McCain to Obama: ‘Al Qaeda Is In Iraq’

I guess BHO is waiting for Al Qaeda to move back to Pakistan so he can bomb them and start world war III. He is so naive. BHO wasn’t even in the senate when we went to war with Iraq. It is easy to criticize when you weren’t even there! HILLARY 2008!

Popular saying by Mccain. ” I will follow Osama Bi laden to the gates of hell!” It is strongly believed he is in Parkistan. Will McCaine follow him to that gate of hell ?

Al Qaeda is in Iraq because we are. If we pull out, they’ll have two options – leave right behind us or stay and face the Shia backlash. I’m betting they leave.
Focus on the head of the snake, which is across the border from eastern Afghanistan.

@ Heather…
First of all, Al-Qaeda is already in Pakistan…
Secondly, Hillary was in the Senate in 2002 and voted with John McCain to go to war with Iraq, allowing Al-Qaeda to set up shop there.
I cannot wait until we can stop this Democratic back and forth and move on to the general election.
Obama 2008!

OHB’s Point: McCain’s Maverick Status ala 2000 has been distinctly compromised by 8 years of supporting GWB’s foreign policy debacles. True, BUT
OHB is starting to campaign for November. Problem, he is campaigning like it’s November ’06. Democrats already trounced Republicans and took control of Congress from GWB’s GOP, but ‘what have you done lately’ is becoming an inceasingly important question. And, “Sent the FBI to investigate whether a MLB star lied to us” might not be a great vote getter in Nov. 08.

If Obama can beat Hilliary, he can beat McCain. Those two are one in the same. At least Obama can counter John on something. Hilliary and John’s foreign policy aims are simpatico. John’s just more blunt about it. What would they debate on the stage… who would take LONGER to get out of Iraq… Hilliary in 30 years, McCain in 100? Obama has the advantage there.

This is hilarious. Obama is going to run circles around McCain. He’ll never know what hit him.

Obama….just another naive liberal

Ground control to Major John: the chicken before the egg argument goes to Obama.
Wherever we are making our presence too felt in the Middle East, there is al-Qaeda because there is reason for al-Qaeda. They follow us, not the other way around.
We had cause in Afghanistan that was well supported on many levels. We did not have cause in Iraq, period.
Neither one was or is to date well planned or comprehensive = not successful despite our military’s best efforts. That’s not the military’s fault, either.
There is no way to correct Iraq but to get out with as little damage to the region as possible. After that, we concentrate on where we should have remained.
We need to repair our borg image so that we may reap the benefits of cooperative allies who are willing and others who share this planet who aren’t so willing. A twenty first century makeover of “walk softly but carry a many kinds of sticks” needs to make a comeback.

