McCain camp seizes on Mullen's remarks about "dangerous" withdrawal. Lies about Obama's position.

[jefferson_dem]

McCain camp seizes on Mullen's remarks
Posted: Sunday, July 20, 2008 2:21 PM by Mark Murray
Filed Under: 2008, Security, McCain, Obama

From NBC's Mark Murray
While the Obama campaign has seized on Nouri al-Maliki's interview with Der Spiegel as proof that the Iraqi prime minister agrees with Obama's plan to withdraw troops from Iraq, the McCain camp is highlighting Joint Chiefs Chairman Mike Mullen's remarks this morning Fox News Sunday.

Per the Washington Post, Mullen argued on the show that withdrawing all US troops from Iraq over the next two years could be "dangerous." "I think the consequences could be very dangerous," . 'I'm convinced at this point in time that ... making reductions based on conditions on the ground are very important.'"

The McCain campaign quickly fired off this statement: "Barack Obama has said repeatedly that, if elected president, he would summon the Joint Chiefs of Staff and give them a new mission: get all U.S. forces out of Iraq within 16 months, regardless of the conditions on the ground. Today, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Admiral Mike Mullen, the nation's highest ranking officer, made clear that he believes such an approach could be 'very dangerous.'"

Obama, however, has never said he would ignore the conditions on the ground or the advice of US commanders there. As he wrote in the New York Times on Monday, "As I’ve said many times, we must be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in. We can safely redeploy our combat brigades at a pace that would remove them in 16 months. That would be the summer of 2010... In carrying out this strategy, we would inevitably need to make tactical adjustments. As I have often said, I would consult with commanders on the ground and the Iraqi government to ensure that our troops were redeployed safely, and our interests protected. We would move them from secure areas first and volatile areas later. We would pursue a diplomatic offensive with every nation in the region on behalf of Iraq’s stability, and commit $2 billion to a new international effort to support Iraq’s refugees."

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/07/20/1210849.aspx

[GreenPartyVoter]

1. No shocker there

[Bullet1987]

2. They're trying to turn the Maliki thing around against Obama

[creeksneakers2]

3. Mullen is in favor of removing troops from Iraq and transferring

them to Afghanistan. That's Obama's position and contrary to McCain's. Somebody ought to ask McCain about not listening to the generals.

[ErinBerin84]

4. surprise, surprise, "Democrat" Ben Smith doesn't even try and fact check

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0708/Mullen_vs_Maliki.html


"The top uniformed officer in the country, on Fox today, seemed to back McCain, contra Maliki, on keeping American troops in Iraq, and the McCain campaign circulated the exchange"

[jody]

5. DoD has dozens of experienced, brilliant flag officers able to advise a president on alternative

strategies for Iraq and Afghanistan.

Bush/Cheney and their henchmen ignored that advice and that is a major factor behind the worsening conditions in the Middle East today.

IMO it’s a mistake for a president to ignore the advice of active duty leaders in lieu of retired officers who are no longer responsible for the lives of troops.

Sadly that retired cadre of has-been flag officers has become embolden by the attention they receive as media stars pontificating on how to win or retreat from a war no one in the military really wanted.

I hope Obama listens to flag officers on active duty rather than the has-been cadre and ignores completely civilians appointed to key DoD positions and their legions of civilian lackey advisers on how to fight a war.

Of course that’s just my opinion. :shrug: