Print outlets report McCain's criticism of Obama for lacking military experience, but not previous statements that it's not necessary to be commander in chief
SUMMARY: Several print media outlets reported that during a July 21 campaign event, Sen. John McCain, in the words of the Associated Press, "disparaged [Sen. Barack] Obama as 'someone who has no military experience whatsoever.' " But none of the articles noted that McCain has previously said he does not "accept the notion" that military experience is necessary to be an effective commander in chief.
July 22 articles by the Associated Press, The Boston Globe, The Washington Post, and two separate articles in The New York Times, reported that during a July 21 campaign event, Sen. John McCain, in the words of the AP, "disparaged [Sen. Barack] Obama as 'someone who has no military experience whatsoever.' " But none of those print outlets noted that McCain has previously said he does not "accept the notion" that military experience is necessary to be an effective commander in chief.
In an interview on the November 19, 2001, edition of National Public Radio's Talk of the Nation, host Neal Conan said to McCain, "[T]here's concern that leaders of the country, people in Congress -- fewer and fewer of those have served in the military." McCain replied:
McCAIN: Well, that's true, but I don't accept the notion that you have to have served in order to be an adequate or, in some cases, historically speaking, an outstanding commander in chief. Abraham Lincoln had a brief experience with a militia. Ronald Reagan served in the studio area when he was on active duty and --
CONAN: Making training films, yeah.
McCAIN: Right. Yeah. President Roosevelt had very limited -- so I don't -- I'm not sure -- I don't believe that you have to have had military service. But I do think, as -- as President Bush is doing, if you surround yourself with people who are highly qualified, as President Roosevelt did during World War II, that -- that you -- that more than compensate -- compensated for. In other words, in order to lead the country I think there are qualities which are more important than having had military service.
In addition, on the May 1, 2004, edition of NPR's Weekend Edition Saturday, McCain had the following exchange with host Scott Simon:
SIMON: In your judgment, Senator, how relevant is what someone did during the war in Vietnam to their fitness to be president of the United States now?
McCAIN: Well, I think everything we do in life is -- is part of things we're judged on. I would point out that some of our greatest presidents have not had military experience. Abraham Lincoln had little or none. I think he served in the Illinois Militia. Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Ronald Reagan had limited military experience. And all of them turned out to be fine commanders in chief. I think it's nice to have military experience, but I think it's also nice to have served in the Peace Corps, to have been in other elected office and a whole lot of other things.
Further, as the blog Think Progress noted, in an interview published in the February 13, 2003, edition of the National Journal, Kirk Victor asked McCain, "Do you think that military service inherently makes somebody better equipped to be commander-in-chief?" McCain replied:
McCAIN: Absolutely not. History shows that some of our greatest leaders have had little or no military experience -- Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Harry Truman was in the artillery in World War I, which was magnificent. Ronald Reagan did most of his active duty in the studio lots in California. It might be a nice thing, but I absolutely don't believe that it's necessary.
Both AP staff writer Tom Raum and Globe staff writer Michael Kranish reported that McCain "disparaged Obama as 'someone who has no military experience whatsoever.' " Washington Post national political correspondent Dan Balz wrote that McCain "said his rival has been 'completely wrong' on Iraq and 'has no military experience whatsoever,' and argued again that any withdrawal from Iraq must be based on conditions on the ground." Times staff writer Elisabeth Bumiller reported that McCain's "strategy during Mr. Obama's weeklong tour of Kabul, Baghdad, London, Paris and Berlin is to hit at Mr. Obama, the presumptive Democratic nominee, as too green to be commander-in-chief -- he has had 'no military experience whatsoever,' Mr. McCain told reporters." And Times staff writers Richard A. Oppel Jr. and Jeff Zeleny wrote: " 'He's been completely wrong on the issue,' Mr. McCain said, offering a reminder to voters that Mr. Obama is 'someone who has no military experience whatsoever.' " None of those reports noted McCain's previous statements that military service is not a prerequisite to be an effective commander in chief.
But he wants to control it
I think that comes with the title "Commander in Chief". Look it up.
You can't be serious. The founding fathers were very leery of a standing army, they wanted citizen-soldiers, where you did your time, if needed and then went back to the farm. There were years without a regular army. By your requirment, anyone serving in the Confederate Army would have been qualified to be President.
By your requirment, anyone serving in the Confederate Army would have been qualified to be President.
Sure, I dont see a problem with that. Im not from the south, nor do I believe in what the confederates during that time. But still, if they were able to be elected by a majority, i dont see a problem with it.
i disagree with everything he believes
Tell us, what do you disagree with?
I think it should be a requirement for ANYONE who wants to run for president.
Then you're an idiot.
A civilian commander-in-chief is one of the fundamental tenets of our government. In fact, by specifying "civilian," the founding fathers were careful not to say whether previous military service was a requirement...because they believed it wasn't!
The Repubulicans' Saint Reagan had no military experience (other than making a few movies for public relations purposes.) George H.W. Bush had significant combat experience as a navy pilot and he was a pretty ineffectual one-termer. Clinton did not serve in the military and ended up being the best president we've had in my lifetime.
Hell, GRANT pretty much won the Civil War and he was a terrible president.
So no, military experience is not and should not be a requirement for presidential candidacy. Being commander-in-chief of the military is merely ONE of dozens of responsibilities of our chief executive.
A poster who is willfully ignorant and consistently makes factual errors?
That's an idiot.
Perhaps if I'd admonished him to "grow up" it would have been okay in your Book of Arbitrary Rules for Internet Discourse.
Perhaps if I'd admonished him to "grow up" it would have been okay in your Book of Arbitrary Rules for Internet Discourse.
Great retort, Deeznuts. Hilarious.
Careful there, Science101
I remember going over this in a Sunday School class several years ago, and they agreed that the ideal presidential candidate was someone who had military, business, and governmental experience (and positive effects in each), plus was noted for being highly intelligent, of outstanding moral character (a professing Christian, ideally), and hard working.
Well done, I said to the class when these qualities were written on the blackboard, you've just elected Jimmy Carter. Carter is the only person to have run for president who met each of the criteria, but it didn't make for a successful presidency.
If we use this list as a yardstick, I'll certainly admit that McCain wins on the military matter, but it's hard to see him topping Obama on anything else.
p.s. It was, of course, strange that the people in my church would see things this way and then turn around and support GWB, who scored a negative in every category.
Well done, I said to the class when these qualities were written on the blackboard, you've just elected Jimmy Carter.
Awesome.
I'm gonna use that.
It's true, Carter had everything we could possibly want in a president, and he was ineffectual at best. Steadfastly requiring only ONE of those qualities is a recipe for disaster.
SCIENCE101 just likes military service because it's all McCain's got in his bag. He has nothing else to run on.
So he is not aforded rights? The most precious commodity we have in a democray you believe should be removed becuase you disagree with his positions? You truely are scary.
He didn't say anything about removing rights, so the comment could just as easily be about voluntarily refraining from voting.
A demonstration of the difference:
A)People who don't understand the issues shouldn't vote
B)People who don't understand the issues shouldn't be allowed to vote
Stay home - people like you shouldn't vote. So Mr. intelect which of your catagories does that fall in?
Where in the 14th, 15th, 19th, 24th, or 26th ammendment do these catagories fit?
"It doesn't have anything to do with amendments, because it has nothing to do with rights. "
Telling a person to stay home and not vote is infringing on their rights! Rights protected by the very ammendments you decided not to read.
I guess you think that is ok then…I don’t. It doesn’t matter if you like what the person believes or not, this is a fundamental right afforded to all.
A wise man once said that a libertarian is just a pot-smoking Republican.
A wiser man said that a libertarian is just a Republican who's trying to get laid.
Mags,
A small point. If you are going to tell someone to use facts, I think it would have more weight if you would do the same in the same post. Unless of course you want to argue that enlisting is avoiding the draft and that doesn't really make much sense now does it.
So basically you support a military junta as our government?
Anti-American much?
Franklin Delano Roosevelt
Abraham Lincoln.
You moron!
Two more: Ronald Reagan.
(Not as an example of a great president, but wingnuts sure do love him.)
Yeah, he may have technically worn the uniform, but the extent of his service is laughable compared to, say, John Kerry's (or John McCain's!)
I thought the whole idea was that military service gave someone insight into how the military works. How does acting in Hollywood apply to that?
