- We invaded Iraq, for whatever reasons, we did it. Whether there were some who were hoodwinked or not into it, those included Democratic Senators Clinton, Kerry, and others. Sure, the most liberal Democrats didn't vote with the President on this. For those Democrats, that was an easy vote.
- We didn't find mass caches of WMD, and the aftermath was bloody and poorly planned.
- In 2007, we shifted to the "surge" strategy under General Petreaus and supported vociferously by Sen. McCain. The surge has inarguably worked.
US forces from Iraq he would 'reserve the right' to act
'if Al Qaeda is forming a base in Iraq,'
Is Sen. Obama unaware that Al Qaeda is still present in Iraq,
that our forces are successfully fighting them every day,
and that his Iraq policy of withdrawal would
embolden Al Qaeda and weaken our security?"
“But I have some news for John McCain, and that
is that there was no such thing as al Qaida in Iraq
until George Bush and John McCain decided to
invade Iraq… he took us into war along with
George Bush that should have never been authorized
and should have never been waged.
They took their eye off the people who were
responsible for 9/11, and that would be al Qaida
in Afghanistan that is stronger now than
at any time since 2001.
I’ve been paying attention, John McCain!
That’s the news. So John McCain may
like to say he wants to follow Osama bin Laden
to the gates of hell, but so far all
he’s done is follow George Bush into
a misguided war in Iraq…”
But, notice that he starts the reply off with a semi-falsehood, that there was no "al-Qaida in Iraq." While there may have indeed not have been any al-Qaida, nor any of the organization known as "al-Qaida in Iraq," there we certainly terrorists harboring in Iraq, and there was certainly a desire by al-Qaida and Saddam Hussein to cooperate on some levels.
Next, he wants to talk about "should have beens." I honestly ABHOR people who talk this way. It makes for nice flowing rhetoric and all sorts of "I'm smarter than you, because I knew what SHOULDA been," but, it is an attempt to divert attention from what IS the reality on the ground, and how Barack Obama would react to that. Mr. Obama, unless you have a time machine, you don't get to go back and change those votes. So, what are you going to do now?
Next, Obama tells us the real news, and that is, dun-dun-dun, that he's been paying attention! Wow!
Finally, he excoriates McCain for not, in Obama's estimation, doing enough to get Bin Laden. Does this mean that Obama would take the 140,000 troops we have in Iraq and take them all to Afghanistan (and Pakistan), maybe to do a cave-by-cave search? is he making an argument that we don't have the means to fight these two fronts at once? Liberals make the argument that fighting terrorism tends to be useless because for every one of them we call, they come back tenfold, yet, at the same time, they think that if we just chopped off the head (Bin Laden), we'd need n
I know the current talking points today are that a McCain administration is 4 more years of Bush. There is ONE defining issue in this election, it's who will prosecute the War on Terror in a way that keads to victory, and, do the American people believe that victory in Iraq is critical to that final outcome.
It may not be absolutely necessary, but, we're there, and we need to press on. McCain acknowledges that, and is willing to do whatever is necessary to achieve that victory. Obama and the dems do not.