ABC cropped Obama, falsely suggesting he "admit[ted] that he was wrong to oppose the surge"
SUMMARY: After airing a video clip of Sen. Barack Obama saying of the "the surge of U.S. troops in Iraq," "I've already said, it's succeeded beyond our wildest dreams," ABC's David Wright stated, "The McCain campaign has been pushing Obama for weeks to admit that he was wrong to oppose the surge, a policy McCain championed early on," falsely suggesting that Obama said during his interview that he was wrong to oppose the surge.
During the September 5 edition of ABC's World News, after ABC News correspondent David Wright asserted that Gov. Sarah Palin "attacked [Sen. Barack] Obama for what he told Bill O'Reilly last night about the surge of U.S. troops in Iraq," Wright aired a quote from Obama's interview on Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, saying, "I've already said, it's succeeded beyond our wildest dreams." Wright then stated, "The McCain campaign has been pushing Obama for weeks to admit that he was wrong to oppose the surge, a policy McCain championed early on," falsely suggesting that Obama said during his interview that he was wrong to oppose the surge. In fact, during the interview on the September 4 edition of The O'Reilly Factor, after Obama said, "I've already said it succeeded beyond our wildest dreams," host Bill O'Reilly asked, "So why can't you say, 'I was right in the beginning, and I was wrong about the surge?'" Obama responded, "Because there's an underlying problem with what have we done. We have reduced the violence, but the Iraqis still haven't taken responsibility, and we still don't have the kind of political reconciliation. We are still spending, Bill, $10 to $12 billion a month."
From the September 4 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
O'REILLY: I think you were desperately wrong on the surge, and I think you should admit it to the nation that now, we have defeated the terrorists in Iraq, and the Al Qaeda came there after we invaded, as you know. OK? We've defeated them.
O'REILLY: If we didn't, they would have used it as a staging ground. We've also inhibited Iran from controlling the southern part of Iraq by the surge, which you did not support. So why won't you say, "I was right in the beginning. I was wrong about that"?
OBAMA: You know, if you listen to what I've said, and I'll repeat it right here on this show, I think that there's no doubt that the violence is down. I believe that that is a testimony to the troops that were sent and General [David] Petraeus and Ambassador [Ryan] Crocker. I think that the surge has succeeded in ways that nobody anticipated, by the way, including President Bush and the other supporters. It has gone very well, partly because of the Anbar situation --
O'REILLY: The awakening. Right.
OBAMA: -- and the Sunni awakening, partly because of the Shia military. Look --
O'REILLY: But if were up to you, there wouldn't have been a surge.
OBAMA: No, no, no, no, no, no, no --
O'REILLY: If it were up to you, there wouldn't have been a surge.
OBAMA: No, no, no, no. Hold on.
O'REILLY: You and Joe Biden, no surge.
OBAMA: Hold on a second, Bill. If you look at the debate that was taking place, we had gone through five years of mismanagement of this war that I thought was disastrous. And the president wanted to double down and continue on an open-ended policy that did not create the kinds of pressure on the Iraqis to take responsibility and reconcile.
O'REILLY: But it worked. It worked. Come on.
OBAMA: Bill, what I said is -- I've already said it succeed beyond our wildest dreams.
O'REILLY: Right. So why can't you say, "I was right in the beginning, and I was wrong about the surge"?
OBAMA: Because there's an underlying problem with what we've done. We have reduced the violence --
OBAMA: -- but the Iraqis still haven't taken responsibility, and we still don't have the kind of political reconciliation. We are still spending, Bill, $10 to $12 billion a month.
From the September 5 edition of ABC's World News with Charles Gibson:
WRIGHT: Governor Palin seems to be warming to her role as the campaign pitbull. Today she attacked Obama for what he told Bill O'Reilly last night about the surge of U.S. troops in Iraq.
OBAMA [video clip]: I've already said, it's succeeded beyond our wildest dreams.
WRIGHT: The McCain campaign has been pushing Obama for weeks to admit he was wrong to oppose the surge, a policy McCain championed early on.
PALIN [video clip]: I guess when you turn out to be profoundly wrong on a vital national security issue, maybe it's comforting to pretend that everyone else was wrong, too.
WRIGHT: If you could articulate what the strategy is for the homestretch.
It's NOT the surge. The surge was only a minor factor in the change in Iraq. The Awakening groups and mercenaries, paid for by the United States, are greater factors in the improvement.
http://greytheory.blogspot.com/2008/08/its-not-surge.html
It's NOT the surge
No, it's not and I wish Obama had had the guts to say so. The three big factors in the reduction of violence were:
1) the so-called "Anbar awakening," which preceded and occurred entirely apart from "the surge," where local Sunnis got fed up with al-Qaeda in Iraq and wanted to get rid of them - i.e., expelling the very same forces that the Shrub gang and BillO say would have used the area as a "staging area" for attacks had it not been for "the surge";
2) the Sadrist ceasefire, which also predated and occurred apart from "the surge";
3) and perhaps most importantly but least often mentioned, the success of ethnic cleansing in Iraq to the point where Sunnis and Shiites have little contact with each other and Baghdad has been turned into a city of walled-off enclaves.
Because of that third point, I also wish Obama had had the guts to say "the surge" has not worked, in fact it has been an utter failure because it's goal was not a reduction in violence but the advancement of political reconciliation - which simply has not happened, not anything close.
But - I am just managing to resist the temptation to say "of course" - he didn't. Instead he wanted to make the smallest, narrowest challenge possible and in so doing left himself open to being described as endorsing George Bush's "defeat" of al-Qaeda.
For another opinion, Bob Woodward is paraphrased, from his new book, as claiming the Surge is a misnomer:
"Overall, Woodward writes, four factors combined to reduce the violence: the covert operations; the influx of troops; the decision by militant cleric Moqtada al-Sadr to rein in his powerful Mahdi Army; and the so-called Anbar Awakening, in which tens of thousands of Sunnis turned against al-Qaeda in Iraq and allied with U.S. forces."
Obama should have never ever ever ever ever ever EVER gone on O'Reilly.
Who wasn't thinking there?
