Kerry Blasts McCain's "Iraq War mindset"

Remember when John Kerry and John McCain were allies? Friends? Potential ticket-mates? Comity, no more.

"What John McCain has done in his comments** ... is that he has fully embraced willfully, openly, fully embraced the failed, tragic policy of the Bush Administration over the last seven and a half years," Kerry said on a conference call today. "He's really defending a policy that is indefensible. He's proving every day that he doesn't understand Iraq, or the Middle East, or the war on terrorism."

McCain is embracing " George Bush post 9-11 war of choice strategy," of which he is "Washington's biggest supporter." McCain "failed to learned the lessons of 9/11. He is the candidate of the Iraq War mindset, a mindset that completely misunderstands and dangerously underestimates the threats of the 21st century."

** = Actually, these were comments offered by McCain adviser Randy Scheunemann, who said on an earlier conference call that Obama, in commenting on terrorism here, was a "perfect manifestation" of the pre-9/11 mindset. Richard Clarke, the former NSC official in charge of counterterrorism, dismissed the binary choice between treating terrorism as a law enforcement matter or a military matter, and Kerry noted that every Democrat in the Senate voted for war in Afghanistan. Both Clarke and Kerry insisted that Obama's approach to terrorism was comprehensive and not limited to any branch or single function of government: law enforcement, military, intelligence gathering.

Comments

McCain is delusional and confused. He says that he knows how to capture Bin Laden and that he’d him to the “Gates of Hell.”

So, what does McCain know that Bush and the Pentagon don’t about how to sweep up America’s most elusive enemy?

If he cares about our country so much then why not share his strategy with the current occupant of the White House?

McCain is still confused about terrorism.

Posted by hmm | June 17, 2008 1:46 PM

hey grandpa McCain, can you answer a simple question without getting help from your clowns, Liberman and Graham:
is Shia Iran training Sunni terrorist org?

Posted by Trent | June 17, 2008 1:54 PM

I would rather have McCain "mindset" protecting this country than Kerry or Obama's.

Posted by coolrepublica | June 17, 2008 1:58 PM

Dear American Voters,

Hon. Senator McCain and Obama, besides each having many attributes and characteristics. The critical differences between the two of these presidential presumptive nominees are as under:

1. Presidential "Temperament and Composer".
2. Little Washington "insider Versus outsider" experience.
3. "Vision and mission" for our nation future rather than past.
4. American policies, " first U.S.A Centric" than any other country [ ies ] centric.

In my professional opinion Senator Obama leads in all above qualities.

The need of our next movement and generation is a change. The Change in " past Washington and its Leadership". A change we can believe in and not the seductive, deceptive, and confusing slogan of "leader we can believe in" [? Effexor ?".

Our Greatgrand Nation has to address many present and future challenges and start with new clean "Slate and Senator".

God Bless America. its diverse people, and our Greatgrand Nation.

Our Greatgrand Nation is needs the CHANGE at every level and for long time.

I am sure Senator Obama with the help of Senator Clinton and her supporters, can deliver that CHANGE.

Please stay involved, stay engaged, and stay informed. Please do not allow any seduction, deception, and or confusion by some partisan media and leaders effect your vote [ Psychological Terrorism ]..

Yours truly,

COL. [retd] A.M.Khajawall
Disabled American Veteran
Forensic psychiatrist, Las Vegas

PS: Talk about" Presidential Temerament" media, pundits, and politicians do not be quite about it. Our nations future depends upon it.

Posted by COL.[rted] A.M.Khajawall | June 17, 2008 2:05 PM

To "coolrepublica" who wrote: "I would rather have McCain "mindset" protecting this country than Kerry or Obama's." If you are truly that "cool", then stop the diarrhea from your mouth, pack up and go to the front lines protecting the country!

Posted by Joe Hannes III | June 17, 2008 2:07 PM

>> I would rather have McCain "mindset" protecting this country than Kerry or Obama's.

