Fox News' Cameron touted McCain's "straightest of straight talk"
On the April 11 edition of Fox News' Special Report, Fox News chief political correspondent Carl Cameron reported that Sen. John McCain's (R-AZ) April 11 Iraq war speech at the Virginia Military Institute "was billed as the straightest of straight talk." Cameron, however, left unchallenged McCain's attack on Democrats for "vot[ing] to deny our troops the support necessary to carry out their new mission," as well as McCain's assertion that "[e]very day that passes without the necessary funds appropriated to sustain our troops, our chances of success in Iraq dwindle and our military readiness declines further."
As Media Matters for America has noted, both houses of Congress have passed bills appropriating funds for military operations in Iraq. President Bush, however, has threatened to veto both the House and Senate versions of the appropriations bill because they establish timelines for the redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq. Further, as Media Matters also noted, McCain's claim that "every day that passes" without a spending bill affects the troops' "chances of success in Iraq" and hurts "military readiness" conflicts with a March 28 memo by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service. The memo stated that the Army has adequate funds available through the previous year's defense appropriations bill to "finance the O&M [operations and maintenance] of both its baseline and war program ... through most of July 2007."
From the April 11 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume:
BRIT HUME (host): John McCain, in a speech that reflected careful preparation and his own intense conviction, made the case for victory in Iraq in terms that made it clear he has now staked his presidential campaign on that cause. McCain acknowledged the unpopularity of the war, and the political risk he is taking, but he said he would rather lose a campaign then see his country lose a war. Chief political correspondent Carl Cameron was there.
[begin video clip]
CAMERON: It was billed as the straightest of straight talk. Arizona Senator, Republican presidential candidate, former Vietnam POW John McCain, at the historic 168-year-old Virginia Military Institute.
McCAIN: I'm grateful for your service, honored by your presence, and mindful that I speak to an audience that can discern truth from falsehood in a politician's appraisal of the war.
[...]
CAMERON: Then he unleashed the harshest attack yet on anti-war Democrats in Congress, who recently passed a timetable for withdrawal.
McCAIN: Before I left for Iraq, I watched with regret as the House of Representatives voted to deny our troops the support necessary to carry out their new mission. Democratic leaders smiled and cheered as the last votes were counted. What were they celebrating? Defeat? Surrender? In Iraq, only our enemies were cheering.
A defeat for the United States is a cause for mourning, not celebrating.
CAMERON: McCain flatly accused Democrats who backed that withdrawal timetable of undermining the mission, since the president has promised to veto it, and Democrats deliberately attached it to urgent war funding.
McCAIN: Every day that passes without the necessary funds appropriated to sustain our troops, our chances of success in Iraq dwindle and our military readiness declines further.
CAMERON: He repeatedly accused Democrats, including their presidential candidates, of attacking an unpopular war for short-term political advantage, and setting up the U.S. and the region with a terrible choice.
McCAIN: Watch the region burn, the price of oil escalate dramatically, and our economy decline, watch the terrorists establish new base camps, or send American troops back to Iraq, with the odds against our success much worse than they are today.
Hey, Sen. McCain is a slow-walkin' straight-talkin' guy
He certainly wouldn't lie . . .
About something where it seems he is alone in failing to understand that his photo-op visit to Baghdad was false and contrived, a lie in and of itself.
McCain is a warmonger just like Bush. I agree Nancy and Reid have funded that evil war ( I do not know why) but Bush and McCain should stop whinning.
Because Israel paid them to, that's why.
TO: jmccain@rnc.org
CC: ccameron@rnc.org
I've always wondered if Carl gets the text of his "reports" from the same computer in Rove's office that's used to send McCain the text for his speeches.
Ooops! Better make that "... the same Blackberry in Rove's office..."
Carl to John:
Tell me liesTell me sweet little lies(tell me lies, tell me, tell me lies)
Or was that Fleetwood Mac?
I hate you for putting that song in my head.
;-)
I fell in love with Fleetwood just before I noticed Stevie Nicks; then, I felt obligated to continue to worship at their alter just on account of her.
"altar"
I noticed none of the three responses I just read care to touch the point of McCains speach.
MMFA persists in the fiction that the Democrats are trying to fund the war and it is Bush that is vetoing it. It would be a heck of a lot more intellectually honest if MMFA would drop the charade and explain why the Democrats are pushing a bill the President feels compelled to veto.
Not that I expect them too, but my friends here should see through that rather than once again take the bait.
ANOTHERAMERICAN
WTF? The people have spoken in 2006. Nancy and Harry have funded the war, so Bush should stop whinning.
Fiction?
Oh, I guess you mean everything between "[begin video clip]" and the comments.
Right?
Bush has stated, in no uncertain terms, that it's his way or nothing. There will be no negotiating, there will be no timetable, there will be no exit strategy.
This congress was elected because of the peoples disgust with the prosecution of George W. Bush's war. He has lost the support of the world, the citizens of this country and of the military.
It's time that he understood that there is not, nor will there ever be, a military solution to the war that he started.
The only way this war is ever going to end is when Bush agrees to negotiate with the congress, the countries that border Iraq and those people who've taken up arms against us.
It's also time to come clean with we, the people. I am tired of being treated like a fool. This man has admitted that there were no connections between Iraq and the terrorists who attacked us, yet he still allows his minions to appear before the public claiming that there are connections.
Who is running this country, the man the people elected to do the job, ,or Dick Cheney.
Worrier,
Your post is very well said, and I agree with much of it......Bush needs to work this out with Congress as the people have spoken, and they do not want us in Iraq indefinitely - these two branches of our government had better figure out a way to work together, compromise and do what's best for us all - instead of digging in their heels and acting like stubborn children.....primarily Bush.
However, one thing I cannot agree with you on is the "negotiation" with those taking up arms against us - there is no negotiating with Islamic terrorists. We are infidels, they will accept only these three conditions for our existence......1) We convert to Islam 2) We are second class citizens 3) We die.
Sorry, can't do any of those.......
Then your choice would be total annihilation of all of those who have taken up arms against us, and then the same for all of those willing to take their place?
OK, I'm with you.
Raise taxes NOW. Bring back the draft, NOW. Ration oil, NOW.
Don't forget install an active ban on war-profiteering. That's as good a start as any.
McCAIN: "... Democratic leaders smiled and cheered as the last votes were counted. What were they celebrating? Defeat? Surrender? In Iraq, only our enemies were cheering."
The point is, this sort of dim-witted view of the war and inability to see, or willful spinning of, the mess we're in, is only making it worse.
Until the "Victory or Bust at the expense of others lives and money" fantasizers wake up, along with their followers who happily throw out imaginary "defeat" and "surrender" scenarios, we as a country are not getting any closer to facing reality.
It's not a football game.
HBL,
In the past, I believe that McCain actually wrote some of his own talking points.
Now, he gets them straight from Rove's Blackberry.
You mean that bill that gives Bush MORE money than he asked for, even with a bunch of meaningless talk about non-binding timetables? That war crimes funding bill that doesn't fund the war crime by funding it? Is that the bill you're talking about?
It is the correct description. The constitution gives Congress alone the purse strings money must be spent as THEY decide. They have funded the war if Bush decides to veto it throwing an I want my war my way fit that is his decision but its still up to congress how to spend all money.
Worrier,
As I recalled the President invited the Dems to the White House to discuss it. Seems like they can go see our enemies but won't talk to the President.
Be that as it may. It is not Congress's mission to manage the war. It is pure folly to add a provision that sets a time table for defeat, let alone unconstitutional. the Dems know it, but they play politics with the funding.
The Dems won a very narrow majority in Congress, true, but your blanket statement is not accurate.
Mr. Bush understands there has to be more than a military solution. However surrendering and leaving is not it.
Your suggestion that Bush has to negotiate with our enemies, although wonderful in spirit, does not accept the reality that they are lying, evil, murderous despots. They don't play by our rules in case you haven't noticed.
Congratulations, your argument about the connection to 9/11 is a red herring and a straw man at the same time.
Your last statement shows your dogma has gotten in the way of your critical thinking. Nice rant but no logic.
Well, Bush is well on his way to becoming a lying, evil, murderous despot. They should get along famously.
Bush invited the congressional leaders to the White house, not to discuss, but to bend them to his will.Lying, evil, murderous despots?
Haven't our enemies always been lying, evil, murderous despots?
The Nazis, the North Koreans, The Chinese Communists, the NVA and the VC?
We negotiated with each and everyone of these enemies. What makes this bunch any different? And be careful with your answer. Because if these people are truly different and if there is no way to talk to them, then the only other option is their total annihilation. Do you think this country is up to that challenge? And how many more moderate Muslims would be willing to take the place of those we annihilate.
Your side is fond of saying how these people are actually worse. If that's the case. Let's everyone start paying higher taxes for this war, let's bring back the draft, let's start rationing oil. If this is the fight of our lives, let's start doing more than just saying it is.
Well said. This so called "war on terror" is nothing more than a rhetorical devise with which to excuse Darth Cheney's hamhanded attempt to establish an imperial Presidency. Otherwise, they would have done exactly what you propose years ago.
Worrier,
You need to brush up on your history my friend. We did not negotiate with the Nazi's. Nor did we negotiate with the VC.
Our negotiations with the North Vietnamese might have worked had Congress not pulled the funding out. Instead we left in defeat and subsequently millions died in Viet Nam and Cambodia as the Communists invoked their reign of terror.
Are you prepared to occupy Iraq indefinitely? That's what it will take to "win". Whenever we pull out, whether next week or 20 years from now, the potential for chaos will always be there. Of course, we can't guarantee access to the oil for Bush's Oil buddies unless we maintain a large troop presence, can we?
Maybe you're right. I do need to brush up on my history. We negotiated terms of surrender with the Nazi's. The Allies negotiated with the Italian Fascists. But that was before my time.
What I don't need to brush up on is my history of the War in Vietnam. I didn't learn it from reading right wing talking points. I leaned it slogging through rice paddies and in the hills near the Laotian border in 1969 and '70.
We never lost a battle. If we had not come to our senses, my sons and grandsons would be over there, still winning every battle, but doomed to lose the war. It was not the fault of congress that we lost. Our losing was inevitable. We fought a determined enemy and we fought them in their country. The only way we could have won was to destroy the entire country along with its population.
Worrier,
Like I said you need to brush up. Check Wikopedia, "End of World War II". It says on May 7th, 1945 the Germans surrended unconditionally to the Allied forces. They then surrendered unconditionally to the Russians in Berlin the next day.
That doesn't meant they didn't talk. It just means that there was no negotiated settlement. It was unconditional surrender.
But enough of history lessons for today. I'm done.
If you are sourcing Wikipedia, you are losing credibility because those entries can be changed by people with appropiate access... I'm not refuting your past post, just saying wikipedia is NOT a hard and fast solid source...
Mr. L.,
If that is not the silliest sidebar to a discussion, I don't know what is.
If you had any sense you'd show the surrender date of the Germans incorrect rather than your mindless post.
Oh, and King? If AA didn't knock you out of the box with his Wikpedia post, get this: you misspelled learn. I guess you lost the r in the paddies.
That's probably where where I lost the "r" but what really worries me is the afterlife. There is one pissed off nun up there waiting to kick my butt for my poor spelling.
I can relate. Sr. Philothea still hasn't forgiven my penmanship.
Don't worry. If there's a real heaven for nuns, it's filled with Chippendale dancers. They'll be too busy to care about penmanship.
Worrier,
I applaud your heroism and service to our great Country! You have my deepest gratitude.
My brother severed in Viet Nam and I came of age at the very end, missing the draft by 4.
Again I salute you. Even though we may disagree, you have my utmost respect!
