In WSJ column, Rove falsely claimed Obama "flip-flop[ped]" on his Iraq policy
SUMMARY: Karl Rove falsely asserted in his Wall Street Journal column that Sen. Barack Obama has "flip-flop[ped]" on his Iraq policy with regards to leaving a residual U.S. force in Iraq and its mission. In fact, Obama has not "changed" or "shifted" his position on the existence and purpose of residual U.S. forces in Iraq.
In his July 24 Wall Street Journal column, Karl Rove falsely asserted that Sen. Barack Obama has "flip-flop[ped]" on the issue of leaving a residual U.S. force in Iraq upon the withdrawal of most troops from Iraq. In fact, Obama has not "changed" or "shifted" his position on the existence and purpose of residual U.S. forces in Iraq, as Rove alleged.
Rove wrote:
Then there is Iraq. Throughout 2006 and early 2007, Mr. Obama pledged to remove all U.S. troops, even voting to immediately cut off funds for the troops while they were in combat. Then, in July 2007, he started talking about leaving a residual U.S. force, in Kuwait and elsewhere in the region, able to go back into Iraq if needed.
By October, he shifted again, pledging to station the residual U.S. troops inside Iraq with two "limited missions of protecting our diplomats and carrying out targeted strikes on al Qaeda."
Last week, writing in the New York Times, Mr. Obama changed again. He increased the missions his residual force would perform to three: "going after any remnants of al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, protecting American service members and, so long as the Iraqis make political progress, training Iraqi security forces."
But contrary to Rove's assertion that "[t]hroughout 2006 and early 2007, Mr. Obama pledged to remove all U.S. troops" from Iraq but "in July 2007 began talking about leaving a residual U.S. force," Obama actually introduced the Iraq War De-escalation Act of 2007 in January of that year, which would have "allow[ed] for a limited number of U.S. troops to remain as basic force protection, to engage in counter-terrorism, and to continue the training of Iraqi security forces." Moreover, Rove's assertion that Obama in his New York Times op-ed "increased the missions his residual force would perform to three" is false. Indeed, the Iraq War De-escalation Act of 2007 outlined four "missions" for the residual U.S. force:
[P]ersonnel of the Armed Forces of the United States may be in Iraq after the completion of the redeployment of the Armed Forces under this section for the following purposes:
(A) To protect United States personnel and facilities in Iraq.
(B) To conduct targeted counter-terrorism operations.
(C) To provide training for Iraqi security forces.
(D) To conduct the routine functions of the Office of Defense Attache.
In a January 30, 2007, floor statement introducing the bill, Obama said: "My plan allows for a limited number of U.S. troops to remain as basic force protection, to engage in counter-terrorism, and to continue the training of Iraqi security forces."
In his column, Rove also asserted that "Sen. Obama has shifted recently on ... whether the Iranian Quds Force is a terrorist group." In fact, Obama co-sponsored the Iran Counter-Proliferation Act of 2007 in March 2007, a bill that would have designated the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, of which the Quds Force is a special unit, a terrorist group.
From Rove's July 24 Wall Street Journal column:
At least Mr. McCain fesses up to and explains his changes. Sen. Obama has shifted recently on public financing, free trade, Nafta, welfare reform, the D.C. gun ban, whether the Iranian Quds Force is a terrorist group, immunity for telecom companies participating in the Terrorist Surveillance Program, the status of Jerusalem, flag lapel pins, and disavowing Rev. Jeremiah Wright. And not only does he refuse to explain these flip-flops, he acts as if they never occurred.
Then there is Iraq. Throughout 2006 and early 2007, Mr. Obama pledged to remove all U.S. troops, even voting to immediately cut off funds for the troops while they were in combat. Then, in July 2007, he started talking about leaving a residual U.S. force, in Kuwait and elsewhere in the region, able to go back into Iraq if needed.
By October, he shifted again, pledging to station the residual U.S. troops inside Iraq with two "limited missions of protecting our diplomats and carrying out targeted strikes on al Qaeda."
Last week, writing in the New York Times, Mr. Obama changed again. He increased the missions his residual force would perform to three: "going after any remnants of al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, protecting American service members and, so long as the Iraqis make political progress, training Iraqi security forces." That's not all that different from what U.S. troops are doing now.
In fact, Obama has not "changed" or "shifted" his position on the existence and purpose of residual U.S. forces in Iraq.
I dont believe he has changed his stance on the Iraq War as a whole, considering that he would still vote against force. However, its clear that he has changed his footing in regards to the surge from being a complete failure - to at least accepting that it has worked from a military standpoint, but perhaps not from a political one.
