McCain says Obama would "rather lose a war in order to win a political campaign." Then in the Couric interview he goes on to say how much he respects Obama.
Here's my question: How the hell can he think both things about Obama simultaneously? Can he really respect a man he thinks would rather lose a war than an election?
He says that the Anbar Awakening "began" AFTER the surge, when it began several months before the surge. McCain is so desperate to take full credit for the drop in violence in Iraq, when more important than the surge was the Anbar Awakening, Sadr's ceasefire, the ethnic cleansing of Baghdad and Petraeus' appointment in charge. The 30,000 troops helped, to be sure, but they were far from the deciding factor.
Its the same scenario with the McCains NYT editorial piece that they rejected. McCain's editorial was a piss poor "elect Obama and terrorists will grab you from under the bed when you get up to pee in the middle of the night" scare piece.
McCain says Obama would "rather lose a war in order to win a political campaign." Then in the Couric interview he goes on to say how much he respects Obama.
Here's my question: How the hell can he think both things about Obama simultaneously? Can he really respect a man he thinks would rather lose a war than an election?
How 'bout it, anyone? CBT? Bueller?
He says that the Anbar Awakening "began" AFTER the surge, when it began several months before the surge. McCain is so desperate to take full credit for the drop in violence in Iraq, when more important than the surge was the Anbar Awakening, Sadr's ceasefire, the ethnic cleansing of Baghdad and Petraeus' appointment in charge. The 30,000 troops helped, to be sure, but they were far from the deciding factor.
Its the same scenario with the McCains NYT editorial piece that they rejected. McCain's editorial was a piss poor "elect Obama and terrorists will grab you from under the bed when you get up to pee in the middle of the night" scare piece.
Yup, I read it (can't remember who had it posted - CNN, I think). 11 of 12 paragraphs were attacks on Obama.
And the Times said they'd print it if he'd rework it. He just thought he'd get more mileage with the base by slamming the great Satan liberal paper.
Post new comment