McCain Right On Iraq.

McCain is squirming to find some sort of positive in what is obviously mud in the face of Bush and his supporters. It seems to me that this entire campaign to date has mostly consisted of McCain attempting in any manner possible to present the ills currently ailing our nation as the fix. I can not imagine how the man can advocate the status quo and expect to capture the votes of so many who see the need for a different direction.

Is Iraq making the U.S. safer?

If yes, how?

Is there a better way to make the U.S. safer?

Aren't there other national priorities that are equally and/or more important than continued occupation of Iraq?

Unless those questions can be answered, then we are doing our troops a huge disservice.

RickIL, with Obama ahead in the polls by an average of only 5 to 6 points, McCain has reason to hope that an aging population like him will, in the end, choose status quo over the more risky potential for change. Old folks tend to stick with the familiar. McCain knows this, and he drives this point at every campaign stop that Obama talks change and Obama is very risky.

I don't see this message getting him out in front of Obama, and no doubt, McCain knows he must find something else to add to this to move ahead. Hence, McCain's search for the message that will resonate, like today's which is, Obama was wrong about the Surge in Iraq and still won't admit that.

It's fallacious, but, McCain keeps searching for those magic words or position that will give him an edge.

There is an illogical and contradictory aspect to McCain's stumping against Obama on this issue of the Surge having been a success.

If, as McCain says, the Surge was a success, why aren't we withdrawing significant forces from Iraq? That was the goal of the Surge according to McCain - to open the door for bringing our troops home.

Then in complete contradiction, McCain lambasts Obama for wanting to bring our troops over the next 2 years.

It is a completely illogical contradiction. I have now concluded that John McCain is gradually losing his faculties. His near daily misspeaks, such as Iraq sharing a border with Pakistan, Shiite Iran training Sunni al-Queda in Iran, and yesterday's referral to the turnaround in al-Anbar Province after Gen Petreus' arrival despite Gen. Petraeus having said many times that turnaround had begun at least 6 months before his arrival, cumulatively speak to a person who is sadly, losing command and control of the facts and reality.

This representations by McCain in public venues are not minor details. They are vitally important facts of record that, if misrepresented, could lead to policy decisions with disastrous consequences.

Is the surge a success if the peace is only possible as long as U.S. troops are there to limit the violence?
Deep and long-time hatreds are not going to magically disappear, and the U.S. can't stay there forever (especially with $53.2 Trillion of nation-wide debt).

McCain is blatantly fearmongering by saying the terrorists will follow us home if the U.S. leaves Iraq, and even if it were true, then it seems like border security might deserve more genuine focus?

And even if McCain's primary argument was the humanitarian angle, the U.S. can not afford to stay in Iraq any longer. Especially when U.S. troops (who are risking life and limb, going without armor, adequate medical care, and promised benefits) in Iraq is not making the U.S. safer (and/or is not the best way to make the U.S. safer), while Do-Nothing Congress is giving itself another raise (as it did 9 times between 1997 and 2007) and more cu$hy perk$ and benefits.

Hmmmmm . . . crickets chirping. How unfortunate. What's the right thing to do for our troops. Should our troops ever risk life and limb for any mission that's not making the U.S. safer?

He was not correct.

To understand why, It's important to look past the violence to what it was a symptom of: Sectarian division, and the failure of the official political system in Iraq to work out compromises instead of resorting to violence.

Looking at Iraq now, we see only deepened sectarian division, and many of those who had power before the surge, have it still. They might have quieted down a little, but it's not because of a brief rise in troop levels.

First, the sectarians got what they wanted for the time being. Our objective was to unite Iraq, theirs was to divide it. Looking at the neighborhoods in Iraq, now with walls between many neighborhoods, their objectives succeeded.

Second, the Sunni Awakening preceded the surge. They were negotiating with us long before. Reductions in violence and cooperation preceded the surge.

Third, there is no victory, with or without the surge, until Americans can leave. If the Surge cannot manage this, if even within a space of two years we cannot leave, then is that progress?

The trouble is, too many Republicans, McCain included, see war not in strategical terms, where the objects in question determine winning or losing, but instead in terms of a narrow notion of pitched battle, a Charge of the Light Brigade mentality where any withdrawal or retreat is seen as dishonorable. "Ours is not to ask why, ours is but to do or die." becomes the rule, rather than a sensible examination of what exactly our sacrifices are meant to gain. Endless sacrifice without the attainment of some advantage is institutional masochism, not the path to victory.

MC.CAN IS NO STRAIGHT TALK EXPRESS; BUT DOUBLE TALK, YES.

By Wilgeens Rosenberg.



Let us take a look at Mc.Cain stance on Iraq today who supposedly claims staying in Iraq is about until success is achieved.



Mc.Cain claims that our staying in Iraq is until success is achieved... No problem and okay granted as a Soldier myself I can understand that, but where was that Mc.Cain's desire for success when US Troops where in poor Black nations like Haiti and Somalia where and when Mc.Cain himself without any regard to success in those regions demanded their immediate withdrawals?



Let us talking about flip flopping for political victory. Please, take a look at these videos and you be the judge of who is a major flip flopper.



Mc.Cain on HAITI: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=palbo-ilalU



Mc.Cain on SOMALIA: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8TFKXHiefs



Mc.Cain on IRAQ: Well, we all know what his stance is on "Profitable" Iraq today along with his other flip flops on Affirmative Action, Immigration, Off Shore Drilling and so forth, you name it... Have a look at for yourself.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ajm5JTf7jZs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pbnhZldJQYs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ZBn73KAlsM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQ4eeQzDlgM



Some "straight talk" huh? Yeah right... Sounds more like "Double Talk" of usual politics to me for political gain and success to the White House.



As a US Soldier, a 2 times Iraq Veteran and a now US Citizen, I would like to get some answers before I cast my very first Ballot.

At least McCain is capable of changing his mind (sometimes), unlike Bush who will almost never admit a mistake, and almost never question the current course of action.

Still, McCain is too much like Bush.
When it was reported that Maliki mentioned 16 month time-tables for the withdrawl of the U.S. troops, McCain said he didn't believe it. Then later, McCain conceded that it was an accurate statement by Maliki, but was probably just a political ploy to curry favor with his own people and WOULD NOT influence Maliki's (and McCain's?) determination to keep US troops in Iraq indefinitely. Yet, McCain in 2004 at the Council on Foreign Relations said that if the Iraqis asked us to leave, we would have to go. No matter what.

If Iraq wants us to leave, we should.

Even if Iraq doesn't want us to leave, we can't afford it (in lives, limbs, and monetarily).