The Case Against John McCain

Hendrik Hertzberg's quote on the whole 100 years thing:

Quote:

McCain wants to stay in Iraq until no more Americans are getting killed, no matter how long it takes and how many Americans get killed achieving that goal -- that is, the goal of not getting any more Americans killed. And once that goal is achieved, we'll stay.

0 Replies

That's funny, I wasn't aware that ANY of that qualified one to lead the entire armed forces. It's sort of like suggesting that a pawn is as qualified as a king on a chessboard.

There's a big difference between doing what you're told, and being the one telling people what to do.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

At this point it looks like Mike Huckabee might be his VP, putting him in prime position to run for president in four years (assuming McCain will stick to his guns and only run one term, like he has said).

I like McCain well enough and I could have been persuaded to vote for him. However, if Huckabee does indeed get the nod, then my vote will be made against that ticket.

Huckabee is a good guy, but his brand of conservatism, with its blatant and instrumental utilization of narrowly understood religious idioms, and the resultant judgments he often makes in their name, does not sit well with me.

0 Replies

my god... huckabee? what a tremendous f*ck up.

0 Replies

Arendt wrote:

At this point it looks like Mike Huckabee might be his VP, putting him in prime position to run for president in four years (assuming McCain will stick to his guns and only run one term, like he has said).

I like McCain well enough and I could have been persuaded to vote for him. However, if Huckabee does indeed get the nod, then my vote will be made against that ticket.

Huckabee is a good guy, but his brand of conservatism, with its blatant and instrumental utilization of narrowly understood religious idioms, and the resultant judgments he often makes in their name, does not sit well.

That's why it will never happen - the big money Republicans hate Huckabee and wouldn't dream of putting him in line.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

That's funny, I wasn't aware that ANY of that qualified one to lead the entire armed forces. It's sort of like suggesting that a pawn is as qualified as a king on a chessboard.

There's a big difference between doing what you're told, and being the one telling people what to do.

Cycloptichorn

Going to the Naval Acadamy, being in active duty, being a commander of soldiers and a liaison to Govt does not, IN YOUR OPINION, qualify one to be a Commander of US Armed Forces?

Would being a State Rep be one of the qualifications one would need to be the CIC?

0 Replies

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/capital-commerce/2008/5/12/source-huckabee-tops-mccains-veep-list.html

taken with a grain of salt of course. But with McCain's following so lousy amongst a large portion of evangelicals, I wouldn't say it could never happen...

0 Replies

woiyo wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
That's funny, I wasn't aware that ANY of that qualified one to lead the entire armed forces. It's sort of like suggesting that a pawn is as qualified as a king on a chessboard.

There's a big difference between doing what you're told, and being the one telling people what to do.

Cycloptichorn

Going to the Naval Acadamy, being in active duty, being a commander of soldiers and a liaison to Govt does not, IN YOUR OPINION, qualify one to be a Commander of US Armed Forces?

Would being a State Rep be one of the qualifications one would need to be the CIC?

All that stuff is nice, but it doesn't qualify one to run the entire military. It is a whole different thing.

What's really required is a keen intellect and the ability to effectively manage a large team of people who know infinitely more about running the thing then you do. There is evidence that Obama possesses this, but not so much for McCain.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Like to stay, willing to stay, whatever. He wants to stay in Iraq for a long, long time. No argument about that.

There was no context to that statement whatsoever which matters in the slightest.

Cycloptichorn

Nonsense. The word formulation here is significant to the interpretation of the meaning of the statement and the one you chose to use, "like to stay" is not the fact - it is a mischaracterization of what he really did say.

Worse, when confronted with the obvious challenge on that point, you further contradict the facts, and yourself, by asserting (1) "whatever" in effect it doesnt matter and (2) then go on to repeat the lie by asserting "He wants to stay in Iraq for a long, long time. No argument about that." when , in fact, there is a real argument about that, and he specifically did NOT say he wants to stay in Iraq for a long time.

The truth is this -- in the real context of the statement he noted that we have been in Korea for more than 50 years, but that owing to the relatively small committment of our forces there, the burden to us has not been great; and that most would agree that the world has benefitted greatly from that committment in providing stablity in a region that, without it, would pose a great danger to us all (and previous Democrat Administrations have agreed with all that). He went on to say that it was not the duration of the committment but the size and extent of it, and the benefits gained by it, that really determined this issue - and that he expected these factors would dominate the Iraqi issue as well.

THAT is the truth that you have gone to such great lengths to evade and distort.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Like to stay, willing to stay, whatever. He wants to stay in Iraq for a long, long time. No argument about that.

There was no context to that statement whatsoever which matters in the slightest.

Cycloptichorn

Nonsense. The word formulation here is significant to the interpretation of the meaning of the statement and the one you chose to use, "like to stay" is not the fact - it is a mischaracterization of what he really did say.

Worse, when confronted with the obvious challenge on that point, you further contradict the facts, and yourself, by asserting (1) "whatever" in effect it doesnt matter and (2) then go on to repeat the lie by asserting "He wants to stay in Iraq for a long, long time. No argument about that." when , in fact, there is a real argument about that, and he specifically did NOT say he wants to stay in Iraq for a long time.

The truth is this -- in the real context of the statement he noted that we have been in Korea for more than 50 years, but that owing to the relatively small committment of our forces there, the burden to us has not been great; and that most would agree that the world has benefitted greatly from that committment in providing stablity in a region that, without it, would pose a great danger to us all (and previous Democrat Administrations have agreed with all that). He went on to say that it was not the duration of the committment but the size and extent of it, and the benefits gained by it, that really determined this issue - and that he expected these factors would dominate the Iraqi issue as well.

THAT is the truth that you have gone to such great lengths to evade and distort.

The problem for your side is that he didn't just make that statement once, he said it several times, in different settings, and did not waffle or preclude the statement with any of your explanations. See the video I linked to above.

Comparing Iraq to Korea is farcical. It should not be done and it's a sign that he has no real understanding of the situation there. I don't even have to tell you this, you know this. It's simply a way for him to dodge the fact that he has not indicated how long he wishes to stay under current conditions; I believe that his position is 'as long as it takes.' That's the same as saying forever, in the minds of voters.

Iraq will never be like Korea; a basically stable place which requires our troops to keep outside countries out. Not while we stay. The conundrum is deadly to his position and Obama is going to slice him to pieces with it this Fall.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

No. He honestly tried to communicate the folly of making such a prediction (no point in telling the enemy exactly what are your intentions) and the impossibility of knowing in advance just what a rational choice might entail.

You are merely assuming he necessarily treats this as a serious question with a knowable answer. In fact the question is at best an attempt to craft a political trap, and, at worst, merely stupid. He has responded by correctly noting the inherent uncertainty, the tradeoffs, and the variables involved.

He never asserted that Korea was a model for Iraq - that is entirely your fantasy - instead he used it to illustrate the governing principle which I described above.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are saying all that out of a partisan desire to discredit McCain and the policy he advocates. That is much more flattering to you than the alternative conclusion that you really mean what you wrote above.

0 Replies

It's a serious question, and the whole 'tell your enemy your endpoint' argument is so much BS on the part of you Republicans.

As Soz said above:

Quote:

"McCain wants to stay in Iraq until no more Americans are getting killed, no matter how long it takes and how many Americans get killed achieving that goal--that is, the goal of not getting any more Americans killed. And once that goal is achieved, we'll stay."

He wants us to stay for the conceivable future, whether it be in combat roles or during peace. He provides no real plan as to how peace is going to be achieved, other then for us to keep doing More Of The Same(tm).

The problem for your position is that McCain keeps changing his story. In the famous DNC ad, he segues right to the South Korea analogy when asked by the questioner how long we will stay in Iraq. At other times, he's said other things. Here's another video for ya:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/192176.php

Soz was right to quote Hertzberg:

"McCain wants to stay in Iraq until no more Americans are getting killed, no matter how long it takes and how many Americans get killed achieving that goal--that is, the goal of not getting any more Americans killed. And once that goal is achieved, we'll stay."

He made these comments all the time over the course of the election cycle; the idea that we should stay in Iraq - if it's peaceful; and stay in Iraq as long as it takes if it isn't. He uses the Korea analogy to try and make people believe that what he is proposing is to stay if it is peaceful, but that's not the case at all. He wants us to stay either way. When he says 50 or 100 years, he means either way. And if not, he should be specific about it.

But per his and your doctorine, that can never happen; he can never say out loud 'yes, we'll leave if we can't pacify it in a certain amount of time.' So there's no real difference between what the DNC says he said and what you bunch say he said. It's essentially the same thing.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

George Will has been making more sense then usual lately.

Quote:

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Okay, here's my case:

He's old.

Period.

And Republican.

Period.

0 Replies

Mame wrote:

Okay, here's my case:

He's old.

Period.

And Republican.

Period.

Short and sweet, I love it!

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Yah, I don't have much to contribute, but when I do, I'm succinct Laughing

Love reading your stuff, Cyclo... hold your own against ob1, now.

0 Replies

Quote:

The Case Against John McCain

Okay, here's my case:

He's not black.

Period.

He's not female.

Period.

Hi Mame :wink:

0 Replies

H2O_MAN wrote:

Quote:
The Case Against John McCain

Okay, here's my case:

He's not black.

Period.

He's not female.

Period.

Hi Mame :wink:

So then you would have no problem with Condoleeza Rice becoming President?

She is both black AND female, so she meets your criteria.

0 Replies

H2O_MAN wrote:

Quote:
The Case Against John McCain

Okay, here's my case:

He's not black.

Period.

He's not female.

Period.

Hi Mame :wink:

Hello WaterBoy Smile

nice to see you. How's your Fleck 5600? Laughing

0 Replies

Mame wrote:

H2O_MAN wrote:
Quote:
The Case Against John McCain

Okay, here's my case:

He's not black.

Period.

He's not female.

Period.

Hi Mame :wink:

Hello WaterBoy nice to see you.
How's your Fleck 5600?

Not that's funny Laughing

My Fleck is just fine.

mysteryman wrote:

So then you would have no problem with Condoleeza Rice becoming President?

She is both black AND female, so she meets your criteria.

Rice ain't on the menu.

0 Replies

The Case Against John McCain

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know