This is the 2008 equivalent of Jimmy Carter granting an interview to Playboy Magazine and admitting he had "sinned in his heart."
And the posters above are 100% right on with regard to the campaign being unable or unwilling to educate the public about the true causes of the reduction in violence (amazing what happens when you ship out several million potential adversaries via the refugee route and the main man, Sadr, is convinced by Iran to rein in his horses). The bill is still not in for arming the Sunni against Al Q'eda. Don't expect a public that enjoys being talked to like kindergarteners in a convention to appreciate the distinctions, so maybe Obama people are just realistic.
None of the factors that have led to reduced violence in Iraq would have happened if there was not enough time for them to evolve.
And you based this on what exactly? The Iraqis lived without blowing each other up when Saddam was in power so it makes sense that they could live the same way without Saddam. I think the huge increase in violence was the Iraqis way of telling us to get out of their country but the Neocons have big plans in that part of the world and leaving was not an option. Most Iraqis have now abandoned that strategy and hope to get invaders out by acting as they would if we weren't there but, again, the Neoconshave big plans in that part of the world and leaving is not an option.
None of the factors that have led to reduced violence in Iraq would have happened if there was not enough time for them to evolve.
That is one of the most bizarre arguments I have ever come across.
It is equivalent to beating someone up and then later, as their bruises fade, taking credit for their "improving condition" by saying you'd allowed "enough time for" that to "evolve."
I agree with the last comment. It was a fiasco when it was revealed that the young prince had been deployed. It put his whole mission and unit at risk. It was also brought to my attention that revealing when and to where a soldier is to be deployed, especially if specific dates are used is usually considered a criminal offense, in that it jeprodizes Armed Services security.
Barack Obama *was* wrong, regardless of whether he admits it or not.
(I actually don't care if he admits it, only that he was wrong.)
BAGHDAD (AP) — Iraqi and U.S. negotiators have finished work on a draft security agreement that would see all American troops leave Iraqi cities by June 30 and the rest of the country by the end of 2011, Iraqi officials said Wednesday.
[Aug 20, 2008
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gkx-3oYeFwuWKCusr2jrojs98w8wD92M6IH81]
Iraqi and U.S. negotiators have finished work
Oh for pity sake. The "political solution" the "surge" was supposed to advance was among Iraqis, not between the Shiite-dominated central government and the US. That "solution" has not happened and is nowhere in sight.
Let it also be noted that the agreement you cite does what the Shrub gang insisted loud and long we must never do: set timelines. Apparently, they were wrong. I'm sure their apology will be immediately forthcoming.
Deal with it.
The Surge brought about " draft security agreement
No, it didn't; this sort of agreement was something that had been in the works for a few years, starting well before any talk of "the surge." The US pressed for it in order to justify a long-term US military presence in Iraq; the sticking point was the Shrub gang's refusal to include deadlines or timetables for troop withdrawals, something the Iraqis demanded as a condition of an agreement.
What has changed is that with time running out and no guarantee of a McCain White House to continue current policy, the Bush team capitulated and in order to get a pact they agreed to what they said from the very beginning must never ever be done: setting deadlines.
Your ability to believe whatever is convenient for you to believe is quite astonishing, including as it does the ability to delude yourself into thinking "the surge" succeeded because even though it never achieved what it was supposed to achieve, it did achieve something else - which it didn't. An impressive display of fantasizing.
And please don't bother going "Oh yeah? Obama said!" which is roughly as good a comeback to "So's yer old man!" First, because he didn't say "the surge" succeeded, he said violence is down. But - again since you're apparently a slow learner - a reduction in violence wasn't the goal of "the surge" but a means to the end of political reconciliation among Iraqis. There is no such reconciliation. "The surge" was a failure.
Second, because even if he had said what you falsely believe he said, I wouldn't care: My statements are not controlled by what Barack Obama says and such a shift on his part would not show he was wrong to oppose "the surge" but wrong to think it worked.
Obama: "Because there's an underlying problem with what have we done. We have reduced the violence, but the Iraqis still haven't taken responsibility, and we still don't have the kind of political reconciliation. We are still spending, Bill, $10 to $12 billion a month."
I wish he would have added this: "and Bill, while we are at it, YOU were wrong about the need to invade, WMD, how easy it would be after we invaded and you have continually mischaractorized the patriotism and motives of those who have had reservations about this whole project from the beginning".
You know, if we are going to go back and play the blame game, we should at least be thorough. It seems that the administration and their friends have been wrong continually. They should have to eat crow as well!
As for the surge, I am not convinced that it is the sole reason why things have calmed down in Iraq and if it is the sole reason and if victory is so vital for the survival of our nation, then why don't we reinstitute the draft, start rationing and have a real surge so we can be done with this and send everyone home. This war has lasted longer than WWII. Bush wanted a modern shock and awe victory that wouldn't inconvienence joe sixpack. The result has been this slow bleed. I guess I am expecting too much from the rush hanitties and foxes. They want to point the finger without taking their own inconsistant rhetoric seriously.
Bill, while we are at it, YOU were wrong about the need to invade
As I recall, BillO said something to the effect that if no WMDs were found in Iraq that he would apologize and never again trust the Bush administration. So it would have been nice to see that thrown back at him and ask him where his apology is.
Yeah, I know, in your dreams.
Bill O is full of hot air . . .
You should have quit while you were ahead.
Bill O is a talking head who panders to his masses - predominantly the white, right, post-WWII crowd - in simple and sophmoric terms. There is no analysis, no depth of disussion and no sustenance to his positions beyond the rhetorical and emotional. I literally thought he was going to have a stroke the time I saw he and Geraldo get into over crimes by illegal aliens.
He's about bombast and cutting off those who disagree with him - verbally or technologically when he cuts a microphone before being exposed the fool.
There was a small sense of rationality to the BO/BO' interview because he's undoubtedly on a short leash after the Murdoch/Obama meeting. But even in these exchanges, he fights for the sound bite (no, no, no, no. . . admit you were "wrong") as if those "gotchas" vindicate the fecklessness of Bush's folly. It may in the minds of O'Reilly's core audience, but not to those of us with a slightly larger brain stem.
