Obama vs. McCain: A tough attack
Posted: Wednesday, July 23, 2008 9:29 AM by Mark Murray
Filed Under:
2008, Security, McCain, Obama
McCain yesterday launched one of his toughest attacks yet on Senator Barack Obama, saying his Democratic rival ‘would rather lose a war in order to win a campaign.’”
The Washington Post: “Obama said he had hoped to avoid political warfare with his rival while overseas, but the attention the candidate's trip is receiving in the United States and potential implications for the November election makes that all but impossible. Minutes after the news conference, McCain's campaign issued a statement blasting the Democratic candidate. ‘By continuing his opposition to the surge strategy long after it has proven successful and by admitting that his plan for withdrawal places him at odds with General David Petraeus, Barack Obama has made clear that his goal remains unconditional withdrawal rather than securing the victory our troops have earned and the surge has made possible,’ spokesman Tucker Bounds said.”
VIDEO: Race for the White House panelists Rachel Maddow and Stephen Hayes debate which presidential candidate, Barack Obama or John McCain, is showing better judgement on Iraq.
Obama
declared yesterday that there is a "growing consensus" in the United States and Iraq for a timeline to withdraw American combat forces, and that the United States now urgently needs to turn its attention to Afghanistan. "If we responsibly end the war in Iraq, we can strengthen our military, step up our efforts to finish the fight against Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan, and succeed in leaving Iraq to a sovereign government that can take responsibility for its own future," Obama said at his first news conference since touring Afghanistan and Iraq. "The situation in Afghanistan is perilous and urgent," he said, calling the country the "central front in the war against terrorism."
Another McCain gaffe? The AP: “‘Because of the surge we were able to go out and protect that sheik and others. And it began the Anbar awakening,’ McCain said, referring to the U.S.-backed revolt of Sunni sheiks against al-Qaida in Anbar province. ‘I mean, that's just a matter of history.’ The problem with McCain's statement -- as Obama's campaign quickly noted -- was that the awakening got under way before President Bush announced in January 2007 his decision to flood Iraq with tens of thousands of additional U.S. troops to help combat violence.”
“McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds said late Tuesday, ‘Democrats can debate whether the awakening would have survived without the surge ... but that is nothing more than a transparent effort to minimize the role of our commanders and our troops in defeating the enemy, because to credit them would be to disparage the judgment of Barack Obama and praise the leadership of John McCain.’”
The Washington Post editorial page is not buying into the narrative that somehow Iraqi leaders are others are supportive of Obama's withdrawal plan.
Meanwhile, the New York Times’ Tom Friedman says both McCain and Obama are right about Iraq. "All of which suggests that the right position on Iraq today is probably ‘McBama’ — stick to a clear withdrawal timetable because post-surge Iraqi and American politics will tolerate nothing else — but leave yourself some wiggle room if things keep getting better, but not exactly on schedule. Always remember: the more Iraq is seen as succeeding on its own, without U.S. scaffolding, the more positive impact it will have on the neighborhood.’”
And Joint Chiefs Chairman Mike Mullen last night told PBS’s Jim Lehrer that withdrawal from Iraq needs to be conditions based. But he also agreed with Obama that Afghanistan is "urgent” and that troop levels in Iraq have an impact on American military strategy in Afghanistan. "I think it is," Mullen said. "It is urgent. It is one where the violence is growing."
JIM LEHRER: Why don't we have more troops there, Admiral?
ADM. MIKE MULLEN: Well, we are very committed to -- with a significant number of troops in Iraq… And until we get to a point where we reduce that commitment, we won't have significant additional troops to add to Afghanistan.
JIM LEHRER: So troops have to be withdrawn from Iraq before troops can being added to Afghanistan in any sizable way?
ADM. MIKE MULLEN: In any significant manner, that's true.