The US has a lot of protecting to do to keep up it’s reputation. Not only Iraq but Iran and N. Korea and I think that will pull political activist to making the best in the nuclear and atomic element threat along the the biological hazardous materials used together will eliminate the human existance so we will not need to vote for our most powerful hegemonic president again. Like the ‘Twilight of the United States Hegemonic Empire Rule’.
Lets again look at North Korea.
The History
Korea emerged in 1948 amid the chaos following the end of World War II. Its history is dominated by the concept of “Juche” or self reliance. This philosophy is important extreme when understanding Korea’s development. After the Korean War, Kim Jong-II took over as Head of State.
In 1950, the world was coming to terms with the aftermath of World War II, a new conflict broke out at the edge of the Asian continent. The US and its allies were against the USSR, North Korea, and communist China. This conflict is marked with a devastating death toll. At least two million Korean civilians, approximately 1.5 million communist forces, around 30,000 US soldiers, 400,000 South Korean soldiers and 1,000 United Kingdom soldiers are believed to have died.
The war in Korea did not end in 1953. A cease-fire was placed on July 27, 1953, but no peace treaty was ever signed between the opposing countries. A De-Militarized Zone (DMZ) was established, which officially separated Korea into North and South. The zone is 248 kilometers long and approximately four kilometers wide, and its one of the world’s heaviest- fortified borders with roughly one million soldiers on each side. Decades of a rigid state controlled system have led to food shortages, caused by natural disasters and economic mismanagement (human rights abuses, torture, public executions, slave labor, forced abortions and infanticides), and a multitude of political prisoners in North Korea.
The Conflict
North Korea, under the leadership of President Kim Jong-II activated a nuclear reactor and expelled United Nations weapons inspectors from its factories. This has led to a threat to East Asia’s short and long term security. Since 2002 North Korea has increased its claims to have weapons of mass destruction. A misunderstanding or conflict could result in nuclear war. It is unclear how many nuclear weapons North Korea has but analysts believe that North Korea could produce enough plutonium (Pu) to build approximately one weapon per year. A separate program that enriches uranium (U), raising the isotope electrons, could produce two or more weapons per year.
Tensions increased after a joint training exercise involving the US, Japan, South Korea, and seven other countries as part of a n Anti-proliferation Security Initiative (PSI). Because the United Nations made no effort to include North Korea in its peace talks, President Kim Jong-Il declared this an “ultimate war action” and responded by launching a “test” missile from a base just outside of North Korea. Consequently Japan, China and South Korea immediately positioned troops along the DMZ.
The countries and their positions
United States of America
The US seeks a peaceful end to the crisis regarding North Korea’s nuclear program in cooperation with North Korea’s neighbors who are concerned with the threat posed to regional stability and security. The US goal is complete, verifiable, and irreversible dismantlement of North Korea’s nuclear weapons program. North Korea’s neighbors have joined the United States in supporting a weapons free Korean Peninsula.
Germany
Over the past decades, Germany has been a leading voice in nuclear anti-proliferation. Traditionally an ally with the United States, Germany made global news when it opposed military support for a war in Iraq. Despite that disagreement, Germany is committed to stopping nuclear proliferation and is especially concerned with the links between rogue nations that supply arms to terrorist organizations.
China
China provides significant and energy assistance to North Korea. The country encourages North Korea to continue with the six party talks ( United States, South Korea, China, Japan, Russia and North Korea). China agrees it is in the best interest of the region that North Korea halts its nuclear programs. It disagrees with the unrealistic US position of demanding complete, verifiable, irreversible dismantlement seeing it is a goal for the future than an issue to be pressed immediately.
Great Britain
The United Kingdom holds the position thatis crucial for regional stability and international security to demand a denuclearized Korean peninsula. Likewise, countries that pose a threat for nuclear proliferation especially to rouge nations or terrorist organizations must be confronted. In 2003, Great Britain joined the United States in a coalition on the war on terror. Britain has supported the US in seeking complete dismantlement.
France
France has appealed to North Korea to refrain from any action that would be counterproductive or provocative, especially those that would complicate the continuation of the six party talks. However, the French consider the North Korean nuclear program a threat to the international community and one of importance for regional powers, along with China and Japan.
Russia
Russia has been a traditional ally of North Korea, and relations recently have improved. Russia wants to persuade North Korea to abandon its nuclear program, but has asked the US to show “flexibility”. The Russians are requesting quiet diplomacy to establish the position on both sides and seek a solution that addresses North Korea’s energy and security concerns while allowing it the opportunity to voluntarily give up the nuclear program.
Japan
Japan is particularly concerned that a nuclear North Korea would have ability to launch a missile attack that could reach its shores. Japan aims to normalize relations with North Korea in a manner that contributes to peace and stability of the northeastern Asian region maintaining close relationship with both the US and South Korea.
Iraq
The new Iraqi government is supporting the US in its efforts to dismantle nuclear programs around the world and continue fighting terrorism. Its has a “zero tolerance” policy on nuclear weapons programs. The Iraqis understand the importance of nuclear disarmament, especially after chemical were used on the Kurds in the late 1980s.
Australia
Australia sees this issue as one of the most serious security threats facing Asia- Pacific region, and it sees a nuclearized Korean peninsulas leading to other countries seeking nuclear capabilities. The Australians agree with the ultimate US goal of a halt to nuclear activity in North Korea. Australia is known for its neutrality in many global conflicts. While it has taken a stance on nuclear proliferation Australia does not believe a military solution is in its best interests.
South Korea
South Korea has maintained a position similar to China and agrees that North Korea must give up its nuclear program. Since Korea’s divided unto North and South, South Korea has been trying to maintain prestige in the Asian sphere and has become a strong ally to the United States. The South Koreans are will to make a deal on energy and aid in exchange for a voluntary halt to North Korea’s weapon program.

Are you people on another planet? What allies in Afghanistan? It’s only Britain, Canada, and America who are doing the heavy lifting over there, the other so called allies, the dutch, the germans, the french, and so on refuse to engage at all. This is what is really happening, today. That is what Obama, Hillary, or McCain will inherit, period. Deal with it.

Obama is right, there was no Al Queda in Iraq before we invaded, and the one thing that all factions in Iraq can agree on is that they do NOT want Al Queda there, that will be the least of the problems in Iraq when we pull out. the Sunni alone will work Al Queda over with a hammer and tongs before they let them get a foothold. With attacks on Al Queda in Afghanistan, where they have gained ground in the last 5 years, and in Pakistan, I think they will be kept busy.

Al Qaeda will be crushed by the shites or Sunni’s when we leave. Al Qaeda main abode is Parkistan and the borders with Afghanistan

I see that McCain plans on using the enhanced Clinton strategy. Plus, he might try to scare the bejesus out of a few hand-wringers – you know, the 30% who still support Bush.

By deposing Saddam, we allowed Al Qaida and other terror groups to move into Iraq. Saddam was a military dictator, which is about as anti-terrorist as anyone can get. He had killed off all the terrorists by the time we invaded. Unfortunately, he also had killed innocent people and religious rivals. We probably would be doing a lot better aginst terrorism if we had left Saddam in power but forced him to moderate his cruelty — and sell us the oil which OPEC now is withholding in order to force prices higher and higher.

Why doesn’t the War Party just throw a huge bash to celebrate Al Qaeda in Iraq, Wil? I bet McCain could come up with another 99 reasons to tie us up in this failed war.

John Williams … I totally agree. The irony is that Iraq was one of the only secular countries in the Middle East. Women also held a higher status in Iraq than many of the countries we call our allies. In my opinion, Hillary is the only candidate that can get us out of Iraq in a quick, responsible way. HILLARY 2008!

McCain would be 171 by the time he expects us out.

Hey, larratta, I’m a Hillary supporter and I will write her name in come November if we should lose, but I must take exception to your post. Obama is an American and he did not nor do I remotely think he’d murder six million Jews. Never. Please rethink what you wrote here. I beg you.

I have to agree with Wil. BHO is no where near as bad as Hilter! HILLARY 2008!

Heather, nice to see another Hillary supporter here, I feel lonely on these blogs sometimes. Not many of us stand here and fight the good fight. Thank you.

You are right Jack. I think both Hillary and Barack would make great presidents. However, I think that Barack has a much better chance to win in November. I also, think that Barack would be better able to deal with foreign countries and begin to clean up the HUGH mess created during the bush years. Obama 2008!

The whole elect ability argument in my opinion is just a fear tactic by the BHO campaign and the republicans. I hear that from people. Even polls say people by far think Hillary is more qualified to be commander and chief (even people who vote for BHO). I think that is the wrong view. We need to vote for the one that can get us out of Iraq and get our economy going. Don’t buy into that elect ability thing. Before BHO started his tactics, Hillary had a huge lead over McCain nationally. In fact, she is the only person that could beat McCain. It is no coincidence that Republicans are voting for BHO. It isn’t because they want him to be Pres. It is because they want him to be the dem. nom. so that McCain will win. HILLARY 2008!!

The “good fight” for the Hillary people is the McCain one.

Wil, keep up the good work! It is nice to see another voice out there fighting for the cause. Hillary 2008!

Heather, polls change. I remember when Guilliani was in the lead for the GOP, until people really got to know the guy. All the polls now say that Barack would do better against McCain. People are sick & tired of Hillary’s whining, crying, and negative campaigning. Hopefully she will do the right thing and bow out once she loses Texas & Ohio next week. Obama ’08

Aw, who let the neo-con in here? sheesh!

There is no doubt Sadaam’s sons, as well as Sadaam, were tyrants. Women and men suffered under his rule. However, there were not only women who were high ranking officials in the Iraq gov., but they were also judges, lawyers, doctors, etc. Many areas of Iraq now enforce muslim law. The many highly educated women in Iraq are afraid to go outside their homes alone, much less hold a position of authority. I just think it is ironic is all. HILLARY 2008!

Jack, great come back. Laughing my fool head off on this one.

Hillary isn’t negative. She just isn’t afraid to stand up for things that she believes in, like women’s rights, etc. In fact, I like the fact she has a backbone. It is much better than straddling the fence. The way I see it is you have to stand up and fight for change. As Gandhi said, “be the change that you want in the world.” You can’t do that if you are all hat and no cattle. HILLARY 2008!

Obama IS the status quo right now, and a complete unknown and a neophyte. The people who are fainting and praising him now will be the same people calling for his impeachment and head on a platter a year from his election if by some chance he hoodwinks and bamboozles his way into the Presidency.

HOODWINKING AND BAMBOOZLING IS right. You people are so naive. Rezko will come out after THE DUMB DEMS GIVE HIM THE NOMINATION.

Wow, Tim, that would be pretty…well, I can’t use the word “st–id” and not have the censors delete my post but, that’s what it would be…for disgruntled Hillary supporters to vote for George W. McCain. Do you soreheads REALLY THINK that’s what Senator Clinton would want you to do? To vote for the old man who will destroy and undo everything Clinton and Obama stand for? Really?
Jeez, talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face….

I thought I was the only one who noticed when Obama didn’t seem to know that Al Queda was already in Iraq.

Adam, there’s a big difference between John McCain and George Bush, and if you studied their lives even you would be intelligent enough to draw this conclusion..You may think you sound real witty with your “George McCain” references but you and I know that you don’t know the first thing about politics…

Good come back Obama! Oh, wait the’re still in Iraq. Now what? Obama needs a reality check.

I think Obama just got whipped by his own hyprocrisy. Obama last night “…if we have credible news that al-Qeada is in Iraq, I reserve the rights as president to do what ever necessary to remove them…” What reality is this man living in….Al-Qeada is in Iraq now. Why remove troops, shattered the peace in Iraq to pieces and run troops back in when Al-Qeada re-establish themselves? This is the change we can believe in? This is screams elementary and amatuer foreign affairs experience! When Mccain calls him on it…..he now screams out the past again…”..but but but GW Bush created AlQeada in Iraq…they weren’t there before….” how exactly is that a response to Mccain’s point? We are talking about today and tomorrow……and he’s clueless to the concept that what you do today can avoid what you will have to do tommorrow. Obama, please go back to school and register yourself into a foriegn affairs course or better yet, join the military.

When Obama talks about the main topics he just keeps stepping on his foot. He should just stick to the change message because a lot of his followers won’t even notice.

McVain just got smacked down! There’s more where that came from. 1) You can bomb AQ targets from the moon – you don’t need boots on the ground for that. 2) Who cares if AQ is in Iraq? The head of the snake is in Afghanistan.
3) It’s time the Iraqis grew some ball bearings of their own. One thing is for certain; the presidential debates will be VERY entertaining. Go Obama!

mindlesschange, that tired old dog just won’t hunt. Everyone, including the 9/11 Commission, has debunked the bogus pre-9/11 saddam/osama link neocons have been trying unsuccessfully to palm off for years.
Shoot, it’s so discredited even old Cheney’s not trying to float it any longer….

Senator Obama is clearly naive when it comes to world politics. The fact that he can cover up a mistake such as the one he made only indicates that he can cover up a mistake – but he is very good at back pedaling and covering things up – what else has he covered up?

“As commander in chief, I will always reserve the right to make sure that we are looking out for American interests. And if al Qaeda is forming a base in Iraq, then we will have to act in a way that secures the American homeland and our interests abroad.” … IF al Qaeda is forming a base???? and you’ve been reading the newspapers. So in his retort to McCain, he meant something else, I see. Just like Michelle Obama being proud to be an American for the first time… say it, then say you meant something else… “just words, just words”

“all he’s done is follow George Bush into a misguided war in Iraq that’s cost us thousands of lives and billions of dollars” That is a flat out LIE Obama. Al Qaeda was in Iraq YEARS before the United States Invaded for one, for 2 We invaded NOT because of Al Qaeda, but because SADDAM Hussein was ALLIED with them. Obama is a LIAR.

u say we invaded iraq because saddam hussein was allied w/ al qaeda.
please think about it.
wasn’t George W’s ORIGINAL reason for going into iraq, the “fact” that had weapons of mass destruction? after we busted in, without the approval of the UN, we couldn’t find a single weapon. (remember the forged CIA papers that tried to make it look like iraq had been preparing nuclear weapons?)
embarrassed about not finding any of these alleged weapons of mass destruction, the White House promptly came up with other excuses why the attack on Iraq/why the Iraq war is justified, such as the one u’ve claimed. do U think it’s right to bust into a country for an incorrect reason? was the mindless violence justified?
u watch fox news, don’t u? poor thing. it’s okay, i don’t think u’re a liar. u’re just a lil misguided. :)

Democrats can stop this mess by picking Hillary.
If not, once again, they will lose in November.
Obama wants to complain about the senate vote when they had access to US intelligence. Obama runs saying that he was against the war from the beginning when his opinion was just anti-war, and he had no access to intelligence. I SURE hope he brings his crystal ball with him to the White House if he wins.

Whether we should be in Iraq or not, at this point is not the issue. This country used to be great because we stood by our word, we were honest, honorable and we had integrity. We promised the Iraqis that we would not abandomn them again..we gave our word. If this country is ever going to be the country it once was we need to start by keeping our promises and have our word mean something. Whether we should be there or not, we gave our solemn promise. We need to take responsibility for that.

I think McCain’s going to experience more smackdowns if he’s foolish enough to tout his
knowledge of Iraq considering the record that he supports Bush’s war.
No fool like an old fool.

See Below 9/11 Commission report on Al Qaeda in Iraq:
“In mid-1998, the situation reversed; it was Iraq that reportedly took the initiative. In March 1998, after Bin Ladin’s public fatwa against the United States, two al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraqi intelligence. In July, an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with the Taliban and then with Bin Ladin. Sources reported that one, or perhaps both, of these meetings was apparently arranged through Bin Ladin’s Egyptian deputy, Zawahiri, who had ties of his own to the Iraqis. In 1998, Iraq was under intensifying U.S. pressure, which culminated in a series of large air attacks in December.”
The 9/11 report shows that Zawahiri had ties with Iraq and there were discussions with Iraq to establish a base in Iraq. Post 9/11 the fear was that Al Qaeda and Iraq would form a more permanent relationship with bases in Iraq that could be used to attack the US. So again, the whole story about Iraq and Al Qaeda can be found in a number of official reports all of which documented the connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda. Again, Tenet reported that Al Qaeda was in Iraq and the 9/11 report confirmed there were discussions between Al Qaeda and Iraq to establish more formal relationships.

While I understand both points of view, I am disappointed that McCain came at Obama in such a harsh manner. No question politics are dirty, but this was borderline ridiculous. I will concede that I have not been an avid follower of the republican primaries, but I really don’t think that any potential candidate is at a point yet to start hurling their political scythe at the opposing party yet. This goes for Barack as well; I am a supporter of the senator, but I appreciate him more for taking the high road when it comes to direct attacks such as this, instead of the crowd-pleasing retort displayed here.
What people are forgetting is that Al Queda is a terrorist organization that has infiltrated various countries and societies in order to disrupt the status quo by means of brutal violence so as to instill fear into the respective peoples and governments, hoping to use this fear to gain power and control of said governments. Though there may be intelligence linking the group to Iraq, focusing our efforts to fight a multi-national terrorist movement in one country is pointless to begin with, even if Iraq was one of their alleged strongholds. Therefore, McCain’s point is practically moot, and Obama may very well be making two entirely different points by incorporating the War on Terror issue with the War in Iraq, as President Bush has most unsuccessfully put forth specific agendas for both.

