Why McCain's Iraq Attacks Hurt More Than They Help

re: Why McCain's Iraq Attacks May Hurt More Than They Help

tklmeelmo — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 18:37:43 GMT

Great analysis, Mr. Romano! Nice to see that someone in the media recognizes these negative attacks for what they are. I know its a stretch, but it'd sure be nice to have an election where the candidates are simply men who disagree. Voters don't always respond to efforts to demonize the other candidate... Thanks for your thoughtful analysis!

re: Why McCain's Iraq Attacks May Hurt More Than They Help

akaibooshi — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 19:53:44 GMT

Well done Andrew!!!

I suspect McCain and Co. have lost any sense of dignity and fairness and lacking any substantial merits have started descending into a desperate struggle for attention, visibility and survival. But the means employed, the dirty, old, inefficient spin insult the new, awaken American public seeking real change and a liberating break from the past. It strongly suggests just how petty, devisive, directionless and deeply inefficient a McCain administration could be.

re: Why McCain's Iraq Attacks Hurt More Than They Help

henryfelicio — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 20:08:00 GMT

Andrew you must be a democract.. you stink...

re: Why McCain's Iraq Attacks Hurt More Than They Help

RENEA — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 20:11:10 GMT

Mccain states that Obama stance on Iraq is poll tested unlike Mccain pushing the surge line and offshore drilling that tested well. Obama spoke out against the War when 67% of this country was for the War.

re: Why McCain's Iraq Attacks Hurt More Than They Help

stellawj — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 20:22:11 GMT

Your analysis is right on. Unfortunately these types of attacks seem to work as eveidenced by the last 2 presidential elections and the closeness of the current polls. After the last eight years of the worst presidential edministration in modern times, I was hoping that Americans would have been ready for a real change in leadership, but I have my doubts. I used to hold John McCain in high regard, but the way he has performed in the general election is pathetic. Not only is he resorting to following the Carl Rove playbook, but his lack of knowledge, mental mishaps, and schrill behavior has led me to question he overall level of competance. Please, not another 8 years ineptitude from our President

re: Why McCain's Iraq Attacks Hurt More Than They Help

mlbuie — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 20:25:20 GMT

Andrew! Most excellent article! It brings out points many of us with common sense are thinking, but the press doesn't seem to care to articulate ...

re: Why McCain's Iraq Attacks Hurt More Than They Help

GoreFan — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 20:25:28 GMT

Before the Iraq invasion, Senator McCain said that the war would be over quickly with very little American causalties. He justifies those statements by saying mistakes were made after the invasion. But what kind of commander-in-chief would make such irreponsible comments before sending troops into war. With his vast military experience, he must have known that a wars outcome can never be predicted and that Iraq supposedly had the capacity to inflict massive losses on American troops (remember MWDs). The comments by themselves show an incredible lack of judgement.

re: Why McCain's Iraq Attacks Hurt More Than They Help

rbf1 — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 20:31:28 GMT

What McCain needs to do is focus on Obama's pre-surge position that the Iraq war was unwinnable and that an increase in troop levels would actually increase violence. Obama's position has turned out to be wrong and McCain's correct. Its obvious today that a substantial withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq in the near to medium term is possible (or at least likely). That is a benefit (and one of the princple goals) of increasing security in Iraq and developing a viable Iraqi security force. Instead of focusing on future American troop levels in Iraq, McCain needs to characterize Obama's pre-surge position as a willingness to leave Iraq before the job was finished. If McCain can establish that image of Obama in voters' minds, he can use it to effectively question whether Obama is someone they can trust to serve as commander in chief, an area where Obama is already weak.

re: Why McCain's Iraq Attacks Hurt More Than They Help

lilyrp — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 20:35:51 GMT

Obama is all about image and the genius of his campaign is that he never looks like he is actually manipulating his image to most people even thought that’s his main focus. The thing about the Hospital visit that McCain was trying to point out (and he did it so inelegantly you obviously missed the point) is that it’s correct that Obama should have not visited the hospital to just make it a photo-op, and Obama was right to not to visit it to make it a photo-op, but nobody was stopping him from visiting WITHOUT THE CAMERS just to see how the soldiers are doing (that would have automatically made it NOT a photo-op, right?). But instead he went to the gym.

