“I repeat my statement that we have succeeded in Iraq — not we are succeeding — we have succeeded in Iraq,” he said. “The strategy has worked and we now have the Iraqi government and military in charge in the major cities in Iraq. Al Qaeda is on their heels and on the run,” McCain said.

<link>

One can define success anyway one wants, simply by gaming the nominal goals. For example, if the goal of invading Iraq were to drain the public coffers of a couple trillion bucks, long term, to put a few thousand of our finest young men and women in the ground, to eliminate a couple decades' worth of international goodwill, to turn Iraq into one of the primary operating grounds for Al Qaeda, and to radicalize Iraq's neighbor, Iran, while simultaneously distracting American from the fight to bring down Bin Laden's organization, then McCain is entirely right. It succeeded.

I agree with Bush. It's better to fight Al Qaeda in Iraq then in New York or Chicago. The money can be seen as investment in the future of America, indeed the World and mankind. Investments of this nature have long been the tradition of this Democracy called The United States of America.

The human losses are very small compared to historical war losses; we've been fortunate to have a great Commander in Chief and we are fortunate to have men like General Patraeus. What country has turned against the USA with it ill will? NONE you are simply whining about something that you believe. How many overseas trips have you personally taken, "little Obama" that make you such an authority on US stature in other countries?

I know you've been to Mexico, were you treated with dispise? No. You were treated with great respect but you got yourself typically drunk and probably don't remember. You couldn't even name the beach club on which your consumed all that tequila.

France ups and changes it's course in history, rejecting the Chirac's and voting for a President who emulated the USA for it's strengths and it's economics.

What you wittness in today's world is not a result of Bush's policies, not Blair and not Chirac's; but you blame Bush.

At least here, but I don't see you as really that stupid. I do see you as rather taken in a strange way by Bill Clinton.

Well, Obama is Bill Clinton without all the girlfriends, but more "cold blooded".

* * *

Barack Obama is a politician who doesn't seem to care much about any of the issues. He is a pure political machine, devoted to fundraising, the media spotlight, and personal ambition. Like Bill Clinton, as someone said, without the girlfriends. Only more cold-blooded.

If the early Obama--Obama 1.0--had a signature issue, it was Iraq. But those days are long gone. The McCain campaign has dug through the archives and done an admirable job of tracing Obama's unacknowledged contradictions on the issue:

<link>

....it's not "liberals" who argued about getting a couple of thousand Americans killed and billions of dollars spent on a non-threat in Iraq. Al Qaeda is not a nation, but groups of people using an affiliation, they can and have simply strengthened elsewhere, unless you, Mr. McCain and FOX news have not been paying attention. You exhibit your singular thinking daily, Mr. McCain, I would hope would express something more thoughtful and in line with not just what he or those that agree with him or he agrees with sees, but what the vast majority of people see.

People are asking if this is just another "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" or whether we should all wait and see before we start cracking the champagne bottles open.

KnotaFrayed:

People are asking if this is just another "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" or whether we should all wait and see before we start cracking the champagne bottles open.

The past year we have wittnessed the astonishing decline in attacks and deaths of Americans in Iraq; not a "Mission Accomplished statement" but a mission accomplished result.

You probably don't know the difference but Obama does and therein lies his "lies" about what he will do as Commander in Chief.

“The success that we have achieved is still fragile and could be reversed, and it’s still — if we do what Senator Obama wants to do, then all of that could be reversed and we could face again the chaos, increased Iranian influence and American loss and defeat,” he added, noting that he hopes his Democratic rival comes around to his view during his visit to the war zone.

The mistake we could make is the same mistake that Bush made when we initially defeated the Iraqi army - that an initial victory means that the job is done and that it will not require a continued effort and a new strategy to "preserve" the victory.

Ron

RCH1:

The mistake we could make is the same mistake that Bush made when we initially defeated the Iraqi army - that an initial victory means that the job is done and that it will not require a continued effort and a new strategy to "preserve" the victory.

Ron

I don't think anyone, liberal or conservative ever thought that we could just defeat Saddam and go home leaving a country in desperation. You think world opininon of the USA stinks right now, imagine what it would have been with a "hit and run".

We had to establish a new government and we're obliged to see it through.

I don't think anybody yet knows what the benefits of this will all be. Defeating Al Qaeda in Iraq or anywhere is better than fighting them here at home. I don't believe many feel that Al Qaeda and Obama have won (ooops, I mean Osama of course).

TickleBob:

KnotaFrayed:

People are asking if this is just another "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" or whether we should all wait and see before we start cracking the champagne bottles open.

The past year we have wittnessed the astonishing decline in attacks and deaths of Americans in Iraq; not a "Mission Accomplished statement" but a mission accomplished result.

You probably don't know the difference but Obama does and therein lies his "lies" about what he will do as Commander in Chief.

In the last year we have seen exhibitions of how, if one or several order it, the peace can be shattered and those people are not al Qaeda, but Shi'a Muslim leaders who are Iraqi. Shi'ites are in the majority in Iraq, in case you, Mr. McCain and FOX News failed to notice or remember that. Shi'ite is also the majority Muslim sect in Iran.

The brainiac secondary (when the primary reason didn't fly) reason given for being in Iraq was "liberation" of Iraqis from other Iraqis "liberated" a majority from a minority, that majority was Shi'a, the same sect as al-Sadr and most of Iran.

al-Sadr

If the choice were fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq or fighting them in the US, there might be a point to that. But that's not the choice. When we invaded Iraq, we didn't merely lure existing Al Qaeda members from Afghanistan and Pakistan to Iraq. We created a whole new class of Al Qaeda members -- young Iraqis made vulnerable to Al Qaeda propaganda by their fury at the US invasion and abuses like Abu Ghraib. Thus, we're creating the opportunity for Al Qaeda to hit us vastly more easily and more often in Iraq while still being able to go after us elsewhere, too. In a typical month, prior to the March 2003 invasion, how many Americans do you think were killed by Al Qaeda? In the typical month since then, what do you think the answer is?

Arkady:

If the choice were fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq or fighting them in the US, there might be a point to that. But that's not the choice. When we invaded Iraq, we didn't merely lure existing Al Qaeda members from Afghanistan and Pakistan to Iraq. We created a whole new class of Al Qaeda members -- young Iraqis made vulnerable to Al Qaeda propaganda by their fury at the US invasion and abuses like Abu Ghraib. Thus, we're creating the opportunity for Al Qaeda to hit us vastly more easily and more often in Iraq while still being able to go after us elsewhere, too. In a typical month, prior to the March 2003 invasion, how many Americans do you think were killed by Al Qaeda? In the typical month since then, what do you think the answer is?

Maybe you are to blame for creating terrorist; as a Liberal I would even accuse you of that. Every class of terrorist who joined up to fight in Iraq that wasn't part of the new government's military or police force was "destined" to that fate. They didn't wake up after the fall of Sadam Hussein and decide they hated America, indeed the majority of Iraqis are greatful for their new lives, their new hope for a future. We haven't been fighting against law abiding Iraqi citizens we have been up against a trained army. Now we seem to have won and if that's the case you can re-write GWBush's legacy yet again, because it will only look better with a democratic and friendly Iraq, a peace deal in the makings between Israel and Hamas and the Palestinians added to the victory over terrorism and he's going to be a "legend of a President".

You waller in the Rev. Wright shit all you like, but I like the smell on the "high road" better than where you want to travel.

I don't have a clue what you're trying to say. Why would I be to blame?

I guess the reference to Rev. Wright was out of your range also.

I've considered you "clueless" on a number of issues but never at a loss for words or time to turn them into short stories..

You ignore that as the attacks decline in Iraq the increas in Afganastan...........We are not fighting a nation, we are fighting an orginization who is mobile and simply moving again. They were not in Iraq till we invaded, instead of going after them in Afghanistan and Pakistan where they were.

Study a little history, who created OBL and Saddam?

then you have the fact that AQ were mainly in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Wouldn't it have been better to have gone after them where they were instead of bringing them to Iraq, and we now find that we need to build up in Afghanistan to go after the so called resurgance of AQ there, ignoring that as the administration claims that the "surge" has worked all it has done is relocated the enemy.