Yes, me too. Because I prefer a war monger like McCain. I admire the fact that McCain is confused about terrorism and war. We need third term of Bush.

Posted by Ed | June 17, 2008 2:07 PM

"Iraq War Mindset" is a pretty good comeback.

Considering that these are the guys who let OBL get away and even said they were not that concerned about him, and who still don't seem to understand that there is a world outside of Iraq that we need to deal with (uh, anyone else noticng the deterioration in Afghanistan?).

It also calls to mind all the wonderful ways the Bush Administration (and its ally, McCain) falsely suggested in the runup to war that Hussein was linked to 9-11. And then suggested Al Quaeda would take over Iraq if we left. And of course, it calls to mind all the times they impugned the patriotism of those who dared question the wisdom of invading Iraq or, heaven forfend, who suggested it might not be quick and easy.

It's also worth noting that, unlike "pre 9-11 mindset," this distinction isn't a distortion.

Particularly as a New Yorker, I am infuriated by the endless Republican slur that anyone who disagrees with their lousy foreign policy somehow doesn't care about or didn't "get" 9-11. This from the guy who let bin Laden get away?

Posted by anon | June 17, 2008 2:23 PM

We are in the wars. We are also, probably, on the right side of history. My impression, based on some time driving around Baghdad again, is we have made winning impossibly hard but not unreachable,

Matt

Posted by Matt | June 17, 2008 2:28 PM

I thought Scheunemann said Obama's comments were a "prefect manifestation" of the pre-9/11 mindset?

Posted by Proofreading is Fundamental | June 17, 2008 2:56 PM

As a Democrat who held my nose and voted for Kerry in 2004, can someone please usher this guy off stage? If the Obama campaign can't find anyone better among every single Democrat in the world to respond on military and Iraq issues, it is a joke.

Didn't Kerry vote for the war, then change his mind like Hillary Clinton and John Edwards? Why is this guy the best they can find?

Posted by John | June 17, 2008 3:50 PM

what is going on with the obama mindset?have we forgotten sept 11 are you all fools?obama will bury this country

Posted by patrick | June 17, 2008 4:12 PM

what is going on with the obama mindset?have we forgotten sept 11 are you all fools?obama will bury this country

Posted by patrick | June 17, 2008 4:12 PM

are you complete fools?have we forgotten sept 11 obama would bury this country!

Posted by patrick | June 17, 2008 4:16 PM

Bush McCain gang has already burried this country in deep shit. You never ask a person who drove the car into a ditch to bring it out.

Posted by matt | June 17, 2008 4:18 PM

True Iraq is somewhat of a quagmire. But - our intentions going in were, I believe, honorable - even if the Government wasn't completely honest about what our true intentions were (think China). True we need to devote more time and money to domestic issues. But think about this... "CHANGE" has almost always been negative without A LOT of thought and planning. The notion of someone with NO executive experience touting "CHANGE" for America is frightening. To so loosely use the "CHANGE" word as Obama is definately not a positive thing. But youngsters associate it with positive thoughts. Lets say Obama CHANGED our position in Iraq and abruptly withdrew as he says he plans to. First you would see 50x the bloodshed currently taking place over there and you would see destruction of the oil fields. Then you would see gas CHANGE from $4/gal to somewhere around $10 and in turn you would see the cost of living everywhere CHANGE. On top of this our medical spending policies would CHANGE and we'd all be paying for abortions and transgender operations with our taxes which will also be CHANGED - RAISED. What you have to ask SPECIFICALLY is what does Obama want to CHANGE before you just blindly accept this CHANGE. Because he will change things... is it the change you want? Or could it be the change the rest of the world wants. After all his wife had "never been proud of America.." and his pastor called on God to damn America. And all the liberals dismiss this and call for his CHANGE.

Posted by Dave | June 17, 2008 4:20 PM

If 'naive' means seeing the world in simplistic terms then the Bush/McCain Republicans have to be considered the naive ones since they see the world as either good or evil. The more mature perspective sees a mix of both within and without.