I’m not saying McCain is better, but I keep on being disappointed with Obama. Too bad these are now our only choices.

re: Why McCain's Iraq Attacks Hurt More Than They Help

MoreCommonSense — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 20:39:42 GMT

Lately, all McCain does is talk about why Obama is not right for the country. He rarely says anything about why he is the better candidate, except that he is not Obama. Anyone who spends that much time talking about the other guy instead of himself must have a terrible inferioity complex.

re: Why McCain's Iraq Attacks Hurt More Than They Help

chuckhasker@yahoo.com — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 20:40:58 GMT

After a few days off away from the world of the daily jumbled news reports it was nice to hear Andrews voice once again. that said, McCain was my hero and probably still is. It seems he has a bunch of old people running his campaign and it seems they have a one track mind and that one track is attack the other guy. Compared to Obama who has an energetic staff and they seem to be on top of things and they seem to be moving Obama forward even though Obama has no track record of working with the other side in Washington and who is only a junior senator who has been running for president since he was sworn in as a US Senator. That said, if McCain doesn't Change, he will back in the Senate throwing temper tandrums over President Obamas proposals. Chuck Hasker

re: Why McCain's Iraq Attacks Hurt More Than They Help

Sane in Utah — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 20:42:40 GMT

This is a judgment question. We SHOULD have NEVER gone into Iraq into the first place -- John McCain and the chickenhawks of the Bush Administration have given us this disaster in economic and human terms. McCain's judgment is WRONG. We were not attacked by operatives from Iraq - they were based in Afghanistan under the protection of the Taliban. We were CORRECT in going into Afghanistan but disastrously wrong in then almost abandoning Afghanistan (and the mission of getting Osama and al Qaeda) and turning to Iraq.

The time for neoconservatism is over and dead and buried. McCain needs to retire to his rocking chair and think of ways to spend his wife's $100+ million in the bank and leave the rest of us to trying to straighten out this mess the GOP has made.

re: Why McCain's Iraq Attacks Hurt More Than They Help

MoreCommonSense — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 20:46:09 GMT

Obama's visit to the injured troops would have been criticized by the pro-McCain crowd even if he had gone without his campaign staff and without cameras. That's because they army would have provided their own photographers as they did in the helicopter flight with General Petraus and at the base in Kuwait. Obama was criticised for those photographs even though they weren't taken by his staff. Just shows the hypocrasy on the right.

re: Why McCain's Iraq Attacks Hurt More Than They Help

Law35 — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 20:53:34 GMT

When they have nothing else to criticize, they have to attack Sen Obama personally. He's hasn't flip-flopped like McCain has. Anyone who dares watch McCain at any given time would know that he would be worse than Bush. He doesn't even give the impression that he cares about ALL of America....not just the super rich like himself and his buds. His answer to the economy is quit whining and get a second job, forget women's rights, and let's not forget gays and minorities. Oh yeah, he already has. We shouldn't have been in Iraq and that's what Sen Obama has said from the beginning. I shudder to think that America would fall for another 4 years of Bush tactics. I didn't think it could get any worse, but if McCain is elected, God Help Us ALL!!

re: Why McCain's Iraq Attacks Hurt More Than They Help

Up88front — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 20:58:58 GMT

What I notice is this. Obama is talking about where he's going, what he wants to do and what the future might hold. McCain is mostly talking about Obama, and that is going to hurt him in the long run.

re: Why McCain's Iraq Attacks Hurt More Than They Help

allanobamacan — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 21:00:44 GMT

Excellent analysis. I am a "thinking" Republican. Eight years ago, I gave a significant amount of money to McCain's primary campaign against Bush. In another life a long time ago, I also served on active duty as an Air Force JAG. This time around, I have been supporting and donating money to Barack Obama's campaign. If I had not made this decision before, I would have made it now with McCain's completely dishonerable and factually inaccurate comments about Obama not visiting wounded troops in a hospital in Germany. McCain is using the military and wounded combat veterans for political purposes. Graduating 5th from the bottom of your class at the Naval Academy and having been a Navy Captain on the prowl for available women is not a compelling resume for someone running for President.

re: Why McCain's Iraq Attacks Hurt More Than They Help

ndrock — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 21:02:45 GMT

Hurting his campaign? Didn't Newsweek just lavish praise on Obama for going and setting a dead line? Why yes they did!! WOW, What a surprise that Newsweek is taking everything that McCain says and turn it into something negative.

Anyone who knows anything about warfare knows the minute you set a deadline the insurgents go under ground and start to rebuild, and will just sit tight until the deadline has passed and the opposition is gone. THEY WILL STRIKE AND IT WILL BE DEADLY.

