Whose judgment on Iraq has been 'consistently wrong'?
Karl Rove’s main contribution to the strategic lexicon is the notion that candidates should identify their big weakness, and their rival’s big strength, and then go barreling head-first in that direction. It’s counter-intuitive, I know.
And yet, some candidates seem to like it. This week, for example, John McCain argued that he’s shown better judgment on Iraq than Barack Obama, which, of course, doesn’t make any sense.
“Senator Obama has consistently offered his judgment on Iraq, and he has been consistently wrong. He said that General Petraeus’ new strategy would not reduce sectarian violence, but would worsen it. He was wrong. He said the dynamics in Iraq would not change as a result of the ’surge.’ He was wrong. One year ago, he voted to cut off all funds for our forces fighting extremists in Iraq. He was wrong…
“We continue to face challenges in Iraq, and we have a lot of work ahead. Yet the American people must ask whether we are more or less likely to succeed there if Senator Obama has his way.”
How very odd. McCain has gotten every aspect of the war wrong for six years, so his campaign pitch is that Obama — who’s been right from the start — has gotten every aspect of the war wrong. It’s like watching the campaign through a special prism that refracts reality.
Obama responded in a statement, “While I always appreciate hearing the news from John McCain, he should explain to the American people why almost every single promise and prediction that he has made about Iraq has turned to be catastrophically wrong, including his support for a surge that was supposed to achieve political reconciliation.”
The facts are clearly on Obama's side here.
The LAT’s Rosa Brooks noted, “McCain’s the one presidential candidate pledging to continue the very Bush administration policies that got us into the mess we’re now in, and McCain’s record of getting it embarrassingly wrong on Iraq is virtually unparalleled.”
Here’s McCain, in his own words, getting Iraq wrong from Day One:
“Saddam Hussein [is] developing weapons of mass destruction as quickly as he can,” he informed Fox News in November 2001. By February 2003, McCain had upgraded Hussein’s capabilities and was warning Americans that “Hussein has the ability to … [turn] Iraq into a weapons assembly line for Al Qaeda’s network.”
Well, no. But never mind that. We won’t hold McCain responsible for the Bush administration’s cooking of the intelligence books.
So how’d McCain do on his other Iraq-related predictions?
On the Cheney/Rumsfeld Delusional Thinking Index, McCain scores a perfect 10 out of 10. “I believe that the success will be fairly easy,” he assured CNN’s Larry King in September 2002.
Quagmire? Insurgency? Naah. “We’re not going to get into house-to-house fighting,” he scoffed to Wolf Blitzer in 2002. “We’re not going to have a bloodletting.” In fact, by March 2003, McCain was positively giddy with Rumsfeldian enthusiasm: “There’s no doubt in my mind … we will be welcomed as liberators.”
When it came to predicting the sectarian conflicts that have wracked Iraq since we “liberated” it, McCain was equally off target. “There’s not a history of clashes that are violent between Sunnis and Shias,” he explained confidently on MSNBC in April 2003, “so I think they can probably get along.”
McCain’s had five long years since then to reflect on just how well Sunni and Shiite groups are getting along, but he’s still having a tough time keeping the whole thing straight. In Jordan this past March, he pronounced it “common knowledge … that Al Qaeda” — a Sunni-dominated group — “is going back into Iran” — a country led by hard-line Shiites — “and receiving training … from Iran.” Oops … no! Joe Lieberman, McCain’s new Mini-Me, whispered a correction in his ear, presumably explaining that the Iranian Shiites hate Sunni-dominated Al Qaeda and wouldn’t help the group if their lives depended on it.
A slip of the tongue on McCain’s part? That would be easier to buy if McCain hadn’t repeated variants of the claim on multiple occasions, insisting to a Texas audience in February that Iran was aiding Al Qaeda and wondering during Senate hearings if Al Qaeda in Iraq was “an obscure sect of the Shiites overall? … Or Sunnis or anybody else.”
So, to recap, McCain was wrong before the war (he said it would be easy, that Saddam had WMD, and that Iraq was connected to al Qaeda). He was wrong during the Rumsfeld years (he repeatedly said we had to “stay the course”). And finally, McCain said all we had to do was give Bush’s so-called “surge” a chance, and we’d finally see political reconciliation in Iraq. Strike three.
Who’s been “consistently wrong” on Iraq?
Get em, Obama!
Do we like or hate Iraqis today? What day is it?
Well, yeah, if you're all literal minded about "wrong" meaning "wrong", as opposed to meaning "whatever Republicans and hawks want it to mean".
That's why he's a Maverick! He doesn't have to stick with those old fashioned word definitions -- he changes them to suit! Maverick!
and let's not forgot that McBush supported the delusion in the beginning that we would be out of iraq in six months, the 'greeted and liberators' fantasy, and also totally supported, believed in, yep, Chalabi .... boy, what a great foreign policy expert , eh ?
When Obama and McCain go head to head, I really think McSame will sink like a stone, no matter how low they try to sink -- in fact, it's their inevitable negative campaigning that will be the final coffin nail for the GOP.
Their time is over and they know it.
Good riddance, says I.
Can't be obama's he doesn't have an opinion on anything except change. Gee he might change the name of Iraq and Iran...that might help.
" Yet the American people must ask whether we are more or less likely to succeed there if Senator Obama has his way.”
Had Senator Obam had his way from the beginning, we wouldn't be in this bloody mess right now. That's the bottom line.
Being right doesn't mean Jack S.... unless it's publicized widely and in terms (that means very small easily understood words and in sound bites) that middle america can understand.
"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it."
Joseph Goebbels
no longer a proud american @ 8:
Agreed - unless this is message is getting to those voters like 'whites making under $50K living in Appalachia', John McBoosh has a chance.
Someone should ask the 4 million Iraqi refugees who was right on Iraq? Or how about asking family members of the over 1 million Iraqi dead as a direct result of the Bush administrations legal invasion of Iraq who was right. You could also ask those who have been tortured in Iraq by U.S. and Israeli forces just who was right about Iraq.
The invasion of Iraq was a crime against humanity and the whole world knows it. The BIG question is will those who lied this nation into this unnecessary and immoral war be held ACCOUNTABLE for their many CRIMES?
I hope that the original videos of all of McSame's contradictions are being effectively arranged to create political ads for the future.
Black is white. Day is night. We've always been at war with Eastasia.
The technique of blatantly lying by going after your opponents' strengths and directly saying the opposite has only been in the playbook since the development of the internet and the 24-hour news cycle. It is one of the stranger developments of the last 20 or so years.
Stranger still is that it seems to have an effect over people. This is the question that I am always confronted with. Why? Is it because we are so inundated with factoids and minutiae on television that we have lost the capacity to sift through it all? Have we become so dumbed-down as a society that we can't tell right from wrong? Perhaps it is because we have become so fearful that we more willingly accept the negative cries of "wolf" rather than spend the time to get to the truth.
I realize I am probably not saying anything new here, but I find this all greatly disturbing. There has always been negative campaigning, but this technique defies all logic. That it has worked in the past ratchets that illogic up to such a high notch it causes me concern for the mental stability of the electorate.
C-span2 is a hearing that was held earlier this week regarding the detainees at Gitmo. Hearing the feeble grounds that have been given for holding most of these people down there is sad and embarrassing to our country. Most have been presumed guilty without one iota of proof. It's like an awful experiment gone terribly wrong. Yeah, they might be dangerous if they are released because they are going to hate our damned guts for keeping them in prison and torturing them, for some, as long as six years with zero proof that they have done anything wrong.
What does McCain have to say about that? Senator Obama has said that he will close Gitmo.
Oops, should have said C-span is showing a hearing..........
pissed off patricia @ 7:
This is disturbingly wrong thinking. The reality is we are there. There is no legitimate debate here that the choice to go to war was wrong, immoral, illegal, and based on manipulation. Time has come to get past that, because WE'RE STILL THERE. Whatever "I know better than you and this war was/is wrong" games people want to play have no impact on dealing with the situation as it is. It's like being lost and arguing about who made the wrong turn 18 miles ago. We have to get past that, and focus on the best way to deal with the results. The issue isn't how we got there, the issue is how the next president will deal with it. One of the very few valid criticisms I have read of the thinking on the left is the inability of some to get past the blame game and get on to solutions. While we should never forget that we were lied to, and we should remain vigilant against more lies (read: Iran), the "bottom line" is that we need Senator Obama to articulate a workable plan to deal with the mess. Implying the the Democratic candidate must be correct in his/her ideas on the occupation simply because it was the Republicans who got us into this mess isn't going to cut it. Enough people seem to understand that Iraq was a mistake, and McCain isn't going to win swing votes with his position. However, the Democrats need to come up with something AFFIRMATIVE. More importantly, they need to find a way to sell that plan to enough swing voters to ensure that they win the key states so that we don't end up with that freak McCain in the White House.
As stupid as the angry codger and lobbyists are I'm surprised they'd even touch that one. There is a lot of tape out there of McBush saying we'll be done with Iraq in three weeks, we see this wrapping up in six months, we don't need all these troops, after this vaunted election the violence will end, we should be able to draw down in six months. I could go on and on. Umm isn't this a sign of very very poor judgment? VERY POOR judgment?
War profiteers Halliburton and Cheney flush with cash thanks to war paid for with our tax dollars and the blood of 4000 plus US soldiers and countless civilians.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/23/halliburton-bids-336-bill_n_103...
This is the postulate strategy. Simply state something as fact, as a postulate, that is not tested or proven. Nimrods on cable news repeat the postulate without testing it, and potential voters hear it being spoken with confidence on cable news and accept it.
Cases in point:
"The surge is working."
"Iran is providing IEDs to Iraqi insurgents."
"Saddam trained al Qaeda terrorists."
"Saddam is building a 'nucyular' weapon."
"Saddam was behind the attacks on 9-11...uh, I never said that...but Saddam was."
We don't need no stinking facts...
The Republicans have learned during the last 8 years that most Americans are too preoccupied to pay attention to facts - they just do what they were taught in our education system - regurgitate what the authority figures tell you, that way you avoid being punished, or having to think for yourself.
Up is Down
Down is Up
War is Peace
Bush was a war hero
Kerry hates the troops
The GOP back-assward policies no longer confuse even THEIR supporters.
McSame will WIN !!!! (actually means he will get his ass kicked)
Yes, of course. Not only is Obama wrong on Iraq, he's also too young to lead the country and he doesn't know anything about economics. Vote for the GOP - the party who wants to bring you change!
Right. Thanks, but no thanks.
YourMom @ 23:
And dont forget, Obama is a BLACK guy !!!
baylaw73 @ 17:
It's actually about judgment. Whenever somone is, in retrospecxt, proven to be consistently correct in his or her judgment, it is important in helping us to decide who will make sound judgments moving forward, and who will not.
According to past judgments, it is Obama who has better judgment than McCain or Clinton, which is why I believe he will be our next President. People don't want to be bothered with politics, so whenever they are (presently as a result of the Bush disaster), they know that looking at someone's past is a pretty good indication of what their future will hold (not 100%, but certainly it's demonstrably the better criteria for predicting future judgment than hoping that suddenly McCain will be struck with the reality that "governing by his gut" isn't working out so well).
This is nothing new. This is, as a matter of fact, what is known as the "Republican Spin". It has existed for years, even prior to GWB.... albeit GWB put in smack dab in the lime-light showing off it's VERY UGLY and VERY OBVIOUS face.
Rove is using poor judgment in picking the topic of the catastrophe that is Iraq as a talking point.
Joe Biden put his entire foot up Crazy Johnnie's wrinkled old ass yesterday in a Wall Street Journal opinion piece on should we talk to Iran. Textbook example of how to fight Republican bullshit.
Revelation 12:7-9 KJV)
7 And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,
8 And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven.
9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_qSEgA61y0M&feature=related
Yes, use those facts Mr. Obama, but to much of Amurka®:
You're still a Muslim!
Clinton got a blowjob!
Libruls EVIL!
Facts are stupid things!
I know because every day I get 50+ emails telling me so. Everything you read on the Internets or get from Fox News is true.
My point in my comment number 7 was it's all about judgment. Yes, we are where we are but had wiser judgment prevailed from the beginning, we wouldn't be there now. One way we can size up a candidate is by what they have done in the past. From this we may be able to determine what they might do in the future. Their previous judgment is a sizable indicator of their ability to understand the consequences of future actions.
We know McCain supported this war and he's already hinted he has no problem with bombing Iran. Judging by his actions, he has not made the wisest of decisions in the past and this tells me he would continue in the future to also make unwise decisions.
conservatoire @ 14:
I wholeheartedly agree. I think a big problem today is accountability no one seems to have it, the news runs stories that they don't check so false stories are coming across the airwaves and unfortunately too many Americans still think it is on TV or in the newspaper it must be true. We really need to grow up as a country and treat every fact that we are feed with skeptism and common sense. Who would have thought that a man that had failed at every business attempt he was dropped into would fail as President, anyone with common sense. Just look at how in the last election John Kerry was made to look like a whimp and an rich boy. When the truth was that he was a hockey playing, motorcycle riding, middle-class who married rich, vietnam veteran and Bush was a rich, cheerleader who didn't even complete his coast guard duty in Texas (not vietnam). We really need to wake up before it is too late.
baylaw73 @ 17:
I have to agree with baylaw on this one. Going over the lies and other reasons for getting the U.S. into Iraq isn't going to change the present situation there. For Obama's part, I think he might be better apt to deal with Iraq than would McCain. If McCain is viewed as another Bush by those inside of and outside of Iraq then it could mean the status quo there will remain in place. They will have no reason to change their positions. On the other hand, if Obama is elected, a White House lead by the Democrats could mean that those other groups or nations with interests in Iraq may be more receptive to Obama and may be more willing to be cooperative and cut deals. A forceful, military style leadership like McCain's is not what is needed. What is needed now is a skilled diplomat with enough pull to bring those rival factions in Iraq together and I think Obama is that diplomat.
ysbaddaden @ 29:
HA HA!! "What happened to Altman between this movie and Popeye?"
I heard something this morning about Hillary's people filing a lawsuit here in Florida about getting all the votes counted. Did anyone else hear this? I mean if it's true, this is not going to go down well with many Floridians who very clearly remember the infamous events of the 2000 election debacle in our state. The best thing that could happen to the McCain campaign down here is for her to further polarize the democrats, which she seems intent on doing. My concern is being raised once again about her actual goal.
Not correct. Remember, he went on Letterman once and admitted that the lives we've lost in Iraq have been "wasted".
baylaw73 @ 17:
Another thing you're missing here, besides the judgement thing, is that there probably is no magic plan that's going to make it all better, we need to get the hell out. Most people in this country besides the dead enders are already thinking this and they don't want to hear about any "Plans" that serve no purpose other then CYA. Whatever "Plan" comes up, "Let's keep slogging throught the sand waiting for the Deus Ex Machina/Magic Victory Pony to arrive" sure ain't going to be it.
Since our media never touches what is taking place in Israel
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/4ED67E79-782E-4C1E-BD18-5908DAFE1247.htm
Obama responded in a statement, “While I always appreciate hearing the news from John McCain, he should explain to the American people why almost every single promise and prediction that he has made about Iraq has turned to be catastrophically wrong, including his support for a surge that was supposed to achieve political reconciliation.”
I'm really starting to love Obamas smart-ass answers to McSame. This is only going to get better as we get to the debates.
no longer a proud american @ 8:
Thank you!
Kathleen @ 38:
A truck bomb loaded with 4 tons of explosives. And Hamas had their protest organized to follow. And this is from AlJazeera.
Something tells me that we wouldn't like it if Mexico or Canada drove large trucks up to our border and detonated them.
But that's just me.
pissed off patricia @ 35:
I believe the suit was filed by State Senator Steve Geller, not Clinton herself:
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5gdaNiIzQtK1piQ_uxJV5-QBV1xHA
pissed off patricia @ 35:
Her goal is to force the Dem Party to make her the nominee. She can spin it, her surrogates can spin it alll they want.
I live in the real world, and in the real world...Actions speak louder than words...and her actions make her intentions very transparent.
mudshark @ 41:
I agree! But if Hamas sends in rockets into illegally occupied Palestinian territory how does that change?
Kathleen @ 38:
Kathleen @ 44:
I think that both sides have been going about it all wrong.
As much as I dislike Israel, I think that Hamas and Hezbolla have been going about a campaign of death.Perhaps if they calmed down and negotiated a comprimise. They might accomplish a peace. As for the territories, Israel need to give back any and all lands occupied.But first, Hamas and Hezbolla need to back off of the attacks.
[ And this has what to do with this topic? Back on topic please.Site Monitor]
Republicans live in bizzaro-world, everything is opposite.
The surge was a failure, so we must stay in Iraq.
Democrats want the troops home, so they hate the troops.
The economy is in the toilet, so lets borrow more money for stimulus package.
Bush knows what he's doing....
(I can't wait for this nightmare to be over)
Old Man McCain is doing a little historical revisionism, huh? This, along with his desperate attempts to court the Christian Right, shows he has totally joined the neocons. So much for the "maverick" and "Straight Talk Express."
Shame on most of you. Fact - ALL THREE candidates the media is offering you have been wrong on Iraq. ONLY Ron Paul has been consistent and correct.
I am starting to believe the people would rather dismiss fact and sense for black and white sound bites.
You do not want change. You do not want freedom. You want consumerism and semantics because it makes you comfortable. A real change would frighten you.
The government is supposed to be ours and you keep giving it away to people who have little in common or simply no consideration for the middle and lower economic classes. McCain, Obama, Clinton... simply word-smiths... politicians to the bone and we their kind see time and again.
Jesse Jackson with a fist in the air and a cardigan on his back. Gore with a sierra club membership traveling in a private jet. A commander in chief donning a flight suit who was AWOL a few years ago. Democrat or Republican... it doesn't matter. It's simply a way to make you choose between chocolate or vanilla rather than just saying "no" to ice cream all together. Bears or Packers, us or them, black or white, man or woman... keep it simple and the people will fall for it time and time again.
So, shame on you. I'll skip the ice cream until the people start demanding pistachio.
Joe @ 48:
Good for you. And, please, tell us how viable of a candidate Ron Paul is now, seeing as how he is not in the race any more.
Since when do facts matter to the brain dead American public? Their proclivities to believe in god and their obsession with consumption render them useless to examine or even tolerate facts. Facts only confuse the weak minded. Get ready for president McCain!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Frybread @ 49:
Hes name collecting, and looking to the future.
Underground Pirate @ 50:
A statement brilliant in its simplicity and accuracy.
Underground Pirate @ 50:
Facts only confuse the weak minded.
What?
Underground Pirate @ 50:
From Talking Heads "Crosseyed and Painless":
"Facts are simple and facts are straight
Facts are lazy and facts are late
Facts all come with points of view
Facts don't do what I want them to
Facts just twist the truth around
Facts are living turned inside out
Facts are getting the best of them
Facts are nothing on the face of things"
ferrofluid @ 51:
That is a horrible way to dismiss the point being made. For decades now the middle and lower classes of America have been getting the shaft, badly. The repugs and dems both sold themselves to the elites. Candidates are only not viable because much of the nation can't see through the also owned media calling them not viable. You can't stand up and salute Obama and believe that he will bring change. You can delude yourself into thinking a candidate who promises to change Washington is something different. But, deep down you must know you are voting for a candidate from the same party saying the same things. If you really want change it starts with you. Look at recent history, campaign slogans and promises made by recent candidates and then you tell me if you are Charlie Brown running to kick the football.
baylaw73 @ 17:
We are trying to determine how to find our way out. It is reasonable to suggest that we listen to the person whose original directions turned out to be correct rather than the person whose advice we followed but we now know was lying.
Dr. D @ 20:
Um, I'm in Iraq (outside Baghdad) - and just one thing:
A) To some extent, the surge IS working (violence has decreased dramatically throughout many of the more violent regions, Iraqi security - army and police - are standing up in increasing numbers to fight criminal activities on their own, etc.).
B) To some extent, Iran IS providing IED and IED-making components (as well as rockets, mortars, and other explosives) to Iraqi insurgents / criminal elements.
That's what I call a pustulate.
Random Joe @ 57:
Lets try a fun fill in the blank:
_____ is giving Iraq weapons to fight ______.
Now compare your answer today with your answer in the eighties and tell me what vise versa means.
ReallyEvilCanine @ 13:
Anti-gay homosexuals, pro-religion war criminals, anti-immigration immigrants, 'no spin zone' propagandists, pro-family adulterers, patriotic traitors. They don't know how to do it any other way.
Rove should be offering his punditry from a jail cell.
Charging at an enemies' strong point can work when it is unexpected, thus you can gain victory by the use of surprise - surprise being the old difference maker in all sorts of strategic action. However, once you no longer hold the 'surprise card' charging head on into your enemies' strong point when expected leaves you only one obvious outcome - utter and sheer annihilation. Ask all those WW1 guy about how charging into fields of machine gun fire exactly as the enemy expected them too worked out for them. The gravestones will warm under your hands. Rove's strategy was a good one and worked well for two election cycles, now it's old hat and will just lead to practically automatic defeat.
Uh, excuse me? Obama's "been right from the start"?
Oh really. Is that why he took TWO WEEKS before speaking out against the invasion? Who's to say how he would've voted? In fact, based upon his consistent votes IN FAVOR of funding the invasion, one has to surmise that he would've also voted in FAVOR of the invasion had he been a senator at the time.
This is the biggest Obama myth out there. This is the same man who said during the debates that he would keep troops in Iraq until at least 2013, and then said he'd keep U.S. bases in Iraq indefinitely, only later to modify that and say he would at least keep them close to Iraq.
Them the facts.
Now, your job is to NOT DISPUTE your lord and savior's own words and actions, but to come back and attack me as a GOP operative, and then somehow argue that since Hillary also voted to fund the war, it negates what Barry did. That's a much easier tactic than actually defending your cult leader's own flaws.
Have at it.
We don’t need no stinking facts…
The Republicans have learned during the last 8 years that most Americans are too preoccupied to pay attention to facts - they just do what they were taught in our education system - regurgitate what the authority figures tell you, that way you avoid being punished, or having to think for yourself.
------------------
neither democrats or republicans need no stinking facts. It is a propaganda game on both sides. Both sides are hypocrits, who point out the faults of the other and practice partisan cheerleading.
Thanks Steve Benen for doing the homework on summarizing McCain's personal quagmire. I have long wondered why such summaries of candidates statements, voting records and views have not been made more readily known and put into succinct and digestible form as is yours.
Oh dear lord, one of my kids is studying world history and needs to list reasons we are fighting in Iraq...so she asked me, and I said I have five different reasons I've heard, which one will get you the A?
Random Joe @ 57:
Well, that shit wouldn't be happening if 'we' weren't there now, would it. There'd be at least 4100 more of you guys alive. Tens of thousands of you not having to cope with life altering injuries--physical and mental.
There'd be wedding parties in Iraq that only had the usual wedding day glitches-not an air assault from the US to ruin the big day. There'd be kids who are missing limbs now, who'd still have them all. There'd be electricity and water in Iraq. There'd be hundreds of thousands, maybe a million, Iraqi citizens still alive-normal people, people just like your family and friends back home. You wouldn't be in a hellhole right now.
Gas probably would not be $4.00 a gallon and rising. And we'd have trillions in the coffers for every American to have full dental and medical care and free secondary education.
And what's your proof that shit is coming in from Iran? You know we get a lot of BC bud smuggled in from Canada, and I doubt the Govt of Canada is 'in on it.'
Why does CheneyBushCo hate America and Americans so much?
Why do they treat you like something they'd scrape off the bottom of their $3000 custom made wingtips? Why aren't their kids helping you out?
Why were they all draft dodgers (Cheney, Rove) and deserters (Bush) and why are you sticking up for them?
These c*nts don't even support you guys having a modern GI bill.
Since when has McCain been an expert on Iraq? He's been there at least 4 times and he still doesn't know jack shit.
I heard a funny clip on Ed Schultz about 10 minutes ago. It starts with a reporter or pundit reading a quote to McCain, and McCain saying that the person is wrong and that it's worth fighting in Iraq because of the danger to America, and the reporter says that those words were from...John McCain.
Even that West Virginia voter who said Obama was a Muslim has better judgment than McCain.
Rove's primary strategy has never been a secret. It's called "The Big Lie." Lie that your opponent's strength is a weakness. Lie that your own weakness is a strength.
baylaw73 @ 17:
Then I suggest you send your children or grandchildren. They need ALL the bodies they can get because they cannot have mine.
Jim @ 63:
He's also a Muslim!
p.s. 'Barry' lol...
The facts may be on Obama's side, but when did a Republican ever care about facts? The Republican specialty is telling blatant lies so loudly and so incessantly that the lies become legend, legend taken for truth by voters who devote far less time to their civic responsibilities than they do to keeping up with news of their favorite athletes or teams or celebrities.
chris [not the troll] @ 71:
Can't dispute the facts, can ya?
Didn't think so.
KevinD @ 37:
I agree that the actuality in Iraq is fscked, and also that the relative records of McCain and Obama on this are relevant.
I do not agree that Obama has no plan beyond having already shown better judgment, which is how I summarize baylaw's general argument, perhaps unfairly.
Obama's general plan is coherent with able and experienced military officers: draw down, transfer sovereignty and responsibility to locals, engage regional powers in diplomacy.
McCain's plan is diastrously simple-minded and reflexive: add more US soldiers and spend more money on hammering where there is no nail. Iraq is well beyond the ability of military action to repair.
Kyle @ 55:
That is a horrible way to dismiss the point being made. For decades now the middle and lower classes of America have been getting the shaft, badly. The repugs and dems both sold themselves to the elites. Candidates are only not viable because much of the nation can't see through the also owned media calling them not viable. You can't stand up and salute Obama and believe that he will bring change. You can delude yourself into thinking a candidate who promises to change Washington is something different. But, deep down you must know you are voting for a candidate from the same party saying the same things. If you really want change it starts with you. Look at recent history, campaign slogans and promises made by recent candidates and then you tell me if you are Charlie Brown running to kick the football.
Snark line: Remember, GW was going to restore dignity to the White House.
Serious point: I agree that we can't rely on Obama's charm or his ability to perceive the most progressive path that a slim majority of Americans can support. Not if we want our Constitution restored and our future improved.
We do, however, need to put him, or should Clinton win the nomination, her in the Presidency as a place-holder, a foot in the door. Progressive ideas will have no toe-hold in a McCain administration. (For that matter, I am willing to bet Clinton would not govern as progressively as Obama would, but something is better than nothing.)
In a bit of good news, I heard on the radio this morning that more Americans would like to have a beer with Obama than with Clinton or McCain. Since that's how our great nation chose its last president, that's good news, right? Right?
How would anyone know whether the Petraeus plans have been working? The war is never, and I do mean never, on TV. One would think this is a minor skirmish going on where we have a few hundred soldiers doing some clean-up work somewhere in the world. The embedded news people have been limited by the services and by the extreme danger from being out in the field reporting the real story. The American people don't want to know what is going on in Iraq, and the government is just fine with that.
Our Vietnam involvement ended, in part, because Americans found the footage of death and destruction playing on the news every night depressing. Bush & Co. made sure we've seen little of this. I believe nothing they or their apologists say about the lessing of violence. If it has lessened at all, it is probably because so many fighters on both sides are dead. That is not exactly encouraging, if you care about human life at all.
AgentX @ 68:
I suggest that John McCain go back to Bagdad and take another of his famous walks through the market place, this time without the Blackhawk overhead, twenty guards and bulletproof vests. Then he can come back and report to me how safe the place is.
Anyone out there want to give me odds on this one?
baylaw73 @ 17:
Fascinating theory...Obama should articulate a plan to get us out of the mess we are in because we've all been lied to about the entire Iraq experience.
One TINY, LITTLE problem with that. If we have all been lied to, how does anyone formulate a plan for undoing the mess when no one has the real story, even Obama? You know how top, top, top secret all this is. Every mistake these clowns have made is classified. So I guess Obama should just get out his crystal ball, set up shop and come up with the magic answer. Sounds like a tall order.
Maybe, just maybe, that's why we should focus on the blame game. Find out who lied to us, what the motive was and then, just perhaps, we can get the next administration to start sorting this out.
I hope that is possible. But someone needs to get to the truth and share it with the American people
Jim @ 73:
What's your alternative then, tough guy? Hillary? Regardless of her voting record, she's run a Republican campaign. Democrats don't much care for that, liberals especially. Her choices in the campaign to date have shown that she doesn't have ideals, she doesn't have morals, she only has her win-at-any-cost slimy, sleazy power ambition. Which means in the end, you can't believe what she says - because SHE doesn't believe it either. Her positions on issues are the ones she thinks will get her more power, and she'll say or do anything or screw over anybody if she thinks it'll help her. Remember 1992-2000? When policies changed week to week based on... well, whatever or whoever Bill was pandering to at the time. You want that again? Do you trust her when she says she'll get us out of Iraq? If you do, then there's clearly multiple planes of existence at play here, and we ain't on the same one.
Or are you suggesting McCain is the man for the job? I guess not, since you got all puffed up warning that nobody better accuse you of being a republican provocateur.
So what then are we left with? Like always, we have to pick the least revolting candidate. Obama's pandering to Israel makes me physically ill, but what are my choices? Maybe it's only because he's such a skilled snake oil salesman, but I think he believes what he says - he may be wrong on certain issues, but at least he's not lying every time his lips move.
How about this: Tell me why Hillary should be the next president. I haven't heard ANYBODY explain her positives, only her opponents' negatives. What's her master plan to bail us out of our current multiple foreign policy disasters? 'Bomb bomb Iran'? Face it, Democrats won't vote for someone who acts like a Republican.
Comments are closed on this entry