McCain, Obama Spar Over Al Qaeda in Iraq

(AP)  Republican presidential hopeful John McCain mocked Barack Obama's view of al Qaeda in Iraq, and the Democratic contender responded that GOP policies brought the terrorist group there.

The rapid-fire, long-distance exchange Wednesday underscored that the two consider each other likely general election rivals, even though the Democratic contest remains unresolved.

McCain criticized Obama for saying in Tuesday night's Democratic debate that, after U.S. troops were withdrawn, as president he would act "if al Qaeda is forming a base in Iraq."

"I have some news. Al Qaeda is in Iraq. It's called `al Qaeda in Iraq,'" McCain told a crowd in Tyler, Texas, drawing laughter at Obama's expense. He said Obama's statement was "pretty remarkable."

Obama quickly answered back while campaigning in Ohio. "I do know that al Qaeda is in Iraq and that's why I have said we should continue to strike al Qaeda targets," he told a rally at Ohio State University in Columbus.

"But I have some news for John McCain," Obama added. "There was no such thing as al Qaeda in Iraq until George Bush and John McCain decided to invade Iraq. ... They took their eye off the people who were responsible for 9/11 and that would be al Qaeda in Afghanistan, that is stronger now than at any time since 2001."

Obama said he intended to withdraw U.S. forces from Iraq "so we actually start going after al Qaeda in Afghanistan and in the hills of Pakistan like we should have been doing in the first place."

While he praised McCain as a war hero and saluted his service to the country, Obama said the Arizona Republican was "tied to the politics of the past. We are about policies of the future."

Noting that McCain likes to tell audiences that he'd follow Osama bin Laden to the "gates of hell" to catch him, Obama taunted: "All he (McCain) has done is to follow George Bush into a misguided war in Iraq."

McCain said he had not watched Tuesday night's Democratic presidential debate but was told of Obama's response when asked if as president he would reserve the right to send U.S. troops back into Iraq to quell an insurrection or civil war.

Obama did not say whether he'd send troops but responded: "As commander in chief, I will always reserve the right to make sure that we are looking out for American interests. And if al Qaeda is forming a base in Iraq, then we will have to act in a way that secures the American homeland and our interests abroad."

On Wednesday, Obama expanded slightly that he "would always reserve the right to go in and strike al Qaeda if they were in Iraq" without detailing what kind of strike that might be - air, ground or both.

Throughout the primary season, McCain has repeatedly attacked Obama and Clinton for saying they would withdraw troops from Iraq.

"And my friends, if we left, they (al Qaeda) wouldn't be establishing a base," McCain said Wednesday. "They'd be taking a country, and I'm not going to allow that to happen, my friends. I will not surrender. I will not surrender to al Qaeda."

He said that withdrawing troops would be "waving the white flag."

In the debate, Clinton did not answer the question about re-invasion of Iraq on grounds it contained "lots of different hypothetical assessments."

For years, McCain has urged sending more troops into Iraq, even before President Bush adopted such a strategy about a year ago.

"I knew enough from talking to the men and women who are serving that this new strategy was what we needed, and I'm telling you, it is succeeding," McCain said. "So what needs to happen, we need to continue this strategy. It should be General Petraeus' recommendation, not that of a politician running for higher office, as to when and how we withdraw."

He was referring to Gen. David Petraeus, the top American commander in Iraq.

As he began a swing through President Bush's home state, which holds a presidential primary election on Tuesday, McCain made sure to play up a line he always uses: "I also think it might be nice for President Bush to get a little credit that there's not been another attack on the United States of America," he said to applause.

Both Obama and Clinton campaigned in Ohio on Wednesday. Obama was heading later in the day for at least three days of campaigning in Texas.

[jegibbons]

Posted by sigotratando at 02:17 PM =="an ''''ad hominem'''' argument that attempts to discredit the position by discrediting the person advancing it is a fallacious argument."==
I could not agree more.
Let''s take a look:
1) Gen Petreus suits up and shows up to testify
under oath to the Congress in person and takes their tough questions.
OR
2) An anonymous blogger with an agenda posts unfounded charges that the General is lying.
Who has CREDIBILITY?
Men of honor do things honorably out in the open where as the deceivers must rely on skulking in hiding.
You''ll notice I post using my real name. I speak the truth and I have credibility. See how that works!

