heh...touche.

Nice to see you continue to try any angle against Obama, but that one is just factually wrong.

I started to type up an aggressive reply directed specifically at you rather than the issue (like the one you did at me that I quoted above) but we've gone down that road in the past so I'm not going there.

I'll just say he said the surge wouldn't work.  That's a case bad foresight, hence, my statement was not factually wrong. 

Based on the intelligence provided to Congress, going to war was the correct choice, making Obama's foresight faulty there as well.  It's only invalid/erroneous intelligence information that made him appear to be correct.  Had all of the intelligence provided been accurate there would have been no question that going to war was the right choice.  Since Obama didn't know the intelligence was wrong, his judgement was wrong in that regard as well.

As I noted above, Scott, he was right about the war, wrong on the surge.  Do I think he should say he was wrong about the surge? Yes, but I'd be stunned if he did.  That said I can't say that I think he has no foresight on the war.  With the exception of the time table I don't think McCain and Obama are so far apart on what they want on the war.   I think they both want to get out of Iraq they just differ on how to accomplish it.   McCain has never said he wants to stay in Iraq beyond when it was necessary.  The question is when will that be?  Obama on the other hand has set a timetable, one that I hope is flexible (in either direction) depending on the development of the Iraqi government and the situtation on the ground.  Again, I think Tom Friedman nailed it in today's New York Times.

Based on the intelligence provided to Congress, going to war was the correct choice, making Obama's foresight faulty there as well.  It's only invalid/erroneous intelligence information that made him appear to be correct.  Had all of the intelligence provided been accurate there would have been no question that going to war was the right choice.  Since Obama didn't know the intelligence was wrong, his judgement was wrong in that regard as well.

I've never thought it was the right choice, not at the time, not now.  And I had no reason not believe the administration (at that point).  But I felt there was sufficient evidence that there were no WMDs to stay our hands.  It "felt" like the administration was pushing for war, not proving a threat.  But that was just my feelings I can't prove it.  However, to say that there was not conflicting evidence regarding WMDs before the congress and the UN is quite simply untrue.

Hey - here's a thought - Obama isn't wrong on the surge - it's a surge - of course there's going to be short-term positives attached to it.  Does it have any sort of long term positives?  Time will tell, but I'm with Obama, and history, in saying "nope".

McCain, and a few examples of him battling foresight, truth and logic..

"And I believe that the success will be fairly easy" and "There's no doubt in my mind that... we will be welcomed as liberators." [John McCain 3/24/03]

"There's not a history of clashes that are violent between Sunnis and Shias. So I think they can probably get along." [John McCain 4/23/03]

"Look, we're going to send young men and women in harm's way and that's always a great danger, but I cannot believe that there is an Iraqi soldier who is going to be willing to die for Saddam Hussein, particularly since he will know that our objective is to remove Saddam Hussein from power."
[John McCain 9/15/02]

"But the fact is, I think we could go in with much smaller numbers than we had to do in the past. But any military man worth his salt is going to have to prepare for any contingency, but I don't believe it's going to be nearly the size and scope that it was in 1991." [John McCain 09/15/02]

"He's a patriot who has the best interests of his country at heart." ]John McCain on Ahmed Chalabi, 2002]

"Absolutely. Absolutely." [John McCain, asked by Chris Matthews, "you believe that the people of Iraq or at least a large number of them will treat us as liberators?" 03/12/03]

I think the victory will be rapid, within about three weeks. [John McCain, MSNBC, 1/28/03]

It's clear that the end is very much in sight. ... It won't be long. It, it'll be a fairly short period of time. [John McCain, ABC, 4/9/03]

We're either going to lose this thing or win this thing within the next several months. [Meet The Press, 11/12/06]

"Well, then why was there a banner that said mission accomplished on the aircraft carrier?" [John McCain, responding to assertion by Fox News' Neil Cavuto that "many argue the conflict isn't over," [John McCain, 06/11/03]

"My friends, the war will be over soon, the war for all intents and purposes although the insurgency will go on for years and years and years." [John McCain, 02/25/08]

The surge has been successful in reducing the violence (and few dispute this)...as it was intended. I don't know that it was ever presented as a long-term solution in and of itself.  And I think it has helped make Obama's exit strategy more viable. As Geoff has stated, Friedman's article in the NY Times explains this very well.

Anyway...Obama's response to McCain on this should be: Well, we wouldn't have needed a surge in the first place if you and your colleagues had voted like me and we hadn't gone into Iraq in the first place! 

Hey, turnabout's fair play, right?

Hey - here's a thought - Obama isn't wrong on the surge - it's a surge - of course there's going to be short-term positives attached to it.  Does it have any sort of long term positives?  Time will tell, but I'm with Obama, and history, in saying "nope".

I've been thinking about this point Mike (trying to decide if I agree or disagree actually) and I think that Obama was wrong about the surge in this way: it accomplished what it needed to accomplish -- it quelled (though did not extinguish) the insurgency "buying* time" for the political process to take hold and allow the Iraqi forces to develop so that they could take up some of the slack.  As we start to dial down our involvement (which is already starting) the question of how we (with the Iraqi government) move forward will determine whether the surge was an effective tactic or another failed plan.  And if it was an effective tactic it may well be decided, in no small part, by Obama's leadership as president. 

*Of course, to Al and Greg's point, that purchase was a hefty one that I wish we never had to make but that die was cast in 2003.