McCain Says Hillary Clinton Would Surrender

Photo from source, New York Times

I can't believe that after five years in Iraq, and six plus years since 9/11, we're still at this point. We have a contender for the Republican nomination for President saying that a contender for the Democratic side would "surrender" to terrorists. All this time later, and we still have no definition for "winning" or "success" in Iraq. We're still pretending that al-Qaeda is who we are primarily fighting in Iraq.

Is pulling out of Iraq really surrender? I mean why are we there? When will we know when our "mission is accomplished?" Without any definitions, it is all meaningless. Unless somebody in authority can clearly define success or lack of same, what is the point of us being there? Seriously, I'm at a loss here.

And one more thing. I've heard recently, and also over the last five years that the "troops" are defending us in Iraq. Are they? Is Iraq a threat? I have nothing but respect for the military ("troops" are groups of soldiers, and we've forgotten that), but I'm tired of the empty fawning. They're great guys, no doubt about it, but that does not mean that the job we've sent them to do is worthy or that they are "defending us" by doing it. It is possible that our government has sent them on a fool's errand. Saying so does not diminish them in any way. It diminishes our government.

[Excerpt]

McCain Says Clinton Would ‘Surrender’

Senator John McCain launched into a pointed critique of his Senate colleague Hillary Rodham Clinton today, saying that “for the first time in political history” a presidential candidate has called for outright surrender in a war. . .

Read more at: >New York Times