Reply
Sat 1 Mar, 2008 08:53 am
nd they did it so often and so badly that even the AP had to correct their statements...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080229/ap_on_el_pr/iraq_fact_check
Quote:THE FACTS:
The Democrats leave out a vital caveat.
When McCain was asked about Bush's theory that U.S. troops could be in Iraq for 50 years, the senator said: "Maybe 100. As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed, it's fine with me, and I hope it would be fine with you, if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where al-Qaida is training, recruiting, equipping and motivating people every single day."
A troop presence that does not involve Americans being harmed is, by definition, not a war.
We have had troops stationed in Europe and Japan for 60 years, and in South Korea for 50 years.
Are we at war in those areas?
mysteryman- Gee whiz, haven't you caught on yet? This is one of the nastiest political races that I have ever witnessed in my entire life. I think that if one of the candidates farted, the other side would be talking about poison gas. The press, and the internet, is not doing a great service by going into the gory details of everything, true, slanted, or not.
Personally, I am getting sick of all of it.
Phoenix32890 wrote:mysteryman- Gee whiz, haven't you caught on yet? This is one of the nastiest political races that I have ever witnessed in my entire life. I think that if one of the candidates farted, the other side would be talking about poison gas. The press, and the internet, is not doing a great service by going into the gory details of everything, true, slanted, or not.
Personally, I am getting sick of all of it.
I agree, I guess I found it more surprising that the AP had to correct Hillary and Obama because they had so badly twisted what McCain said.
You're right, it is a gross misstatement by both Clinton and Obama.
I'm beginning to think more and more that Clinton and Obama would not actually do much of anything to bring our troops home. I'm becomming more and more convinced that they are not much different than McCain in this regard.
So either Obama doesn't understand the difference between a hundred years of war and "troop presence" for a hundred years (in which case he's really not qualified to be Commander in Chief) or this is another "wink wink" similar to his Nafta attacks and telling Canada not to worry (which is turning out to be true, by the way).
Clinton and McCain already understand the extent to which war lines the pockets of those who can provide power and welath to them.... Obamam may just be getting his eyes opened to it... then he, like everyone else, will play the game, probably just not quite as skillfully.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace