McCain: We’ve Always Been At War With Iraq!

( – promoted by Colorado Pols)

During the same interview that McCain had inaccurately claimed that the surge led to the Anbar Awakening, he then went on to claim that the first major conflict after 9/11 was Iraq…

And this guy really wants Americans to believe he’s a foreign policy expert? McCain should apologize to our troops who are serving in Afghanistan, who have served in Afghanistan and to the families of those who have lost loved ones in Afghanistan. He especially owes the family of Pat Tillman an apology since McCain eulogized Tillman. How easily one forgets someone so close to them…

21 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

    • Go Blue says:

      but he’s sure shoveling it on with every mistatement, after gaffe, after lie about Iraq.

      He’s showing he either has no clue what he’s talking about, or he’s simply a liar.  

      • Laughing Boy says:

        You’re on someone’s payroll to propagate this baloney on every blog that you can.

        I have a question for you, GB.  

        What’s Obama mean with this?

        We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.

        Personal insult and non answer coming in 3…2…1…

        • Go Blue says:

          is expanding civil service groups such as the Peace Corps since Obama believes its our American values that will win over world support which will in turn help us achieve our national security objectives. Here’s an entire run down.

          What’s this have to do with anything on this thread? Nothing.

          • Laughing Boy says:

            Thank you for responding, by the way.

            He’s specifically not talking about the Peace Corps. He’s talking about a “security force”.

            We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.

            It sounds like some kind of a militia to me.  Does he really want it to be “just as well funded” as the military?

            • RedGreen says:

              like he’s talking about dock inspectors and so on, which would demonstrably make America safer, vs. dumping a trillion dollars, thousands of American lives and untold worldwide goodwill into a military invasion and occupation of a country that had nothing to do with threats to our national security. Sounds like a good aspiration to me.

              • parsingreality says:

                …that he also means a National Guard/Militia in the old format of keeping the folks around on our soil.  Putting the NG overseas is a huge blunder, practically and philosophically.  

                • Laughing Boy says:

         the tune of the defense budget to make some new militia?

                  Do you think that if McCain had said this that it’d be a fiasco?

                  • Sir Robin says:

                    Where do you come up with this shit?

                    • Laughing Boy says:

                      Tell me what Obama means when he says this:

                      We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.

                      I assume he’s talking about some sort of armed force, that would be “as well funded” as the military.

                      Hey, they’re his words.

                    • Go Blue says:

                      Now take down the smoke and mirrors and answer me this.

                      Why can’t McCain be honest with the American people when it comes to Iraq? Why must he continue to fudge his answers, make up history and blatantly lie about the facts on the ground? Is he really this desperate?

                      WcCain has been flip flopping around when it comes to foreign policy and you can’t respond to because you know he’s wrong.

                    • Laughing Boy says:

                      Let’s just spot each other’s candidates the misstatements.

                    • Go Blue says:

                      he’s expanding the definition of the surge to include a revisionist history. If that’s not lying about what actually happened, then you’re not being honest either.

                    • Laughing Boy says:

                      Was it enabled by the surge?  It started in the fall, but did it make any headway before the surge started?

                      This is your “big lie”? Sheesh.  

                    • The world isn’t completely dependent on us for its accomplishments.

                    • 1) McCain Lied about the timing of the Anbar Awakening.

                      2) McCain Lied about the number of troops still remaining in Iraq before/after the surge.

                      3) McCain Lied about Iraq being the first major conflict after 9/11.

                      That’s the three most recent lies.  They are complete falsehoods, each and every one.

                    • RedGreen says:

                      Each of McCain’s lies bolsters his position and counters the arguments of opponents. Doesn’t that bother McCain supporters that he’s constructing his policy on foundations contrary to the facts?

                  • ClubTwitty says:

                    balancing the budget, cutting taxes for the rich, and immediately lowering gas prices for all Americans through methods that two months ago he admitted wouldn’t have any immediate effect?  That’s McSame’s ‘plan.’

                    Seriously, as the campaign drags on, McCain will soon be taking credit for winning the Civil War (in the U.S.) since he’s taken (or had his surrogates) take credit for the surge, for ‘standing up to President Bush,’ for being horrified by the reaction to Katrina (as he ate cake with Bush), for talking tough on Iraq (before the pre-pre-surge surge) while he was really not…

    • BlueCat says:

      seen as a “molehill”.  The fact that he so consistently gets mixed up on all the distinctions; Shia/Sunni, Insurgents/el Qaeda, who is and isn’t an ally of Iran (some Iraqi Shia- yes, Sunni el Qaeda- no), the genesis of the Sunni Awakening, and on and on is VERY significant.  

      What it says is that these distinctions aren’t important to him any more than the wishes of the  Iraqi government are important to him, the government of an allegedly sovereign state. It’s hard to remember what doesn’t interest you in the least.

      Just as with Bush, in McCain’s mind it’s all lumped together.  It’s just us vs a bunch of foreigners.  He has demonstrated no desire to learn about them, try to understand their points of view or varying motivations and interests.  For him it’s simply not worth the bother to even try to keep any of these things straight. Who cares what any of these foreigners think, friend or foe?

      It’s why he never understood Vietnam and has never understood Iraq and it’s no different from the way Bush views the world. The only way we get a fresh start with the rest of the world and, most importantly, our valuable allies is by rejecting the Bush/McCain world view and view of America’s role as a giant hammer and little else.  

      Obama isn’t going to make everybody love us and there’s no reason why he should.  But he CAN win us back a measure of the stature we once enjoyed at a time when it is as or more important than ever to have friends and allies in a dangerous world.  

      He can do it, not because he’s a messiah, but because he thinks it’s important and will try.  McCain won’t try because, like Bush,  he honestly doesn’t see  the point.  His is exactly the the same attitude; do whatever we tell you to or screw you, don’t confuse me with facts, “us” against everybody else, including our oldest allies, as the inferior and insignificant “them”.  

Leave a Reply

Comment from your Facebook account

You may comment with your Colorado Pols account above (click here to register), or via Facebook below.