Poor guy’s getting really desperate
July 22nd, 2008 at 07:19pm Pat Cunningham
UPDATE: In addition to the misstatements by John McCain that are the focus of the post below, he also made a first-class gaffe that is creating quite a stir tonight.
The problem is that McCain, during an interview with Katie Couric on CBS, DISPLAYED an astonishing misunderstanding of the sequence of events in Iraq with respect to the recent Surge and the so-called Anbar Awakening.
McCain says the Surge begat the Awakening. In reality, the Awakening predated the Surge.
We’re likely to hear lots more about this over the next few days.
*******************************************************
John McCain, having found himself boxed in by the rush of recent events and the inconsistency of his past rhetoric, is wildly flailing about, leveling scurrilous and patently false charges against Barack Obama.
Today, McCain said Obama wants America to lose the war in Iraq, which amounts to saying that the many troops and veterans who support Obama are either stupid or also want to lose the war.
Some vets are FIGHTING BACK against such slanderous crap.
McCain also said today that Obama has done ”a great disservice to young men and women who are serving and have sacrificed” by denying the valor and success of their efforts in the field.
That is patently false. As we see HERE, Obama has repeatedly hailed the efforts of the troops and has praised them at virtually every turn.
McCain, whose own honorable service in the military is acknowledged by virtually all Americans, is dishonoring himself by impugning the patriotism of his rival for the presidency and, by implication, the supporters of that rival.
Entry Filed under: patriotism, War in Iraq, John McCain, Barack Obama
16 Comments Add your own
1. Mike Carroll | July 22nd, 2008 at 7:34 pm
“Today, McCain said Obama wants America to lose the war in Iraq,”
He did not say that Pat and you know it.
2. Pat Cunningham | July 22nd, 2008 at 7:55 pm
Mike: I don’t need you to tell me what I know. I know that McCain said this: “I had the courage and the judgment to say I would rather lose a political campaign than lose a war. It seems to me that Obama would rather lose a war in order to win a political campaign.”
Which part of that outrageous statement don’t you understand? He’s saying that Obama’s ambition to win the presidency supercedes his wish to see America prevail in the war against terror.
Yes, Obama doesn’t see Iraq as the front line in the war against terror, but McCain does. He’s accusing Obama of rank disloyalty to his own country. It’s a rotten slander against a political rival who loves his country no less than McCain does.
Now, are you also going to try to explain away McCain’s lies about Obama failing to hail the valor and successes of the troops?
3. gowader | July 22nd, 2008 at 10:30 pm
Whats the problem Pat! Some of us agree with McCain. Obama could care less about our troops and this country. He only wants to win. I do not see why you think this is crazy. The only one who is crazy is all the liberal idiots like you who think you are the center of the universe. And yes I said it. you are an idiot! just kidding.
By the way do you remember the big speech when Obama was running against Hillary. He wanted nothing to do with Iraq or Afganastan. This helped him win. He was always voting against the military from day one. Now all of a sudden he supprts us all.
4. Mike Carroll | July 23rd, 2008 at 7:13 am
Pat-Evidently you do need someone to tell you what you know because, as I said, your assertion in the post does not match what you have now accurately quoted. Keep this site a liberal blog, not a Daily Kos, Huffington Post off the wall rant.
Have a nice day.
5. Pat Cunningham | July 23rd, 2008 at 7:48 am
You, too.
6. LD | July 23rd, 2008 at 8:50 am
The day McCain wins us the war in Iraq will be a glorious day indeed. Like they day MacArthur signed the treaty with Shigemitsu on the deck of the USS Missouri. I’m sure one day we’ll celebrate this victory McCain win us by grilling burgers and launching fireworks.
I am a bit confused as to what we win though. Riverfront property on the Tigris? A lifetime supply of figs? Gasoline for under a dollar? Persian rugs? No wait, that’s what we win after the war with Iraq. I can’t wait until McCain starts that one.
7. LD | July 23rd, 2008 at 8:51 am
Whoops meant to say we will win rugs after the war with Iran.
I guess I get them confused just like McCain
8. echo4charlie | July 23rd, 2008 at 9:24 am
A year ago, the pundits said Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton was a “sure thing” to win the Democratic nomination, and Senator John McCain was a “sure thing” not to win the GOP nomination. The pundits were wrong then. I wouldn’t put much stock in them now.
Understand that gap and you’ll understand precisely why Senator Obama, this week, is in the Middle-East. Our junior Senator realizes his international record does not inspire confidence. He has no military experience and very, very little foreign policy experience. Certainly none to compare with to Senator McCain, a bonafide war hero who has been engaged in every major foreign policy debate of the last quarter century.
