It's time for Democrats to stop letting Republicans beat us over the head with 9/11. It's become a blanket excuse for everything; we can put a stop to that once and for all this November.

Right on! Great post, Todd.

I have my doubts about Obama's ability to win the foreign policy debate for voters, but this gives me confidence.

If we beat McCain on foreign affairs, Iraq, and terrorism, what else does McCain have?

I remember back in the '90s when candidates wished they could have a "War Room" like Clinton/Gore 1992. With the internet, they can. And not just federal and statewide, but legislative and even local.

Brilliant response, and thank you for highlighting it, Todd.

I'd love to believe that everyone here would share these feelings: we have a fine nominee with an excellent chance in November.

Out-effing-standing!

is beginning to soar! And it is becomming ever more clear to me that, even though I absolutely adore Hillary Clinton, her vote for the AUMF - no matter the reasons - would have been a disadvantage for her in this exact debate. I am a believer. He has the exact argument to dismantle them and the skill to do it.

The Republicans like to say that they are stronger on fighting terrorism and going after Al-Qaeda, because they don't mind destroying our consitution.  But the simple fact is that their ridiculous foreign policy has made us less safe and not resulted in the capturing of Bin Laden.

This weekend, I heard that Bush is once again reintroducing a plan to "capture Bin Laden."  After seven years and 3000 deaths, he's going to spend the last months of his administration restarting our effort to capture Bin Laden.  The "bloody flag" that they wave is even more disgusting given that fact.  At least when the Republicans waved "the bloody flag" after the Civil War, they had actually accomplished something (winning the Civil War), these douchebags can't even tie their shoes right.

But.. but... but.. Jerome says there is nothing exciting about Obama!  This can't be true...

Right on!  Like you said, even two years ago people didn't want Democrats to talk 9/11 and terrorism because they thought it was a good issue for Republicans.  But it's not.  The Republicans fucked up, big time - and it's about time somebody started letting them have it with both barrels.

You know, people complained about the "3 am" type commercials during the primary.  I never thought they were out of bounds or "fear-mongering".  I think it's a legitimate issue.  More than that, I think that not only should Obama not complain when they come from the Republicans (because you know they're coming), he should run his own versions himself - because this IS a winning issue for him.

Who would you want answering the phone at 3am?  They guy who blundered into war without even reading the national intelligence report on the country we were invading?

I believe the day Obama goes to Iraq , is when Mccain would gain the upper hand in the debate .

If I was going to vote on Iraq/National security/Foreign policy alone , he would likely not get my vote.

However I wouldn't be casting my vote based on that alone.

I believe the day Obama goes to Iraq , the debate over the war would change likely in favor of John Mccain .

There is a reason why the republicans and Mccain have been pushing him to go over there . There has been  changes over there that is not reflected in the rhetoric and policy Obama is pushing . The only way he can get away with it throughout the election is if he doesn't go over there . if he does go over there he would likely have to articulate a new position.

No doubt he has an effective counter argument now  and he is doing well with it , but it would be hard for that argument to work in my view when the narrative changes to fit the reality of what is going on in Iraq right now.

Excellent!

That's gonna leave a mark!

Nice start.

Now, let me know whey he starts naming Bush, Cheney and the Idiota Rice as the folks who fiddled while the towers burned.

He'll be half-way to my vote when he calls them out and names them as responsible for doing nothing to stop the attack.

That's the big shitpile in the room and until someone says it....

Out Loud...In the MSM's Face!

..everything else is just prattle.
.

"These are the same guys who helped to engineer the distraction of the war in Iraq at a time when we could have pinned down the people who actually committed 9/11," the presumed nominee told reporters

Indeed.  Woolsey was one of the first to falsely link Saddam to the 9/11 attacks. Though all signs were pointing to bin Laden, in the days after 9/11 Woolsey wrote an article in The New Republic promoting Laurie Mylroie's batty conspiracy theories about Saddam.  Josh Marshall recalls even more of Woolsey's wankery and writes:

I'm more than a little amused that this is the guy who's advising McCain

This is an argument that Clinton could not have won.  Having been duped into supporting the Authorization for the Use of Force in Iraq, her only chance was to say she was duped (a loser) or try to out war the warmongers.