Actually, Obama has softened his criticism. While campaigning in July 2007 in New Hampshire, he said:
"Here's what we know. The surge has not worked. And they said today, 'Well, even in September, we're going to need more time.' So we're going to kick this can all the way down to the next president, under the president's plan."
http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/07/obama_website_softens_surgebas.html
To try and change footing to declare that you are only referring to the surge working politically would be as far fetched as building a residence on mars. Anyone, public or congress, who depends on the military forces to solve their political woes, and establish democratic policies is living in fantasy land. Everyone knows, the congress, Bush, Barack, everyone, that the military is not a peace corp. It is an offense and defensive fighting machine aimed at security. Lets not play the shell game.
Anyone, public or congress, who depends on the military forces to solve their political woes, and establish democratic policies is living in fantasy land.
You are describing the exact counter-reasoning to the Bush/Cheney neocon philosophy towards Iraq. We invaded in Iraq to establish democarcy by military force.
False. We used military force to overthrow a dictorship government. Once that is complete, its up to politicians to work with the Iraqi's to establish a government, which is what were supposed to be doing. Its not just the Bush administration lacking in this effort, they are, but its also the Iraqi's internal conflicts holding up the process. The military was not meant, even in this case, to form a new government. - just to sustain the country while the government was formed, which is has done admirably.
Most notably Bush, his advisors, congress, and our foreign diplomats. We know were funding both sides of the war while getting nothing out of it - besides perhaps an ally, although thats iffy at best. The downside to all US wars is that after we win, and spend so much money doing so, we then give even more money to rebuild their country while ours is suffering.
What I would give to set a low cap on foreign aid as well as rebuilding funds.
What I would do, is in the first place not invade countries that haven't harmed us.
I guess neither of us are presidential material, eh?
the military has fullfilled all obligations and succeeded in each operation given to it.
The only problem with this is that they shouldn't be in Iraq performing any operations.
Hindsight.
Hindsight...? Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld were warned...
Colin Powell told them invading Iraq was a bad idea. Richard Clarke told them they were going after the wrong guy. Their own generals told them they were going about it wrong. The Army War College told them they were using too small a force. Eevn the Red Cross told them they didn't have enough troops to restore post invasion order.
But, Bush/Cheney/Rumsfled lose any benefit of the doubt when you consider that a major foreign policy goal of the Bush administration, pre-9/11, was to take out Saddam Hussein. The Iraq war was preordained. Don't hand me this bullshet about hindsight...
Would you like me to provide the 26 occasions (with references) in which the Bush administration has explicitly stated that the purpose of the mission in Iraq is establish Democracy in the middle-East?
No, of course you wouldn't, because that would absolutely demolish your ridiculous argument.
Do you know anything about the surge? Anything at all?
Help us out here, SCIENCE. You're making this too easy.
"Who is debating the goal of the Iraq War?"
YOU ARE:
Irony: "We invaded in Iraq to establish democracy by military force."
Science: "False. We used military force to overthrow a dictorship government. "
Do you know anything about the surge? Anything at all?
Are you saying the surge is in fact the same thing as the war, not actually one piece of strategy within the war?
A definition of "surge" is: to increase strongly and suddenly
There is no "propaganda" as you claim. Its called a military surge because we suddenly increased the number of military troops in the area. Quite common sense. To make it out to be anything else is pure fascination.
...as opposed to simply saying "escalation of troops" which is all it was.
I don't want to get into quibbling over semantics but the bottom line is that Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld bungled the handling of the war (aside from the issue of whether was necessary to begin with), most notably by sending far too few troops and failing to anticipate the insurgency. Sending in more troops to attempt to gain some control of the situation is a no brainer. But all it is is an obvious corrective measure. Violence in Iraq has decreased, although it is in no way gone, but that is due to anumber of factors including the said troop escalation. Politics aside, it would be dishonest for Barack Obama or anyone to say that THE SURGE! was successful...because the stated goal of THE SURGE! was to bring about a measurable level of political stability and progress which has not occurred. When we leave Iraq then crow about how THE SURGE! contributed. Until then the jury is still out.
Don't mind me but I thought we were going to Iraq to get rid of some Mushroom Cloud. That is what they all said....And, adding more troops is an escalation. And staying in Iraq is an Occupation.
My question to Science, can we decide when we have won this "war" and who will say it is over on the other side, if we can determine who is actually the other side? I always thought it took at least two sides to have a war, When one surrenders, it is over. But don't expect this mob in the White House to ever use the term surrender because nobody can surrender.
I dont believe the US should ever surrender a war or military occupation, under any circumstance what so ever.
However, the other "side" is not a government military to which they can actually waive a white flag. So this whole argument of "they surrendered" is neither here nor there. We need to keep fighting extremism, no matter where its at. And whether its Iraq or not, is not for me to say, but we know the middle east region as a generalization is the safe haven for them, and I think we shouldnt stop till they are all eliminated.
Are you suggesting we SURGE into every country where we feel the enemy is located? I hope not. By the way, if the enemy decides to SURGE in America, how do we handle that one?
Yes, i think we should "surge" in to every country they are located - with the help of that country's military, and nato forces.
Its call border protection. We have the ability to deny entrance.
I dont believe the US should ever surrender a war or military occupation, under any circumstance what so ever.
You "surrender" to make things right for invading and basically destroying a defenseless country for who knows what reason.
Irony: "We invaded in Iraq to establish democarcy by military force."
Science: "False. We used military force to overthrow a dictorship government. "
President Bush, UN Gen. Assembly, Sept. 2002: "If we meet our responsibilities, if we overcome this danger, we can arrive at a very different future. The people of Iraq can shake off their captivity. They can one day join a democratic Afghanistan and a democratic Palestine, inspiring reforms throughout the Muslim world."
President Bush, Iraq Invasion Sales Pitch, Sept. 2003: "[the world community] has a clear interest in the spread of democratic values, because stable and free nations do not breed the ideologies of murder. They encourage the peaceful pursuit of a better life."
President Bush, "Mission Accomplished," May 2003: "The transition from dictatorship to democracy will take time, but it is worth every effort."
President Bush, April 2005: "The establishment of a free Iraq at the heart of the Middle East will be a crushing defeat to the forces of tyranny and terror, and a watershed event in the global democratic revolution."
President Bush, June 2005: "A democratic Iraq will be a powerful setback to the terrorists who seek to harm our nation. A democratic Iraq will be a great triumph in the history of liberty. And a democratic Iraq will be a source of peace for our children and grandchildren."
"National Strategy for Victory in Iraq":
OUR NATIONAL STRATEGY FOR VICTORY IN IRAQ:
Helping the Iraqi People Defeat the Terrorists and Build an Inclusive Democratic State
Victory in Iraq is Defined in Stages
*Short term, Iraq is making steady progress in fighting terrorists, meeting political milestones, building democratic institutions, and standing up security forces.
*Medium term, Iraq is in the lead defeating terrorists and providing its own security, with a fully constitutional government in place, and on its way to achieving its economic potential.
*Longer term, Iraq is peaceful, united, stable, and secure, well integrated into the international community, and a full partner in the global war on terrorism.
No matter how you spin it, Bush's definition of victory was and still is democracy.
Irony: "We invaded in Iraq to establish democarcy by military force."
Science: "False. We used military force to overthrow a dictorship government. "
Again, you're missing the forrest for the trees. I purpose of the military in Iraq has succeeded in what they were supposed to do. The politicians in the administration abroad and overseas has failed to follow through with the democratic establishment. The military goal was not to establish a government, but to overthrow an existing government and providing security for a new one to be formed. Overthrow government - succuess. Provide security - success. Establish new, self sustaining government - administration and congressional failure.
Even though I loathe to talk about the "success" and "failure" of the surge™ (it's asinine to argue the "successes" and "failures" in a war of aggression), it’s false to call it anything but a “failure”. The gains are being held together with cheap tape and could come apart at any moment. I don’t know how this condition could be called a “success”.
You are exactly right, I agree totally.
Originally, Bush assured the world that the US was not planning to occupy Iraq. What most likely happened is that Maliki and the Sunni and Shia leaders in Iraq recognized that their infighting was giving the US an excuse to stay, so they straightened things out (starting before the surge began) -- the only folks they do not have full control of are AQI.
If (or when) Bush backs away from his statements to exit (as he tried to do earlier this week), the attacks against our troops can be started up again in a heartbeat. We've got an opportunity to exit with the appearance of victory and we should take it post haste. Obama's visit may have bought some time.
The righties like the idea of US bases in the middle east. The Iraqis know the righties crave that toehold. The end of this mess is not yet in sight, it could still turn in any direction, IMO, particularly with the ongoing anti-Iran subtext.
Plus, we still have to pay for it all. Science101, will you please pay for my share (everyone owes $200,000) since you are such a big GOP supporter?
