McCain Mocks Obama for Comment on Al Qaeda in Iraq at Debate
John McCain tried to capitalize Wednesday on what he sees as a weakness for his potential Democratic opponent, Barack Obama — his positions on Iraq.
McCain ridiculed the Illinois senator for a comment he made in a debate with Hillary Clinton on Tuesday night. Obama was asked if he would send soldiers back to Iraq to quell an insurrection or civil war if Al Qaeda in Iraq re-surges there. He responded that as president, he would take action “if Al Qaeda is forming a base in Iraq.”
McCain, who has staked much of his political fortunes to political and military successes in Iraq and his own national security credentials, suggested his anti-war colleague’s response was either naive or uninformed.
“When you examine that statement, it’s pretty remarkable,” McCain told a crowd in Tyler, Texas.
“I have some news. Al Qaeda is in Iraq. It’s called ‘Al Qaeda in Iraq,”‘ McCain said, drawing laughter at Obama’s expense.
The dig triggered a back-and-forth that continued long-distance through much of the day.
Obama quickly answered back, telling a crowd at Ohio State University in Columbus, “I do know that Al Qaeda is in Iraq.”
“McCain thought that he could make a clever point by saying ‘Well let me give you some news Barack, Al Qaeda is in Iraq,’ like I wasn’t reading the papers,” he said. “But I have some news for John McCain, and that is that there was no such thing as Al Qaeda in Iraq until George Bush and John McCain decided to invade Iraq.”
While an Illinois state senator in 2002, Obama gave an anti-war speech that the Iraq conflict would strengthen Al Qaeda’s ability to recruit.
Noting that McCain likes to tell audiences that he’d follow Usama bin Laden to the “gates of Hell” to catch him, Obama said Wednesday: “All he (McCain) has done is to follow George Bush into a misguided war in Iraq.”
McCain said he had not watched the Democratic presidential debate on Tuesday night but was told of Obama’s response to the Iraq question.
Obama did not say whether he’d send troops in the event of an insurrection but responded: “As commander in chief, I will always reserve the right to make sure that we are looking out for American interests. And if Al Qaeda is forming a base in Iraq, then we will have to act in a way that secures the American homeland and our interests abroad.”
The exchange previewed the likely flash-points for the candidates if they do in fact face off during the general election.
The latest head-to-head Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll, taken Feb. 21-25, showed McCain besting both Democratic candidates in a hypothetical general election — but a race with Obama looks more competitive.
The poll showed McCain with a 46-to-40 percent advantage over Hillary Clinton, but with a slim 44-to-42 percent lead over Obama. Most recent head-to-head polls show Obama beating McCain by a hair and McCain edging out Clinton in a general election. The poll’s margin of error was 3 points.
In an effort to highlight his own security credentials, McCain has throughout the primary season repeatedly attacked both Obama and Clinton for saying they would withdraw troops from Iraq.
“And my friends, if we left, they (Al Qaeda) wouldn’t be establishing a base,” McCain said Wednesday. “They’d be taking a country, and I’m not going to allow that to happen, my friends. I will not surrender. I will not surrender to Al Qaeda.”
He said that withdrawing troops would be “waving the white flag.”
In the debate, Clinton did not answer the question about re-invasion of Iraq on grounds it contained “lots of different hypothetical assessments.”
For years, McCain has urged sending more troops into Iraq, even before President Bush adopted such a strategy about a year ago.
“I knew enough from talking to the men and women who are serving that this new strategy was what we needed, and I’m telling you, it is succeeding,” McCain said. “So what needs to happen, we need to continue this strategy. It should be General Petraeus’ recommendation, not that of a politician running for higher office, as to when and how we withdraw.”
He was referring to Gen. David Petraeus, the top American commander in Iraq.
As he began a swing through Bush’s home state of Texas, which holds a presidential primary election on Tuesday, McCain made sure to play up a line he always uses.
“I also think it might be nice for President Bush to get a little credit that there’s not been another attack on the United States of America,” he said to applause.
FOX News Molly Henneberg and The Associated Press contributed to this report.
The ignorance of the american right winged christian fundamentalists is clear for all to see on this fox news forum. You people are uneducated, most of you have never been outside your own countries in your life yet you think you know how to run another. You people are ignorant gun totting rednecks no better then the taliban. We all hope in the rest of the world that obama is elected president to help save america from the right wing zealots.
If you think your winning hearts and minds across the world with your aggressive policies your only multiplying your enemies. Its time for a thinker in washington one who could unite. Mccain if elected will only make al qaeda stronger.
We have been in Iraq way longer then it took FDR and Truman to bring to great military powers to their knees, Germany and Japan. You don’t here the NRA talking about Truman(Dem) dropping two bombs on Japan and ending WW2. Bush and McCain can’t beat a country that has no airplanes, no Navy, no Marines, no Army and no Coast Guard. I just watched a one hour show on John McCain, did you know when he came back to the USA after the Vietnam, his wife and 3 children were waiting for him. He himself said, “not long after returning I was out have sex with many many women”. He then divorced his wife for a young model. What conservative values. Maybe his name should be JOHN HOLMES MCCAIN. By the way his 3 children can’t stand him.
‘If Europeans such as yourself think that we should vote Democrat this time around… then that’s one more reason why we should vote Republican.
Stay out of our business, we don’t need your third party, half-baked and ill-informed opinions.’
only if you stay out of other countries with your half baked ill informed opinions first.
I failed to add this to my recent comment about Barak Obama and Al Qaeda. If one stops and looks back at what our problems are now, they would see that our major problems started when Jimmy Carter let Iranians take over our Embassy in Iran and he was to lily livered to do anything about it. But it stands to reason that he is a coward and the worst president that i know of because he let a “killer Rabbit” frighten him.
John
Al Qaeda is in Saudi, Syria, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Yemen, Afganastan ahh and all the other places that radical Islam is taught. Just because they aren’t fighting those governments doesn’t mean they’re not there, that’s something he should know, I think he knows but being cute is what politicians do . Pander us. Any Questions?
I am a Korean war Vet and i take offense at Barack Obama’s remark that there was no Al Qaeda in Iraq until George Bush and John McCain decided to invade Iraq. If he really believes that then I wonder if he thinks there is no Al Qaeda in the USA?
I personally think he is so ill informed on so many pertinent problems facing us, foreign and home grown.
John
And screw Europe, minus Great Brittain of course. This is our 15 minutes of fame, our moment, not theirs, Keep that socialistic crap on the other side of the oceans.
Barack Obama,
Who is Nadhmi Auchi?
Anyone who can answer this question will understand Obama’s response yesterday. Beware of who you fall in love with America…
Al Qaeda wasnt in Iraq before we made it a recruiting ground is like saying NY City has never had a mugging before NYPD started patrolling there. Its obvious that Obama needs better advisor’s. Its obvious that he should retract or rephrase the rediculous statement. Perhaps Farrakhan didnt attend the pre-debate meeting.
Hillary may have been onto something when she ran on experience. If only her experience didnt involve Somalia, USS Cole, down sizing the military, Kasovo, and little to no response to terrorism. Interesting.
The election should not be about race, but everyone has made it so. The election should not be about gender, but everyone has made it so. Electing on basis of race or gender is only for the weak minded. The election should be about putting the most highly qualified, experienced, savvy, schrewd, drug free, decent candidate in an office that leads our country and most of the civilized world.
Unfortunately, we are left to choose between these three. As much as Id love to see our soldiers at home, I will vote in favor of national security. As much as Id love to see our border’s closed, I will vote in favor of national security. As much as Id love to see someone in office that could have potentially upset our “representatives” in Congress, I will vote in favor of national security. As much as Id like to see our economy improve, I will vote in favor of national security.
I was a soldier, and spent much time in the middle east. I dont feel any sort of affinity to those people. I do feel that they suffered for years under a leadership style that would take generations to overcome. And the world has all but abandoned us yet again, making us solely responsible for the outcome.
I suppose that leaves us with McCain. The lesser of the evils is chosen. Vote well, vote for the right reasons. Cross party lines and do the right thing. Allow some more time for another, more effective means of ensuring that when we leave that place, its better, and not worse than when we got there. Vote a candidate into the office that also leaves it better, and not worse than we allowed that candidate into the office. At least not bad enough that we cant come back in 4 years with a new candidate and a bucket of band-aids.
I am a life long republican who is considering voting for a democrat for the first time in my life. One thing that constantly irritates me is being labeled racist because I am a conservative. If you will kindly check your history books, you will see that the republican party was formed based on a anti-slavery postition, while the democratic party was firmly for the continuation of slavery. Furthermore, most of the “grandfather” laws and “poll taxes” designed to keep African Americans from voting, were sponsored and passed by democrats. If can see past the veneer of “compassion” you quickly realize what the modern welfare system is and was designed to be: an invisible chain. Seems the democrats simply changed to a more subtle tactic! If, as a community, African Americans woke up and realized that the democratic party has been busy selling them a bill of goods, while any real change has come due to their own efforts, the last vestages of racism might be erradicated from the American psyche. Obama is a definite departure from the normal democrat candidate. I would consider voting for him. The reason for this is simple. I think he is sincere. As a point of fact, I disagree on almost all of his policies. But for the first time in a long time there is a presidential candidate that I find honest and sincere. I also think McCain is sincere and honest, but perhaps a bit jaded. And to any of you who have mocked or belittled the senator’s experiences in Vietnam, you are simply an ignoramus. John McCain set the standard on how to behave. If I bore up half as well as he did under the circumstances he endured, I would be proud!