Comments on: McCain: Obama Tried To Legislate Iraq Loss

At Veterans Conventions, GOP Candidate Criticizes Democrat's Opposition To The Surge

[misha128-2009]

Correction --The UN authorization that provides legal protections for the coalition forces in Iraq expires in December,

[misha128-2009]

Any attempt to "legislate loss in Iraq" if you and Senator McCain accept a time line for withdrawal as a loss (after declaration of "Mission Accomplished") ended with the approval of surge funding and the acceptance of benchmarks instead of a time line. However, the issue of a time line has surfaced again not as a legislative issue but as a diplomatic matter by the government of Iraq. The US authorization that provides legal protections for the coalition forces in Iraq expires in December, leaving our operations in Iraq completely subject to Iraqi law. Both sides primarily the US the current administration) and Iraq have chosen not to seek extension of the UN Authorization and its legal protections for the troops but instead to negotiate an Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA). Within the last weeks the Iraqis are insisting on a time line (not a time horizon for aspirational goals) to be included in the agreement with a period of around 16 to 24 months for the removal of combat forces from Iraq. As we are unable to withdraw forces before the end of the existing UN authorization this agreement is necessary to provide legal protections for the troops operating in Iraq. This means President Bush (and not Barak Obama) is the US official currently in charge of negotiating Senator McCain''s dreaded "Time Line of Failure" in Iraq. (cont)

[misha128-2009]

If you accept Senator McCain''s premise that a time line will result in failure, your criticism and Senator McCain''s criticism at the present time should be directed at the this administration for a willingness to negotiate failure in Iraq. I find it difficult to understand how failure can occur after a declaration of "Mission Accomplished". Even more significant are Senator McCain''s own comments in the last weeks that first we were succeeding in Iraq and second that we SUCCEEDED in Iraq. Bush supports "RETURN ON SUCCESS" and his fellow Republican Senator McCain declared SUCCESS. How can Senator McCain make any reasonable argument under those conditions that any time line is a "Time Line of Failure"?

[kissamaarse]

What''s the deal with the Mini-Me cloning out the left side of McCain''s cheek?

Is that his Vice Presidential Nominee?

[firststate]

McBush has a problem with both the time line in Iraq and good judgement. McBush acts as if the Iraq war began in the months immediately preceding the surge. From that temporal point of view the judgement leading to proposing it may have been sound, but the war began in 2003 and the good judgement about whether to start the war was Obama''s, not McBush''s. Obama predicted most of the problems leading to the need for a tactic like the surge. McBush didn''t see the disaster Iraq would be. He was laying the political groundwork for his next bid for the white house. He had the information Obama had plus the NIE he didn''t bother with. His judgement was faulty, a dereliction of duty before sending American forces to their deaths or it was callous maneuvering for his personal political gain. What his judgement about starting the war was not is good. He still refuses to admit that it was a mistake from the beginning.

Had good judgement prevailed before the invasion there''d have been no need for a tactical tweak like the surge. 4,143 American solders wouldn''t have died and over 30,000 not seriously wounded. We wouldn''t have been distracted from the fight against the terrorists who attacked us. The bad judgement prevailed.

Surprisingly for a veteran who hates war, his first impulse is usually to use the military. In 2000, even the bush team seemed to question whether a hothead with an infamous temper like John''s was fit to be president.

[actornaught]

Posted by ragnar30066 at 06:09 PM : Aug 18, 2008

You are a liar. Obama wouldn''t have "turned tail and run from a winnable war". Get over that, and maybe you won''t have a coronary when BO is president.

And those millions of people exterminated after we left Vietnam? They were killed by the ENEMY of North Viet Nam. Precisely, the enemy of our enemy.

What do you use for a source, Savage? feh....

[actornaught]

Posted by RosieOD4Prez at 02:19 PM : Aug 18, 2008

I''m back. You made an attempt to answer this: "If the "surge" was such a great

thing, WHY DID IT TAKE 4 YEARS TO THINK OF IT?

Somewhere after you said "cut and run", my mind kinda went foggy from the talking

point. I''ll skip your racist apology routine, and get to the primary point. I

think the closest to an answer was somwhere in the phrase "[Petraus] protected the

populace from our adversary". How does that differentiate from what happened

before Petraus? I know the phrase "take and hold" is associated with the

escalation. Is that what you mean? From there, you said "I''m not happy with the

learning curve either."

You stopped short of answering right there. What is the nature of your

unhappiness? Who do you think is to blame? No answer, you just jump to more

talking points, including "[Obama''s] vote against material to support the troops".

Do you really believe that line? Seriously? And you want me to use that as

background to answer your question?

I know that line about voting against the troops is a lie. No such strategy was

behind any such vote.

BUT, I think Obama is a highly intelligent, highly dedicated individual that will

bring global respect to the office of the presidency, amongst other points that

you didn''t ask. John will do none of it. So, try to finish your answer, I answered yours, anyway.

[misha128-2009]

I take a tax and spend Democrat over the current crop of drunken Republican sailors that spend - spend - spend and spend some more. The drunken REpublicans were responsible for teaching their drunken spending ways to Wall Street causing the financial meltdown. This is the first war I know of that was run on the credit card instead of being paid for as it is waged -- the biggest drunken Republican spending spree in history made even worse when coupled with the drunken spending of Bush''s tax breaks.

[the74blaster]

Yet again, McCian can''''t talk about what he''''s going to do to save the middle class. Are there still people out there that will fall for this gimmick?

Posted by Policrypt,

Unfortunately there are. If McCain had a worthwhile agenda he would be talking about rather than attacking Obama. Apparently most people do not want to look at the facts and make a decision to save the middle class.

The part that I find unbelievable is how McCain is trying to pass Obama as a tax and spend democrat who will wreck the economy.

Well considering that McCain supported Bush 95 percent of the time over the last 8 years is a clear indication that electing McCain is the way to keep the country headed in the same direction.

Its very simple. If you are better off than you were 8 years ago, then you should vote for McCain.

If not then Obama is the choice.

[ragnar30066]

Obamatoids just can''t stand it. Their Messiah was wrong. He would have turned tail and run from a winnable war. He would have abandoned the Iraqi people to their fate, and reaped the whirlwind for America. He won''t admit it. They won''t admit it.

There are still people from the 60''s who still won''t believe that abandoning Vietnam would result in millions of Asians being rounded up and exterminated by communist regimes, even though the fact that it did is a matter of well documented record by other people who said it wouldn''t happen.