PALIN [video clip]: I guess when you turn out to be profoundly wrong on a vital national security issue, maybe it's comforting to pretend that everyone else was wrong, too.
Er... I do believe this has been the wingnut excuse for the whole war. Bush was wrong because everyon else was i.e. "Well Saddam fooled everyone". Palin is describing exactly what Bush did and what his media supporters continually say despite plenty of prewar warnings to the contrary from knowledgable and reputable sources. Yet somehow if everyone else was wrong its ok.
Obama is saying something different. What a strange thing for her to say.
They should have thrown fox from the convention and begun a complete blackout of all things Democratic from Fox News. Obama could say, " if you see something on Fox about me or about any Democrat, it's second hand nonsense. I want the American's who watch Fox to know it is more than just a slightly biased news organization, it is a cultic mouthpiece for the GOP and they can have fun filling their 24/7 hatefest without me."
Oh, I think it was wise of Obama to sit down with the Big Giant Head--particularly since Palin has yet to meet with anybody other than People. Bill-O can no longer whine about how Obama won't meet with him. Let's see if he won't fair and balance it out and start getting on the Moose Meat Mama's case.
No, I won't be holding my breath.
This is the wrong tact to take. Maher has this right, reasonable meetings with any "news" (shudder) organization is required. Failure to engage Fox is no better than letting Palin get away without any Sunday morning appearances or unscripted interviews.
Heard several Republicans on "The Young Turks" the other morning, all of which were treated with more respect by Cenk than O'Really afforded Obama.
The reason he should not have gone on O'Reilly is simple: just look at that stupid chair they had him sit in, with side views that make him look like a little kid.
And it didn't take Einstein to figure out that they were going to ask him questions that will lend themselves to the splice and dice tactic, and then immediately bring body-language experts on to destory any semblance of gravitas he may have still possessed.
Next big idiotic mistake of the Dems? Just wait until they "agree" to a sit-down debate with Palin and Biden, which will make Joe look like he's taking a meeting with her.
-- falsely suggesting that Obama said -- mmfa
Well here's one that mmfa can't spin:
-- we have defeated the terrorists in Iraq, and the Al Qaeda came there after we invaded, as you know. OK? We've defeated them. -- BOR
-- Right. Absolutely. -- Obama
Under Obama's plan, al-Qaeda would not have been defeated. Under the surge, which McCain pushed...we have defeated al-Qaeda in Iraq...so sayeth Obama.
Well King, this case is closed...except for mmfa, who will continue to cook up more silly parsing and word-smithing to pander to their liberal base...LOL
Under Obama's plan, al-Qaeda would not have been defeated. Under the surge, which McCain pushed...we have defeated al-Qaeda in Iraq...so sayeth Obama.
The people we were and are fighting in Iraq are the Iraqis. They want us to get the hell out.
The problem, Wes, is that Obama admitted to things that the far left doesn't believe to be true. But they are stuck because he's actually a "credible" source.
The Speaker of the House is an invertebrate. We would have been better served with Kucinich, Conyers, or Wexler as the Speaker.
"You should talk to the Speaker of the House about that. If you've got it, then bring it"
It's not necessarily legal just because Congress passed it. That's why we have a Supreme Court, to stop illegalities (aka unconstitutional) laws passed by Congress. Too bad we currently have a Supreme Court too wrapped up in ideology to do their proper job. And that we have a Congress too cowed to do THEIR proper job too.
I don't know. We'll see how quickly we leave once Obama gets elected. I suppose the current administration is afraid of squandering any gains we've made this year.
Errmmm....
If we hadn't gone there illegally IN THE FIRST PLACE, then there WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN A NEED TO REMOVE THEM.
It's a shame we interrupted their serene lifestyles.
Before we invaded Iraq and forced them to swarm into Iraq and fight the evil U.S who had just liberated Iraq...they were busy with family picnics, trips to the zoo and making "we are the world" coca cola commercials.
They have been defeated...so sayeth Obama "right, absolutely".
Before we invaded Iraq and forced them to swarm into Iraq and fight the evil U.S.
Bush invaded a Muslim nation and it should have been expected that Muslims would be against that.
Wow!!!
No idea what happened there!!
Sorry for the multiple posts, l seem to have McCain's knowledge of computers tonight!!
Nice use of the limpaugh method, UK. And by golly, it DOES work! Now it's true!
Don't know if it got through to Wesley yet, though. Maybe a couple more copy/paste routines and he'll start to understand it.
If anything bears repeating it's your post.
"I believe that's preferable to not removing them."
Let me see if I have this right: you're saying we did the right thing to start a war to remove a group that wasn't even there yet...but would be there - because we started the war.
I'm not sure I can wrap my mind around that kind of convoluted "logic"
You don't have me right.
I said that I believe it was the right thing to remove Al Queda once they were in Iraq.
That has nothing to do with agreeing that the war was a good idea. However, I acknowledge that situations change, and it's better to deal with the current situation rather than wring our hands about what "should have been". That road was not traveled.
I pointed out that Obama's concession that the surge "succeeded beyond our wildest dreams" was contrary to what most far left posters believe.
I did not say the overall war was successful.
I never disagreed that they were not there to begin with. That's common knoweledge.
You are arguing against points I never made.
The point I agreed with Wesley on was that Obama said that the surge was more successful than most people believed it would be (the surge, not the overall war). I said that is contrary to what the far left believes, as I have read that the surge was a failure countless times on these threads. I stand by that statement and agree with Obama's comment.
You brought up the point about Al Queda not being in Iraq at the beginning, a point that I never made and don't disagree with. I simply stated that since they came in, we should get them out. You didn't disagree with that.
This whole thing was in no way (on my part at least) supposed to be a defense of going into Iraq in the first place. It was simply an agreement with Obama's position, in contrast to the far left's position, that the surge worked in certain ways beyond what a lot of people have been saying.
I understand that we caused the problems in the first place with bad strategy. Even O'Reilly agrees with that.
"That has nothing to do with agreeing that the war was a good idea. However, I acknowledge that situations change, and it's better to deal with the current situation rather than wring our hands about what "should have been". That road was not traveled."
