John McCain at the VFW
August 20th, 2008 at 09:44am Mark Noonan
While Obama whines about mythical attacks on his patriotism, John McCain speaks the blunt truth:
Though victory in Iraq is finally in sight, a great deal still depends on the decisions and good judgment of the next president. The hard-won gains of our troops hang in the balance. The lasting advantage of a peaceful and democratic ally in the heart of the Middle East could still be squandered by hasty withdrawal and arbitrary timelines. And this is one of many problems in the shifting positions of my opponent, Senator Obama.
With less than three months to go before the election, a lot of people are still trying to square Senator Obama’s varying positions on the surge in Iraq. First, he opposed the surge and confidently predicted that it would fail. Then he tried to prevent funding for the troops who carried out the surge. Not content to merely predict failure in Iraq, my opponent tried to legislate failure. This was back when supporting America’s efforts in Iraq entailed serious political risk. It was a clarifying moment. It was a moment when political self-interest and the national interest parted ways. For my part, with so much in the balance, it was an easy call. As I said at the time, I would rather lose an election than lose a war.
Thanks to the courage and sacrifice of our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines and to brave Iraqi fighters the surge has succeeded. And yet Senator Obama still cannot quite bring himself to admit his own failure in judgment. Nor has he been willing to heed the guidance of General Petraeus, or to listen to our troops on the ground when they say — as they have said to me on my trips to Iraq: “Let us win, just let us win.” Instead, Senator Obama commits the greater error of insisting that even in hindsight, he would oppose the surge. Even in retrospect, he would choose the path of retreat and failure for America over the path of success and victory. In short, both candidates in this election pledge to end this war and bring our troops home. The great difference is that I intend to win it first.
Once we got into Iraq, the fundamental question for each American to answer was, “do you want to win, or do you want to lose?”. There is no “end” to a war - a war is won or a war is lost. Vietnam didn’t “end” - we lost. The enemy won. Those who relied upon us to keep our word were coldly betrayed and subjected to a horrific fate because the controlling powers in the United States decided to lose the war. John McCain answered the question: he wants to win. Barack Obama answered the question: he wants to lose.
Oh, to be sure, Obama will never say it that way - in fact, he might not even be aware he’s advocating the defeat of the United States, the country he proposes to lead. So disconnected is the left from reality and so ignorant are most leftists of the way the world works, it is very possible that Obama really thinks you can “end” a war, no harm and no foul, and go forward without any consequences of your defeat. He may think, that is, that after he scuttles Iraq that the enemy will take him seriously about Afghanistan and that Iran would be ready to meet us on the square after we cut and ran from Iraq. Its an absurd way to view the world, but Obama just might think like that - and there’s the really frightening thing about the prospect of a President Obama.
As noted earlier regarding Afghanistan, there is still plenty of fight left in the enemy and the curious nature of the War on Terrorism is that no matter how bad off the enemy is, as long as he can preserve any part of his power, he can rebuild. We must keep battling in this war until the enemy - which is really the States who sponsor and shield terrorist groups - become convinced that terrorism is a losing prospect and that America will never quit until every last terrorist is dead or taken. When President Bush said at the start of this war that it was a generational fight, he was dead on - and McCain also understands the long term nature of this war; Obama seems to think that we can fiddle around with a little battle here, a little diplomacy there and leave it to the cops and regular legal procedure and all will be well. The folly of Obama would eventually be writ large in the number of dead as a revived terrorist enemy strikes hard at a United States perceived as weak and divided.
McCain is the man who can lead us through the next four years of war - the man we can rely on to keep fighting, and never lost faith. He’s proven this by word and deed throughout his life, and we’d be worse than fools to choose Obama over McCain this November.
Entry Filed under: Campaign 2008, Democrats, Republicans, War on Terror
23 Comments
1. SEW | August 20th, 2008 at 10:12 am
Did anyone notice that before the Russian invasion of Georgia that 30% of Poland was in favor of US missle defense. After the invasion that rose to 60% instantly. So much for “world view” of America when it gets down to the nitty gritty even the peaceniks come running. Barry and his cultists wants to dismantle the Big Stick. Does anyone think Russia would stop with Georgia if there isn’t a big stick? And that would bring peace? Dream on cultists.
2. '08ama | August 20th, 2008 at 12:22 pm
“Though victory in Iraq is finally in sight….”
what exactly does that look like Senator ?
unless we can guarantee that every single terrorist in the world is either dead or captured and unless we can be assured that democracy across the Middle East will forever prevent any new terrorists from organizing, then this war will not be “won” .