To win in November, Senator Obama has to close that perception gap. He has to convince more Americans that he is ready for whatever comes next, be it more terrorism from al Qaeda, an orderly transition of power in Iraq, or a full blown war with Iran.
So, he is meeting with foreign leaders as well as U.S. military commanders on the ground in Afghanistan, Iraq, Jordan and Israel and hoping at the very least that the pictures Americans see on TV and in the newspapers from his “whirlwind tour” will cause them to begin to see him as a world leader and ease their many doubts.
A picture is worth a thousand words, but, a week’s worth of photos will not be enough. After all, the Senator’s core problem is not simply that he lacks the requisite experience. It’s the widespread perception that he lacks the necessary judgment when it comes to the most troubling issues of the Middle East.
From the moment President Bush announced that he was taking Sen. McCain’s advice to send more U.S. troops to Iraq to crush the insurgency and restore order, Senator Obama has been a fierce critic of the “surge,” arguing not only that it would not help, but that it would actually make the situation worse. “I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq are going to solve the sectarian violence there,” Senator Obama said on January 17, 2007. “In fact, I think it will do the reverse.”
Eighteen months later, the results are in: the “surge” has been an astounding success. Things didn’t get worse. They got better. Much better. Violent attacks against U.S. troops and Iraqi civilians are down 80%. More than 90% of Iraqi terroritory is now quite safe. More than 70% of combat operations in Iraq are now led by Iraqi forces, with U.S. assistance. Yet, our junior Senator struggles to acknowlege the success and refuses to describe his decision to vote against the “surge” in Iraq as a mistake, even as he supports a surge of more U.S. troops in Afghanistan.
Consider this exchange yesterday with Terry Moran of ABC News.
Moran: “‘[T]he surge of U.S. troops, combined with ordinary Iraqis’ rejection of both al Qaeda and Shiite extremists have transformed the country. Attacks are down more than 80% nationwide. U.S. combat casualties have plummeted, five this month so far, compared with 78 last July, and Baghdad has a pulse again.’ If you had to do it over again, knowing what you know now, would you — would you support the surge?”
Obama: “No, because — keep in mind that -”
Moran: “You wouldn’t?”
Obama: “Well, no, keep — these kinds of hypotheticals are very difficult. Hindsight is 20/20. I think what I am absolutely convinced of is that at that time, we had to change the political debate, because the view of the Bush administration at that time was one that I just disagreed with.”
Moran: “And so, when pressed, Barack Obama says he still would have opposed the surge.”
In May of this year, Senator Obama told a town hall meeting crowd that he thought of Iran as a “small and relatively harmless country”, and felt that they were hardly a major threat to the United States, Israel or our allies in the Middle East. “I mean think about it.,” he told a group of supporters. “Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, these countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union. They don’t pose a serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us….You know, Iran, they spend one-one hundredth of what we spend on the military.”
His aides and advisors were, understandably and undeniably, horrified. Even Senator Clinton conceded Iran was a major threat — particularly given the regime’s lust for nuclear weapons.
So, the next day, our Senator flip-flopped. He told a new audience a new story, that he actually does believe Iran is a threat. But I believe that Senator Obama’s original, unscripted remarks were telling. I believe that Senator Obama does not actually believe the regime led by the Ayatollah Khameini and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad are deeply and inherently dangerous. He sees Iran as a nuisance, not a forthcoming nuclear-armed power. That is why he is so adamant about wanting to sit down and “negotiate personally” with Ahmadinejad, without preconditions.
His official website actually boasts about this position. “Senator Obama is the only major candidate who supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions,” it reads. But to what end?
I truly doubt that Senator Obama actually studied the speeches of Khameini and Ahmadinejad. Or has, dangerously, simply discounted them. Has he studied their eschatology, or end times theology? He should know it, as it is part of Islam (in which it it has been stated that he was raised-although he denies that he was). Has he taken the time, or put in the effort, or at least been briefed about how this eschatology is driving Iranian foreign policy? No one who truly understands what the current Iranian leadership believes could honestly conclude that they can be successfully negotiated with, much less deterred. Ahmadinejad, after all, believes it is his God-given mission to annihilate the U.S., Israel and Judeo-Christian civilization as we know. Why? To create the conditions that will bring the Islamic Messiah known as the Mahdi or the “12th Imam” to earth.
Ahmadinejad is not just another power-hungry dictator. He is a Shia Islamic fascist. He believes his life destiny is to kill millions of Jews and Christians and usher in an Islamic caliphate. He believes he is a John-the-Baptist, a forerunner, of the Islamic Messiah. If he dies, he believes he will spend eternity in paradise with 72 virgins. But he doesn’t really believe he’s going to die. He believes he has been chosen for a divine appointment, and that nothing can stop him. That is what makes him so dangerous.