You're using the same convoluted logic. AQ in Iraq DID NOT EXIST before we started this war. So it's disingenuous to say that NOW we should "defeat" them when they wouldn't be there to BE defeated if WE hadn't gotten their first.
That's the very definition of a "pre-emptive" war - to defeat an enemy that DOESN'T YET EXIST, but that WILL once you start the war. It's also called a self-fulfilling prophecy.
So you are saying we shouldn't have driven Al Queda out when they came into Iraq. That's your stated position now.
Fine, I disagree.
If you think the escalation has ended terrorism and made the U.S. safer, you're not paying attention. THE terrorist mastermind behind 9/11 is still out there because of the unforgivable error of the Republican leadership to dismiss any option except full scale invasion and war on a tactic. Your screech monkeys went on the tv and thugishly screamed at dissenters, called us traitors and losers. I will never forget how the rightwing punks intimidated the media for airing the liberal approach of bringing criminals to justice and ridiculed the left for disagreements with Bush.
You have no scruples. You are the party of Violence.
How righties can lend even the least defense to anything this administration has done to Iraq is absurd. You can argue all day that the ends justify the means, but sensible people know that the means are the ends.
the press showed McCain proteected by Blackhawks, trooops, and still the public believeMcCain's lie about it being safe, or we're winning. They also believe Obama is mmuslim why they're asked silence or no answer.
Palin lies about plane, so does McCain twice and press does little and public can't see it sorry public seem really stupid
-- they are stuck because he's actually a "credible" source. -- bruce
Yep...he's their candidate and after months and months of sputtering and stuttering about bringing the troops home because we couldn't defeat al-Qeada in Iraq or that the war was already lost...Obama torpedoed them with two simple words.
He agreed with O'Reilly by saying "right" and then punctuated that affirmation with an emphatic "absolutely"...and that has got to chap their asses.
Yep...he's their candidate and after months and months of sputtering and stuttering about bringing the troops home because we couldn't defeat al-Qeada in Iraq or that the war was already lost...Obama torpedoed them with two simple words.
You're going off Bruce's falsehood or lie.
If this has torpedoed Obama's arguement then what does it say of McCain's position of troops remaining in Iraq now that both El Maliki AND THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION have both stated that his plan for a 16 month phased withdrawl is the position they agree with?
Would this be a bad time to quote the member of the McCain campaign who said when he heard this, "Were f***ed!!"?
McCain doesn't have a problem with leaving in 16 months...or 1 month...or 1 day...his position is to leave as soon as possible...with a victory.
Now we are all getting on the same page after the surge caused the defeat of al-Qaeda...and Obama agrees that they are defeated, "right, absolutely".
McCain doesn't have a problem with leaving in 16 months...or 1 month...or 1 day...his position is to leave as soon as possible...with a victory.
His position is 100 years and beyond.
Wesley:
"McCain doesn't have a problem with leaving in 16 months...or 1 month...or 1 day...his position is to leave as soon as possible...with a victory."
Denial is just a river in Egypt to you isn't it?
McCain on troop withdrawal:
-- "It's fine with me, as long as it's condition-based," McCain said in an interview. "The agreement, I'm sure, will be condition-based. And the fact is that we have succeeded. And we're winning. And whenever you win wars, the troops come home." -- Des Moines Register Aug08
Now it's time for you to do your best Hannity impersonation and go get the 100 year quote...or some other such nonsense.
"And the fact is that we have succeeded. And we're winning."
What a baloney. Does McCain know what he means by success and winning?
I'll bet he does...just like Obama stated to O'Reilly...
BOR -- we have defeated the terrorists in Iraq,
Obama -- right, absolutely
Your leader sayeth different than you.
Your leader sayeth different than you.
I think Obama and other Democrats have bought into the right-wing framing on this issue (it can happen to the best of us). The people we were/are fighting are the Iraqis themselves who want us out and the Al Qaeda presence was/is negligible.
Sounds like "buyer's remorse"...
I disagree with Obama on some things. He wasn't my first choice (Edwards) or my second choice (Clinton, who lost me when when she ran that 3AM ad). Overall I'm happy with him though.
Wesley, maybe you can help me out.
If there were no AlQueda in Iraq before we got there, where were they? According to our leaders, they were in Afghanistan. Now, logically speaking, why would we go into Iraq to defeat AlQueda if they were in Afghanistan? Don't you absolutely believe that we should have concentrated our efforts to remove our enemies from where they were or where they could never go if Saddam was still in power? O'Reilly said "staging area" for the AQ but they couldn't stage there. Right, absolutely. Saddam wouldn't allow it.
Obama was against going into a country where AQ wasn't but suggested that we use our power to get the enemy where they lived. Months ago, he suggested the same thing but our President didn't listen. Now, McCain wants to get Obama/AQ in Afghanistan because they are not in Iraq. The sixteen month departure schedule also sound like McCain is following in Obamas footstep along with the Change idea. Maybe McCain should've picked Obama as his VP. At least he answers questions.
Wow, you logic borders on Republican thinking and a baseball analogy.."Hit 'em where the ain't."
P.S. Wesley, I think you tied UKObserver in repitition this evening...although his post was a computer problem(or operator malfunction) but your baiting with "RIGHT, ABSOLUTELY" is a bit childlike. A na nana na na would have been better.And yes, Obama said he'd go into Pakistan and McCain berated him...Didn't we just do that?
Prince,
I think we were justified in liberating Iraq. You, and others here don't agree...and I doubt any of those opinions are going to be swayed by any brilliant arguments on a comments board.
The fact is that we are there...that is the now...not what we should have done or who screwed up.
A number of months ago Obama and the democrat leadership...like Harry Reid...declared that we could not win and in fact the war was lost...and necessitated a prompt retreat (withdraw if you prefer) from Iraq. They opposed the military surge. They in fact, were wrong...and Obama has finally admitted as much.
Afghanistan? I agree that it wasn't handled as well as it should have been...but once again, that is in the past. I agree with Obama that we should surge in Afghanistan to roust the terrorists.
Victory in the war on terrorism has many definitions...unlike a football game with a determined amount of time to proclaim a winner...after looking at the scoreboard.
