McCain: Obama wants to lose war

This is a clear choice that the American people have. I had the courage and the judgment to say I would rather lose a political campaign than lose a war. It seems to me that Obama would rather lose a war in order to win a political campaign.

Full Article



I'm curious to get some conservative view points on this:

In what ways does Obama's Iraq policy make it appear he wants to lose the war?

I see nothing here that suggests such.

Wanting resolution is not asking for defeat.

Doing your job by representing the citizens of this country (the majority of whom dont want to be in IRAQ anymore) is not asking for defeat. ( Polls )

And, if Bush has already declared "mission accomplished" and the surged worked (and i do agree, the surge worked) then how can it be a "defeat" if we start now, by starting the beginning stages of withdraw?

He's pushing the boundaries of what is politically acceptable to say, but fundamentally, he's largely correct. He did support the surge at a time when it could have cost him his political career and as it turns out, he was correct. Obama, meanwhile, opposed it and still opposes it (and IMO, that latter fact is very troubling for his campaign in light of the results).

But again, while he doesn't actually accuse Obama of wanting to lose the war, he may be going a little too far in accusing Obama of basing his stances on the war on political expediency (and that's a more accurate representation of his argument). He's on the borderline, but I think its a fair attack, just barely.

Its clear what McCain is trying to do here, though. He's trying to force Obama to admit that McCain's longtime strategy, the Iraq surge, has indeed been successful and was the right course of action all along.

[edit on 26-7-2008 by vor78]

Originally posted by vor78

But again, while he doesn't actually accuse Obama of wanting to lose the war, he may be going a little too far in accusing Obama of basing his stances on the war on political expediency (and that's a more accurate representation of his argument). He's on the borderline, but I think its a fair attack, just barely.

[edit on 26-7-2008 by vor78]

But he does make that very accusation:

Sen. Obama has indicated that by his failure to acknowledge the success of the surge, that he would rather lose a war than lose a campaign.

Source

A.) not only did Obama not say that the Surge didnt work
but how does the surge not working (though it did) have anything to do with "wanting to lose a war"

McCain is reaching for thin air, yet again.

I will give him credit though - atleast he's finally making things interesting by opening his mouth for a change.

Not too often does mccain grace us with his pearls of wisdom

because when he does, he makes stupid mistakes like this one

I think McCain is just trying to shore up his position with his statement. He's the type of guy that's tells you what you need to hear, not what you want to hear.

Barack should just concede the point that he was wrong. it would bode much better with voters if he could admit he's just as fallible as the next man. I'm all for getting out of Iraq and Afghanistan as well, but it must be done in an orderly fashion that minimizes the loss of lives and disruption.

He never wanted to go to war in Iraq. So he doesn't have a vested interest in seeing us succeed. "See, I told you so" is a powerful thing. He put himself in a position that if anything good happens in Iraq, it is bad for him.

Obama wants the war over. It's not his baby. If we win, he will not be able to take the credit. If we lose, he will get blamed. It's a no-win for Obama...but he put himself in that position.

One thing I do know, if Obama is elected, we will not see the troop withdrawals he is describing. If he wins, Iraq becomes his baby whether he likes it our not. No President, no matter how liberal he is, wants to get blamed with a defeat. I wouldn't be surprised if he increases troop strength before he withdraws one soldier.

Originally posted by LLoyd45
I'm all for getting out of Iraq and Afghanistan as well, but it must be done in an orderly fashion that minimizes the loss of lives and disruption.

Obama and myself agree with you ( so do many others )

Nobody is for pulling everyone out today or tomorrow, or next week for that matter.

And why should Obama admit he was "wrong" when he never said what McCain accuses him of saying?

reply to post by Andrew E. Wiggin


The quote you provide supports what I'm saying: McCain is accusing him of political expediency, nothing more or less. He's not accusing him of 'wanting to lose the war'. He never said that. Its a somewhat subtle difference, but there IS a difference.

He may be wanting people to make that connection, but that particular accusation is a misrepresentation of McCain's statement.

reply to post by Andrew E. Wiggin

I don't think anyone expects an apology from him, just an admission that he was wrong about the surge. If he did so, it'd be done and over with in a week or less. It would also show he was a man willing to admit when he's mistaken, a positive trait in my opinion.

I starred and flagged your post Andrew even if we fundamentally disagree on most things.

reply to post by LLoyd45


I agree completely. If Obama would just come out and say that he was wrong and that the surge was the correct strategy, he'd save himself a lot of grief. But all of the hem-hawing we saw in that interview with Katie Couric when she asked him repeatedly about the surge makes him look obstinate and unwilling to acknowledge that he was wrong on that issue.

reply to post by vor78


No its not.
He's saying "Obama would rather lose a war than a campaign"

Call it whatever you want - thtas making the accusation that Obama would want to loose the war, because its an unsaid "truth" that Obama DOESNT want to loose the campaign.

If you've ever watched the show "Happy Days", Obama reminds me a lot of The "Fonz" when it comes to admitting he's wrong. He has a lot of trouble forming the words..

I was Wr-Wr-Wr-Wrong....

The Fonzie Factor

reply to post by Andrew E. Wiggin


Yes, but look at what you're saying: in a literal sense, he is *only* accusing him of political expediency. He is accusing Obama of making policy decisions based upon what is best for his campaign. He has not flatly stated that Obama wants to lose the war. He may be intending to imply that, but he's not actually saying it.

But as I said earlier, even I think that McCain is treading into dangerous water here for one simple reason: people may indeed imply the same thing you are and the charge could backfire on him.

LOL @ llyods reference Was funny indeed


Anyways, vor, is this turning into a discussion along the lines of

"that depends on what your definition of the word 'is' .. is"

Not directly saying something is the call sign for a politician.

Thats why political debate is so intriguing and argumentative.

Nay a politician ever comes right out and says what they really want to say until after they've secured the nomination.

McCain and Obama are no different.

You have to read between the lines on things like this.

I agree with you though - im pretty sure this will back fire in his face. And i just hope im there to watch it.

reply to post by Andrew E. Wiggin


Yes, it basically is an argument over interpretation. However, the conclusions we're reaching are in many respects the same. While I think it probably won't hurt McCain and will be viewed as a fair attack, its borderline, no doubt about it. There certainly is a risk that people may view it as over-the-top and there could be a backlash accordingly.

This may be the result of many GOPers who have accused McCain of not being aggressive enough in attacking Obama. Indeed, he may have gotten a little too aggressive here.

[edit on 26-7-2008 by vor78]