Who's "bragging"? All I'm saying is that people who claim - yes, many of them - that the surge was a "failure" are obviously blind to facts and trying to come up with other way to facilitate their initial false argument. Its ok to say "i dont agree with the war, but the surge was a success".
Exactly right!! Fact is, when the decision was being made to invade Iraq, Democrat and Republican alike supported that decision, as evidenced by the overwhelming vote in both chambers. In my view, elected Democrats saw political advantage when they voted FOR the war, and then later saw political advantage to being AGAINST the war. It's never been about the best course for the security of their country fpr them. It's ALWAYS been about what is the most expedient and politically advantageous position to take.
The "Surge" has been an incredible success. The war is all but won, and democracy will emerge in Iraq. Democrats, and Obama, are reassessing their position de jour, even as we type. I predict it will be something like, "I was for it before I was against it, but am for it again."
Exactly right!! Fact is, when the decision was being made to invade Iraq, Democrat and Republican alike supported that decision, as evidenced by the overwhelming vote in both chambers.
[Most] Democrats did not support Bush's decision. They were taken aback by Bush's irrational and callous decision to invade even though the inspectors in Iraq said there was no there there.
In my view, elected Democrats saw political advantage when they voted FOR the war, and then later saw political advantage to being AGAINST the war.
They saw a political advantage in voting for the resolution which resulted in the inspectors being placed back on the ground in Iraq. When the inspectors came up empty, the Democrats did not know why the decision had been made to invade [by the Bush administration]. I have a pretty good idea why Bush initiated his war of aggression and it has nothing to do with the best interests of the Iraqis.
The "Surge" has been an incredible success. The war is all but won, and democracy will emerge in Iraq.
This is the wrong argument we're having. We shouldn't be debating the tactics of a war of aggression. We should be debating the war crime charges that should be levied against the Bush administration. What charges do you think they should face?
This is the wrong argument we're having. We shouldn't be debating the tactics of a war of aggression.
War of aggresion is your tem, but perhaps you should have that debate with some of your elected Democrats who supported the war, of aggression or otherwise, before they decided to be against it. Hillary, Edwards, Kennedy, Kerry, Reid, Pelosi, Lieberman, Gore, Byrd, Rockerfeller, just to name a few.
As far as your comment that the inspectors found nothing, here is what Hans Blix said in 2003:
"The recent inspection find in the private home of a scientist of a box of some 3,000 pages of documents, much of it relating to the laser enrichment of uranium support a concern that has long existed that documents might be distributed to the homes of private individuals. ...we cannot help but think that the case might not be isolated and that such placements of documents is deliberate to make discovery difficult and to seek to shield documents by placing them in private homes."
and.....
I have mentioned the issue of anthrax to the Council on previous occasions and I come back to it as it is an important one.
Iraq has declared that it produced about 8,500 litres of this biological warfare agent, which it states it unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991. Iraq has provided little evidence for this production and no convincing evidence for its destruction.
There are strong indications that Iraq produced more anthrax than it declared, and that at least some of this was retained after the declared destruction date. It might still exist. Either it should be found and be destroyed under UNMOVIC supervision or else convincing evidence should be produced to show that it was, indeed, destroyed in 1991."
I don't mind a contrary opinion, but it should have at least a scintilla of basis in fact. Don't you think?
War of aggresion is your tem,
The term describes any illegal invasion.
but perhaps you should have that debate with some of your elected Democrats who supported the war, of aggression or otherwise, before they decided to be against it. Hillary, Edwards, Kennedy, Kerry, Reid, Pelosi, Lieberman, Gore, Byrd, Rockerfeller, just to name a few.
Did you read my post? The person that made the decision was Bush; he was "The Decider". Democrats didn't know why he was invading a defenseless nation.
"The recent inspection find in the private home of a scientist of a box of some 3,000 pages of documents, much of it relating to the laser enrichment of uranium support a concern that has long existed that documents might be distributed to the homes of private individuals. ...we cannot help but think that the case might not be isolated and that such placements of documents is deliberate to make discovery difficult and to seek to shield documents by placing them in private homes."
You can find that information on the internet.
Iraq has declared that it produced about 8,500 litres of this biological warfare agent, which it states it unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991. Iraq has provided little evidence for this production and no convincing evidence for its destruction.
This doesn't make any sense. They have little evidence of its production and they have no evidence of its destuction. Any rational person would assume there's nothing to it. And let's say that there's something to it, how potent would anthrax produced in 1991 be in 2003?
