McCain Accuses Obama of ‘Trying to Legislate Failure’
‘John McCain told fellow veterans on Monday that his Democratic rival Barack Obama tried to legislate failure in Iraq and has refused to admit he erred when opposing the military increase there last year,’ the Associated Press reports.
‘ McCain said Obama placed his political self-interest ahead of his country’s, a theme the Arizona Republican has often repeated. McCain told a friendly convention of the Veterans of Foreign Wars that Obama’s positions have changed as his political ambitions grew.’
This line of attack can be considered normal in a campaign for the presidency. It is nasty, for sure, but this attack is not nastier than Obama’s attacks against McCain (accusing him of wanting to stay in Iraq for 100 years and so forth).
It is nasty, but not abnormal.
Now, lets look at the attack itself, whether it is correct or not; it’s not. Obama did not want to ‘legislate failure.’ He believed the war in Iraq had already failed. His view was not that the United States could win if the strategy in Iraq was altered. It was that whatever would happen, whatever Bush would change, success could not be achieved.
With regards to whether or not Obama learned from the surge McCain is right, to a degree at least. As the leader of the Democratic Party Obama has the responsibility to be honest, and to give respect when it is due. This means he has to acknowledge the success of the surge.
But his decision not to do so, not too clearly at least, should also be considered ‘normal’ in politics. His main theme is that he has a sound judgment, whereas everyone else does not. If he now admits he was wrong about the surge and the future of Iraq he loses the rationale for his campaign.
This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.
Comments are closed.
PoliGazette Comments Policy
PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree.
Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate
these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors.
Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue
publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.
(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly
or blatantly misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that
respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should
not be posted.
(2) Comments should avoid vulgarity as well as racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual bigotry.
(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional
reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.
(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not
include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement
the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.
(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements.
Comments that present objectively false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim") or
that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat
slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.
Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors
by email only.
