Barack Obama grapples with Iraq in his VFW speech

Barack Obama, following John McCain by a day at the lectern of the annual convention of the Veteran of Foreign Wars, didn't offer the "I was wrong" admission about opposing the U.S. troop surge in Iraq that his Republican rival has been tauntingly calling on him to make for weeks.

It's about as safe a bet as there is that the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee will never do that. 

Obama did, however, make a nod to the changed circumstances on the ground in Iraq.

He allowed that "gains have been made in lowering the level of violence thanks to the outstanding efforts of our military, the increasing capability of Iraq’s Security Forces, the ceasefire of Shiite militias, and the decision taken by Sunni tribes to take the fight to al Qaeda. Those are the facts, and all Americans welcome them."

It's a better sound bite than he provided CBS News' Katie Couric last month when, during Obama's trip to various nations, including Iraq, she quizzed him about the surge.

Still, Obama's main goal in his speech in Orlando, Fla. -- as it will be when he squares off with McCain on debate stages this fall -- was to spotlight a larger perspective.

Thus, as a prelude to his comments on current conditions in Iraq, he had this to say:

"In the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, I warned that war would fan the flames of extremism in the Middle East, create new centers of terrorism, and tie us down in a costly and open-ended occupation.

Sen. McCain predicted that we’d be greeted as liberators, and that the Iraqis would bear the cost of rebuilding through their bountiful oil revenues. For the good of our country, I wish he had been right, and I had been wrong. But that’s not what history shows."

Obama also took note that McCain, in his VFW appearance, had suggested "as he has so many times, that I put personal ambition before my country."

Responding in typically low-key fashion -- with a tone more sorrowful than angry -- Obama responded:

"That is John McCain’s prerogative. He can run that kind of campaign, and -– frankly -– that’s how political campaigns have been run in recent years. But I believe the American people are better than that. I believe that this defining moment demands something more of us."

And, toward the end of his speech, he echoed language from his keynote address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention -- the speech that spotlighted Obama as a comer on the national scene (though few would have predicted then that this year's party confab would serve as his political coronation). Said Obama today:

"I will let no one question my love of this country. I love America, so do you, and so does John McCain. When I look out at this audience, I see people of different political views. You are Democrats and Republicans and independents. But you all served together, and fought together, and bled together under the same proud flag. You did not serve a red America or a blue America -– you served the United States of America."

The last line sparked hearty applause, according to the The Times' Seema Mehta, who was on the scene. Our colleague John McCormick also has more on the speech at the Swamp, and the complete text can be read here.

Before departing with the Obama campaign, Mehta got a chance to talk ...

... with some of those who heard the candidate.

Bob Wonnell, 60, is a registered independent in Missouri -- a state that President Bush carried easily in 2004 but the Obama camp would love to turn into a battleground state this year. Wonnell, a former Marine, won't be helping that cause -- he plans to vote for McCain because of his military background and foreign policy experience.

“I support a veteran,” he told Mehta.

But Charles Leighliter, 81, of Pittsburgh, said he agreed with Obama’s take on securing the nation and enhancing its stature around the world.

“He’s going to be good for America,” said the Air Force veteran.

Leighliter also mentioned the age issue in discussing why he would not be supporting McCain, who soon turns 72. "He’s a fellow veteran and I think the world of him. But I don’t think he’s right for president. My personal opinion? I think he’s a little too old. I do,” he said.

-- Don Frederick

Photo credit: Bloomberg News

Comments

[scootmandubious]

Senator Obama brought something up that I have referred to constantly in my internet postings, but something that the media ALWAYS ignores.

Rather than questioning Obama as to whether he was 'wrong' on the surge (and, since the surge was primarily supposed to buy time for the Iraqi government to get its act together, has it really worked?), why is nobody in the media questioning Senator McCain on his earlier assessment of the Iraqi war?

Since foreign policy expertise is allegedly his prime credential for the job, why is this 'expert' not questioned on his inaccurate assertion that we would be greeted as liberators and that Iraqi oil would pay for it?

Had it been Obama making those statements, wouldn't the msm be using those comments to demonstrate an ignorance ot foreign affairs?

Before the invasion, I remember thinking that there was no way it would not lead to civil unrest, which, if one has a basic understanding of the region, would have been something that would have come to mind. Indeed, it was a fear that was expressed way back when the first Bush chose not to carry out a similar offensive.

So, why is it that the media ignores all of McCain's earlier statements that proved to be totally inaccurate? If he is going to keep hammering away that he somehow 'invented' the surge, how about if he speaks out about why he made so many bad predictions? He won't because he knows the media will never call him out on it.

Is this what we consider when we call somebody an 'expert' on foreign affairs?

I call it hypocrisy, plain and simple.

