McCain today in Michigan…
“I repeat my statement that we have succeeded in Iraq. Not ‘We are succeeding.’ We have succeeded in Iraq,” he said Thursday.
What a bonehead! His views rest with a tiny minority of Bush Administration apologists.
Okay, who’s the most qualified to lead the country on national security issues? Let’s think about this for a second…
McCain wanted to attack Iraq preemptively in 1998, he voted to attack Iraq in 2003 and he now advocates staying there for as long as it takes. Not sure what that means, but maybe 100 years? Now, in 1998 keep in mind the fact that bin Laden issued his first fatwa against the west, which declared that killing North Americans was the “duty of every Muslim.” Following the fatwa, still in 1998 now, was the U.S. embassy bombings orchestrated by bin Laden’s network. So, in 1998 John McCain was fixated on Iraq while bin Laden was killing Americans and after 2001 when bin Laden killed more Americans and openly taunted the U.S. afterwards, John McCain authorized the invasion of Iraq. Amazingly, bin Laden and his network still exist today 7 years after the WTC attacks, yet McCain stays fixated on Iraq. Anyone want to talk judgment and experience now?
Yesterday, Barack Obama reaffirmed his views on Iraq, highlighting the fact that this misguided war is not the central front of the war on terror - Afghanistan/Pakistan is. But John McCain disagrees, Iraq is the central front he says, because bin Laden says so. Awesome, so now U.S. foreign policy is directed by Osama bin Laden? Ironically, McCain is the guy who says he will follow bin Laden to the “gates of hell” every chance he gets on the campaign stump. Is bin Laden in Iraq, though? Isn’t the guy who attacked us and his entire network still in the Afghanistan region near Pakistan?
So, tell me who has the better judgment when it comes to the priorities of our foreign policy? Obama has the same view as the current Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mullen, our nations highest military officer, when it comes to sending more troops to Afghanistan. The Taliban is moving back in, so what’s McCain’s plan for Afghanistan and Pakistan? I still haven’t heard what he wants to do there because he’s made Iraq the central front of his campaign. It’s tragic and it’s offensive. When Obama declared in a Democratic presidential debate that he would launch an attack inside Pakistan if they would not act upon intelligence of Al Qaeda’s whereabouts, McCain called Obama naive. Fascinating.
In my judgment, McCain is bin Laden’s candidate in this election because he serves bin Laden’s interests. He flexes his muscles when he says he’ll follow bin Laden to the “gates of hell” but ultimately he helps bin Laden in many ways and even McCain himself has admitted in the past, ironically, that bin Laden helps the Republican Party. It’s a mutually beneficial relationship, I guess, since McCain helps bin Laden sell Iraq as the central front in the war on terror, which only distracts the U.S. from capturing him and fuels recruitment efforts by legitimizing bin Laden’s propaganda efforts, and on the flip side bin Laden supposedly helps Republicans win elections.
It’s time for a change in judgment.
Here, Joe Lieberman incites fear by insinuating that America will be attacked in 2009 because terrorists like to test new presidents. Huh? His distasteful suggestion that Americans need to elect someone who is battle ready because terrorists will “test” the new president was obviously a fear tactic designed to scare voters into voting for McCain. Still, I go back to a simple point that goes unanswered, why do these tough guy freedom fighter Republicans think they have an advantage by playing the terrorism card? The people who attacked us are in Afghanistan/Pakistan growing their movement, yet Republicans advocate staying in Iraq forever. It’s an interesting strategy, isn’t it?
So here we have John McCain and Lieberman saying, “the U.S. is safer from terrorism today than before 9/11,” yet now they are telling us we’ll be attacked again and soon, so because we’re tougher on terrorism you need to stick with us to be safe. Huh? Okay, so we are safer from terrorism today because Republicans are tougher on terror, but we’ll be attacked again soon, so you need to vote Republican because we need to stay in Iraq where the terrorist group who attacked us does not exist. Got it? Okay, good.
Joe Klein makes the obvious point, why would he not vote for John McCain, who insists on carrying out a pointless strategy in Iraq distracting all of America’s resources from the real war against Osama and Al Qaeda?
John McCain is probably the favorite candidate of Osama bin Laden, just as George W. Bush was Osama’s presidential preference.
Why? Because both Bush and McCain have bought Osama’s disinformation about Iraq being the central front in the war on terrorism. Of course, bin Laden wants the gullible neocons to take the Iraq bait because Afghanistan really is the central front of the war on terrorism–more precisely the Afghan-Pakistani border areas where the real Al Qaeda lives. The war in Iraq has been a grand strategic gift to Osama, keeping the U.S. military tied down elsewhere and off his tail.
Ron Suskind had a relevant scene in his excellent book The One Percent Doctrine: It’s the Friday before election day in 2004 and Osama bin Laden has issued a videotape in which he lambastes President Bush. The top dawgs at the CIA are gathered to analyze the tape. Dep. Director John McLaughlin says, “I wonder who Osama is voting for?” Everyone cracks up because the answer is so obvious.
