Author Topic: McCain's War Policy Called 'Surrender' to Bin Laden  (Read 6887 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

The_Professor

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1735
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
McCain's War Policy Called 'Surrender' to Bin Laden
« on: February 27, 2008, 11:59:12 AM »
McCain's War Policy Called 'Surrender' to Bin Laden
Josiah Ryan

(CNSNews.com) - Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) supports a policy that has "essentially surrendered to Osama bin Laden," the leader of an anti-war veterans' group said on Monday.

Jon Soltz, a veteran of Iraqi Operation Freedom and the Kosovo campaign, is the co-founder and executive director of VoteVets.org. On Monday, as part of a conference call sponsored by anti-war liberals, Soltznoted that "90 percent" of the U.S. Army is in Iraq. "There is not one of our 42 combat brigades that could deploy anywhere in the world in the next 72 hours. What does America do when there is another Hurricane Katrina? What does America do on our border security issues?" Soltz asked.

Soltz noted that most U.S. troops are fighting far from the remote area where al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden is rumored to be hiding. "They [the U.S. Army] are stuck in Iraq at a time when Osama bin Laden is on the Afghan-Pakistan border," he said. "We have one tenth the amount of troops there than we have in Iraq, which is not related to the central front on the war on terror," Soltz said.

Soltz's VoteVets, which includes Iraq war critic Gen. Wesley Clark on its board of directors, is leading the liberal charge against decorated war hero John McCain, apparently operating on the theory that it takes a veteran to criticize a veteran. The group presses the point that even "patriotic Americans" and war veterans can and do oppose President Bush's war in Iraq -- and McCain's support for that war.

On Monday, VoteVets.org joined MoveOn.org in an effort to link the high cost of the war in Iraq with economic woes back home. MoveOn.org announced the lobbying and public education campaign on Monday in a conference call with reporters. (See story)

As part of the new effort, VoteVets has released an ad featuring an Iraq veteran with her infant son. The ad blasts Sen. McCain's stance that U.S. troops will remain in Iraq for as long as they're needed there.

"This is my little boy," the veteran says in the VoteVets ad. "He was born a year after I came back from Iraq. What kind of commitment are you making to him? How about a thousand years of affordable health care, or a thousand years of keeping America safe? Can we afford that for my child, Senator McCain? Or have you already promised to spend trillions -- in Baghdad?"

The ad will run on cable TV stations in the Washington, D.C., area.

Sen. John McCain has counseled patience -- and success -- in Iraq, saying the "costs of retreat" would bring chaos in Iraq as well as terrorists to U.S. soil.

On Monday, McCain admitted that the war in Iraq is one element by which his candidacy will be judged. At first he said he'd "lose" the election if the American people think the U.S. is losing the war in Iraq.

Then McCain backed off his "stark" comment about losing: "Let me just put it this way," he said: "Americans will judge my candidacy on how, first and foremost, on how they believe I can lead the country both from our economy and for national security." McCain said there's no doubt that how Americans judge Iraq will have a "direct relation to their judgment of me -- my support of the surge. Clearly I am tied to it to a large degree."

MoveOn.org recently endorsed Democrat Barack Obama for president. Obama has promised an immediate troop withdrawal from Iraq and a greater military commitment in Afghanistan.

"When we end this war in Iraq, we can finally finish the fight in Afghanistan," Obama said in a policy speech in September. "That is why I propose stepping up our commitment there, with at least two additional combat brigades and a comprehensive program of aid and support to help Afghans help themselves."

Obama supports an immediate withdrawal of combat troops from Iraq, and he stresses diplomacy over a military solution.

However, the Bush administration has long insisted that Iraq is a central focus in the global war on terror. Sen. McCain and other Republican leaders have supported that policy.

Earlier this month, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) addressed the liberal complaint that the Bush administration is fighting the wrong war.

"I am often asked, 'Well, we don't have Osama Bin Laden, do we?" McConnell said. "Well I assure you he is not staying at the Four Seasons in Islamabad. He is in some cold cave somewhere looking over his shoulder, wondering when the final shoe is going to drop. Going on offense is a big part of protecting America."

MoveOn.org has named McConnell as one of the four "top tier" legislators who stands in the way of the ending the Iraq war.

http://www.crosswalk.com/news/11569185/
***************************
"Liberalism is a philosophy of consolation for western civilization as it commits suicide."
                                 -- Jerry Pournelle, Ph.D

Amianthus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7574
  • Bring on the flames...
    • View Profile
    • Mario's Home Page
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: McCain's War Policy Called 'Surrender' to Bin Laden
« Reply #1 on: February 27, 2008, 01:42:12 PM »
Soltznoted that "90 percent" of the U.S. Army is in Iraq. "There is not one of our 42 combat brigades that could deploy anywhere in the world in the next 72 hours. What does America do when there is another Hurricane Katrina? What does America do on our border security issues?" Soltz asked.

I question the quoted figures.

Also, it's not the job of the military to handle either weather emergencies or border security; we have other departments dedicated to handling those.
Do not anticipate trouble, or worry about what may never happen. Keep in the sunlight. (Benjamin Franklin)

Xavier_Onassis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27916
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: McCain's War Policy Called 'Surrender' to Bin Laden
« Reply #2 on: February 27, 2008, 02:54:26 PM »
Also, it's not the job of the military to handle either weather emergencies or border security; we have other departments dedicated to handling those.

------------------------------------------------------------------
Such things as natural disasters have been the province of the National Guard for generations. Up to the days of Juniorbush, actually. You are sounding like Rumsfeld.

We do have a border patrol, but they are spread rather thin.

It is also true that McCain does nopt appear to have any plan for nabbing Bin Laden, just as Juniorbush has none.
I think it would be a good idea to nab Bin Laden. Do you disagree?
"Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana."

Amianthus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7574
  • Bring on the flames...
    • View Profile
    • Mario's Home Page
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: McCain's War Policy Called 'Surrender' to Bin Laden
« Reply #3 on: February 27, 2008, 04:07:27 PM »
Such things as natural disasters have been the province of the National Guard for generations. Up to the days of Juniorbush, actually. You are sounding like Rumsfeld.

Of course. However, what we were talking about was the US Army, not the National Guard.

I think it would be a good idea to nab Bin Laden. Do you disagree?

I disagree that it should be the job of the US Army. Personally, I think a bounty of US$1 billion could be offered, and all the troops brought home - from Iraq and everywhere else. Once the troops are brought home, that bounty money could be saved in short order by the reduction in costs.
Do not anticipate trouble, or worry about what may never happen. Keep in the sunlight. (Benjamin Franklin)

BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16141
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: McCain's War Policy Called 'Surrender' to Bin Laden
« Reply #4 on: February 27, 2008, 04:18:50 PM »
Umm. Why would we send troops to Afghanistan to capture Bin Laden if he is in Pakistan?

Knutey

  • Guest
Re: McCain's War Policy Called 'Surrender' to Bin Laden
« Reply #5 on: February 27, 2008, 04:24:49 PM »
Umm. Why would we send troops to Afghanistan to capture Bin Laden if he is in Pakistan?


Because we have a retard as CIC.

Xavier_Onassis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27916
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: McCain's War Policy Called 'Surrender' to Bin Laden
« Reply #6 on: February 27, 2008, 06:11:57 PM »
Of course. However, what we were talking about was the US Army, not the National Guard.

=================================================================
Had you used the words "US Army", I would have duly noted that. But you said "military", which I presume most people ( including me) would assume meant the Guard as well.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------\
\A billion dollar bounty and a twenty-million dollar bounty will produce the same results. Perhaps offering the bounty clandestinely to the Pakistani Army might get results, since apparently Bin Laden hangs out more there than in Afghanistan. People who think they are doing God's will against evil are quite difficult to bribe. The rulers of Saudi Arabia claim to be doing God's work, but nonetheless can be bribed, which is why the Juniorbushies love Prince Bandar so very much.

McCain will, if elected, produce more war, longer wars,and piss away even more on 'defense', but without actually making us any more secure as I see it.

The two emotions that get votes are Hope and Fear. I see McCain peddling Fear, because Obama has already monopolized Hope.

There are three issues in American politics in ever election:

Rich vs poor
War vs peace
Black vs White

It is pretty clear that Obama is on one side of each issue and McCain is on the other.

Immigration is an issue as well, but being as Obama and McCain do not disagree much on it, I don't see this entering the debate so far. I could be wrong about this, though.



« Last Edit: February 27, 2008, 06:17:09 PM by Xavier_Onassis »
"Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana."

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: McCain's War Policy Called 'Surrender' to Bin Laden
« Reply #7 on: February 27, 2008, 06:15:56 PM »
McCain will, if elected, produce more war, longer wars,and piss away even more on 'defense', bit without actually making us any more secure as I see it.

I seem to recall that as you "see it", Bush stole the election as well.  Kinda puts what you "see" in better perspective
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16141
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: McCain's War Policy Called 'Surrender' to Bin Laden
« Reply #8 on: February 27, 2008, 06:17:06 PM »
Umm. Why would we send troops to Afghanistan to capture Bin Laden if he is in Pakistan?


Because we have a retard as CIC.

I see.

So Obama and the antiwar vets are retarded also?

Xavier_Onassis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27916
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: McCain's War Policy Called 'Surrender' to Bin Laden
« Reply #9 on: February 27, 2008, 06:23:06 PM »
I seem to recall that as you "see it", Bush stole the election as well.  Kinda puts what you "see" in better perspective
----------------------------------------------
You recall incorrectly. I said that Juniorbush got the Supremes to steal the election for him in 2000. He got half a million fewer votes, after all.

But my opinion on one issue that has no relationship to my opinion of another issue should have no bearing on the validity of the issue.\

McCain was caught on camera singing "Bomb, bomb bomb, bomb Iran" He wants war, and he has said that we could be in Iraq for as much as 1000 years.

This is what I base my opinion on.

------------------------------------
Do you disagree? If so, please explain why you think McCain won't create more war.
I think that is the purpose of a debate, rather than gainsaying one another with no reason.

"Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana."

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: McCain's War Policy Called 'Surrender' to Bin Laden
« Reply #10 on: February 27, 2008, 06:32:15 PM »
I seem to recall that as you "see it", Bush stole the election as well.  Kinda puts what you "see" in better perspective
----------------------------------------------
I said that Juniorbush got the Supremes to steal the election for him in 2000. He got half a million fewer votes, after all.

Pretty much the same thing.  Thanks for validating what you obviously see


McCain was caught on camera singing "Bomb, bomb bomb, bomb Iran" He wants war, and he has said that we could be in Iraq for as much as 1000 years.  Do you disagree? If so, please explain why you think McCain won't create more war.

Because, despite what the rabid left would want us to believe, no one WANTS war.  Neither Bush, nor Cheney.  Neither McCain, nor whomever his running mate ends up being.  No one WANTS to send our military into arenas that may get them killed.  So saying McCain wants war is ludicrous, at its foundation.  The difference being that a President must be aware he may NEED to send troops in, based on current information, intel, and if it has a bearing on the security of the U.S.  So, as events unfold, the president may NEED to deal with Iran, from a military standpoint, and since he's the only one demonstrating the cajones to consider it, says far more for him than what you "see"

« Last Edit: February 27, 2008, 06:49:24 PM by sirs »
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

Amianthus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7574
  • Bring on the flames...
    • View Profile
    • Mario's Home Page
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: McCain's War Policy Called 'Surrender' to Bin Laden
« Reply #11 on: February 27, 2008, 07:49:24 PM »
Had you used the words "US Army", I would have duly noted that. But you said "military", which I presume most people ( including me) would assume meant the Guard as well.

Perhaps you should also read the section that I quoted. Conversations happen in series, where comments are based on previous comments.
Do not anticipate trouble, or worry about what may never happen. Keep in the sunlight. (Benjamin Franklin)

Knutey

  • Guest
Re: McCain's War Policy Called 'Surrender' to Bin Laden
« Reply #12 on: February 27, 2008, 07:56:37 PM »
Umm. Why would we send troops to Afghanistan to capture Bin Laden if he is in Pakistan?


Because we have a retard as CIC.

I see.




So Obama and the antiwar vets are retarded also?


Maybe, but not as retarded as the current CIC who attacked TWO wrong countries and wasted our treasure & blood for his own stubborn stupidity.

BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16141
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: McCain's War Policy Called 'Surrender' to Bin Laden
« Reply #13 on: February 27, 2008, 08:25:39 PM »
Seems to me Osama was in Afghanistan when Bush went in.

Obama and the anti war vet advocate invading the wrong country. What's up with that?

Michael Tee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12605
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: McCain's War Policy Called 'Surrender' to Bin Laden
« Reply #14 on: February 27, 2008, 08:47:18 PM »
<<Because, despite what the rabid left would want us to believe, no one WANTS war.  Neither Bush, nor Cheney.  Neither McCain, nor whomever his running mate ends up being.  No one WANTS to send our military into arenas that may get them killed.  >>

Hilarious.  They were dragged into the war kicking and screaming all the way.  Reminds me of that cartoon of Hitler watching fleets of bombers flying off and bombing the world to shit, saying (according to the caption)  "See what the wicked Chamberlain is making me do?"

<<So saying McCain wants war is ludicrous, at its foundation.  >>

Actually the guy defines himself as a "war hero" at every turn.  Brags of his "service" (killing Third World peasants for Amerikkka) and his "suffering" (although he sure looks to me like he got out all in one piece.  Maybe he was only waterboarded.)    Basically for a self-referential "war hero" like McCain, the equation is pretty simple:  No war, no McCain.

<<The difference being that a President must be aware he may NEED to send troops in, based on current information, intel, and if it has a bearing on the security of the U.S.  >>

Yep, that made a LOT of sense.  The security of the United States of Amerikkka was threatened by the nation of Iraq, all 23 million of them.  A close call, that.  If Gore had been President (God forbid!) you'd all be speaking Arabic today and going to mosque on Friday.

<<So, as events unfold, the president may NEED to deal with Iran, from a military standpoint . . . >>

Yeah a "military standpoint" like "What's the price of oil today?"

<< . . .  and since he's the only one demonstrating the cajones to consider it, says far more for him than what you "see">>

Well, from what I can see, this "President" is a guy who had a great chance to demonstrate what kind of cojones he really had in Viet Nam, but just like his Vice President, had apparently developed "other priorities."  I wou'dn't really want to mention Bush and cojones in the same sentence if I were you.