9
   

The Case Against John McCain

 
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Jul, 2008 11:11 am
mysteryman wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
mysteryman wrote:
cicerone imposter wrote:
blueflame1 wrote:
Possibly McCain's supposed foreign policy expertese is merely hype? An expert should at least be able to distinguish between Sunnis and Shias.


That's for dang sure! McCain can't even remember the simple stuff; what will he do as our president? Third term for Bush is a given if elected. McCain might start a new war in the Middle East by mistake.


Since Obama and McCain seem to agree on many issues, you could also say that an Obama win would also be a third term for Bush.


You could, but you wouldn't be accurate in doing so in any way, really.

Cycloptichorn


I'm not the one doing it, the LATimes is...


http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-na-centrists13-2008jul13,0,7130991.story


The point isn't that they agree on some issues; they definitely do. The point is that Bush is/was a nincompoop, a fool, and McCain is hardly any better; they both make mistakes constantly which are embarrassing and reflect very poorly on America. Obama is exactly the opposite of this.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Jul, 2008 11:16 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
mysteryman wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
mysteryman wrote:
cicerone imposter wrote:
blueflame1 wrote:
Possibly McCain's supposed foreign policy expertese is merely hype? An expert should at least be able to distinguish between Sunnis and Shias.


That's for dang sure! McCain can't even remember the simple stuff; what will he do as our president? Third term for Bush is a given if elected. McCain might start a new war in the Middle East by mistake.


Since Obama and McCain seem to agree on many issues, you could also say that an Obama win would also be a third term for Bush.


You could, but you wouldn't be accurate in doing so in any way, really.

Cycloptichorn


I'm not the one doing it, the LATimes is...


http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-na-centrists13-2008jul13,0,7130991.story


The point isn't that they agree on some issues; they definitely do. The point is that Bush is/was a nincompoop, a fool, and McCain is hardly any better; they both make mistakes constantly which are embarrassing and reflect very poorly on America. Obama is exactly the opposite of this.

Cycloptichorn


How do you know?
He has no real foreign policy experience for us to examine to make the claim one way or another?
Right now everything he says and does is geared to winning the election, so everything he says and does is scripted to eliminate the possibility of mistakes.

The list of Obama gaffes that woiyo posted is clear evidence that Obama can and does make some serious mistakes in what he says,so we dont know how he will be as President when he has to speak "off the cuff" or when he has everything on his plate at the same time.

Am I excusing McCain?
No I'm not.

But until Obama actually gets put into the position,we cant and dont know how he will react or what he will say.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Jul, 2008 11:23 am
Well, then let's put him in and see how he does, wouldn't you agree?

Cheers
Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Jul, 2008 03:23 pm
McSexist: McCain's War on Women link
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Jul, 2008 03:35 pm
For "all" that experience McCain likes to claim, he can't even remember the countries in the Middle East or who our enemies are. The choice between McCain and Obama shouldn't even be in question.
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Jul, 2008 05:50 pm
I am sick of hearing McCain crowing about how he predicted the success that surge has had in Iraq.

It wasn't the surge that temporarily calmed things. Al-Sadr effected a unilateral truce among the Shiites, and we bribed the Sunnas big-time. Experts laugh about the surge being so great. Moreover, McCain said he opposed a surge in Afghanistan.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Jul, 2008 05:57 pm
Advocate wrote:
I am sick of hearing McCain crowing about how he predicted the success that surge has had in Iraq.

It wasn't the surge that temporarily calmed things. Al-Sadr effected a unilateral truce among the Shiites, and we bribed the Sunnis big-time. Experts laugh about the surge being so great. Moreover, McCain said he opposed a surge in Afghanistan.


Everything you mentioned is a result of the surge... so, ummm... how did it not work?
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Jul, 2008 06:05 pm
McGentrix wrote:
Advocate wrote:
I am sick of hearing McCain crowing about how he predicted the success that surge has had in Iraq.

