New campaign literature for Senator Jim Talent includes a 2-page list of differences between himself and Democrat Claire McCaskill.
The list points out many important and legitimate differences. Talent supported the Medicare prescription drug benefit; McCaskill opposed it. Talent supported the energy bill; McCaskill opposed it. Talent supports a federal amendment to ban gay marriage; McCaskill does not.
Pretty fair so far. All should be debated . . . thoroughly, so voters can distinguish the differences.
But last on the list of the first page blares: "Claire McCaskill Opposes . . . Winning In Iraq."
So I asked Senator Talent, does he really believe Claire McCaskill or anyone opposes winning in Iraq?
The short answer is no, he does not. But he does believe McCaskill's positions amount to ways that would weaken the U.S. effort there.
"She's for an artificial timetable, which would be like Eisenhower saying after D-Day, we're going to beat the Germans, but if we are not in Berlin by Christmas, we're going home," Talent said. "Even if we have a timetable in mind, you don't tell the enemy what it is. She was against terrorist surveillance, in favor of the New York Times releasing classified information."
"What I'm saying is her positions amount to weakening our effort in Iraq, and if adopted, would imperil our success there," Talent elaborated.
But when I went back to the question of if he really believes McCaskill supports losing the war?
"No, I do not believe she supports losing," Talent said.
Monday, August 07, 2006
Talent Flyer: McCaskill Opposes Winning In Iraq
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Hey Dave,
Why dont you ask Claire if Jim really believes in making people homeless or leaving the world in mass choas?
What you pulled here is nothing less than trying to prop up the other candidate.
Is the question legitimate? Shure, but once again you fail to ask the Democratic candidate a hard question which makes them contridict a political point they try to make; while trying to stick it to the Republican candidate.
Sad.
I should add one other comment. "Redeploying" truly is nothing more than cutting and running and leaving the Iraqi army unprepared.
It is the same strategy we took in Somalia which emboldened Bin Laden and caused a string of terrorist attacks in the United States starting in 1993 with the first WTC Bombing and ending with 9/11.
So while Claire might not "support losing," her policy selection and party does.
Stay the course is not a responsible policy because it is not working. Current US policy is nothing more than a permanent presence in Iraq. Furthermore, Iraq continues to descend into chaos and the current US govt, that is the Republicans, don't even want to have a discussion about how to make things better. At what point will the Iraqi Army be prepared? Will the Iraqi gov't ever take full responsibility for the securtiy of their country as long as foreign troops have more control than their own military? Republicans criticize timetables--much less any other suggestion offered by Democrats--but offer no solutions to the current chaos. How does the current open-ended US operation pressure Iraqis or the Iraqi gov't to do anything positive for their own protection? Currently they are too reliant on the US and neighborhoods are setting up their own means to protect themselves: militias. Current US policy is nothing more than a continuation of a descent into chaos?
And since Republicans refuse to even discuss alternatives, the Iraqi situation will continue to worsen and our troops will continue to die; at least until they get a clue that the policy needs to change--which I doubt--or are tossed out of office.
@ecostar: The reality on the ground is vastly different than what you are stating.
"Stay the course" is an over simplification of what is going on in Iraq. It is a catchy phrase that does not acknowledge there is a multipronged effort in Iraq.
Many parts are being successfully engaged. I know many people who are in Iraq and they talk to me about what is going on. The problem lies within the media filter who does not care to accurately report what is going on.
I would offer to you iraqthemodel.blogspot.com as a good place to begin a search for truth.
I am in agreance that there may be an element or two which needs to be engaged in the effort. Much of that element is Iran who is fueling much of the insurgency.
I want to be clear that I do not believe we should invade Iran. To do so would be very bad and ugly.
I do want to note, though, that the Iraqi Army is in the process of being trained up and taking over massive parts of the nation.
It is happening at a phenominal pace. About 70-80% of Iraq is in control by Iraqi security forces. The problem exsists within the Al-Anbar providence.
Finally, as to alternative solutions, I believe it is best that we leave the decisions to the Generals on how to fight the war. Somthing which the antiwar Democratic base does not wish to do. They simple want us to fail in Iraq and pull out.
Everyone with a head on their shoulders wants our men and women home as soon as they. The fundamental difference is that many of us want to finish the job and eleminate the terrorist before they get here.
If you knew your military history you would know that while precious, the 2500 plus men and women who have sacraficed their lives is a very low number for the duration and intensity of the conflict. In fact it is historically low. Given the alternative we are doing an incredible job. You will never hear that in the media, though, because it would mean positive ratings for a Republican president.
Furthermore, if we were to apply the same media and combat standards which we are using today to any war we faced in the past, we would have never won a single battle, let alone a conflict.
It is this mentality which emboldens our enemies and threatens our security as a nation.
If our enemies see us as a weak nation they will continue to hit us again and again, as they did during the Clinton years. We are reaping what we sowed in the ninties with cruise missile diplomacy.
We are at war whether or not either one of us likes it. Al Qeada declared war on us and we did not acknolwedge it until 2001.
It would be fool hardy to throw our arms up and run away providing the terrorist a vital victory in the war on terrorism.
Bob Tomato: Every argument in your post was made by the President in his reelection campaign which ended in Nov. 2004. It is now August 06 . Are the Iraqi units still making great progress? Is the situation on the ground still better then the media reports? Do you really think Al Queda is behind the violence in Iraq between Sunni's and Shites ? Does Sadam still have weapons of mass destruction?
Too many Americans are dead. Too many Iraqis are dead. Too much money wasted that has bolstered the huge Republican deficit and prevnted further investments in education and investment in programs to meet the basic needs of poor, disabled and elderly Missourians.
