Our military youths' lives are being wasted so McCain can act like only the GOP can protect us against W's undefined, "those who are against us".
McCain is emotionally damaged. If somehow his vile attacks attract enough
apathetic red staters that he wins the election it appears as if he'd keep our
troops bogged down in Iraq for the duration of his term.
The July 22, 2008 article "McCain Meltdown" at
click here
shows McCain--mini-me's attack "This is a clear choice that the American people
have. I had the courage and the judgment to say I would rather lose a
political campaign than lose a war.
It seems to me that Obama would rather lose a war in order to win a political
campaign."
The author further states, "This is the ninth presidential campaign I've covered. I can't remember a more scurrilous statement by a major party candidate. It smacks of desperation. It renews questions about whether McCain has the right temperament for the presidency.
How sad....
Smart politicians leave the scurrilous stuff to their aides; in fact, a McCain spokesman expressed these words almost exactly on July 14. There is a reason why politicians who want to be President don't say these sort of things: It isn't presidential. A President exists in the straitjacket of literality. His words mean something. So John McCain has to literally believe that Barack Obama would "rather lose a war in order to win a
political campaign."
The author comprehends the fact that "The reality is that neither Barack Obama nor Nouri al-Maliki nor most anybody else believes that the Iraq war can be lost" at this point. The reality is that no matter who is elected President, we are looking at a residual U.S. force of 30-50,000 by 2011 (a year ahead of the previous schedule). The reality is that McCain should be proud that he helped salvage a disastrous situation by pushing the counterinsurgency plan. It's something to run on. But, at this point, McCain must sense that it's not a winning hand. Obama, the poker player, has drawn to an inside straight: the Iraqis favor his plan over McCain's long-term bases.
That must be galling. But it's no excuse to pop off the way McCain did. It was, "shockingly, unpresidential."
The July 23, 2008 article "Countdown with Keith Olbermann" at
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25834371/ notes that McCain continues to lie about the surge as the article states McCain's perpetual damage control mode spirals out of control. Yesterday, he said the surge happened first, then the Sunni awakening in Anbar. This morning, he said the awakening wouldn't have survived if it wasn't for the surge.
Breaking news! This afternoon, he said there was a surge before there was a surge:
SEN. JOHN MCCAIN, (R-AZ) PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I was briefed by Colonel McFarland in December of 2006 where he outlined what was succeeding there in this counter-insurgency strategy, which we all know of now as the surge. (END VIDEO CLIP)
OLBERMANN: It was the secret surge, which only John McCain knew about. Just a coincidence he said this in the supermarket cheese aisle. But back to chronology, Sunni awakening on August 2006, surge announcement on
January 2007. The tape of McCain's biggest blunder yet, conveniently edited out by CBS is now, itself, out.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MCCAIN: Colonel McFarland was contacted by one of the major Sunni sheiks. Because of the surge, we were able to go out and protect that sheik and others and it began the "Anbar Awakening." I mean, that's just a matter of history.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
OLBERMANN: McCain's latest imaginary history that if we followed Obama's advice, the sheiks who led the awakening in Anbar would have been assassinated. The sheik who led the awakening in Anbar, Abdul al-Rishawi, he was assassinated, during the surge."
Olbermann introduced a CBS interview of mini-me. The night of July 22, 2008
Katie Couric CBS ANCHOR asked McCain "Senator Obama says while the increased number of U.S. troops contributed to increased security in Iraq, he also credits the Sunni awakening and the Shiite government going after militias, and says that there might have been improved security even without the surge. What's your response to that?"
Mini-me must have liked that phrase, but for a matter of history Olbermann provided this in his article "If we're saying it's a matter of history, here are a few historical key dates. August 2006, the so-called "Anbar Awakening" kicks off with a meeting between Colonel McFarland and Sheik Abdul al-Rishawi. January 2007, the surge is introduced, announced by President Bush. If you're not familiar with him, he is the commander-in-chief, he ordered the escalation of U.S. troops in Iraq and that would be the definition of the surge. June 2007, all surge troops were finally in place, operations could properly begin a full 10 months after the Sunni awakening in Anbar. It is worth noting mhat the vast majority of surge troops went to Baghdad not to Anbar, and that the same sheik that McCain claimed to Katie Couric, the surge was able to protect was himself assassinated in December of 2007 when the surge was at its peak."
McCain's remark, "Senator Obama's indicated by his failure to acknowledge the success of the surge that he would rather lose a war than lose a campaign" is pure Rove. Obama says that the violence has gone down. He attributes that to the "Sunni awakening and the Shiite government going after militias" and the surge. How does McCain mangle up Obama's remark into "he would rather lose a war than lose a campaign"? There is no logic there-only propaganda-in which the White House is directly involved.
The article "White House Accidentally E-Mails to Reporters Story That Maliki
Supports Obama Iraq Withdrawal Plan" at
click here
stated "The White House this afternoon accidentally sent to its extensive
distribution list a Reuters story headlined "Iraqi PM backs Obama troop exit
plan - magazine."
The story relayed how Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki told the German
magazine Der Spiegel that "he supported prospective U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama's proposal that U.S. troops should leave Iraq within 16 months ... 'U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months. That, we think, would be the right time frame for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes,'" the prime minister said.
The White House employee had intended to send the article to an internal
distribution list, ABC News' Martha Raddatz reports, but hit the wrong button.
The misfire comes at an odd time for Bush foreign policy, at a time when Obama's campaign alledges the president is moving closer toward Obama's recommendations about international relations -- sending more U.S. troops to Afghanistan, discussing a "general time horizon" for U.S. troop withdrawal and launching talks with Iran."
W is funneling mini-me his plans for Iraq and Afghanistan. The trouble for the pathetic GOP is that these plans are so inept that big bro 43 has to adapt his plans and they are beginning to mirror Obamas'.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
