The Alan Grayson Page

The Anthony Weiner Page

Guest Contributors


  • BN-Politics' administrators respect, but do not necessarily endorse, views expressed by our contributors. Our goal is to get the ideas out there. After that, they're on their own.
Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 05/2007

Blog Catalog

  • Liberalism Political Blogs - Blog Catalog Blog Directory



« U.S. Air Strikes Kill 11 Pakistani Soldiers | Main | Fox & 'Baby Mama' (Updated) »

June 12, 2008



Obviously, I've got to disagree with you here. I don't know how Obama will deal with the consequences of partial or gradual withdrawals (obviously), but the larger question is one of intention. McCain is apparently comfortable with the objectives of the Bush administration in keeping bases in Iraq --- and as Sullivan notes, that's the broader issue.

Hillary too would have withdrawn troops for Iraq and in fact what sounded for this military non-expert like an excellent plan for doing so. Obama, I presume, will follow a similar scheme.

As Taylor Marsh argued, it's an issue of understanding (of the issues) and intention (as to the ultimate outcome).

The question for me is whether the candidate considers continuing occupation of Iraq to be a valid goal for the US. McCain has indicated that he DOES. Obama has made it clear that he does NOT (and if he were to do otherwise, the entire Democratic party would demand his head on a platter).



I hear ya. :)

My issue (in this post) is that certain media and bloggers took a few words from McCain's statement, ignored the rest, and slammed McCain for those few, taken-out-of-context words.

Other than pointing out that Obama's own words show support for an occupation of Iraq, I don't really know how the candidates compare re: the war. That's why I didn't really address that in the post.


As a family with a veteran serving in Iraq, there's a very big difference between being posted in Iraq (even if there's no violence) and being home. And the national budget knows the difference, too.

But it's more than that. McCain is promoting a myth, that there can be an occupation without violence. For people who don't have a family member in harm's way, it's easy to forget that there is a war. If it's just 10 or 20 American deaths a month, people may not care. But when you do have a family member there, you care.

John McCain raises the precedent of Korea. In Korea, there is an official cessation of hostilities. There is political stability. There is even progress in national reconciliation. In Iraq, there are none of these things. So, when he says the occupation can go on for 50 years, when he says that it doesn't matter whether veterans are posted in Iraq or not, and especially when he votes against veterans's benefits... know he doesn't care about the troops.


HI Charles,

As I mentioned in the post, I don't actually know what the best course of action is. My first cousin, incidentally, works for CentCom and has been to Iraq 3 times now, so I get what you're saying.

Truly, my post (at least the first part) is a criticism of the media's handling of the specific quote by McCain. They isolated 5 or 6 words and blasted him on those without considering the words that followed.

Having seen the media do that repeatedly over the last 5 months, I find it disgusting.

From there, I mention that Obama's own language doesn't come out and say "I'm for long-term occupation," but the message seems to be that he is.

On the bigger issue of who's better re: the war (McCain or Obama) -- I truly don't know, so I refrain from judgment at this point.

The comments to this entry are closed.