McCain: Ignorant or Playing to the Ignorant?

| | Comments (0)

McCain Reuters PhotoSen. John McCain on Friday demonstrated that he is making progress on crystallizing his hopefully damaging critique of his opponent, Barack Obama. Like Hillary Clinton, McCain appears to be finding his voice, all negative, all the time. Apparently, McCain's advisers are telling him that if he can't tear down Obama's growing popularity, he will lose. And McCain's campaign speeches are now reflecting this effort.

However, McCain's remarks also reveal the illogical foundation of his position on Iraq. Reuter's highlighting McCain's remarks on Friday writes:

McCain, a Vietnam War veteran, said if Obama had succeeded in his effort to prevent last year's boost in U.S. troop levels in Iraq, American forces would have had to retreat under fire, the Iraqi army would have collapsed and al Qaeda would have found a safe haven.
These statements fly in the face of logic, and therefore, constitute an appeal to voters ignorant of what has taken place in Iraq.

First note the absence of the word "Surge", which is what Gen. Petraeus and Pres. Bush use to describe the increase in troops last year. The word 'Surge' begs the question: If the Surge were successful, why isn't the war over, and why are we not bringing our troops home? Therefore, McCain won't be using the word Surge anymore.

Second, McCain is trying to argue that if the Surge had NOT taken place, as Obama criticized it as moving in the wrong direction, the violence in Iraq would be greater, primarily Iraqi against Iraqi, and under the Bush/McCain policy, leaving Iraq would not be an option while violence continued. So there would have been no retreat, under fire or not.

Third, McCain implies if Obama had been president and not engaged the Surge, and began withdrawing the troops, that those troops would have been withdrawing under fire. The logic simply does not hold up. The violence against American soldiers is over their occupation of Iraq, not their leaving. If American troops were leaving, all indications are that those attacking our soldiers for staying, would let them leave without incident, since leaving is what the attackers want. One does not attack those giving one what one wants.

Hence, Sen. McCain's logic completely fails when he says withdrawing would be under fire. Which begs the question, why is McCain making such an illogical claim? Is he really that bereft of logic and intelligence? Or, is he pandering to the ignorant voters with the same lies and fear tactics Pres. Bush used to convince Americans of the need to invade Iraq in the first place?

Lastly, McCain contends that the Iraqi Army would collapse if we left. Is this true? Does this claim make any sense at all? Does the Iraqi government and Army really believe that if we leave, there would be no need or benefit of the Iraqi Army holding together to protect and defend the new freedoms in Iraq? Is McCain suggesting the bald faced lie that the enemies within Iraq are of such numbers as to overwhelm the Iraqi Army contingent of 180,000 soldiers of the Iraqi Army are organized into 105 battalions, causing the Army's collapse? It defies all logic and factual data.

Is this the mind voters want for the next Commander in Chief? Do the American people really want a president whose thinking is either, bereft of logic and sound intelligence data, or worse, a president who truly believes that he can ascend to power and wield power through nothing more than lies and deceptions? Haven't the American voters already elected a President like this, and are they not extremely disappointed with the results?

Leave a comment

Type the characters you see in the picture above.


Monthly Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.25

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by David R. Remer published on July 27, 2008 4:56 PM.

Iraq: Tragedy Keeps on Giving was the previous entry in this blog.

Rove: In Contempt is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Offsite Links