McCain Has Zero Plan to Get Us Out of Mess President Bush Has Created
John McCain revealed today that he has no plan -- none -- to get us out of the mess the president has created. Senator McCain said that it is important for presidential candidates to "define their objectives and what they plan to achieve not with vague language but with clarity." But especially when it comes to Iraq and Afghanistan, the picture he painted today of where he hopes to be by 2013 is totally divorced from reality and there is zero clarity about how he would get there. It's beyond being vague: John McCain is totally silent about how he would realize his rosy vision for 2013.
It's like saying by 2013, every American will be a millionaire and there will be peace on earth. Wishing will not make it so. The last things Americans need now are empty promises. They need, and our security demands, a concrete plan of action that brings the war in Iraq to an end without leaving chaos behind.
In his speech, Senator McCain says that by 2013, "the Iraq war has been won." How? What's the strategy?
He says "Iraq [will be] a functioning democracy." It certainly isn't now -- what's his place from getting us from here to there?
He says "civil war has been prevented, militias disbanded, the Iraqi security force is professional and competent." But not a word on his strategy to actually prevent civil war, disband the militia or train the security forces.
He says "the government of Iraq is capable of imposing its authority in every province of Iraq." Right now, it can't even impose its authority through all of Baghdad and there is little trust within the government, of the government by the people and no capacity by the government to deliver basic security or services. So how do we get from here to there? Senator McCain is silent.
At the same time, Senator McCain says that in 2013: "the threat from a resurgent Taliban in Afghanistan has been greatly reduced... U.S. and NATO forces remain there to help finish the job and continuing operations against the remnants of al Qaeda."
Exactly how will we have any chance of winning in Afghanistan and defeating al Qaeda if we keep 140,000 troops in Iraq for another three or four years? Senator McCain doesn't say because he can't.
The fact is, when I visited Afghanistan in February, General McNeil, who commands the international force, told me that with two extra combat brigades -- about 10,000 soldiers -- he could turn around the security situation in the south, where the Taliban is on the move. But he can't get them because of Iraq.
Even when we do pull troops out of Iraq, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Admiral Mullen, says he would want to send them home for a year to rest and retrain before sending them to Afghanistan. The longer we stay in Iraq, the more we put off the day when we fully join the fight against the real al Qaeda threat and finally defeat those who attacked America seven years ago.
Today's speech is further proof that when it comes to Iraq, there is no daylight between John McCain and George W. Bush. They are joined at the hip. When it comes to Iraq, there will be no change with a McCain administration and so there is a real and profound choice for Americans in November.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
It is always amusing to see a Washington insider posturing as a new age politician. Biden is part of the establishment that Obama is railing against.
If Biden was a Washington insider and part of the establishment as you imply, then he would have been the presumptive Democratic nominee before the get go...if you know what I mean, and I'm not sure that you do.
Joe Biden is my senator and I have supported him and voted for him since I moved to Delaware 25 years ago. He was the only one of the candidates with a real, workable plan for a stable and (hopefully) peaceful Iraq. He and Les Gelb came up with a plan for a Federal government in Iraq with 3 mostly independent regions and a central government managing the oil resources and redevelopment projects. It seems to me to be the best hope for a political solution. Joe Biden for Secretary of State!
Biden for VP!!
OBAMA TO STAY IN IRAQ 100 YEARS
Biden calls Obama 'A real and profound choice in November?" The New Republic reports that the "profound one" said in 2004 "That a failed Iraq state would be a disaster." Then does the "profound one" believe he can withdraw our forces from Iraq in 16 months and turn it into a success story? By what magic will he conjure up this new Iraq? By meeting with its leaders and hugging them into becoming peace loving human beings? Is that how the "profound one" will do it with Biden at his side? Or will Obama stay in Iraq as long as it takes to avoid a catastrophe and make a success out of it? 50 years, 100 years. That isn't a long time compared to 14 centuries of sectarian conflict.
You need to learn to do research and read once in a while. The Biden plan had bipartisan support. Obama will use that as a blueprint for sharing power.
Catastrophe is a relative term. By all measures, the past 5 years of U.S. occupation have been a catastrophe both for Iraqis and for U.S. foreign policy interests. A catastrophe would be whoring out America's strength and economic security by borrowing another trillion dollars from China. Continuing Bush's failed foreign policy (if there is such a thing) would be a catastrophe. Read the NIE, it reveals how catastrophic the Bush administration's policies have been.
So, you think after America contributes the minute time of at least 100 more years (not to mention the number of lives lost)...we will solve the 14 centuries of conflict? Religious conflict cannot be solved, least of all by outsiders with totally conflicting beliefs. History has proven that fact. It must be solved from within..no
Which is why you engage the entire region to help mold & stabilize their part of the world. Why would an arab country take direction from the christian West on how they should govern? It's arrogance that makes you think that we can govern their people better than they can.
Failed state. That IS Iraq, thanks to the mismanagement of the war by Bush/Cheney.
McCain says troops will be home by 2013, why is his deadline more credible than Obama's?
It's not as though the Iraqi's are blind and unable to see WHEN THERE ARE LESS AMERICAN SOLDIERS IN IRAQ and notice as the American presence diminishes.
The Iraqis will not need anyone to tell them America is with drawing it will be obvious.
If you really believe that America will need to stay to avoid a catastrophe why stop at 50 years, 100 years make it another 14 centuries.
Just make sure to send YOUR sons and daughters and their children and their grandchildren’s grandchildren to fight and die in a war that McCain says "is all about oil"
Let's have McCain as president with his erudite foreign policies "bomb, bomb, bomb Iran" and "I'm going to sit the Sunnis and Shiites down and tell them to quit the bullsh*% along with a vast array of other questionable statements that McCain has made over the years; which lend credence to the fact that although McCain comes from a family with military history and, McCain's service in the military is to be lauded, McCain's has not articulated an economic policy, national security policy nor foreign policy that that is substantive.
McCain offers America irrelevant sound bites that mirror the Bush/Cheney failed policies, on these matters McCain is simply wrongheaded and his policies are not what America needs.
I'm glad to see so much support for Senator Biden here. While I did not see the interview last night on Hardball (in fact I did not realize that Mr. Biden was going to appear), previous interviews have greatly increased my confidence in his foreign policy expertise. I'm posting because I agree with the many of you who believe the Senator should be positioning himself for Secretary of State.
OBAMA DOCTRINE OF APPEASEMENT
What is the greatest threat to the terror masters of Iran and their theocratic state? A US invasion of their country which they could never survive. And do they want from the US? The threat of invasion completely eliminated by removing our troops from Iraq and the region. In other words, they want us to end the threat of attack and invasion.
Now what is the Obama Doctrine for dealing with Iran? First, Obama has pledged to remove most if not all US troops from Iraq and the region within 16 months of his administration. And what will he get from Iran in return? NOTHING! ABSOLUTELY NOTHING! Obama is going to eliminate the greatest exisitential threat to the mullahs without first receiving a single concession from them on ending their nuclear weapons program and their massive funding of terror groups like Hamas and Hezbollah.
And when US troops are gone from the Middle East and Iran is breathing a sigh of relief what then does Obama plan to do? He's going to hold "direct tough presidential negotiations" with Ahmadenijad without any real leverage. Negotiations without the biggest, badest most menacing stick to threaten the mullahs: US invasion.T
Retreat now diplomacy latter! Peace through weakness not strength! Can someone tell me how the Obama Doctrine differs in any respect from appeasement, or just plain stupidity?
Quit spamming the board with the same nonsense. Everyone knew from your previous post that you didn't know what the hell you were talking about. I don't think there will be any lack of leverage once all U.S. troops are pulled out of Iraq (except for a small group left for spec. ops missions to fight Al Qaeda and a larger group of mercenaries to protect diplomatic teams). The U.S. will have a strengthend position on Sec. Council to impose economic sanctions against Iran. Militarily, there will still be a carrier group positioned in the Gulf. We don't need to be bogged down in the quagmire that is Iraq to have strength.