I believe Reagan claimed he was "in uniform" for four years, not eight, by the way.
Try and read a book or look up your information before you pass it on to others.
1937-1942 Reserves
1942-1945 Active duty--yes this included Public relations duty making films for the Army.
1953 commision expired
I was talking about what Reagan said, which I remembered from a book.
"I know all the bad things that happened in that war. I was in uniform four years myself." April 19, 1985
I had forgotten the context of the comment was regarding WWII, and that makes a big difference. Fair enough.
Now for you, why didn't you answer the question? How does filming in Hollywood qualify as "military experience" for any practical purpose? Obviously Reagan didn't think it was very impressive, or he wouldn't have pretended to have seen combat.
"How does filming in Hollywood qualify as “Military experience”? First, you asked "acting" now you are asking about filming (two different things), neither of which you really want the answer too.
Here goes anyway. Not everyone in the military is in or does see combat. If your question is directly how this job provided combat experience (for him) the obvious answer is it didn’t. A larger question on true military experience I am sure it did. The unit he was attached to produced many training films, most notably, at the time a top secret miniature scale island of Japan. This film provided pilots training on how to properly identify check points on the way to targets; they also produced scores of films for many different aircraft training for pilots and maintenance personnel.
There are many jobs in the various services that offer tremendous support to those attached to direct war fighter duties. Although not as glamorous they are nonetheless not insignificant.
Careful.
Reagan was in fact in the military. But due to "poor eyesight" all he ever did was a bunch of PR films.
Its not necessary to know anything about computers to be a CEO of a technology corporation. But you'd definately be lacking in experience if you didnt have a tech background.
Minimum requirements are not a substitute for someone else having better qualifications.
Minimum requirements are not a substitute for someone else having better qualifications.
Minimum requirements might be a good idea. I think that we should elect a President that knows something about the U.S. and global economy. Also, one that at least knows how to use the internet(s)...
Also, one that at least knows how to use the internet(s)...
Funny...the one who "Created" it couldnt even get elected.
Science,
Are you telling me that this quote here from you:
"I personally dont see how you can be in charge of the military if you were never even in the military. I think it should be a requirement for ANYONE who wants to run for president"
only applies selectively?
Based on your statement, you voted for the following since 1976:
Carter, GW Bush, Dole, Gore and Kerry in the last five elections correct?
Fried,
Does not serving in the National Guard count as military service?
The National Guard is not the military, AA. Plus, if he is going for military experience, both Gore and Kerry fought overseas. If he is going for hard-core military service, Gore and Kerry have much, much more.
If Bush had been sent to Vietnam like he has sent the National Guard to Iraq, that would be a different story, but to equate Bush's experience to Kerry and Gore's is insulting.
Mike,
My mistake, I was speaking of Bush's experience in the National Guard. I should have been more careful.
Does not serving in the National Guard...
Seriously, Barney, why do you use this strange grammar? Are you one of those Renaissance Faire dress-up guys, or just hoping that some pretentious phrasing will camouflage your lack of substance ?
Minimum requirements might be a good idea.
Yea, like a minimum height requirement. All Presidents should be tall...and square-jawed, and have lots of medals. ;>)
Wow. Talk about uncalled for.
It's better than being a cheerleader like George W. Bush was in college after all. Or some sort of sissy actor like Ronnie was.
and play basketball with the brothers?
Ah Science, you just can't help yourself.
Science,
As a matter of fact, I'll be shooting some hoops with them tomorrow morning!
(Just wish I could jump!)
:-)
You mean like being able to name all "fifty seven" states?? LOL
You don't have to have been in the Military so see whats happening, militarily speaking.
Most of the punditainers on TV have never served, neither has the bulk of the wingnut blog-o-sphere. But that hasn't stopped them from spouting off about how we're "winning" in Iraq and the "imminent threat" Iran poses.
Armchair generals, the lot of them.
It appears that the above media outlets cropped the full quote:
"I hope he'll pay attention to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, particularly someone that has no military experience whatsoever."
One may not need a military background to be President, but the clueless BHO certainly shows why it would be a joke to think he could handle the job as Commander-in-Chief. If anyone can translate the answer the Big O gave when he was asked if he would have supported the surge knowing what he knows now, I'd love to hear it. I think Bush could have given a more coherent reply!!