Does John McCain really believe al Qaeda will take over Iraq when we leave? If so, this raises some questions about his ability to evaluate and judge international security situations.

@ mindlesschange
Thanks for broadening the picture. However, to fully understand your quote from chapter 2 of the 9/11 report, one needs to read on:
“But to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship. Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States.”
This goes for the Tenet testimonials too; While presenting intelligence suggesting a connection between al Qaeda and a Baghdad-based group, he admitted there was no proven link between Saddam Hussein and al Qeada.

What smack down? I found it interesting that the young fresh candidate was dwelling on the past i.e why and how you got into Iraq, whereas the supposedly old and out of touch candidate was focusing on the future i.e what do you do now.
Not interested in tribal democratic/republican games but in terms of rational thinking I thought it was a huge win for the old guy and the young one simply retreated to the mantra of as long as we pull out everything will be OK.
Got news for him and those that agree with him, it takes two sides to quit a war unless one wins, other wise you just put yourself in the position of the sheep sending memos to the wolves asking them not to attack.

Do you get extra points for being right in 2002 when elected in 2008? Um, no, you don’t. Obama may have been right in 2002. McCain is right in 2008. That’s the only thing that matters. Nothing Obama says will make Al Qaeda go away in Iraq — only the current strategy is succeeding in that. “Going after Al Qaeda in in the hills of Pakistan” is a concept that should send shivers down the spine of anyone with a grain of foreign policy common sense. Does Obama thing that any foreign policy that excludes being in favour of the Iraq war is OK? Are Obama supporters so stupid that they will swallow ANYTHING he says as long as he continues to have been right in 2002? It’s time to burst the bubble folks, I find Obama agreeable, sincere and honest, but he would be an absolute liability in the White House.

One of the things that happens when your enemy perceives a weakness is they will try to attack that weakness. You can bet that with all Obama knows about foreign affairs and his appearance of military weakness if he becomes president he WILL be tested. This could be a catastrophy for our military and our country. I find it ironic that Obama gets a large chunk of his support from college age kids who will end up being forced to fight if these things come to pass. Can you say “military draft?”

RubaDub. He is going to “talk” them out?
If you knew anything about reality his “talk”, and the Democratic party’s position as a whole is more likely right now to encourage Bin Laden to sit tight until November before his next move, if he isnt smart enough to do that you and lots of others may have to reassess your idealogical naivete real fast.
Well intentioned dreamers like you simply come across to enemies as people to scared to fight for what you believe in. Probably someone like you that was responsible for the utter destruction of the Carthage civilisation by the Romans, you and your ilk are short term thinkers and your leaders are unashamedly playing short term political games with your nation’s security. Doesent get much lower than that.
McCain using the 100 years is merely letting your enemies know that they are in for a fight and better reconsider.
The insurgent case that is regarded as a classic is Malaysia, a very small insurrection indeed compared to militant muslims, and that took 12 years to reach a successful conclusion.
You have only been in Iraq for 4, so whilst loss of life is always terrible, and yours has been very light compared to previous wars, you are actually doing OK in insurgency terms.
I will repeat again, from the rest of the worlds viewpoint (forget old Europe they have forgotten how to fight) you cannot remain the most powerful country in the world if you keep losing wars, you must show the determination to finish them.
Otherwise you may as well save us all a lot of time, disband your military might, retreat to your illusionist safety blanket and anoint China or Russia to take over your influence right now.

Jock59801:
John Mccain will Clean Obama’s Clock in the Presidential Debates!
How does Obama defend his statement that he would bomb our ally, Pakistan!
How does he defend his convoluted statement about sending our troops back into Iraq if they establish a base there after he pulls out troops out?
Say What? He is clueless on foreign policy issues!
He still wants to give drivers licenses
to illegal aliens!
His Health Insurance and other big spending plans will bankrupt us all!
Get Real! John McCain will be our
next president!