0
   

A first(?) thread on 2008: McCain,Giuliani & the Republicans

 
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Feb, 2008 08:50 pm
A damn good question:

Quote:
In a statement sent out by McCain's press office Wednesday said, "Is Sen. Obama unaware that al Qaeda is still present in Iraq, that our forces are successfully fighting them every day, and that his Iraq policy of withdrawal would embolden al Qaeda and weaken our security?"


LINK


Quote:
(CNN) -- Sens. John McCain and Barack Obama engaged in a pointed exchange over al Qaeda in Iraq on Wednesday.

http://img159.imageshack.us/img159/7838/artmccaincampgiuz5.jpg

McCain questioned whether Obama was aware of the al Qaeda base. Obama's response was: "There was no such thing as al Qaeda in Iraq until George Bush and John McCain decided to invade Iraq."

McCain was in Tyler, Texas, and Obama was in Columbus, Ohio.

"I understand that Sen. Obama said that if al Qaeda established a base in Iraq that he would send troops back in militarily. Al Qaeda already has a base in Iraq. It's called al Qaeda in Iraq," McCain said.

"It's a remarkable statement to say that you would send troops back to a place where al Qaeda has established a base -- where they have already established a base."

McCain's comments come in response to remarks Obama made Tuesday night in a debate with Sen. Hillary Clinton. He was asked if the president would have to right to go back into Iraq in order to suppress an insurrection after downsizing the U.S. troop presence. Video Watch what Clinton and Obama said about the war »

"I always reserve the right for the president ... to make sure that we are looking out for American interests," Obama said. "And if al Qaeda is forming a base in Iraq, then we will have to act in a way that secures the American homeland and our interests abroad."

In a statement sent out by McCain's press office Wednesday said, "Is Sen. Obama unaware that al Qaeda is still present in Iraq, that our forces are successfully fighting them every day, and that his Iraq policy of withdrawal would embolden al Qaeda and weaken our security?"

Obama responded to the latest attacks from McCain, saying his comments were taken out of context.

Obama said the question he was asked during the debate was a "big hypothetical."

"I said, 'Well, I would always reserve the right to go in and strike against al Qaeda if they were in Iraq,' so you know, this is how politics works," Obama said at a rally in Columbus.

"McCain thought that he could make a clever point by saying ,'Well let me give you some news Barack, al Qaeda is in Iraq,' like I wasn't reading the papers, like I didn't know what was going on."

"I said, 'Well first of all, I do know that al Qaeda is in Iraq. That's why I've said we should continue to strike al Qaeda targets. But I have some news for John McCain, and that is that there was no such thing as al Qaeda in Iraq until George Bush and John McCain decided to invade Iraq."

Obama continued to blast Bush and McCain, saying, "John McCain may like to say he wants to follow Osama bin Laden to the gates of hell, but so far all he's done is follow George Bush into a misguided war in Iraq."

McCain in his statement said "the Democratic presidential contenders deny progress and see only gloom and doom. Where is the audacity of hope when it comes to backing the success of our troops all the way to victory in Iraq? What we heard last night was the timidity of despair."

The latest exchange comes as a new poll suggests McCain would pose a tough match for the eventual Democratic nominee.

Obama is the front-runner for the Democratic nomination. Clinton trails by 97 delegates, but 370 delegates are up for grabs next Tuesday.Video Watch the shift in Clinton-Obama dynamics »

According to a Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll, McCain would be in tight races with either of the remaining Democratic presidential candidates.

McCain is statistically tied with Obama, 44 percent to 42 percent, and ahead of Clinton by 6 points, 46 percent to 40 percent.

The poll's margin of error was plus-or-minus 3 percentage points.
advertisement

The poll also showed McCain with a 61 percent approval rating, a number higher than both Clinton's and Obama's in past polls.

The Arizona senator holds a clear advantage on dealing with the war in Iraq, according to the poll, and holds a 9 point advantage on economic issues over Obama, despite having acknowledged that area is not his expertise.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Feb, 2008 11:59 pm
"IN 52 SECS WHY BARACK OBAMA CANNOT WIN A GENERAL ELECTION ... (HE PLANS ON DISARMING AMERICA)"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dl32Y7wDVDs
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Feb, 2008 01:01 am
Ticomaya wrote:
"IN 52 SECS WHY BARACK OBAMA CANNOT WIN A GENERAL ELECTION ... (HE PLANS ON DISARMING AMERICA)"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dl32Y7wDVDs


Wanna bet?

It's fun to watch these memes spread amongst you right-wingers. Percolate downwards, so to speak.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Feb, 2008 07:21 am
Ticomaya wrote:
Quote:
February 27, 2008
Poll: McCain's hard to beat
Posted: 11:54 AM ET
[..]

According to a just released Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll, McCain would be in tight races with either of the remaining Democratic presidential candidates. [..]


Cycloptichorn wrote:
I suppose I could post other polls which show Obama with as much as a 16 point advantage over McCain


You could, but it wouldnt prove much.

The observation in the LA Times poll that "McCain would be in tight races with either of the remaining Democratic presidential candidates" is pretty uncontroversial; you see the same picture if you look at more than just one poll, but at a number of latest polls.

In fact, the RCP data you posted shows that. It has seven polls: in four of them, the margin between the two candidates is 4 points at most (which is statistically insignificant). There are also two that have Obama with a lead of over 10 points, but it's those two that are out of line with the overall trend in your own list.

The consistent lead of around five points on average that Obama enjoyed in the first half of this month now seems to have narrowed somewhat (depending on how far back you calculate your average), with a majority of the very latest polls showing a statistical tie. You can legitimately say that eight months ahead of the general elections this kind of polling is meaningless per se, of course, but the article's observation that "McCain would be in tight races with either of the remaining Democratic presidential candidates" would be something of a duh observation even if you look at a larger overview of polls.

maporsche wrote:
If you're saying that you've seen polls where Obama is up 17 points, and the new polls say he's up 10 points.....then I'm inclined to believe that McCain is closing the gap.


Not really. Yes, compared to earlier this month, you can say that McCain seems to have picked up a couple of points vis-a-vis Obama on average, in these match-up polls. But then, compared to where the race was in late January, he's doing a couple of points worse. And the differences between individual polls in each time period are larger than those between time periods, so it's all very relative. All you can say really is that, if elections were to take place next month, they would be close.

By the way, thats why I'm sceptical of some people's talk about a prospective landslide or "turning point" election for the Democrats this year. Nothing in match-up polls so far, either nationally or on state-level, suggests that a race against McCain would be a landslide. (Now Romney, yes, that would have been another mater..). I'll admit that it's true that the numbers right now say nothing about how preferences will develop once there's an actual campaign going on between the two parties, though.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Feb, 2008 07:23 am
Ticomaya wrote:
A damn good question:

Quote:
In a statement sent out by McCain's press office Wednesday said, "Is Sen. Obama unaware that al Qaeda is still present in Iraq, that our forces are successfully fighting them every day, and that his Iraq policy of withdrawal would embolden al Qaeda and weaken our security?"

Is this the same McCain who the other week lambasted Obama for daring to say he would follow al-Qaeda honchos into Pakistani territory even without Musharraf's prior approval - even though that's exactly what US troops are already doing right now?
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Feb, 2008 08:34 am
Another reason not to vote for McCain.

Quote:
Senator John McCain got support on Wednesday from an important corner of evangelical Texas when the pastor of a San Antonio mega-church, Rev. John C. Hagee, endorsed Mr. McCain for president. Mr. Hagee, who argues that the United States must join Israel in a preemptive, biblically prophesized military strike against Iran that will lead to the second coming of Christ, praised Mr. McCain for his pro-Israel views.

"John McCain has publicly stated his support of the state of Israel, pledging that his administration will not permit Iran to have nuclear weapons to fulfill the evil dreams of President Ahmadinejad to wipe Israel off the map,'' Mr. Hagee said at a news conference at the Omni
Hotel in San Antonio.

Mr. Hagee also praised Mr. McCain for his "solid, pro-life voting record for the past 24 years.''

Mr. McCain, who has been on a steady search for support among conservative and evangelical leaders who have long distrusted him, said he was "very honored'' by Mr. Hagee's endorsement. Asked about Mr. Hagee's extensive writings on Armageddon and about what one questioner said was Mr. Hagee's belief that the anti-Christ will be the head of the European Union, Mr. McCain responded that "all I can tell you is that I am very proud to have Pastor John Hagee's support.''

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/27/mccain-welcomes-support-f_n_88844.html
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Feb, 2008 10:35 am
xingu wrote:
Another reason not to vote for McCain.


Another reason for you not to vote for him ... not like you needed another, is it? :wink:
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Feb, 2008 10:39 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
"IN 52 SECS WHY BARACK OBAMA CANNOT WIN A GENERAL ELECTION ... (HE PLANS ON DISARMING AMERICA)"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dl32Y7wDVDs


Wanna bet?

It's fun to watch these memes spread amongst you right-wingers. Percolate downwards, so to speak.

Cycloptichorn


Well, if I lost it would make us even ... so sure, why not?

And I'm sure it's equally fun for us right-of-center folks to watch you leftists regurgitate your far-left memes. In this case, I went to National Review to read some of the articles about William Buckley passing, and saw the youtube link. This is the biggest concern I have with an Obama presidency -- he is extremely weak on national defense.
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Feb, 2008 10:43 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
"IN 52 SECS WHY BARACK OBAMA CANNOT WIN A GENERAL ELECTION ... (HE PLANS ON DISARMING AMERICA)"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dl32Y7wDVDs


Wanna bet?

It's fun to watch these memes spread amongst you right-wingers. Percolate downwards, so to speak.

Cycloptichorn


Wanna bet what? That Obama did not say this or he did not mean it?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Feb, 2008 11:05 am
woiyo wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
"IN 52 SECS WHY BARACK OBAMA CANNOT WIN A GENERAL ELECTION ... (HE PLANS ON DISARMING AMERICA)"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dl32Y7wDVDs


Wanna bet?

It's fun to watch these memes spread amongst you right-wingers. Percolate downwards, so to speak.

Cycloptichorn


Wanna bet what? That Obama did not say this or he did not mean it?


Want to bet that he won't win a general election?

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Feb, 2008 11:49 am
Shortly after we invaded Afghanistan in 2001 to defeat al-Qaeda there, some al-Qaeda fled to Iraq, and al-Qaeda in Iraq began to grow rapidly. That rapid growth continued right up to our invasion of Iraq in 2003.

What Saddam Hussein did/thought or did not do/thought about al-Qaeda in Iraq prior to our invasion of Iraq, does not change the truth that al-Qaeda was in Iraq prior to our invasion of Iraq.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Feb, 2008 11:53 am
ican711nm wrote:
Shortly after we invaded Afghanistan in 2001 to defeat al-Qaeda there, some al-Qaeda fled to Iraq, and al-Qaeda in Iraq began to grow rapidly. That rapid growth continued right up to our invasion of Iraq in 2003.

What Saddam Hussein did/thought or did not do/thought about al-Qaeda in Iraq prior to our invasion of Iraq, does not change the truth that al-Qaeda was in Iraq prior to our invasion of Iraq.


Untrue. There's no evidence that AQ grew 'rapidly' in Iraq.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Feb, 2008 11:55 am
And Bush could have easily destroyed them but refused to do so when requested by the CIA. So why was Bush protecting AQ?

A small band on the Iranian border; WHOA a big, big threat to America and all of mankind!!!!

Since they retreated into Iran do you think we should have invaded Iran as well?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Feb, 2008 11:57 am
There's some things that are disturbing when we consider the simple fact that Bush allowed Bin Ladin's family to leave the US when flights in and our of the US were restricted. He then concentrates his war efforts in Iraq rather than finishing the job in Afghanistan. Screwy! Evil or Very Mad
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Feb, 2008 11:59 am
Ticomaya wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
"IN 52 SECS WHY BARACK OBAMA CANNOT WIN A GENERAL ELECTION ... (HE PLANS ON DISARMING AMERICA)"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dl32Y7wDVDs


Wanna bet?

It's fun to watch these memes spread amongst you right-wingers. Percolate downwards, so to speak.

Cycloptichorn


Well, if I lost it would make us even ... so sure, why not?

And I'm sure it's equally fun for us right-of-center folks to watch you leftists regurgitate your far-left memes. In this case, I went to National Review to read some of the articles about William Buckley passing, and saw the youtube link. This is the biggest concern I have with an Obama presidency -- he is extremely weak on national defense.


Let me ask you: what about the video specifically makes him weak on national defense?

And yes, you won the other bet.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Feb, 2008 12:23 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
There's some things that are disturbing when we consider the simple fact that Bush allowed Bin Ladin's family to leave the US when flights in and our of the US were restricted. He then concentrates his war efforts in Iraq rather than finishing the job in Afghanistan. Screwy! Evil or Very Mad


How often are you going to repeat that lie?

You know it isnt true, yet you continue to repeat that.

So, for the record, and according to factcheck.org...

Quote:
Media Fund Twists the Truth More Than Michael Moore
October 27, 2004
Radio ad claims most air traffic was grounded when bin Laden's family was allowed to leave. Not true. In fact, the FBI questioned 22 of them and found no links to terrorism.
Summary
This anti-Bush radio ad is among the worst distortions we've seen in what has become a very ugly campaign. It states as fact some of the most sensational falsehoods that Michael Moore merely insinuated in his anti-Bush movie Farenheit 9/11.

The ad was released Oct. 25 by The Media Fund, an independent Democratic group run by former Clinton deputy chief of staff Harold Ickes. It falsely claims that members of the bin Laden family were allowed to fly out of the US "when most other air traffic was grounded," though in fact commercial air traffic had resumed a week earlier.

The ad also falsely claims that the bin Laden family members were not "detained," when in fact 22 of them were questioned by the FBI before being allowed to leave -- and their plane was searched as well.

And by the way, the man who gave approval for the flight wasn't Bush or even any of his close aides, it was former White House anti-terrorism chief Richard Clarke, now one of Bush's strongest critics.


There is more to the article, but you can read it yourself...

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2004/media_fund_twists_the_truth_more_than.html

And here it is on snopes.com also...

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/flights.asp

So, since it is now so apparent that you lie in your posts, it begs the question about how much of what you say is actuallt true.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Feb, 2008 12:27 pm
The 9/11 commission report isn't worth the paper it was printed on, and has been found to be not only inaccurate but heavily influenced by the Republican hacks who sat on it. So I wouldn't put too much stock in what it says.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Feb, 2008 12:28 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
The 9/11 commission report isn't worth the paper it was printed on, and has been found to be not only inaccurate but heavily influenced by the Republican hacks who sat on it. So I wouldn't put too much stock in what it says.

Cycloptichorn


So then you dont believe any part of it that criticizes the Bush admin either?
You cant have it both ways.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Feb, 2008 12:29 pm
mysteryman wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
The 9/11 commission report isn't worth the paper it was printed on, and has been found to be not only inaccurate but heavily influenced by the Republican hacks who sat on it. So I wouldn't put too much stock in what it says.

Cycloptichorn


So then you dont believe any part of it that criticizes the Bush admin either?
You cant have it both ways.


There was no substantive criticism in that report of the Bush admin. Maybe a little slap on the wrist. Nothing which indicated that anyone had actually failed at their job - such as Rice, who most certainly did.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Feb, 2008 12:35 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
mysteryman wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
The 9/11 commission report isn't worth the paper it was printed on, and has been found to be not only inaccurate but heavily influenced by the Republican hacks who sat on it. So I wouldn't put too much stock in what it says.

Cycloptichorn


So then you dont believe any part of it that criticizes the Bush admin either?
You cant have it both ways.


There was no substantive criticism in that report of the Bush admin. Maybe a little slap on the wrist. Nothing which indicated that anyone had actually failed at their job - such as Rice, who most certainly did.

Cycloptichorn


This is funny.
When the 9/11 commission report first came out, everyone on the left was hailing it as proof that Bush lied, that he allowed it to happen, that this admin screwed up, etc.

Now, you are saying that it isnt true, that it isnt to be believed.
Why is that?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

My Fellow Prisoners... - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Afred E. Smith Dinner - Discussion by cjhsa
mccain begs off - Discussion by dyslexia
If Biden And Obama Aren't Qualified - Discussion by Bi-Polar Bear
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain lies - Discussion by nimh
The Case Against John McCain - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.46 seconds on 03/05/2025 at 10:01:33