Last night Obama had to field an off-the-cuff question from ABC News: "If you had it to do over again, knowing what you know now, would you support the surge?"
Well .. there was a small problem. This was not a question that Barack's handlers had prepared him for. He had no script. He had to ad lib, and for Obama that's not good. Sit down folks. Here is Barack's answer. See if you can make any sense at all out of this. Remember, this is the man who wants to be our Commander in Chief responding to a question dealing with military matters. So ... we at the Nuze are now proud to present Obama's answer to the difficult question "If you had to do it over again, knowing what you know now, would you support the surge:"
"No, because keep in mind that question, you wouldn't ... but keep in mind that kind of hypothetical is very difficult to know hindsight is 20-20 ... later ... but I think that what I'm 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."
Wow! Now that's just amazing! What off-the-cuff eloquence! This guy is really sharp. Now we all know why Barack Obama would still vote against the surge ... the troop surge that worked.
Lordy, folks. We have to get over this mass hysteria and start to get serious about selecting our next president. This is just getting ridiculouser and ridiculouser.
http://boortz.com/nuze/index.html
... the troop surge that worked.
Exactly how are you defining "worked". Certainly some (not all) of the violence has been reduced. But has THE SURGE! accomplished its stated 18 economic, poltical and security benchmarks in Iraq? Not according to the Government Accounting Office it hasn't. So, please, before you go spouting how successful THE SURGE! check your facts first.
Violence is down in Iraq
Because of the amazingly effective ethnic cleansing and the fact that over four million Iraqis are refugees!
The "success of the surge" is entirely due to uncritical acceptance of the spin definition of success - not meeting the stated goals the surge was intended to achieve.
About this article: it is simply considered unsporting for the MSM to hold McLiar accountable for previous positions, point out factual errors or outright lies, challenge him directly with actual facts or anything else actual journalists are prone to do.
Not only is McCain showing himself for what he truly is - an unprincipled suck-up who has worn out several sets of kneepads during the Bush presidency - but the utter bankruptcy and irrelevance of the MSM becomes more apparent daily.
Won't be long before no one ineligible for the special ed bus pays any attention at all.
Grats to the trolls here; you managed to completely derail the thread - so far.
Irony,
If I recall correctly, 15 of the 18 benchmarks achieved a satisfactory rating a while ago. Wouldn't you agree that is good news?
All you're "recall[ing] correctly" are right wing talking points. The Bush administration issued a press release in May saying the Iraqi government was making "satisfactory progress" on 15 of 18 benchmarks. This was pounced upon by the conservative press and the wingnut blogosphere, both of which spun "satisfactory progress" into "mission accomplished." And robots like you then repeat the lie endlessly.
Not only that, but the criteria behind what constitutes "satisfactory progress" has been called into question by actual journalists who don't have a vested interest in propping up Bush. But if Bush tells us everything is a-ok, then I guess we have to believe him, right?
Clams,
Sorry if pointing out the facts got in the way of some ranting. :-)
Since you disagree with the assessment and you say various groups have taken issue with it, can you point to any link showing that those 15 benchmarks have not seen improvement?
Regardless, wouldn't you agree things are much better now in Iraq than they were a year ago?
Here are the highlights of the nonpartisan GAO report on progress in Iraq.
Their recommendation - time for a new plan.
Thanks for the link. I don't know why you posted it because rather than refuting the administration's claims, it validates that the surge is working .
Did you read it? This GAO report recommends revising the strategy to go forward, (which no doubt is being done). The report also acknowledges the decrease in violence from June of 2007 to February of 2008. (I do believe violence has decreased even more since then.) Are there improvements to be made and can the situation get better? I think we all agree that they can. The report does list a few areas where everyone would like to see improvements.
All in all, this link does not specifically address any of the 18 benchmarks so I hardly see it as anything that disputes the administration's claims. Instead it helps validate those claims.
I posted the link because I thought you might see that actual analysis of the progress is significantly different than the administration spin you cited. I should have known better.
If the report supports the administration claims, why does the adminstration (DoD and State) disagree with its recommendation to "develop an updated strategy"?
