Obama '08?

okie wrote:

Agreed, it is just recycled posts, cyclops, as is yours.

More then half of my posts include link to news stories, events, or pictures. I try and keep from simply repeating my positions over and over without bringing new things to the conversation.

Quote:

McCain has been in and out of Iraq how many times, he is a military guy, hes been there.

So what? So what did he learn in Iraq that wasn't told to him? It's not like he wandered around without huge amounts of armed guards, or wasn't shepherded around the place like every other politician. You haven't told me what he actually learned.

Quote:

He understands sacrifice, he understands country, he understands the military, he understands alot of things that Obama simply can't, even if he tried. Big difference, cyclops.

bull ****. This is one big lie that you are telling here. You have no evidence that McCain understands 'country' or 'the military' better then Obama does; you just hope that by asserting it over and over, people will agree that it is true.

It is not true. McCain does not display any real in-depth understanding of Iraq or the terrorism issue. He merely repeats tired Bush-era lines over and over again, and when questioned on things, instantly pivots to his time in captivity as a way of dodging questions about his competence.

When asked to outline his plan for Iraq, McCain cannot do so. He has no real plan. That NYT editorial which was rejected (of which they rejected several by Clinton WHILE he was prez, so don't give me any crap on that issue, thanks) didn't present any actual strategy of McCains, or even a path forward; it was nothing but criticism of Obama. Not surprising, because that's all the Republicans have.

You have completely fallen for the image McCain's camp wants to produce: that his experience from 35 years ago has any relation to the modern military or modern strategy. It does not, in any way, and neither you nor any other Republican can show how it does.

So I repeat: McCain learned nothing in Iraq that wasn't 'told' to him. He has no special knowledge of 'country' or 'the military' that would give him insight; he's just another old politician. And he's going to lose this Fall; and you know it, and that must suck, really.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Moving on,

Quote:

07.22.08 -- 1:18PM // link | recommend (6)
Strategic Whining

From TPM Reader KB ...

Quote:
Josh, I guess Phil Graham was right. There are more than a few whiners in this country. Unfortunately for John McCain most of them seem to be working on his campaign. Right now his campaign's message seems to have devolved into a pathetic meta critique of the media. Are they running for the White House or for best commenter on Gawker? This focus on the media seems so pointless that, as an Obama supporter, I hope they stick with it to the neglect of a real message such as something on the economy, health care, border security, or anything that might actually move voters.

In truth, the nonsense is even thicker than KB can conjure. As you may know, the McCain campaign has just put out a web video called 'Obama Love' a mash-up of clips of various TV commentators gushing over Obama. But let's remember we've all seen the McCain Love video. It's called watching the last dozen years of political television. Indeed, the political press's reckless and giddy love for McCain is so universally acknowledged that McCain himself has often joked about the press as his "base." So what do we have here but a candidate who can't brook the idea of not campaigning on a wave of press adulation? And now he's framing his whole candidacy around a campaign of strategic whining about the claim that the political press is treating his younger opponent like he's been treated for over a decade. He's got the preening and envy of a sore losing runner-up for prom queen.

--Josh Marshall

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/205099.php

Marshall is right. McCain is becoming the new Hillary and it's not going to work any better for him then it did for her.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

okie wrote:

I just read the news, joe, maybe you don't?

That depends on how you define "news."

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
McCain has been in and out of Iraq how many times, he is a military guy, hes been there.

So what? So what did he learn in Iraq that wasn't told to him? It's not like he wandered around without huge amounts of armed guards, or wasn't shepherded around the place like every other politician. You haven't told me what he actually learned.

Quote:
He understands sacrifice, he understands country, he understands the military, he understands alot of things that Obama simply can't, even if he tried. Big difference, cyclops.

bull ****. This is one big lie that you are telling here. You have no evidence that McCain understands 'country' or 'the military' better then Obama does; you just hope that by asserting it over and over, people will agree that it is true.

It is not true. McCain does not display any real in-depth understanding of Iraq or the terrorism issue. He merely repeats tired Bush-era lines over and over again, and when questioned on things, instantly pivots to his time in captivity as a way of dodging questions about his competence.

When asked to outline his plan for Iraq, McCain cannot do so. He has no real plan. That NYT editorial which was rejected (of which they rejected several by Clinton WHILE he was prez, so don't give me any crap on that issue, thanks) didn't present any actual strategy of McCains, or even a path forward; it was nothing but criticism of Obama. Not surprising, because that's all the Republicans have.

You have completely fallen for the image McCain's camp wants to produce: that his experience from 35 years ago has any relation to the modern military or modern strategy. It does not, in any way, and neither you nor any other Republican can show how it does.

