Friday, May 25, 2007

Voting to Lose, Clinton and Obama

Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama joined 12 other senators in voting against the Iraq War spending bill. Now that might work for their liberal, anti-American, defeatist crowd, but it's not going to sit well with the general public. Heck, no one is happy on how the war is going or very happy with Pres. Bush's handling of it, but the majority of Americans don't want to lose. I can see how voting against giving money for the troops may help in the Primaries, but they sure are going to have to explain it come the General Election. Should either become the nominee, tonight's vote would be exploited by Republicans attacking the Democratic nominee as weak in fighting the war on terror and of not supporting the troops.
Oops! It's starting already! John McCain takes down Obama.
But this is what Obama said in response, in a written statement circulated by his campaign:
"This country is united in our support for our troops, but we also owe them a plan to relieve them of the burden of policing someone else's civil war. Governor Romney and Senator McCain clearly believe the course we are on in Iraq is working, but I do not. If there ever was a reflection of that it's the fact that Senator McCain required a flack jacket, ten armored Humvees, two Apache attack helicopters, and 100 soldiers with rifles by his side to stroll through a market in Baghdad just a few weeks ago."
The McCain camp came back with this: "While Sen. Obama's two years in the U.S. Senate certainly entitle him to vote against funding our troops, my service and experience combined with conversations with military leaders on the ground in Iraq lead me to believe that we must give this new strategy a chance to succeed because the consequences of failure would be catastrophic to our nation's security.
By the way, Senator Obama, it's a 'flak' jacket, not a 'flack' jacket."
It's a reminder of how inexperienced Obama may look running for President in a time of war, and how much more effective McCain is on the national security issue.

No comments: