McCain Mocks Obama's Iraq Comments

AP reports:

Republican presidential hopeful John McCain mocked Democrat Barack Obama on Wednesday for saying he would take action as president "if al-Qaida is forming a base in Iraq."

"When you examine that statement, it's pretty remarkable," McCain told a crowd in Tyler, Texas.

"I have some news. Al-Qaida is in Iraq. It's called `al-Qaida in Iraq,'" McCain said, drawing laughter at Obama's expense.

Obama responded quickly, hitting back hard:

Mr. Obama, in Columbus, responded soon after. "I have some news for John McCain," Mr. Obama said at a large rally at Ohio State University. "There was no such thing as Al Qaeda in Iraq until George Bush and John McCain decided to invade Iraq."

Mr. Obama mocked his potential Republican rival as he answered Mr. McCain's charge that he lacks sufficient foreign-policy experience for the presidency.

"I've been paying attention, John McCain," Mr. Obama said, speaking to a crowd of 7,000 in the St. John Arena on the Ohio State campus. "So John McCain may like to say he wants to follow Osama bin Laden to the gates of Hell, but so far, all he's done is follow George Bush into a misguided war in Iraq."

What goes unmentioned is that McCain distorted Obama's original statement by taking it out of context. During the Democratic debate on Tuesday, moderator Tim Russert laid out a hypothetical situation: what if al Qaeda "resurges" as a powerful force in Iraq after U.S. troops withdrew? The Obama statement that McCain is mocking -- "if al-Qaida is forming a base in Iraq" -- came in the context of that hypothetical.

Here's the full exchange:

MR. RUSSERT: I want to ask both of you this question, then. If we -- if this scenario plays out and the Americans get out in total and al Qaeda resurges and Iraq goes to hell, do you hold the right, in your mind as American president, to re-invade, to go back into Iraq to stabilize it? ...

SEN. OBAMA: ... Now, I always reserve the right for the president -- as commander in chief, I will always reserve the right to make sure that we are looking out for American interests. And if al Qaeda is forming a base in Iraq, then we will have to act in a way that secures the American homeland and our interests abroad. So that is true, I think, not just in Iraq, but that's true in other places. That's part of my argument with respect to Pakistan.

I think we should always cooperate with our allies and sovereign nations in making sure that we are rooting out terrorist organizations, but if they are planning attacks on Americans, like what happened in 9/11, it is my job -- it will be my job as president to make sure that we are hunting them down.

Video of the back and forth is here:

Comments

[frappe]

McCain has been criticizing Barack claiming that Barack doesn't know about Al Qaeda in Iraq. This is, of course, an absurd statement on McCain's part.

It is important for the Democrats and the media to constantly remind the politically comatose that Al Qaeda was NOT in Iraq prior to Bush's invasion. Al Qaeda was DRAWN to Iraq by virtue of Bush's decision to put our troops there rather than fighting Al Qaeda where our troops were already positioned to do so -- in Afghanistan and remote sections of Pakistan.

[Ramirez]

Yes. Democrats need to keep looking backwards.

[TAC]

"Yes. Democrats need to keep looking backwards."

Yes. Democrats need to point out the GOPers have been wrong every step of the way...

[frappe]

Excuse me but the only thing that is "backwards" seems to be the intelligence, thinking process and judgments of the leaders and members of your Republican party.

[MIHOP]

Didn't have to look backward to know that Saddam was not tied to 9/11 and Al Qaeda wasn't in Iraq. Just turn off Fox, look around
and keep breathing.

[DoctorDoctor]

and we're having a lovely time watching he repubs run against their own record. it's easier to look forward -- with blinders -- while rove re-writes the image in the rear view mirror.

you are a jackass.

[SlithyTove]

McCain is the simple-minded one on Iraq. Iraq is majority shia, who hate Al Qaida more than the IRA hates protestants. The Kurds don't like them, and neither do most Iraqi sunnis...so how is Al Qaeda going to 'take over the country'?

Do we want to give someone with such shallow understanding of a conflict that could cost us over a trillion dollars and countless lives the power to compound this insanity?

[MIHOP]

kdaddy just posted with a reference to McBush.

Don't know about you, but that says it all to me. I think it's a keeper.

Thanks, kdaddy!

[NorthernCross]

Obama dodged the question. If his criteria for the use of military force is the known presence of Al Qaida in a country, then why is he against maintaining troops in Iraq to go after Al Qaida there? And no, claiming that they weren't there before the invasion doesn't answer the question. Putting aside that this isn't true (and yes, Ansar Al Islam, the name of the Al Qaida "affiliate" before it changed to "Al Qaida in Iraq, was in Iraqi Kurdistan before 2003), the issue in contention is not what should have been done before, but what should be our policy today and the future. Obama's answer was unsatisfactory.

[cuchulain]

Ansar Al Islam was NOT associated with Al Queda until after the invasion. They were also NOT under Hussein's control. He, in fact, had tried to kill their leader. They, in fact, had diametrically opposed goals. The same with Al Queda and Hussein.

Hussein was SECULAR dictator, who slaughtered Islamic radicals for decades, and did NOT have Sharia law imposed. Al Queda and groups of that nature, OTOH, wanted an end to any form of secularism, and wanted to establish a far right Islamic theocracy.

Obama's answer was just fine.

[NorthernCross]

I think you're wrong on Ansar al islam. Regardless, that's beside the point (which was why I put that in parentheticals, like the ones you see here). Fact is that Al Qaida is in Iraq now, but despite this, Obama draws a policy distinction between going after Al Qaida in Afghanistan and Al Qaida in Iraq. And he does it without an explanation on point.

[NorthernCross]

Where's my reply?? OK I'll try again...

Whether Al Qaida was there before is beside the point, which is why I used the words "Putting aside..." Again, the issue in contention is not what should have been done before, but what should be our policy today and the future. Why is there a policy distinction for Obama between how we should handle Al Qaida in Afghanistan and Al Qaida in Iraq? Is his argument that since they were not in Iraq before we were there, Al Qaida gets some kind of free pass militarily now that we are? If not, then what is the distinction? He doesn't give an explanation on point, and in fact resorted to a Clintonian dodge.

[dora rice]

Obama's answer was typical Obama. It shows he is just blabbering but not thinking what he says.

[NorthernCross]

Unfortunately, I do believe that he thought it through before he answered. That's why I find his apparently deliberate non-response particularly troubling.

[MIHOP]

Only difficult to understand if you support McBush's approach to the war. In that case, most everything will confuse you.

[indie17]

Strategic attacks on terrorists as opposed to war on a country. Diplomacy with other sovereign nations to eliminate terrorism.

[NorthernCross]

Considering that Al Qaida only exists in countries, how does not order "strategic attacks" on them without committing acts of war against sovereign nations?

[kisamija]

ok my friend, we know my friend...

[JohnKemp]

Obama needs to stick with his "empty suit" approach which has worked well for him thus far.

When he actually attempts to make serious points in a real discussion, he is laughable.

[PTTY]

Go to the link below at The Trail to see full text, I do not know why his answer to McCain is not posted on HupPost

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/02/27/obama_fires_back_at_mccain_1.html

Obama Fires Back at McCain

By Shailagh Murray
COLUMBUS, Ohio -- Sen. Barack Obama fired back at Sen. John McCain this morning after the Arizona Republican suggested Obama was unaware that al-Qaeda had been causing trouble in Iraq.

Speaking in Tyler, Texas, McCain cast Obama as dangerously clueless for suggesting during last night's debate with Sen. Hilllary Rodham Clinton that he would consider redeploying U.S. troops to Iraq under certain conditions, including if al-Qaeda returned to establish a base of operations there. Or, as moderator Tim Russert put it, if "al-Qaeda resurges and Iraq goes to hell."

[thegreatgiginthesky]

Oddly enough that "empty suit" has been consistently right about ever major foreign policy issue. Not a bad track record for someone who you think is an "empty suit" who is not qualified for the job.

[Jazz42]

Great response.
Thank you,

[JohnKemp]

Including throwing his good friend Farrakhan overboard?

But maybe that's a domestic issue.

Anyway, my fault: Farrakhan is "off-limits."

Let's see:
1. Farrakhan is "off-imits."
2. Obama's preacher is "off-limits."
3. Obama's own middle name is "off-limits."
4. Tony Rezko is "off-limits."
5. Obama's smoking is "off-limits."
6. Obama's cocaine use is "off-limits."

It's difficult to keep it all straight.

[MIHOP]

I'll bet Bush sounds like a CEO or university professor to you, huh? What a chump.

[Ramirez]

bu...but...Bush....

[TAC]

"I'll bet Bush sounds like a CEO or university professor to you, huh? What a chump."

Don't be disrespectful. Bush and McCain have over 150 IQ -- when you add them together...

[AnninCA]

Very true. He flunks.

[MIHOP]

Well, HRC's been flunking for 5 years straight, now, so...don't be too discouraged.

Can you say Flag Burning Ban?

[AGPolitics]

Read these articles:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/26/go-hard-or-go-home-the-m_n_88491.html
and
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=aa0cd21b-0ff2-4329-88a1-69c6c268b304

[PTTY]

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/02/27/obama_fires_back_at_mccain_1.html

THE TRAIL


Obama Fires Back at McCain


By Shailagh Murray


COLUMBUS, Ohio -- Sen. Barack Obama fired back at Sen. John McCain this morning after the Arizona Republican suggested Obama was unaware that al-Qaeda had been causing trouble in Iraq.

Speaking in Tyler, Texas, McCain cast Obama as dangerously clueless for suggesting during last night's debate with Sen. Hilllary Rodham Clinton that he would consider redeploying U.S. troops to Iraq under certain conditions, including if al-Qaeda returned to establish a base of operations there. Or, as moderator Tim Russert put it, if "al-Qaeda resurges and Iraq goes to hell."

"I have some news," McCain said a rally this morning. "Al-Qaeda is in Iraq. Al-Qaeda is called al-Qaeda in Iraq. My friends, if we left, they wouldn't be establishing a base...they would be taking a country. I will not allow that to happen my friends. I will not surrender. I will not surrender to al-Qaeda."

Speaking to 7,000 voters at Ohio State University, Obama answered McCain's mocking tone with his own. "McCain thought that he could make a clever point by saying , "Well let me give you some news Barack, al-Qaeda IS in Iraq.' Like I wasn't reading the papers, like I didn't know what was going on. I said, 'well first of all I DO know that al-Qaeda is in Iraq , that's why I've said we should continue to strike al-Qaeda targets."

He was just getting warmed up. Obama's foreign policy bona fides, after all, would likely emerge as a prime Republican line of attack in the general election, should the Illinois senator become the Democratic nominee.

"I have some news for John McCain, and that is that there was no such thing as al-Qaeda in Iraq until George Bush and John McCain decided to invade Iraq," Obama said, as the crowd roared.


"I've got some news for John McCain! He took us into a war along with George Bush that should have never been authorized and should have never been waged. They took their eye off the people who were responsible for 9/11, and that would be al-Qaeda in Afghanistan that is stronger now than at any time since 2001."

"I've been paying attention, John McCain," Obama continued, the cheers growing so loud that the audience could hardly make out the words. "That's the news.

So John McCain may like to say he wants to follow Osama bin Laden to the gates of hell, but so far all he's done is follow George Bush into a misguided war in Iraq that's cost us thousands of lives and billions of dollars...


I respect John McCain but he's tied to the politics of the past -- we are about the policies of the future!

Hes the party of yesterday -- we want to be the party of tomorrow."

[wagadog]

McCain is going to learn this lesson the hard way:

NEVER start the dozens on a brother.

Because he is not afraid of you, and he will beat your ass.

[gonavy]

A BROTHER?

[Ramirez]

That's whack, yo.

[ACunningham]

It has taken me quite some time to realize how under-handed mKKKain really is! He has been hiding behind the Hero lable for too long...

[btw, my brother is an army veteran, so I don't take these matters lightly.]

.

[CindyKay]

Better Late Than Never .

[TAC]

"It has taken me quite some time to realize how under-handed mKKKain really is! He has been hiding behind the Hero lable for too long..."

All of it WILL come out. There is SO much there there. True and real. I know it will be hard for Obama to fight against his own middle name, but we will prevail!

[ACunningham]

gonavy, TAC, And, there I thought that Billary supporters are uptight. You GOP boys really need to chill!

Having said that, I do think that this is INDEED going to be oh so too much fun. See you in November ;-)

.

[AnninCA]

Today? He was my hero.

[gonavy]

KKK??? He must be rasist if he is running against a black man, right? We knew this was coming. Bring it on.

[MIHOP]

All the racists will be voting for McBush.

Maybe he should "denounce and reject" their support right up front?

[eggman]

McCain would follow bin Laden to Dick Cheney's house?

[BWonka]

McCrazy couldn't find Cheney's bunker with MapQuest. Any more than Bu$hCo can find bin Laden.

[CindyKay]

Osama , Bush , Cheney & McInsane are hanging at Crawford Ranch Don't Cha Know!

[plutorage]

McCain shows his utter ignorance of international affairs by suggesting that we went into Iraq to fight AlQaida.

What a total idiot. Can you imagine this imbecile as your President?

A sparrow did not fall in Iraq without Saddam Husseins' knowledge and Saddam Hussein made darn sure there was no Al Qaida around.

That's more than I can say for McCain and his idiot's war, a war that is a miserable failure because he lacks the qualities of a warrior. I wouldn't trust McCain to run a chuck wagon, much less a war in Mesopotamia.

I will have more to say about this fool in due course as he runs off at the mouth about things he has no knowledge of.

I look forward to seeing Obama in the White House so we can have some competent generalship which is sorely needed.

[TAC]

"Can you imagine this imbecile as your President?"

Seven years ago I would have said no way. But now...

[MIHOP]

You have it backwards. Seven years ago he still had a few shreds of integrity and intelligence. Now he's just a ghost (almost literally) of his former his self.

[gonavy]

Now you are just showing your utter ignorance of international affairs.

[MIHOP]

Meaning the War in Iraq was an effective way to wage the War on Terror?

Now whose being ignorant about international affairs.

McBush is an intellectual pygmy who sold out his integrity to the Busheviks.

[robodweeb]

So after five years the Iraqis still don't care enough to take responsiblity for themselves.

I guess Bush was right in 2005 when he said sending more troops would signal to them that we'd be there forever.

[BWonka]

Not forever - just another 100 or so years. McCrazy told us that and even tho' he'd cheat on his wives and be 'in bed' with a lobbyist he'd never lie!

[gotalife]

News media unfair to Clinton?

Jack read Dowd and Peggy Noonan hit pieces on the air.

Duh.

http://caffertyfile.blogs.cnn.com/2008/02/27/news-media-unfair-to-clinton/#comment-98797

[Denemator]

john cheeks mcpain is just a nobody without any convictions or honor, the double speak express is going nowhere.

[gonavy]

I'm shocked at how many people here are the authority on what HONOR is. I'm going to guess that not many of you have served your country, not many of you have buried a loved one with a flag drapped coffin.

So, shut up about HONOR.

[elkabong]

I'm shocked that some anonymous troll thinks we believe it served because it calls itself gonavy.

I'm not shocked that a troll would claim HONOR is reserved for the military.

[amanda85]

"No country for old men" won three Oscars. I hope it will also be a good omen for November... ;)

[Ramirez]

Spoiler Alert:
The bad guy killed everybody and took the money.