So we're about to elect a new CIC who will lead the efforts in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere. As a conservative, I won't be voting for Obama but I'm not yet commited to McCain...for a lot of reasons.
But on the issue of fighting a war against terrorism...McCain is my choice. If Obama is the new CIC...he will be faced with the same monday morning quarterbacks who relish sniping at how Pres.Bush has prosecuted the war...and most importantly he will be asked to define victory or defeat...something he has yet to do.
If the war in Afghanistan gets tough will Obama have the nerve to continue the fight or will he declare that we give up and go home? I certainly don't know...but that is one of the judgements that voters will have to make.
This is not about Pres.Bush and the past...it's about the future.
I think we were justified in liberating Iraq. You, and others here don't agree...and I doubt any of those opinions are going to be swayed by any brilliant arguments on a comments board.
Bush illegally invaded Iraq which amounts to a war crime.
And liberation was the last thing on the Neocons' mind. They needed a regime in Iraq that was friendlier not to America's interest but their interests. The Iraqis know this; they're not stupid.
A number of months ago Obama and the democrat leadership...like Harry Reid...declared that we could not win and in fact the war was lost...and necessitated a prompt retreat (withdraw if you prefer) from Iraq. They opposed the military surge. They in fact, were wrong...and Obama has finally admitted as much.
By the way it's the Democratic leadership (stop following Limbaugh; think for yourself).
You don't get it. The Iraqis don't want us there. Bush has decimated their country killing and wounding countless of them and relegating millions to refugee status. If there is a hell, he'll be side by side with Saddam.
Also, Bush's invasion of Iraq has caused resentment towards us not only in the Middle East but around the would which makes it harder for us in the "war on terror" (I hate that term). Bush and McCain have put the U.S. in a more awkward and dangerous position because of their asinine decision to invade and to continue occupying that country.
Victory in the war on terrorism has many definitions...unlike a football game with a determined amount of time to proclaim a winner...after looking at the scoreboard.
And those definitions are...?
So we're about to elect a new CIC who will lead the efforts in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere. As a conservative, I won't be voting for Obama but I'm not yet commited to McCain...for a lot of reasons.
The Iraqis will lead the effort in Iraq as it should have been years ago and will be under an Obama administration. The Afghan situation will get more attention and we may find the Al Qaeda leadership. We can also repair our reputation around the world.
But on the issue of fighting a war against terrorism...McCain is my choice.
McCain is a Neocon through and through. He will fan the flames of extremism making America less safe and that's the last thing we need.
If the war in Afghanistan gets tough will Obama have the nerve to continue the fight or will he declare that we give up and go home?
I don't think we should stay too long in Afghanstan. We ferment more and more hatred by staying in that part of the world. We should take out the Al Qaeda leadership and leave.
This is not about Pres.Bush and the past...it's about the future.
You stay in the past by voting for McCain.
and most importantly he will be asked to define victory or defeat...something he has yet to do.
I don't think he defines this because victory or defeat have no basis here. The Iraqis have to take responsible for their country and they have been willing to do this for years now and they'll ultimately chose what path they take. We can't stay there and babysit adults.
WESLEY - "This is not about Pres.Bush and the past...it's about the future."
And what is WESLEY's future vision?
"My friends, if elected, I promise longer recess, chocolate milk in the cafeteria, and new jungle gyms!"
(crowd) Yaaaayyyyyy!!!!
They're stubborn; they're willful; and they don't give a dam@#.
...And that's REALLY the change we can believe in, if Mac & Cheesecake win the Whitehouse.
You think Bush has been incompetent? You ain't seen nothin', yet.
Wesley, we will agree to disagree. But I am not in the camp of the ends justify the means. The problem with this thread is that there were no AQ in Iraq until we invaded therefore we created AQ in Iraq and up to now too many people have died.
What scares me about McCain as CIC is that he seems ready and most assuredly willing to have victory elsewhere..Georgia/Russia comes to mind. I pray that if McCain wins, he talks with the Russians instead of calling them names. We've got to remember that they have nuclear weapons and the really bad guys want nuclear weapons. But that is for another day.
Goodnight and thanx for your explanation and for not writing, RIGHT, ABOSLUTLEY. Always a pleasure.
Your leader sayeth different than you.
This is the difference between conservatives and liberals. When your leaders say something, you conform. When our leaders say something, we question first and either conform or rebel. As a matter a fact, these politicians are working for us and therefore should conform to our beliefs.
Please see my other post.
And by the way, Obama is not my leader.
Nor mine. He's just the guy that I think would be best to preside over the operations of this country.
It's the right that needs a leader to string a rope through their nose ring and drag them around so they feel like they're going somewhere.
Geez, it sucks to live in a country where the cattle can vote.
Aug 20, 2008
BAGHDAD (AP) — Iraqi and U.S. negotiators have finished work on a draft security agreement that would see all American troops leave Iraqi cities by June 30 and the rest of the country by the end of 2011, Iraqi officials said Wednesday.
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gkx-3oYeFwuWKCusr2jrojs98w8wD92M6IH81
A direct result of a successful surge.
Your leader sayeth different than you
One of those precious nuggets that offer sparkling clear views of right-wing thought processes. They can't conceive of independent opinions, there must always be "the leader" who tells them what to think. They have their various mills turning out pre-digested pap for them to swallow; for some it's the Bush gang, other have their Hannitys, their Rushes, their Fox Newses.
Because they think that way, they figure everyone else does and so can't imagine anyone on the left not simply repeating whatever "the leader" says.
-- "It's fine with me, as long as it's condition-based," McCain said in an interview. "The agreement, I'm sure, will be condition-based. And the fact is that we have succeeded. And we're winning. And whenever you win wars, the troops come home." -- Des Moines Register Aug08
This is a lie. The Iraqis have been saying for years now for us to get the f--k out but the Bush administration and McCain have forbidden it as though the Iraqis have no say in the matter.
