Blitzer did not challenge McCain on his own war-funding vote
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
SUMMARY: On Late Edition, Wolf Blitzer did not challenge Sen. John McCain's assertion that "Senator [Barack] Obama opposed it [the troop surge], said it wouldn't work, even voted to cut off the funds for the men and women who are fighting over there." Blitzer did not point out that McCain himself voted against legislation that would have provided funds for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
During the July 27 edition of CNN's Late Edition, host Wolf Blitzer did not challenge Sen. John McCain's assertion that "Senator [Barack] Obama opposed it [the troop surge], said it wouldn't work, even voted to cut off the funds for the men and women who are fighting over there." Blitzer did not point out that McCain himself voted against legislation that would have provided funds for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and directed more than $1 billion to the Department of Veterans Affairs, as well as other legislation funding care for veterans.
Moreover, Obama has voted in the past to provide funds for fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. As Washington Post media critic Howard Kurtz wrote, "Obama has frequently voted to finance the war but was one of 14 Senate Democrats to oppose a war-funding bill last year -- after Republicans removed troop withdrawal deadlines -- saying he did not want to be 'validating the same failed policy in Iraq.' "
From the July 27 edition of CNN's Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer:
BLITZER: If you were president, and Nouri al-Maliki is still the elected prime minister of Iraq, and he says he wants all U.S. troops out, what do you do?
McCAIN: Well, first of all, I know Prime Minister Maliki rather well. I know that he is a politician, and I know that they are looking at upcoming elections. I know that he knows and every -- and the other leaders know there that it has to be condition-based. Any withdrawals -- which we will withdraw. We have succeeded. The surge has succeeded. And we're on the road to victory. And we will be out of there. And we may have a residual presence of some kind, as I've always said. But the fact is, the surge has succeeded. And the fundamental here is that I supported that surge when it was not the popular thing to do.
Senator Obama opposed it, said it wouldn't work, even voted to cut off the funds for the men and women who are fighting over there and still -- and he still doesn't understand to the point where he doesn't agree that the surge has succeeded. No rational observer, no rational observer who sees the conditions in Iraq today as opposed to two years ago could possibly, could possibly conclude that the surge hasn't succeeded. So he sees it as a political issue. He doesn't understand the importance of this victory and the consequences of failure and the benefits of success.
If we had done what Senator Obama wanted to do -- which, by the way, initially would have been the troops out last March -- we would have had greater Iranian influence. We would have had an increase in sectarian violence. We would have seen possibly a wider war in the region, which would have drawn us back. So I can assure you that Prime Minister Maliki understands that conditions have to be kept. And I want to find -- tell you again. General [David] Petraeus, one of the great generals in history, strongly disagrees with Senator Obama. And our highest-ranking military officer also says it would be a very dangerous course. We're not going to go down that road.
BLITZER: But if Maliki persists -- you're president, and he says he wants U.S. troops out, and he wants them out, let's say in a year or two years or 16 months or whatever, what do you do? Do you just -- do you listen to the prime minister?
McCAIN: He won't. He won't, he won't.
Snoopy should check some coments at Raw Story. A poster over there is using that tag. And it sounds an awful lot like one of our resident trolls.
I noticed him on a thread on the immigrant raid in Iowa.
BLITZER: But if Maliki persists -- you're president, and he says he wants U.S. troops out, and he wants them out, let's say in a year or two years or 16 months or whatever, what do you do? Do you just -- do you listen to the prime minister?
McCAIN: He won't. He won't, he won't.
Vaguely reminds me of a time a few years ago when we were considering invading Iraq and people asked about the possibility of an insurgency. Don't worry, that's not going to happen, we were told. Seems like John McCain speaks with the same kind of misguided, stupid certainty that George W. Bush does.
Furthermore, if John McCain is correct when he says this...
We have succeeded. The surge has succeeded. And we're on the road to victory. And we will be out of there. And we may have a residual presence of some kind, as I've always said. But the fact is, the surge has succeeded.
...then why does John McCain consider the question about what he would do if Maliki want us out in two years so preposterous that he won't even consider its premise?
As I see it the fundamental difference between the positions of John McCain and Barack Obama and John McCain on the situation is Iraq is this:
Obama: Primary goal is to get us out of Iraq...but will consider conditions on the ground.
McCain: Primary goal is to keep us in Iraq...but will consider conditions on the ground.
Typo: delete the second "and John McCain"...
Sorry...rough weekend...brain not functioning properly. ;>)
So Bush was right and Obama was wrong.
Expect to see this 1 million times between now and November.
Obama, Reid and Murtha hitched their wagon to failure and that was a huge mistake.
So Bush was right and Obama was wrong.
How many times has Bush been right about anything concerning Iraq?
To forecast that an escalation of troops was going to help reduce some of the violence in Iraq is about as prescient as saying that putting more money in your pocket will help you buy more gas...but it does nothing to address the gas crisis.
When all of troops are safely home then tell me what a huge success THE SURGE! was. Until then Iraq is still a quagmire of George W. Bush's f*** ups.
Notice the monumental arrogrance of Grampy:
"He won't. He won't, he won't." How the hell does Grampy know what al-Maliki will do? McCain implies he knows with certainty what al-Maliki will do. In other words, he'll do exactly what McCain needs him to do, in the ways which will benefit McCain's argument.
The more McCain talks, the more it seems the man is delusional.
Yes, that struck me, too. I think that we've collectively been giving McCain too much credit for his intelligence. Didn't he graduate something like 893rd in a class of 897? (The exact numbers escape me.) Maybe his recent gaffes (e.g., the Iraq-Pakistan border) aren't the result of fatigue or age-related confusion--maybe he just isn't very bright to begin with.
Yet another reason he'd be too much like GW to be any good for the presidency.
And add this:
Report: Empty Iraq prison a $40 million failure
Building highlights waste, misguided planning and construction shortcuts
No rational observer ... who sees the conditions in Iraq today as opposed to two years ago could possibly ... conclude that the surge hasn't succeeded.
Point one: The avowed purpose of the escala- er, "surge" was to provide an opening for political reconciliation in Iraq, at which it has manifestly failed.
But let's even leave that aside and proceed to
Point Two: Coincidence is not causality. The only measure offered to proclaim the "success" of The Surge is a reduction in sectarian violence. But before The Surge came the "Anbar awakening" and at the same time as The Surge was the Sadrist ceasefire. To credit any reduction in violence to The Surge instead of - not even in addition to, since they are not mentioned by people like McCain, but instead of - those other factors is transparently bogus.
Point Three: Perhaps the primary reason for the reduction in violence and one you can damn well be sure will not be mentioned by the right wing (or, for different reasons, by the Obama campaign) is that it's the result of ethnic cleansing such that even in Baghdad Sunnis and Shiites rarely have any contact, indeed the city is full of walls isolating neighborhoods from each other.
So has The Surge worked? Only at its real goal: providing a justification, even if a bogus one, for continued occupation.