John McCain in Neverland

[ImaginalDisc]

Sorry, you missed the boat on that one. He was talking about innocent people dying in Baghdad not exactly strengthening McCain's claim that things are good in Baghdad.

Ding!

 

[Mephisto]

I just want to note that I didn't imply that Iran was responsible for everything I mentionned, but they are part of the threat of radical Islam that pretty much only America seems to have decided to fight against.

I'm just too skeptical to buy into the notion that the US is guilty of everything either.

I just don't want you guys to shoot yourself in the foot too much, I don't think the Royal Canadian Army will be much help when America falls.

Sorry if I seemed antagonistic, I've cooled down now.

Hey, no sweat, GI!

The fact that "only America has decided to fight against," increases our odds of being attacked by extremists, wouldn't you agree? That's a far cry from Bush's assertions that "we're safer than ever," from terrorism.

I agree that the Royal Canadian Army wouldn't be much help, but they'd definitely be more help that the three guys from Moldova or Uzebekistan that are helping us now.

 

[Pardalis]

The fact that "only America has decided to fight against," increases our odds of being attacked by extremists, wouldn't you agree? That's a far cry from Bush's assertions that "we're safer than ever," from terrorism.

I don't want to derail this thread further, but I don't really care for what Bush or Mc Cain say, they're politicians so of course they will say things to make everything seem to be going OK, that's their job.

Extremists have engaged "us" on 9/11, everything after that is the inevitable retaliation. This conflict was inevitable. Now that we're in this conflict, I personally find it counter-productive to constantly saw the branch we're standing on.

 

[hgc]

I don't want to derail this thread further, but I don't really care for what Bush or Mc Cain say, they're politicians so of course they will say things to make everything seem to be going OK, that's their job.

Extremists have engaged "us" on 9/11, everything after that is the inevitable retaliation. This conflict was inevitable. Now that we're in this conflict, I personally find it counter-productive to constantly saw the branch we're standing on.

I must have been asleep throughout 2002. Why was the invasion of Iraq inevitable after 9/11?

 

[Pardalis]

I must have been asleep throughout 2002. Why was the invasion of Iraq inevitable after 9/11?

Iraq was a huge mistake. But now that's irrelevant.

(by conflict I meant the war on terrorism)

 

[fuelair]

McCain says something off the cuff which is indicative of his hope for progress in Iraq. The comment is then parsed and debunked as if he were $ylvia (rule8ing) Brown(with-an-"e") pretending to channel the ghost of Jeebus!

If you lot weren't so reactionary, your motives wouldn't be so transparent...but alas the glee is sooo hard to contain ain't it? No wonder liberals make such crappy poker players.

-z

No, Rik, John McCain made statements that were blatantly untrue and were shown to be so and he then tried to backtrack and add/change/restate things that he did not say originally. And that is pretty much what he did a few days ago on the African condoms thing. The man is either getting Alzheimers or Bushes people did what the VC couldn't: broke him down and then built what was left in their image. I am truly sorry about that but that doesn't make lies or major misstatements suddenly true.


This is the added part - you are acting/writing as if McCain thought he was in the back yard jawing with old buddies (said something off the cuff). No intelligent politician says anything off the cuff - and if he does, it isn't anything that can be shown flat wrong. So, McCain is either no longer an intelligent politician, or he is not an intelligent politician any longer. Your choice.

 

[hgc]

So, McCain is either no longer an intelligent politician, or he is not an intelligent politician any longer. Your choice.

 

[Tony]

So, McCain is either no longer an intelligent politician, or he is not an intelligent politician any longer. Your choice.

I'm starting to doubt whether he ever was intelligent. I liked McCain, but I've lost any respect I had for him since he started doing a GW Bush impersonation and started kissing-up to the fundies. I still like Rudy though, hopefully he'll have the balls to stand up to the rabid conservafundies in the party.

 

[hgc]

I'm starting to doubt whether he ever was intelligent. I liked McCain, but I've lost any respect I had for him since he started doing a GW Bush impersonation and started kissing-up to the fundies. I still like Rudy though, hopefully he'll have the balls to stand up to the rabid conservafundies in the party.

He might have them. But if he presents them, he runs the risk of getting snipped. See McCain/South_Carolina/2000.

 

[Tony]

He might have them. But if he presents them, he runs the risk of getting snipped. See McCain/South_Carolina/2000.

Do you think that's a risk he can afford to take?

 

[Daylight]

Iraq was a huge mistake. But now that's irrelevant.

I’m sure you meant to use different words. Saying the death of American solders is “irrelevant” might be construed as something negative. Especially those fresh back from the “mistake”.

 

[davefoc]

"Abandon ye all hope who enter here..."

Yes...let no one offer hope in any way on the subject of Iraq. Let no one stand in the way of the Surrender Express lest he be savaged by the people lining up to profit from American defeat. Let the schadenfreude of the extreme left go unremarked upon. The end is near for ChimpyMcHitler and the neocons, yet we must continue to beat the drum of defeatism lest stability somehow break out bringing progress, freedom, and hope to Iraq....and irreparable political damage to the party of appeasement, surrender, and moral cowardice.

-z

Rik ????

McCain appears to have been completely wrong on an important point. Do you disagree with that?

Assuming you agree that McCain was completely wrong, what is the point of your post? That just starting a thread about the fact that McCain was completely wrong about a widely known and important aspect of the Iraq war shows that one is advocating the "Surrender Express"?

If McCain had referred to all of Iraq instead of Baghdad, he might have been right. Based on information from a marine that I talked to, it seems like stuff isn't all that bad in much of Iraq. He talked about areas where marines walk around without their helmets on. But one thing he was clear on was that Baghdad was one very dangerous, violent place.

Rik, are you convinced that the US occupation is making Iraq better? Why? Suppose all that is happening is that the militant Shiites are taking a rest while the US fights the Sunnis and that when the US leaves the militant Shiites will immediately engage the Sunnis in a brutal civil war.

What does victory in Iraq mean to you? How many years do you think it will take before this victory is achieved that you envision. When the victory is achieved does that mean the US can go home? Would you see a fundamentalist Iraqi regime democratically elected that tilts toward Iran as a victory?

 

[rikzilla]

Rik ????

McCain appears to have been completely wrong on an important point. Do you disagree with that?

No, he was wrong. People have been wrong before, people will be wrong again. What I'm objecting to is the zeal. Like a Pentecostalist babbling in tongues, the apparent quasi-religious ecstasy of the left at the prospect of "defeat" is simply disgusting IMHO. So McCain was wrong? Fine, but it doesn't exactly warrant an investigation by CNN.

Assuming you agree that McCain was completely wrong, what is the point of your post? That just starting a thread about the fact that McCain was completely wrong about a widely known and important aspect of the Iraq war shows that one is advocating the "Surrender Express"?

McCain was not "completely wrong". You are taking just one aspect of the point he was attempting to make (badly sure that I'll agree to) but if you take his statements in their entirety...in context...he's only saying that the troop surge which has only just begun BTW is showing hopeful signs of progress. But of course....this must not be allowed...

Transcript:

CNN’S JOHN ROBERTS: I wanted to talk to you about the situation in Iraq. Yesterday in an interview with Wolf Blitzer on The Situation Room. I want to play this back for you. You had this to say about the situation there.

[McCAIN CLIP]: General Petraeus goes out there almost every day in an unarmed humvee. I think you oughta catch up. You are giving the old line of three months ago. I understand it. We certainly don’t get it through the filter of some of the media.

ROBERTS: Senator, did you mean to say that, that General Petraeus goes out every day in an unarmed humvee?

SEN. JOHN McCAIN (R-AZ): I mean that there are neighborhoods safe in Iraq and he does go out into Baghdad and the fact is there has been significant progress and people are stuck in a time warp of three months ago. Of course, it’s still dangerous. Of course it’s still very dangerous. We only have two of the five brigades there and we are already seeing significant progress.

ROBERTS: Because I checked with General Petraeus’s people overnight and they said he never goes out in anything less than an up-armored humvee. You also told Bill Bennett on his radio program on Monday. You said there are neighborhoods in Baghdad where you and I could walk through those neighborhood today yet retired General Barry McCaffrey said no Iraqi government official, coalition soldier, diplomat reporter could walk the streets of Baghdad without heavily armed protection. We’ve got two different stories here. Who’s right?

McCAIN: Well, I’m not saying they could go without protection. The President goes around America with protection. So, certainly I didn’t say that.

So this is what has CNN so stirred up? Is an "unarmed humvee" the same thing as an "uparmored humvee"? Are unspecified Baghdad neighborhoods equal to all Baghdad neighborhoods? Do these two very vague miscues actually equate to "completely wrong about a widely known and important aspect of the Iraq war"??? Really? Why do you find it so important to parse his words so critically while at the same time ignoring the context of what he was saying about the improvement of conditions there over the last few months? If security conditions have not improved recently, then why aren't you and CNN raking him over the coals for saying that? Isn't it possible that McCain had a valid point? Better to make him look a fool and quickly lest the optimism spread and the dems look bad.

If McCain had referred to all of Iraq instead of Baghdad, he might have been right. Based on information from a marine that I talked to, it seems like stuff isn't all that bad in much of Iraq. He talked about areas where marines walk around without their helmets on. But one thing he was clear on was that Baghdad was one very dangerous, violent place.

It is what it is...a war zone. As such it is a very dangerous place, but even there there are varying levels of danger and intensity of military operations.

Rik, are you convinced that the US occupation is making Iraq better?

Better than what? If by better you mean regional stability then I'd have to say yes. If by better you mean removing the tyrant and freeing the people then by all means yes. If by better you mean keeping the power flowing, reducing unemployment, and fostering nationalistic self-esteem then no it's not better.

Suppose all that is happening is that the militant Shiites are taking a rest while the US fights the Sunnis and that when the US leaves the militant Shiites will immediately engage the Sunnis in a brutal civil war.

It's not as simple as that. But you are right in one respect; quick withdrawal of occupation forces without regard to the state of the Iraqi government's viability, or to the effectiveness of insurgent forces could not fail to make things worse on many levels.

What does victory in Iraq mean to you?

We achieved military victory over Iraq in less than 3 months. That Iraqi government no longer exists. Its military units were completely destroyed. It's leader was tried and hung. In any other era in history this would be classed not as a simple victory, but a stunning and complete victory. What has gone wrong is that the occupation was attempted with too few troops against a dispersed cellular insurgency which is both resilient and entrenched within the civilian population. That is the problem, "victory" on the battlefields of Iraq did not prove to be so tough unless you are getting you news from this guy:

Who BTW just happened to be "the official source" for CNN for many, many years. Funny, but I don't remember CNN parsing the edicts of the Iraqi information ministry during their many years of "reporting" from Baghdad.

How many years do you think it will take before this victory is achieved that you envision.

See how far apart we are? You are looking for some completely impossible and ridiculous level of "victory" almost 4 years after it was achieved! Don't you think that this is a bit absurd? If this strange logic had been popular in the 1940's we could have all declared our defeat in WWII based on the need for the Berlin airlift.

When the victory is achieved does that mean the US can go home? Would you see a fundamentalist Iraqi regime democratically elected that tilts toward Iran as a victory?

I "would see" a democratic and free Iraq struggle to create the kind of nation and life for its people that its people want as reflected in their vote. If they tilt toward Iran so what? Would a free nation not be free to do so? Is not a free nation less apt to breed terrorists? Besides; the people of Iran yearn for their own freedom from tyranny; would not it be more likely that their own people would tilt toward the stable democratic model that a successful Iraq presented? Is that not at least one reason why the current Iranian government is so generous with their aid to the Shia radicals of Iraq??

It is plain to me that if we fear a spread of the Iranian Islamic Revolution with their mad mullahs and nuclear ambitions we should redouble our efforts in Iraq and place our hope, trust, and support in the growing dissident movement within Iran.

Freeing people is not what we've done wrong....abandoning them to anarchy and tyranny would be though. It would be wrong, and it would make our own long term security picture very ugly.

-z

 

[hgc]

rik, you have boundless energy for the defense of the indefensible. Unarmored, Up-armored ... What's the diff? Just send money and STFU so the C-in-C can get his groove on.

That's all I have to say on that matter, because something more urgent has arisen. Yes, it's Lieberman. Of course you knew that. Lieberman is always lurking. I could start a new thread, but this thread will do just fine. It's the same topic, and for all intents and purposes, McCain and Lieberman are the same person.

USA Today gave over a portion of op-ed real estate today to Joementum's seconding of McCain's craptacular reporting on the war in Iraq:

Since taking command, Gen. Petraeus has been true to his word. The result? Sectarian violence is down in Baghdad. The radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr has fled. The Mahdi Army, which terrorized Baghdad last year, appears to be splintering. And the Iraqi government — its spine stiffened thanks to our renewed support — is taking the critical steps for political reconciliation.

Please switch parties already. With that out of the way, the sinking of McCain's presidentin' plans is all that remains for your total slide into irrelevancy.

Read it here

 

[Pardalis]

I’m sure you meant to use different words. Saying the death of American solders is “irrelevant” might be construed as something negative. Especially those fresh back from the “mistake”.

I meant it was irrelevant to argue whether it was the right thing to do or not since that you're in Iraq now, what's done is done. I meant no disrespect.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I didn't notice McCain saying that he hoped that's how things are going in Iraq. He made factual claims, and is trying to influence policy based on those facts.

So now factual claims that are clearly and utterly false are OK if they're "indicative of hope?"

How do you know my motives? The same way you know McCain's hope?

The whole problem is that reality has an well known anti american bias.

 

[rikzilla]

rik, you have boundless energy for the defense of the indefensible. Unarmored, Up-armored ... What's the diff? Just send money and STFU so the C-in-C can get his groove on.

Reading comprehension problems? Are you perhaps a gradu8 of Evalin Woodhead's sped redding course?

McCain didn't say unarmored. He said "unarmed". Is it possible that an uparmored humvee can be unarmed? Or are they exactly the same thing? Doesn't unarmed mean no weapons? Sure...it's not likely of course, and McCain put his foot in it...sure...but at least he didn't give a redfaced YAHOOO! after he said it eh?

That's all I have to say on that matter, because something more urgent has arisen. Yes, it's Lieberman. Of course you knew that. Lieberman is always lurking. I could start a new thread, but this thread will do just fine. It's the same topic, and for all intents and purposes, McCain and Lieberman are the same person.

So now you assert that two completely different people are the same person??? Why gee hgc, if you were John McCain and I was an insane moonbat working for CNN I could publicly humiliate you. fun stuff eh?

USA Today gave over a portion of op-ed real estate today to Joementum's seconding of McCain's craptacular reporting on the war in Iraq:




Please switch parties already. With that out of the way, the sinking of McCain's presidentin' plans is all that remains for your total slide into irrelevancy.

Read it here

Whatever....the "politics of personal destruction" is alive and well I see and; as Vince Foster once infamously opined; "....here (Washington) ruining people is considered sport."

Tallyho!
-z

 

[ponderingturtle]

Who perpetrated 9/11?

Who funded them?

That would be the saudi's the ones who bush likes to kiss. Now mabey you think we need to invade saudi arabia?

Who is killing innocent civilians daily in the streets of Baghdad?

That is a very long list. Generaly it seems like everyone in Iraq is doing this

 

[ponderingturtle]

He means those murdering, torturing, baby raping, evil imperialist storm-troopers from Halliburton that you are busy supporting Paradalis. Shame on you...now go into the little room with the Telescreen and hate yourself for 5 minutes. It's mandatory!

-z

No they are not from Halliburton, but blackwater, who halliburton illegaly pays for security inspite of their requirement to get it from the military.

But everyone knows PMC's are above any kind of law to start with so they can not really be murdering anyone anyway.

 

[hgc]

The whole problem is that reality has an well known anti american bias.

What I've noticed from many loyal war backers is a pomo epistemology wherein, once upon a time, admitting to a civil war in Iraq is damaging to the war effort, and other such things. Now that the civil war is all but undeniable, there are new realities to construct out of good intentions.

I highly recommend Ron Suskind's New York Times Magazine article from a couple years ago, titled "Faith, Certainty and the Presidency of George W. Bush." Be prepared to weep.