iraq

(Via Talking Points Memo: by Joshua Micah Marshall.)

The ‘Surge’ is working? Try reading Fareed Zakaria’s new column on just how poorly things are going on the ground. McCain’s opponents may seize on what may possibly be the beginning of an uptick in violence in the country. But that’s really secondary to the real issue which is that the strategic aim of the surge has failed. It’s fastened us down even more firmly in Iraq whereas the aim was to jumpstart a political process in the country that would allow us to begin to disengage.

These points are completely lost on McCain. A savvy campaign should be able to make McCain’s failure to understand the surge’s failure into a potent political issue.

This is why Clinton laudatory statements about John McCain as potential commander-in-chief amounted to such folly. McCain was a Navy fighter pilot. Everything suggests he’s incredibly weak on foreign policy. He doesn’t get strategy, doesn’t get the big picture of what’s going on in the world. At the simplest level he can’t grasp why it’s not in the United States’ interest to stay in Iraq for decades. The monetary costs, the inattention to the growth of other regional powers — all lost on him.

(Via MyDD.) I’ve said this before in the context of clean government and ethics reform, but the Democrats simply must not concede the issue of national security to John McCain. First of all, it’s fairly clear that either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama would be better stewards of America’s foreign policy and national security than McCain, who wants to leave American forces mired down in Iraq for a century and who continues to use hawkish language that could get us involved in an outright conflict with Iran. Secondly, and more important in the short run, giving McCain a pass on national security makes it a whole lot harder to beat him in a general election.With this all in mind, compare these two messages coming out of the Clinton and Obama campaigns just one day after McCain all but admitted he has no idea what’s going on in Iraq. First, here’s Reuters: 

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama belittled Republican John McCain on Wednesday for misidentifying Iraqi extremists, saying he fails to understand the war has emboldened U.S. enemies.   

First Read: 

Bill Clinton told voters in Northeastern Pennsylvania today that his wife is the only Democratic candidate “who can stack up against Sen. McCain on the national security issues,” and that a victory in this state could pave the way to her winning the nomination.  

Read the rest of this entry »

(Via AMERICAblog: A great nation deserves the truth.)

Major hat tip to State of the Day blog for catching this. McCain said it, yesterday on CNN, then he tried to take it back. But he said it. McCain did this once before, remember? When he took a “safe” stroll in a Baghdad market… wearing body armor, flanked by 100 American soldiers, 3 Blackhawk helicopters, and 2 Apache gunships. And then said even in America leaders have to have security when walking around in markets. Watch the video of the latest evidence that McCain is either lying about Iraq, has no idea what’s going on, or has simply forgotten the facts.

(Via The Huffington Post | Full News Feed.)

White House Press Secretary Dana Perino was on “Fox & Friends” this morning and host Brian Kilmeade asked her when the last time she’d been asked about Iraq in the White House press briefing. Perino said, “I don’t remember having sustained questions on Iraq” and said she hadn’t had to respond to questioning on the Iraq war “probably since early December.” Wow. Go get ‘em, D.C. Press Corps! Kilmeade also asked her about John McCain’s “100 years” in Iraq comment, and asked about the planned long-term relationship; Perio sidestepped neatly by instead invoking America’s long-term relationships with Japan and Germany. She also noted that the White House was going to be requesting an additional $108 billion in Iraq War funding soon. Amazing what a lame duck prez can put on the agenda, ain’t it?

(Via The Huffington Post.)

The Bush administration yesterday advanced a new argument for why it does not require congressional approval to strike a long-term security agreement with Iraq, stating that Congress had already endorsed such an initiative through its 2002 resolution authorizing the use of force against Saddam Hussein.

The 2002 measure, along with the congressional resolution passed one week after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks authorizing military action “to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States,” permits indefinite combat operations in Iraq, according to a statement by the State Department’s Bureau of Legislative Affairs.