Can Democrats Get Iraq Mo-Jo Back?
EmailFROM GUEST-BLOGGER RICK KLEIN, from ABC’s The Note.
Conventional wisdom for basically forever has been that the more the campaign is about national security, the better it is for Sen. John McCain’s prospects.
In the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll, McCain held an edge of 14 points over Sen. Barack Obama on voters’ trust in handling terrorism, and a six-point edge on international affairs — the only issue areas in the poll where McCain was in the lead.
But the latest news brings three data points that are warming Democrats’ hearts, particular as Obama prepares for his first foreign trip as a candidate.
We have Monday’s New York Times report about bureaucratic infighting holding up plans to go after Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda.
There’s the latest Seymour Hersh opus in The New Yorker, reporting that oh-by-the-way, the Bush administration has launched a “major escalation of covert operations against Iran.”
And there’s the new Government Accountability Office report citing vast unmet goals in President Bush’s current Iraq strategy.
Watch for Democrats to link and push these storylines as part of a new effort to argue that — notwithstanding recent security gains in Iraq — the Bush administration (with at least tacit support from McCain) is losing ground in the fight against terrorism.
Obama’s argument for some time has been that McCain-backed strategies have distracted the nation from the fight against terror — particularly against al Qaeda.
This statement from Rep. Rahm Emanuel, D-Ill., a close Obama friend (and a leading indicator/instigator of Democratic messaging): “This administration has achieved the almost unimaginable benchmark of managing to carry out a set of policies that have strengthened our two principal adversaries — Al Qaeda and Iran — all while stretching our military to the breaking point and draining billions from our struggling economy.”
Emanuel tells ABC News: “A lot of us have been saying for a long time that when we went to Iraq we took the eye off the ball. These are the consequences of that.”
– Rick Klein
Santorum: Money Will Not Defeat Obama, Ideas Will 
Rick Santorum's Full Speech at CPAC 2012
Republicans have proven themselves incompetent in foreign affairs.
1. Al Qaeda planned their attack from us from Afghanistan. Sadaam was their enemy and would never cooperate with them.
2. A competent commander knows that you choose the battlefield where you have the greatest advantage. In our case, we excel in high-tech, GPS driven, smart bombs and drones; NOT urban warfare; NOT civil war.
3. The attack on Iraq accelerated the nuclear bomb program in Iran.
4. The attack on Iraq freed Iran from all restraint and increased their POWER in the middle-east four fold.
5. We are losing the actual war on terror, which is in Afghanistan, because the forces there are starved for resources in order to feed the war in Iraq.
Posted by: John's conscience | June 30, 2008, 4:49 pm 4:49 pm
Great news. 1)Almost seven years after 9/11, Osama’s still roaming free while the government dickers with itself. 2) We’re doing so well with the two wars that we’re already fighting that we should start a third (who’s left to fight it?) and 3) The GAO says that after a war that’s lasted longer than World War II, there are still “vast unmet goals.”
If this administration was a movie it would get hooted off the screen as unbelievable.
Posted by: Brooklyn Democrat | June 30, 2008, 4:51 pm 4:51 pm
Obama would get us into ww3, because he has no clue what he is doing. he is all talk. the man is a fraud. ask the people in public housing in his district.
Posted by: al | June 30, 2008, 4:54 pm 4:54 pm
First, thank Seymour for putting covert assets into the gunsights of those who threaten us. May he join Rove in a jail cell and compare notes on being quislings.
On the topic of national security Obama has all the credibility of a pomeranian hunting a bear: all yap no snap and full of ….
Posted by: len | June 30, 2008, 4:56 pm 4:56 pm
What of the Army’s official history report? That doesn’t look very good for Republicans.
Posted by: Thinking | June 30, 2008, 5:11 pm 5:11 pm
John’s conscience:
1. Saddam Hussein allowed al Qaeda to open a training camp in northern Iraq. And the 9/11 Commission acknowledged that there had been contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda but there was no evidence of a “collaborative relationship.”
2. And a competent commander knows that you fight the enemy where they are. We were already in Afghanistan fighting al Qaeda. But al Qaeda was also in Iraq at least 6 months before the invasion. So by going in after Saddam Hussein, we could also fight al Qaeda in Iraq.