We are the enemy to hundred of thousand of Iraqis, despite what Newsweek's, "Golden God Obama" would have the public believe. WE will have sacrificed our people for nothing as soon as we pull out. McCain knows this, and so does the military.

re: Why McCain's Iraq Attacks Hurt More Than They Help

topcat2001 — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 21:17:18 GMT

Nice article but the truth is that in America these kind of attacks work better than a real discussion on politics which is why McCain is doing it. If Americans stood up and said we wont take this kind of behavior then it wont happen but it has successfully worked in the last two elections.

I am pretty sure by Nov 4 Americans will find a solid reason not to vote for Obama such has "My God he eats FRENCH fries" or he is not wearing a "Red Blue and White" tie or some thinly disguised one such as "McCain is better experienced in foreign policy" so he can more easily make us feel better about a war which we dont know why we got into.

I am not making this up or exaggerating. Just check out the stats from the polls and interviews.

Kathie Steigerwald, a Dearborn, Michigan businesswoman who said she voted for Hillary Clinton but now plans to support McCain, offered an especially succinct recital of a narrative on which other interviewees offered numerous variations:

"I feel John McCain is a true American and I want to support a true American," she said.

But isn't Obama a "true American?" she was asked.

"I don't know," she said after a measured pause. "I question it."

Why?

"I don't know—maybe because of his name?"

More honest answer: Obama will never be white enough for this country so we will find some excuse or the other come Nov 4th. Like the Men's Wearhouse guy, "I guarantee it".

re: Why McCain's Iraq Attacks Hurt More Than They Help

Durell — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 21:28:23 GMT

Senator McCain needs to run for President and not against Obama. dhj

re: Why McCain's Iraq Attacks Hurt More Than They Help

jpbatty — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 21:40:23 GMT

Excellent column, except crediting the surge with the decreasing violence makes little sense. To argue otherwise, no doubt, is a political loser, as it takes a little analysis. With the surge of 30,000 troops or so, probably less than 10 percent of the extra troops actually did patrol; the remainder were likely in troop support. Would a few extra 1000 patroling troops make such a difference in violence in a country the size of CA. I doubt it. The Sunni awakening/cease fir, which started a month or more before the surge, I believe, was the major factor in decreasing violence.-----as to the dangers of a deadline, arguments that the insurgents will simply re-group when we are gone doesn't make much sense. Does one really expect that if we were to reduce troop strength by 10,000 per month or so, and the violence doesn't go up, and we keep doing that to the end, that all at once violence will explode. Groups are rarely that constrained. We can judge how the withdrawal is working, while it's happening over 16 months, as Obama suggests.

re: Why McCain's Iraq Attacks Hurt More Than They Help

ChicoCDM — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 22:00:00 GMT

I think it is great that McCain did this. Obviously the press has not done its job of vetting Obama and we STILL KNOW NOTHING about him. If it wasn't for Fox news we never would have found out about his 20 years in a RACIST, ANTI-AMERICAN, ANTI-WHITE church. His character and judgement is SO WEAK that he would have STILL been a member of that church had it not been for the press. He would have had no other reason to leave. He did spend 20 YEARS THERE! KUDOS to the American process and I'm sure there's more to come over the next few months. I almost got on the Obama train. GLAD TO SEE HE WEARS HIS FLAG PIN NOW!

re: Why McCain's Iraq Attacks Hurt More Than They Help

tonyc10 — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 22:49:38 GMT

What people forget or haven't been told yet about the surge working will astound you. We (USA) are paying both sides not to shoot at us. Yes that is right--we are paying both sides in Iraq not to shoot, kill, maim or harm the U.S. personnel there. So now you know the fact that Bush and his Bush 3 --John Mcsame don't want you to know. Shame on the media, what are you guys afraid of Fox and their distort now decide later blathering of you???? Grow up, hold the leaders to task, what is the problem??? Report the news not what you think we want to know.

re: Why McCain's Iraq Attacks Hurt More Than They Help

danielledaniel — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 22:55:55 GMT