Obama is the only candidate saying he wants to refocus our attention and attack the terror groups responsible for 9/11 located in the Afghistan/Pakistan border. I certainly would never trust John McCain on the economy, and since he’s bin Laden’s obvious preference to run American’s foreign policy, I think I’ll have to choose Barack Obama in ‘08.
whereIstand Tags
Why do Republicans blindly support a mission that has kept us from fighting the actual enemy? We need to end Bush’s policy of retreat.
Even General Petraeus will admit where the real threat is coming from…
Senator Joe Biden: I asked yesterday — I asked our ambassador and I asked Petraeus, where is the greatest threat from al Qaeda, in Afghanistan where we don’t have enough troops to fight them, by their own admission, or in Iraq? They said they’re more dangerous in Afghanistan. We don’t debate the cost of staying, Matt. The costs of staying are immense, as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has said…it’s killing us.
whereIstand Tags
I am certainly never offended when someone says “God Damn America” because I think it shows a little more maturity than commanding “God” to bless America. Who are we to command God, if God is something you believe in, of course? I don’t necessarily find joy in hearing anyone slam my homeland unless it is warranted, but I’m not afraid, astonished or insulted to hear harsh criticism. It is though, obnoxious when Americans believe they have a special relationship with God, because it opens up the possibility of doing bad things. If you believe God is on your side, then everything is fair game. For instance, American foreign policy can always be justified by believing “God” loves America more than anyone else. “God bless America” is wrong in so many ways - it’s stupid, careless and offensive.
Senator Carl Levin makes an important point to consider…
At the end of last year, a group of congressional staffers traveled to Saudi Arabia to meet with senior Saudi government officials. In two meetings, the staffers raised concerns about a case in which a Saudi rape victim was sentenced to three months in prison and ninety lashes and then had her sentence doubled to six months in prison and two hundred lashes after she spoke out publicly. In both instances, the Saudi officials responded by simply saying “Guantanamo” and “Abu Ghraib.” As if to say, “Who are you to lecture us about due process and human rights?”
Isn’t it ironic this country has lost its moral authority with God on its side?
whereIstand Tags
Time to change the issue…
Why are our leaders still being asked if civil war is likely in Iraq? We’re not battling terrorism in Iraq…our troops are caught in the middle of a sectarian war. Some obviously don’t like an occupying force in the middle trying to force a new government down their throat, so our troops are caught in between. We’re there losing troop after troop and spending billions of dollars while Iraqi’s chant "death to Israel" and "death to the United States."…sounds like we’re making real progress in the Middle East.
What’s going on in Iraq right now is exactly what most said would happen before the war. But many conservatives pressed on with angles such as:
Is Saddam Hussein an evil dictator? Or is freedom such a bad thing for Iraqis to experience? Righteous nonsense…
"This is a civil war," said a senior adviser to the commander of the Iraqi Army’s 6th Division, which oversees much of Baghdad.
"The problem between Sunnis and Shiites is a religious one, and it gets worse every time they attack each other’s mosques," said the adviser, who gave only his rank and first name, Col. Ahmed, because of security concerns. "Iraq is now caught in hell."
"There’s no plan - we are constantly reacting," said a senior American military official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. "I have absolutely no idea what we’re going to do."
To start, fire Rumsfeld, so our senior military can rejoice and have confidence again.
It’s incredible to think of the mess we’re in right now. Especially when you think about the consequences for the whole region along sectarian lines. Now add the fact that our President had no idea what Sunni’s or Shiites even were before he ordered the invasion. The President of the United States of America at his finest:
A year after his “Axis of Evil” speech before the U.S. Congress, President Bush met with three Iraqi Americans, one of whom became postwar Iraq’s first representative to the United States. The three described what they thought would be the political situation after the fall of Saddam Hussein. During their conversation with the President, Galbraith claims, it became apparent to them that Bush was unfamiliar with the distinction between Sunnis and Shiites.
Galbraith reports that the three of them spent some time explaining to Bush that there are two different sects in Islam–to which the President allegedly responded, “I thought the Iraqis were Muslims!”
whereIstand Tags
Alan Dershowitz makes a strong case against the notion that Israel’s occupation of southern Lebanon, the Gaza strip and the West Bank are the reasons for the continual terrorist acts against their country.
His five points here…
First, Palestinian terrorism began well before there was any Israeli occupation. It started in 1929 when the grand mufti of Jerusalem ordered a terrorist attack against Jewish residents of Hebron, whose families had lived in that Jewish holy city for generations.
Second, terrorism against Israel got worse after Israel ended its occupation of southern Lebanon and Gaza, as these unoccupied lands became launching pads for rockets, missiles and kidnappings.