3. The invasion of Iraq proved that Saddam Hussein did not have WMDs, as Iran (and the rest of the world) was lead to believe. Knowing that Iraq could no longer pose a threat, Iran excelerated its nuclear program.
4. Yes, Iran’s threat has increased. And that’s why we should have placed our troops on the eastern border of Iraq and we would have prevented the Iranians from coming into Iraq with weapons. But that is also a good reason to keep our troops in Iraq in order to deter Iran from invading Iraq.
5. The War on Terror is worldwide. While the leadership may be holed up in Pakistan along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, al Qaeda has cells in at least 65 countries. And there are al Qaeda wannabes and supporters in every country.
A President Al Gore would never have sent troops into Afghanistan since the conventional wisdom was that doing so was a death knell (i.e. the Soviet Union’s 9-year war: 14,453 dead and 53,753 wounded). In fact, he probably wouldn’t have declared a War on Terror. He would have treated the 9/11 attacks as a criminal act. And instead of going after the financial support that al Qaeda received from around the world, he would have just allowed al Qaeda to enjoy the billions of dollars that would have poured into their coffers.
Posted by: James Danley | June 30, 2008, 5:27 pm 5:27 pm
Obama needs to change his rhetoric with the situation in Iraq. Voters still want out, but he can’t distort the truth on the ground.
Posted by: matt | June 30, 2008, 5:29 pm 5:29 pm
. Saddam Hussein allowed al Qaeda to open a training camp in northern Iraq.
************************************
Have any proof of that? Just some more of your little twists of the facts?
Posted by: Thinking | June 30, 2008, 5:31 pm 5:31 pm
***Understanding Republican Incompetence in Foreign Policy***
About a month ago, an agreement was reached between Iranian backed Hezbollah and the “government” of Lebanon, after the government of Cuter invited various sides to meet in Doha.
Fighting had broken out when the government sought to shut down Hezbollah’s private communications network, which it was charged, was being used to direct fire against Lebanon’s army.
The result was that, according to the agreement, Hezbollah would join the government and have VETO power over all future decisions made by the government.
Needless to say, this is not exactly the best possible outcome for Israel and the US. But it does highlight a couple of points:
1. IRAN HAS NEVER HAD MORE POWER IN THE MIDDLE-EAST THEN THEY DO NOW.
2. Iran is no longer hampered or worried about that tyrant Sadaam Hussein, so they can do just about anything they want.
3. The US wasn’t even invited to send an observer in the above mentioned talks.
4. The US presented no credible threat to Hezbollah or Syria or Iran, since they know we are involved in not one but TWO simultaneous wars.
Posted by: John's conscience | June 30, 2008, 5:31 pm 5:31 pm
If Obama can not talk to all the gangs in his district and make them lay down arms and stop killing their neighbors, how will he stop the fighting in Iraq. He can not and will not. It is just more bogus promises. UNFORTUNATELY.
Posted by: Mary | June 30, 2008, 5:35 pm 5:35 pm
A President Al Gore would never have sent troops into Afghanistan since the conventional wisdom was that doing so was a death knell (i.e. the Soviet Union’s 9-year war: 14,453 dead and 53,753 wounded). In fact, he probably wouldn’t have declared a War on Terror. He would have treated the 9/11 attacks as a criminal act. And instead of going after the financial support that al Qaeda received from around the world, he would have just allowed al Qaeda to enjoy the billions of dollars that would have poured into their coffers.
****************************************
Fact is you don’t know what Gore may or may not have done. We know what Bush and Company I.E. Republican Party did
Posted by: Thinking | June 30, 2008, 5:38 pm 5:38 pm
Mary, excellent point.
Obama – clean up your own cesspool of a backyard Chicago (the crime AND the dirty politics) and then tackle the tough ones.
Your backyard track record is pathetic.
Posted by: Jo | June 30, 2008, 5:38 pm 5:38 pm
Obama wants to clean up Washington DC…..yet he can’t clean up Chicago politics.
Obama wants to be our commander in chief – yet his own backyard (Chicago) has more deaths per day than any war we could fight.
Obama wants to teach us to unite, and yet his church leaders and mentors are the most hateful, divisive imaginable.
Obama you’re a joke.
Posted by: Jo | June 30, 2008, 5:42 pm 5:42 pm
obama is a FRAUD – and NOT qualified to lead this country. He has ZERO foreign policy skills – BUT – NOW he will take a field trip to learn – on our tax $$$$.
What a FAKE & FRAUD. Wake Up America!
McCAin is a good 2nd Choice!
Posted by: Molly | June 30, 2008, 5:46 pm 5:46 pm
Emanuel – that’s the guy that told the MILLIONS of Hillary Supporters/VOTERS to get over it – go back to “knitting”!!! We are to listen to this jerk – NOT!!!
Emanuel & Obama – good friends, just like Rev. Wright, Ayres, and many other RADICAL, Arrogant associates.
Obama is SCARY for our country.
McCain – much better choice for USA!
Posted by: Abby | June 30, 2008, 5:49 pm 5:49 pm
Gore would have done nothing – as democrats usually do.
Thank God for Bush and no attacks since 9/11 on US soil.
That would end if Obama won.
Posted by: Jo | June 30, 2008, 6:04 pm 6:04 pm
Correction:
2. There were NO Al Qaeda in Iraq before the invasion. Al Qaeda and Sadaam were deadly enemies and Sadaam didn’t tollerate deadly enemies within his reach.
Posted by: John's conscience | June 30, 2008, 6:05 pm 6:05 pm
ABC asks: “Can Democrats Get Iraq Mo-Jo Back?”
Excuse me, but the Democrats HAD an opportunity to cut off funding for Bush’s War and they did NOTHING. In spite of all the bluster and words, Nancy Pelosi and her crew merely rubber-stamped Bush’s requests for another 150 billion dollars. America has wasted 500 BILLION dollars on Iraq, when our enemies were (and still are) in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
I don’t understand the question about whether or not the Democrats can get their mojo BACK! They never HAD IT!
Posted by: Rhys | June 30, 2008, 6:10 pm 6:10 pm
John’s conscience makes it up as he goes along.
And Iraq was giving aid and comfort to Bin Laden. That’s a FACT. You need to read Chris Hitchens. He’ll fill you in on all the details of which you seem to be painfully unaware.
Posted by: Jo | June 30, 2008, 6:10 pm 6:10 pm
The Democrats have been backing the war with their votes, and telling the people something else.
They voted for the war, they keep voting to fund the war and keep it going.
Democrats used the war and the cost for a propaganda campaign to get more democrats into office, trying to secure the presidency and be able to seat some new justices. to have ultimate control of the government.
The Democrats who hold the majority in the house and Senate. Who have sit on their hands the whole time Spewing how bad things are.
Is it thier big money friends and their speculators running up the price of oil?
They making the people suffer on on ends and using everything they can to get power over the government and country?
Obama divided and broke down the people, then he divided the democratic party, he continues by taking half of it to chicago. How far is he going to go?
He Did Unite the Black Community though.
Bush is a lame duck President, he has been used as their scape goat and excuse for everything.
How long with the Democratic Party hurt the people? They are sitting on their hands biding their time. This week they are to worried about thier holiday week break than they are about the people, the economy or the country.
I think it is past times they started doing the job the people are paying them to do. I believe they lost site of the thing that truly matters and to interested in their own goals and gains.
Americans Should fire them all and put people in the will actually work for our Country. Keeping it sound.
Posted by: seah | June 30, 2008, 6:12 pm 6:12 pm
John’s conscience, have you even read the 2002 Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq, passed by Congress? It states: “Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;”
It was signed into law by President Bush on Oct. 16, 2002. The invasion of Iraq began on Mar 19, 2003. That is five months AFTER the bill passed Congress stating that al Qaeda was known to be in Iraq.
Posted by: James Danley | June 30, 2008, 6:24 pm 6:24 pm
James Danley “Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;”
as you know that was all proven false and some would say it was delibrately misrepresented by the Bush administration.
Posted by: Thinking | June 30, 2008, 6:29 pm 6:29 pm
John’s conscience, al Qaeda DID have a training camp in northern Iraq at least 6 months prior to the invasion of Iraq. AND the 9/11 Commission acknowledged that there WERE meetings between Iraqi officals and al Qaeda. They just could not find any evidence of a “collaborative relationship.” Those are the facts!
Posted by: James Danley | June 30, 2008, 6:30 pm 6:30 pm
Thinking, re-read the statement. It does NOT say that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. It says that al Qaeda — the same group that bears responsibility for the attacks on 9/11 — is known to be in Iraq. As I have stated several times, al Qaeda did have a training camp in northern Iraq at least 6 months before the invasion.
Posted by: James Danley | June 30, 2008, 6:33 pm 6:33 pm
James Danley as far as your assertion as what Gore would or would not have done; The fact remains you do not know what he would have done. Not that it has any bearing on the current political situation
Posted by: Thinking | June 30, 2008, 6:43 pm 6:43 pm
John’s conscience: “Why?”
You asked me if I had heard of the 1991 Gulf War. Yes, and the 2003 invasion of Iraq was the resumption of that war. There was no conclusion to the 1991 Gulf War. The UN Security Council, the United States and Saddam Hussein agreed to a cease fire based on a number of condition. Conditions that Saddam Hussein said he would honor. However, he failed to comply with any of the conditions for 12 years. One of those conditions was if he no longer had WMDs he must PROVE he no longer had them. He failed to do so, instead he wanted his neighbors (especially Iraq) to believe that he had WMDs. The UN Security Council gave its final ultimatum. But not having the back bone to follow through on its ultimatum, President Bush issued his final ultimatum. When Saddam Hussein still refused to comply with the conditions of the 1991 cease fire, President Bush ended the cease fire and invaded Iraq.
Posted by: James Danley | June 30, 2008, 7:00 pm 7:00 pm
Sorry, I meant “especially Iran.”
Posted by: James Danley | June 30, 2008, 7:02 pm 7:02 pm
John’s concience, you should read my comments more carefully. I did not assert that there was any collaboration between Iraq and al Qaeda. To the contrary, I stated that the 9/11 Commission found NO evidence of a “collaborative relationship.” BUT THERE WERE CONTACTS — per the 9/11 Commission.
Posted by: James Danley | June 30, 2008, 7:07 pm 7:07 pm
Can the Democrats “get their mo-jo back” ?
I think so, but it takes time for perceptions to change. The public’s perception of the Republicans’ foreign policy “experience” is definitely been changing. Iraq has been another Katrina.
Even under the kindest description, no progress has been made in rebuilding the infrastructure in Iraq. Perhaps even less progress has been made in finding a way to give all parties a share of power, or a stake in the future of Iraq.
It is hard to see how there can be a stable future there without giving everyone a stake.
Iraq is improving, relative to how terrible it was a year ago, but it is unstable. Our word regarding intel is cause for laughter. The dollar is in a severe decline. Iran’s influence is rapidly expanding.
Posted by: John's conscience | June 30, 2008, 7:38 pm 7:38 pm
Right now, the democrats are trying to get the egg off their faces.
Posted by: S | June 30, 2008, 8:28 pm 8:28 pm
No they cannot, because everyone has heard enough of Barack Obama congratulating himself for the speech he made against “dumb wars” half a decade ago and once you look beyond that his record demonstrates a depressing lack of leadership on the issue. Even McCain, a Republican, was more bold than Obama in taking on the pathetically inept Rumsfield and his failed approach in Iraq. Now the issue of Iraq boils down to who has the knowledge and experience to extract us in an intelligent manner. Americans trust McCain more than Obama on this issue as well they should.
Posted by: NJH | June 30, 2008, 8:44 pm 8:44 pm
To get their mojo back? That would be implying they ever had the mojo to begin with.
Even the New Yorker is coming out with an article about how Obama better start changing his tune on Iraq because the surge has worked and Iraq has started to stabilize.
Ooops. When the liberal New Yorker is turning on Obama – watch out!
Lol.