So I repeat: McCain learned nothing in Iraq that wasn't 'told' to him. He has no special knowledge of 'country' or 'the military' that would give him insight; he's just another old politician. And he's going to lose this Fall; and you know it, and that must suck, really.

Cycloptichorn

I believe that - more than anything else - this commentary of yours reveals simply your very strong bias towards Obama and a related antipathy for McCain. That, of course, is your right - no -problem there. However when one so obviously applies such grossly different standards to the actions of the favored and hated candidates, and then goes on, without any discernable foundation, to assert that he KNOWS the inner weaknesses, thoughts and motivation of the candidate he opposes, then he (you) simply reveals that he has stopped using the critical facilities of his mind; is impervious to new information or argument; has a mind that is closed on the subject at hand (and likely more). In short you have become an Obama zealot - just a mindless claque, endlessly repeating the praises of the sainted hero whose image has displaced the reflective and critical facilties of his mind.

Do you suppose that Obama wasn't also sheltered by armed guards as he "wandered around"? Do you really believe that Obama has articulated a new Plan for Iraq in any more detail or specificity than McCain???? If so I would very much like to hear it. Do you really believe that Obama has a better understanding of "the military" or military affairs than McCain???? (If so, then I very seriously question your own judgement and understanding of very basic things in life.) Do you have any experience in life that might give you even a glimmer of understanding of the personal moral, intellectual, and spiritual challenges and potential for growth attendant to the searing experience of captivity he endured. (BTW the truth here is that McCain makes relatively few references to this experience - it is others, yourself included, who (quite naturally) bring it to mind.

While McCain agrees with the Administration with respect to the "surge", the recent progress achieved, and the benefits to us of staying the course in this the final stage of the Iraqi campaign, the fact is he has been a constant critic of many elements of the Administration's actions & policy there. More importantly history has so far revealed Mccain to have been correct on nearly all points. Obama, by contrast has merely emphasized the now useless opinion that the war was a mistake, and vaguely stated his intentions to end it all quickly, but without risking the good so far achieved or the safety of "the troops" -- whatever the hell THAT means. If you call that a novel plan, then I further question your knowledge and understanding.

0 Replies

Looks like joefromchicago has it in for you Okie. Did you kick his dog or something? Either that or he is going for the golden prick award. Not sure which it is yet.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

More then half of my posts include link to news stories, events, or pictures. I try and keep from simply repeating my positions over and over without bringing new things to the conversation.
Cycloptichorn

Yeah sure, how noble of you!

0 Replies

McCain is already the new "Hillary." His desperation will be revealed repeatedly between now and November. He's already said that Obama is willing to lose the war in Iraq to win the presidency. Doesn't get any more desperate than that!

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Looks like joefromchicago has it in for you Okie. Did you kick his dog or something? Either that or he is going for the golden prick award. Not sure which it is yet.

Some folks just don't like an opposing view. I would never kick his dog. I love dogs. Even the cubs.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

McCain is already the new "Hillary." His desperation will be revealed repeatedly between now and November. He's already said that Obama is willing to lose the war in Iraq to win the presidency. Doesn't get any more desperate than that!

and don't forget that McCain doesn't know where Pakistan is!

You forgot that on your last post C.I.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:
McCain is already the new "Hillary." His desperation will be revealed repeatedly between now and November. He's already said that Obama is willing to lose the war in Iraq to win the presidency. Doesn't get any more desperate than that!

and don't forget that McCain doesn't know where Pakistan is!

This just in . . . He found it! McCain found Pakistan on a map!

We rejoin this discussion already in progress.

0 Replies

Quote:

Do you suppose that Obama wasn't also sheltered by armed guards as he "wandered around"? Do you really believe that Obama has articulated a new Plan for Iraq in any more detail or specificity than McCain???? If so I would very much like to hear it. Do you really believe that Obama has a better understanding of "the military" or military affairs than McCain???? (If so, then I very seriously question your own judgement and understanding of very basic things in life.) Do you have any experience in life that might give you even a glimmer of understanding of the personal moral, intellectual, and spiritual challenges and potential for growth attendant to the searing experience of captivity he endured. (BTW the truth here is that McCain makes relatively few references to this experience - it is others, yourself included, who (quite naturally) bring it to mind.

George, I don't suppose that Obama wasn't sheltered by armed guards; I know he was. I was merely asking Okie what McCain learned in Iraq that wasn't also 'told to him.' You seem to have an issue with mistaking my questioning of others' attacks upon Obama, with saying things that I did not in fact say.

You do the exact same thing that I have accused McCain and others in his campaign of doing: when discussing modern military matters and knowledge, you pivot to his time in captivity, as if it has anything to do with today; for the last time, it does not. McCain has displayed no real in-depth knowledge of military or strategic matters; can you link to where he has done so? All that he has done is agreed with the Bush line of the way things should be done. His 'constant criticisms' never, ever amounted to him voting against Bush on anything war-related, so I submit that they were never true criticisms at all; only hollow words that he mouthed for political gain.

You say:

Quote:

Do you have any experience in life that might give you even a glimmer of understanding of the personal moral, intellectual, and spiritual challenges and potential for growth attendant to the searing experience of captivity he endured.

Yes, I do. Yes, I have experience in life which allows me to have some ability to judge others. And I'm going to ask you again to cut it out with this condescending bullshit.

McCain's time in captivity led to the spiritual growth, which led him to... cheat on his wife, divorce her, marry an heiress a month later, and get caught up in several ethical scandals during his time as a politician. You would like people to believe that his time in captivity made him some sort of great leader, and that's just crap, George, straight-up crap. There's no evidence other then your assertions, and when questioned on it, you and others get all huffy, as if it's insulting to say that being in captivity over thirty years ago doesn't qualify one to run the armed forces today in any special way.

You are incorrect about McCain 'not bringing up his time in captivity.' He and his campaign and supporters do it all the time. On a weekly basis. It's a regular line for his surrogates to use on TV when he is questioned on military matters and it sure didn't take you long to bring it up, again. I don't believe the personal details of his incarceration are relevant to the modern political challenge of running our government and military, no. I don't believe he has displayed any of that growth BS you peddle either; he has shown himself to be quite the corrupt and unethical guy over the years, which you are well aware of but would wish not to speak about.

You state

Quote:

Do you really believe that Obama has articulated a new Plan for Iraq in any more detail or specificity than McCain?

He absolutely has done so: say that we are leaving in 16 months if he is elected, period. That's exactly one detail more then McCain has given, which is: ?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

John MCain went to Iraq in April 2007 and toured Shorja market in Baghdad, and then pontificated that things were looking up and it was safe to walk in areas of Baghdad. Of course most shopkeepers were not opening up any more because it was not safe, and they had to be brought in to open up just for McCain. And, of course, he was accompanied by 100 heavily-armed troops, three Blackhawk helicopters, and two Apache gunships, and he was wearing a bulletproof vest, just to ensure it was "safe". They built him a phony Potemkin village and he bought it hook, line, and sinker.

In April this year, a CNN team wanted to revisit the same market, to see what it was like a year later. Their military security advisers wouldn't take them there, because the area was controlled by Moqtada al-Sadr's militia and it was too unsafe for Americans to go in..

And we're supposed to elect somebody who's so gullible and so ready to believe what he wants to believe, rather than facts on the ground.

0 Replies

username wrote:

John MCain went to Iraq in April 2007 and toured Shorja market in Baghdad, and then pontificated that things were looking up and it was safe to walk in areas of Baghdad. Of course most shopkeepers were not opening up any more because it was not safe, and they had to be brought in to open up just for McCain. And, of course, he was accompanied by 100 heavily-armed troops, three Blackhawk helicopters, and two Apache gunships, and he was wearing a bulletproof vest, just to ensure it was "safe". They built him a phony Potemkin village and he bought it hook, line, and sinker.

In April this year, a CNN team wanted to revisit the same market, to see what it was like a year later. Their military security advisers wouldn't take them there, because the area was controlled by Moqtada al-Sadr's militia and it was too unsafe for Americans to go in..

And we're supposed to elect somebody who's so gullible and so ready to believe what he wants to believe, rather than facts on the ground.

Obama goes to IRAQ to LEARN the facts on the ground at this late date is of concern to me. He seems to have reached some conclusion as to how to end the POLICE ACTION without knowing the facts on the ground. He has concluded, without having the facts, that it is better to move troops from IRAQ to Afgan to continue the POLICE ACTION there in concert with NATO forces that have NOT done the job since we left Afgan.

So again, how does this qualify OBAMA as an expert in leading our military through this POLICE ACTION?

0 Replies

"Barack Obama wants to withdraw US troops from Iraq and send them to Afghanistan, which he calls the real front on the `war on terror.' He also has repeated threats to attack Pakistan `if necessary.'

One understands Obama's need to sound macho. Rival John McCain has been beating his chest, proclaiming, `I know how to win wars.' Polls show Americans trust McCain three to one over Obama as a war leader. Unfortunately, recent US presidents seem to require small military conflicts to prove their political virility.

But Obama has long called the US-led occupation of Afghanistan a `good war,' a view most Americans and Canadians share. They see Afghanistan - and now Pakistan - as hotbeds of al-Qaida and Taliban terrorists that must be eradicated.

It is distressing to see Obama succumb to the blitz of war propaganda over Afghanistan and adopt George Bush's faux terminology of terrorism.
Obama and McCain believe Afghan resistance can be crushed by more brute force. They are wrong. More western troops and more bombed villages will mean fiercer Afghan resistance.

The war is now seeping into Pakistan, a nation of 165 million. Obama's threats to attack Pakistan and go after its nuclear arsenal are reckless and extremely dangerous. He appears headed over the same cliff as those would-be `war presidents, Bush and McCain. As the head of NATO recently admitted, political settlement, not bombs, is the only way to end the unnecessary Afghan war.

Is Obama beginning to fall under the influence of the same military-petroleum complex that guided Bush's imperial-minded presidency? Could Pakistan become a disaster for the Democrats as Iraq was for Republicans? "
http://www.bigeye.com/foreignc.htm

0 Replies

I wonder why you bunch have this belief, that while being shepherded around Iraq with heavy armed guards, any politician learns the 'facts on the ground?' What does that even mean? Do you think that they see anything with their own eyes that isn't sanitized for their protection, or designed to give them the idea that things are going well? Do you think the military liaisons take them to the rough or dangerous areas, or give them straight talk about anything but our successes?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Poor Cyclo. If he would apply 1/10th of the skepticism he so energetically applies to McCain's "knowledge of military affairs" or "strategy"; or the excellence of the details of his "plans" for Iraq or the economy - to his sainted hero, Obama, he would become quickly disillusioned. The conjunction of his endless skepticism towards McCain and the certainty with which he pretends to know his inner motives and limitations, with the abject credulity with which he blandly accepts the vapid generalities so prodigously offered by his hero, Obama, all while imagining they are instead marvelous new plans for a better tomorrow, -- is truly amazing. How these disparate things can coexist in one mind is itself an interesting phenomenon.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:
McCain is already the new "Hillary." His desperation will be revealed repeatedly between now and November. He's already said that Obama is willing to lose the war in Iraq to win the presidency. Doesn't get any more desperate than that!

and don't forget that McCain doesn't know where Pakistan is!

You forgot that on your last post C.I.

McG, You need to inform McCain about his ignorance of geography.

0 Replies

Apparently Obama is still 'controlling his message' by not letting a reporter get near him in any kind of extemporaneous situation in which he might be expected to know something:

ANDREA MITCHELL ON OBAMA'S TOUR

However, as long as he can work with a script or a teleprompter. . . .

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/cb0722wj.jpg

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Apparently Obama is still 'controlling his message' by not letting a reporter get
near him in any kind of extemporaneous situation in which he might be expected to know something:

ANDREA MITCHELL ON OBAMA'S TOUR

However, as long as he can work with a script or a teleprompter. . . .

Wow!

When will they stop with the BET treatment??

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

Poor Cyclo. If he would apply 1/10th of the skepticism he so energetically applies to McCain's "knowledge of military affairs" or "strategy"; or the excellence of the details of his "plans" for Iraq or the economy - to his sainted hero, Obama, he would become quickly disillusioned. The conjunction of his endless skepticism towards McCain and the certainty with which he pretends to know his inner motives and limitations, with the abject credulity with which he blandly accepts the vapid generalities so prodigously offered by his hero, Obama, all while imagining they are instead marvelous new plans for a better tomorrow, -- is truly amazing. How these disparate things can coexist in one mind is itself an interesting phenomenon.

I note that you avoided addressing any of the actual substance of my post, George, and instead once again pivoted have to another topic.

Your primary error in this post lies here -

Quote:

or the excellence of the details of his "plans" for Iraq or the economy - to his sainted hero, Obama, he would become quickly disillusioned.

You see, Obama is not my sainted hero, in fact; so it is unlikely I will become disillusioned. He's just another politician, but one who happens to be somewhat better then most who are out there.

By rejecting your false frame of my beliefs, I have destroyed your rather half-hearted attempt at a response to my initial post. My original points stand: McCain has displayed no real specific mastery of military or strategic matters. His time in incarceration added nothing to this and is not necessarily indicative of character on his part either, given his history afterwards. McCain has not presented a plan for what to do on Iraq. He has not shown that he is in any way really different then Bush on any issue through his voting record.

I would describe my skepticism towards McCain as 'healthy.' All the evidence available points to the conclusion that his deeply-held positions and beliefs are subject to frequent change.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know