Sorry Clinton supporters, when she used one of the 2 traditional responses to talk about national security while running for election (either try to change the subject as Kerry did, or to emulate Republican positions like Dukakis did, she chose Dukakis), she overcompensated by voting for the war, and the die was cast.  It is the fundamental issue of the campaign and she called it wrong.  She has no one to blame but herself.

G.W Bush was president when 9-11 happened.  If Al Gore was president during 9-11, he would have never been re-elected and would have been painted as someone who did not protect the nation.  Now, tables are turned and the failures of this administration were manifested with the Iraq disaster, and with an election upcoming it is time for Obama to call out all the idiots who are costing our nation 3 billion a week.  Can you freaking believe the guts these WAR MONGERING fools posses in which they are willing to insult our nominee by calling him naive?  Fuck'em.  Americans can no longer be fooled by this trash.  Swiftboating won't work this time when people are paying 5 dollars for gas and 4 bucks for bread.  Stupid fools.

December 14th of 1791, that is. The following day the Virginia legislature ratified the first ten amendments to the Constitution and put the Bill of Rights over the top. McCain does not understand the danger of an unfettered government.

Obama just fired a nasty salutatory shot across the Mclames bow - thats gotta hurt!!

All polls now show that the American public has made up its mind about Iraq.  The war was a mistake.  The US should wind things down over the next 1-2 years.  If Obama stays on message he'll have no trouble.

Great job by Obama to link Bush and McCain with almost every sentence.  The best thing McCain has going for him right now is the "maverick" persona, which quickly disappears when people see how closely he aligns with Bush on most issues.  He owns Bush's policy positions, and the more people that know that the better.

Full Video on this, well worth the watch!

at the moment, in no way justifies the original invasion. even if there are no deaths in Iraq for the rest of the year, we have still wasted hundreds of billions, if not trillions of dollars, lost thousands of US troops, given the rest of the world yet another reason to think the US is an imperialist power, weakened our standing among our allies, etc etc etc.

One thing Rove understood. You have to go after your opponents greatest strength and undermine it's underpinnings. Obama is going at it hammer and tong.

Here's an excerpt you conveniently omitted from your write-up:

As we discussed in the meeting, we face serious challenges to our security. Our nation is fighting two wars. There are terrorists who are determined to kill as many Americans as they can. The world's most dangerous weapons risk falling into the wrong hands. And that is why the single greatest priority of my presidency will be doing anything and everything that I can to keep the American people safe.

So this is his greatest priority.  Not universal health care.  Not job creation.  Not helping people who are losing their homes through foreclosure. Not renewable energy. Does his definition of "greatest single priority" change depending on the audience?

Over the past year, Senator Obama has often said that he welcomes a debate on national security with Republicans because "that's a debate I'll win."

I doubt it:

We need more resources in Afghanistan. I have been arguing for this since 2002, when I said that we should finish the fight against al Qaeda and the Taliban instead of going into Iraq. I have called for at least two additional combat brigades to support our efforts there. I have also called for at least $1 billion in non-military assistance each year.

Would that $1 bn be going toward a Contractor Full Employment Act?

More war, different country.  I thought he was all about change.  How does this qualify as change?  And "since 2002"?  When he was in the IL Senate and had no responsibility or impact? If he's so damned concerned about Afghanistan, why didn't he call a single oversight hearing of his subcommittee, where he can have input and achieve change, but where he has been noted only for his complete absence.  

Why must we wait for leadership from this person only when he becomes president?  I just don't trust him.

Obama has a pretty decent counterpunching style, many of his better moves against Hillary were of that variety.

I think it gives him the opportunity to say "hey I'm being attacked here, so since you brought it up, here's devastating counterpoint to completely tear your argument apart".

Basically, it allows him to go on the attack and look like a nice guy while doing it.

This is the kind of leadership I want to see out of Obama. I want to see someone strong and authoritative who is not going to take any more crap from the Republicans. Good for him and good for us.

I'm proud of Obama for taking the gloves off and unleashing a smackdown on Bush/McSame. Everything he said in that press conference/speech is true.

I don't think Obama should go to Iraq, Afghanistan or the Middle East until after he becomes President. It gives the Neocons and corporate cronies in the Bush Admin. an opportunity to have him assassinated and blame it on "terrorists". They could easily have Blackwater or other contractors look the other way and let someone kill Obama or kill him themselves.
 Even after he becomes President, he'll have to be very careful wherever he goes and the Secret Service are going to have to work extra hard at protecting him.