Thanks AA, I appreciate your comments. Nothing wrong with a little disagreement.
Unlike the two million we killed in Vietnam alone? Or the Laotians STILL dying and being maimed from our left-over cluster bombs? You need a lesson in US history.
WRONG, there was a genocidal bloodbath in Cambodia but NOT in Vietnam. Its, as usual YOU who needs to brush up on your history. AFTER the Cambodian genocide Both Carter AND Raygun supported him. Its no wonder you dont understand Iraq you are still harboring delusions about Vietnam
Bush is our enemy.
Bush invited them over to the White Hose telling them there would be no negotiations. He invited them to unite behind HIS previously stated position. It is up to Congress alone how ALL money is spent period. Check the constitution on that point. What is insanity is keeping the open ended lets get as many Americans killed as possible policy. Your depiction of the Iraqi resistance is a neandrathal excuse NOT to negotiate. You do know that negotiations wouldnt be necessary with those we AGREE WITH. Demonization is crude propaganda only the weak minded accept its frame. I dont think we ought to negotiate with Ben Laden but there are plenty of Iraqis that just want us out of their country, in fact the majority of them do. There are sectarian militias we can negotiate with, they may be killing us but they are only our enemies because we invaded THEIR country. They are killing us because we are THERE. We can talk to them, at least some of them and progress is possible, real progress toward stability in Iraq that is unless what you meant is ALL Arabs are lying evil and murderous. If you dont mean that then you have no point, that leaves factions we can negotiate with to our benifit.
"Bush understands that there has to be more than a military solution"
Bush understands?
When is he going to offer the American people more than a "military solution"?
If he has done so could you tell me what it is?
Bush may not negotiate with the enemy, but he should negotiate with the congress (the peeople). His invite to the White House was not to negotiate. Bush is just a big whinner and warmonger.
I see you are another liberal mind reader who knows the real thinking of the President.
I also find it funny that you don't give any credit to the fact that the President was also elected by the people.
Be that as it may, by accepting the President's invitation the Democratic leadership would have shown that it is interested in expressing their views directly to the President. Not to mention a wonderful photo-op. Instead they showed themselves to be radical leftist ideologues who definitely are not interested in negotiating at all.
Again they look petty and mean. God save us from Pelosi and Reid.
And Puddinhead George is...what? Open minded and flexible? He declared the bill dead on arrival. What's left to negotiate?
AA, I've got to give you credit. In a Hannity-esque way, you've made it difficult to respond to you today. Almost every sentence you've written is so hilariously inane, one doesn't know where to begin.
Kudos.
And by the way, credit is given to the fact that the president was elected. You are responsible.
Well, I guess we all can see you didn't. ;-)
Who needs to read minds when the President's press secretary repeatedly emphasizes the point that "this is not a negotiation?"
Actually, they look like they're attempting to save what's left of the Republic from a stealth coup d' etat. Bill Kristol and the other sons-of-Trotskyites neocons are crowing that Bush has achieved in Kristol's gleeful phrase, "near dictatorial powers." Shrub has also seeded the Executive Branch with Dominionists and Strauzis (spawn of Leo Strauss, who taught that the idea of inalienable rights is absurd). These fanatics hold that the Founding Fathers did not want a "wall between Church and State" (the quote is from Jefferson), and did not want to avoid monarchy or dictatorship by making the legislative branch equal to the executive.
Read and weep. Better yet, read and wake.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/04/12/weekly_standard/index.html
No they showed they werent a rubber stamp to be pushed around by him anymore. He told them he wouldnt negotiate and basically invited them to come to the White House, hat in hand and give him everything he wanted.
Duncan, the keywords are "warmonger," "whinner," "Nancy," and"Harry."
Please remember to use them in every post.
Thanks.
Tell me again why anyone should be "play by our rules" cause maybe they forgot who is writting the rule book
So you support blowing up innocent people, even those who agree with you, in order to take control of a country? You support terrorists who cut off heads and broadcast it on the internet. You support the genocide of certain people based on their religion? Okay smart guy, try defending those rules.