Iraq is a mess, Afghanistan is a bigger mess, the Taliban are in control and Bush is on vcacation.
Pretty much nothing has changed since the war started.
3. Rich | August 20th, 2008 at 1:16 pm
“unless we can guarantee that every single terrorist in the world is either dead or captured and unless we can be assured that democracy across the Middle East will forever prevent any new terrorists from organizing, then this war will not be “won” .
Do you even believe the crap you write here any more? We can’t kill every terrorist, much like police officers cannot catch every criminal. It does not mean the work should not be done
4. jayhay | August 20th, 2008 at 1:27 pm
Rich - I agree with you here. It’s the absolutist mentality, that evil can be “defeated”. You kill all those terrorists (which is of course a joke) and you probably kill a bunch of their kids and wives and other innocents in the crossfire, and you sprout more rage against us, that is of course completely justified. (So much for the sanctity of life…). The thing Patraeus was RIGHT about (since 2003 but Bush wouldn’t listen) is you have to win hearts and minds. Rampant collateral damage ain’t gonna to do it. And another trigger-happy Republican ain’t gonna do it either.
5. Rich | August 20th, 2008 at 3:15 pm
Jayhay- Its a good thing our military is the most disciplined in the world. I don’t see many protests by the left about the rough handed Russian military at the moment. Odd isn’t it? No worldwide protests about Russia invading a Democracy and killing civilians. Very odd.
6. js | August 20th, 2008 at 3:33 pm
funny…to kill every terrorist you would essentially have to kill every orthodox muslim alive(billions)…the only way to treat the symptom is to cure the disease that causes it….until islam is reformed or outlawed…terrorism will continue on its current path….
7. \'08ama | August 20th, 2008 at 4:04 pm
js wrote ….
funny…to kill every terrorist you would essentially have to kill every orthodox muslim alive(billions)…
here in lies THE problem.
People like js are the reason “they hate us”. We have enough racist, biggoted thugs in America like Glenn Beck. Please, we dont need anymore.
rich..
no one is claiming the ‘war on criminals’ is almost over with victory right around the corner.
we know the police will be fighting criminals for another say Hundred years, maybe even 10,000 !
Since we will not kill every terrorist, then why should we continue spending $10billion/month finding some ’suspected terrorists’ hiding in some burnt out building in Iraq ?
for that kind of money, we can build better defenses here at home, improve border security and improce airport security. It only took the 9-11 Saudi terrorists a one-way ticket and a box cutter to create the horrible damage of that day.
8. Rana Quijotesca | August 20th, 2008 at 4:57 pm
After watching both McCain and Obama at the VFW, it’s apparent that Obama received a much better reception than did McCain… It could have been the fact that Obama actually talked about issues instead of just lashing out at his opponent.
Just moving down the points one at a time…
Mark… how exactly do you propose us eliminate the necessity for our troops being in Iraq? Can you propose a way to light a fire under their Politicians without scaling down the military presence? Does it bother you that the Sovereign elected Government of Iraq supports Obama’s plan (namely the 16 month time table)?
If we’ve already won in Iraq (as you have noted in earlier posts), then would leaving Iraq still be “scuttling” it? Would it be cutting and running, leaving after victory was declared?
How does McCain intend to get the “Surge of troops” needed for Afghanistan if he doesn’t want to remove troops from Iraq? If the enemy is really the state sponsors of terrorism, then why are we still allied with Pakistan and Saudi Arabia?
Name one significant political accomplishment during McCain’s tenure in the Senate.
SEW-
Actually, there was plenty of international backlash against Russia… weren’t you paying attention? Do you have any evidence that Obama wants to dismantle our “big stick”? (and cutting military spending isn’t a good indicator of that, considering the bloated bills we pay to our contractors)
Rich-
How do you fight an ideology with guns? Doesn’t it usually work better with leading by example and proving the superiority of more peaceful ideologies?
js-
Do you support religious freedom? It would seem from your post that you only support it if the people seeking freedom are Christian…
Frankly, if you were to ban every religion that breeds violence and vitriol, then I can think of about 3 mainstream religions that would still be around after such a purge: Jainism, Buddhism, and 7th Day Adventism. Funny… the Godless Atheist wants to not ban religions and the pious one wants to ban them… whoduthunkit?