Posted by: Jo | June 30, 2008, 10:21 pm 10:21 pm
The fighting has been going on for a hundred years in Iraq between the different factions of the three religious groups. Sometime it slows down for a few years, then one group or another rears its discontended head and all h##l breaks loose. Those people in Iraq do not know how to compromise and become happy campers. Don’t think either of our presidential candidates has the solution to the mess. It is simply a shame that so many of our troops have been killed or injured and the same goes for the Iraq people and their damaged country. Perhaps the best solutionn is for the USA troops to leave and let whatever happens happens. We have problems here at home to solve and manage.
Posted by: Mary | June 30, 2008, 10:48 pm 10:48 pm
Rick – get your facts straight. 29 soldiers died in June, up from 19. Is that what you mean when you say country is more secure?
Posted by: David | July 1, 2008, 12:42 am 12:42 am
john’s, not only did the attack on Iraq excellerate the nuclear ambition of iran, so did bush putting a bullseye on iran by calling them very publicly, one ofhte axis of evils. Admit it, if Iraq had gone well, wewould haveattacked Iran next. What would you do if you were president of Iranknowing that? What else would deter us BESIDES a nuclear weapon? would we attack them IF they had a nuclear weapon pointed at us or Israel ready to be deployed? no. It was a complete selffullfillijng prophecy by Bush. He declared them a threat and therefore, they became one. blame that on ZERO diplomatic savy by Bush. Just as how he took a nation that WAS no terrorist threat, Iraq and turned it into one!
Posted by: jessy | July 1, 2008, 1:30 am 1:30 am
james, you do realize that training camp was in a part of Iraq that the US was responsible for, right? That was out of Saddam jurisdiction. you know hat, right? The international community already had full access to that place wihtout saddams approval.
Posted by: jessy | July 1, 2008, 1:33 am 1:33 am
“Well, I don’t think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president”
…..so true. ”
Posted by: jessy | Jul 1, 2008 1:30:46 AM
_________________________________
HMMM… Do you think he did it all those years ago just to have fodder for his election speeches?
Do you think MCcain almost gave his life just so that you could have something to sneer at all these years later?
What about all of his military medals?
Did he buy them in an army-navy store?
How about his many years of service in the Congress?
OH!
I forgot!
Mccain service is being compared to that slim shred of a resume carted around by Obama under his left thumb.
Obama’s state senatorship earmarked more to Obama’s church ($15,000,000) and Michele’s employer (moer than $1,000,000) than was ever earmarked to his constituents schools… or reform….or health care!
He makes big puffy promises on which he can’t deliver because he doesn’t supply the programs to do so!
Obama is for Obama!
Don’t be fooled..
You’ve already gotten rid of the BEST candidate.
Now,
It must be COUNTRY BEFORE PARTY!
(MCcain before B O!!!!)
What about all the OTHER years he put his country first…. on all the OTHER
Posted by: questioner | July 1, 2008, 1:53 am 1:53 am
Obama pays his women staffers much less than McCain does. Another example of Obama being all talk.
Posted by: I AM | July 1, 2008, 7:49 am 7:49 am
Jessy, you wrote: “Just as how he (President Bush) took a nation that WAS no terrorist threat, Iraq and turned it into one!”
If you Google “Iraq” and “terrorist training camps” you will find a lot of information regarding Saddam Hussein’s terrorist training camps. These camps trained thousands of Iraqis and non-Iraqis to be terrorists.
Posted by: James Danley | July 1, 2008, 9:59 am 9:59 am
“This administration has achieved the almost unimaginable benchmark of managing to carry out a set of policies that have strengthened our two principal adversaries — Al Qaeda and Iran.”
Hey Wrong Emanual …. how exactly has Al Qadea strengthened? I guess you consider the majority of their leadership being killed or captured, and their ability to terrorize massively cut down “strengthened?”
I swear, do these Dems actually listen to the words coming out of their mouths?
Posted by: D'Obama | July 1, 2008, 10:21 am 10:21 am
“The young soldier who first spoke about the prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib – he is a patriot. Recognizing a wrong being committed in this country’s name; insisting that we deliver on the promise of our Constitution”
Obama can’t tell the difference between a patriot and a traitor. Since when do terrorists get constitutional rights? Frightening. Obama has no allegence to the USA. How many soldiers died because of this traitor?
