I will at this late hour just point out a whole aspect of the debate that bugged me. But first, in the best, most intense exchange, Obama nailed McCain for over the years not having very good judgment about Iraq:
Obama: And so John likes -- John, you like to pretend like the war started in 2007. You talk about the surge. The war started in 2003, and at the time when the war started, you said it was going to be quick and easy. You said we knew where the weapons of mass destruction were. You were wrong.What bugs me is that implicit here, according to Obama, is that he agrees with McCain that everything has gone swimmingly since 2007. Professor Cole disabuses that notion with references on Iraqi hospitals without elevators for the numerous new amputees, satellite pictures of dark, ethnically cleansed Sunni regions of Baghdad, along with Professor Cole's personal experience witnessing the plight of Iraqi refugees in Jordan.
What really struck me in all this is that neither McCain nor Obama seems to recognize the horrendous effect the Iraq invasion has had on the Iraqi people. For his part, Obama seems not to have any interest in the facts from Professor Cole's references about ethnic cleansing and refugees that refute "victory" through surge. Maybe the eye is off the ball and the Iraqis have $79 billion, but haven't they paid the worst cost? Why is it that Obama is loathe to go there, even though McCain's position could be undermined, while the American people could learn from the debate some of the real issues in Iraq?
Comments