9. js | August 20th, 2008 at 4:58 pm
you are living proof of your parents mistakes \’08ama
because if you really think that islam is a religion of peace as it is today, i will refer you to the commercial about the fried egg….this is your brain….this is your brain on drugs…get it?
and now, for some peaceful stimulation directly from the koran;
What the Koran say;
The familiar term jihad, often translated holy war, literally means struggle. Many Muslims emphasize that jihad is about struggling against evil desires and, if necessary, defending one’s homeland and religious heritage. “Fight for the sake of God those that fight against you, but do not attack them first. God does not love the aggressors. Slay them wherever you find them. Drive them out of the places from which they drove you. Idolatry is more grievous than bloodshed…. Fight against them until idolatry is no more and God’s religion reigns supreme.” (Qur’an 2:190-192) [Note: Qur’anic quotes from N.J.Dawood’s English translation (The Koran, Penguin Books, UK, 1993)]. A favorite verse of moderate Muslims is 2:256 which says: “Let there be no compulsion in religion. True guidance is now distinct from error.” Militant Muslims, however, will point you to numerous Qur’anic texts where Muhammad (as Allah’s spokesman) commands his followers to fight and subdue all who resist Islam. What leads young men to volunteer to die for the privilege of killing others “for the cause of Allah”? Could it have something to do with the fact that Islam offers no certain hope of heaven to any of its adherents, with one exception? Consider these few Qur’anic verses…
“As for those who are slain in the cause of God, He will not allow their works to perish. … He will admit them to the Paradise He has made known to them.” (47:4-6)
“Let those who would exchange the life of this world for the hereafter, fight for the cause of God; whether he dies or triumphs, We shall richly reward him. … The true believers fight for the cause of God, but the infidels fight for the devil. Fight then against the friends of Satan …” (4:74,76)
“The believers who stay at home––apart from those that suffer a grave impediment––are not the equals of those who fight for the cause of God with their goods and their persons. God has given those that fight with their goods and their persons a higher rank than those who stay at home …” (4:95,96)
“Slay the idolaters wherever you find them. … lie in ambush everywhere for them. If they repent and take to prayer and render the alms levy, allow them to go their way …” (9:5)
“Those that make war against God and His apostle and spread disorder in the land shall be put to death or crucified or have their hands and feet cut off on alternate sides, or be banished from the land. They shall be held up to shame in this world and sternly punished in the hereafter: except those that repent before you reduce them …” (5:34,35)
“Make war on them until idolatry shall cease and God’s religion shall reign supreme” (8:39)
“Prophet, rouse the faithful to arms. If there are twenty steadfast men among you, they shall vanquish two hundred; and if there are a hundred, they shall rout a thousand unbelievers, for they are devoid of understanding.” (8:65)
“Fight against such of those to whom the Scriptures were given … and do not embrace the true Faith, until they pay tribute out of hand and are utterly subdued.” (9:29)
The Qur’an contains scores of similar verses.
Most Muslim Scholars see the world divided into two “houses”—the House of Peace (Dar Al-Salaam) and the House of War (Dar Al-Harb). The general idea is that Muslims belong to the House of Peace, while those who have not yet submitted to Islam belong to the House of War until they are “utterly subdued.” However, even this distinction is often blurred since militant Muslims (who take the above verses at face value) also include moderate Muslims in the House of War.
The example of Mohammad, the war lord;
History tells us that, at first, Muhammad did not use force to induce the Jews, Christians and pagans to accept Islam. Later, however, when people and circumstances turned against him and when he began to gather an army to himself, he began telling his followers that the latest “revelations from Allah” were saying things like, “Prophet, make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal rigorously with them. Hell shall be their home.” (9:73) Thus began Muhammad’s career of warring in the name of Allah. Those defeated by Muhammad were offered protection if they would submit to the dictates of Islam. Those that refused to become Muslims had the “choice” either to pay tribute or to be put to death. This is the apparent “peace and tolerance” Muhammad offered to non-Muslims in his treaty with the people of Khaibar and to others. Non-Muslims were the Dhimmis (the people of obligation) and, as such, were to be “utterly subdued” (9:29).
10. js | August 20th, 2008 at 5:06 pm
Rana Quijotesca
Frankly Rana, i dont believe that islam is a true religion…it is a model of a 6th century warlords government…even the koran never existed until something like 100 years after mohammad died…produced by Omar…from a gathering of unsubstantiated rumors and memories….never in islams history do you find anything but theft, death and destruction….most of the islamic so called golden age was the result of stolen education from other societies that it consumed by the sword…like the jews and greeks who were unfortunate to fall under the power of muslims…there are no holy men who have healed lepers…driven out demons from children…or risen the dead back to life…there is no redemption in islam unless you draw the blood of men in the name of allah….which is the sin of cain…violently reflected for 1500 years in islam, under islam, and all around islam…
most of its followers are considered literate if they can recite a verse of the koran in arabic…hence…much ignorance is among them…those who send thier children to learn how to kill jews are not men of God…and if they be not men of righteousness…then they are men of damnation….
you can quote me…
11. Rich | August 20th, 2008 at 6:00 pm
“How do you fight an ideology with guns? Doesn?t it usually work better with leading by example and proving the superiority of more peaceful ideologies?”