Clams,
Straw man alert! Nowhere, (except in your fertile imagination) did I suggest that the only purpose for the surge was military. I don't see why you try and make up stuff just to be corrected but I am happy to again correct you. If you'll go back and look, you'll see I have been talking about the 18 benchmarks. Even though some do include military goals, other goals are also included. I only used that example from the GAO report to make my point about how things are indeed getting better. Wouldn't you agree that things are getting better?
Contrary to what your voices told you, I did read the summary. However your post suffers the same fate of many of mine in that I cannot read the part you cut and pasted as it renders in very small type on my browser. But thank you anyway for your kindness in trying to point out whatever it was you want to point out.
It's not a straw man at all. You've very specifically (and repeatedly) mentioned the decrease in violence as proof that the surge is working. You seem to be intentionally missing the point, which is that everyone (including the GAO) agrees that the overall levels of violence has been decreased (with an upward spike again in May). That's not what we're disputing. You started this by falsely claiming that 15 out of 18 goals "achieved a satisfactory rating." The truth is the the Bush administration claimed that there has been "satisfactory progress" made on 15 out of 18 benchmarks. And that's by their own measure of what constitutes "satisfactory progress."
You then asked me to "point to any link" showing disagreement with the May assessment. I posted several, including the GAO Report, which very clearly contradicts the claims of "satisfactory progress" on many points. For starters, some benchmarks consist of legislation that hasn't even been enacted or implemented yet. i guess Bush can claim "satisfactory progress" on everything since he's using his own definition of "satisfactory." Most significantly, the GAO "disagree with the DOD's statement that the security goals for this phase have been met." Keep in mind that the GAO lists 8 benchmarks under the category of "security goals." They then go on to detail how the administration has changed those benchmarks in order to claim that they've been met. The GAO also notes that we've fallen short of benchmarks set for budgetary spending goals, electricity and clean water generation, crude oil output, constitutional review, and the above-mentioned legislative goals.
So, yes, I read the whole report. And I'm still going to take a shot in the dark and say that you most likely did not.
Clams,
For you to deny the straw-man when it is staring everyone in the face is rather amusing.
You wrote earlier , "AA is apparently sticking to the right wing meme that the purpose of the surge was only to reduce the violence."
I never wrote nor implied that reducing the violence was the sole purpose of the surge. I challenge you to prove your patently false statement.
Besides that, nobody I have read on the right has ever said that reducing the violence is the only purpose of the surge. Can you point to any right wing pundit or politician anywhere who made that claim? You simply made that up to build your straw man argument.
Yes, I that as one example that the surge is indeed working. You just wrote: ..everyone (including the GAO) agrees that the overall levels of violence has been decreased (with an upward spike again in May).
Maybe you don't know it, but you just agreed with me.
You are simply flat out wrong again in saying that I falsely claimed that 15 out of the 18 benchmarks achieved a satisfactory rating. The following is from the AP, July 1st of this year.
The White House sees the progress in a particularly positive light, declaring in a new assessment to Congress that Iraq's efforts on 15 of 18 benchmarks are "satisfactory" — almost twice of what it determined to be the case a year ago.
Here's more:
Iraq has met all but three of 18 original benchmarks set by Congress last year to measure security, political and economic progress, according to a report by the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, The Washington Post daily reported today.
All other goals -- including preparations for upcoming elections, reform of de-Baathification and disarmament laws, progress on enacting and spending Iraq's budget, and the capabilities of the Iraqi army -- were rated 'satisfactory,'" it proceeded.
http://www.iraqupdates.com/p_articles.php/article/33235
I get it that you don't agree with Bush. We can discuss those differences without you making stuff up and making false accusations.
So in order to prove the White House claims of "satisfactory progress," you provide a link to those very claims? That's hilarious, but it only reveals that you have no idea what you're even arguing about any more.
So again, you claimed that the GAO "validates that the surge is working," solely because they agreed that there was a drop in violence. What else am I supposed to infer from that except that you consider the decrease in violence to be proof that the surge is working? Either you don't understand what the term "straw man" means, or you're not paying attention to what you're writing here.
"You are simply flat out wrong again in saying that I falsely claimed that 15 out of the 18 benchmarks achieved a satisfactory rating."
I think your difficulties with the English language are what's tripping you up here. You did falsely claim that 15 out of the 18 benchmarks achieved a satisfactory rating. In fact, those are your exact words from just a few posts up. The reason that claim is false is because there is a significant difference between "achieving a satisfactory rating" and making "satisfactory progress." You claimed the former and the White House claimed the latter. If you don't see the distinction then you probably haven't understood anything I've said from the start of this exchange. Which explains your delusional idea that I'm somehow agreeing with you. I'm not. I'm disagreeing with you. It helps if you could at least recognize that distinction.
AA, here are a few specific points from the GAO summary, since you can't be bothered to read beyond the first couple sentences of it yourself:
And that's just from the half-page summary. The entire 88-page report obviously goes into greater detail, but we all know that you aren't going to click on it and actually read it anyway.
Clams,
Again I commend you with your ability to know in advance what I will or will not do. You do indeed possess a gift.
Of course the only reason make a snarky comment like that is because you read the full 88 pages yourself. To chide me while not having read it yourself would would be hypocritical don't you think?
For starters, the U.S. Government Accountability Office takes directly contradicts the White House assessment on some of those points:
http://www.gao.gov/docsearch/abstract.php?rptno=GAO-08-837
From the AP: "Rep. Mike McIntyre, D-N.C., who requested the administration's updated assessment, scoffed at the May report, which he says uses the false standard of determining whether progress on a goal is 'satisfactory' versus whether the benchmark has been met. He estimates that only a few of the 18 benchmarks have been fully achieved."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080701/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_iraq_progress
"[G]aping holes devalue claims of political progress, especially with respect to oil laws, professional police forces, and reintegration of Sunnis into security forces; al Qaeda just scored a big hit in Diyala; and US softening towards Iran is in part a recognition of what Steve Clemons describes as 'Iran's ability to control the temperature of Iraq.'"
http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/2008/07/the_uncertain_f/
http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/2008/07/when_new_realit/#more
"In reality, though, some of that progress cited by the Bush administration includes the passage of laws that have not yet been implemented." ... "One of the biggest issues looming on Iraq's horizon, and most important in terms of bearing out the claim that the sectarian war has in fact 'ended,' isn't even included as one of the 18 benchmarks. The problem we'd sooner ignore: How to resolve the crisis of Iraq's 5 million internally and externally displaced citizens?"
http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2008/07/if-at-first-you.html#more
"Regarding provincial elections, the results are being cooked and, as such, will represent a 'pivotal moment' the same way the last two rounds have - not so much. As to the benchmarks being 'accomplished,' the Kagans (with Jack Keane)...are, quite frankly, lying."
http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2008/07/remember-to-rem.html
"[T]he Bush administration's 'benchmarks' for Iraqi success remain largely unmet, and still we keep 'liberating' that land, still we keep killing Iraqis in prodigious numbers."
http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/174950/the_urge_to_surge
"[T]he true purpose of the surge was always to buy time for the Bush administration, to change the American conversation on Iraq and move the goalposts yet again."
http://vagabondscholar.blogspot.com/2008/03/surge-is-still-not-working.html
"The Real State of Iraq" by Juan Cole:
http://www.juancole.com/2008/06/real-state-of-iraq.html
Obama's statement makes perfect sense if you recall the reasons for the surge in the first place. Flood an area with troops and the violence will go down. Nobody argued that it wouldn't. The point of that was to provide some breathing room to address political solutions. That didn't happen, and therefore the surge was not successful. This is what Obama has been saying all along.
The right suddenly wants to redefine success. Too bad that most of us actually remember the actual purpose of the surge.
Why is it that Obama's calling for a surge in Afghanistan to win while at the same time he says cutting and running in Iraq is the way to win?
But I see you did reply only to prove you don't have one. :-)
AA,
How do you propose to produce the numbers to perform troop surges in both Iraq and Afghanistan? How long do you want to give the Iraqi government to produce the political reforms the surge was intended to give them cover to provide?
Fried,
Why do you not answer my question?
Its not cutting and running, AA, We have already won militarily in Iraq. The purpose of the surge was for the Iraqi government to reach political benchmarks which they are still, on most areas, very far from as evidenced by the GAO report. A surge of troops in Afghanistan would have a different purpose than the surge in Iraq. As I stated, the surge in Iraq was to give the Iraqi government cover so it could accomplish political goals. A surge in Afghanistan would not be because of Afghani politics, it would have purely military goals in mind. Therefore, they are two different strategies.
Since I have now answered your questions, would you please answer my two that I posted to you?
Fried,
I appreciate you saying we already won militarily in Iraq. That seems to be a bit out of character for someone who seems to be solidly on the left. Are you declaring victory as an excuse to pull out the troops? Or are you saying that there is no progress toward the benchmarks and we should cut our losses and get out?
I think we need to allow the transfer of power to the Iraqis be completed. When the Iraqi government can provide the security for the country and the final benchmarks are put in place, it will be time to reduce our presence. An arbitrary timetables, (say 16 months or so,) only serves to bolster the insurgents, Iranians, and Al Qaeda to wait it out, regroup, and then disrupt Iraq.
Contrary to Reid, Pelosi, and Obama, I am in favor stabilizing the situation in Iraq rather than simply cutting and running based on arbitrary timetables.
AA,
I think you sell the left short. No one on the left discounts the sacrifices made by the military and its victory over Saddam's forces. The problem is, Bush and the Right won't say what victory is in Iraq. You all seem to criticize Obama for his platitudes in his speeches, but that is all that Bush gives when asked about victory in Iraq. You told me when they have "stability" we can pull out. What is an adequate level of "stability?" As I asked you before, define "winning" in Iraq. What is an acceptable level of violence there for "victory?"
I think I did an adequate job of telling you why a surge in Afghanistan is different than a surge in Iraq (the goals behind both are far different).
Could you please do your best to answer these questions:
1) Where are we going to get the troops for a surge in Afghanistan while keeping the same amount in Iraq?
2) What is victory, in your opinion, in Iraq? Be specific. If you don't like Obama using general words like "hope" etc., don't reply with things like "stability."
3) If the surge worked, why are we still needed? What political goals that Bush outlined have been completely met by the surge?
because Rummy, et al wanted to do it on the cheap
No, they wanted to do it whichever way enriched the contractors, or as I like to call them, war profiteers. I'get sad when I think of the needy people here at home when there's untold billions being flushed down the crapper in Iraq. Nice priorities, Prez.
I think Bush could have given a more coherent reply!!
LOL
In your dreams! The entire world has been waiting 7 1/2 for THAT!
Oh, by the way, how about that Iraq/Pakistani border:
Asked by Diane Sawyer whether the "the situation in Afghanistan in precarious and urgent," McCain responded: "I think it's serious. . . . It's a serious situation, but there's a lot of things we need to do. We have a lot of work to do and I'm afraid it's a very hard struggle, particularly given the situation on the Iraq/Pakistan border."
But as ABC's Rick Klein noted: "Iraq and Pakistan do not share a border. Afghanistan and Pakistan do."
LOL
Pearlene, here is how Jon Stewart put it (via C&L):
The Iraq-Pakistan border, otherwise known as… IRAN.
this is the man who wants to be our Commander in Chief
Who is this "our" you're talking about buddy?
The President of the United State is not my commander-in-chief. He's not your commander-in-chief either unless you currently (not formerly) wear the uniform of the US Armed Services.
This is what I find so frustrating about the wingnuts and their obsession with this Great Leader fantasy. Being commander-in-chief of the armed forces is just ONE of the duties of the Chief Executive of our government (and, depending on who you ask, not even the most important.)
We are not ruled by a military junta. Our president does not walk around in dress greens/blues adorned with medals. In fact, we look down upon governments that are run by supposed "military leaders." Idi Amin ring a bell? Manuel Noriega? Pervez Musharraff? Muammar al-Gaddafi?
These are guys who misused their service and uniform to artificially augment their authority. It's a blatant and cynical misuse of the public trust, and in my opinion not legitimate civilian governance.
That's why I found Bush's flightsuit/carrier stunt so disgusting.
Read my post again genius.
The fact that he did it at all should be disgusting to anyone who understands the laws (and traditions) of our civilian government.
It was exceptionally arrogant of him to pull such a stunt.