Did we make al queda go away or did the Iraqis? Iraq was not a hot bed for islamic terrorist before the invasion. When the dust settles it will be OBVIOUS that in the chaos of our unnecessary invasion, these groups got a foothold there. It is also OBVIOUS that many Iraqi's themselves do not like groups that blow people up indescriminately. If anything, it seems the Iraqis are tired of killing each other, especially since the killing fields have already separated the various ethnic groups into enclaves with maybe millions of refugees cleared out of the way. The ultimate political settlement within the country still remains to be resolved however.
The responsible thing to do would be to clean up the mess we have made. If you think that is the purpose of the surge, we have a long way to go. I have trouble with the concept of victory here anyway. Do we win when the Iraqis stop killing each other? Killing us? Having groups calling themselves al queda? Give us access to oil? Have a democracy? Have a dictatorship that is allied to us? Become republicans? Become christians?
I am no native English speaker but I learnt that a win, a success and a victory are all synonymous. It is not theoretically possible to be winning and have already had success.
These are just buzz words so stupid patriots can vote for the Republican party. They have been playing this game for a long time.
Hopefully, it will not work this time.
Roll up!! Roll up!!
Come one, come all!! Come and see as a right wing troll in a stunning peice of irony actually tries to defend his position by claiming that someone who is against his arguement is going to use a tactic which is a favorite of one of the most often quoted right wing blowhards in America, a man who if he told you he had a talking parrot you would stick your hand up it's rear end to make sure there wasn't a tape recorder there!! Ladies and gentlemen l give you Wesley, who manages to post without any form a self awareness the following:
"Now it's time for you to do your best Hannity impersonation and go get the 100 year quote...or some other such nonsense."
Well people now we know, denile is just a river in Egypt and Irony is a misspelt element on the preiodic table. Thank you wesley, don't forget to remind the peole to tip their waitress before they leave and pleae, try the fish!!
Well people now we know, denile is just a river in Egypt and Irony is a misspelt element on the preiodic table. Thank you wesley, don't forget to remind the peole to tip their waitress before they leave and pleae, try the fish!!
That should read:
Well people now we know, denile is just a river in Egypt and Irony is a misspelt element on the periodic table. Thank you wesley, don't forget to remind the people to tip their waitress before they leave and please, try the fish!!
Damn these 2am postings!!
Now we are all getting on the same page after the surge caused the defeat of al-Qaeda...and Obama agrees that they are defeated, "right, absolutely".
Again, we were/are fighting Iraqis who don't want us in their country. The sooner we get out and leave them to their affairs, the better.
Your statement is so breathtakingly silly it's hard to know where to start.
When the invasion of Iraq started there were NO Al Qaeda in Iraq. They went there SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE we were in Iraq. When it was pointed out that more troops were needed rightwing politicians fell in lockstep with the bush administration and berated anyone who suggested that they were needed. After 4 years and nothing moving forward a combination of bribes to Al Sadr and other Sunni and Shite leaders, the Ambar Awakening, along with a "temporary increase" of troops who were there "to ensure that the Iraqi govenrment could take control of the country", gave the chance to remove Al Qaeda from Iraq who went back to their main strongholds in Afganistan (where they have dug in and will be harder to remove). Is that the surge you are on about? The one that REPUBLICANS WERE AGAINST AT THE BEGINNING? It's been said before and needs repeating, self serving lying hypocrites.
Did I miss Al Qeada's unconditional surrender?
Dishonest as usual, fellers.
-- Right. Absolutely. -- Obama
See, wes? That's how it looks when you crop it down to the phrase with the queston mark after it, and the answer.Your cropping wasn't very accurate.
Sorry for the false alarm, King. Now the case is closed.
"I think you were desperately wrong on the surge"...Right.Absolutely
"I think you should admit it to the nation that now, we have defeated the terrorists in Iraq"...Right. Absolutely.
"the Al Qaeda came there after we invaded, as you know."...Right. Absolutely
"We've defeated them."...Right. Absolutely
Thanks for the tip...since some have a problem comprehending a multi-part paragraph...this should simplify things...Right. Absolutely.
Mary,
Obama was obviously befuddled when asked for a direct response...one that he knew would anger the far left if he answered it honestly. The condensed version of his response:
-- But if were up to you, there wouldn't have been a surge.-- BOR
-- Well, look...No, no, no, no, no, no, no...No, no, no, no. Hold on... Hold on a second, Bill -- Obama
In the political world I certainly don't need Obama to admit he was wrong about the surge...it's already evident. I also agree with Obama that the Iraqis need to do more on their end and take advantage of the reduced violence...that is clearly evident as well.
The Iraqis have been given the opportunity to carry their own weight...a situation that would not have happened without the surge.
Based on Obama's military judgement concerning the surge in Iraq...it only makes me wonder how he will handle his own proposed surge in Afghanistan if he is elected CIC.
The Iraqis have been given the opportunity to carry their own weight...a situation that would not have happened without the surge.
Why do you talk down to the Iraqis? They didn't need our help; they can handle the situation by themselves and they've been screaming this for years now.
Based on Obama's military judgement concerning the surge in Iraq...it only makes me wonder how he will handle his own proposed surge in Afghanistan if he is elected CIC.
Why do you think he opposed the "surge" in Iraq but has supported a "surge" in Afghanistan for years now?
Just what we need...a CIC who leads with nuanced orders...that's pretty funny, Mary.
You feel that Obama's sputtering reply to BOR was evidence of a nuanced view with thought, diplomacy and decency...fine with me.
He looked to me like an ordinary politician trying to double talk his way out of a bad situation.
Just what we need...a CIC who leads with nuanced orders...that's pretty funny, Mary.
In other words you want a president who is stuck on stupid.
Her comment stated nuanced views. Views, discussion, thought processes, negotiation and diplomacy demand nuance. That takes place before a decision is made. Once a decision is made, then a direct order is given.
Thanks Worrier. That's exactly so. Talking to Bill O'reilly and giving orders as Commander in Chief are in no way comparable.
The old debating technique of demanding a yes or no answer to a question that can't be answered that way makes for great theater for folks that don't want to think things through.
Here's a few examples: Has 9/11 made us safer? Yes or no Is our children learning? yes or no Is logging good for the economy? yes or no etc.