AA, which of the voices in your head are you talking to? You seem as if you could really use a nap.
Is that the best you've got?
(Don't get your shorts in a bunch. That was rhetorical. Sadly, I know that it is.)
You are operating under the notion that we (as a miltary, invading force) are doing anything to stop fundamentalism, terrorism... or, are basically doing any good whatsoever. I like all your flag-waving beligerence. But, we (as a military) had a change in Afghanistan to catch OBL... we left. Iraq was easier, right? Are we really fighting terrorism 'over there'? Or creating more chaos and terrorists? Don't worry, you don't have to answer any of those ...because ther is no answer. NOTHING the Bush admin has been 'right' about this occupation...all the way up to the treatment of military personell... and all the way down to filling the coffers of their buddies. You choose to ignore all that stuff in the name of 'fighting fascism'. Good grief. If you're paying attention, you can't possibly think that what is going on 'over there' is being done well.... or really in our (as a nation) best interests.
Pull your head out of your flag and think.
Greek,
I am not convinced everything that has been done in the war has been done badly.
I see that we have smart, determined, murderous enemies. They have adopted a campaign of terror that is exceedingly hard to fight. I don't like the fight, but I believe to leave now will only make things much worse for the U.S. and the world.
I do think about it and that is why I feel in the long run we have no choice but to fight them here and eventually defeat them. I think many people today have been lulled into believing that every conflict should be over quickly. History shows us that is the exception rather than the rule.
Historically, this war hasn't even approached Viet Nam in its toll. And yes every single wounded or killed soldier or innocent grieves me deeply. However I think of all the people in Iraq who are counting on us, who would be killed if the islamofacists come to power and I feel as a country we are compelled to defend them.
Geopolitically I feel if we lose in Iraq, the Middle East is lost and there will be war against Israel. Possibly nuclear. At the very least I think the islamofacists will do their best to throw the West into a depression by raising the price of oil to a point our economies will not function.
That's what I think about. Obvious you are free to disagree.
Please explain how anything that happens in Iraq will make an attack on Israel any more or less likely.
AnotherRepublican is a hair away from admitting that we invaded Iraq for its oil.
I do disagree. This is your opinion. And, that's fine. I respect it. But, there are things going on at the hands of our gov't we are not privy to. And, I believe there are reasons, well beyond the notion of 'fighting islamofascism', that make our presence in Iraq a necessity for our gov't. No matter when we leave, there will be chaos for a time. But, again... NO ONE is suggesting 'cut and run' as you say over and over... the use of nuclear weapons is more likely (by us) toward Iran if you ask me. These notions are a total fabrication by your friends in the Republican party. They are not based in reality. We're not fighting fascism. We are regarded as an invader. Therein lies the problem. We need to slowly extricate ourselves from Iraq starting now... recoup our military and start fighting terrorism on a global scale with the aid of the rest of the world. This cowboy nonsense has been ill-conceived, poorly implemented and -- in my mind, also supported by the price of oil and profits of Bush's cadre -- has been a foil for ill-gotten gains. We (the tax-paying citizens... the military... the people) have been screwed ... all in the name of patriotism. It's got to stop.
But, that's my opinion.
By the way, list for me the things that have been done well by Bush -- starting from when he entered office as President. I'd honestly like to know what you consider 'good' done by this President. I don't see it. These clowns have made a concerted effort to dismantle our government in the name of some 'clean break' neocon fantasy. Maybe you think that's good?
Ahhhh, so this all to save Israel from the moslems! A CRUSADE!!! Yeah, we get ya. Blood should run in the streets of Baghdad and Tehran, so the Precious shall never be taken by the infidel! Protect Jerusalem for the Jews and the Second Coming! Kill the moslems!
We got you Crusaders pegged. Your little religious genocide against Islam....isn't that what you keep trying to project onto them?
