Thursday, June 12, 2008
McCain Hit for Troop Withdrawal Comment
Democrats accused John McCain on Wednesday of being confused and unsympathetic for saying it's "not too important" when U.S. troops leave Iraq, attacking the Republican presidential candidate on an issue he has made key in the November election.
McCain's campaign said his comment had been distorted and there was no one better placed than the former prisoner of war to understand the sacrifices made by American soldiers and military families.
The Arizona senator has built his campaign largely around his strength as a potential commander in chief and has drawn contrasts with his Democratic rival Barack Obama who McCain says is too inexperienced in foreign policy.
But Democrats seized on McCain's response to a question in a television interview when asked if he had a good estimate of when he thought American troops might come home from Iraq.
"No, but that's not too important," McCain said on NBC's "Today Show." "What's important is the casualties in Iraq."
In dueling conference calls, the campaigns propelled Iraq and the squabble over national security credentials back to the front of the campaign agenda. The focus this week had been on the U.S. economy, an issue that many analysts believe favors Obama.
"It is unbelievably out of touch and inconsistent with the needs and concerns of Americans and particularly the families of the troops who are over there," said Democratic Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts.
"To them it's the most important thing in the world when they come home. And it's the most important thing in the world that we have a commander-in-chief who understands how you can bring them home," said Kerry, a Vietnam veteran and close Obama supporter who lost the 2004 election to President George W. Bush.
McCain's campaign said the Democratic reaction was a false attack designed to hide Obama's willingness to disregard facts as he pursues withdrawal from Iraq "no matter what the costs."
Later the Obama campaign sought to quell controversy over the head of its vice presidential selection team whose business dealings had been questioned. Obama announced that Jim Johnson, former head of the mortgage giant Fannie Mae, had quit.
On Iraq, Republican National Committee Chairman Mike Duncan said Obama, an early opponent of the war who has promised to remove U.S. combat troops within 16 months of taking office, had no "credibility" discussing the future of the country.
Sen. Joe Lieberman, an independent from Connecticut, said he was disappointed in the "reflexive attacks" on McCain, a prominent supporter of the decision to invade Iraq who has vowed to keep American troops there until the war is won.
"I view the attacks on Senator McCain this morning as another partisan attempt to distort John McCain's words, to distract the American people from the fact that John McCain has been both courageous and right about the surge in Iraq and Barack Obama has unfortunately been consistently wrong," said Lieberman, a former Democrat who is a McCain supporter.
"The part that I find most outrageous is the suggestion that he's out of touch with the needs of our troops," he said.
Obama's advisers said McCain's comment shows that he is confused and does not really understand the situation in Iraq.
"We've heard ... a real disturbing, even disconcerting, pattern of confusing the basic facts and reality that pertain to Iraq from John McCain over a series of months," said Susan Rice, one of Obama's senior foreign policy advisers.
She pointed to misstatements McCain has made about the number of troops in Iraq and his confusion over which Islamic extremist group Iran is accused of supporting.
Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean said the comments show McCain has no plan to bring the Iraq war to a responsible end.
"One of the most important questions in this campaign is when and how Sen. McCain would bring our troops home from Iraq," Dean said.
Democrats accused John McCain on Wednesday of being confused and unsympathetic for saying it's "not too important" when U.S. troops leave Iraq, attacking the Republican presidential candidate on an issue he has made key in the November election.
McCain's campaign said his comment had been distorted and there was no one better placed than the former prisoner of war to understand the sacrifices made by American soldiers and military families.
The Arizona senator has built his campaign largely around his strength as a potential commander in chief and has drawn contrasts with his Democratic rival Barack Obama who McCain says is too inexperienced in foreign policy.
But Democrats seized on McCain's response to a question in a television interview when asked if he had a good estimate of when he thought American troops might come home from Iraq.
"No, but that's not too important," McCain said on NBC's "Today Show." "What's important is the casualties in Iraq."
In dueling conference calls, the campaigns propelled Iraq and the squabble over national security credentials back to the front of the campaign agenda. The focus this week had been on the U.S. economy, an issue that many analysts believe favors Obama.
"It is unbelievably out of touch and inconsistent with the needs and concerns of Americans and particularly the families of the troops who are over there," said Democratic Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts.
"To them it's the most important thing in the world when they come home. And it's the most important thing in the world that we have a commander-in-chief who understands how you can bring them home," said Kerry, a Vietnam veteran and close Obama supporter who lost the 2004 election to President George W. Bush.
McCain's campaign said the Democratic reaction was a false attack designed to hide Obama's willingness to disregard facts as he pursues withdrawal from Iraq "no matter what the costs."
Later the Obama campaign sought to quell controversy over the head of its vice presidential selection team whose business dealings had been questioned. Obama announced that Jim Johnson, former head of the mortgage giant Fannie Mae, had quit.
On Iraq, Republican National Committee Chairman Mike Duncan said Obama, an early opponent of the war who has promised to remove U.S. combat troops within 16 months of taking office, had no "credibility" discussing the future of the country.
Sen. Joe Lieberman, an independent from Connecticut, said he was disappointed in the "reflexive attacks" on McCain, a prominent supporter of the decision to invade Iraq who has vowed to keep American troops there until the war is won.
"I view the attacks on Senator McCain this morning as another partisan attempt to distort John McCain's words, to distract the American people from the fact that John McCain has been both courageous and right about the surge in Iraq and Barack Obama has unfortunately been consistently wrong," said Lieberman, a former Democrat who is a McCain supporter.
"The part that I find most outrageous is the suggestion that he's out of touch with the needs of our troops," he said.
Obama's advisers said McCain's comment shows that he is confused and does not really understand the situation in Iraq.
"We've heard ... a real disturbing, even disconcerting, pattern of confusing the basic facts and reality that pertain to Iraq from John McCain over a series of months," said Susan Rice, one of Obama's senior foreign policy advisers.
She pointed to misstatements McCain has made about the number of troops in Iraq and his confusion over which Islamic extremist group Iran is accused of supporting.
Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean said the comments show McCain has no plan to bring the Iraq war to a responsible end.
"One of the most important questions in this campaign is when and how Sen. McCain would bring our troops home from Iraq," Dean said.
Labels: I
Thursday, November 15, 2007
Liberal Dems Back Party's War Bill
WASHINGTON — Three leading House anti-war Democrats said they now back a $50 billion bill that funds the war but calls for most troops to come home by December 2008.
Their support paves the way for the bill's passage Wednesday. The trio, California Reps. Lynn Woolsey, Barbara Lee and Maxine Waters, represent a liberal anti-war caucus that last week expressed opposition to the measure on the grounds it was too soft and did not demand an end to combat.
The bill requires that President Bush initiate troop withdrawals within 30 days of its passage with the goal of bringing home most soldiers and Marines by Dec. 15, 2008.
A provision added to the bill, to satisfy liberal caucus members, states that the primary purpose of the $50 billion included in the bill "should be to transition the mission" and redeploy troops in Iraq, "not to extend or prolong the war."
The measure is largely a symbolic jab at Bush, who has already begun withdrawing some troops but fiercely rejects the notion of setting a timetable for the war.
"While this bill is not perfect, it is the strongest Iraq bill to date," the Democratic trio wrote in a joint statement. "This is the first time that this Congress has put forth a bill that ties funding to the responsible redeployment of our troops, and it also includes language mandating a start date for the president to begin the redeployment of our brave men and women."
Woolsey, Lee and Waters said they remained disappointed that the 2008 date was a nonbinding goal that Bush could ignore. But, they said they realized the provision made it more likely that the Senate could pass it.
"This is a concrete step in the right direction, and an important marker for this Congress to lay down," they wrote.
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., told reporters on Wednesday that he anticipates the bill will pass.
Similar legislation has repeatedly passed along party lines in the House only to sink in the Senate, where Democrats hold a razor-thin majority and 60 votes are needed to overcome procedural hurdles.
It is expected that if the measure fails in the Senate, Democrats will not consider Bush's war spending request until next year.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Tuesday that if it does pass and Bush rejects the bill, "then the president won't get his $50 billion."
The money included in the bill represents about a quarter of Bush's $196 billion war spending request for the 2008 budget year, which began Oct. 1.
Democrats say the military won't need the money until early next year. Until then, the Pentagon can transfer money from less urgent accounts or fourth quarter spending to cover costs, they say.
The Pentagon says moving money around is a bureaucratic nightmare that costs more in the long-run. And if taken to the extreme, the military would eventually have to freeze contracts or lay off civilian workers to ensure troops in combat have what they need.
In another provision sure to draw White House opposition, the bill requires that the president certify to Congress 15 days in advance that a unit being sent into combat is "fully mission capable."
The House bill also would require that all government interrogators rely on the Army's field manual. The Army's manual was updated in 2006 to specifically ban the military from using aggressive interrogation techniques, such as waterboarding.
WASHINGTON — Three leading House anti-war Democrats said they now back a $50 billion bill that funds the war but calls for most troops to come home by December 2008.
Their support paves the way for the bill's passage Wednesday. The trio, California Reps. Lynn Woolsey, Barbara Lee and Maxine Waters, represent a liberal anti-war caucus that last week expressed opposition to the measure on the grounds it was too soft and did not demand an end to combat.
The bill requires that President Bush initiate troop withdrawals within 30 days of its passage with the goal of bringing home most soldiers and Marines by Dec. 15, 2008.
A provision added to the bill, to satisfy liberal caucus members, states that the primary purpose of the $50 billion included in the bill "should be to transition the mission" and redeploy troops in Iraq, "not to extend or prolong the war."
The measure is largely a symbolic jab at Bush, who has already begun withdrawing some troops but fiercely rejects the notion of setting a timetable for the war.
"While this bill is not perfect, it is the strongest Iraq bill to date," the Democratic trio wrote in a joint statement. "This is the first time that this Congress has put forth a bill that ties funding to the responsible redeployment of our troops, and it also includes language mandating a start date for the president to begin the redeployment of our brave men and women."
Woolsey, Lee and Waters said they remained disappointed that the 2008 date was a nonbinding goal that Bush could ignore. But, they said they realized the provision made it more likely that the Senate could pass it.
"This is a concrete step in the right direction, and an important marker for this Congress to lay down," they wrote.
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., told reporters on Wednesday that he anticipates the bill will pass.
Similar legislation has repeatedly passed along party lines in the House only to sink in the Senate, where Democrats hold a razor-thin majority and 60 votes are needed to overcome procedural hurdles.
It is expected that if the measure fails in the Senate, Democrats will not consider Bush's war spending request until next year.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Tuesday that if it does pass and Bush rejects the bill, "then the president won't get his $50 billion."
The money included in the bill represents about a quarter of Bush's $196 billion war spending request for the 2008 budget year, which began Oct. 1.
Democrats say the military won't need the money until early next year. Until then, the Pentagon can transfer money from less urgent accounts or fourth quarter spending to cover costs, they say.
The Pentagon says moving money around is a bureaucratic nightmare that costs more in the long-run. And if taken to the extreme, the military would eventually have to freeze contracts or lay off civilian workers to ensure troops in combat have what they need.
In another provision sure to draw White House opposition, the bill requires that the president certify to Congress 15 days in advance that a unit being sent into combat is "fully mission capable."
The House bill also would require that all government interrogators rely on the Army's field manual. The Army's manual was updated in 2006 to specifically ban the military from using aggressive interrogation techniques, such as waterboarding.
Labels: I
