RE :The world is safer today (without question) because of the leadership and changes demanded by SecDef Rumsfeld.
That may be true but that’s hard to sell if our selection for commander and chief (JMcC leader of party) says and runs on the opposite. If you cant get him, you have no one. I agree that Iraq was NOT the sole reason for 06+08losses. My original comment ,that you replied to, cited about 9, although Iraq is a big one. But maybe not as big as this latest mess.
I can tell you I find few republicans (moderates outside of FR) that claim Iraq was not a big black political mark on GWB and hurt republicans badly (mostly McCain supporters). They blame our current fiscal crisis on Iraq spending and believe we never should have got involved.
McCain is NOT a staunch Republican to begin with - But furthermore I don't accept your premise as it does not at all reflect those within the base that I speak with. Iraq was essential to the WOT from day one after Sept 11th - It is the heart of the ME, which had a brutal dictator that had started 3 wars, was a state sponsor of terrorism and had not abided by 17 resolutions putting a halt to Gulf War I.
McCain lost because he is a man that stands for nothing philosophy wise. He was never right on Iraq (tactically speaking) other than when he supported the "surge". He was right strategically on the need for victory. Which is why that alone should have put him into office instead of Obama.
This is the most intellectually dishonest and absurd notion I have seen / heard / read in quite some time - Whoever is touting our current spending on the WOT/Iraq as a reason for our current fiscal issues / banking is simply not willing to deal with reality (and looking to play politics).
Dealing directly with the threats of radical Islam (via both short-term as well as long-term solutions) is one of the best finanical investments our Nation can make. The world is simply too small any longer to think otherwise.