Home > Politics > Political Punch
Political Punch
Power, pop, and probings from ABC News Senior White House Correspondent Jake Tapper

« Previous | Main | Next »

George Bush Foreign Policy 101 vs. National Security 101

March 19, 2008 7:52 PM

Clearly, some Democrats are hoping to make hay out of McCain's gaffe (see "Err Jordan" below).

And clearly, Republicans are hoping to paint Obama as quite naïve on foreign policy.

So, here then, a possible preview of the general election.

Today Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., alter-ego Mark Salter said:

"Sen. Obama (D-Ill.) says that ending the war will not be easy, that 'there will be dangers involved.' Yet, in that patented way of his, he declines to name those dangers.

"Let me enumerate a few: Al Qaeda, which is now on the run, will survive, claim victory and continue to provoke sectarian tensions that, while they have been subdued by the 'tactics' of the surge, still exist and are ripe for provocation by al Qaeda, which would almost certainly ignite, again, civil war in Iraq, a civil war that could easily descend into genocide. To say that invading Iraq was used as a recruiting tool for al Qaeda is one thing. To pretend that our defeat there won't provide an even bigger one is foolish supposition.

"Iran, which trains Shia extremists and is known to arm and equip Sunni extremists, a fact Sen. Obama is apparently unaware of, will also view our premature withdrawal as a victory, as will other countries in the region. And the biggest state supporter of terrorists, a country with nuclear ambitions and a stated desire to destroy the State of Israel, will see its influence in the Middle East grow significantly.

"These are some of the 'dangers' that our premature withdrawal from Iraq will engender, and they all have the potential to destabilize the entire region. A realistic plan to prevent them from occurring is what people with experience in statecraft call 'strategy,' something Sen. Obama has not offered yet.

"Sen. Obama, as has also become a habit of his 'new politics,' mischaracterizes John McCain's position by saying McCain did not want to reduce troops because the violence in Iraq was too high, and now does not wish to do so because the violence in down. The reason violence is down is because Gen. Petraeus' counterinsurgency is, which, even Sen. Obama recognizes, is succeeding. Those 'tactics' are advancing our 'strategy.' Deprive Gen. Petraeus of the resources and manpower to employ those tactics, or worse, leave Iraq altogether, and our strategy will collapse.

"That is National Security 101. John McCain wants American forces to come home when our clear and serious interests at stake in Iraq, which nearly 4,000 Americans have given their lives to secure, are truly safe, when al Qaeda is defeated; Iran's influence is contained, and the potential for a truly cataclysmic civil war in Iraq is remote. That, I think, is what is called 'making us safer.' Sen. Obama's plan, if it can be charitably described as one, would do the reverse."

Obama spox Bill Burton responded with this dis:

“We wish the McCain campaign well as they try to figure out the difference between Iran and al Qaeda. Yesterday, Sen. McCain said that Iran is 'taking al Qaeda into Iran, training them and sending them back' to Iraq. This was shortly after telling talk radio host Hugh Hewitt, 'As you know, there are al Qaeda operatives that are taken back into Iran, given training as leaders, and they’re moving back into Iraq.' Or does Sen. McCain believe the clarification that he issued yesterday, 'I'm sorry, the Iranians are training extremists, not al Qaeda." Or does he believe the statement that he issued today: 'Al Qaeda and Shia extremists -- with support from external powers such as Iran -- are on the run, but not defeated.' Huh?

“Does this sound familiar?  Back in February 2003, before the war in Iraq began, there was no operational connection between Iraq and al Qaeda. But John McCain was saying that we had to invade and occupy a country that had no ties to the terrorists who carried out the 9/11 attacks because of Iraq's, 'support for the international terrorism of al Qaeda.'

"Despite all of his Washington experience, John McCain voted for, supported, and continues to support the greatest strategic blunder in American foreign policy in decades. Osama bin Laden, and the core leadership of al Qaeda responsible for the 9/11 attacks, are not in Iraq. They are reportedly in northwest Pakistan, which is over 1,000 miles from Iraq.

"So, while John McCain likes to boast of his willingness to follow Osama bin Laden to the Gates of Hell, all he has done is follow George Bush into a misguided war in Iraq while Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda have regrouped, and the Taliban is resurgent in Afghanistan.

“This fall, John McCain will support George Bush Foreign Policy 101: endless war in Iraq; a policy of not talking to adversaries that has not worked; and a disturbing tendency to conflate very different threats. Barack Obama will offer a clean break from the failed policies of the past. He will end the war in Iraq, finish the job in Afghanistan, and focus on the threats of the 21st century."

