"John McCain last night:
"If we do what Senator Clinton said what she wanted to do night before last and wave the white flag of surrender and set a date for withdrawal, we will have expenses American blood and treasure will have one.... We're defending freedom. That's one of the obligations of being the world superpower.... I'm so proud that the jobs that the men and women in the military are doing there. And they don't want us to raise the white flag of surrender like Senator Clinton does. They know they can win. And the message to you and to me is let us win.
"So then why was John McCain in favor of "surrender" and waving the white flag when US forces went to Haiti, and when US forces went to Somalia? Isn't McCain interested in defending freedom in those countries? Wasn't it an obligation of a superpower ten years ago when McCain demanded our withdrawal? Was McCain not proud of our men and women in the military who fought in Haiti and Somalia? Why didn't John McCain let them win? If John McCain is going to claim that per se "withdrawal equals surrender" then the media needs to ask him why he wasn't as much a traitor to our country in the 1990s. He can't have it both ways."
Check out the links. Very interesting stuff, and quite a different tune. First off Hilary is the most hawkish Democrat in the race. She supported the war, she continued to vote for the war, and has been the most open to leaving troops in Iraq, so the idea that she wants to 'surrender' is outrageous. But beyond that, one questions why John "Let's-bomb-bomb-bomb-Iran" and "We'll-be-in-Iraq-for-100-years" McCain was against staying in Haiti and Somalia? Does it have something to do with oil? Or geopolitical dominance? Nah, he probably just felt that those countries had enough 'freedom'.