Obama and McCain on the situation in Iraq
Another in the continuing series of why Obama is a better choice than McCain. Given the fighting in Basra and other parts of Iraq, it is worthwhile to contrast the reactions of the two candidates.
Obama, as per usual, uses the grey matter between his ears and comes to the same conclusion as the experts:
Senator Barack Obama of Illinois suggested the news from Basra highlighted his contention that American military involvement could not solve the deep-seated problems facing Iraq.
“I don’t want to suggest I’ve absorbed all of the facts,” about the situation in Basra, Mr. Obama said. But, he continued, what he had heard “appears consistent with my general analysis. The presence of our troops and their excellence has resulted in some reduction in violence. It has not resolved the underlying tensions that exist in Iraq.”
McCain, also as per usual for him, parrots the White House spin, posits two mutually exclusive conclusions, and tosses in a measure of fear-mongering for good measure:
Mr. McCain, of Arizona, said he was encouraged that Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki’s government had sent its troops to reclaim Basra from the Shiite militias. “I think it’s a sign of the strength of his government,” Mr. McCain said Friday at a stop in Las Vegas . . .
. . . Some are saying the fighting strengthens their case for troop withdrawals.
But the McCain campaign is hoping to turn that argument on its head, asserting that the battle in Basra shows just how dangerous the situation on the ground in Iraq is. It says this bolsters Mr. McCain’s argument that a premature withdrawal of American troops would lead to more widespread violence, instability and perhaps even genocide.
“I think that what this demonstrates is that there are very powerful forces that still remain that do not want to see the success of the central government and that would relish the prospect of the American withdrawal so that they could try to fight or shoot their way into power,” said Randy Scheunemann, the McCain campaign’s senior foreign policy adviser. “Would you rather have the Maliki government in control, or the Iranian-backed special groups in control, or Al Qaeda in control?”
So, if you're paying attention, the Bush/McCain crowd is saying that the fighting is a sign of the Iraqi government's strength, while conversely also saying that it is a sign that the Iraqi government is too weak to stand up on its own and needs a continued US military presence, all the while pushing the line that either you support Maliki or the terrorists will win.
I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm tired of that kind of bullshit. It is long past time to have someone in charge who is willing to see the situation for what it is, rather than what their ideological spinmeisters say it should be.