Posted by: geevill | July 1, 2008, 10:57 am 10:57 am
youth marketing, glowing gradients on over-designed website, packaging, repetitious catch phrases, naivety, staged unity, white guilt, double-talking, race-baiting, teleprompters, big speeches, long rhetoric, bells and whistles = Obama
Posted by: Truth69 | July 1, 2008, 11:04 am 11:04 am
Reading below posts really shows me how people are falling for the empty talk of Obama.
They think that our military can only fight one enemy at a time (ignoring the fact that history shows that to be wrong) Our military is strong enough to fight numerous battles in this war.
John’s conscience – Hate to tell something it is the liberals that increase the threat of Iran not Iraw battle. Iran in 2003 right after we invade Iraq, STOPPED their nuclear programs and was about to open the door, but then 2004 election started up and you libs started with the propaganda which the Iranians listened to and said America does not have the will so lets start the program again and keep America busy to help push the liberals agenda. (Remember Libya, they gave up all there WMD’s because of Iraq, now they wish they did not because of the liberal propaganda)
Sometimes I can not tell the difference between Al Qeadas talking points and the libs.
John’s conscience – yu say we do not do well in urban or civil war, well first lets leave out the big fact that Iraq was never in a civil and is still not, but those are two fighting scenarios we have a lot of experience in Read History!!
I would like to take this time and Thank President Bush for keeping America Safe and stopping any more terrorist attacks against We know he had a hard time with the libs trying to give the terrorists more rights then our citizens, but he has succeeded up to now!!
Unlike under the previous President where we were attacked at least 9 times!!
Remember we won WWII without getting Hitler!! and we can win this war without getting Obama!!
Posted by: spock | July 1, 2008, 11:26 am 11:26 am
geevill – I agree with you, but FYI Abu Gahrib has nothing to do with our Constitution!!
Posted by: spock | July 1, 2008, 11:28 am 11:28 am
I think the Democrats need to be pointing out that the surge was sold to the America people as a means to start a withdrawal. McCain says the surge is succesful so how come he says that we shouldn’t be withdrawing troops? When/what signs are there going to be before McCain is happy to start withdrawing.
This is exactly why Obama was a more credible candidatre than Clinton. A consistent position that the war was wrong, WMDs or no WMDs, regime change or no regime change.
Posted by: markymark | July 1, 2008, 12:31 pm 12:31 pm
Obama can’t tell the difference between a patriot and a traitor. Since when do terrorists get constitutional rights? Frightening. Obama has no allegence to the USA. How many soldiers died because of this traitor?
Posted by: geevill | Jul 1, 2008 10:57:41 AM
**********
To call them “terrorists” means you have to PROVE that they are terrorists, right? A recent study showed that 38% of the detainees are not guilty of any crime and many are being detained due to mistaken identity.
What if YOU were detained for 5 years because of mistaken identity. Wouldn’t YOU want a chance to prove they got the wrong guy? That’s all the Court has said, they at least get a chance to see the evidence agaisnt them.
This is America.
Posted by: SERIOUSLY! | July 1, 2008, 1:08 pm 1:08 pm
SERIOUSLY!, See that’s the problem. This is war! These are prisoners taken during war! The 300,000 regular German soldiers that we held for years in prison camps throughout Europe during WWII never saw a lawyer, never saw a day in court, and they didn’t expect to either. When the war was over they were released. Even the U. S. Supreme Court ruled back then that the American Judicial System and the writ of habeas corpus DID NOT APPLY to those prisoners.
Following the most recent U. S. Supreme Court ruling, Justice Kennedy stated that while he didn’t expect any of the detainees to be released he certainly could not rule that out. SO we might have to release some of these detainees! I hope all you liberals are prepared to apologize for any innocent people who are subsequently killed by any of the detainees should they be released. The whole point of taking prisoners during war is so they don’t go back out and resume killing again. But apparently now that we have to treat these prisoners as common criminals we may just have to no longer take prisoners.
Posted by: James Danley | July 1, 2008, 4:33 pm 4:33 pm