[guadalcanal3]

To sigotratando: Just because Saddam was secular does not mean he would not accept help from jihadists..especially since his position was in a very perilous situation (being attacked by the most powerful country on the planet) Hitler and Stalin hated each other as well but they still formed an alliance of convenience..until it was no longer convenient...As soon as it looked like the U.S. was going to go in Iraq (months before the actual invasion) Al Qaeda started pouring its fighters into the country to fight the Americans...Saddam did not complain...America..regardless of secular or not secular was their common enemy..If you believe otherwise then I would say you are very naive.

[sigotratando]

Posted by guadalcanal3

Actually, Saddam was considered a secularist & feared a religious challenge to his rule; PLUS Bin Laden himself called Saddam an infidel.

[guadalcanal3]

Actually Al Qaeda had a presence in Iraq before the war...They were the so-called foreign fighters dressed up in baclavas...they paraded in front of Saddam with AK47''s to show their solidarity to Saddam if the U.S. invaded...Don''t kid yourselves people..Al Qaeda has a presence in all Islamic countries...They are not a myth created by the Bush administration...and...if the war has brought many more of them to Iraq to fight...well...that''s a heck of a lot better than having to chase them all over the world...In fact..they were even in the United States before all of this began...Remember 9/11?

[gunownerdan]

Obama said:
"There was no such thing as al Qaeda in Iraq until George Bush and John McCain decided to invade Iraq."

That''s EXACTLY what Dr. RON PAUL said many times during the republican debates.
Why can''t Obama use his own words????

Senator Clinton, Senator McCain, Senator Obama.....
These fools from congress should be rotting in jail, not running for president!!!!!!!!!!!

[samthetvcat]

PS That last comment is also based on the fact that McCain refuses to set benchmarks with consequences.

[samthetvcat]

sigotratando, yes those are good points - if Barack gets the nomination, I think he starts the head to head right back at the bottom the way he did with Hillary being the presumptive nominee and with the burden on him to prove his worthiness.

It''s going to take time and perseverence, but it''s bizarre to see the Republicans already making the exact same mistakes that Hillary made in running against him. They THINK they''ve learned lessons from seeing what hasn''t worked for her, but they''re nevertheless hanging their hat on the ''experience'' rack. The cockiness McCain showed with his ''al-Qaeda'' quip shows he doesn''t really appreciate that ''experience'' is going against a war that has 60% disapproval ratings.

The burden''s on Barack, but popular sentiment is also on his side . . . 8 months from now McCain''s going to be sitting with Hillary at a bar scratching their heads downing vodka shots wondering what the heck just happened . . .

[kailumego1]

jack3213 anyone who thinks McCain is most qualified needs to start taking Lithium for their bipolar disorder.

The only thing "warmonger" McCain is good for is further polarizing the international community, forging us into WWIII, deepening the economic debt, and degrading the environment with his half-witted nonsense policies.

[sigotratando]

But JEGibbons, I don''t want to give the impression that I don''t believe in "believability". If there were indeed a pimply-faced teen facing off with Gen. Patraeus, I would certainly give more credibility to the General. But an ''ad hominem'' argument that attempts to discredit the position by discrediting the person advancing it is a fallacious argument.

[sigotratando]

Politics is politics because it attempts to influence the perspective of the populace. Everyone in the public eye with the intention to communicate to the populace has, necessarily, entered the political arena, whether military or other standpoint.

We could assume that a person is totally objective because he is in the military, but would that introduce a fallacy into any conclusion we might draw since ''objectivity'' is a matter of perspective (as shown in studies of witnesses to crimes or other events)?

And what typically colors perspective? One of the most important human motivations: self esteem (viz., the concern how one is perceived, followed by consequences, like making your boss mad). It is hard not to say that everyone has an agenda; & if you''re in the political arena, it becomes a "political agenda".

"Sworn testimony" is only that: testimony, subject to scrutiny. Scrutiny is most effective when conducted from different angles. At what point does an angle become an "operation from an admitted burning political agenda" that makes it unbelievable? "Pimple-faced teen"? "Anti-war pacifist"?

There is always room for interpretation. If we''re not in Gen. Patraeus'' shoes, we are ALL armchair quarterbacks w/ our own perspectives.