Posted by SDB | June 17, 2008 4:26 PM

Do the McCain/Republican supporters understand that the cost of the Iraq war could have paid for universal health care? Do they understand that the american foreign policy of attempting to control how the rest of the world lives is exactly what breeds terrorism? That the rising cost of oil is a sign that alternative fuels are a necessity, not a hippie pipedream? More importantly, that republicans don't care about anybody who doesn't own a Fortune 500 company? That keeping people scared is the best way to control them?

Posted by Matias | June 17, 2008 4:37 PM

Both sides have their faults... Obama would be a downright DISASTER for this country. I hope the future doesn't have to prove this.

Posted by dave | June 17, 2008 4:44 PM

The Constitution is The Law of The Land.

It is proper enough to handle us in easy and difficult times.

George Bush has stepped over it and hence all the troubles he's gotten us into.

Greed and fear are intoxicants that lead to incompetence and resultant suffering.

Posted by El Mugroso | June 17, 2008 4:48 PM

A.M. Khajawall wrote:
"In my professional opinion Senator Obama leads in all above qualities."

First off, since you do not claim to have any political experience or expertise, your opinion is not a professional opinion, simply YOUR opinion. The qualities you speak of hardly make sense and anyone who votes based on those qualities deserves every bad thing that happens because of it. Votes should be based on the candidate's stances on issues which are important to you. As far as experience, you cannot claim he is not a Washington insider because he hasn't even reached the point in his career yet to be considered an "insider". An Obama supporter would not be very smart to try to argue experience given their candidate's lack of said quality. Seems to me, based on your comment, you are probably not an American as you address "American voters", something a citizen would not do and your post includes some very broken english and fragments. Therefore, you can watch from the sidelines while WE fight this thing out for the next few months, we'll let you know who we decide upon.

Posted by ATLCT | June 17, 2008 4:59 PM

Studder much Patrick?
I guess we might as well go to war with IRAQ over september 11 they remind me of Osama they kind of look like him, why not and any other Muslim or for that matter brown skinned Middle easterner. Hell why not every other country in the world. If there not Blonde haired Blue Eyed devils then they probably pose a threat.

Posted by Larry | June 17, 2008 5:13 PM

That is true El Mugroso... greed festers in washington on both sides. Lets not be afraid though.. lets be vigilant. McCain is possibly a lot like Bush. But Obama I believe wants to see America get absorbed into the looming Global Government. We have been given crappy choices for leaders because it is what we deserve as a countrty that turned it's back on God. But, lets make the most of it and choose the best we have to choose from. Obama will make you pay for abortions and trans gender operations through increased taxation. Obama wants to make peace with a country that vows Israels destruction. Lets not be blinded by "CHANGE" and make the wrong choice.

Posted by Dave | June 17, 2008 5:22 PM

To John questioning using why Kerry is out there. In the first place, he did an exceptional job as an Obama surrogate since January. Kerry has the best credentials of any Senator on terrorism and has been the leader since 2005 on Iraq. Who would you prefer?

I guess you missed that it was Kerry who endured the vilification of the Clinton Democrats to bring Kerry/Feingold to the Seante floor. He, more than anyone, sold enough Americans on the need to tell Iraqi politicians that we would set a deadline and leave.

As to voting for the war - he voted to give Bush leverage for diplomacy. He has since said that he was wrong - many many times. He also went further than anyone - calling the war immoral. Even in 2004, running for President, he said it was not a war of last resort. That means it was not a just war.

Unlike many who later said it was not a vote to go to war, Kerry carried through on his promise to speak out if Bush did not keep his commitments to try to avoid war. He spoke out enough that he was singled out by the RW - for calling for regime change at home and for his Georgetown speech.

Here's a link to a David Frum op-ed that complains that Kerry would never agree it was time to go to war and that there had been no rush.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3358606

Posted by KC | June 17, 2008 10:29 PM

"Kerry has the best credentials of any Senator on terrorism and has been the leader since 2005 on Iraq. "

Really? If this clueless dolt is the best the Democrats have to offer on Iraq and foreign policy then the Democrats have practically endorsed McCain.

Kerry, like his bad joke, is stuck in Iraq. The Democrats have painted themselves into a 'surge wont work' corner as the ducks finally line up to deliver stability and security in Iraq. Many mistakes were made by the Bush administration, but all along, the Democrats were there peddling defeatism and advice that was worse. Kerry said the elections wouldnt work - they did. Kerry (and Obama) said the surge wouldnt work - it did. Violence is down 75%. the Iraq security forces are now strong enough to tackle many challenges and keep getting stronger. We have gotten into a position where winning stability in Iraq is inevitable so long as we continue supporting the Iraqi govt in the next 1-2 years as it gets up to speed.

McCain is the one man whose advice and perspective has been vindicated by events. McCain was the one arguing with Rumsfeld over Bush admin mishandling of Iraq war, an arguing for more troops and the right strategy; The lame attempt to tag him as Bush's 3rd term will not work.

McCain will get our troops back home ... with HONOR.

Posted by PJ | June 17, 2008 11:42 PM

To everyone who sees McCain for the pandering fear monger that he is-- we need to get out there and convince people to do the right thing. Get after your stodgy old uncle and your racist cousin. We can't let this opportunity pass.

Hopefully this can help.

http://themccainfile.com/

Posted by MattW | June 18, 2008 1:30 AM

I don't agree with many of McCain's positions, but trust Obama even less.

Obama talks about change, but doesn't know how to initiate changes. People will vote for him just because he's not a caucasian male.

Obama's a naive rookie senator who will break/divide our country with his proposal for socialized health care. Hillary tried it in 1994, and it failed. Likewise, Obama will fail to implement socialized medicine if elected.

Posted by Joe | June 18, 2008 12:13 PM

Quoting previous commenter: "To John questioning using why Kerry is out there. In the first place, he did an exceptional job as an Obama surrogate since January. Kerry has the best credentials of any Senator on terrorism and has been the leader since 2005 on Iraq. Who would you prefer?"

No, I don't think Kerry has done an "exceptional job as an Obama surrogate." He's a bit of a dilettante, focusing on the issue of the moment, even though his career hasn't been devoted to it.

Who would be better on terrorism than Kerry? Joe Biden, Dianne Feinstein (chair of the subcommittee on homeland security), many other large state senators facing potential terrorism threats to their cities such as Chuck Schumer or even Dick Durbin. Hillary Clinton obviously won't be dispatched as a surrogate yet and may not be viewed as the best surrogate either since she is mostly viewed as a prez. candidate, but she'd be better than Kerry seeing as how she is NY's senator and was on the scene of ground zero on 9/11.

Wesley Clark, Jim Webb, Thomas Carper would all make great service given their sensible views and combat service.

None of the people I've mentioned are viewed as poorly as Kerry is by the general public. Why not use them? Maybe because they mostly backed Clinton (except Durbin)? Pretty dumb reason. I'd much rather have Biden, Carper, or Feinstein up there talking about this stuff instead of Kerry.

Posted by John | June 18, 2008 1:36 PM

Another reason Kerry makes a horrible surrogate. Every time he speaks or attacks McCain, we can wonder or the media can ask him "Then, why did you almost pick him as VP in 2004?"

Posted by John | June 18, 2008 2:16 PM

Remember how Kerry was getting 'swift boated' in 04? It was McCain to his side and defended Kerry's service in Vietnam. Where is Kerry now? Obama is the company he keeps and Kerry is part of this company. Nothing else needs to be said.

Posted by jaybird | June 19, 2008 1:18 PM

I remember McCain defending kerry, but not as stong he should have been. That was a personal attack, unlike a policy war. You understand the different? McCain wants to score point for flying a plane, let it be shot down and then staying in Hanoi Hilton.

Posted by Abm Habib | June 21, 2008 1:32 AM