|
McCain’s position:
I’m am a big time War Hero. We were right to go into Iraq. Saddam gone is good. I know what to do to win this war. I wanted to send more troops at the beginning, and I urged for the surge when most were against it. I stood on my principles, and I was right. I want to leave Iraq, but we can leave victorious. It’s important to stay, because if not, there will be genocide, and Al Qaeda will be left to rule Iraq, and turn it into a terrorist state.
Clinton’s position:
Cannot argue about how we got into this war because her vote was the same as McCain's. She has also stated enough times that she wanted Saddam gone and that him being gone was good. She would be forced to move on to how the war was fought. She had a lot of problems with Rumsfeld and how the war was conducted, but she will only be in agreement with McCain, because he thinks that the war wasn’t fought correctly either. Hillary was against the surge, and if the surge is still being portrayed as having been successful, Hillary loses points, which weakens the rest of her argument to get us out of Iraq. McCain will look "resolute" next to her when judged by Repugs, Indies, moderates, and yes the Democrats who are also concerned about National Security.
McCain wins the Iraq War debate, even though most people want out...
He therefore gains the upper hand on National Security matters by defacto of having worn the uniform.
Obama’s Position:
Obama and forcefully argue that the War should never have been fought or authorized. He can point out that as much experience McCain is supposed to have with war, he voted for the debacle that will have ended up costing trillions and killed hundreds of thousands, while the congress was acting tone deaf as the public marched against such move.
Obama then can describe how the war was based on lies, and there were no WMD. That he, Obama, called it for what it was; a Dumb war, and those who supported it who should have known better. He would be speaking from a position of strength having stood against the conventional tide. He can claim the ultimate title of Maverick (McCain's strength), and point out that McCain is the one who supported the President's decision for an elective war, breaking the mold many years of Foreign policy wisdom.
Obama can stressed that well documented fact that there were no links between 9/11 and Iraq, but that McCain acted as though there were. He can then slides in the fact that our economy is now into a recession because we are being held hostage by the Chinese and other countries we have to borrow money from because of our forced expenditures in Iraq. And so, apart from everything else, Obama’s Iraq War opposition provides backbone to go into the economic platform that progressives demand, based on the reason that it is Republican stewardship that has gotten us where we are.
McCain will divert the economic issue by talking about Governmental pork....but Obama can point out that the war is the biggest porker, and roll out some stats. Obama can show without being forced to debate "what to do about Iraq now" on McCain's terms, and he can stress that he had superior judgment on one of the most important national security decision in our current times. He also can brings up McCain's statement of the possibility of our being in Iraq for 100 years.
That's when Obama can move, with an upper hand, on how to get out of Iraq. His argument will carry more credibility than McCain’s by this time...and Obama then proposes how we get out of Iraq.
Obama wins the Iraq War debate, and neutralizes McCain on McCain's strength.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
