Democrats' response to John McCain on the Iraq War?

[kentuck]

"Our troops have done everything we asked them to do in Iraq. They overthrew the dictator, Saddam Hussein. They help create a government that permitted the citizens to vote. We have provided security for years now. We helped with the construction of their schools and infrastructure. Our troops have won that war. It is time for them to come home. It is time to fight the real war on terror. Mr McCain is wrong."

[Proud Liberal Dem]

1. Amen

I'm constantly dumbfounded by Bush, Cheney, Gates, McCain et. al constantly exhorting us to achieve "victory" in Iraq and warning against "defeat" because they don't seem to ever clarify/explain to us what "victory" is or should look like at this point although many of us can certainly SPECULATE about what "victory" means to them and I think that we can all agree that whatever "victory" is to them is certainly NOT going to be good for our country nor the (surviving) Iraqi citizenry. I wish that we had more (are there any?) Democrats in Congress demanding answers from Bush, McCain et. al about what their vision for "victory" in Iraq is since they seem so committed to continuing it despite the aforementioned "goals" having been accomplished and all of the alleged positive results of Bush's "surge" strategy. I have long believed that Bush's underlying motivation for launching his invasion of Iraq and McCain's stated intentions of indefinitely continuing our occupation of Iraq is that being in a "state of war" makes it easier for them and people like them to continue consolidating power, justifying continued erosion of basic civil liberties, and, of course, stifling (if not outright crushing) dissent. THAT doesn't seem to be working for them as well as it used to but that doesn't mean that they won't continue to try of course. Our "freedom" and way of life isn't so much at risk from a ragtag band of terrorists halfway across the world as it is from people like Bush, McCain who (mis-)use such tragedies and/or use military conflict with another country to further enhance their own political agendas and authority at the expense of our freedom and way of life.

[kentuck]

2. Attack his supposed "strengths".

So he wants Karl Rove to be his advisor? Two can play that game. Attack him where he thinks he is strong. That is his stand on the "surge" and the Iraq War. Diminish him in that and he has nothing else to stand on.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

3. Good idea

I hope our nominee also repeatedly brings up the comments that John McCain made about staying in Iraq for the next 100 years (or more). I would like to see McCain have to defend those idiotic comments in light of strong ongoing public support for withdrawing our troops and contrasting them with his hypocritical 1993 comments demanding withdrawal of our forces from Somalia. Oh, and of course, I also hope that our nominee prominently displays the picture of McCain hugging Bush AT EVERY OPPORTUNITY.
:pals:

[kentuck]

4. Hugging George W Bush?

I would put that ad in the vault for the time being. The moment that they go negative, I would bring that out and tie him to George W Bush and his insane policies.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

5. We can't afford to wait until Obama or Hilary is summarily "swiftboated"

We need to go on the offensive (for once). Howard Dean has already started what I think is the best way for us to run against the GOP in 2008, specifically making the election a referendum against Bush because the next GOP (mis-)administration would essentially end up being (or at least looking a lot like) a "third" Bush term. This shouldn't be too hard for us to do as McCain and all of the other nominees have already more or less publicly "hitched their wagons" to Bush and his failed policies. What better way for us to do that than to show how much McCain *hearts* Bush?

[kentuck]

6. You may be right...

But you are perceived to have the moral position when you hit back rather than hit first.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

7. True

But for whatever reason negative campaigning (even Karl Rove's utterly disgusting brand of it)never seems to "backfire" or negatively affect the Republicans. In a just world, it would but it doesn't seem to matter to most people. This year, however, holding our fire might make a little more sense because I'm not even sure that an avalanche of negative campaigning against the Democratic nominee will be enough for the GOP to overcome their already substantial negatives and weaknesses going into the campaign. Despite their flaws, people (and even the MSM) seem to be paying more attention to the Obama-Clinton primary battle and the fact that we might, for the first time in our history, have an African-American or a woman as POTUS while the GOP is running a bunch of old, tired white men pushing the same failed Reagan/Bush-era policies. I don't know what kind of smears the right wing might unleash about Obama nor can I think of much more that the right wing can drag out about Hilary that hasn't already been covered to death by the MSM and "hate radio" for the past 16 years. I just hope that whoever the nominee is, he/she doesn't make the same mistake that Kerry made and will immediately and harshly respond to any scurrilous attacks by the GOP and "hate radio".