Its your mindset that is the problem.
Iran has not attacked us, or even threatened to attack us. Why should we invade Iran or any other country?
You people are like children, its the code of the playground.
I see it this way.
The Decider is the appeaser. He is negotiating with terrorists in Iraq and paying them money to quell violence in Iraq. That is text book appeasement.
http://thi
Obama said he is willing to sit down and talk. This is called diplomacy.
Bush is giving tax dollars to people the US formerly labeled terrorists so they will quit making him look bad. That is appeasement. Got it???
Obama wants to ask if there is a way we can avoid turning the desert into a sheet of glass. This is called diplomacy.
Do you really think the US would be negotiating from a position of weakness when we can push a button in the US and go back to our collective couches with a hot dog and a beer and watch the show on CNN and MSNBC???
In this case, there is no down side to hear what is on Iran's mind. The same goes for Cuba and North Korea.
If you think we have the ability to take the army we have in Iraq and go picking fights all over the world, you are negotiating from a position in Alice in Wonderland.
Do you even know what appeasement means? Bribing militants into agreeing to a cease-fire is appeasement. If you have a bone to pick, you're barking up the wrong tree buddy! Talking to Iran is called diplomacy and it's what both Gates and Rice are calling for.
Is appeasement like Reagan's Iran Contra deal? Would that be appeasement?
Or how about Nixon/Ford/Reagan's trade agreements with China on the promise that China would clean up it human rights violations and allow an even flow of trade which has not happened
Biden for VP or Secretary of State!
Obama's timing on his response was immediate and strategically brilliant, and it eased many a worried mind about his ability to counter the GOP slime machine (as was the case with Senator Kerry last time around). Bush, McCain and the Republicans used the only political tools they own - threats, fear and spin - to make a cheap, factually false, political attack. Undoubtably, he calculated that by not naming names, the right wing propagandists would get a head start on polluting our airwaves with lies. The fact that the major players (Thank you Senator Biden for calling it exactly what it is - bullshit) in the Democratic Party responded immediately, almost ensures an actual debate on this important issue will ensue in the media; as opposed to focusing on why Obama can't respond to attacks; why he is weak, inexperienced, etc. Maybe this time around the Democratic Party has actually come to play ball!
Senator,
I'm a big supporter and former contributor of yours, and have often said you’re the Dems strongest voice on the more serious issues and the best at taking on the Republicans.
I've been on this site supporting you for VP as well. You could bring in the moderates, give Obama a strong, experienced voice in the background that would ease a lot of people's concerns, and you'd be a great attack dog against McCain and would destroy the Repub VP choice in a debate.
However, I say this only as advice: Your performance on Hardball last night was not good, and it gave me pause to think you might not be up to campaigning as VP. I don't know the reason - were you tired, too agitated, had a cocktail or two, or is age catching up with you? I don't know, and I'm not making accusations. I'm just saying that it was not a clear, calm and strong performance that you usually make, it bordered on rambling for a moment, and you need to be aware of how it came across.
I would strongly advise you to take a deep breath and try to cut down on the over-agitated, fast talking style that you had yesterday. When you do that you come across as a very experienced, wise, strong and confident leader of your party that commands the respect of his peers and who would make a perfect VP choice to complement Obama.
Biden has never had a cocktail in his life.
Yes, Biden was talking fast and with passion. He has fire in him, and this is something that people have criticized Dems for lacking. This regime has subjected us to so many outrages, downright crimionality in fact. I see your point, but it does my heart good to hear the Senator speak out, chapter and verse.
If you were really a big supporter, you would not be writing public notes like this one. If this is so important, send him an email. This is all about you, not him.
And Yankee Canuck is right. Biden doesn't drink and never has.
You sound a little screwy there. I must tell you.
"Send him a private email". Like I have his private email address.
What are you worried about. That I'm gonna start rumors that Biden's a drunk. If an anonymous comment on a blog can start a serious rumor then Biden and every other politician in the world can be taken down by some clown named Wilbur who's sitting in his mom's basement in Idaho. Our media is pretty pathetic, but we're not that pathetic yet, so chill out.
The prospect of McBush is beyond scary, it is suicide for America as we know it, it is an option the world cannot endorse, for it will continue war, bankrupting our economy, and do little or nothing in working to reverse the damage we are doing to this planet. Losing is not an option for the dems in November, and unless obama and clinton find a way to come together and make it happen, they will be heading back to their senate seats, and a grumpy, angry, war loving old man will be sitting in the oval office.
Senator Biden,
When I listened to the gavel to gavel coverage of the the Supreme Court Justice hearings in the 1980s, I heard you and I said "That guy should run for President!" I telephoned your office and told that to one of your staff.
I was very pleased that you were in the race this time, but DISpleased that you and others got shuffled aside by the MSM for the two sexy candidate choices ("the contenders").
That aside, I hope Obama seriously considers you for V.P. The country needs you.
Thanks for all you do.
I and many others who got to hear Biden in Iowa are with you on that. It's a pity more Americans did not have the opportunity to witness his dignified campaign. Biden sticks to the issues and has a lot to say. More than some want to hear-- but he's brilliant, skilled and he has a sense of history that is missing in the reportage of the mainstream. This Senator has greatness in him, and he's vastly knowledgeable in constitutional law and foreign policy.
What is McCain proposing that's going to change defeat into victory?
Is he proposing more US troops on the ground?
Is he proposing the ones already there aren't fighting hard enough?
Maybe more and longer tours...th
How about new super weapons? Happy gas?
How about just buying all the warring Iraqi factions off?
Republican credibility on the war is less than zero. As an ex pilot, McCain should know the feeling.. out of airspeed, out of altitude, out of ideas. Eject. Or in the case of a voter, reject. With prejudice.
JOE BIDEN - YOU ARE MY HERO!!!!!!!!!!!!
My first choice, Sen. Biden for Sec. of State. Thanks for nearly single handedly taking Giuliani down--you should definitely have an increased voice in the dem. party
Obama is the only person to provide a decent strategy for our international issues, the only person to provide a decent strategy for our domestic issues and the only option we have this fall that won't be in debt to the corporations and lobbyist. The only choice for November..
Thanks to Joe Biden for being one of the few stumbling blocks in the path of the administration plan to expand the war into Iran.
After removing Admiral Fallon and inserting a second carrier group into the Gulf, Bushco only needs a plausible excuse, or one they can spin anyway, to start the bombs falling.
One must consider that our President is so delusional as believe that attacking Iran will UNITE the American people. The man does in fact live in a bubble.
Mr. Biden, Conyers, and others may have given the Whitehouse pause to consider the consequences.
Let us hope it’s enough.
THE OBAMA DOCTRINE OF APPEASEMENT
What is the greatest threat to the terror masters of Iran and their theocratic state? A US invasion of their country which they could never survive. And what do they want the US to do? They want the threat of invasion completely eliminated by removing our troops from Iraq and the region. In other words, the biggest, badest most menacing stick that the US could bring to the table in negotiations with Iran is the massive presence of US troops in the Middle East and the credible threat of invasion.
Now what is the Obama Doctrine for dealing with Iran? First, Obama has pledged to remove most if not all US troops from Iraq and the region within 16 months of his administration. And what will he get from Iran in return? NOTHING! ABSOLUTELY NOTHING! Obama is going to eliminate the greatest exisitential threat to the mullahs without first receiving a single concession from them on ending their nuclear weapons program and their massive funding of terror groups like Hamas and Hezbollah.
And when US troops are gone from the Middle East and Iran is breathing a sigh of relief what then does Obama plan to do? He's going to hold "direct tough presidential negotiations" with nutcase Ahmadenijad. Negotiations without the biggest, badest most menacing stick.