This election is 'unlike no other', is an often stated opinion this year. While there are obvious things that are new and different this year, I would say that there is a somewhat familiar model for this general election cycle from our recent history. I submit the election year 2008 will be compared to 1980. With great apology, Mr. and Mrs. Republican Voter, but I do not believe you will awaken happily the November morning following the general election. The comparisons are a nagging national narrative Iraq/Iranian hostages of U.S. Embassy personnel in Teheran. A deep rooted sentiment of disappointment and frustration with the direction of this country. A sputtering economy, and a feeling that those in Washington, nor the well healed pundits, really 'get it'. An unpopular incumbent (like it or not, McCain is seen as the incumbent), coupled with a well spoken and charismatic opponent. Like 1980, there is some unease with the challenger - would this man make a good Commander in Chief? Is he up to the job? If this model holds, we will have differing polls up until the final weekend, when a subtle shift will tilt the tide to the challengers favor. This year's challenger appears up to the task at hand, given his strength as a campaigning champion,and so a sea change may indeed occur. One probable campaign post mortem may reflect the sentiment of

then Vice President Dan Quayle the morning following the 1992 election, 'Well, if he runs the country half as well as his campaign, then we'll all be in good shape...'

re: Why McCain's Iraq Attacks Hurt More Than They Help

sparky716 — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 23:16:28 GMT

McBush has got to be the bigest flip floper in my life time (62 year old US Navy Vet.)...he can lie almost as good as bush...he's went from 100 years in Iraq to (Obama's) 16 month TIME TABLE...At 72 years old he has a lot of SENIOR MOMENTS...most of the time i don't think he knows what he believes...he was aganist bushes tax cuts before he was for bushes tax cuts...he was aganist Obama's 16 month time table till bush was for a TIME HORIZON now he's for a time table... time horizonor what ever he deciceds to call it.......I think he calls his TIME TABLE a TIME FRAME.....this OLD man is scary he has no idea what he believes till he checks the lates polls...his character and judgement from some of his right wing religious nuts really are scary...he takes there endoresments and then deciceds he dont need them when the press shows what nuts they are...all he can say was HEY I was shot down over Vietnam (a failed mission by the way) so that would make me a good president....if being a flip floper would make you a good president he would be the best....its time for him to check into the old folks home and make way for a young man with HOPE and CHANGE on his mind.... America and the World needs some new ideas...I'm not sure but I think he's still aganist talking to Iran unless he's read bush is doing just that (like Obama said a year ago)...stick a fork in the old man he's done

re: Why McCain's Iraq Attacks Hurt More Than They Help

Think_About_It — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 23:27:36 GMT

1) I agree with some of the comments here that McCain is spending his time bashing Obama rather than talking about what McCain can do to move our country forward - a tactic that is sure to fail because I don't believe he can make a serious run for the presidency by just saying the other guy sucks.

2) I also agree with jpbatty that too much credit is given to the surge. The surge probably did help somewhat but ultimately, there were other major factors in Iraq that happened coincidentally that probably had a larger impact than the surge itself (i.e. the "Sunni awakening").

3) This is a HUGE position change for McCain. His strong resistance to any form of a timetable for withdrawal has turned into an agreement with both the prime minister of Iraq and Obama. Anyone who doesn't think this is HUGE, ask yourself this question: What if Obama had come out and said suddenly something like "I think we might be in Iraq for 100 years" (as McCain had stated not too long ago). Can you imagine the outcry, the cries of hypocrisy, the accusations of flip-flopping? We'd never hear the end of it.

re: Why McCain's Iraq Attacks Hurt More Than They Help

sparky716 — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 23:31:06 GMT

henryfelicio you must be a republician...you suck and stink

re: Why McCain's Iraq Attacks Hurt More Than They Help

PacificGatePost — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 04:20:27 GMT

ARE REPUBLICANS REALLY DETERMINED TO WIN THIS ELECTION?

http://pacificgatepost.blogspot.com/2008/07/john-mccains-peculiar-path-along.html

… perhaps not.

re: Why McCain's Iraq Attacks Hurt More Than They Help

wnzin — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 04:39:32 GMT

Disagreeing with Obama on an issue is not the same as bashing Obama, discussion on the different views is important.

After watching the video I can only say the article is very misleading on what McCain actually said. Many of the posters apparently trusted the article (on the internet! in a blog!) rather then taking a moment to watch the video.

McCain said "based on conditions on the ground", which is what the Iraq minister said in actuality too as I recall. Isn't Obama even saying the conditions have to be considered as well.

One article I read said Obama campaigners are saying as many as 50,000 troops may be left. I thought it was supposed to be a complete pull out.

re: Why McCain's Iraq Attacks Hurt More Than They Help

wnzin — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 04:58:04 GMT

Obama didn't have to take the General. Obama made a choice apparently, that the General going along to meet the troops was more important then Obama meeting the troops.