Aug 20, 2008
BAGHDAD (AP) — Iraqi and U.S. negotiators have finished work on a draft security agreement that would see all American troops leave Iraqi cities by June 30 and the rest of the country by the end of 2011, Iraqi officials said Wednesday.
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gkx-3oYeFwuWKCusr2jrojs98w8wD92M6IH81
A direct result of a successful surge.
Aug 20, 2008
BAGHDAD (AP) — Iraqi and U.S. negotiators have finished work on a draft security agreement that would see all American troops leave Iraqi cities by June 30 and the rest of the country by the end of 2011, Iraqi officials said Wednesday.
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gkx-3oYeFwuWKCusr2jrojs98w8wD92M6IH81
A direct result of a successful surge.
Are you kidding me?
How willfully ignorant are you?
Even your girl Sarah Palin knows that terrorism is not to be defeated militarily. In her acceptance complaint (it wasn't a speech) at the convention he flubbed. She said, "Al Qaeda terrorists still plot to inflict catastrophic harm on America"
Doesn't sound like terrorism has been defeated to me.
Listen, you're pretty much an authoritarian asshole, wes, too scared to admit that terrorism will always be with us. So you're willing to say any lie and dissemble reality to still your trembling soul.
You're deceiving yourself, wes, but you have no right to peddle you deceptions to the brave people who do not run from the real world.
So first ABC edit the McCain interview conmtrary to their policies to make it seem as if he gave a different answer, then they distort what Obama said to make it seem that he agreed with McCain? And this is what right wingers who post here say is part of the "liberal media"?
I wonder what all the supporters of McCain-Palin have to say about thefact that she will not be available for interviews with th press for TWO WEEKS? Can you believe that? This woman is running for VP and (god forbid) if McCain wins could take over if anything happens to him and she cannot face questions for two weeks? To quote Andrew Sullivan:
"Can you imagine Hillary Clinton saying she wasn't going to answer questions for two weeks? Or Margaret Thatcher? Or Kay Bailey Hutchison? Or Elizabeth Dole? And none of these women were ever as close to global power as Sarah Palin now is. This is getting to Manchurian Candidate levels of creepiness. It's deeply sinister and slightly terrifying."
I wonder what all the supporters of McCain-Palin have to say about thefact that she will not be available for interviews with th press for TWO WEEKS?
It seems McCain has lied again. She's not ready on day one, day two or week two and most likely year one. Obama should use this in an ad but the main focus should be McCain's judgement and temperament.
I have mixed feelings about non-wingnuts appearing on Fox.Yeah, it gives Fox some credibility they don't deserve, but I don't see much harm being done.
If Obama doesn't go on, BilldO & Sissy Sean sit around squawking that he's "afraid", and the Fox audience, looking for another way to excuse their GOP vote, is satisfied.It doesn't change any minds if he doesn't go on.
If Obama does go on ( as illustrated above), he's naturally subjected to some simpleton line of questioning from BilldO, allowing Fox to squeeze out a partial quote that feeds their audience what they want.
The O'Reilly interview is only reinforcement for those who had their minds made up a long time ago. Those watching who haven't drunk the Kool Aid, those with critical thinking skills left, see the sham for what it is. Fox is good for a laugh, but anybody voting based on what they hear on Fox is probably a Republican already.
If Obama doesn't go on, BilldO & Sissy Sean sit around squawking that he's "afraid", and the Fox audience, looking for another way to excuse their GOP vote, is satisfied.It doesn't change any minds if he doesn't go on.
You may care about this, I don't.
Hey Loonz, I'm not sure what you're saying. My point was that the Fox Faithful believe whatever they're told, and aren't going to see more than the superficial "gotcha" quote here. Those who are willing to believe that Obama is scared to go on Fox are the same ones who will believe he contradicted his earlier position, or vindicated Bush & Co., in this interview.
Obama, or any Democrat, going on Fox doesn't bother me so long as they stay tough. Mike Papantonio goes on Fox and explicitly shows them to be the liars, creeps and neo-fascists they are.
I like making Fox our bitch, like we did with the debates. Screw 'em. Make them acquiesce to our terms, they deserve no respect.
My first impression is that Obama, however, did not do us any favors. He committed the fatal error of public speaking, he didn't know his audience. Fox viewers, like the saddleback crowd, just don't do nuance. While Obama is a principled and disciplined man, he didn't successfully distill his words and put O'Reilly on the defensive the way O'Reilly did to him.
First, never use the Republican frame, it's false and is designed in focus groups to limit the way we perceive the situation. That means, surge and war, are poison words.
Obama's position seems to be that the escalation has quelled violence yet there is no political reconciliation. So go for the throat. Let O'Reilly know that the invasion of Iraq was a mistake that has helped ruin our economy. That violence is down, now is the time for political solutions and if history has shown us anything, it's that Republicans can only be counted on to fail at political leadership.
Just some thoughts, it's not like I'm an adviser. You know, those guys who keep running every Democratic presidential campaign into the ground with the same old nuanced advice?
Let O'Reilly know that the invasion of Iraq was a mistake that has helped ruin our economy.
And made America less safe.
and very excited that Palin changed the game too.
These guys were so depressed with McCain, they would have been double excited if Paris was the VP nominee, instead of a 44 year old soon to be grand mother.
Isn't this the same strategy that they used to indoctrinate Geogre Bush. KKKarl Rove and George went "packing" into seclusion so KKKArl could school him on three subjects which George was to use to answer any questions. In the debates with Kerry, you could ask George about Russia and he'd talk about Education. Keep an eye on this and let's she if Ms Reform 2008 follows the company line. Hell, she already has. For example...Gov. Pailn, what is you stand on the occupation of Iraq? "Well, I am a lifetime member of the NRA." Gov. Palin, you have not mentioned healthcare since your nomination. "Well, did I tell you that I eat Moose?" Just listen to her debate.....Of course, she is much brighter than George so she may be up to 4 subjects.
