Obama: "I would take action as president if al-Qaida is forming a base in Iraq."

[Reaganfan]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080227/ap_on_el_pr/mccain_iraq_4

Republican presidential hopeful John McCain mocked Democrat Barack Obama on Wednesday for saying he would take action as president "if al-Qaida is forming a base in Iraq."

"When you examine that statement, it's pretty remarkable," McCain told a crowd in Tyler, Texas.

"I have some news. Al-Qaida is in Iraq. It's called `al-Qaida in Iraq,'" McCain said, drawing laughter at Obama's expense.

Obama quickly answered back, telling a rally at Ohio State University in Columbus, "I do know that al-Qaida is in Iraq."

HAHAHA Obama. What an empty suit. Jimmy Carter part deux.

[John Dibble]

Given the context was that he was answering a debate question in regards to an Al-Queda surge in Iraq after troops are withdrawn, I'm not quite sure what the hell is ignorant or crazy about it.

[Sam Spade]

Have you actually read Obama's foreign policy positions? They're not exactly hippy.

With the exception of Iraq, they tend to be neo-con (or neo-liberal, as it was described in the 90s).  NTTAWWT, however.

[NDN]

Have you actually read Obama's foreign policy positions? They're not exactly hippy.

With the exception of Iraq, they tend to be neo-con (or neo-liberal, as it was described in the 90s).  NTTAWWT, however.

Pretty much, unfortunately. Better than most of the alternatives though.

[Sam Spade]

Have you actually read Obama's foreign policy positions? They're not exactly hippy.

With the exception of Iraq, they tend to be neo-con (or neo-liberal, as it was described in the 90s).  NTTAWWT, however.

Pretty much, unfortunately. Better than most of the alternatives though.

I would prefer more of a realist foreign policy, but I doubt we're headed in that direction.

[Stranger in a strange land]

Have you actually read Obama's foreign policy positions? They're not exactly hippy.

With the exception of Iraq, they tend to be neo-con (or neo-liberal, as it was described in the 90s).  NTTAWWT, however.

Pretty much, unfortunately. Better than most of the alternatives though.

not really: Obama's against free trade, which neo-cons mostly support, he's pro-Israel but not an extremist on this issue, and he's against attacking Iran. Plus, unlike the current group of neo-cons, he recognizes that sometimes we have to negotiate with leaders we don't like. It's impolitic to say this, but it's the truth: remember that Reagan negotiated with the Soviet Union and Nixon went to China.

[Lief 🗽]

I'm not sure how sitting down with Ahmadinejad, coming out against the Iraq war, and being one of the least supportive of all the candidates of Israel is neo-con at all.

[Michael Z]

Al-Qaeda do not have a base in Iraq, though. They have a base in Pakistan (albeit probably) and Afghanistan (though arguably). The fact that they operate in Iraq does not mean they have a base there.

Unless you want to take all of the guerilla terrorist movements across Iraq (most of which could be objectively regarded as domestic anti-occupation forces) and just sweepingly tar them all with the same brush labelled "al-qaeda"; whichever Presidential candidate does that would illustrate a very narrow understanding of what's going on in Iraq, and are therefore patently not equipped to deal with this issue.

[Boris]

Typical vagueness and anti-intellectualism from both sides.

A "base" in Iraq? Define "base." How many of the enemy are there? What are their capabilities? How reliable is our intel (important question, as the Bush Administration has kindly reminded us)? Can Iraqi Security Forces deal with the threat themselves or do they need support from the U.S.? What kind of support? Financial? Intel? Actual military support? What kind of military support? Some air support? Maybe a few Deltas? Or 17,000 troops? Are we just talking about "action" against Al Qaeda or other insurgent groups?

As for McCain's response, there are people "connected" to Al Qaeda probably operating in dozens of nations, some friendly and some hostile. And their relative "bases" may be stronger in those nations than in Iraq (where they actually have to face strong oppositon). Instead of responding with something substantive or offering a critique of Obama's "policies," he respond with some retarded comment that his retarded audience will eat up.

America owns, doesn't it?

[Democratic Hawk]

Obama's right in saying that there was not an Al-Qaeda problem in Iraq prior to the fall of Saddam, who was, if anything, a secular Ba'athist-cum-pan-Arab nationalist, in the tradition of Assad and Nasser, and no friend of Sunni or Shi'ite radicals, who he suppressed and, rather brutally, at that

As much as I supported the invasion of Iraq, for reasons I won't re-iterate, I concede that

The fact that many Americans believe that Saddam was connected with 9/11 kind surely elicits one from me

Dave