Wednesday, 20 August 2008
Obama fires back at McCain on Iraq debate Print E-mail
Shailagh Murray - The Washington Post   

ORLANDO, Fla. -- Sens. Barack Obama and John McCain escalated their debate over foreign policy Tuesday, as the Democrat struck back forcefully against charges that his views on the situation in Iraq are based on political calculation.

"The times are too serious for this kind of politics," Obama told a Veterans of Foreign Wars convention here a day after McCain told the group: "Behind all of these claims and positions by Senator Obama lies the ambition to be president."

The Obama campaign also announced Tuesday that it will hold a rally Saturday at the Old State Capitol in Springfield, Ill., to begin the week of the Democratic National Convention. The candidate is expected to appear with his yet-to-be-named running mate at the gathering, party sources said. Obama announced his presidential candidacy at the same location on Feb. 10, 2007.

The presumptive Democratic nominee has a full plate in the days ahead. He will polish his acceptance speech while campaigning by bus through North Carolina and Virginia, two reliably Republican states that he hopes to move into the Democratic column. Party sources confirmed that former vice president Al Gore will speak on Thursday night at the convention, before Obama accepts the nomination at Denver's Invesco Field. The Obama campaign is also completing a highly secretive vice presidential selection process in which the front-runners are believed to be Sens. Joe Biden of Delaware, and Evan Bayh of Indiana and Virginia Gov. Timothy Kaine.

As he heads into a critical week, Obama has been engaged in an increasingly heated debate with McCain over the Iraq war and global terrorism. The candidates' back-to-back VFW speeches contrasted starkly different worldviews, with Iraq emerging as the center of their dispute.

McCain told the VFW crowd on Monday that Obama "cannot quite bring himself to admit his own failure in judgment," particularly about the 2007 troop "surge" that Obama vigorously opposed in the Senate.

"Senator McCain now argues that despite these costly strategic errors, his judgment has been vindicated due to the results of the surge," Obama responded Tuesday. Increasing U.S. troop levels did work, he conceded. "In Iraq, gains have been made in lowering the level of violence, thanks to the outstanding efforts of our military, the increasing capability of Iraq's security forces, the cease-fire of Shiite militias and the decision taken by Sunni tribes to take the fight to al-Qaida," Obama told the veterans. "Those are the facts, and all Americans welcome them."

But he added: "Understand what the essential argument was about. Before the surge, I argued that the long-term solution in Iraq is political -- the Iraqi government must reconcile its differences and take responsibility for its future. That holds true today."

Obama prefaced his critique with a nod to McCain's war record, including the years that the presumptive GOP nominee spent in a North Vietnamese prison camp. "He is a man who has served this nation honorably, and he correctly stated that one of the chief criteria for the American people in this election is going to be who can exercise the best judgment as commander in chief," Obama told the VFW.

"But instead of just offering policy answers, he turned to a typical laundry list of political attacks. He said that I have changed my position on Iraq when I have not. He said that I am for a path of 'retreat and failure.' And he declared that 'behind all of these claims and positions by Senator Obama lies the ambition to be president' -- suggesting, as he has many times before, that I put personal ambition before my country."

Instead, Obama asserted that McCain was twisting his words for political purposes. "If we think that we can use the same partisan playbook where we just challenge our opponent's patriotism to win an election, then the American people will lose," he said. "The times are too serious for this kind of politics. The calamity left behind by the last eight years is too great."

Obama pointedly questioned McCain's judgment on Pakistan and his loyalty to Pervez Musharraf, who resigned as president this week, which the Democrat suggested may have been costly in the fight against terrorism. "For all of his talk about following Osama bin Laden to the gates of hell, Senator McCain refused to join my call to take out bin Laden across the Afghan border," Obama told the crowd. "Instead, he spent years backing a dictator in Pakistan who failed to serve the interests of his own people."

McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds hit back. "Unlike Barack Obama, John McCain doesn't have to compensate for a lack of credibility on the international stage with inflammatory and public threats against American allies," he said in a statement. "The American people know that John McCain will hunt down terrorists wherever they are, and have a choice between strength and experience versus Barack Obama's rhetoric and theatrics."

Article views: 776  
User Rating: / 0
PoorBest 
Discuss (89 posts)
truthhurts Sep 01 2008 22:13:31
Decaf wrote:
Where did I state that my read on abortion should be church policy? It's my opinion, and mine alone. I'll leave the letter writing to angry Parasites like yourself. Got OCD?
You didn't, but I never said you did. You have a real problem with that, don't you? Inferring people say things they didn't. Have you done that since childhood?

What I said was that your opinion does not jive with the Church's position. The Church allows for abortion in the case of rape and incest. You do not want to allow for that exception. That's a pretty big difference of opinion, especially to a woman who becomes pregnant as a result of rape or incest. And you said you had not "voiced displeasure" with the Church's position, which would be hypocritical, since it differs from your position. Perhaps you should also not "voice displeasure" in the future on this forum if people have differing opinions than yours? Fat chance of that.

