other day about troops coming home soon and the insurgency going on without the troops playing referee . . .
Reply to this comment
by watcher269-2009 February 28, 2008 4:41 AM EST
There once was a man named McCain

Who had the whole White House to gain,

But he was quite a hobbyist

Of boning his lobbyists,

So much for his %u201908 campaign.
Reply to this comment
by pensacola88 February 28, 2008 3:33 AM EST
McCain is going to have a tough sell justifying our continued presence in Iraq and Afghanistan when rhetoric is flying reminiscent of the cold-war. Our country is tired of rising gasoline prices, and the destablizing impact it has upon our economy. The US dollar has dropped value against the Euro dollar for six straight years.

In 2001, oil was $28 a barrel, and today it is $100.

In 2001, a Euro Dollar was exchanged for 95 cents, and today it exchanges for $1.40.

Rhetoric wont change these numbers that have taken an alarming direction.

It is clear that the world markets don''t have confidence in the US economy while we are having a destablizing affect in the Arab region where most of the world''s economies require stability to prosper.

We can fight and rant for respect from Islamic neighbors, but nothing can make our hunger go away faster than food. It costs 40% more to buy it today, than it did in 2001.

Reply to this comment
by jesterbelle February 28, 2008 3:23 AM EST
After reading this,I don''t think Obama will have as much trouble handling McCain and the republicans as Ms.Hillary would like everybody to believe.He''s manipulated her into playing the game his way,and had her dancing around like Pinocchio from the start.If anything,it will be easier dealing with McCain than her.All he needs is a big paint brush,and a five gallon bucket of George Bush.
Reply to this comment
by j-whitman February 28, 2008 2:52 AM EST
See you folks tommorrow - There a Senate Armed Services Committee on now on the National Security Assesment on C-SPAN
Reply to this comment
by Ruidu February 28, 2008 2:26 AM EST
The GOP and McCain have risen to the level of their incompetence! Go Huckabee!
Reply to this comment
by reloaded06 February 28, 2008 1:33 AM EST
Hey....everything is a God thing. So that means everything is good.

Reply to this comment
by j-whitman February 28, 2008 1:32 AM EST
boycot-china,,,, There happens to be a Trinity Christian College not more than 2 miles from my house --- They are mostly white people
Reply to this comment
See all 249 Comments

Exclusive Webshow

Author Thomas Friedman on Obama's Afghanistan plan and the war on terror. Watch Now

Latest News
News in Pictures
Scroll Left Scroll Right
Connect with CBS News

Stay connected with the CBS News using your favorite social networks and online news applications: