[TheMosco]

During the debate, McCain brought his judgment, and how he showed his judgment during the First gulf war, Kosovo, and Bosnia but somehow forget to mention his judgment in the Iraq war. He also claimed that Obama won't admit he was wrong.

So which is worse? I saw the O'Reilly interview, where he said that the surge had worked better than anyone had expected, but that it doesn't solve the underlying issues in Iraq. Which I think is a good point. A point that Obama had brought up when explaining why he thought that the surge wouldn't work, which is often overlooked. Although he didn't admit he was wrong (as some would argue that the surge wasn't why fighting went down, but I don't know enough about it to argue either way), he did concede somewhat.

Has McCain down the same thing? Is it fair for him to bring up Judgment, when he showed poor judgement to get us into this.

Obama seems to talk a lot about the future of Iraq, and getting the Iraqis to take control of their own country, and to pay us back. McCain just seems to keep saying that the he was right about the surge, without looking at the future. Am I off base?

Opinions?

[TheWOAT]

So is there a consensus that the surge is responsible for the "stability" we see now in Iraq? Ive read otherwise.

[tie]

We are still stuck in Iraq for a long time, at a cost in the trillions of dollars. And look at our economy. We simply can't afford it. McCain conspicuously didn't mention Iraq when describing his judgement.

And I don't understand why McCain refuses to agree with Obama on getting the Iraqis to pay their share. In both debates, Obama has brought up the Iraqi surplus, and in neither one has McCain said a word about it. (Or did I miss it?)

[TheMosco]

Originally Posted by TheWOAT 

So is there a consensus that the surge is responsible for the "stability" we see now in Iraq? Ive read otherwise.

There doesn't seem to be any, but I think thats but that just opens up a whole other debate. For the sake of this arguement, lets just assume that surge is the reason why violence is down.

[TheWOAT]

My wife wonders why Im typing on a forum, and wouldnt let me say anything until I wrote that she is beautiful, and that I love her alot...

Ok, so, I think if McCain pushed it enough he could win on that issue, but after watching the debate, I dont know who won or lost, it was just another boring debate... Obama did better on long answers, McCain on short answers... aside from that, I generally didnt believe any claim made both of them when they were on the attack.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by TheWOAT 

So is there a consensus that the surge is responsible for the "stability" we see now in Iraq? Ive read otherwise.

The "Anbar Awakening" most likely wouldn't have happened without the surge, and even Obama agrees the surge exceeded his wildest expectations. I think it's safe to say there's consensus.

Iraq had to be handled eventually. Bush had the courage to do it but mishandled the counter-insurgency phase. McCain came to rescue with the surge, which almost every Democrat opposed. McCain was right, and I think voters generally understand he has strong handle on foreign policy. I think tonight he showed he has a strong handle on the economy. At this point he should be able to seal the deal. We'll see if the "original maverick" has the resources to do just that.

[TheWOAT]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

The "Anbar Awakening" most likely wouldn't have happened without the surge, and even Obama agrees the surge exceeded his wildest expectations. I think it's safe to say there's consensus.

Iraq had to be handled eventually. Bush had the courage to do it but mishandled the counter-insurgency phase. McCain came to rescue with the surge, which almost every Democrat opposed. McCain was right, and I think voters generally understand he has strong handle on foreign policy. I think tonight he showed he has a strong handle on the economy. At this point he should be able to seal the deal. We'll see if the "original maverick" has the resources to do just that.

I can agree with that... up until "I think..." I think McCain should throw Bush under the bus a bit and distance himself from him... I dont think McCain and Palin stickin up for Bush is a winning proposition. Im predicting a tie as of right now.

[TheMosco]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Iraq had to be handled eventually. Bush had the courage to do it but mishandled the counter-insurgency phase. McCain came to rescue with the surge, which almost every Democrat opposed. McCain was right, and I think voters generally understand he has strong handle on foreign policy. I think tonight he showed he has a strong handle on the economy. At this point he should be able to seal the deal. We'll see if the "original maverick" has the resources to do just that.

So McCain was right in changing the focus from Afghanistan to Iraq? Is that what you are saying?

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by TheWOAT 

I can agree with that... up until "I think..." I think McCain should throw Bush under the bus a bit and distance himself from him... I dont think McCain and Palin stickin up for Bush is a winning proposition. Im predicting a tie as of right now.

Who doesn't agree that the surge was the right strategy at this point? As for throwing Bush under the bus, I think that could be helpful if done the right way.

Originally Posted by TheMosco 

So McCain was right in changing the focus from Afghanistan to Iraq? Is that what you are saying?

McCain didn't change the focus. The Congress as a whole concurred with Bush in authorizing force against Iraq on a bipartisan basis. The belief at the time was that Afghanistan was largely finished. I don't think it's accurate to say that had we focused only on Afghanistan that we would have been more successful in getting Osama. We lost him during the Battle of Tora Bora, before we went into Iraq, so Obama blaming our failure to capture Osama on Iraq is rhetoric.

[TheMosco]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Who doesn't agree that the surge was the right strategy at this point? As for throwing Bush under the bus, I think that could be helpful if done the right way.

McCain didn't change the focus. The Congress as a whole concurred with Bush in authorizing force against Iraq on a bipartisan basis. The belief at the time was that Afghanistan was largely finished. I don't think it's accurate to say that had we focused only on Afghanistan that we would have been more successful in getting Osama. We lost him during the Battle of Tora Bora, before we went into Iraq, so Obama blaming our failure to capture Osama on Iraq is rhetoric.

Congress except for Obama, right? (cause he wasn't in the senate at that point)

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by tie 

And I don't understand why McCain refuses to agree with Obama on getting the Iraqis to pay their share. In both debates, Obama has brought up the Iraqi surplus, and in neither one has McCain said a word about it. (Or did I miss it?)

You didn't miss it tie. It was, but many items McCain didn't have a clue how to address. The first thing McCain did was walk onto the stage and open his notebook of talking points. He didn't look up from this study guide until after the first question had been asked.

26 years in politics and this is the best McCain can do?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

The "Anbar Awakening" most likely wouldn't have happened without the surge, and even Obama agrees the surge exceeded his wildest expectations. I think it's safe to say there's consensus.

Iraq had to be handled eventually. Bush had the courage to do it but mishandled the counter-insurgency phase. McCain came to rescue with the surge, which almost every Democrat opposed. McCain was right, and I think voters generally understand he has strong handle on foreign policy. I think tonight he showed he has a strong handle on the economy. At this point he should be able to seal the deal. We'll see if the "original maverick" has the resources to do just that.

I admire your optimism BigMac and I definitely agree with the inevitable nature of action in Iraq. I firmly believe that at some point we would've found ourselves in Iraq, but McCain did absolutely nothing to highlight the long history of action against Saddam, the overwhelming support of Americans to engage Iraq, and the success of the surge. Nothing.

I'm seriously thinking at this point of writing in Ron Paul. I'm not kidding. I know this is a wasted vote, but I don't think McCain is handling his campaign or the public in any way resembling the sound judgment of a candidate for President.

I'd go so far as to say; "McCain is not ready to be President".

[vmarks]

The point that both candidates are getting toward is "When can we hand this thing over to Iraqis completely?"

And it's a good question. Obama wants to get out now and asks why they can't use their available funds to fund it. McCain prefers a definitive victory, with continued responsibility taken on by Iraqis, as they have been already doing.

Still other folks preferred we seize Baghdad, arrest Saddam Hussein, hand over spiral bound copies of the Declaration of Independence, US Constitution, and Federalist Papers, with a note saying 'use these as inspiration' and leave while everyone was still pleased with the US.

Now that the time for that option has passed, which option is correct, Obama's, or McCain's? Who has a history of being correct on this particular issue, and is that any guidance going forward?

McCain has been more correct than Obama - but that doesn't mean he will be correct in the future, it just means he's capable of being correct in the future.

[TheMosco]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

The point that both candidates are getting toward is "When can we hand this thing over to Iraqis completely?"

And it's a good question. Obama wants to get out now and asks why they can't use their available funds to fund it. McCain prefers a definitive victory, with continued responsibility taken on by Iraqis, as they have been already doing.

Still other folks preferred we seize Baghdad, arrest Saddam Hussein, hand over spiral bound copies of the Declaration of Independence, US Constitution, and Federalist Papers, with a note saying 'use these as inspiration' and leave while everyone was still pleased with the US.

Now that the time for that option has passed, which option is correct, Obama's, or McCain's? Who has a history of being correct on this particular issue, and is that any guidance going forward?

McCain has been more correct than Obama - but that doesn't mean he will be correct in the future, it just means he's capable of being correct in the future.

If thats the case, then I don't think that McCain did a very good job explaining that. He seems really happy to talk about the surge, and really happy to say we will win, but I haven't heard much from him about a making the iraq's more in charge and making them pay us back for what we have done.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

The point that both candidates are getting toward is "When can we hand this thing over to Iraqis completely?"

And it's a good question. Obama wants to get out now and asks why they can't use their available funds to fund it. McCain prefers a definitive victory, with continued responsibility taken on by Iraqis, as they have been already doing.

Still other folks preferred we seize Baghdad, arrest Saddam Hussein, hand over spiral bound copies of the Declaration of Independence, US Constitution, and Federalist Papers, with a note saying 'use these as inspiration' and leave while everyone was still pleased with the US.

Now that the time for that option has passed, which option is correct, Obama's, or McCain's? Who has a history of being correct on this particular issue, and is that any guidance going forward?

McCain has been more correct than Obama - but that doesn't mean he will be correct in the future, it just means he's capable of being correct in the future.

Excellent points v.

The problem IMO is moving and motivating the audience along. We're making all the arguments for McCain much more effectively than McCain. We can't keep doing this. At some point McCain is going to have to defend himself, risk offending Obama (to his face I might add, not this chicken-sh!t tactic of doing it later in stump speeches and sicking Palin on him).

He's going to have to sum-up our reasons for going into Iraq, how our enemy regards the importance of Iraq, the Geographical and Geopolitical reasons for Iraq, what has been accomplished, how we can even discuss the possibility of pulling troops out at all (i.e. surge).

He needs to challenge Obama and his running mate on how they intend to reconcile their vast differences on when to engage war, how to engage war, and how to exit war.

He needs to challenge Obama on how 95% of the American people are going to get a tax break when 30% of them are not paying in.

He needs to defend himself against Obama when Obama calls him a deregulator.

He needs to correct Obama when Obama accuses him of sharing votes with Bush. Highlight how many votes his running mate shares with McCain and how many the two of them shared with Bush. Question why he's not debating Biden. Just do it.

He needs to bring up Wright, Pfleger, Ayers, Mac, Mae... all of it. No holds barred. He needs to quote Obama quoting Malcolm X, Chavez and remind people that Obama wasn't 8 years old when he launched his senate campaign from Ayers' living room. Just say it. Do it. Ya got less than a friggin' month.

... and by all means, no more knee-jerk campaign stupidity like suspending your campaign to remain silent and appear ineffectual during a "crisis" or fail to notify your pundits, spokespeople, and campaigners that you're going to drop some new bombshell proposal for buying up bad loans in a townhall debate on primetime. Egadz!

[Paco500]

I don't think he can or will, but I wish Obama would question the conventional wisdom that the surge has been a success. What were the goals? Reduce the violence? If that was the only goal, then I would say it's been successful. But that's a band-aid. But has it met the goal of bringing Iraq to a place where there is a stable, sustainable government that is not a menace to it's own people, the region or the world so our troops can get the hell out, well- who knows? Lots of people, including Obama questioned if the surge would be able to meet even the limited goal of reducing the violence. It turns out it did. But I'm not convinced it did anything to meet the more fundamental goal. Until we start pulling out, we have no idea if it was a success. We've already raised the "Mission Accomplished" banner way too soon once.

[TheWOAT]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Excellent points v.

The problem IMO is moving and motivating the audience along. We're making all the arguments for McCain much more effectively than McCain. We can't keep doing this. At some point McCain is going to have to defend himself, risk offending Obama (to his face I might add, not this chicken-sh!t tactic of doing it later in stump speeches and sicking Palin on him).

He's going to have to sum-up our reasons for going into Iraq, how our enemy regards the importance of Iraq, the Geographical and Geopolitical reasons for Iraq, what has been accomplished, how we can even discuss the possibility of pulling troops out at all (i.e. surge).

He needs to challenge Obama and his running mate on how they intend to reconcile their vast differences on when to engage war, how to engage war, and how to exit war.

He needs to challenge Obama on how 95% of the American people are going to get a tax break when 30% of them are not paying in.

He needs to defend himself against Obama when Obama calls him a deregulator.

He needs to correct Obama when Obama accuses him of sharing votes with Bush. Highlight how many votes his running mate shares with McCain and how many the two of them shared with Bush. Question why he's not debating Biden. Just do it.

He needs to bring up Wright, Pfleger, Ayers, Mac, Mae... all of it. No holds barred. He needs to quote Obama quoting Malcolm X, Chavez and remind people that Obama wasn't 8 years old when he launched his senate campaign from Ayers' living room. Just say it. Do it. Ya got less than a friggin' month.

... and by all means, no more knee-jerk campaign stupidity like suspending your campaign to remain silent and appear ineffectual during a "crisis" or fail to notify your pundits, spokespeople, and campaigners that you're going to drop some new bombshell proposal for buying up bad loans in a townhall debate on primetime. Egadz!

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Paco500 

We've already raised the "Mission Accomplished" banner way too soon once.

In war there are many missions. He was aboard a ship, speaking to a crew that had just successfully completed one such mission. He also detailed the long struggle ahead in that same speech.

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

In war there are many missions. He was aboard a ship, speaking to a crew that had just successfully completed one such mission. He also detailed the long struggle ahead in that same speech.

It's a nice cover story, but let's review the text of his speech, shall we?

Originally Posted by President G. W. Bush

Admiral Kelly, Captain Card, officers and sailors of the USS Abraham Lincoln, my fellow Americans: Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the Battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Paco500 

It's a nice cover story, but let's review the text of his speech, shall we?

Yes, lets. Curiously, you failed to include the remainder of that statement;

"...and now our coalition is engaged in securing and reconstructing that country."

Other parts of that same speech;
"We have difficult work to do in Iraq."
"The transition from dictatorship to democracy will take time, but it is worth every effort."

"Other nations in history have fought in foreign lands and remained to occupy and exploit. Americans, following a battle, want nothing more than to return home. And that is your direction tonight. (Applause.) After service in the Afghan -- and Iraqi theaters of war -- after 100,000 miles, on the longest carrier deployment in recent history, you are homeward bound."

We had just toppled Saddam's regime. The word "mission" was found only twice in the speech;
- "Yet all can know, friend and foe alike, that our nation has a mission: We will answer threats to our security, and we will defend the peace." and
- "Our mission continues. Al Qaeda is wounded, not destroyed."

Extrapolating partisan talking points on this has always seemed disingenuous to me.

[OAW]

Which is worse?

McCain on Iraq. Clearly that is the case for all but the most obstinate of individuals. This war is a complete cluster-f*ck for the US.

#1. It didn't take the fight to those who attacked us on 911.

#2. The WMD charge against Saddam Hussein has by now been completely discredited.

#3. It is costing the US taxpayer hundreds of billions of dollars. (Funny how many on the right defend this foolishness despite the cost but if someone were to propose spending a tenth of this amount to expand health care coverage or help the less fortunate they would have a total hissy-fit!)

#4. It created a terrorist organization where there was not one. The fact of the matter is that Al-Qaeda in Iraq simply did not exist prior to the invasion.

#5. It has strengthened Iran. A very obvious and foreseeable outcome.

#6. It unleashed a major Sunni vs. Shia conflict which has the capacity to spread across the entire Middle East. Again, a very obvious and foreseeable outcome.

#7. It is over-burdening the US military fighting in a nation-state that poses no realistic threat to the US .. while resources are diverted away from the fight against the terrorist organization that does pose a threat to the US.

Now as for the surge. Clearly the level of violence is down dramatically in Iraq. The question is why? Well there are several factors.

A) The increase in US troops on the ground that we refer to as the "surge".

B) The fact that most integrated neighborhoods, especially in the Baghdad area, of Shia and Sunni had already been "ethnically cleansed" one way or the other by the time the "surge" got going. IOW, the fight was pretty much already over except for the screaming and the shouting.

C) Al-Qaeda in Iraq overplayed its hand and started killing more Muslims than US soldiers .... many of them Sunni. Consequently, the Sunni insurgents turned on them and shut them down. It helped that the US military started paying these groups to patrol and secure their areas. This is what virtually eliminated the Al-Qaeda and Sunni insurgent initiated violence.

D) Moqtada Al-Sadr, the leader of the Shiite "Mahdi Army" militia imposed a cease-fire on his soldiers. With the US and with the rival Sunni insurgents. This is what virtually eliminated the Shiite insurgent initiated violence.

The fact of the matter is that B, C, and D had much more to do with the dramatic decrease in violence in Iraq.

OAW

[TheWOAT]

Maybe McCain should bring this up as well...
http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/il...0-reasons.html

or this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anieuWFWe8s

or this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DEBDNGLl5TQ

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Yes, lets. Curiously, you failed to include the remainder of that statement;...

...Extrapolating partisan talking points on this has always seemed disingenuous to me.

Bush showed up with the banner. He opened with that line. That was the visual and the sound bite they were going for. You can revise history all you want, but even the administration's greatest supporters have had to admit they jumped the gun.

Go back, if you can, and find the headlines and stories about that speech written at the time. None of them will report that Bush made a dramatic lading in a fighter jet, had his team raise a "Mission Accomplished" banner and gave a stirring speech congratulating the the Crew of the Lincoln. The story that he created was that we had won in Iraq.

You may find some stories that claim the crew had made and raised the banner once the Administration realised how foolish it was. That was soon debunked. Even they knew they jumped the gun.

Claiming otherwise is disingenuous.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Paco500 

Bush showed up with the banner.

And? I don't care if he hung the banner by himself. That's not what we're arguing.

He opened with that line.

With what line? Mission Accomplished? No he didn't.

That was the visual and the sound bite they were going for. You can revise history all you want, but even the administration's greatest supporters have had to admit they jumped the gun.

As far as I know, they admitted the sign should say "Mission Accomplished for this ship and this mission" That would've been silly. I'm not revising history. I'm reading the actual speech itself. Something you might consider.

Go back, if you can, and find the headlines and stories about that speech written at the time. None of them will report that Bush made a dramatic lading in a fighter jet, had his team raise a "Mission Accomplished" banner and gave a stirring speech congratulating the the Crew of the Lincoln. The story that he created was that we had won in Iraq.

The conventional fighting had ceased upon the topple of Saddam's elite guard and his regime. This was the longest naval mission in history and they were on their way home. You can revise history all you want. This is partisan extrapolation from those who opposed the action in Iraq. Just be honest about it.

You may find some stories that claim the crew had made and raised the banner once the Administration realised how foolish it was. That was soon debunked. Even they knew they jumped the gun.

Everyone knows that "securing" and "reconstructing" does not mean the work is complete. In fact, it's the "securing" part that proved a failure by not adequately accounting for the means of addressing a counterinsurgency, but this was the "difficult work ahead". Of course it was a publicity stunt. He didn't have to come flying in on a jet. The facts remain, Saddam's regime had just been toppled, conventional military tactics complete, the ship was returning home after the longest mission in history.

Claiming otherwise is disingenuous.

Conversely, this has been glommed onto by a host of zealous partisan shills for a talking point. It has little to do with the actual event itself. In war, there are many missions.

Read the speech.

[Super Mario]

Originally Posted by Paco500 

It's a nice cover story, but let's review the text of his speech, shall we?

Major combat operations did end (actually ended when the Iraqi Army fell apart). Everything since then was a security operation.