There are strong indications that Iraq produced more anthrax than it declared, and that at least some of this was retained after the declared destruction date. It might still exist. Either it should be found and be destroyed under UNMOVIC supervision or else convincing evidence should be produced to show that it was, indeed, destroyed in 1991."
This contradicts the first peice of "evidence" you posted. First there's little evidence and now this strong evidence. Again, how potent would anthrax produced in 1991 be in 2003?
I don't mind a contrary opinion, but it should have at least a scintilla of basis in fact. Don't you think?
What you posted made me realize that the inspectors were following the muddle reasoning of the Bush administration.
Unfortunatly anthrax is potent for a very long time Loonz. Don't recall any verifiable WMD's in Iraq thpugh I'll look to the info shortly.
There where well over 900 lies pushed by our administration on our way to war/occupation. Enabled by our corporate media machine. I certainly didn't want us to attack Iraq. I doubt if any of the majority of the population wanted it. The pro war folks were wrong. They continue to get a disproportionate amount of air time today. Some of our more fringe conservatives haven't had a change of mind since before 9-11. Yet they have no trouble being a widely heard and seen, and still essentially dominating the MSM conversation.
Per the CIA's final report of Apirl 25th 2005, No WMD were found in Iraq.
Fox News viewers apparently feels they have better information. I believe there are plans to construct a museum arround the WMD's found in Iraq.
I confess the scond statement maybe untrue, its so hard to tell. Somewhere some wingnut group maybe working on this. Their disconnect produces some amazing things.
Unfortunatly anthrax is potent for a very long time Loonz. Don't recall any verifiable WMD's in Iraq thpugh I'll look to the info shortly.
I thought it was five years but I'll look into it. That said, it looks like the evidence they had was shaky at best and the supposed Anthrax in Saddam's possession seems to be non-existent.
We invaded in Iraq to establish democarcy by military force.
Do you believe that?
-- it has worked from a military standpoint, but perhaps not from a political one. -- scienceguy
Here's an interesting take on the surge from the AP's chief military reporter and their Baghdad bureau chief:
-- The United States is now winning the war that two years ago seemed lost...
the Iraqi government and the U.S. now are able to shift focus from mainly combat to mainly building the fragile beginnings of peace — a transition that many found almost unthinkable as recently as one year ago...
Ryan Crocker, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, told the AP on Thursday that the insurgency as a whole has withered to the point where it is no longer a threat to Iraq's future...
Despite the occasional bursts of violence, Iraq has reached the point where the insurgents, who once controlled whole cities, no longer have the clout to threaten the viability of the central government. -- AP -- Reid/Burns
Reid has been reporting from Baghdad since 2003 and Burns has made 21 trips to Iraq since the war began.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080727/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_winning_the_war;_ylt=AgkSIB.FGM7J5fAM9ZuKs38LewgFAgain with Rove?
I can't wait for Rove to be tossed into prison......
I swear.... he's going to sound like that 'fat ass' charactor at the begining of the Shawshank Redemption that cries for his mommy before being beaten nearly to death by the prison guard!
Anyone remember the websites dedicated to sending Rove to jail? Post them!
These guys are true enemies of the Constitution...
Same could be said about Nancy Pelosi.
OK, they asked for it...
National Security Policy
1. McCain thought Bush’s warrantless-wiretap program circumvented the law; now he believes the opposite.
2. McCain insisted that everyone, even “terrible killers,” “the worst kind of scum of humanity,” and detainees at Guantanamo Bay, “deserve to have some adjudication of their cases,” even if that means “releasing some of them.” McCain now believes the opposite.
3. He opposed indefinite detention of terrorist suspects. When the Supreme Court reached the same conclusion, he called it “one of the worst decisions in the history of this country.”
4. In February 2008, McCain reversed course on prohibiting waterboarding.
5. McCain was for closing the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay before he was against it.
6. When Barack Obama talked about going after terrorists in Pakistani mountains with predators, McCain criticized him for it. He’s since come to the opposite conclusion.
Foreign Policy
7. McCain was for kicking Russia out of the G8 before he was against it.
8. McCain supported moving “towards normalization of relations” with Cuba. Now he believes the opposite.
9. McCain believed the U.S. should engage in diplomacy with Hamas. Now he believes the opposite.
10. McCain believed the U.S. should engage in diplomacy with Syria. Now he believes the opposite.
11. McCain is both for and against a “rogue state rollback” as a focus of his foreign policy vision.
12. McCain used to champion the Law of the Sea convention, even volunteering to testify on the treaty’s behalf before a Senate committee. Now he opposes it.