Obama saying McCain teaches George Bush Foreign Policy 101 ... McCain saying Obama needs to take National Security 101 ... the 2008 election in a nutshell. (Perhaps.)

- jpt

March 19, 2008 | Permalink | Share | User Comments (33)

User Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Remind me---why does anyone believe that Obama is going to change politics? His tendency to mock Clinton and Mcain is arrogant and irritating. More important--he presents this election as a choice between the future and the past, but oddly--he talks about the past more than any other candidate. Specifically, his speech about the war in 2002. Time to move on! I guess you work with what you have and this is all he has...

Great piece contrasting his rhetoric with the apparently more candid assessment of his possition by his then senior foreign policy advisor, Samantha Power. The Obama campaign really is amature hour.

Posted by: Nancy | Mar 19, 2008 10:06:21 PM

NOT A SINGLE DOUBT THAT IRAN AND AL-QEADA WILL DANCE IN THE STREETS IF OBAMA IS ELECTED. HIS CUT AND RUN,APPEASEMENT AND RETREAT POLICIES IN THE MIDDLE EAST ARE EXCATLY WHAT THEY WANT US TO DO. LIKE JIMMY CARTER..OBAMA IS ANOTHER EXAMPLE WHY RUSSIA'S LENIN WROTE LONG AGO THAT "WESTERN SOCIALISTS WERE HIS USEFUL IDIOTS"

Posted by: johnE | Mar 19, 2008 9:55:00 PM

if Mccain wins on 08 election, i would go to canada on a 4 years vaccation.

Posted by: david | Mar 19, 2008 9:38:22 PM

If that is what McCain meant, Mr. Salter, then why did he correct his comments on the spot when Lieberman whispered into his ear?

Because he doesn't know what he is talking about. These factions are all the same to him. He does not have a conceptual framework for understanding what is going on in Iraq.

Posted by: Wendy | Mar 19, 2008 9:16:25 PM

I don't think bashing the democratic candidates is a good idea. The GOP just loves that. The FACT is that either Clinton or Obama would be so much better than Bush/Cheney have been. McCain would also be better than Bush but do we really want a 72 year old guy who has an ax to grind with foreign countries running our country. I think Obama is best suited to pull this country together and start to repair the damage the bushies have caused. Obama 2008!

Posted by: pt | Mar 19, 2008 8:54:28 PM

I support John Murtha's (super delegate) recent endorsement.
The info. above shows how ill prepared Obama is to be president. Murthas endorsement is huge.

We do not need another president who needs on-the-job-training coupled with a pattern of POOR judgement. Serious issues on the table that require serious, experienced leadership

Hillary '08

Posted by: catherine in nm | Mar 19, 2008 8:48:51 PM

yea ok D, THAT makes a LOT of sense. you know, b/c i guess obama's riding hillary's coattails by winning more states, more of the popular vote, AND more elected delegates.

and i guess using your empty "first lady" records under the CLINTON presidency while exaggerating or as in the case of NAFTA, falsely stating, your "experience" is somehow not riding coattails.

LOL...

Posted by: justin | Mar 19, 2008 8:45:00 PM

Obama knows nothing about foreign policy. He could have helped with the escalating Afghanistan situation but chose to have NO meetings on his committee because he was campaigning for President. Clinton has detailed plans to remove our troops and has over 30 generals/flag officers endorsing her that trust her plans. Hillary has been to Iraq 3 times as a Senator. Obama - once. Hey - by the way - Hillary release 12000 pages of First Lady records. What about Obama's records as an IL Senator? What is he trying to hide? And Thanks Obama for the revote. You really made a lot of FL & MI voters mad.

Posted by: Jenny | Mar 19, 2008 8:39:38 PM

I don't think this country can survive another bush-league type president like McCain. We need a new direction to get this country out of the mess caused by this administration over the last 7 years. Obama 2008!

Posted by: pt | Mar 19, 2008 8:37:46 PM

actually he probably has his people find out how Hillary would answer and then followed her lead. He rides her coat tails.

Posted by: D | Mar 19, 2008 8:24:52 PM

I am sure Obama had to talk to his people or have his people talk to the media cause he is retarded when it comes to foriegn policy.

Posted by: D | Mar 19, 2008 8:19:57 PM

I am sure Obama had to talk to his people or have his people talk to the media cause he is retarded when it comes to foriegn policy.

Posted by: D | Mar 19, 2008 8:19:48 PM

Another George Bush for America. Please send educated and smart people to the white house. We cannot afford another example of GB.

Posted by: Demo 08 | Mar 19, 2008 8:17:37 PM

« Previous Comments

Post a comment





 

POLITICAL VIDEOS