@one wing:
Are Iraqi units making great progress: Speaking in terms of historicially building and training and army from scratch - yes. Especially considering the readiness of most middle east armed forces. Do some research on who and what most militaries have. Even at a C2 readiness they are more than a match for most defense missions. Most units are at C2 and are getting better.
Also note that in an insurgency both the defense forces and terrorist adapt. In this case, we have Iranian supported shi'ite militias and Al qeada cells who are within the population working against the fledging force.
Again, given the cirmcustances they are doing an incredible job. If you need more of an example just look at how the battle hardened Isreali troops are dealing with Hezzbolla. The truth in how hard this is to operate in today's media circus lies within.
Is the situation on the ground still better then the media reports? Yes, especially in Kurdistan where this is an economic boom and in the south near Kuwait and Basra. The hot bed of contention has always been in Baghdad.
At first it was Sunnis taking out their hostilities on Shi'ites, now it is Shi'ite militias fighting back with death squads. It is the point where during the world cup people on different sides where cheering for teams based on whether or not the country was Sunni or Shi'ites.
Therein lies the problem which needs to be addressed. Between Iran and Al Qeada stroking the fire of extremist it is hard for many average Iraqi citizens to go about their business. Many have migrated to different parts in the country.
The positive side is that there is now a process in which people can air the greivences without shooting each other. The down side is after thirty years of terror, they dont quite know how to use it yet.
I might also add that I am guessing you would be okay with Saddam still in power murdering and raping people. At least that is what your tone is dictating to me.
Historically speaking there are more men lost in battle that the 2500 we have lost so far in Iraq over three to four years. Tell that to any general of any century and they would be praying for that result. The real casualties are Iraqi on Iraqi.
Do you really think Al Queda is behind the violence in Iraq between Sunni's and Shites? Yes, that is a fact. Zarqawi was trying to achieve that Al Zarawhiri wanted it bad. What is worse is that these guys are very media savvy and know how to work people into a frenzy, or in our case, the politicians into a retreat. Case in point was Somalia.
After Somolia Bin Laden was emboldened and declared war on America. Al Qeada hit us four to five times in the ninties. 1)93 WTC 2)Kobar towers 3)Kenya Bombings 4)Bombing of the USS Cole. In each case all we did was fire cruise missiles and reduced a few camps of ruble into ruble.
So what choice do we have now? Social spending or defending our selves? If we choose to ignore the danger to these islamofascist who wish for us to either turn to Islam or die, then we fail to heed the lessons of the past and many more will die.
Does Sadam still have weapons of mass destruction? Still, as in now? No. There is a lot of evidence out there, including a former Iraqi general who says he was in charge of an operation to move the WMD to Syria and burry them in the Bekka valley. Before the war, Isreal told us that is what happened, but we ignored them.
David Kay did report that he found evidence that after the sanctions were to be lifted, he was going to seek increase his biological weapons capacity. Further more, there have been stock piles of WMDs found (in excess of 500 war heads, etc), but the media refuses to report it. Gee I wonder why. My source on that, for what its worth, is a declassified report mentioned by Senator Santorum.
So, in summary, whether any of us like it or not we are at war with Al Qeada and Islamic extremist. The question is, what are we going to do about it.
If we cut and run, like Claire and the democrats wish, it will be shades of Somolia with parts of Iraq already teedering on the brink, becoming another part of Iran and truly breeding more terrorist.
But wait, our forces will be in Okinowa to protect us!
Look, no one in their right mind WANTS a war. I have family in the service and the last thing I want to see is harm to them. We all understand what is at stake here.
One thing I believe the Bush administration has constantly screwed up on is communicating to the American public how important this mission is. Instead, we hear the drumming of failure and defeat from people like McCaskill, Clinton and Murtha.
Redeploy they say! Get out of Iraq! In the mean time evil wins, again.
Bob Tomatoe: It is rather revolting that you can write what you have, and actually believe it.
As ecostar and Takes two wings to fly straight have indicated, everything you have posted is the same old stuff that Bush and his gang of war criminals been repeating for at least the past three years--and they actually have the audacity to express anger when reminded that the number of people who believe them continues to decrease.
The WMD that never existed: If I understand correctly, your information regarding the WMD that never were comes from an unnamed Iraqi general, and the claim made by Rick Santorum and Peter Hoekstra. As an attempted distraction from the facts, you made the usual complaint about the media. None of you warmongers ever acknowledge that these claims about the dreaded WMD have been dismissed and disavowed by the Department of Defense and--during an extremely rare time when he actually told the truth--President Bush. See, as examples, http://www.alternet.org/blogs/themix/37966/ and http://thinkprogress.org/2006/06/21/santorum-wmd/
Bush's illegal, immoral and completely unjustifiable war against Iraq, and how terrible it would be to stop destroying what's left of Iraq: Darth Cheney and the rest of the Empir . . . administration constantly list their attempts to justify why ending the war would be a bad thing. Fortunately, their claims are very easy to shoot down. See, as examples, http://www.alternet.org/blogs/themix/38082 and http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=3430&fpsrc=ealert060502
A most important fact about Bush's war against Iraq, it's importance constantly demonstrated and proven by those who try to slither away from it as they blow a lot of smoke: IRAQ DID NOT ATTACK US. Bush invading Iraq was not a response to 9/11; 9/11 was used as an excuse for invading a country that did not attack us, and was no threat to anyone. In this regard, the Downing Street Memos are quite informative. http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/
"I might also add that I am guessing you would be okay with Saddam still in power murdering and raping people.": Right back at you; you seem to be okay with US troops raping and murdering Iraqis. I'm only surprised that you did not also mention the dreaded shredders.
Post a Comment