A search on Obama attacks McCain brings up plenty of articles to show that both candidates attack the position of the other side on the issues.

re: Why McCain's Iraq Attacks Hurt More Than They Help

seriously40s — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 05:00:26 GMT

1. the awakening and the surge (escalation; troops are at a higher level now than before the so called surge, bush insisted it be called a surge) was not simutaneous. the awakening occured months if not almost a year before General P. even said himself in an interview that it was not just the "surge" but went on to name other things that greatly contributed.

analysis: The only way troops would work is if they stayed a "hundred "years like mcbush suggested. You see the Iraqi people got tired themselves and fought back in different forms. If the people didn't want it, then there would have been another escalation and then another, well you get the idea. More troop can only be the answer if you were planning to stay in Iraq. Also, mcbush only cares about the troops in the sense of them fighting a war for him that makes no sense.

2. I have been a republican. I will not vote republican this year. Though the press generally does not call out mcbush's repeated lies, I have taken note. I think that he is not in a position to attack someone's character after what he did to his first wife. Carol McCain. He must be kidding. mccain is a spoiled brat in a line of military men that has learned to play people. I don't think he cares about his lies, its obvious. He told CNN's Wolf Blitzer (spelling?) that he though a time table was good and 16 months sounded good to him and then when asked why he stole Obama's point, he said that "I didn't say it" Boy he feels he really has the press in his pocket. He is desrespecting them just like he did his wife Carol. NO ONE IN THE PRESS EXCEPT FOR NBC'S KEITH OBERMAN IS CALLING HIM OUT ON IT.

3. This race is about race. If Obama were not an African-American mccain would be so far down in the polling he wouldn't be able to see daylight. But he is African-American and the country is generally polarized by RACE. It comes down to this. The polls are only close because of race and this is truly telling you were this country is on the issue. Yes the pink elephant is in the room. I know, the polling says that we don't believe that it is a problem, but when you have mcbush voting on behalf of big oil, voting along with bush, and pretending to identify with the average person as he lies and with a smile to the public, and you know that he doesn't care about you but he looks like you, well, If mcbush is president then I guess the American people havent suffered enough.Seriously, come on.

re: Why McCain's Iraq Attacks Hurt More Than They Help

seriously40s — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 05:08:48 GMT

They can't do a complet pull out. They have waged war on a country that did nothing to the U.S. Overthrown its government and distablized the country. Some will have to stay to support Iraq while they get back together. Oh, yeah, and protect the oil, after all isint that one of the reasons for the occupation. Seriously. Just saying.

re: Why McCain's Iraq Attacks Hurt More Than They Help

seriously40s — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 05:13:50 GMT

I am ashamed of mcbush. Think about it. If he is lying like this in his adds, what will he do with real power? He has accused Obama of treason! This is serious. Havent you been lied to enough. Think about it, he attacks and distracts, what is he hiding? What can he doe, specifically and not generally. He is telling all who he is. Listen to him. Seriously.

re: Why McCain's Iraq Attacks Hurt More Than They Help

Navguns — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 08:55:17 GMT

Whether or not the invasion should have happened is irrelevant. US forces are engaged in a mature counterinsurgency campaign against a very elusive network of foreign fighters and home grown anarchists; called "nationalists". The se nationalist are as just as inclined conduct murder and intimidation against the government of Iraq (GoI) as al Qaida in Iraq (AQI).

I'm in al Anbar, on my third tour in Iraq and I might be missing something; but angry, hateful or ignorant comments do nothing to advance the issue at hand.

Obama rose to rock star status on two tenets; oppsosing the war in Iraq and Hope.

As a member of the congress his position did not carry the vote. His opposition appears to have clouded his ablity to deal w/ facts. The surge worked. I Anbar, we deal w/ the Sahawa (awakening movement) daily. Bottom line, the Sunni tribes had their world rocked by a more powerful tribe and decided to acquiesce, join our efforts and combat the thugs that were terrorizing their way of life. The enemy of my enemy, is my friend.

War lacks glamour. War makes most Americans uneasy. However, America is at war. Those who would be Commander in Chief should be willing to deal w/ inextricable facts.