Unfortunately, too many Washington politicians — Sen. Obama included — do not understand this.
I just don’t want this to be another “hindsight” lesson that millions learn the hard way.
9. LD | July 23rd, 2008 at 9:27 am
Obama Overseas! In Presidential Mode! Back Home, It’s McCain in a Golf Cart.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/23/us/politics/23watch.html?ex=1217476800&en=4f05a1892f0518c0&ei=5070&emc=eta1
key quote
“Even Fox News broke away from Mr. McCain midevent to cover the rescue of a bear cub wounded in a California fire and nicknamed Lil’ Smokey.”
10. Q Jordon | July 23rd, 2008 at 5:34 pm
We may say the surge worked, which to a certain extent it might have; however, what really worked is the Iraqis standing up and taking their country back.
The Iraqi military started to assert itself in a way that helped many of these hot spots within their own country, and it helped when some of these religious factions decided to cooperate instead of continuing the violence that was killing its own citizenship.
I have a couple of friends over in Iraq, and they claim the surge is like a shell game. As soon as we leave an area to go to the next, it is filled by the insurgents. Does this mean we must stay? No, the leaders of this country want us out.
Both George W. Bush and John McCain agreed in 2004, that if there was ever a time the government of Iraq wanted us out, we should leave. Strange, I am not see that happen, now.
What has changed? Cannot get the oil out if this were to occur? Cannot control the resources, if this were to occur? Cannot dictate to the Iraqi government, if this were to occur?
If the surge is working so well, why are we not drawing down our troops? What is the real reason we are not leaving?
11. Q Jordon | July 23rd, 2008 at 5:36 pm
And a footnote, I noticed someone mentioned Faux News - Fair and Balanced BS op-ed piece all the time.
The Crayola Crayon Kids are alive and well on this blog.
12. Pat Cunningham | July 23rd, 2008 at 5:45 pm
Now you know what I’m up against here, Jordon.
13. Craig Knauss | July 24th, 2008 at 8:46 am
Pat and Jordan,
The really scary part is the large percentage of conservatives who STILL believe that Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11. That means there’s a large block of people who are functionally brain dead. And some of them are bloggers. That’s what the rest of us are up against.
14. Pat Cunningham | July 24th, 2008 at 9:31 am
Craig: Just off the top of my head and in no particular order, here’s a list of some of the fictions (not all of them political) that millions of Americans believe:
1. The courts have ruled that God, religion and the 10 Commandments cannot be mentioned in public school classrooms.
2. Ronald Reagan reduced the size of the federal government.
3. The Civil War was not about slavery.
4. The Founding Fathers were all Bible-believing Christians.
5. Abraham Lincoln was born in Illinois.
6. Blue states get more goodies from the federal government than red states. (It’s actually the other way around.)
7, Capital punishment is a proven deterrent to murder.
8. The major public-opinion polls (Gallup, etc.) are intentionally biased and are usually wrong.
9. Women each have one more rib than men (per the Biblical story of Adam and Eve)
10. Only atheists believe in evolution.
11. Most people in the time of Columbus believed the world was flat.
12. Abner Doubleday invented baseball.
13. The Chicago Democratic machine stole the presidency for John Kennedy in 1960.
14. Al Gore claimed to have invented the Internet.
15. Betsy Ross made the first American flag.
16. The media are more politically biased today than they were in previous times. (Anybody who’s ever read newspapers from the time of Washington, Jefferson and Adams know how silly that is.)
17. Barack Obama took his oath of office on the Koran.
18. Prohibition did not reduce consumption of alcohol.
15. Craig Knauss | July 24th, 2008 at 2:30 pm
Pat,
Don’t forget that “Republicans are more patriotic than Democrats”, even though Democratic veterans, and in particular combat veterans, outnumber their Republican counterparts in both this and the previous, Republican dominated, Congress. Also the ONLY Medal of Honor winner in Congress is a Dem.
16. Pat Cunningham | July 24th, 2008 at 3:11 pm
Indeed, Craig, Republicans are more patriotic, decent, God-fearing, hard-working, law-abiding, honorable, charitable and civilized than Democrats. Everybody knows that. But most of them also are a little weird about….uh…. — how should I put this? — uh….ex-say, if you understand my pig latin. Look at how so many of them got so freaked out about Clinton getting a little action in the Oval Office in a consensual relationship with an adult woman. And look at the lengths to which Denny Hastert and others went to cover-up for that Foley guy. And look at how freaked out some of the GOPers get over the very idea that two gay people might somehow find happiness with each other.
Leave a Comment
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed