Obama '08?

And here is McCain's full statement that the anti-McCain people have grossly taken out of context:

Quote:

Last month, at a town hall meeting in New Hampshire, a crowd member asked McCain about a Bush statement that troops could stay in Iraq for 50 years.

"Maybe 100," McCain replied. "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 Qaeda is training, recruiting, equipping and motivating people every single day."

The remaining Democratic contenders for the White House seized on the statement.

Later when Larry King asked him about it, he expanded on what he meant by that quote.
CNN

Obama supporters constantly defend his right to 'clarify' his position on this or that. I would think fairness would allow McCain the same privilege.

But that would require 'change' and a 'new kind of politics' wouldn't it? I wonder how successful Obama will be in his pledge toward that end when his followers seem so reluctant to follow?

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

And here is McCain's full statement that the anti-McCain people have grossly taken out of context:

Quote:
Last month, at a town hall meeting in New Hampshire, a crowd member asked McCain about a Bush statement that troops could stay in Iraq for 50 years.

"Maybe 100," McCain replied. "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 Qaeda is training, recruiting, equipping and motivating people every single day."

The remaining Democratic contenders for the White House seized on the statement.

Later when Larry King asked him about it, he expanded on what he meant by that quote.
CNN

Obama supporters constantly defend his right to 'clarify' his position on this or that. I would think fairness would allow McCain the same privilege.

But that would require 'change' and a 'new kind of politics' wouldn't it? I wonder how successful Obama will be in his pledge toward that end when his followers seem so reluctant to follow?

It's not a satisfying or complete 'explanation.' It's a false explanation. Because Iraq is not peaceful and American troops will be killed as long as we keep them there. The idea that the situation even remotely resembles what he said is a true canard.

McCain needs to answer how long he's willing to keep troops in Iraq under actual situations, not his fantasy ones.

He's also said in the past that he didn't think that this Muslim nation would tolerate having our military bases there, and didn't think we should have permanent bases there. Another flip-flop on his part that Republicans are too intellectually dishonest to admit.

On top of this, he's made this same statement several times without the explanation provided at the town hall.

It's a losing issue for him, and he's going to get slammed with it for the next several months.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

I found it quite credible and reasonable and backed up by history. I do not find Obama's denials of what he said as credible since he did say it on several occasions and posted it on his website and his take on it is not supported by history. But hey, new politics. Change. All that.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

I found it quite credible and reasonable and backed up by history. I do not find Obama's denials of what he said as credible since he did say it on several occasions and posted it on his website and his take on it is not supported by history. But hey, new politics. Change. All that.

Well, you find McCain credible and reasonable mostly because you don't know what you are talking about. You didn't respond to any of the actual facts of the situation, because you cannot do so with any real consistency or honesty.

In other news, speaking of appeasers:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/sep/25/usa.secondworldwar

Quote:

George Bush's grandfather, the late US senator Prescott Bush, was a director and shareholder of companies that profited from their involvement with the financial backers of Nazi Germany.

The Guardian has obtained confirmation from newly discovered files in the US National Archives that a firm of which Prescott Bush was a director was involved with the financial architects of Nazism.

His business dealings, which continued until his company's assets were seized in 1942 under the Trading with the Enemy Act, has led more than 60 years later to a civil action for damages being brought in Germany against the Bush family by two former slave labourers at Auschwitz and to a hum of pre-election controversy.

The evidence has also prompted one former US Nazi war crimes prosecutor to argue that the late senator's action should have been grounds for prosecution for giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

The debate over Prescott Bush's behaviour has been bubbling under the surface for some time. There has been a steady internet chatter about the "Bush/Nazi" connection, much of it inaccurate and unfair. But the new documents, many of which were only declassified last year, show that even after America had entered the war and when there was already significant information about the Nazis' plans and policies, he worked for and profited from companies closely involved with the very German businesses that financed Hitler's rise to power. It has also been suggested that the money he made from these dealings helped to establish the Bush family fortune and set up its political dynasty.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

The "your momma wears army boots" and "whose is blackest" or "he did it too" argument won't work Cyclop. At least not with me. I prefer to focus on the kind of guy we are likely to elect in 2008.

Meanwhile, here we go:

SWEETIES FOR OBAMA

This no doubt won't get a lot of mileage but look for it to show up now and then later.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

It's a losing issue for him, and he's going to get slammed with it for the next several months.

Rather like Obama's 20 year association with Rev. Wright.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
And here is McCain's full statement that the anti-McCain people have grossly taken out of context:

Quote:
Last month, at a town hall meeting in New Hampshire, a crowd member asked McCain about a Bush statement that troops could stay in Iraq for 50 years.

"Maybe 100," McCain replied. "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 Qaeda is training, recruiting, equipping and motivating people every single day."

The remaining Democratic contenders for the White House seized on the statement.

Later when Larry King asked him about it, he expanded on what he meant by that quote.
CNN

Obama supporters constantly defend his right to 'clarify' his position on this or that. I would think fairness would allow McCain the same privilege.

But that would require 'change' and a 'new kind of politics' wouldn't it? I wonder how successful Obama will be in his pledge toward that end when his followers seem so reluctant to follow?

It's not a satisfying or complete 'explanation.' It's a false explanation. Because Iraq is not peaceful and American troops will be killed as long as we keep them there. The idea that the situation even remotely resembles what he said is a true canard.

Where did you learn this? Your crystal ball? The canard is the partisan fantasy that McCain wants to fight in Iraq for 100 years. Only the choir and the gullible will believe this lie because it is simply untrue. Neither Cycloptichorn nor anyone else has an accurate bead on the future of Iraq.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

McCain needs to answer how long he's willing to keep troops in Iraq under actual situations, not his fantasy ones.

No, he doesn't. Whether you like it or not; a desire to not set a goal line up for our opposition is a reasonable position.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

It's a losing issue for him, and he's going to get slammed with it for the next several months.

This is certainly true. But that doesn't change the FACT that most doing the slamming are distorting the truth for political gain. I suspect you know this and simply don't care. All in a day's campaign.

0 Replies

Why try to exploit lies and half truths anyway? Iraq is unpopular enough without the BS. And McCain is certainly vulnerable enough based on things he actually says. I heard him say yesterday that America will be "The U.S. will be well on its way to independence from foreign oil"... and I laughed out loud and thought, "are you shitting me? No way he just said that"...

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
And here is McCain's full statement that the anti-McCain people have grossly taken out of context:

Quote:
Last month, at a town hall meeting in New Hampshire, a crowd member asked McCain about a Bush statement that troops could stay in Iraq for 50 years.

"Maybe 100," McCain replied. "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 Qaeda is training, recruiting, equipping and motivating people every single day."

The remaining Democratic contenders for the White House seized on the statement.

Later when Larry King asked him about it, he expanded on what he meant by that quote.
CNN

Obama supporters constantly defend his right to 'clarify' his position on this or that. I would think fairness would allow McCain the same privilege.

But that would require 'change' and a 'new kind of politics' wouldn't it? I wonder how successful Obama will be in his pledge toward that end when his followers seem so reluctant to follow?

It's not a satisfying or complete 'explanation.' It's a false explanation. Because Iraq is not peaceful and American troops will be killed as long as we keep them there. The idea that the situation even remotely resembles what he said is a true canard.
Where did you learn this? Your crystal ball? The canard is the partisan fantasy that McCain wants to fight in Iraq for 100 years. Only the choir and the gullible will believe this lie because it is simply untrue. Neither Cycloptichorn nor anyone else has an accurate bead on the future of Iraq.

Cycloptichorn wrote:
McCain needs to answer how long he's willing to keep troops in Iraq under actual situations, not his fantasy ones.
No, he doesn't. Whether you like it or not; a desire to not set a goal line up for our opposition is a reasonable position.

Cycloptichorn wrote:
It's a losing issue for him, and he's going to get slammed with it for the next several months.
This is certainly true. But that doesn't change the FACT that most doing the slamming are distorting the truth for political gain. I suspect you know this and simply don't care. All in a day's campaign.

'not setting a goal line' for the opposition is a BS position. It is an excuse for never having an exit plan or any sort of metric for our exit from Iraq.

Given that: several years of fighting have seen little to no political reconciliation in Iraq, and only a slight reduction in total deaths; it is reasonable to believe that this situation will continue unless something acts to change it. Neither Bush, nor McCain, nor any supporter of this war has outlined what will be done to change this. So there's no reason to believe that it will change.

You don't need a goddamned crystal ball to understand that Iraq isn't going to be pacified anytime soon; and talk about staying once it's pacified is useless and distracts from the reality of the situation. Nobody gives a f*ck how long we quarter troops in peaceful countries. It's how long we plan on staying in the line of fire that matters.

If McCain can't answer that question, and he can't, his talk of 100 years in Iraq should be assumed to be a continuation of our current situation. There's zero evidence that it will not be. And it's not disingenuous in the slightest to point these facts out.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

The party who wants 'change' and 'a different kind of politics' has put out an ad on McCain's 100 days. Obama has supported the context in various speeches and comments he has made and, in so doing, is intentionally or inadvertently dealing in the same kind of dishonesty:

DNC vs. McCain
April 29, 2008
Two Democratic Party TV ads hit McCain on Iraq and the economy. We supply context and corrections.

Summary
The Democratic National Committee has produced two TV ads against McCain, hoping to soften him up while the party figures out who its own presidential nominee will be.

One ad shows selected portions of McCain's comments that a 100-year U.S. presence in Iraq would be "fine with me." The ad uses dramatic images of war and violence, and omits any mention that McCain was speaking of a peaceful presence like that in Japan or Korea.

An earlier ad attacks McCain for saying the nation's economy is "prosperous" and "better off overall" than eight years ago. The ad uses a couple of incorrect statistics to argue otherwise. It says the country has lost 1.8 million jobs when, in fact, it has gained nearly 5.4 million, and it says gasoline prices have risen 200 percent, when the actual figure is 139 percent.

Analysis
The latest DNC ad was released April 27 and is set to start running on cable networks next week. An earlier ad has been running lightly on cable since April 20. Both are aimed at raising doubts about Sen. John McCain as he campaigns for the White House - and while Democrats are still trying to sort out whether Sen. Barack Obama or Sen. Hillary Clinton will be their standard-bearer. The DNC is using both ads in fundraising appeals, asking the party faithful to donate money to buy broadcast time for them. It calls the Iraq ad "one of the most powerful television spots Americans will see this year."

Choosing His Words Carefully

The latest ad follows up on a DNC fundraising e-mail, which we critiqued in February, portraying McCain as willing to fight an "endless war" in Iraq.

DNC Ad: "100"

Offscreen voice: President Bush has talked about our staying in Iraq for 50 years.

On screen graphic: Senator McCain. President Bush has talked about our staying in Iraq for 50 years.

McCain: Maybe a hundred. That'd be fine with me.

On screen: 100 years in Iraq.

On screen: 5 years. $500 billion. Over 4,000 dead.

Offscreen voice: President Bush has talked about our staying in Iraq for 50 years.

McCain: Maybe 100.

Narrator: If all he offers is more of the same, is John McCain the right choice for America's future?

On screen: Is John McCain the right choice for America's future?

Narrator: The Democratic National Committee is responsible for the content of this advertising.

It opens with a shot of McCain onstage at a town hall meeting in January. An offscreen voice says President Bush has discussed keeping U.S. troops "in Iraq for 50 years." We see McCain saying, "Maybe a hundred." Pause. "That'd be fine with me." Then we hear an explosion and sirens, accompanied by video of cars on fire, plumes of smoke and general chaos in an obviously dangerous setting. The words "Maybe a hundred" appear on the screen, followed by "5 years," "$500 billion" and "Over 4,000 killed."

The clear implication is that if McCain is elected, we can expect to be battling in Iraq for many decades to come. But the admakers cut off the rest of McCain's response, which provides some badly needed context:

McCain, town hall meeting, Jan. 3: Maybe a hundred. ... We've been in Japan for 60 years. We've been in South Korea for 50 years or so. That would be fine with me, as long as Americans, 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.

The DNC ad doesn't mention that McCain was speaking specifically about a peacetime presence. And the text of the ad paired with images of Iraq under siege leave a clear impression that McCain proposes to allow a century more of war, with U.S. involvement. That's not what he said, in New Hampshire or in other settings when he's been asked about it.

Republicans have called the ad a distortion, but DNC Chairman Howard Dean defended it, saying in an NBC News "Meet the Press" interview on Sunday:

Dean, April 27: First of all, we're not arguing that he's going to be at war for a hundred years. We don't think we ought to be in Iraq for a hundred years under any circumstances. Think of the hundreds of billions of dollars that are being spent in Iraq, which we need right here at home right now to preserve American jobs. That's the first thing.

Secondly, if Senator McCain believes that you can occupy a country like Iraq for a hundred years without having a long war and violence and our troops being hurt and, and killed, I think Senator McCain is wrong. ... [D]oes anyone think, who's watching this show, that if you keep our troops in Iraq for a hundred years, people won't be attacking them and won't be setting off suicide bombs and won't be having militias go after them? I don't think so. And most Americans don't think so.

Dean is correct in one sense. His ad doesn't say in so many words that McCain is "going to be at war for a hundred years." But by juxtaposing McCain's words with dramatic, violent images of war, it clearly leaves that impression.

It's one thing to argue, as Dean does, that McCain's position is a recipe for continued violence and bloodshed, whatever his stated intent. But it is another thing to misrepresent that intent. The ad twists the sense of McCain's words by showing images of war, when he was really talking about a peaceful troop presence. Imagine how different the ad would seem if it showed images of, say, American troops walking the streets of Tokyo or Seoul and had included what McCain said about "Americans ... not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed."

Anyone who didn't already know the fuller version of McCain's answer could easily be fooled into thinking that McCain would be perfectly happy to see the war continue. McCain has said quite clearly that he considers Democratic proposals for a quick withdrawal from Iraq to be "surrender," and so deadly fighting could well continue longer under a President McCain than under either a President Hillary Clinton or a President Obama. But what the DNC ad conveys is the opposite of what McCain said.
FACTCHECK.ORG

_____________________________
And before Cyclop drags out more red herrings and/or his 'whose is blackest argument' again, you will find incidents on Factcheck.org where the Republicans have been similarly dishonest.

But don't you think it advisable to look at the truth instead of what the DNC wants its constituents to believe when making a reasoned analysis of the person with the better real argument on the issues?

Obama and McCain are in almost 100% opposite positions on this issue. McCain has clearly stated his rationale for his position. So far Obama's rationale has been to emotional appeal and with little substance grounded in either reality or history.

He needs to do better.

0 Replies

As his position is the winning one, he doesn't actually need to do anything.

It would be nice if we all had magic ponies who crapped out gold bricks, but we don't. McCain's situation was about as realistic as that one.

Now, I know that many of you war supporters disagree, and don't care how long we have to stay under combat; and that's fine. But you're wrong, your philosophy has been rejected by the American public, and your representatives are going to be voted out of office in large part because of this issue.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

As his position is the winning one, he doesn't actually need to do anything.

It would be nice if we all had magic ponies who crapped out gold bricks, but we don't. McCain's situation was about as realistic as that one.

Now, I know that many of you war supporters disagree, and don't care how long we have to stay under combat; and that's fine. But you're wrong, your philosophy has been rejected by the American public, and your representatives are going to be voted out of office in large part because of this issue.

Cycloptichorn

See? You're still doing it. You're equating the time table with combat. McCain didn't and it is dishonest to keep saying that he did.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
As his position is the winning one, he doesn't actually need to do anything.

It would be nice if we all had magic ponies who crapped out gold bricks, but we don't. McCain's situation was about as realistic as that one.

Now, I know that many of you war supporters disagree, and don't care how long we have to stay under combat; and that's fine. But you're wrong, your philosophy has been rejected by the American public, and your representatives are going to be voted out of office in large part because of this issue.

Cycloptichorn

See? You're still doing it. You're equating the time table with combat. McCain didn't and it is dishonest to keep saying that he did.

Until it can be shown how combat will end, there's no reason not to do so. McCain's statement does not actually apply to the situation we ACTUALLY HAVE in Iraq. He was making a hypothetical statement about a mythical country. His failure to adequately explain this point is most likely due to the fact that he doesn't understand the problem.

When McCain states something about the Iraq on our planet, then we can talk about what his actual plans are.

Aside from all this - there's the question of whether folks support us staying in Iraq, fighting or no fighting. I certainly do not. And I would think that a large amount of Americans don't either.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

As his position is the winning one, he doesn't actually need to do anything.

It would be nice if we all had magic ponies who crapped out gold bricks, but we don't. McCain's situation was about as realistic as that one.

Now, I know that many of you war supporters disagree, and don't care how long we have to stay under combat; and that's fine. But you're wrong, your philosophy has been rejected by the American public, and your representatives are going to be voted out of office in large part because of this issue.

Cycloptichorn

What exactly is his position?

Bringing Our Troops Home

Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda.

Well, unless we have to leave them there

Press Iraq's Leaders to Reconcile

The best way to press Iraq's leaders to take responsibility for their future is to make it clear that we are leaving. As we remove our troops, Obama will engage representatives from all levels of Iraqi society - in and out of government - to seek a new accord on Iraq's Constitution and governance. The United Nations will play a central role in this convention, which should not adjourn until a new national accord is reached addressing tough questions like federalism and oil revenue-sharing.

What does that mean? The UN will as usual, do nothing to help. How do you keep "meddling countries" out of Iraq without forces to keep them out? Why do we have to provide financial support for reconstruction? Don't tey have oil to sell? $2B for refugees?

Talk about a fantasy! This is what you call a winner?

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
It's a losing issue for him, and he's going to get slammed with it for the next several months.

Rather like Obama's 20 year association with Rev. Wright.

Reverend Wright Versus The Iraq War.

You cons are hilarious.

T
K
O

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
And here is McCain's full statement that the anti-McCain people have grossly taken out of context:

Quote:
Last month, at a town hall meeting in New Hampshire, a crowd member asked McCain about a Bush statement that troops could stay in Iraq for 50 years.

"Maybe 100," McCain replied. "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 Qaeda is training, recruiting, equipping and motivating people every single day."

The remaining Democratic contenders for the White House seized on the statement.

Later when Larry King asked him about it, he expanded on what he meant by that quote.
CNN

Obama supporters constantly defend his right to 'clarify' his position on this or that. I would think fairness would allow McCain the same privilege.

But that would require 'change' and a 'new kind of politics' wouldn't it? I wonder how successful Obama will be in his pledge toward that end when his followers seem so reluctant to follow?

It's not a satisfying or complete 'explanation.' It's a false explanation. Because Iraq is not peaceful and American troops will be killed as long as we keep them there. The idea that the situation even remotely resembles what he said is a true canard.
Where did you learn this? Your crystal ball? The canard is the partisan fantasy that McCain wants to fight in Iraq for 100 years. Only the choir and the gullible will believe this lie because it is simply untrue. Neither Cycloptichorn nor anyone else has an accurate bead on the future of Iraq.

Cycloptichorn wrote:
McCain needs to answer how long he's willing to keep troops in Iraq under actual situations, not his fantasy ones.
No, he doesn't. Whether you like it or not; a desire to not set a goal line up for our opposition is a reasonable position.

Cycloptichorn wrote:
It's a losing issue for him, and he's going to get slammed with it for the next several months.
This is certainly true. But that doesn't change the FACT that most doing the slamming are distorting the truth for political gain. I suspect you know this and simply don't care. All in a day's campaign.

'not setting a goal line' for the opposition is a BS position. It is an excuse for never having an exit plan or any sort of metric for our exit from Iraq.

Given that: several years of fighting have seen little to no political reconciliation in Iraq, and only a slight reduction in total deaths; it is reasonable to believe that this situation will continue unless something acts to change it. Neither Bush, nor McCain, nor any supporter of this war has outlined what will be done to change this. So there's no reason to believe that it will change.

You don't need a goddamned crystal ball to understand that Iraq isn't going to be pacified anytime soon; and talk about staying once it's pacified is useless and distracts from the reality of the situation. Nobody gives a f*ck how long we quarter troops in peaceful countries. It's how long we plan on staying in the line of fire that matters.

If McCain can't answer that question, and he can't, his talk of 100 years in Iraq should be assumed to be a continuation of our current situation. There's zero evidence that it will not be. And it's not disingenuous in the slightest to point these facts out.

So if you are really, really, really sure, it must be true. Put your thinking cap back on, because the above should be an embarrassment to you.

0 Replies

And yet, they do not. I merely base my argument upon the fact that several years of doing exactly what McCain is suggesting we continue to do, have not worked in the slightest. The supposition that continuing them will produce any different result is one without evidence or merit.

Those who support doing the same thing we've been doing, but claim that a different result will be achieved, should be able to explain why this will happen. None have done so to date.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

And yet, they do not. I merely base my argument upon the fact that several years of doing exactly what McCain is suggesting we continue to do, have not worked in the slightest. The supposition that continuing them will produce any different result is one without evidence or merit.

Those who support doing the same thing we've been doing, but claim that a different result will be achieved, should be able to explain why this will happen. None have done so to date.

Cycloptichorn

then you have no idea of McCains positions since it clearly differs from the current Presidents positions.

""I do not want to keep our troops in Iraq a minute longer than necessary to secure our interests there. Our goal is an Iraq that can stand on its own as a democratic ally and a responsible force for peace in its neighborhood. Our goal is an Iraq that no longer needs American troops. And I believe we can achieve that goal, perhaps sooner than many imagine. But I do not believe that anyone should make promises as a candidate for President that they cannot keep if elected. To promise a withdrawal of our forces from Iraq, regardless of the calamitous consequences to the Iraqi people, our most vital interests, and the future of the Middle East, is the height of irresponsibility. It is a failure of leadership. "

"I know the pain war causes. I understand the frustration caused by our mistakes in this war. And I regret sincerely the additional sacrifices imposed on the brave Americans who defend us. But I also know the toll a lost war takes on an army and on our country's security. By giving General Petraeus and the men and women he has the honor to command the time and support necessary to succeed in Iraq we have before us a hard road. But it is the right road. It is necessary and just. Those who disregard the unmistakable progress we have made in the last year and the terrible consequences that would ensue were we to abandon our responsibilities in Iraq have chosen another road. It may appear to be the easier course of action, but it is a much more reckless one, and it does them no credit even if it gives them an advantage in the next election." -John McCain"

http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/FDEB03A7-30B0-4ECE-8E34-4C7EA83F11D8.htm

0 Replies

His position is exactly the same as GW's.

Here's the money line.

Quote:

""I do not want to keep our troops in Iraq a minute longer than necessary to secure our interests there.

Our interests in Iraq will NEVER be secure in our absence. Therefore, we will be there forever according to him.

Try thinking for a second. If we create an Iraq which can stand on it's own, who will they be allies with? Iran, our supposed enemies. Our interests will never be secure by letting that happen. So we won't leave.

This **** isn't difficult to figure out if you bother to look even an iota deeper then the surface of people's statements, jeez

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

His position is exactly the same as GW's.

Here's the money line.

Quote:

""I do not want to keep our troops in Iraq a minute longer than necessary to secure our interests there.

Our interests in Iraq will NEVER be secure in our absence. Therefore, we will be there forever according to him.

Try thinking for a second. If we create an Iraq which can stand on it's own, who will they be allies with? Iran, our supposed enemies. Our interests will never be secure by letting that happen. So we won't leave.

This **** isn't difficult to figure out if you bother to look even an iota deeper then the surface of people's statements, jeez

Cycloptichorn

Then think about Obama's plan and the bullshit he is saying.

In MY opinion, I do not buy Obama's line of pacifism and appeasement. He will give into their demands in the hopes of finding peace. That is my opinion.

Evil or Very Mad

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know