13. McCain was against divestment from South Africa before he was for it.
Military Policy
14. McCain recently claimed that he was the “greatest critic” of Rumsfeld’s failed Iraq policy. In December 2003, McCain praised the same strategy as “a mission accomplished.” In March 2004, he said, “I’m confident we’re on the right course.” In December 2005, he said, “Overall, I think a year from now, we will have made a fair amount of progress if we stay the course.”
15. McCain has changed his mind about a long-term U.S. military presence in Iraq on multiple occasions, concluding, on multiple occasions, that a Korea-like presence is both a good and a bad idea.
16. McCain said before the war in Iraq, “We will win this conflict. We will win it easily.” Four years later, McCain said he knew all along that the war in Iraq war was “probably going to be long and hard and tough.”
17. McCain has repeatedly said it’s a dangerous mistake to tell the “enemy” when U.S. troops would be out of Iraq. In May, McCain announced that most American troops would be home from Iraq by 2013.
18. McCain was against expanding the GI Bill before he was for it.
Domestic Policy
19. McCain defended “privatizing” Social Security. Now he says he’s against privatization (though he actually still supports it.)
20. McCain wanted to change the Republican Party platform to protect abortion rights in cases of rape and incest. Now he doesn’t.
21. McCain supported storing spent nuclear fuel at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. Now he believes the opposite.
22. He argued the NRA should not have a role in the Republican Party’s policy making. Now he believes the opposite.
23. In 1998, he championed raising cigarette taxes to fund programs to cut underage smoking, insisting that it would prevent illnesses and provide resources for public health programs. Now, McCain opposes a $0.61-per-pack tax increase, won’t commit to supporting a regulation bill he’s co-sponsoring, and has hired Philip Morris’ former lobbyist as his senior campaign adviser.
24. McCain is both for and against earmarks for Arizona.
25. McCain’s first mortgage plan was premised on the notion that homeowners facing foreclosure shouldn’t be “rewarded” for acting “irresponsibly.” His second mortgage plan took largely the opposite position.
26. McCain went from saying gay marriage should be allowed, to saying gay marriage shouldn’t be allowed.
27. McCain opposed a holiday to honor Martin Luther King, Jr., before he supported it.
28. McCain was anti-ethanol. Now he’s pro-ethanol.
29. McCain was both for and against state promotion of the Confederate flag.
30. In 2005, McCain endorsed intelligent design creationism, a year later he said the opposite, and a few months after that, he was both for and against creationism at the same time.
Economic Policy
31. McCain was against Bush’s tax cuts for the very wealthy before he was for them.
32. John McCain initially argued that economics is not an area of expertise for him, saying, “I’m going to be honest: I know a lot less about economics than I do about military and foreign policy issues; I still need to be educated,” and “The issue of economics is not something I’ve understood as well as I should.” He now falsely denies ever having made these remarks and insists that he has a “very strong” understanding of economics.
33. McCain vowed, if elected, to balance the federal budget by the end of his first term. Soon after, he decided he would no longer even try to reach that goal. And soon after that, McCain abandoned his second position and went back to his first.
34. McCain said in 2005 that he opposed the tax cuts because they were “too tilted to the wealthy.” By 2007, he denied ever having said this, and falsely argued that he opposed the cuts because of increased government spending.
35. McCain thought the estate tax was perfectly fair. Now he believes the opposite.
36. McCain pledged in February 2008 that he would not, under any circumstances, raise taxes. Specifically, McCain was asked if he is a “‘read my lips’ candidate, no new taxes, no matter what?” referring to George H.W. Bush’s 1988 pledge. “No new taxes,” McCain responded. Two weeks later, McCain said, “I’m not making a ‘read my lips’ statement, in that I will not raise taxes.”
37. McCain has changed his entire economic worldview on multiple occasions.
38. McCain believes Americans are both better and worse off economically than they were before Bush took office.
Energy Policy
39. McCain supported the moratorium on coastal drilling ; now he’s against it.
40. McCain recently announced his strong opposition to a windfall-tax on oil company profits. Three weeks earlier, he was perfectly comfortable with the idea.
41. McCain endorsed a cap-and-trade policy with a mandatory emissions cap. In mid-June, McCain announced he wants the caps to voluntary.
42. McCain explained his belief that a temporary suspension of the federal gas tax would provide an immediate economic stimulus. Shortly thereafter, he argued the exact opposite.
43. McCain supported the Lieberman/Warner legislation to combat global warming. Now he doesn’t.
Immigration Policy
44. McCain was a co-sponsor of the DREAM Act, which would grant legal status to illegal immigrants’ kids who graduate from high school. Now he’s against it.
45. On immigration policy in general, McCain announced in February 2008 that he would vote against his own bill.
46. In April, McCain promised voters that he would secure the borders “before proceeding to other reform measures.” Two months later, he abandoned his public pledge, pretended that he’d never made the promise in the first place, and vowed that a comprehensive immigration reform policy has always been, and would always be, his “top priority.”
Judicial Policy and the Rule of Law
47. McCain said he would “not impose a litmus test on any nominee.” He used to promise the opposite.
48. McCain believes the telecoms should be forced to explain their role in the administration’s warrantless surveillance program as a condition for retroactive immunity. He used to believe the opposite.
49. McCain went from saying he would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade to saying the exact opposite.
Campaign, Ethics, and Lobbying Reform
50. McCain supported his own lobbying-reform legislation from 1997. Now he doesn’t.
51. In 2006, McCain sponsored legislation to require grassroots lobbying coalitions to reveal their financial donors. In 2007, after receiving “feedback” on the proposal, McCain told far-right activist groups that he opposes his own measure.
52. McCain supported a campaign-finance bill, which bore his name, on strengthening the public-financing system. In June 2007, he abandoned his own legislation.
Politics and Associations
53. McCain wanted political support from radical televangelist John Hagee. Now he doesn’t. (He also believes his endorsement from Hagee was both a good and bad idea.)
54. McCain wanted political support from radical televangelist Rod Parsley. Now he doesn’t.
55. McCain says he considered and did not consider joining John Kerry’s Democratic ticket in 2004.
56. McCain is both for and against attacking Barack Obama over his former pastor at his former church.
57. McCain criticized TV preacher Jerry Falwell as “an agent of intolerance” in 2002, but then decided to cozy up to the man who said Americans “deserved” the 9/11 attacks.
58. In 2000, McCain accused Texas businessmen Sam and Charles Wyly of being corrupt, spending “dirty money” to help finance Bush’s presidential campaign. McCain not only filed a complaint against the Wylys for allegedly violating campaign finance law, he also lashed out at them publicly. In April, McCain reached out to the Wylys for support.
59. McCain was against presidential candidates campaigning at Bob Jones University before he was for it.
60. McCain decided in 2000 that he didn’t want anything to do with former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, believing he “would taint the image of the ‘Straight Talk Express.’” Kissinger is now the Honorary Co-Chair for his presidential campaign in New York.
61. McCain believed powerful right-wing activist/lobbyist Grover Norquist was “corrupt, a shill for dictators, and (with just a dose of sarcasm) Jack Abramoff’s gay lover.” McCain now considers Norquist a key political ally.
SNOOPY,
I'm always grateful for your posts..... but could ya keep them a bit shorter or perhaps break them up into smaller ones?
I LOVE that list. (I've read it before.)
However, I'm pretty sure it's now up as high as 64 or 65.
Obama's list is, and remains...zero.
Likely the product of McCain having a long history in global politics, and Obama having none, zero. It's hard to do anything wrong, when you've done nothing at all.
Here's what Obama had to say about the surge:
"I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse. I think (the surge) takes pressure off the Iraqis to arrive at the sort of political accommodation that every observer believes is the ultimate solution to the problems we face there. So I am going to actively oppose the president's proposal." -- Barack Obama
Science101 is exactly right. The military is there to provide the peace and security required for a political solution, as has ALWAYS been the case. We were/are in Germany and Japan long, long after the end of hostilities. In attempt to confuse the roles, is merely smoke and mirrors.
Likely the product of McCain having a long history in global politics, and Obama having none, zero. It's hard to do anything wrong, when you've done nothing at all.
It doesn't matter. McCain doesn't have the temperate, judgement, clarity or any real knowledge of how government works to be a senator, let alone the president of the United States. He is not qualified to hold his current position (most republicans are not) and he damn sure is not qualified to be president.
"I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse. I think (the surge) takes pressure off the Iraqis to arrive at the sort of political accommodation that every observer believes is the ultimate solution to the problems we face there. So I am going to actively oppose the president's proposal."
He was/is right. The problem hasn't been solved by any stretch of the imagination. The situation in Iraq is very much volatile. The American military cannot solve the underlying problems in Iraq nor should they. The Iraqis will find have to find their own path (they've told us time and time again that they want to do this) and they will have to live with any consequences that arises.
We were/are in Germany and Japan long, long after the end of hostilities. In attempt to confuse the roles, is merely smoke and mirrors.
Don't compare Bush's war of aggression to a fight against war aggressors.
He was/is right. The problem hasn't been solved by any stretch of the imagination.
The "surge" wasn't to solve the problem, as has been pointed out to you. The military's role is to provide the peace and security required for the difficult political questions that remain in Iraq. It HAS accomplished that mission. Your debate strategy is to intentionally confuse the issue, which detracts from the facts. Necessarily so, because the facts don't help you.
The American military cannot solve the underlying problems in Iraq nor should they.
The purpose of the surge was NOT to solve the underlying problems, it was to provide the peace and security necessary for the ELECTED government of Iraq to solve those issues. No different than we do here. The police force doesn't make policy. It merely provides the order and enforcement mechanisms necessary to make that policy. Again, intentionally confusing, or trying to anyway, the issue.
Don't compare Bush's war of aggression to a fight against war aggressors.
Again, confusing, or trying to, the issue. The issue isn't the underlying merits of the respective wars, it is the role of the military to provide the security necessary to inplement a political solution. And it isn't "Bush's war." It's Bush's, Pelosi's, Reid's, Kerry's, Kennedy's, Rockerfeller's, Edwards', Gore's, Clinton's, Dean's...... war. Actually, it's America's war.
The "surge" wasn't to solve the problem, as has been pointed out to you. The military's role is to provide the peace and security required for the difficult political questions that remain in Iraq. It HAS accomplished that mission. Your debate strategy is to intentionally confuse the issue, which detracts from the facts. Necessarily so, because the facts don't help you.
No, it wasn't built that way and it hasn't it provided peace and security. The situation in Iraq is violatile and could fall apart at any moment as demonstrated a few months ago when the ceasefire was breached. And as I said before, it is asinine to debate the tactics of a war of aggression.
The purpose of the surge was NOT to solve the underlying problems, it was to provide the peace and security necessary for the ELECTED government of Iraq to solve those issues. No different than we do here. The police force doesn't make policy. It merely provides the order and enforcement mechanisms necessary to make that policy. Again, intentionally confusing, or trying to anyway, the issue.
I'm through debating the tactics of a war of aggression (it's like debating the "successes" and "failures" of Germany's invasion of Poland). The Iraqis are the sole arbiter of their country's future and that's how it should be. We don't have any business occupying Iraq. American troops should be withdrawn and The Bush administration should be held to account in The Hague.
Again, confusing, or trying to, the issue. The issue isn't the underlying merits of the respective wars, it is the role of the military to provide the security necessary to inplement a political solution. And it isn't "Bush's war." It's Bush's, Pelosi's, Reid's, Kerry's, Kennedy's, Rockerfeller's, Edwards', Gore's, Clinton's, Dean's...... war. Actually, it's America's war.
It's not America's war; it's the Neocons war of agression.
The link is to a Mark Halperin colunm. Last seen here giving a week to Yohnny, dispite mucho evidence to the contrary. Yah sure he's going to tell the objective truth about Mr. Obama.
In case you haven't noticed the difference between post occupation in Germany and Japan, and Iraq. Do investigate. At any point after hostilities were ended in Europe or Japan I could have traveled widely in counrty with no fear of my safety. I could not do that today, unless my name is J. McCain.
Anyone who considers Science101 the source of a reliable opinion has never had a difference of opinion with him.
The Great Rove has spoken once again. As usual, I recall Black Rovemeber 2006. You guys got crushed trying crap like this. I realize that a lot of sh!t for brains vote on both sides but not having a brain bowel movement since then by the Republicans is bordering on enema, I mean enemy territory.
I question my vote often. These Cons expect the Republicans to follow them blindly. And to follow Mr. Rove is pure lunacy. This hero of the right won't even allow himself to be questioned by a few dumb Senators. Karl, I believe one of the mantras of the Right has always been "If you have nothing to hide, what is the big deal about being questioned?" Karl, you say you are a patriot, WHEN was that? Sorry, it is a question.
STEEVE, Sorry about that. Was expecting the Philib or Science guy to throw that back.
As an aside, but don't tell anyone, if I should question my vote, I always get the same answer. ;)
A rich person is still rich after taxes. (The corollaries to that are sufficient to destroy conservative theory)
You can't explain the media without acknowledging the depths of both its bias and its stupidity.
Bipartisanship is partnering with a ball and chain to win a race.
Sign the petition to put Rove in jail instead of a job on teevee and newspapers:
http://www.kintera.org/TR.asp?a=hqLRIZNELdIGK3J&s=fqJNIVMCLbIPK4ODJpH&m=fsKNI2PJLdIXG