Well we used guns to stop Nazism, that turned out ok. Don’t really remember leading by example stopping communism either. Will good examples of leasfership and good will stop Russia from annexing eastern europe? Does good will stop genocide in Darfur?
12. FmrMarine | August 20th, 2008 at 6:17 pm
rich;
>>>“How do you fight an ideology with guns?>>
I agree with you,
but NEUTRON bombs would work wonders for the muslem world!
13. 42 | August 20th, 2008 at 7:32 pm
“Though victory in Iraq is finally in sight”
finally in sight? What happed to “We won a massive victory in a few weeks, and we did so with very limited loss of American and allied lives.” McCain May 22, 2003
“John McCain speaks the blunt truth”
Which time, the speech on Monday or the one 5 years ago?
Noonan, how did you get a lie confused with the blunt truth? Oh, wait, partisan hack blinders along with an absolute hatred of anyone you disagree with will do that.
Shouldn’t you be praying for forgiveness for all of the sins you racked up today and shouldn’t you be performing some charity work right now? How do you have time for the blog?
14. neocon | August 20th, 2008 at 7:43 pm
Rana,
Despite frequent claims of your independence, this thread has revealed you to be a committed leftist.
Hard to believe you parrot the “Maliki supporting Obamas plan” debunked propaganda. A moving 16 month timeline for withdrawal irrespective of defeat or victory IS NOT A PLAN.
The VFW graciously received Obama because he is an impressive and accomplished individual, but a warm reception is hardly an endorsement for Leader of the Free World. You know damn well who all of them will vote for.
If you had been paying attention over the last several years you should have noticed that we do realize that we are fighting an ideological war that will ultimately be won when the radical elements perpetrating this war are defeated, and the hearts and minds of the moderates are won, and that is taking place. As we continue to gain the upper hand, the violence and bloodshed abates, there’s a direct connection there.
Obama is an absolute lightweight politically and that will become blatantly obvious in the weeks ahead. A gallup poll today shows McCain with a 5 point lead. It will be 8-10 by October.
http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN1927197620080820?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&rpc=22&sp=true
And finally, don’t ever confuse religion with God. Knowing, and having a relationship with God, has very little to do with belonging to a religion.
15. Rana Quijotesca | August 20th, 2008 at 8:35 pm
js-
Your objection about the timing of the Koran is the same objection that is raised about the timing of the bible. It took about 60 years after Jesus died for the first book. Between those two events, the only mention of Jesus of any sort were Saul’s letters, which were inspired by a heat-exhaustion-related hallucination on his way to Damascus.
Rich-
The problem with your analogy with Nazism is that Nazism is that Nazism a.) is a governmental system, not a religious ideology and b.) there are still Nazis around, they just don’t have power. The problem with your analogy with Communism is that Communism wasn’t defeated with military might… it spent itself to death because it was an inherently unstable system. The problem with your reference to the current Russia is that that’s not an ideological issue… it’s a Russia being crazy issue… and Russia won’t annex eastern Europe either. The problem with your Darfur reference is that that is a concerted effort by a government, and that can easily be solved with guns… while an assortment of isolated actions by non-aligned individuals is harder to solve… seeing how shooting someone’s parent/friend/spouse tends to make them somewhat disgruntled…
16. Rana Quijotesca | August 20th, 2008 at 8:51 pm
neocon-
I would assume that the VFW would vote for the candidate who has consistently voted for their benefits… Obama has a better record on that than McCain.
In terms of fighting radical Islam, the real way to defeat it is to marginalize the radical elements by creating a very pro-West moderate core in the Muslim world. Unfortunately, the heavy-handed approach of the last administration has alienated a lot of those moderates. If we were to focus our strategy onto clandestine, surgical strikes against higher-ups, rather than overt offensive military action (defensive overt action is still necessary), it might turn more of the moderates to our side… Also, formalizing trade with some of the nations we don’t like too much could help curb extremism as well…
17. neocon | August 20th, 2008 at 9:12 pm
Rana,
The polls just prove you dead wrong in terms of moderates support for Obama. Also, you mentioned “the administration”, um……you’re not running against Bush and your desperate attempt to paint it that way has failed. The voting public realizes that there are some clear differences between McCain and Bush. And please take notice in Iraq, where Iraqis and Americans are living side by side in peace, more and more everyday. The ISF is now lead in nearly every instance and the Iraqi Government is reclaiming their sovereignty. This would not have been possible had Obama pulled us out by March 2008. Sorry.