[scootmandubious]

Senator Obama brought something up that I have referred to constantly in my internet postings, but something that the media ALWAYS ignores.

Rather than questioning Obama as to whether he was 'wrong' on the surge (and, since the surge was primarily supposed to buy time for the Iraqi government to get its act together, has it really worked?), why is nobody in the media questioning Senator McCain on his earlier assessment of the Iraqi war?

Since foreign policy expertise is allegedly his prime credential for the job, why is this 'expert' not questioned on his inaccurate assertion that we would be greeted as liberators and that Iraqi oil would pay for it?

Had it been Obama making those statements, wouldn't the msm be using those comments to demonstrate an ignorance ot foreign affairs?

Before the invasion, I remember thinking that there was no way it would not lead to civil unrest, which, if one has a basic understanding of the region, would have been something that would have come to mind. Indeed, it was a fear that was expressed way back when the first Bush chose not to carry out a similar offensive.

So, why is it that the media ignores all of McCain's earlier statements that proved to be totally inaccurate? If he is going to keep hammering away that he somehow 'invented' the surge, how about if he speaks out about why he made so many bad predictions? He won't because he knows the media will never call him out on it.

Is this what we consider when we call somebody an 'expert' on foreign affairs?

I call it hypocrisy, plain and simple.

[Mitchell in NY]

On a list of a (baker's) dozen reasons why McCain will not win, #6 and #7:

6. The Age Factor: McCain’s age will hurt him. (I am not claiming that this is fair, but it seems to be a fact. Older voters are especially concerned about McCain’s age.)

7. The Not So Straight-talk Factor: McCain has built his reputation on being a man of principle. This has two features: he believes in something and he sticks with what he believes in. McCain has recently begun to backpedal on principles and commitments. He is vulnerable to being viewed as a flip-flopper, if not dishonest, which will undermine his hitherto greatest strength. See “The Carpetbagger Report” for an extensive list of McCain’s Flip-flops.

“A Dozen Reasons Why McCain Won’t Win: Money-Back Guarantee”
http://msa4.wordpress.com/

[fsteele]

At the religious debate, Obama was asked about his hardest decision. He said it was his opposition to the Iraq war.

That's interesting, since he usually says that his judgement was right the the first time at 3 am about that. Which wouldn't be hard since
he was at an anti-war rally when it was the PC thing to do.

Still, have any witnesses or other evidence turned up that he really did make the speech he claims. Isn't the only video of it something done up later in Axelrod's studio?

[kat in your hat PUMA]

Obama needs to admit he was wrong about the surge. McCain was right and it worked. If not Hillary, it must be McCain for Commander in Chief.

Enough of this American Idol BS. Enough of pushing for the least experienced person. This is our COUNTRY!!

I'll fight for our country. Here. At. Home. I WILL revolt from the democratic party and I WILL participate in a revolution.

PUMA.

[princetrumpet]

Don't know what planet you were on, scootmandubious, but McCain, while he voted for the war, was deeply critical of the prosecution of the war. He was one of the few if not the only one perspicacious enough to say we weren't sending enough troops into battle. When the Surge was instituted it was an application of McCain's appropriate strategies for battle.

Because you don't happen to agree with going into Iraq is inconsequential to the success we've had in stabilizing an unstable haven for terrorism that affected us in ways that had nothing to do directly with 9/11.

The junior senator from Illinois lacks any kind of world vision that would continue to lead America as the greatest nation in the world. While it is popular for the robots in the Democrat party to talk down America, McCain is exemplary in his unabashed pride of looking forward, not downwards.

[jeleanoro]

Words, Words, Words, Obama is great with Words, best when he's reading them of course, needs that teleprompter. He's proud of his Words, he's like a Word salesman, when he uses those Words, people watch in awe...BUT...they're just Words, there's no substance to go with those Words, there's no proven track record to substantiate those Words, and how about truth, are those Words always truthful? He asks, were JFK's speeches, just Words? answer NO, JFK had years of substance behind him, in the military and in his family. He asks, were MLK's speeches just Words? answer NO, he was a man of courage, who just wanted equality for all people, and lived and died for his cause. He asks, are my Words just Words? answer YES...

[fsteele]

The polls are getting worse for Obama. He hasn't made any progress with Hillary supporters since June; about 3 million are going to vote for McCain, at least 4 million MORE are going to stay home.

This roll call may be a brillant strategy of Obama to get to Clinton/Obama without having to be seen conceding to a woman. With C/O, if C wins, O has an easy job and an easy shot in 2016. If McC wins, O can pick up the pieces.

[fsteele]

Is there any evidence that Obama actually gave the speech he claims he gave in 2002? It was on his website for a while -- he took it off when the war became popular -- and there was a recording made in Axelrod's studio later. But what evidence he was even at a local Chicago rally in 2002 or even made a speech, much less this one?