NO! Why can't Obama supporters who are interviewed on the weekend and cable talk shows respond to that repeated question more forcefully than they have. And why hasn't the Obama camp been more forceful in repudiating the claim that McCain is the person who is better prepared on national security issues due to his "experience"? I've seen example after example cited here on DU that demonstrates that McCain is exactly the wrong person you'd want if your key issue is national security. But neither Obama himself nor those speaking on his behalf have effectively responded to the proposition that McCain is more experienced regarding and better prepared to handle national security issues than Obama. And, as Ariana Huffington points out on her blog, if you don't challenge that proposition, it becomes accepted as fact in the general electorate.
<
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/obamas-vacation-assignmen_b_118253.html>
What Obama and his mouthpieces need is a better set of talking points to respond to this oft repeated question:
Q: Don't you have to agree the surge has worked?
A: No. While violence is down, the key objective of the surge, political reconciliation, has not been achieved. Plus, it's clear that the reduction in violence was underway before the surge was implemented for reasons having nothing to do with an increase in the number of our troops in Iraq. Let's examine the facts behind the question of who's right, and who's wrong, on national security. More than five years after the Bush administration, supported unequivocally by Senator McCain, declared mission accomplished, we still have more than 140,000 troops in Iraq, we're still spending $10 billion a month to keep the peace, and we don't have enough troops to effectively respond to the threats posed by events in Afghanistan and Pakistan, much less track down Osama bin Laden. The real question that voters should ask is "Do you think we should have gone to war in Iraq?" Like President Bush, Senator McCain remains staunchly in favor of the original decision to embark on this disastrous foreign policy blunder. Senator Obama, on the other hand, has argued from the beginning that our decision to attack Iraq was a grave mistake and that our continued occupation with Iraq, then and now, reduces our ability to affect events in Afghanistan and Pakistan, which contrary to what President Bush and Senator McCain believe, is the real central front on the war on terror. So whom would you want in the White House? Someone who thinks and acts just like President Bush, or someone who at least knows that Iraq and Pakistan don't share a common border?
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(342 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