Obviously I am as free to throw MY I Ching and come up with baseless predictions just like you did in your post. The thing is I think we ought to review. Lets see before the invasion I was saying there werent any WMDs, that it would lead to chaos and urban guerilla warfare, more instability in the region pretty much everthing that has happened right down the line. YOU guys (I dont know about you specifically but the rightwing) was telling us it would be over in a jiffy, that WMDS littered Iraq like so many cigarette butts, that the whole middle east would line up and embrace democracy like rerverse dominoes, and the Iraqis would throw chocolates and flowers at our soldiers who would be greeted as liberators. NONE of this happened (flowers hiding explosive devices dont count.) So since you guys have been so spectacularly WRONG about EVERY SINGLE Iraqi prediction ever made why in the WORLD would any sane person take your NEW reverse Casandra predictions more seriously thatn someone reading goat entrails?
Well said Greek. The dwindling defenders of this war are clinging to the fantasy that as long as we have soldiers over there acting as living targets, the terroristst will be so compelled to attack them that they can't even think about attacking us anywhere else. Do they realize how ridiculous this notion is?
A 9-11 style attack could be planned and launched from anywhere. It wouldn't require a state sponsor, or a power vacuum, or chaos. It only requires a quiet room, a handful of willing conspirators, and money. When they decide to hit us again, having troops in Iraq will do NOTHING to stop them.
Seriously, AA, none of your posts seem even remotely connected to the subject nor to any other comments. Are you all right? Starting the weekend a little early?
AA;
Until this post
"So you support blowing up innocent people, even those who agree with you, in order to take control of a country? You support terrorists who cut off heads and broadcast it on the internet. You support the genocide of certain people based on their religion? Okay smart guy, try defending those rules."
you were coherent, even though King did eat your lunch. You can't believe anyone here supports any of that, any more than you can possibly believe Cheney when he says al Qaeda and Saddam were working together, and that Zarqawi was a member of al Qaeda when he was in Afghanistan. Please tell me you're not ignoring all the compelling evidence that's surfaced in order to drink Darth's KoolAid.
It's called a "Stawman Fallacy". AnotherRepublican uses it often.
Conchobhar,
The quote of mine is in response to someone's mindless reply about the rules we operate under and the rules our enemies use.
Obviously, you agree with me that no civilized person would agree to those rules. But the sad fact is that those are the rules our enemy uses to try to defeat us.
Contrary to your statement, there is evidence of Al Queda having a connection with Saddam. Not that it is needed anymore. It is plain to see that they are in Iraq now and were there before we liberated it.
I don't know what you expect with the statements you've made. Are we to leave because now simply because of a few statements by Cheney and the fact you don't like the reasons we went in the first place?
You're compelling evidence turns out to be nothing at all. Wilson has been discredited. Everyone from Clinton to the Saudi's and Israeli's thought Saddam was hiding WMDs.
If Bush made things up Why do you think Hillary voted for the war? Don't you think Bill, as commander in chief would have advised her differently if he believed the Saddam did not have WMDs? He had the same information Bush had. He banged the same war drum.
Besides that, my friend, any argument about getting to Iraq is a moot point. It doesn't matter anymore. We are there. What do we do now. I say stay and win.
You can call it "phased withdrawal" if you want. But it is surrender and defeat no matter how long you drag it out as our enemies will simply mark time on the calendar. I find defeat unacceptable. Of course you are free to think differently.
Win what??!! A gold medal? Come on...
There is simply no point in arguing with someone who won't let go of the Saddam/AlQaeda fantasy link.
Nice handle.
I noticed you haven't tried. But that's okay. I understand you'd rather just post mindless, meaningless comments. ;-)
Actually he made a very good point. If you truly believe that Saddam and al Qaeda were working together to plan 9/11 despite all evidence to the contrary and a President who says it didn't happen, then anything you write is suspect.
But I'm sure you'll insult me as you have everyone else.
Pure delusion swatting it away is easy
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/14/AR2006091401545.html
CIA Learned in '02 That Bin Laden Had No Iraq Ties, Report SaysBy Walter PincusWashington Post Staff WriterFriday, September 15, 2006; Page A14
The CIA learned in late September 2002 from a high-level member of Saddam Hussein's inner circle that Iraq had no past or present contact with Osama bin Laden and that the Iraqi leader considered bin Laden an enemy of the Baghdad regime, according to a recent Senate Intelligence Committee report.
Next.
AnotherRepublican needs to check the expiration date on his talking points.
AA,
I don't have time to address all of the factual fallacies in your post, because I'm about to head out on a two hour drive. However:
You say you're in it to win it. Let's say this surge works. What's next? What does Iraq look like after we've won? And just what is winning?
In my view we're occupying a foreign country, whose culture we neither understand nor respect, because a group of draft-dodging, think tank warriors thought they could remake the Middle East in our image. Our true motivation became obvious to the Iraqis in the first week after the fall of Baghdad, when the only thing we secured was the oil ministry. This war was lost then. Actually, it was lost in the planning stage, but that's another old conversation. Today the Iraqis have turned against us, day by day, until we now have a majority approving attacks on our troops.
Every day we stay there we recruit more jihadists thrjoughout the Islamic world; every day we stay there shrinks the number of moderate Muslims; every day we stay there we lose more blood and treasure; every day we stay there we lose moral stature internationally, and every day we stay there we bring our military closer to collapse.
I write this with no hope of convincing you because, even though you argue skillfully, I don't think you're really open to reason. If you consider Joe Wilson to be discredited, rather than attacked by credibility free people, one of us is living in an alternate universe.
AA,
Just in case you check in (it's now Saturday), I'm posting an article from yesterday's WaPo for your perusing pleasure. It gives the views of some pretty high level military professionals.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/10/AR2007041001776_pf.html
And yet more evidence, this from Hardball.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18022551/.
By the way, I reread my last post from Friday. It got a little snitty and personal. I apologize for that.
Your weak talking points have been debunked at least a dozen time and you still try to pass them off as if they were reasonable. You cling to them like a drowning rat to flotsam. There was NO collaborative relationship or connection between al Queda and Saddam that has been established over and over even the Senate committee looking into it said that directly. No other type of connection matters by YOUR logic the CIA had CONNECTIONS with the KGB and the Mafia since they met with them.
Sadly your propaganda goes down hill from there. Both France and Germany were telling us they didnt beleive there were stockpiles or programs for WMDs in Iraq, and what the Clintons thought BEFORE the inspectors were bringing in new evidence isnt the point. We DID have new evidence and it pointed to NO WMD programs or stockpiles. Even so what the Clintons DIDNT do and what Bush DID do was LIE and distort intelligence like his lies and distortions about the aluminum tubes and the making up non existant IAEA report to catapult the propaganda as Bush himself put it and start a war. Your grasp of the propaganda parrot talking points is impressive your grasp on reality, not so much.
Oh I forgot the last part, what it ISNT is a continuation of the lets get as many Americans killed as possible policy that Americans have rejected.
Blowing up people to take control of their country? You mean like we've done to Iraq? I thought you supported that kind of thing.
Hey - waaay off topic - sort of; but does anyone remember the animated Peter Pan movie, with the "clap to save TinkerBelle" scene? Does anyone know why that scene is no longer in the movie? Did Disney find that young viewers were troubled, so they cut that scene (fairly blatantly, in the Platinum version my son just got for my granddaughter.)
What started that question was the realization that McCain's appeal is similar, "clap to save Iraq! If we reeeeeallly believe hard enough, we can impose peace and democracy by sheer force of Darth dark force; and save all that oil just for ourselves."
Con, (this may be the first time I've ever addressed someone who wasn't in my extended family by that name.)
I think you're conflating the Disney Peter Pan with the stage version. I'm pretty sure the cartoon character never addressed the audience directly.
the price of oil escalate dramatically, um I thought this was a war for the freedom of the peoples of Iraq, not the liberate their oil.