It wasn't the surge that temporarily calmed things. Al-Sadr effected a unilateral truce among the Shiites, and we bribed the Sunnis big-time. Experts laugh about the surge being so great. Moreover, McCain said he opposed a surge in Afghanistan.


Everything you mentioned is a result of the surge... so, ummm... how did it not work?


That is goofy. Al-Sadr's action had nothing to do with the surge, nor did the payoff to the Sunnis.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Jul, 2008 07:56 pm
Advocate, Don't worry; Bushco has been claiming progress since he started this war in Iraq. It's now longer then WWII, and we're still "making progress." Hell, we'll continue to make progress until hell freezes over.
0 Replies
 
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Jul, 2008 10:23 pm
CI - actually, to be fair, some actual significant progress has happened very recently. Most it however is with the government of Iraq though, but think it's a good time to give our service men some applause for their contributions.

interesting however is how Bush is moving to the center on many Middle East issues. It's strange how these "new" (but never to be credited to the left) ideas are working.

Funny.

T
K
O
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Jul, 2008 06:19 am
Advocate wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
Advocate wrote:
I am sick of hearing McCain crowing about how he predicted the success that surge has had in Iraq.

It wasn't the surge that temporarily calmed things. Al-Sadr effected a unilateral truce among the Shiites, and we bribed the Sunnis big-time. Experts laugh about the surge being so great. Moreover, McCain said he opposed a surge in Afghanistan.


Everything you mentioned is a result of the surge... so, ummm... how did it not work?


That is goofy. Al-Sadr's action had nothing to do with the surge, nor did the payoff to the Sunnis.


How do you figure? Because you read it on a blog somewhere?

Please explain to me what you believe the surge to have been.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Jul, 2008 07:22 am
The surge in troops did help the situation in Iraq but not as much as it hyped; there were other factors which came into play.

Quote:

U.S. military commanders say violence in Iraq has dropped 60 percent since June 2007. They have attributed that to Sadr's ceasefire, the deployment of 30,000 extra U.S. soldiers, and Sunni Arab tribal leaders turning against al Qaeda

U.S. officials have said they want the government to take advantage of the lull in fighting to continue making progress on laws to reconcile majority Shi'ite and minority Sunni Muslims.

Sadr called the truce after deadly clashes between his militia, Iraqi security forces and the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council, a rival Shi'ite faction, in the holy city of Kerbala.


source

Sadr was going to revoke his ceasefire after coming into fire under maliki's party and the US military but after a meeting Iran decided to renew it.

More Than 1,000 in Iraq's Forces Quit Basra Fight

[the above is why I called Maliki's army.]

Iranian general played key role in Iraq cease-fire

The tribal leaders turned against AQ before the surge began.

Quote:
Throughout 2006, culminating in August 2006, the Sunni Tribes of Anbar Province turned against Al-Qaeda rule. In September 2006, the tribes formed the Anbar Salvation Front and began to work with the Coalition and Iraqi Government. Within months, they turned around the Province.


source
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Jul, 2008 07:24 am
McCain Thinks Iraq Borders Pakistan

Gad, you guys will do anything to tie every dire situation into Iraq.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Jul, 2008 09:33 am
revel wrote:
McCain Thinks Iraq Borders Pakistan

Gad, you guys will do anything to tie every dire situation into Iraq.



With McCain's foreign experience, why aren't more people worried that he doesn't even know his geography in that part of the world where we have our military? Boggles the mind!
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Jul, 2008 09:44 pm
McCain has lost Joe Klein.

Quote:
July 22, 2008 7:00
McCain Meltdown
Posted by Joe Klein | Comments (93)

John McCain said this today in Rochester, New Hampshire:

"This is a clear choice that the American people have. I had the courage and the judgment to say I would rather lose a political campaign than lose a war. It seems to me that Obama would rather lose a war in order to win a political campaign."

This is the ninth presidential campaign I've covered. I can't remember a more scurrilous statement by a major party candidate. It smacks of desperation. It renews questions about whether McCain has the right temperament for the presidency. How sad.

Scurrility Update: Readers should note that I said that I can't remember a more scurrilous statement by a major party candidate. Smart politicians leave the scurrilous stuff to their aides; in fact, a McCain spokesman expressed these words almost exactly on July 14. There is a reason why politicians who want to be President don't say these sort of things: It isn't presidential. A President exists in the straitjacket of literality. His words mean something. So John McCain has to literally believe that Barack Obama would "rather lose a war in order to win a political campaign." I can't imagine that he does. He popped off, out of frustration.

The reality is that neither Barack Obama nor Nouri al-Maliki nor most anybody else believes that the Iraq war can be "lost" at this point. The reality is that no matter who is elected President, we are looking at a residual U.S. force of 30-50,000 by 2011 (a year ahead of the previous schedule). The reality is that McCain should be proud that he helped salvage a disastrous situation by pushing the counterinsurgency plan. It's something to run on. But, at this point, McCain must sense that it's not a winning hand. Obama, the poker player, has drawn to an inside straight: the Iraqis favor his plan over McCain's long-term bases. That must be galling. But it's no excuse to pop off the way McCain did. It was, shockingly, unpresidential.


http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/07/mccain_meltdown.html
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Jul, 2008 10:17 pm
McCain Gets History Of The Surge Wrong, CBS Doesn't Air Footage

During a CBS interview on Tuesday, John McCain made a stone cold error on a subject about which he claims expert knowledge: the "surge" strategy in Iraq. In an interview with anchor Katie Couric, the Arizona Republican said, inaccurately, that the surge strategy was responsible for the much-touted "Anbar Awakening," in which Sunni sheiks turned against Al Qaeda, helping in turn to reduce violence in the country.

From the transcript:

Katie Couric: Senator McCain, Senator Obama says, while the increased number of US troops contributed to increased security in Iraq, he also credits the Sunni awakening and the Shiite government going after militias. And says that there might have been improved security even without the surge. What's your response to that?

McCain: I don't know how you respond to something that is as-- such a false depiction of what actually happened. Colonel MacFarland was contacted by one of the major Sunni sheiks. Because of the surge we were able to go out and protect that sheik and others. And it began the Anbar awakening. I mean, that's just a matter of history.


In fact, as Spencer Ackerman and Ilan Goldenberg have noted, the record firmly establishes the opposite: instead of being caused by the surge, the key signs of the Anbar Awakening occurred not only before that strategy was implemented, but before it was ever conceived.

Yet McCain's error was not seen by any CBS Evening News viewers. As MSNBC's Keith Olbermann noted (video below), "CBS curiously, to say the least, left it on the edit room floor. It aired Katie Couric's question, but in response, it aired part of McCain's answer to the other question instead." (Ironically, this edit came on the same day that McCain's campaign released a video mocking the media's "love affair" with Obama.)

The fact remains, however, that the military official cited by McCain, then-Colonel Sean MacFarland, described the Anbar Awakening in September 2006 -- four months before the "surge" was even announced -- noting that tribal leaders were "stepping forward and cooperating with the Iraqi security forces against al Qaeda." Moreover, a military review written by MacFarland notes that his unit actually left Anbar before most of the surge troops arrived; his success in the region came between June 2006 and February 2007.

Especially notable is that McCain himself was not always confused as to the start date of the Awakening, and whether or not it was caused by the surge. Fresh off one of his much-touted trips to Iraq, McCain delivered remarks to the conservative American Enterprise Institute on January 5, 2007. Alongside fellow Senator Joe Lieberman, McCain specifically advocated for the newly proposed surge, and cited the already-in-progress turning of Sunni sheiks as a reason to send more troops. From the transcript of the event:

"Too often the light at the tunnel has turned out to be a train, but I really believe -- I really believe that there's a strong possibility that you may see a very substantial change in Anbar province due to this new changes in our relationships with the sheiks in the region. ... But it's important, as I said in my opening remarks, that this troop surge be significant and sustained. Otherwise, don't do it."
Sen. Lieberman also spoke about the Anbar Awakening at the same press conference while standing next to McCain:

"I wrote last week of a conversation I had after John and I and our delegation met with our military leadership in Anbar province -- a tough, brilliant, committed group of soldiers making progress there, turning the Sunni sheiks in that province to our side against Al Qaida."
All of which raises the question: how much of the surge's history has John McCain forgotten, and when did he begin to forget it?
link
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Jul, 2008 10:23 pm
Diest TKO wrote:
CI - actually, to be fair, some actual significant progress has happened very recently. Most it however is with the government of Iraq though, but think it's a good time to give our service men some applause for their contributions.

interesting however is how Bush is moving to the center on many Middle East issues. It's strange how these "new" (but never to be credited to the left) ideas are working.

Funny.

T
K
O



I will always give our service men and women the applause for their sacrifices given - and lam-bast our government for being stingy in providing for the benefits and services.

There is some possibility that the surge may have helped reduce the violence in Iraq, but I have also read that it may have been a combination of several other things happening at the same time such as a) Sadr calling a cease-fire, b) Iran's influence in Iraq, c) the Iraqi's themselves tiring of sheltering al Qaeda, and helping to remove them, and d) the terrorists/insurgents are only waiting for a reduction of US troops.

If the terrorists/insurgents are only waiting for a reduction of US troops, it doesn't matter whether we leave tomorrow, 16-months from now, or 10-years from now. The tribes in Iraq have been at it for some 1,500 years before we arrived on their lands. To sacrifice more of our men, women and treasure is a big waste of our resources on a hopeless country intent on continuing their tribal wars. Outside intervention was never the solution; Saddam controlled his country through tyranny.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Jul, 2008 10:43 pm
Lets all remember CI's words when reading anything he posts...

Quote:
I have an excuse for being an idiot; I'm senile.

CI said this on 7-22-08
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Jul, 2008 10:59 pm
mysteryman wrote:
Lets all remember CI's words when reading anything he posts...

Quote:
I have an excuse for being an idiot; I'm senile.

CI said this on 7-22-08


Even within this one posting he has made more sense that the sum total of all you rightwingnuts' postings.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Jul, 2008 06:03 am
blueflame, I came here to post something about that, too. The "Iraq/Pakistani border" thing didn't bother me much; from context it seemed clear he was talking about Afghanistan, and it was a genuine slip of the tongue. (He meant Afghanistan, he said Iraq.)

But this is different. He's getting cause and effect all wrong on a central aspect of his central issue. Basically, he's goofing with the timing of the Anbar Awakening, a major turning point in the war. He's saying:

Surge --> Anbar Awakening --> improvements in Iraq.

Really, it was:

Anbar Awakening --> surge --> improvements in Iraq.

As in, the surge didn't enable the Anbar Awakening -- it had already happened when the surge started.

And furthermore, McCain is browbeating Obama for getting it wrong -- when MCCAIN is wrong and Obama is right.

Lots more here (hilzoy):

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/07/mccain-on-the-a.html

Excerpts:

Quote:
Spencer Ackerman says that McCain's statement is "either a lie or professional malpractice for a presidential candidate who is staking his election on his allegedly superior Iraq judgment."


hilzoy wrote:
Note to self: if I ever run for President and decide to stake everything on my understanding of one thing, I should familiarize myself with the basic facts about it. I should be especially careful to do this before I say something like this about someone who got it right: "I don't know how you respond to something that is such a false depiction of what actually happened."



General commentary:

I think increasingly that the idea of a candidate running on personality rather than substance applies much more to McCain than Obama. McCain's campaign seems to be basically, "Hey, I'm John McCain! You know me, you like me, so vote for me." I expected that I wouldn't like his positions or policies very much, but I didn't expect that he'd have such a tenuous grasp on them.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 11/23/2024 at 08:45:21