For Obama to proclaim that the war in Afghanistan should be the focus of effort is suspect at best. How long have US forces been in Afghanistan? Is Afghanistan more acceptable to Obama's anti war base? Will less Americans die in Afghanistan? What happens if withdrawing from Iraq creates a meltdown of their fledgling democratically elected government? What does that do for stability in the middle east?

The Obama campaign creates more questions than answers.

Obama's second and most important tenent is HOPE.

War, like other facets of American life, has a better chance of success when plan in place. In war, hope may be nice to have but lacks substance and therefore is not a real course of action.

re: Why McCain's Iraq Attacks Hurt More Than They Help

Think_About_It — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 15:27:07 GMT

Navguns, I wish to sincerely thank you for your service. I can only imagine what it must be like to be in those conditions. My cousin served 2 tours in Iraq and I know from him (in addition to the media which often misses the more intimate day-to-day details of the situation for the individuals involved) that conditions have been tough.

I also agree that angry, hateful and ignorant comments do nothing to advance the issue at hand. I hope that my comments do not come across as angry or hateful and certainly not ignorant because I think an open, honest, respectful debate of the very critical issues we face as a country and as a planet is crucial and has tremendous value.

However, I respectfully disagree with some of your comments. I think the reasons for being in war in the first place matter very much.

The reason we invaded Afghanistan is because they invaded us on 9/11. That's self-defense (against future attacks) and justice rolled into one.

The primary reasons that we invaded Iraq were all false (I believe they were intentional lies - but intentional or not, the reasons proved to be wrong). The judgment of the people that led the charge was and is very flawed. I have no reason to trust their assessment of the situation now any more than I trusted their assessment before we went to war, especially based on their incredible mismanagement of the war after the invasion.

I'd also like to point out that I find much more fault with those who led the charge for invasion (Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, etc.) than I do with those who supported it (i.e. congressmen and women on both sides of the aisle). Those who supported it didn't have access to all the same resources and had their leaders, who were presumed to have the country's best interest at heart, telling them that this was a huge problem and we needed to act now. I think many of those who supported the war thought there was smoke but basically gave the benefit of the doubt to those leading the charge that there was actually fire.

Having said all of that, I agree that we cannot simply walk away when our presence is desirable to help conditions there. To a certain degree, we broke it so we own it. But at this point, even the Iraqi government is saying they're ready for us to go soon. I think it does make sense to leave behind a certain contingency to help with tasks like training and to perform targeted assaults on al Qaida in Iraq as necessary. If things change between now and then, obviously things should be re-assessed. I also think that the manner and speed in which a withdrawal happens at the detailed level should be decided by the military commanders on the ground.

As for the tenet of hope, I agree that hope with no plan of action is meaningless.

But, I'd like to point out that plans with no hope are, after all, hope-less.

Hope is an incredibly powerful force and should never be underestimated. It was that hope for a better way of life that led our ancestors to the shores of what became the US and it was hope that led to the succession from Britain and ultimately it was that hope that led to the plans of action that won our freedom.

Without hope, what's the point?

re: Why McCain's Iraq Attacks Hurt More Than They Help

whiterock — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 22:20:51 GMT

HOPE?!! Hope is not going to clean up the mess that the Bush Administration has made of this country on every level. We aren't looking for a preacher, we're looking for a president, folks. When I want hope, I go to my spiritual leaders. When I want something done, I go to my political leaders. We need someone in the White House that has more life/political experiences along with a list of accomplishments. Obama has neither. It's a moot point to bring up how wrong the war in Iraq is now. I actively protested the war before we went there and wrote to my political leaders to stop Bush from going to war in Iraq but once we send our troops in there, it became a different ball game. Our obligation is not to belly-ache about why we shouldn't have gone to war, our obligation is to intelligently create stability in Iraq and the Middle East. Our obligation is to protect the men and women that are over there risking their lives and make it worth their while that they sacrificed so much to do so. I hate the war...yes, it was a "dumb" war as Obama so eloquently (lol) put it but we're there and we need to make sure we don't screw it up any more than we already have. Where was Obama when we needed a political voice to stand up in protest against the war when it wasn't popular to be against the war? It's easy to be in protest of it now when it's popular to be against the Iraq War. I want people like Navguns to feel that their service was not in vain and for the people of that region to feel like life has improved for them. Wrong war for the wrong reason? We already know that! Let's move on and fix our mistakes and turn this into a positive situation for everyone involved. Even though I'm a Democrat, I don't think Obama can do that, especially when he's still so stuck on it being a dumb war and so stuck on the fact that the surge didn't work.