And why do you think the members of the VFW vote for President based on who will give them better benefits? Isn’t that a little condescending?
18. js | August 20th, 2008 at 11:00 pm
poor rana
the bible was written by eyewitnesses to Jesus teachings…you might be brainwashed enough to think that what you wrote was true…because we only have fragments of parchaments dating to the lifetime of Jesus Disciples…buy you forget that the bible is the most documented book on earth…for all time….unlike the koran…which was never certified as coming from anyone who knew mohammad…the koran and the haddith are well beyond 150-300 years beyond the events they claim to describe…removing them far from any possible eyewitness account of the events…unlike the Bible….
and dont drag your feet the the mud again…these are facts that are indisputed by anyone but radical muslims…the koran didnt exist during mohammads life….period….it was created after he died by his followers imposing islamic sharia over non muslims…raping, pillaging, and killing everything in thier way….
19. Rich | August 20th, 2008 at 11:15 pm
Rana- I wrote about ideology, not religious ideology, although there is most often not a big difference. Nazism is a belief system that was defeated with military might during a thing called WWII. You look like an idiot when you say it is only a government. What government are skin heads (whom you just admitted were still around) in today?
Communism was indeed defeated with military might. There was this thing called the Afghan war in which the military was bled dry (our guns were supplied to the Afghans), which compounded with the star wars program, which later bankrupted the Soviet Union as they tried to keep up. Hence our guns (star wars program) defeated the Soviet Union, not unilateral disarmament and definitely not leading by example.
The current Russian threat is indeed ideological. Putin is bringing back imperial Russia. You boldly claim Russia does not want to annex Eastern Europe, but all we have to go on is an invasion and a broken cease fire, and threats to nuke Poland. You seem to be backing the wrong horse here.
Darfur is easily solved by guns whereas words have accomplished nothing. A few helicopter gunships would take care of camel backed janjaweed cavalry rather quickly, don’t you think? How did words and leading by example solve the Rwandan crisis during the Clinton Presidency?
20. js | August 20th, 2008 at 11:19 pm
Rana said; “In terms of fighting radical Islam, the real way to defeat it is to marginalize the radical elements by creating a very pro-West moderate core in the Muslim world. ”
like the arabs in afghanistan? did that…doesnt work….read the book…they call it the koran…it tells muslims about islam…because you sure have no clue what you are talking about when it comes to these orthodox muslims….look what they do with a few bucks from arabia and a wahabi theology….wake up
21. js | August 20th, 2008 at 11:21 pm
Most Muslim Scholars see the world divided into two “houses”—the House of Peace (Dar Al-Salaam) and the House of War (Dar Al-Harb). The general idea is that Muslims belong to the House of Peace, while those who have not yet submitted to Islam belong to the House of War until they are “utterly subdued.”
modery islamic theology 101….
22. Kahn | August 21st, 2008 at 12:13 am
Well, I’m not a member of the VFW. Though I do have the required campaign ribbon to qualify. It just never appealed to me that much.
I’ve found the VFW to be shrinking away quickly. Not that many Viet Nam vets joined. And there are fewer WW2 and Korea vets left every day. I don’t think the Gulf War and War on Terrorism guys and gals are joining either. Though that is just an impression and I could be wrong.
Russia is saying they will take action beyond diplomacy over the Poland thing. You may remember (probably not if you’re an ignorant leftist), that the last time Poland was invaded it was invaded by both Nazi Germany and Communist Russia at the same time.
But this time…. Poland is in NATO.
So either NATO stands, or NATO falls. What say YOU? I wouldn’t be surprised to see the draft instituted soon. Many here may not think its that serious, what with the Olympics and all. Well, lets HOPE so.
It will be interesting to see how you leftists feel about McCain and Obama after (if) you survive the coming war.
23. Mark Noonan | August 21st, 2008 at 12:37 am
Rana,
Nice try with the talking points - but the whole world knows that the election of Obama means doom for the effort in Iraq. Victory is ours, if we just keep moving forward…any stumble and the enemy will revive, and strike again.