Printable View
It's not something that can be settled with debate --- We'll just have to see how it plays out. My opinion is that Bush changing his position to open diplomatic channels to Iran and to discuss a "time horizon" for troop withdrawal in Iraq are not motivated by the election and will not work in favor of Republicans, even if these moves were intended that way.
How long have we been in Japan and Germany? Are we still at war there? LMAO....Quote:
Originally Posted by dragonrider
Have a good one!:s4:
You don't have to convince me --- I know what he meant when he made the "100 years" statement. I'm talking about what shit sticks to him on this, not necessarily what is "right." McCain might have been talking about bases, like in Germany and Japan, not an occupation, but it still plays to the idea that McCain wants troops there a long time, when Obama does not, and al-Maliki does not, and now Bush is backing off that idea too. It leaves McCain looking like the only one and plays to the war monger image. And even if he was just talking about bases, like in Germany and Japan, not an occupation, if you have Obama saying he does not want permanent bases, and al-Maliki saying he does not want permanent bases, if Bush make any move toward that kind of committment, then McCain will be left even more out on the fringe.Quote:
Originally Posted by Psycho4Bud
Here's a link to a Time magazine opinion piece that is making basically the same point I was trying to make.
McCain's Foreign Policy Frustration - TIME
McCain is being left behind by events, and it makes him look out of touch and not flexible in the face of changing situations around the world. Bush makes two shifts in policy, sending diplomats to speak with the Iranians and speaking about a "time horizon" in Iraq, but McCain hasn't shifted his policy too.
Foreign policy was supposed to be McCain's strength, but events are not turing his way, and he's not adapting as they change. He looks inflexible.
The article makes another point which is interesting. It says basically Obama and McCain both have points about Iraq, but Obama's are more important than McCains. Obama's points are strategic in nature, while McCain's are tactical.
If McCain loses his foreign policy advantage over Obama, he's got nothing.Quote:
Obama had been right about the war in the first place. It was a disastrous idea, a phenomenal waste of lives and American credibility that diverted focus from our real enemy, al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
And Obama was right about the war now: the progress in Iraq was enabling a quicker withdrawal â?? a plan already hinted at by Bush.
And Obama was right about the future: the Iraqis don't want long-term U.S. bases on their territory, a McCain keystone and the source of his infamous comment about staying in Iraq for 100 years.
McCain's piece of the truth was tactical: he was right about the surge and right about the brilliance of David Petraeus' battle plan, which had helped quiet down Iraq.