John McCain's Neverending War - Page 4

Otis · 07-23-2008, 07:18 PM

lol - More win:

Anbar Shiek Cited By McCain Was Assassinated Last Year

Quote:

"If Barack Obama had had his way, the Sheiks who started the Awakening would have been murdered at the hands of al Qaeda,"

Quote:

Sadly, that murder took place even with the surge underway. In September 2007, Abdul Sattar Abu Risha, the sheik widely credited with persuading Sunni leaders to turn against al Qaeda in Iraq, died in a bomb attack in Anbar. His work, prior to then, was held as a major effort in transforming the province from one of Iraq's deadliest areas into one of its safest.

Otis · 07-23-2008, 07:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deson

When I see one mainstream outlet seriously question him then I'll drop it...

Just yesterday [emphasis mine]:

Quote:

COURIC: Before the surge, as you know, Senator, there were 80 to 100 U.S. casualties a month, the country was rife with sectarian violence, and you raised a lot of eyebrows on this trip saying even knowing what you know now, you still would not have supported the surge. People may be scratching their heads and saying, "Why?"

OBAMA: Well ... because ... what I was referring to, and I've consistently referred to, is the need for a strategy that actually concludes our involvement in Iraq and moves Iraqis to take responsibility for the country.

COURIC: But didn't the surge ... help do that?

OBAMA: Let me finish, Katie. What happens is that if we continue to put $10 billion to $12 billion a month into Iraq, if we are willing to send as many troops as we can muster continually into Iraq? There's no doubt that that's gonna have an impact. But it doesn't meet our long-term strategic goal, which is to make the American people safer over the long term. If that means that we're detracting from our efforts in Afghanistan, where conditions are deteriorating, if it means that we are distracted from going after Osama bin Laden who is still sending out audio tapes and is operating training camps where we know terrorists' actions are being plotted. ...

COURIC: All that may be true. But do you not give the surge any credit for reducing violence in Iraq?

OBAMA: No, no ... of course I have. There is no doubt that the extraordinary work of our U.S. forces has contributed to a lessening of the violence, just as making sure that the Sadr militia stood down or the fact that the Sunni tribes decided to flip and work with us instead of with al-Qaeda - something that we hadn't anticipated happening.

All those things have contributed to a reduction in violence. So this, in no way, detracts from the great efforts of our young men and women in uniform. In fact, that's one of the most striking things about visiting Iraq is to see how dedicated they are, what a great job they do - all those things ... are critically important. What I'm saying is it does not solve the broader strategic question that we have been dealing with over the last five, six, seven years. And that is how do we take the limited resources we have, both militarily and financially, and apply them in such a way that we are making America as safe as possible? And I believe that my approach is the right one.

COURIC: But talking microcosmically, did the surge, the addition of 30,000 additional troops ... help the situation in Iraq?

OBAMA: Katie, as ... you've asked me three different times, and I have said repeatedly that there is no doubt that our troops helped to reduce violence. There's no doubt.

COURIC: But yet you're saying ... given what you know now, you still wouldn't support it ... so I'm just trying to understand this.

OBAMA: Because ... it's pretty straightforward. By us putting $10 billion to $12 billion a month, $200 billion, that's money that could have gone into Afghanistan. Those additional troops could have gone into Afghanistan. That money also could have been used to shore up a declining economic situation in the United States. That money could have been applied to having a serious energy security plan so that we were reducing our demand on oil, which is helping to fund the insurgents in many countries. So those are all factors that would be taken into consideration in my decision-- to deal with a specific tactic or strategy inside of Iraq.

COURIC: And I really don't mean to belabor this, Senator, because I'm really, I'm trying to figure out your position. Do you think the level of security in Iraq ... would exist today without the surge?

OBAMA: Katie, I have no idea what would have happened had we applied my approach, which was to put more pressure on the Iraqis to arrive at a political reconciliation. So this is all hypotheticals. What I can say is that there's no doubt that our U.S. troops have contributed to a reduction of violence in Iraq. I said that, not just today, not just yesterday, but I've said that previously. What that doesn't change is that we've got to have a different strategic approach if we're going to make America as safe as possible.

Laodaron · 07-23-2008, 07:27 PM

That transcript looks as though he's trying to muddle and confuse anyone. He can't take a direct stance, and the dialog you just posted proves that.

No, it didn't help.
Yes it helped.
No, its worse.
Yes things are better.
I don't know what would have happened if I would have gotten my way.

Deson · 07-23-2008, 07:34 PM

Ah, thanks Otis. Now I see why he avoids interviews.I read bits of the interview but having seen the whole thing he's walking dangerous ground for a very volatile situation. He hasn't been as consistent on the results of the surge as he lets on and as the previously posted clip shows.Still disagree with his position on Iraq and even more so having read that.

He should skip the interviews more. If that one gets taken seriously and compared to his past record he's screwed.

Edit: And in McCain's defense he said Sheiks,not Sheik and he may have meant dead before they could do any good. Hard to defend him lately though.

Snark · 07-23-2008, 07:38 PM

How long until Americans start realizing that this isnt a system limited to 2 parties?

Otis · 07-23-2008, 07:39 PM

Agree, or disagree with his response, that's fine. That's a perfectly legitimate reason to judge a candidate.

But the questions are being asked. And that's why I posted that.

(FWIW - the trascript doesn't really do it justice, there are videos.)

Deson · 07-23-2008, 07:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snark

How long until Americans start realizing that this isnt a system limited to 2 parties?

When 3rd parties show that are worth a shit and viable.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Otis

Agree, or disagree with his response, that's fine. That's a perfectly legitimate reason to judge a candidate.

But the questions are being asked. And that's why I posted that.

(FWIW - the trascript doesn't really do it justice, there are videos.)

I've seen him on video. I'd say the transcript saves him.

icKx · 07-23-2008, 08:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snark

How long until Americans start realizing that this isnt a system limited to 2 parties?

I think the mainstream media would have to realize this first, but frankly that doesn't serve their interests.

Deson · 07-23-2008, 08:08 PM

You mean like they did with Ross Perot until he proved he was somewhat batshit? Or Nader? Or Pat Buchannan?

icKx · 07-23-2008, 08:25 PM

And has anyone other than Perot in 92' been able to actually participate in the presidential debates?
Perot managed to essentially buy his way in, surprise.