[...] wouldn’t be the first time Obama has mischaracterized McCain’s< /a> remarks. Recall the 100 years in Iraq [...]

Like or Dislike: 0  0

[...] Dean tried to defend their attack ad against John McCain on Fox news this morning and boy did the man look befuddled: (h/t Hot [...]

Like or Dislike: 0  0

[...] Dean tried to defend their attack ad against John McCain on Fox news this morning and boy did the man look befuddled: (h/t Hot [...]

Like or Dislike: 0  0

One other addition, although I dislike Carter and most anything he has ever attempted to screw up, are we also to abandon the Carter Doctrine and Reagan’s extension of it?

Like or Dislike: 0  0

“Mike, this blog spends a significantly disproportional amount of time focusing on the “unasked questions” regarding Obama when comparatively contrasted to McCain”

McCain is already the presumptive nominee for the Republican party. There are still 2 democrats that are fighting it out for their parties nomination. Although I support McCain, there is a possibility that one of the Democratic contendors is going to represent me as President of the United States. As an American citizen I want to consider the best candidate for the position. There are questions that he (Obama) has not answered and some that seem particularly evasive. He is a relative newcomer on the scene so of course more questions are going to be asked. I would hope that when the Republicans were going through their campaign that you were paying attention to them and asking the same questions and not just paying attention to the home team so to speak. There are plenty of questions that are going to be asked in the GE of McCain and on this site as well. The big ones have already been discussed with his 2000 run and his years of service in Congress. The more specifics will need to be addressed. We’re still just trying to find out who the hell Obama is.

“Different times and circumstances.”

That is really a hollow statement. That is always going to be true, but can we look back to different times and similar circumstances? Do you see a potential threat from the Iranians in Iraq and what the consequences would be to not just the Middle East but to the entire world if they were to disrupt the region even further? Do you think that the Iranians are pursuing nuclear technology for peaceful purposes? If Iran and Iraq were so friendly with each other, why did they fight a war between themselves? Do you think that there are any leftover animosities? Can a comparison be drawn between “the spread of communism” & the spread of radical islamic ideology? What effect would an entire Middle East based on a fundamentalist Islam be on the rest of the world? Do most Muslims want that rule of law or are they fighting it as well? What solution do you offer to prevent an even further escalation in the region in this different time with different circumstances or do you think that there is no threat?

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Mike: It was more of a leading question on my part. My next question to you would have been, “What did you ask him?”. From the looks of things, you have a very interesting background suited to all of this and I figured that you might have had the chance to talk with him.

He seemed to see the threats back then. He supported Somoza against the Sandanistas (there’s that liberation theology again). In hindsight, does he wish he did more to fight against turning over the Panama Canal? He was aware of the vacuum that would be created in Afghanistan. Who were the strongest opponents in Congress opposed to supporting Afghanistan after the Russians were kicked out and why?

I guess my questions to him right now would be: What do you think of the Democratic party now? Who are you voting for and why?

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Mike, this blog spends a significantly disproportional amount of time focusing on the “unasked questions” regarding Obama when comparatively contrasted to McCain; it’s hardly a fair balance on the matter– that is if you gentlemen consider ‘fair’ a term of value. All one needs to do is count up last month’s tally on the both of them ( i didn’t).

So I’m simply doing my best to be a counter-weight here in providing some unasked questions for McCain.

I voted for Richards.

Later addition: “It’s clear that America’s forward positioning of troops in Europe and Asia have been remarkably effective deterrents.”

…: Different times and circumstances.

“I cannot imagine any serious individual who does not understand this.”

Perhaps you’re hampered by Kant’s conception of imagination?

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Doug: You want to play games with this go ahead. But we all know that McCain’s words have been twisted and abused and it appears to me that is your goal as well.

When you ask:

“Additionally, he has argued that after the war is over, he’s would be willing to leave U.S. troops in a stable military and political Iraq for generations– their (vaguely articulated) mission would be to deter “external aggression”; perhaps the same way American troops are in South Korea to prevent North Korea from getting any ideas.

However, does that make sense?”

I answer YES!

It’s clear that America’s forward positioning of troops in Europe and Asia have been remarkably effective deterrents.

I cannot imagine any serious individual who does not understand this.

Again, who did you vote for? Hillary or Obama?

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Ok, let’s look at this 100 years presence kunumdrum a little closer.

McCain has stated that he is willing to leave troops in Iraq for up to a century after the war ends. “Why not”, he asks?

But, as I stated above, just how long would he be willing to keep our troops in Iraq during the war, during hostilities?

Perhaps we can extrapolate from this question some interesting nuggets by applying a little logic, then see where that might lead us on his willingness to endure a whole hyperbolic century long Iraq troop presence.

First, if McCain doesn’t envision a 100-year American front-line combat presence in Iraq, how long is he willing to keep U.S. forces in Iraq outside of that role? So far, all he’s said is that should we withdraw, it would only be under the conclusion that the Iraq mission is unachievable, or it’s achieved success, which he defines as the establishment of “a peaceful, stable, prosperous, democratic state.” —which realistically could take 20-50 years. Why hasn’t McCain given us how long he thinks our non-combat troop presence may be?

Second, McCain has stated that Iraqi units will eventually assume the majority of the combat responsibility; prompting the question, what would then become the mission(s) for our troops he wants to maintain in Iraq?

In all likely hood he would probably argue their mission would be to deter “external aggression”; perhaps the same way American troops are in South Korea to prevent North Korea from getting any ideas.

However, does that make sense?

If the “external aggression” is Iran, it appears the only group that sees it that way is Sadr, certainly not the majority of Iraqis. While the U.S. and South Korea agreed that North Korea posed a threat, as well as Germany and Japan and America reaching a similar agreement about ‘external aggression’ of the USSR, this isn’t the case with Iraq regarding Iran as an aggressor. As a matter of fact they are historical and spiritual brothers and presently appear to be engaging as contemporary partners even moderating a recent “cease-fire” and yesterday Iran entertained an Iraqi delegation (with Hakimian ties) to discuss ” evidence” that Iran was “smuggling” weapons into Iraq. (We can be sure they discussed the matter with great gravity over their 2nd bottle of the grape.)

So if it’s not Iran, is AQ the threat?

McCain does seem to enjoy using their name a lot.

Yet they actually amount to no more that 3-6% (probably a lot less after the Sunni’s divorce and attack on AQ) of the Iraqi combatants. Certainly small enough for Iraqi’s to handle, as they have already done so to some degree. Not to forget if we were not there, they wouldn’t be either. It’s generally stated the weapon of choice for AQ is suicide bombers. But it is difficult to understand why a US troop presence would be able to impact suicide bombers.

Finally a third question is who is the aggressor McCain is looking at, who are the external aggressors that necessitate his willful generational US troop presence, and, of course, how long and how many would be necessary for this (unspecified) mission?

So, what are we left with? Not much.

I can’t find a coherent Iraq policy from McCain. There simply are too many unanswered questions and mystifications in his language. Much of McCain’s thoughts sound similarly like Bush’s empty optimisms. McCains’ hopeful the Iraqis will reconcile, hopeful they will become stable, hopeful they pardon our mistakes, and hopeful they won’t mind if we stay a few generations.

It’s perhaps these unbuttressed wishments that may explain his unsupported speculation regarding his willingness for a generational US presence in Iraq.

Obama has been asking more and more of these kinds of questions about McCain’s foreign policy. Perhaps in the next few months he’ll be able to ask McCain more directly.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Udder: I never met Charlie Wilson. But if I do corner him one day what do you want me to ask him?

Like or Dislike: 0  0