Log In | Register
The GOP presidential hopeful �told fellow veterans on Monday his Democratic rival Barack Obama tried to legislate failure in Iraq and has refused to admit he erred when opposing the military increase there.
McCain: Obama tried to legislate Iraqi failure
Seeded on Mon Aug 18, 2008 12:37 PM EDT
Article Source: msnbc.com- Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.
- Public Discussion (336)
"The great difference is that I intend to win it first."
Win what? Please tell us McSame what you intend to win.
- 4 votes
If you studied any type of history you would see that pulling out of war to early is the worst thing to do. It is bad for moral would leave many loose ends and the soldiers that risked their lives in Iraq would be devastated. I think we can all agree that we want our soldiers back but at the same time we need to finish what we started. We should not repeat history by leaving to early. This is not just about McCain or Obama it truly comes down to other legislative branches.
FINISH WHAT??? THE WAR ON TERRORISM.... HAW HAW HAW....
YOU CAN NEVER WIN A WAR ON A CONCEPT IN THE HEARTS AND MINDS OF PEOPLE...
WE INVADED - WE ARE OCCUPYING - WOULD AN AGRESSOR WIN A WAR IN USA...METHINKS NOT...
- 3 votes
If you want a "war time" President, vote for Jingo John. He'll keep us in shooting wars. We won't have much of an economy or health care, but we'll beat'em down, knock'em down and probably nuke'em down.
- 3 votes
It is very clear what he means. Playing stupid doesn't advance your position.
He thinks we can leave Iraq in a stable state. You seem to have a crystal ball that shows you that is impossible.
Of course, that same crystal ball, which Obama peers into as well, told you sending more troops would only lead to more casualties and "failure" there.
Your crystal ball is obviously flawed.
- 2 votes
Obama was smart enough to be against Operation Iraqi Blunder from the git go while McSame and the neo-cons were running around banging the war drum telling everyone what a cake walk it would be, how the Iraqi's had all these WMDs and how we would get cheap gas out of the deal. The Iraq war has cost a trillion bucks and cost us tens of thousands of U.S. casualties and now gas is around $4 a gallon, all courtesy of Bush and McSame. In addition, McCain's so-called "surge" was at the expense of Afghanstan which has now deteriorated into a breeding ground to terrorists because we siphoned all our resources into Operation Iraqi Blunder. McSame is a hothead and is clueless about foreign policy. He has no stature and is an international joke. Obama went overseas and demonstrated he not only can command respect and inspire millions to his cause, but showed he can run rings around McSame as commander in chief. In fact, now Iraq supports Obama's timetable for withdraw while Bush and McSame are flip flopping around just trying to keep up with Obama.
If you want a continuation of the Bush foreign policy blunders then vote for his numero uno enabler, McSame, the chief cheerleader for the biggest foreign policy fiasco in American history.
If you want change and an intelligent foreign policy that will restore America's prestige and respect in the world, Obama is your man.
- 5 votes
The man is desperate and really stretching at this point.
Here's where 'they're trying to make you scared of me' comes into play.
- 3 votes
What War? This war was over years ago. The troops are over there standing in between two groups that hate each other and that has them in a place they should never be. Surge? The surge was a BS republican ploy. The Sunnis and the Shiites had already came to the conclusion the Insurgents were becoming a problem and wanted them out of the country. They started wiping them out and all the surge troops did was guard after they got there. Look at the next TV pictures from Iraq. You cannot walk down the streets of Baghdad if you are not from there without a bullet proof vest and full battle gear. Once again they used our young men and women as pawns so they could save face. Then this moron says (The surge led to agreements) that happened months before they even landed. Presidential? Not in the least.
Did that move twirling his thumb in the air at the mortercycle rally remind you of Howard Deans move?
- 2 votes
"The objectives were to end Saddam Hussein's brutal regime; to identify, isolate and eliminate Iraq's suspected weapons of mass destruction; to search for, kill, capture and drive out Islamic terrorists; to obtain intelligence related to terrorist networks; to acquire information related to a suspected network of weapons of mass destruction, to distribute humanitarian aid to Iraqis in need; to secure Iraq's oil fields and other resources; and, perhaps most importantly, to assist the Iraqi people in electing a reasonably representative government that might be a model for other nations in the Middle east."
"The objectives were to end Saddam Hussein's brutal regime; to identify, isolate and eliminate Iraq's suspected weapons of mass destruction; to search for, kill, capture and drive out Islamic terrorists; to obtain intelligence related to terrorist networks; to acquire information related to a suspected network of weapons of mass destruction, to distribute humanitarian aid to Iraqis in need; to secure Iraq's oil fields and other resources; and, perhaps most importantly, to assist the Iraqi people in electing a reasonably representative government that might be a model for other nations in the Middle east."
The abrupt fall of Baghdad was accompanied by a widespread outpouring of gratitude toward the Americans, British and their allies, but also massive civil disorder, including the looting of government buildings and drastically increased crime once it was realized that the occupiers were not prepared or authorized to enforce law and order
Post-invasion Iraq coalition efforts commenced after the fall of the Hussein regime. The coalition nations, together with the United Nations, began to work to establish a stable democratic state capable of defending itself,[101] holding itself together[102] as well as overcoming insurgent attacks and internal divisions.
August 14, 2007 the deadliest single attack of the whole war occurred. Nearly 800 civilians were killed by a series of co-ordinated suicide bomb attacks on the northern Iraqi settlement of Qahtaniya. More than 100 homes and shops were destroyed in the blasts. US officials blamed al-Qaeda in Iraq. On September 13, 2007 Abdul Sattar Abu Risha was killed in a bomb attack in the city of Ramadi.[143] He was an important US ally because he led the "Anbar Awakening", an alliance of Sunni Arab tribes that rose up against al-Qaeda in Iraq.
The New York Times, 2008. "Government forces have now taken over Islamic militants' headquarters and halted the death squads and 'vice enforcers' who attacked women, Christians, musicians, alcohol sellers and anyone suspected of collaborating with Westerners", according to the report; however, when asked how long it would take for lawlessness to resume if the Iraqi army left, one resident replied, "one day".[186]
In early May, the Iraqi government called on the residents of Sadr City to flee after more than 40 days of fighting, which has left between 500-1,000 people dead. Due to the nearly constant violence, there are ongoing shortages of food, water, and other supplies.[188]
[edit] Orphans
On December 15, 2007 a conference dedicated to orphans in Iraq was held in Baghdad. Iraq's anti-corruption board reported that official government statistics revealed that five million (or 35%) of Iraqi children were orphans. Wijdan Salem Mikhail, the Iraqi minister of human rights, stated the phenomenon "is one of the most passive things that grew immensely during the past few years due to destructive wars and unbridled violence in the country." The Iraqi parliament's women and family committee have proposed a draft law to set up a fund for the orphans.[263] Abeer Chalabi head of the state orphanages section of the Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs estimates more than 4 million orphans and says the number may be exaggerated "but to have so many is a catastrophe." Iraqi orphanages have the capacity to look after no more than 26,000 children but the government says it has only 700 children in its institutions. This is due mainly to the Iraqi tradition that obligates relatives to take in orphaned or abandoned children but many of these families cannot afford to care for them and send them out during the day to beg or gather scrap metal.[264]
All kinds of people, from university professors to bakers, have been targeted by militias, insurgents and criminals. An estimated 331 school teachers were slain in the first four months of 2006, according to Human Rights Watch, and at least 2,000 Iraqi doctors have been murdered and 250 kidnapped since the 2003 U.S. invasion.[268] Furthermore, the small Mandaean and Yazidi communities are at the risk of elimination due to ethnic cleansing by Islamic militants.[281][282]
I think most of us forget that there are children involved here and we need to get there country stabilized before just leaving. There are still attacks on civilians from Al Queada and other groups on the people that are trying to establish a government. They are in a civil war where one side wants to establish democracy and the other side is murdering innocent people to prevent it.
- 1 vote
I think there are children right here in the United States that needs our tax payer dollars, not throwing our money away in Iraq.
So, JessicaF, are you aware that the republican administration is spending your taxpayer dollars at a rate of $10 billion dollars every MONTH in Iraq?
Since, JessicaF, you are so concerned with children, what are we spending for the children of the United States?
What are we spending for education, health care, and general care for America's children?
Where were we for the children of Katrina? For the children of the midwest floods?
We were too busy spending YOUR taxpayer dollars on an illegal war in Iraq, begun under false pretenses and could possibly end Bush up in jail for forgery.
Republicans always want to throw away our money overseas. Our grandchildren will still be stuck paying off America's debt over this illegal war in Iraq.
So how is that for children, JessicaF ???
Our country spends I believe more than 30 billion dollars a month on welfare, probably more with all of the other programs that we have. Our children for the most part are not getting shot and killed just because we want a democratic government. I understand why we all want our soldiers back but there is more at stake here and when we are just about to accomplish our mission it would be pointless to just pull out now and leave their country in ruin and in a civil war that insurgents will win by killing teachers, doctors, families, etc.
In America the bottom 20% of income gain at the end of the year in taxes, as well as being on all of these programs that cost our country. We already have low income health care in America that many of the uninsured Americans do qualify for but have not applied. We also give free daycare to people that have children to work or go to school if their income qualifies, as well as free heating in the winter and reduced electric bills. We also give food stamps and WIC. They can live in low income housing etc. We give families incredible amounts of money in America and some of those families never go anywhere because the benefits of not having to work or try that hard are far better to them than trying to get a decent job. If you have 2 childen you get a tax refund back of 4,500$ if you make below 35,000$ a year. So I do believe America does great things for children.
If you are a democrat, have you looked at Obama's new proposed bill to give 845$ billion dollars to end world poverty. So you complain about setting up a democracy in a country but if we are taxed to give money to organizations that will not help their country and that will not be facilitated appropriatly to end world poverty is that ok? Now you have an issue with just the republicans spending money in other countries but not the dems?
Our country spends I believe more than 30 billion dollars a month on welfare, probably more with all of the other programs that we have. Our children for the most part are not getting shot and killed just because we want a democratic government. I understand why we all want our soldiers back but there is more at stake here and when we are just about to accomplish our mission it would be pointless to just pull out now and leave their country in ruin and in a civil war that insurgents will win by killing teachers, doctors, families, etc.
In America the bottom 20% of income gain at the end of the year in taxes, as well as being on all of these programs that cost our country. We already have low income health care in America that many of the uninsured Americans do qualify for but have not applied. We also give free daycare to people that have children to work or go to school if their income qualifies, as well as free heating in the winter and reduced electric bills. We also give food stamps and WIC. They can live in low income housing etc. We give families incredible amounts of money in America and some of those families never go anywhere because the benefits of not having to work or try that hard are far better to them than trying to get a decent job. If you have 2 childen you get a tax refund back of 4,500$ if you make below 35,000$ a year. So I do believe America does great things for children.
If you are a democrat, have you looked at Obama's new proposed bill to give 845$ billion dollars to end world poverty. So you complain about setting up a democracy in a country but if we are taxed to give money to organizations that will not help their country and that will not be facilitated appropriatly to end world poverty is that ok? Now you have an issue with just the republicans spending money in other countries but not the dems?
Our country spends I believe more than 30 billion dollars a month on welfare, probably more with all of the other programs that we have. Our children for the most part are not getting shot and killed just because we want a democratic government. I understand why we all want our soldiers back but there is more at stake here and when we are just about to accomplish our mission it would be pointless to just pull out now and leave their country in ruin and in a civil war that insurgents will win by killing teachers, doctors, families, etc.
In America the bottom 20% of income gain at the end of the year in taxes, as well as being on all of these programs that cost our country. We already have low income health care in America that many of the uninsured Americans do qualify for but have not applied. We also give free daycare to people that have children to work or go to school if their income qualifies, as well as free heating in the winter and reduced electric bills. We also give food stamps and WIC. They can live in low income housing etc. We give families incredible amounts of money in America and some of those families never go anywhere because the benefits of not having to work or try that hard are far better to them than trying to get a decent job. If you have 2 childen you get a tax refund back of 4,500$ if you make below 35,000$ a year. So I do believe America does great things for children.
If you are a democrat, have you looked at Obama's new proposed bill to give 845$ billion dollars to end world poverty. So you complain about setting up a democracy in a country but if we are taxed to give money to organizations that will not help their country and that will not be facilitated appropriatly to end world poverty is that ok? Now you have an issue with just the republicans spending money in other countries but not the dems?
Obama: McCain should stop questioning character ( search in yahoo)
McCain stood before the same audience a day earlier and said Obama "tried to legislate failure" in the Iraq war and had put his ambition to be president above the interests of the United States. He said the Illinois senator did this by pushing for a timetable for withdrawal of U.S. combat troops from Iraq and by voting in the Senate against a major appropriations bill to help fund the troop increase.
A decorated Vietnam war veteran and member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, the Arizona senator has sharply questioned whether the 47-year old Obama has the experience and character necessary to serve as commander in chief. ( LOL)
McCain has also spoken out strongly against Russia's invasion of the Republic of Georgia, using Obama's absence from the campaign trail last week when he was on vacation in Hawaii to take a hard line against the Russian government. His tough talk led some of Obama's foreign policy advisers to suggest McCain may have complicated the conflict.
PLEASE GOD!
Don't let the USA be ruled by an Mcsame old man for 4 years ( then he is 76 and stone old) which seems to have NOTHING GOOD to offer to the people in the USA and is already forgetting names - states and believes Putin is the Chief in command in Germany.
Please Powell come out and say how it was during your time and please POW - how many of you want also to become a President?
Please God - have mercy with this good country!!!!
John McCain is correct as to Obama's cynical positions on the Iraq war. It is difficult to escape the conclusion that Obama and the anti-war Left have created for themselves a stake in U.S. failure in Iraq. Many voters made precisely this observation months ago.
- 1 vote
#3 - Mon Aug 18, 2008 1:03 PM EDTI think you're right that anti-war Left has a stake in the Iraq war failure, which certainly isn't a good thing. Nobody likes to see even one more soldier die, but keep in mind this is in response to the pro-war Right that has a stake in the Iraq war's success (however that is measured) at any cost to our soldiers, our budget, our economy or our standing in world opinion.
- 5 votes
I think it is funny that countries oppose us at war with terrorists but at the same time we have saved Europe from tyrants many times. When they have needed us because they opposed war in the past and let Hitler carry on for too long we came to their aid. Now Russia seems to be doing the same. I think we should let Russia start taking European territory and then we will be wanted over there once again and Europe will be begging for help. The dems have the highest % in both the senate and house of reps.
Ummm....Georgia attacked its own city in S.Ossettia with artillery killing hundreds of civilians while they slept....sounds awfully like what Saddam did to his people doesn't it...please do some research.
With friends like Georgia, who needs enemies...
- 6 votes
Jessica, I'm not sure you studied YOUR history. Okay, first of all, war with a nation where we're conducting urban warfare has been disastrous, much like the guerilla warfare in the jungles of Vietnam. Second, we picked a war with a country that has no history of democracy, Germany actually had to ELECT Hitler before disaster hit, and the ONLY reason the U.S. went to the "aid" of Europe was because Japan (along with Hitler) made the incredible decision to bomb Pearl Harbor. We were completely neutral until then and planned to stay out of it. Our country was attacked so we had to fight back before it got worse.
AND if you though at all about our military situation right now, (in spite of all the huffing and puffing done by the U.S. at this time) sending ANYONE to Georgia's defense is near impossible. We're strettched to the limit BADLY. We could only pull people OUT of Iraq and Afghanistan to send them a little ways north. How's THAT going to win anything at all?
As for other countries opposing our "war with terrorists..." first of all, terrorists are world wide, including in our own country, Unabomber anyone? McVeigh anyone? So you cannont conduct a war in ALL countries. Secondly, having lived in Europe, many European countries suffered and still suffer bombings daily that don't even make the news here. Europe has been dealing with terrorists for FAR longer than the U.S. and yet the U.S. didn't give a crap about it until it happened on U.S. soil. No, other countries aren't upset about fighting terrorists. They already FULLY knew there was no terrorist threat coming out of Iraq and that the whole thing was trumped up. THAT'S what other countries were upset about. And WE committed a grave error (I am an American citizen after all) in attacking foreign soil without provocation and other countries have had to hush the words unprovocated war, and turn the other way, because we are VERY lucky that Iraqui allies happened also to be ours, but it sure mudddied a lot of waters.
There is no "stake" in losing the war. What's at stake here, is whether or not the U.S. can continue to be financially exhausted, and continue to lose world support leaving us vulnerable in many ways with the U.N. with NATO, and with European allies, and whether we can adequately protect our own borders in the current state should we indeed be attacked again, or should any other of our allies be attacked. What's at STAKE is when the optimal time to pull out of the war would be, which BOTH parties are trying to determine, without a holocost in Iraq, and without a complete unnecessary continuance of loss of American lives in Iraq, AND how to reinforce our men in Afghanistan so that it doesn't fall back to the Taliban as well. And THAT was a war that's been going on for almost THIRTY years now.
- 5 votes
let me add too, that WWII (which you say gained us so much respect) cost over 20 million lives. Left a HECK of a lot of single moms on the planet and a LOT of disease and shortages. Sure, let's do that so other countries will respect us again.
- 2 votes
Was it not the Bush Administration who was negotiating the removal of the troops and McCain who ulitatley agreed with Obama. Cmon he was right they were wrong even the head guy in Iraq says so.
Echoe, that was a stupid post.
logdump, maliki just had a gorbachev moment, I don't think he'll be thinking about advocating a pullout anytime soon. the militant insurgents provided much support to maliki during his campaign. thus, when he had to deal with them he'd keep his gloves on. Knowing this the Iraqi army has not put up a real fight against the insurgency up until recently. Would you be interested in a fight your own leader was not too supportive of? Maliki decided one fateful day to take on the insurgency in Basrah, after being sorrounded and pounded he called in US troops to bail him out. and like gorbachev, after being betrayed, grew some balls of rage and has been plowing the insurgents out. I doubt McCain would agree with a dumb@!$%#. For the rest of you idiots, do you even know what this insurgency is comprised of? I can only blame your ignorance on the lack of credible sources.
- 1 vote
Bravo Echoe!
Well done. It does me good to know that not eveyone is ignorant.
McSHAME wants war with the world. You think he can do that with an all-volunteer army?
JessicaF, you had better hope your son doesn't get drafted and lose his life in a war that is only about politics, not reality, because McSHAME will bring back the draft.
McSHAME bombs first, asks questions later. And he needs the draft back to have enough troops to take over the world so he can be king of the world.
Bomb bomb bomb Iran sung to the tune of Barbara Ann...........
ok ralla lets tear it apart one paragraph at a time
1st: way to state the obvious, no @!$%# micro warfare will be more difficult to wage, any country is capable of establishing a democracy after a dictator or monarchy, the progression of it can be related to the rousseau and lockeian models.
2nd: I read jessica's post and she did not mention the supply of our troops to georgia's aid just the hypothetical demand that could occurr if russia directed its aggression towards europe
I'll get back to the others after work....lunch is over
The words "failure" and "victory" should be dropped from any discussion of Iraq until someone goes to the trouble of defining them.
Next up: "flip flop," to be replaced by "change of mind" or "change of policy" or "adjustment."
- 4 votes
#4 - Mon Aug 18, 2008 1:09 PM EDTWIN THE WAR ON WHAT??? An ideology that is in the minds of people that hate the USA for meddling in their affairs... There is NO WIN in this oh-so-called war on Terrorism... There is no definable enemy we can eradicate...
This is more of the same-ole-same-ole scare tactics as get your duct tape out and tape up your windows and doorframes against the chemical warheads Saddam will lob 1/2 the way around the world.
This is a new world folks - the USA cant bully everyone anymore...
I repeat again - PEOPLE AROUND THE WORLD DONT HATE AMERICANS - PEOPLE AROUND THE WORLD HATE OUR NEO-CON LEADERSHIP...
- 4 votes
#5 - Mon Aug 18, 2008 1:09 PM EDTI guess your right. We should just allow terrorists to plot against us and bomb occasionally. We should also let them murder and massacre their country and stand by and watch like the rest of the world. If you are a woman you should move there and see if you think we should be there or not. Having terrorists with weapons seems fine to me.
How insanely stupid - have you ever considered what Ron Paul has suggested - i.e. the problem is BLOWBACK... we meddle and make people angry - HOW ARE WE WINNING A WAR ON TERRORISM WHEN ITS ****FAR, FAR**** GREATER SINCE BUSH HAS COME TO OFFICE THAN BEFORE....
A better way to win the war on terrorism is to bring our troops home from EVERYWHERE - JAPAN DOESNT NEED US, GERMANY DOESNT NEED US, TURKEY DOESNT NEED US, IRAQ DOESNT WANT US, ETC. ETC.. AND USE THEM TO HELP SECURE AND POLICE OUR BORDERS...
Not isolationism mind you, but while the troops are still enlisted, use them to help secure our borders North and South... inspect imported good, use them like FDR did to help fix our FAILING INFRASTRUCTURE... i.e. build new bridges, roads, dams, etc... before more vast damage occurs...
HASNT ANYONE NOTICED THAT DURING BUSH'S REGIME THERE HAS BEEN MORE NATURAL DISASTERS IN THIS COUNTRY THAN EVER BEFORE... our country is falling apart and yet we are more concerned about having our troops 1/2 way around the world killing and being killed to get rid of one man Saddam?? cant you see the hypocracy in this...
There is ONE WAY to end the war on terrorism - and that is to quit sticking your friggin nose into everyone elses business - I dont see Canada and Australia worrying everyday about winning a war on terrorism... Once UK deposed their idiot president they seem to be okay... again I state, I deal with people worldwide everyday- THEY LOVE AMERICANS, THEY HATE GEORGE BUSH.... they do not dislike Americans - there IS a difference
- 4 votes
He isn't talking about some vague war on terrorism. He isn't saying that will be over or won. He is talking specifically about whether Iraq will be stable when we leave. Following the Democratic plan, it most certainly won't be. Following McCain there is a chance it might be. Those are the choices.
- 2 votes
By his own logic, McCain, who still thinks it was a good idea to go into Iraq, legislated the death or disability of several tens of thousand of Americans and several hundred thousand Iraqis.
McCain reveals his lack of integrity when he claims that Obama put his ambition first over his nation. We can candidly discuss policy and judgement all day long but insinuating that Obama is a liar and basically will sell his country short to be president is insulting to us all.
Policy issues aside, I really have a problem with his character.
- 6 votes
#6 - Mon Aug 18, 2008 1:10 PM EDTObama is a liar if he says that recent efforts in Iraq have not helped the situation there.
- 1 vote
Wrong. The surge didn't "win the war" the Sunni awakening lowered the violence. Again, why does McCain know better than the Iraqi government itself that agreed with Obama ?
Why do you believe McCain knows so much better when this was the same guy that lied us into this war in the first place, the same guy saying how easy it would all be, and how necessary it was.
This was the same guy that can't tell the difference between Sunni and Shia. The same guy that said Iran bordered Pakistan.
- 4 votes
The Iraqis want a conditional timeline. The left and Obama just want to pull out no matter what happens. They are not the same thing. They do not "agree".
Successes in Iraq have come from multiple factors, but if the left got their way, the Iraqis would never have been given enough time to turn on Al Qaeda.
The vast majority of Iraqis don't have a problem with it. They want us to leave when it makes sense, but they don't want us to leave immediately. The only ones that do are the ones we are fighting.
- 1 vote
The Sunni awaking was when all thoseUSForces from the surge came in that woke them up and I think we should listen to our commanders before the Iraq government who according to Dems don't know what their doing one minute next they are saying we should let them tell us when to pull out go figure.
MY FRIENDS - let me introduce you to my new campaign manager - CARL ROVE... he will do all the dirty false advertisements against Obama...
MY FRIENDS - let me introduce you to my wife - she is so sorry she tried to FRAME A COWORKER at work in order to steal her addictive drugs...
MY FRIENDS - please forget I was one of the Keating Five
MY FRIENDS - please forget I did 32 propoganda tapes for the vietcong against USA
MY FRIENDS - PLEASE forget I am an ADULTERER who has cheated on my wives and left a crippled one to marry the pill-popping heiress...
MY FRIENDS - PLEASE forget that I am old and senile and a war-monger...
MY FRIENDS - please forget I am friends with Bush and Cheney and Condolissa... I will adopt their same policies but have nothing to do with them (well except maybe Karl Rove)
MY FRIENDS - please forget I just had to return $50,000 dollars in ILLEGAL CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS.....
MY FRIENDS - please forget I take donations of $100,000 and more from big business corporations - its for your OWN GOOD.... see - OBAMA can only get $1,000 in donations - I get lots more for my future goodwill towards them...
MY FRIENDS - please forget I said I didnt wear body armor in Iraq - I forgot there were cameras on me when I was wearing body armor...
MY FRIENDS - please forget I am not computer or internet savy - I am too old to learn new things...
MY FRIENDS - please forget I have flip-flopped on practically every issue there was... I have to change for the times ya-know...
MY FRIENDS - please forget I HAVENT VOTED ONCE IN TWO YEARS ON THE CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE THAT WAS ASSIGNED TO ME... nor even be present - I had to campaign in your best interests....
- 4 votes
#7 - Mon Aug 18, 2008 1:13 PM EDTPlease do not forget that he was a POW for 5 and a half years and you should atleast appreciate and honor the people who fight for your freedom.
Please do not forget that he was investigated for the Keating Five scandal and was innocent and we do live in America. Innocent unless proven guilty.
Please do not forget that his 2nd wife had 2 back surgeries and got prescribed pain meds ended up getting addicted and there are many others like her that needed help to get off of pain meds.
Please do not forget that his 2nd wife went to college to help children with special needs and has set up many different types of aid for other countries.
Please do not forget that while his 2nd wife was in another country brought back 2 young girls, her and McCain ended up adopting 1 of them.
Please do not forget that McCain and his 2nd wife have been married for over 20 years, with that being said it was wrong for him to cheat but if you fall out of love and meet someone you want to be with, you do have the right to be happy. His first wife was in a car accident while he was pow for 5 and 1/2 years. I do not know what being a pow for that long would do to a marriage.
Please do not forget that McCain has many more years of experience and has served our country.
was all that trivial garbage suppose to be some kind of defense of McCain???
- 3 votes
"Please do not forget that McCain has many more years of experience and has served our country. "
27 years of rotting in the Senate achieving nothing. Yes thats change we can believe in ! Gosh darn he's going to be the perfect solution to our problems !!!
Who cares if he graduated second last out of a class of 960 students. Who cares if he crashed five aircraft, four in training. Who cares.
I do.
- 5 votes
Obama said yesterday (or I saw it yesterday) that he strongly disagrees with McCain's policies, but that his military service deserves to be respected and appreciated.
Watching that response, along with other measured responses from Obama on the Georgia issue and during the Civil Forum in the megachurch, I feel very comfortable that Obama will do a good job as president. When you can diffuse a situation with words, and earn respect for doing so, it shows a great capacity to negotiate and use intelligence (brain kind, not military).
Compare that to McCain, who has nothing positive to say about Obama or his own policies. Most of us learned that if you can't find something nice to say, keep your mouth shut. I'm sure McCain learned that when he was a kid, and his mother could remind him of it now, but this is advice he should follow. McCain is a war hero, no doubt in my mind, because he served and did his duty. That doesn't make him a president... it makes him a respected veteran.
- 4 votes
I don't think that McCain learned it with his mom. He couldn't even show any kind of respect for his embarrassed wife standing up while he offered her to the nudey contest for the title of Miss Buffalo Chip (a.k.a. buffalo crap WHY has no one caught that? ) If he'd learned it from his mom he SURE would have learned more respect for the woman he supposedly loves.
THAT is what soured me on McCan. He bashed his wife, he bashed the pill, he's been out bashing women in some way or another and I just don't want to move back into the 60's and start all over.
- 4 votes
So if I understand correctly (and the fact the McCain pulled the POW ads seems to back me up a little here.) I'm supposed to vote for McCain because he was a POW. And blind myself to the fact that McCain was a POW becuase he didn't know how to fly a plane but pulled some serious strings using his dad's and granddad's credentials. In spite of the fact that the man fell asleep during his trials. In spite of the fact that the man blew up an aircraft carrier becuase he was joking around.
So by your logic, I should vote for a prisoner in the United States of America, because well they're prisoners too! I mean, let's just forget that the entire REASON they're prisoners is because of their OWN MISTAKES.
- 3 votes
No do not vote for him for that but he still does deserve some respect. You shouldn't bash someone's character by exaggerating facts and by making them seem different then they are. Annapolis no matter who you know or what you do is hard to get into. My husbands granfather was a commander of a battleship and his brother got into Annapolis with a 1540 on his SATS and his sister a 1400, etc. They do not just pick random people because they know someone. You still have to have the grades and credentials to get in.
What people should do is pick our president because they believe in their policies and what they stand for. I think it is honorable to serve a country and more honorable that when he was asked to be released early as POW because of who his father was he refused to go unless everyone who was there before him was released. He stayed there for 5 and 1/2 years as pow. I think when people bring that into a conversation of why McCain should not be president it is sad. Debate with me his policies or something he supports that you do not, not just random crap that makes no sense to pick out and exaggerate. You seem like the type of people that these stupid videos are aimed towards.
- 1 vote
"They do not just pick random people because they know someone. You still have to have the grades and credentials to get in."
You're dead wrong there. My brother (who wound up graduating as Brigade Commander near the top of his class at the Coast Guard Academy) originally applied to Annapolis. The competition came down to him and another fellow in the area. My brother had the grades, the community service...in short, all the credentials he could want. He was beaten out by the other guy who didn't have the grades, etc, but whose dad was friends with our senator (who you need a recommendation from to get in).
So, if you don't think McCain's Admiral father didn't pull strings to get his kid into Annapolis, you must be smoking crack.
Obama for President in 2008!!
* He'll make sure your kids learn Spanish!
* He'll make sure we get off of foreign oil even if we don't have a viable alternative energy resource!
* He'll call his wife and mother if he needs to make a decision on national security issues!
* He'll have 300 people give him the answers to the questions of the day!
* He'll use his vast experience as a community organizer to plan a big picnic for the whole world!
* He'll make sure the Germans like us!
* He'll confiscate the profits of successful companies and give them to other people!
* He'll demilitarize the United States and appease even the scummiest of foreign dictators!
* He'll take both sides of every issue!
* He'll give everybody free health care even if you have to make an appointment six months in anticipation of an illness!
* He'll tax the rich!
* He'll increase the capital gains tax and dividends tax for all of us!
Go Obama!
What were his grades compared to the other person's? I am sure the other person was still more qualified than many other people. What was his SAT's etc. It is an extremely hard school to get into so even if he had good grades it is hard to beat out the rest of the competition. My step brother applied to get in and did not and went to Westpoint. He had great grades and good credentials, a letter from a senator and did not get into Annapolis either. I am sure like with anything it helps if you know someone but it is a hard school to get into I doubt you could have an 800 and know somone and get in.
What were his grades compared to the other person's? I am sure the other person was still more qualified than many other people. What was his SAT's etc. It is an extremely hard school to get into so even if he had good grades it is hard to beat out the rest of the competition. My step brother applied to get in and did not and went to Westpoint. He had great grades and good credentials, a letter from a senator and did not get into Annapolis either. I am sure like with anything it helps if you know someone but it is a hard school to get into I doubt you could have an 800 and know somone and get in.
Oh my God, McCain, shut up already about Iraq. You didn't have the cojones to oppose human history's stupidest war. You stood up for George Bush's idiocy all the way through. And you're proud of how much money you squandered on this war? You're proud of how many young, vital lives you sacrificed for greed and profit? You're proud of how many wounded men and women may never recover their minds, bodies, families and occupations? For WHAT? Then you tell Russia that we just don't go invading other countries in the 21st century. You don't hear the mass laughter or get the hypocrisy of your own words and actions. Man, you're just completely corrupt.
- 5 votes
#8 - Mon Aug 18, 2008 1:21 PM EDTIt is not just one person who decides to go to war, checks and balances. Many people believe that we should have gone to war. How and where did he profit? Let me know specifics?
"It is not just one person who decides to go to war, checks and balances. "
The GOP has eroded any sense of checks and balances as they rubber stamp every vote dictated by the White House, and they populated the Supreme Court with GOP nominees. When all three branches were GOP for six years, this is the **** you end up with.
The White House lied to us. They lied to the UN. They made a false case for war. Meanwhile, Bush received a CIA report a month before 9/11 warning him of terrorists in the country with flight training targetting large buildings. How can this party be considered "strong on defence" . Strong on BS more like.
- 2 votes
"It will be hard to call it stupid if it succeeds."
Succeeds at what? What were the goals for going to war? They were all bogus, every last one of them. To succeed at bogus goals must be a Bush-ism for insanity.
He could fool half the country half the time, but he can't fool the whole country all the time. But heck, half of you fools was all he needed to declare "Mission Accomplished"!
Ha-haa! I can't help LMAO at you who won't open your eyes or your minds to the awful truth -> here you go again, you're going to vote in mass numbers for Bush's boy, John McCain, the "maverick."
It will be hard to call you stupid if you succeed, I'll grant you that. But how much more convincing do you need? The Iraq war is the biggest and most expensive hoax in American history.
As this country falls apart at the seams - literally - you can say, oh, maybe it's succeeding!
- 4 votes
If we leave Iraq in a stable state, it will be a success and viewed widely as such no matter how many times you try to say it is not to push your political ideology.
- 1 vote
Okay, keep telling yourself that. That's how Republicans play make-believe.
It's not a political ideology as much as a choice to either remain in delusion or wake up and see the truth.
If we leave Iraq in a stable state, it will be in spite of what we did there, not because of it.
I - naturally! - don't understand your loyalty to this completely unnecessary and extremely costly war. But that is the nature of opinion and politics!
- 2 votes
Once again Jessica, checks and balances FAILED to operate correctly when given FALSE information, in other words LIES. Nor can anyone who was told this information have made an accurate judgment. YEt, in spite of that, over 1/3 of Americans did NOT want to go to war, and that was 100 million people. Enough that should have given pause.
At this point the war isn't stupid. It's horrifying. Vietnam took us through several presidencies before ONE of them got it right and decided to pull out. How many presidencies will this take? The entire reality is that (even if McCain had two terms) the war COULD not and WOULD not be finished in that time. ALL of the government experts are fully aware of this. ALL of them know that there would have to be an entirely new school system built up in Iraq first which is why they've been trying so hard to get the schools up and running. THAT has been UNsuccessful, because families are terrified their children will be killed or kidnapped on the way to school.
Until and unless Iraquis are taught how to live democratically, it cannot be successful. The problems therefore are: Can we afford to stay for the number of years this will require? Will this become a resented U.S. occupation and turn against the U.S.? Is there a way to leave the country without allowing the Iraquis to fall to civil war? And please, don't pretend to be so concerned about the last. Or stability either. Are you out there protesting Liberia? We sure didn't help out there and it was OUR fault the country fell to civil war! Dear GOD how are you people able to speak straight?
They are truly already in a civil war, although we are helping to set up a democracy, insurgents, al quaeda etc. bomb the towns that are for the democracy killing innocent families. If we leave now the democratic government will be demolished and taken over.
On August 14, 2007 the deadliest single attack of the whole war occurred. Nearly 800 civilians were killed by a series of co-ordinated suicide bomb attacks on the northern Iraqi settlement of Qahtaniya. More than 100 homes and shops were destroyed in the blasts. US officials blamed al-Qaeda in Iraq.
On August 14, 2007 the deadliest single attack of the whole war occurred. Nearly 800 civilians were killed by a series of co-ordinated suicide bomb attacks on the northern Iraqi settlement of Qahtaniya. More than 100 homes and shops were destroyed in the blasts. US officials blamed al-Qaeda in Iraq.
In late March 2008, the Green Zone in Baghdad came under repeated rocket attack, killing two U.S. government officials and injuring several others.[182] According to General David Petraeus, Iranian-trained insurgents were responsible for the attack.[183
Axel000 said:
"Please do not forget that McCain has many more years of experience and has served our country. "
27 years of rotting in the Senate achieving nothing. Yes thats change we can believe in ! Gosh darn he's going to be the perfect solution to our problems !!!
Who cares if he graduated second last out of a class of 960 students. Who cares if he crashed five aircraft, four in training. Who cares. I do.
Rhonda Rahn adds:
Actually, it was 894 out of a class of 899, but you get the picture. DUMB! No wonder McSHAME and Bush get along so well...they both have the same IQs.
And that was when McSHAME was still young enough to have all of his brain cells. Today, he cannot even remember the lines to his own speeches.
And McSHAME won't let the press into his so-called Straight Talk bus any more....he knows he makes too many gaffs there. At least he is smart enough to realize that. Unless his campaign had to point that out to him.
He served the navy and our country for 25 years and in government for 25 years. He has devoted himself to our country. Obama was a professor and worked at a law firm he is not ready to be the president. He is also the most left person in the senate. He will in no way do anything for republicans he will give more and more to the poor.
McCain also became a captain in the navy, which is a very high position. So reguardless of how he did in an elite school he still went and has served our country ever since. It is in no way a reason to not vote for him. What policies do you not like of his?
I tried to watch McCain give this speech earlier today but half way through I begged my husband to turn the t.v. off. I just can't stand how he comes off. I tried to listen but I got sick of hearing about Iraq and the surge. It is as if all he knows is war. I am really concerned that McCain thinks Iraq is Vietnam. I think McCain needs to let the Iraq thing go, because it truly is like kicking a dead horse. McCain comes off as war hungry (at least to me). My husband is in the military and I don't feel comfortable with McCain leading my husband. I know he says he hates war but he sure talks about it an awful lot.
- 7 votes
#9 - Mon Aug 18, 2008 1:33 PM EDTAs if the left wasn't talking about the war for years? They just stop talking about it when we are winning and it makes their policies look bad.
lorent. You can not win an insurgency, maybe McCain doesn't know that because he was in a prison camp. You are not fighting an army, you are fighting an idea. Just today the military reported that resistance is up in Sunni areas. What happens when we stop paying them $300 each per month? These people are bidding their time, and there is nothing we can do to prevent a civil war. To the victors goes the spoils, and the Shiites have been waiting centuries to get even.
Lorent there will be no stability in that country now in the future or ever. They have been doing this for centuries. The only stable periods they have ever had there were under brutal dictatorships like Saddam's. Now if Bush wants to make a little point and withdraw the troops and declare peace is at hand like Nixon (remember that?) thats ok with me, but you can take that brainwashed rhetoric about stable country and win the war to the backyard and stick it in the ground because it is so full of fertilizer it will surely be beneficial to your plants. Reality is we have wandered around in that country for years now accomplishing nothing. Our troops are going on second even third rotations and for what. My son was there for two tours. Democrat Republican or whatever you are it is time to put an end to this nightmare. We spend a trillion dollars there get nothing and my son comes home with ten year old school books, every street I drive down needs repairs, gas is sky high, The housing market and credit is kaput, you have to avoid the grocery store because the prices make you sick at the stomach and you want us to worry about saving face in a war that should never have happened in the first place. GMAB
- 1 vote
John McCain quote :
"I didn't decide to run for president to start a national crusade for the political reforms I believed in or to run a campaign as if it were some grand act of patriotism. In truth, I wanted to be president because it had become my ambition to be president. "
John McCain, Worth the Fighting For (2002), p. 373
So John, tell us more....
- 4 votes
#10 - Mon Aug 18, 2008 1:42 PM EDTThe next line should have been:
"I didn't decide to run for president to start a national crusade for the political reforms I believed in or to run a campaign as if it were some grand act of patriotism. In truth, I wanted to be president because it had become my ambition to be president. So we could surge into the surge after we surged out of the previous surge that we surged into. By the way the surge worked I think. Also I want to surge into Pakistan but I dont know where it is.
- 1 vote
Axel000, I respect a person for backing up his/her posts with FACTS.
Thank you for adding intelligence to this discussion.
You know what they say about opinions and donkey holes, it is nice to have FACTS.
And the facts don't look good for McSHAME. Too bad McSHAME always leaves that part out.
Like, McSHAME wants people to believe that the entire Iraqui war is about the surge.
McSHAME doesn't want people to remember the FACTS, that it is an illegal war that should not have been started in the first place, and that Obama was right to vote against it from the beginning.
The surge would never have been necessary had we not been there in the first place. The surge was just a desperate attempt to correct an idea that was bad in the first place.
The surge was a correction, not a solution.
Them's the FACTS!
Is McCain dishonorable or disingenuous ??
He tried to legislate the failure of the highly successful Gulf War 1, then helped to legislate the abandoning of the Hunt for Ossama Bin Laden in Afghanistan that set us back & led to the failures in the War on Terror for profit & caused over 4,000 American deaths & over 4,400 coilition deaths in a totally unecessary war in Iraq.
- 4 votes
#11 - Mon Aug 18, 2008 1:43 PM EDTIf we hadn't been in Iraq, all those foreign terrorists would have gone to Afghanistan and fought us there, so the body counts would still have been high.
We are in a war whether you like it or not. And they went to war with us, not the other way around. We just picked the battlefield.
Lorent.
If someone shot your husband or wife, would you be angry at them ?
Extrapolate. If we enter a country for no reason and kill 100,000 do you think we angered a few ?
Do you think this makes us safer ?
Is this inline with our ideals as a country ?
Is killing OK when its not Americans being killed ? Are Arabs second class humans ?
Would Jesus have done this ?
- 2 votes
The 100,000 you are talking about were killed by other Iraqis and foreign terrorists, not Americans.
We did not enter with no reason and most Iraqis were glad we got rid of Saddam. All the killing following that can be blamed on the people there who don't want Iraq to be a democratic country, not on the U.S.
A successful representative government in Iraq will definitely make us safer.
Furthering democracy and eliminating murderous dictators are right in line with my ideals.
If you want to complain about Arabs getting killed, talk to the Arabs doing the killing, not me.
Jesus would have come back before all his disciples were dead like he said he was going to, but he didn't so what he would do doesn't matter.
- 1 vote
I'm willin to bet some major money Lorent that you voted for Reagan. In which case, you fully suported Sadaam Hussein's government. Nice of you to turn it all backwards like the rest of the repubs. Just make the event suit yourself.
Put Sadaam in power. Take pictures of yourselves shaking hands with a great man.
Sell Sadaam arms illegally, blame it on North.
Go to war with Sadaam after intimating that he DID have permission to invade Kuwait. (a stupid misunderstanding by OUR ambassador who made a gesture that gave him permission to invade.)
and finally, ahhh, just kill the guy off, he's no use to us anymore, except we can wave him around and say we killed a bad guy.
- 1 vote
Oh and don't forget who appointed the ambassador who was stupid and didn't know the cultural gestures of the country he was ambassador to... Daddy Bush.
- 1 vote
"Jesus would have come back before all his disciples were dead like he said he was going to, but he didn't so what he would do doesn't matter. "
I cannot believe you are serious
Lorent, this is a joke, right? Tell me you are joking so I do not worry that ignorance in America is so prevalent.
Get this, Lorent said: "If we hadn't been in Iraq, all those foreign terrorists would have gone to Afghanistan and fought us there, so the body counts would still have been high."
Oh please. I would like to see other bloggers comment on Lorent's statement. Please. Make my day.
Lorent, please explain to me why we have failed to find Osama Bin Laden in over 7 years.
What! You mean Osama Bin Laden is NOT in Iraq, and never has been there???
Let's think about this logically. Whether going into Iraq was right or wrong, what do you think will happen if the USA officially adopts the policy that going into Iraq was wrong, or was based on lies, or whatever the mantra of the day is?
With hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives spent in the cause of establishing Democracy in Iraq, what is the cost of those lives? If each Iraqi life is worth $100,000, readily adopting a policy of admitted wrongdoing is begging for a multi-trillion dollar lawsuit against our Nation. If each Iraqi life is worth $1,000,000, our Nation would be financially destroyed. No matter how our current President feels about the justification for the Iraqi conflict, the financial future of our Nation depends on our ability to maintain that the war was justified.
Do all of you nay sayers so relish the thought of demonizing our current President, that you would risk all of the prosperity of our great Nation? Think about it.
- 1 vote
#12 - Mon Aug 18, 2008 1:43 PM EDTDid you miss the fact that Iraq has said it is a soverign nation and wants our troops out in 16 months, in agreement with Obama's policy ? Did you really miss that ?
If our objective is to create a democracy (forget WMDs, that was a lie), then when the Democracy asks us to leave, is it losing to leave ? Please explain to me how in the hell you are making that argument.
Fact is, McCain has no foreign policy platform. Its all soundbites - WIN, LOSE.... SURGE(tm)....all a load of bull to cover a complete lack of judgement.
- 3 votes
I doubt if thre is many soldier's in Iraq who doesn't recognize the War in Iraq was a mistake -- Their contributions to Obama's campaign being 6 times greater than McCain's should tell you a lot... Plus the fact that many in our government tell you it was indeed a mistake.
As far as democracy,,,, What we have established in Iraq is a government opposed by the north & Sunni's & every law passed is subject to a Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council ---- It is certainly not democracy, let alone a functioning government.
In Afhganistan, our nation's leaders after 7 years resorted in abandoning the idea of establihing a democratic government ------- Old McBush won't tell you that, will he ??
- 3 votes
I would rather think in terms of what is right and what is wrong, thank you very much..
- 1 vote
Good point but you can understand how it riles people to continually hear from Bush, Cheney, Rove and the right-wing radio talk show hosts that it was the correct and appropriate thing to do when in fact it was the worst foreign policy blunder maybe in the country's history.
- 2 votes
MRT-41756, yes, I do understand that people get riled by that, but you also have to understand that the continual attack from the left could prove to be extremely dangerous to our future prosperity. When you consider what's at stake, you have to realize that they really have no choice but to avoid any appearance of criminal action. As much as the administration's seemingly stubborn stance riles up people on the left, the continual attack from people on the left riles up people on the right. In the end, we have everyone all riled up over something we really have no choice of how to proceed on.
There is no way. Hussein invaded Kuwait. And got a cease fire based on specific terms which he never met. There is no way we are ever paying Iraqis damages for getting rid of their murderous dictator.
Whala
No matter how our current President feels about the justification for the Iraqi conflict, the financial future of our Nation depends on our ability to maintain that the war was justified.
Do you realize that you just said that the future of our nation depends on our ability to keep up a lie?
- 3 votes
Did you also miss the fact that "each" Iraqui has been worth far more than the 100,000 you speak of? We've handed over BILLIONS to their tribe leaders with NO accounting for it.
Btw
There is no way. Hussein invaded Kuwait. And got a cease fire based on specific terms which he never met. There is no way we are ever paying Iraqis damages for getting rid of their murderous dictator.
Uhhhh that was a different war also you think all the Iraqi's were killed by other "Arabs"
People living in North Africa and the Middle East, from western Morocco to Oman, and from Turkey in the north to Yemen and Sudan in the south.
Arabs are living in an area of 10 million km², with a total population of 250 million. This makes them by far the largest population in the region. About 4 million Arabs live in Europe, and 2 million in the Americas.
Iraqis are Persians.
The majority of the killings of Iraqi's were against each other not from the people who would not be there if we were not and came to help the Iraqui people expell us. AlQueda etc.
Good Job Log dump!!!! You hit it right on the head! Time for America to stop burying their heads in the sand over this thing!
i think that the comment mccain laughingly made on the newest smear book on obama was insulting also & why can mccain not admit that obama is actually correct--that how the @!$%#es and sunni and the other factions would get along and cooperate was the true key in iraq---he has addressed his problem on the monies going into the war--and has said on more than one occasion that he does not want the troops exposed but some of the other parts were a problem.
Mccain just needs to go home--he is NOT honorable, and while i admire his tenacity in vietnam--wesley clark was right--just because you get shot down and are a pow doesNOT qualify you to be presidetn. also the way he jumped out in front on the russia invasion was frightening--i thought he was going to jump up and down---and he spoke before giving his party's president the address that is on behalf of the country--john you're not president!!! also i thought that his reaction was angry and that is scary as he has anger issues--do we really want him with his finger on the "button"? also he needs to be strong on ga as his friend the pres of ga saw that mccain got quite a nice donation to campaign from that direction--i just find his voting reocrd lousy and on womens rights--forget it!!!!!!!! geez he doesnt even want minimum wage increses!!!!
- 3 votes
#13 - Mon Aug 18, 2008 1:43 PM EDTRenata, Sunny T
You both seem to forget that as long as our troops are in Iraq it should be at the top of the list for discussion.
Renata you especially should pay attention to the two candidates and their plans for Iraq. Do you really think Barack Obama can get us out of Iraq in 16 months? Ask your husband if you think this is an invalid question.
McCain has the experience to see that yes this war is not going to be won easily. Barack seems to think that he can move out of Iraq with no problems. Barack should take a few Military history classes before he decides to define Military tactics.
#14 - Mon Aug 18, 2008 1:45 PM EDTguardian.co.uk / world/2008/jul/21/barackobama.iraq1
add back the "www" and remove spaces
- 1 vote
Our Pentagon has already made plans for withdrawing over 100,000 troops from Iraq -- Old McBush won't tell you that either, will he ???
- 2 votes
Ben,
Yes, I do think Barack Obama can get us out of Iraq in 16 months, as he says. Most of the problems in Iraq were of our own making. As we withdraw - by golly! We stop recreating those problems.
Amen.
McCain has no ability to see through his own and his party's b.s.
- 1 vote
McCain has the experience to see this war is not going to be easy - THATS NOT WHAT HE HIMSELF SAID WHEN THE WAR STARTED - HE IS DOCUMENTED ON YOU TUBE (if you want to watch him talk for himself) that this would be a CAKE-WALK.... quick in and quick out...
HIS RECENT COMMENTS OF 100 YEARS IN IRAQ IS A TOTAL FLIP-FLOP FROM HIS FIRST COMMENTS... McCain has no idea of anything anymore, someone probably even has to change his pampers for him...
- 2 votes
Yes, let's follow McCain's military experience. He's BRILLIANT in military experience. his own shining star made him a gen.. er... uh, what did he do militarily? Oh yeah, screwed around with a bunch of planes and earned the name ACE because he dropped OUR OWN planes out of the sky. FIVE of them. That didn't cost a lot of money. Nah.
McCain's military experience has taught him well. He knows his geography really well. Iran is on the border of Pakistan. He even understands other national governments. How Iran supported Al Quaida in Iraq. How the Sunni and the Shia are able to be interjected into a conversation about any Muslim religion and can be mixed generously. He even knows where Iowa is. Because he's visited the state a whole whopping ZERO times. nevermind that Iowa has provided the highest number of national guard troops to the service, or that militarily Iowa has ALWAYS provided the most boys for war per capita. Yep, he's got military experience.
- 1 vote
If he crashed five times and is not dead yet I think msm has it wrong John McCain is the chosen one not Obama.Everything happens for a reason
Where di McCain get the experience from listening to Karl Rowe? Obama promised he would bring the troops out. His schedule is flexabale and he said that and depends on the situation on the ground. Your boy McCain agreed to this timetable.
What is ther real issue for you McCain lovers (all former Bush lovers) ?? ----- Your relgious values over the War on Terror, our troops & our country ??
That's certainly what it appears to be, or is it profit & your pocket ???
- 2 votes
#15 - Mon Aug 18, 2008 1:59 PM EDTDid everyone miss this???? This is from Saturday night's "debate".
McCain said he would follow Bin Laden to the gates of hell to get him. "I will get him and I know how to do it", McCain claimed. Now that raises some interesting questions.
If McCain knows how to get Bin Laden, has he shared his knowledge with the Bush Administration? If so, why has the power of the US military/intelligence community not carried through? Or has the Bush Administration concluded that it is a poor plan to get Bin Laden?
If McCain knows how to get Bin Laden, is he not telling anyone how to do it so he can wait until he is President? Is waiting being a patriotic American? Is that acting in our best interests?
Or is this just an example of how McCain "won" the "debate" by using empty and idiotic statements?
- 4 votes
#16 - Mon Aug 18, 2008 2:01 PM EDTMcCain is nothing more than an empty posturing soundbite machine, like Bush, he would be a the public face of a much larger neocon organization, just as the current White House is run by Cheney/Rove.
- 3 votes
McCain only drew more attention to his relationship with Bush with that one.
He has no clue,,,,,,, Keeping us in Iraq won't ever get Ossama Bin Laden, it was his support of Bush & his Iranofobia that has caused al Queda & like groups to grow & fester in Iraq, Afhganistan, Africa & other "Stan" countries surrounding Afhganistan & Pakistan.
Old McCain won't tell you the Pentagon is more concerned with developments in Pakistan, the new government is more tollerent of radical groups & much more of an immediate threat than Iran could be in years.
- 3 votes
well shooottt. Someone forgot to tell McCain that if we find Osama, there won't be any more excuses for starting wars and pockieting a few billion here and a few billion there. He's blowing the party line!!!
- 1 vote
In school many years ago I was a member of our schools debating team. This was no debate it was a sideshow. I bet everyone of those trolls that posted that crap about McCain winning the debate got the wrong info from their handlers.
First off, let's drop the spin and double-talk coming from the neocon right. What is a "surge"? It is the term Bush insisted upon when everyone else was calling it what it really is, an ESCALATION. Just like in Nam, the US has escalated their military occupation in Iraq.
And for those brainwashed Faux Noise listeners who are so wrapped up in JINSA/neocon rhetoric, please tell me where the country "Terror" is located, so we can go bomb it and kill all the terrorists living there.
Also, all you wingerz, don't forget there has never been any proven link between Iraq and 9/11, and where are all those WMD?
So, since Iraq is definitely not the central front on the "war on terra", and never has been despite the GOP trying to make it such, why must we stay? We should re-focus on Afghanistan and Pakistan.
- 2 votes
#17 - Mon Aug 18, 2008 2:09 PM EDTThe reality for anyone interestes is that the Surge(tm) was confined to Baghdad and had little impact on the reduction in violence between Shia and Sunni, most of which occured outside of Baghdad. No, the reduction in violence was caused ironically enough by the "Sunni awakening", meaning, the Sunnis realized their real enemy was Al-Qaeda in Iraq.
Ironic isn't it. The indiscriminate killings by AQ led to the Sunni awakening leading to a reduction in violence.
- 2 votes
Iraq is a central front in the war because Bin Laden says so. We are at war because Bin Laden decided to declare war on us. Iraq was a major focus of Bin Laden. Failure for them there is a defeat for the terrorists, no matter what you would like people to believe to forward your position.
Bin Laden isn't even IN Iraq. It was never a front until BUSH made it a front. And in fact, Bin Laden steered WELL clear of Iraq because it was a Shia majority country. He's a Sunni. Lessons everyone. Lessons. Bin Laden would fail MISERABLY in Iraq if left to his own devices, because there are too many Shia and Iran would actually send in money and arms for the SHIA against Bin Laden and then you're looking at a whole NEW situation in the Middle East because more than one country would be heavily involved and that would be "ANOTHER fine mess you've gotten us into Ollie." "I'm sorry Stan."
And if he had of listened to those that told him 2 years earlier and sent more troops in before the insurgents got organized he would have saved many lives both on our troops and the Iraqi population.
Way back before the war Colin Powell said we need an exit strategy. The Neocons said no. Who was right?
well it couldn't be all the resigning personnel from the Bush team.
Old McCain saying, "In the 21st century, nations do not invade other nations" is an admission of his failure in Iraq, isn't it ??
- 3 votes
#18 - Mon Aug 18, 2008 2:14 PM EDTIs McCain dishonorable or disingenuous ?? ---- I would say without a doubt, YES to both
- 2 votes
#19 - Mon Aug 18, 2008 2:16 PM EDTI disagree I do not think he is dishonorable stupid maybe.
Personally and this is my own opinion I think we have a man with an ambition riding the coat tails of his war record trying to be President. He rants about Obama but cannot make a cse for himself because he isn't even thought about by other senators as being a big player there. Lets hope he does not turn out to be like that character in the Robert Redford movie where the guy wins the election then has no clue what to do after.
OK, Axel0000 Jim-372206 and Devils Advocate apparently didn't even read my post before flying off the handle, and completely missed the point.
The point I am making is that regardless of whether going into Iraq was right or wrong, openly admitting that we knew it was wrong before going could easily lead to a multi trillion dallar lawsuit from the Iraqi government that could truly bankrupt our country--much worse than this little economic downturn we are currently so up in arms over. We need to be careful not to re-inforce the notion of criminal action on the part of the USA unless we want to volutarily hand our Nation's prosperity over to Iraq.
#20 - Mon Aug 18, 2008 2:20 PM EDTSo we perpetuate a massive error in judgement to avoid a law suit ? When will it be safe to get out ? Seriously I highly doubt the US govt would ever pay a dime to anyone as a result of military action, lets be serious here.
Where is our moral judgement ? So if we wrong someone its better to keep wronging them to avoid repercussions ? I don't agree with this at all.
- 1 vote
LOL, "little economic downturn" ??? McCain's economic chief is married to an Enron Exec -- They are much the cause of our financial & mortgage meltdown & the GOP's insistance on no regulation.
We have now lost our standing as the globe's #1 industrial power, we continue year after year to fall hundreds of billions in debt ---- We can't build more than 700 miles of border fence, nor fund future military weapons programs, nor fund the amount of troops needed for Afhganistan nor the amount required to aid that country.
- 1 vote
Hey - you forget, we can build the most expensive largest palace for ourselves in Iraq... screw the border, its more important Haliburton and Others make their money in iraq...
And all those building we have built were under-standards also....
guess whos profitting there!!! and it aint the american people
- 2 votes
again I point out - theres right and theres wrong... if were wrong we dont cover it up to avoid a law-suit... thats the typical republican way however...
- 2 votes
Axel, perspective is important. You view our staying as continued wronging of their Nation. I view our staying as our moral obligation to get that Nation back on it's feet.
DA, There's a difference between wrong and criminal. If we were wrong, we have an obligation to get Iraq back on it's feet before we leave. If we were criminal, we have an obligation to pay them trillions in punitive damages.
The left wingers seem bent on proving criminal intent on the part of our administration, and I'm just saying that we shouldn't be so quick to commit financial suicide over something that's so highly questionable.
Their government has gone on record and has supported us in the effort. The people who are running the show over there are the same people who hoodwinked the Neocons into believing this would be a cake walk.
we already handed over our nation's prosperity to Iraq. What lawsuit? All we'd have to do is show that they took handouts and pocketed the money without doing anything for their own and they would have perpetrated the exact same crime they'd accuse of. Cancel each other out, if your argument was the case for a lawsuit. You'd also have to sort out who killed all the Iraqui citizens, the U.S. or them. Then yould have to figure if it was Shia fault or Sunni and man oh man, I think they'llbe busy enough trying to hold down their own country.
From: 8/16/08 NYT article by David Kirkpatrick re The McCain Doctrine
Whether through ideology or instinct, though, Mr. McCain began making his case for invading Iraq to the public more than six months before the White House began to do the same. He drew on principles he learned growing up in a military family and on conclusions he formed as a prisoner in North Vietnam. He also returned to a conviction about "the common identity" of dangerous autocracies as far-flung as Serbia and North Korea that he had developed consulting with hawkish foreign policy thinkers to help sharpen the themes of his 2000 presidential campaign.
While pushing to take on Saddam Hussein, Mr. McCain also made arguments and statements that he may no longer wish to recall. He lauded the war planners he would later criticize, including Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and Vice President Dick Cheney. (Mr. McCain even volunteered that he would have given the same job to Mr. Cheney.) He urged support for the later-discredited Iraqi exile Ahmad Chalabi's opposition group, the Iraqi National Congress, and echoed some of its suspect accusations in the national media. And he advanced misleading assertions not only about Mr. Hussein's supposed weapons programs but also about his possible ties to international terrorists, Al Qaeda and the Sept. 11 attacks.
Five years after the invasion of Iraq, Mr. McCain's supporters note that he became an early critic of the administration's execution of the occupation, and they credit him with pushing the troop "surge" that helped bring stability. Mr. McCain, though, stands by his support for the war and expresses no regrets about his advocacy.
In written answers to questions, he blamed "Iraq's opacity under Saddam" for any misleading remarks he made about the peril it posed.
- 2 votes
#21 - Mon Aug 18, 2008 2:23 PM EDTI wouldn't call McCain "Mister" --- That word denotes respect
The measure of a man is his word & he's lied about everything from religion to national security, economy, his reforms of finance, lobbying, energy & terrorism & his war profiteering off the backs of our troops & war effort
- 2 votes
McCain opposed the highly successful Gulf War 1, which destroyed Iraq's ability to threaten other countries...... And he supports staying in Iraq, everyone says is wrong & it is costing greater failures in the War on Terror & more threats to the west & Israel -------- There is NO good outcome for America in Iraq
Is this the kind of "Decider" you want ??? ---- Not me
- 3 votes
#22 - Mon Aug 18, 2008 2:35 PM EDTNo, McCain supports staying in Iraq until we have fulfilled our obligation to that country. The kind of decider I want is someone who recognizes that regardless of whether our Nation's collective decision to go into Iraq was right or wrong, we have a moral obligation to get the Iraqi Nation back on it's feet before we leave.
Contrary to what many of you seem to think, Iraq is NOT asking us to just leave, and take our support with us. The plan has ALWAYS been that our involvement will be phased out as their ability to maintain stability increases. This has not changed, only the rhetoric has changed now that progress is being made in Iraq for whatever reason.
The surge is not something we shoved down their throat--they asked for more troops to help them get their country under control. No matter how or where they were used doesn't matter. They asked, and we provided. Now the country is making progress, and so long as current progress continues, we will soon be able to get our troops home.
"Contrary to what many of you seem to think, Iraq is NOT asking us to just leave"
And contrary to what you think, Obama isn't saying that either. He said 16 months or so, based on developments. But ultimately, the Iraqi US forces commander doesn't make the final call, the CIC does.
- 1 vote
Remember, we have been in there longer than WWII at this point. Most of our troops have spent at least three deployments there of a year +. Many are starting their fifth.
No matter how much the GOP tries to lay this on the Democrats, the GOP has broken the army, we simply don't have the capacity to stay there more than another 24 months anyway, not in sizeable numbers. We just won't have the troop strength.
And thats the difference, Obama does his homework and comes to rational conclusions, McCain doesn't.
- 1 vote
c nelson---it really angers me when either side tries to say the other side wants the U.S. to lose!! that is really unfair in so many ways and how could any thinking person say such a thing!!!! obama correctly felt that there were issues that were NOT being answered and saying no could have actually doomed his career--remember at the time it was an unpopluar thing to say no to. ALSO THERE ARE MORE TROOPS CONTRIBUTING TO OBAMA THAN MCCAIN BUT I GUESS THE TROOPS HAVE NO CLUE EITHER RIGHT? CUZ THEY WANT THE U. S. TO LOOSE! COME ON!!
we do need to redirect some troops into the area we should have stayed(again obama was right) which is pakistan/afghanistan--if we want to protect ourselves in the future. we coudnt take military people and send them to GA now if we wanted to cuz where are they coming from.
what scares me with mccain is that despite the Iraq government seemingly looking at time lines and soon to get us out--mccain glosses right over that part and speaks about keeping troops there permanently even though iraq has said more than once that's not what they want.
i dont think we ever had a good plan there (likely why bush sr didnt go there) and we need to refocus our boys--but the bottom line is that while we having been "helping" iraq--they have been making money hand over fist---so in a lawsuit i am pretty sure they wouldnt want to go there either!
i think that obama has a better wide view and i dont have a problem with his newness either--i can see clearly where all teh "old boys club" has gotten us---in debt to china--exactly what we anted!! say what you want but at least wsith clinton we had a surplus-think what the deficit would really look like-and we were servicing the debt too! bush polices have gone thru that and mccain will do worse by his own admission the economy is not something he has a lot of knowledge on --OH GOOD LETS ELECT HIM!!!
- 3 votes
#23 - Mon Aug 18, 2008 2:46 PM EDTWill McCain unite this country ??? ---- Hell no,, The Saddleback Q&A proved that
- 1 vote
#24 - Mon Aug 18, 2008 2:57 PM EDTSame question for Obama. Same answer. He's running as a divider, doing all he can to draw a sharp line between the Democrats and Republicans. When criticizing the current administration, he doesn't refer to it as OUR government or OUR President. No he is clearly intent on driving the division between the parties heavily promoting the US against THEM sentiment.
Consider the audience. John G.W. McSame is addressing a bunch of pro-war old men. They did their time in WW2, Korea, etc, and want to see the US military in a constant state of war somewhere. They eat, breathe and sleep Hannity/O'Reilly/Rush and probably think every Iraqi citizen is an AQ member.
Waste of time talking to them.
- 1 vote
#25 - Mon Aug 18, 2008 3:00 PM EDTYou're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