Retreat now diplomacy latter! Can someone tell me how the Obama Doctrine differs in any respect from appeasement, or just plain stupidity?
How's that Kool-Aid taste?
You might want to evaluate just how big that "stick" really is. Keep in mind that the 140,000 troop "stick" can't maintain security in Iraq. It's possible that the Iranian leadership may view us weak and impotent since we can't get the mission accomplished in Iraq after being there going on 6 years. In fact, there are three countries that have benifited from our occupation of Iraq. Russia, China and Iran. One might think the stupidity is your post.
No, appeasement is selling or "trading" weapons to Iran. It's called Iran Contra, and it was a Reagan/Bush brainchild. So TALKING to Iran is Wrong, but SELLING or TRADING weapons to Iran is OK? Just so you know, this is the same Iran that took our embassy hostage a few years prior.
"During the course of our secret discussions, I authorized the transfer of small amounts of defensive weapons and spare parts for defensive systems to Iran. My purpose was to convince Tehran that our negotiators were acting with my authority, to send a signal that the United States was prepared to replace the animosity between us with a new relationsh
http://www
Great! Let's bankrupt our country proving we can defeat a group of ragtag insurgents in Iraq that never threatened us in the first place. And it is obvious how scared Iran is of us, eh? Yeah, they have been quaking in their boots since we have been in Iran, haven't they?? We don't have the capacity to sustain another invasion, and they know it.
Please, do some realistic analysis of where we are right now as a country and stop with the ridiculous and obviously bogus statements.
Iran gained enormous leverage the moment the US invaded Iraq. No one provided a better buffer to imagined Iranian expansion than Saddam Hussein. That is why, during the Iran/Iraq war, the US (Reagan administration) supported Hussein and provided him with chemical weapons.
Further, the belligerent invasion of Iraq served the interests of the Iranian regime. FIrst, it radicalized the Iraqi population -- indeed, of all Muslims. Second, it prevents the US from taking any sort of positive action against Iranian proxy support of Palestinians and destroys US credibility in the Middle East. Third, it undermines the political power of moderate domestic opposition in Iran. Fourth, it guaranteed the dissipation of US military force in a perpetual occupation. Fifth, it opens the door for Russian and or Chinese (etc.) economic, political and, perhaps, military support of the Iranian theocracy. Sixth, it guarantees the eventual success of asymmetric tactics against traditional military structures upon which the US relies. (Space prevents me from developing each of these themes -- and others -- which mark the monumental stupidity of the original invasion.)
Calling any alternative to the bloody tragedy of the US invasion of Iraq "appeasement" not only distorts the meaning of appeasement, it ignores the actual history of appeasement of Nazi Germany by Western powers. Where is the illegal rearmament of Germany (financed by, Prescott Bush among others), the occupation of the Rhineland, Anschluss in Austria or the Munich Agreement that abandoned Czechoslovakia to the Nazis? Where are the corresponding "uber alles" policies and propaganda churned out by the German propaganda ministry? Where is the corresponding industrial, military and financial resources in Iran that give evidence of military expansionism?
What is the "Obama Doctrine"?
Having seen the suffering, destruction and death the Bush regime has brought the world, how can anyone seriously suggest that more of the same will bring anything other than more of the same?
American troops have replaced Saddam as the only regional buffer to Iran's imperial ambitions-ambitions stated in artical 11 of Iran's constitution and in the "holy writings of the Ayatollah Khomeine. And the brilliant profound wonder boy wants to remove them from the region. Good God!
By the way it was Iran's new revolutionary government that provoked the Iran-Iraq war by calling on Iraq's Shites to rise up and overthrow the heretical secular Baathist regime.
Senator Biden: can you and yours absolutely STOP HR 1955 (Harmon's little cutie to be foisted on the already over shocked American people?)
Everybody: check out HR 1955 which the House recently passed. And make note that Harmon is the one who introduced this legislation.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
