TYLER, Texas — Republican presidential hopeful John McCain mocked Barack Obama’s view of al-Qaida in Iraq, and Democratic contender responded that GOP policies brought the terrorist group there. McCain criticized Obama for saying in Tuesday night’s Democratic debate that, after U.S. troops were withdrawn, as president he would act “if al-Qaida is forming a base in Iraq.” “I have some news. Al-Qaida is in Iraq. It’s called `al-Qaida in Iraq,'” McCain told a crowd in Tyler, Texas, drawing laughter at Obama’s expense. He said Obama’s statement was “pretty remarkable,”
Obama quickly answered back while campaigning in Ohio. “I do know that al-Qaida is in Iraq and that’s why I have said we should continue to strike al-Qaida targets,” he told a rally at Ohio State University in Columbus. “But I have some news for John McCain,” Obama added. “There was no such thing as al-Qaida in Iraq until George Bush and John McCain decided to invade Iraq. … They took their eye off the people who were responsible for 9/11 and that would be al-Qaida in Afghanistan, that is stronger now than at any time since 2001.”
Obama said he intended to withdraw U.S. forces from Iraq “so we actually start going after al-Qaida in Afghanistan and in the hills of Pakistan like we should have been doing in the first place.” While he praised McCain as a war hero and saluted his service to the country, Obama said the Arizona Republican was “tied to the politics of the past. We are about policies of the future.”
Noting that McCain likes to tell audiences that he’d follow Osama bin Laden to the “gates of hell” to catch him, Obama taunted: “All he (McCain) has done is to follow George Bush into a misguided war in Iraq.” McCain said he had not watched Tuesday night’s Democratic presidential debate but was told of Obama’s response when asked if as president he would reserve the right to send U.S. troops back into Iraq to quell an insurrection or civil war.
Obama did not say whether he’d send troops but responded: “As commander in chief, I will always reserve the right to make sure that we are looking out for American interests. And if al-Qaida is forming a base in Iraq, then we will have to act in a way that secures the American homeland and our interests abroad.”
On Wednesday, Obama expanded slightly that he “would always reserve the right to go in and strike al-Qaida if they were in Iraq” without detailing what kind of strike that might be _ air, ground or both.
Throughout the primary season, McCain has repeatedly attacked Obama and Clinton for saying they would withdraw troops from Iraq. “And my friends, if we left, they (al-Qaida) wouldn’t be establishing a base,” McCain said Wednesday. “They’d be taking a country, and I’m not going to allow that to happen, my friends. I will not surrender. I will not surrender to al-Qaida.”
He said that withdrawing troops would be “waving the white flag.”
The Link is Here.
Really, why do people like this guy? Obama sounds like a novice debater in his freshman year in high school. The degree of ignorance in his one statement is amazing, and the other is just a massive contradiction with his known position in Iraq.
” I do know that al-Qaida is in Iraq and that’s why I have said we should continue to strike al-Qaida targets..”
Yet, you would withdraw from Iraq……that makes sense. You can’t claim to want to strike al-Qaida while at the same time advocating a withdraw from battling them in Iraq. Pick one, dude. Make the left happy or attack our enemies. You can’t do both.
Have we become that simple and superficial of a people that we are really willing to put this old school leftist in the White House?
As my friends at Redstate have stated:
There is nothing more one needs to add. It speaks for itself.
He doesn’t stand a chance if this goes national.
Because nothing says “Change” like reviving the Left’s defense policy demands as of 1983: Nuclear Freeze, opposing “the weaponization of space,” fetishization of arms control talks with the Soviets Russia. Next he will be talking about Grenada and Pershing missiles. Still, it is nice to see Obama pushing ideas that aren’t from the 1970s, I guess…
Please note this passage: “…I will seek a global ban on the production of fissile material…”
Its just plain idiotic to suggest we ban production of all fissile materials. At least if we want any nuclear reactors.
Now note this paragraph:
Of the 30 countries with nuclear power, the percentage of electricity supplied by nuclear ranged widely: from a high of 78 percent in France; to 54 percent in Belgium; 39 percent in Republic of Korea; 37 percent in Switzerland; 30 percent in Japan; 19 percent in the USA; 16 percent in Russia; 4 percent in South Africa; and 2 percent in China.
In other words, Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) just informed at least four of our allies, one friendly neutral power, one of our rivals, and not incidentally, us, that he wants to turn off the lights: and he’s also told a future strategic rival that the round-eyes are still dedicated to holding down the Middle Kingdom. Don’t think that they won’t notice: don’t think that this won’t appall some, and confirm all the stereotypes of the rest; and don’t think that the aforementioned rivals are going to be as tolerantly amused at the simplisme naif as the French will be.
And I am not sure what is worse, his foreign policy of his economic policy.
Above The Law, a website devoted to Law Firms it seems, takes a look at what will happen to the income of associates if Obama is elected. Here is their analysis of a fictional associate making over 164 grand a year:
The effect is enormous. Betsy’s marginal tax rate goes up from an already ridiculous 42.5% to 51.4%—not including the new 6.2% marginal tax on your employer. Subject to how she structures her withholding, Betsy’s take home pay drops an average of $515 a paycheck—less in the early months of the year, but much more in the later months of the year. Add in the effects on her bonus, and Betsy loses nearly $20,000/year in take-home pay.
I added a third column: how big a pay cut would you have to take to receive the same take-home income? The answer is that Obama’s tax increases have a bigger effect on your income than a law firm cutting New York salaries by $34,000.
From Flopping Aces
Clinton seems moderate and sane compared to this guy.
Blogs at Orbys.net
He’s also a bullshitter on NAFTA. He’s running around in Youngstown blaming job loses on Hillary’s NAFTA and then calling the Canadians to tell them he doesn’t mean it.
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080227/dems_nafta_080227/20080227?hub=CTVNewsAt11
Also He never had any intention to leave Iraq. He’s voted against every bill put forward by Feingold and Kerry.
Wait a sec, Youngstown, Cleveland, Akron…the entire rust belt died in the mid-late 1970’s. NAFTA didn’t do it.
btw, “Pick one, dude. Make the left happy or attack our enemies. You can’t do both.” Oustanding line, but he CAN have it both ways. YES HE CAN. Ya gotta have HOPE. That’s all it takes to CHANGE. He can rant about leaving Iraq till he’s elected, then (just as Dems who promised to leave Iraq if elected to Congress) make excuses as to why he can’t. It’s been done before, is done now, and will be done in the future.
While one Presidential candidate, (John McCain) has the vision to foresee a total marginalization of terrorist activities throughout the region by the use of military strength first, and then diplomatic reconciliation—-the other candidate, (Barak Obama) with virtually no foreign policy experience or the resolve to finish off a weakened and leaderless faction of a scattered and battered enemy, has positioned himself to cater to the anti-war radical left who would rather surrender to our enemies abroad.
While most of Europe is standing/sitting on the sidelines watching the U.S. do the “dirty work” they are incapable of, a grateful and sacrificial nation once again rises to the task of providing other nations to achieve the freedom and individual liberty from the tyranny and oppression of a sick and disillusioned society that preys on the weak——-which is this battle against world-wide terrorism.
Surrender is not an option, and John McCain clearly knows this.
Barak Obama or John McCain? The choice should be crystal clear.
NATO has put troops into Afghanistan. So they have put some skin in the game. Also the French are covertly involved in Algeria and Morrocco, Chad as well.
America would be even more stretched militarily if NATO wasn’t heavily involved in the Anti-Taliban effort.