Decaf wrote:
Truthhurts wrote:
Decaf wrote:
You never did answer my question. What is it about this church that makes you so crazy?
Nothing. I just know that my doing so makes you crazy, and I like to push your buttons "once and a while."

Right. "Once and a while" meaning less than one hour from my last post

Sometimes even sooner.
#391081
RogerWilco Sep 02 2008 01:10:56
Decaf wrote:
RogerWilco wrote: Who's evading what? I gave you a simple task and you have yet to come through.

OK Professor, you can hide behind your little pro-choice facade all you want. The bottom line is, NARAL is pro-abortion. Its supporters are pro-abortion.


Merely restating your own argument falls far short of being a proof. Again, show me one person who is "pro-abortion."

Tell me genius, how many women do you hear talking about how Naral is protecting their right to bare children?

I didn't know this right was under attack?
#391123
Decaf Sep 02 2008 20:06:20
Well hello, Hurtstruth, what a pleasant surprise! Welcome back to "Once and a while"!

Decaf wrote:
Where did I state that my read on abortion should be church policy? It's my opinion, and mine alone. I'll leave the letter writing to angry Parasites like yourself. Got OCD?

truthhurts wrote:
You didn't, but I never said you did. What I said was that your opinion does not jive with the Church's position


Wrong. What you said was that I "should have no problem writing that letter telling them there should not ever be grounds for abortion, Church policy wise."

Look, it's clear that I am at peace with my stance on abortion, and you're not even close to at peace with my stance. So this is what we're going to do: You've obviously demonstrated that things like letters not being sent to Salt Lake prove to grind you to a debilitating halt, so I've taken the liberty of writing up a letter of your own:


Dear First Presidency,

You're all a bunch of liars. You know it, and I know it.

I also thought you should know that one of your church members is arguing with me again. He doesn't play by my rules, and that's making me angry. What are you going to do about this?


Obsessively yours,

Parasite



Now you be a good little Anti-Mormon and send that straight to Salt Lake.
#391276
Decaf Sep 02 2008 20:42:37
RogerWilco wrote:
Merely restating your own argument falls far short of being a proof.


Wrong. Presenting a website replete with pro-abortion sentiment, like what is found on NARAL's website, shoots your ridiculous argument to pieces.

NARAL is pro-abortion. Everyone see's this except for abortion advocates who try to hide the facts.

Oh and by-the-by, you don't know what you're talking about with parallels. Your argument is that if one can have the right to bear arms against a deadly intruder, another should also have the right to bear vacuums & scissors against an innocent life growing inside her belly. This, of course, is stupidity.

The correct parallel would be that if one had the right to bear arms against a deadly intruder, another should also have the right to bear vacuums & scissors against a deadly intruder growing inside her belly.

Your brand of reasoning is liberal, not logical. So unless Alien, or something akin to that is gestating in the mother's womb, your best bet is to shut your face and accept that liberals are emotionally, intellectually, and morally, inept.

Tell me genius, how many women do you hear talking about how Naral is protecting their right to bare children?

I didn't know this right was under attack?

That's the point. NARAL is not interested in the Pro-Life aspect of their Pro-Choice movement. It's only interested in the Pro-Abortion aspect of the Pro-Choice movement.

Get it?
#391285
RogerWilco Sep 03 2008 04:38:53
Decaf wrote:
RogerWilco wrote:
Merely restating your own argument falls far short of being a proof.


Wrong. Presenting a website replete with pro-abortion sentiment, like what is found on NARAL's website, shoots your ridiculous argument to pieces.

NARAL is pro-abortion. Everyone see's this except for abortion advocates who try to hide the facts.


Then it should be quite easy for you to find one statement on that website that indicates that NARAL or its president is "for abortion", highlight it, copy it and paste it into a response. Go ahead and do it.

Oh and by-the-by, you don't know what you're talking about with parallels. Your argument is that if one can have the right to bear arms against a deadly intruder, another should also have the right to bear vacuums & scissors against an innocent life growing inside her belly. This, of course, is stupidity.

The correct parallel would be that if one had the right to bear arms against a deadly intruder, another should also have the right to bear vacuums & scissors against a deadly intruder growing inside her belly.


Nope. You don't read too good, huh?

The parallel reasoning is this: Protecting the access to abortion, like protecting the access to guns, means neither encouraging gun use nor abortions.

Get it?

Tell me genius, how many women do you hear talking about how Naral is protecting their right to bare children?

I didn't know this right was under attack?

That's the point. NARAL is not interested in the Pro-Life aspect of their Pro-Choice movement. It's only interested in the Pro-Abortion aspect of the Pro-Choice movement.


Please back up your statement with some kind of proof.

Get it?

If you give it [proof] first then I'll get it.

Again, I didn't know the "right to bare children" was under attack?
#391344
There are too many comments to list them all here. See the forum for the full discussion.

Discuss this article on the forums. (89 posts)
Generated in 0.18823 Seconds