Third, other occupied people, for example the Tibetans, have never resorted to terrorism against innocent Chinese civilians, though their occupation has been longer and more brutal than anything experienced by the Palestinians.
Fourth, while it may be that a brutal occupation can increase the number of people willing to become suicide bombers, it is also true that no suicide bomber ever sent himself. They are sent by well-educated, affluent leaders like Osama Bin Laden, who do not live in occupied areas.
Fifth, Islamic terrorists have sworn to continue terrorism even if Israel were to end its occupation of the West Bank. They regard all of Israel as occupied.
Dershowitz goes on to claim that when Israel left Gaza and southern Lebanon the terrorism became worse than the occupied land of the West Bank. My response would be that, when you occupy two areas for so long as Israel did, and use brute force so indiscriminately as we’ve seen in Lebanon today; would you really expect them two send you off with kisses and hugs and never hear from them again?
Dershowitz is out of his mind when he says that "occupation does not cause terrorism," but he is right when he says that terrorism against Israel will go on regardless of what Israel does at this point. If they give up more land then the attacks will become worse and deeper into Israel. If they continue to use overwhelming force and occupy more Palestinian and Lebanese land, then they’ll only fuel more terrorism and hatred across the Muslim world.
whereIstand Tags
Tough words from Sen. Chuck Hagel, a Vietnam vet with two purple hearts. Maybe we should just stay the course and let conservatives like Karl Rove and Bill Frist tell us what’s best for our military? And when we question what is best, we should continue to let them paint us as "weak on national defense."
Hagel’s rant was in response to the Bush Administration deciding to add 5,000 more troops to Iraq. Think Progress reports…
Hagel] said that in the previous 48 hours, he had received three telephone calls from four-star generals who were “beside themselves” over the Pentagon’s reversal of plans to bring tens of thousands of soldiers home this fall.
Instead, top Pentagon officials are suspending military rotations and adding troops in Iraq. The Pentagon has estimated that the buildup will increase the number of U.S. troops from about 130,000 to 135,000.
“That isn’t going to do any good. It’s going to have a worse effect,” Hagel said. “They’re destroying the United States Army.“
I’ve been calling for Rumsfeld’s resignation for a long time now. I just don’t understand what the game plan is in Iraq. Slate, back in April covered the military coup against Rumsfeld, and now Hagel is reaffirming the need to get this guy and his cronies out of the Pentagon.
Since the neocons Project for a New American Century has proven to be the most ideological disastrous policy we could have ever imagined; what are we left with in Iraq after the thousands of dead and disabled troops, thousands of Iraqi’s dead and billions of dollars spent? We know they don’t have a functioning democracy and chances are slim that they ever will. We know they don’t have a decent infrastructure operating. We know they don’t have an economy. We know they do have a civil war that will drag on for who knows how long.
So if we leave now, the civil war goes on and Iran’s influence over Iraq and the rest of the Middle East grows. We look like we lost because of the way Team Bush has managed to carry this thing out, so the war against the West will be as invigorated as ever. We’ll basically leave a complete mess behind and and even bigger mess ahead.
If we stay, we’re bogged down destroying our military and spending obscene amounts of money on a country that will continue to hate us immensely while they team up with Iran. The civil war will continue and we’ll continue to lose troop after troop for a cause that is lost.
The Bush Administration is scrambling to keep Iraq as quiet as possible till after the 2006 elections. They are buying time so they can drop of this problem they’ve created to another Administration.
whereIstand Tags
What have our soldiers died for in Iraq? What have the dismembered soldiers risked their lives for?
Chris Matthews says they’ve died only to bring about the "disparate pieces of Shia radicalism" across the Middle East.
MATTHEWS: Two years ago, King Abdullah of Jordan warned me of what was coming in the mideast. His prediction was dead. He spoke of his fears and what the United States was doing in iraq, toppling one government, electing another, was creating what he called a shi’ia crescent, from Tehran through Baghdad to Beirut that threatened to dominate the Arab world, challenging modern Sunni governments in Egypt and Saudi Arabia and others with an axis of Shia power based in Iran.
When I look at the map today, that Shia crescent the King foretold has come to light. It is hard for us westerners to understand the internal politics of another region when we can’t predict whether the Democrats will take congress from the Republicans three months from now, how could we see the Shi’ia grabbing the high ground from the Sunni in the mideast three years ago? That’s what happened. We converted Iraq from a country which has fought revolutionary Iran for eight years to a bloody stand still to a Shia dominated ally of Iran and created a boulevard of common religion and common regional politics.
Did you hear the new Iraqi leader take sides with Hezbollah in a struggle with Israel?
Many warned about these consequences before the war. Many warned that Iraq’s weapons were non-existent before the war. Many warned that we needed more troops to stabilize Iraq after the invasion.
What has this war given us?
whereIstand Tags