It is impossibile for me to understand why the American media has to oversimplify something as complicated as "the surge!" Obama has tried to explain numerous times that "the surge" is not just one thing--an increase in troops. It is also strongly related to the Sunni Awakening, and al Sadr's pulling back his troops. Of course, it is no small thing that we have been PAYING former Iraqi insurgents NOT to attack us. Very, very complicated!!! And this cannot be reduced to"Did you make a mistake in not supporting the surge???" This is just incredibly dumbed down questioning from pundits who have drunk too much of the Kool Aid! Please give some of us the credit for keeping up on what this is all about!!!!! Even if you have not! My faith in American intelligence and critical thinking is rapidly disappearing!!!
Kate Madison - Depoe Bay, Oregon
K
1) O’Reilly didn’t ask Obama to apologize, he asked him to admit that he was wrong to oppose the surge, Obama refused and when asked why he went into a garbled song and dance, first appearing to diss our Iraqi allies, many of whom have been fighting and dying alongside our troops for a long time now, claiming the “Iraqis still haven't taken responsibility,” then saying something about not having reconciliation before throwing in the still high cost of the war, all red herrings because those points and an admission that he was wrong are not mutually exclusive. The bottom line is that if Obama had been commander in chief and had his way, we would have withdrawn our forces without a surge and Iraq would almost certainly today be in utter chaos, with al Qaeda running the show and a true ethnic cleaning underway the likes of which the world has not seen since Pol Pot.
2) O’Reilly has said many times that he now feels he was wrong to support the invasion of Iraq, and O’Reilly repeated his admission to Obama before asking him why he could not bring himself to make a similar statement
3) Obama’s apparent diss of the Iraqis for not having taken responsibility comes just days after the US handover to Iraq of Anbar, the former al Qaeda in Iraq stronghold, and the 11th of 18 provinces to return to Iraqi control. I guess he was too busy preparing the speech he wanted to give at the Brandenburg Gate during the really important part of his Rockstar European Tour, and didn’t pay much attention to what was going on while he was in Iraq.
4) Here’s a fact check for Media Matters: Obama claimed “I've already said, it's succeeded beyond our wildest dreams." When did he do this? I found a quote where Obama said “It is my assessment that the surge has not worked,” but nothing close to “beyond our wildest dreams.” I’m not sure who he thinks “our” is anyway, a lot of us knew the surge would work, including John McCain.
5) Those of you who say the surge is not the reason we are winning the war remind me of my democratic friedns in the early 90s who would deny that Reagan ended the cold war, despite the fact that when he took office a decade earlier he said he was going to do just that... and by God, he did it. ;-)
Reagan played a part. As did Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter and Bush Sr.
Also, Afghanistan played a role. It was the Soviet Unions Vietnam. The people of the Soviet Union, like we did, tired of seeing their young men coming home in bags.
obama..obama..obama..obama... the messiah has spoken on the surge. we must covet the wisdom of the mighty messiah..obama..obma..obma.
"and a light will come down that a light will shine through that window, a beam of light will come down upon you, you will experience an epiphany..and you will suddenly realize that you must go to the polls and vote for Obama"
Barrack Obama,
Newsweek January 31, 2008
African American running for POTUS: I am NOT the Messiah!
Right wing stooge & weatherman on Murdoch morning cable show: I say you are Lord, and I should know. I've followed a few.
African American running for POTUS: I'm not the Messiah! Will you please listen? I am not the Messiah, do you understand? Honestly!
Blonde air-headed right wing news model : Only the true Messiah denies His divinity.
African American running for POTUS: What? Well, what sort of chance does that give me? All right! I am the Messiah!
Moronic viewers of Murdoch morning cable show who believe everything right wingers tell them: He is! He is the Messiah!
African American running for POTUS: Now, fcuk off!
[silence]
Right wing stooge & weatherman on Murdoch morning cable show: How shall we fcuk off, O Lord?
If UK helped write "the Life of Brian", he IS the messiah.
Give us a sign...
(stolen from MP'sLOB)
I did not come up with this, but think it's appropriate to repeat.
Congratulating the Bush Administration for the success of the surge, is like congratulating an arsonist for putting out his own fire.
Because mistakes are part of life. It was a bad, bad, bad mistake that he made okay. I'm not arguing that. But does that mean he should automatically not be considered for president. As a senator you have to make choices. And tough choices. You will not get them right all the time. This is no reason to exclude him from President because if you did so you would have to exclude half the senate as well.
What is the matter with you people. Don't you think or do you let mmfa think for you ? I'm not saying vote for McCain but look at all the issues right now and what is best for you and your family and future generations. Stop drinking the kool aid. Because people Hate McCain they will put a very inexperienced, man, who does have questionable personal friendships in the white house.
Dont let AxelRod control your mind with his hypnotizing crap. What is this 1984 in real life ? Or do we have the end of the world where Sarah Palin is the second coming of christ out to cast the false prophet into the well ?
It's obvious if you read the articles and the threads that people are thinking for themselves. If you want to insult people, you've succeeded. Most of us think that you've accepted a false image created by the right wing attack machine and promoted unconsciously by the corporate press. If you think that McCain is better than his campaign suggests, I'd like to see some evidence.
Throwing out a lot of phrases and opinions does not equate to intelligent thought.
I don't know what to think but I have come to my own conclusions based on evidence from many sources.
Have you ever read Eckhart Toole ? Why is Oprah promoting him so much ? What does Eckhart Toole say about the human mind ? I will tell you but you can research yourself if you wish. First is that he says the mind is not good for humans, that for the world to be in utopia we have to learn not to take our thoughts to seriously. Now is Oprah big time friends with Barrack right ... Now how do you sell a false prophet ? Stop people from thinking helps a lot doesn't it. These are my talking points only. Let me ask you something else do you know what idealism is ? Do you know what realism is ? Do you know the difference ? Do you know the background of Axelrod ? Is he an idealist ? What is the philsophy of Ayn Rand - is she a realist ? Yes to both. Now is Sarah Palin the second coming of Christ.... is AxelRod Jewish ... ?
I don't know what to think but I have come to my own conclusions based on evidence from many sources.
Who are you kidding?
Now how do you sell a false prophet ? Stop people from thinking helps a lot doesn't it. These are my talking points only.
The only claiming he's a prophet is the far right. There's something wrong with you people.
Let me ask you something else do you know what idealism is ? Do you know what realism is ? Do you know the difference ? Do you know the background of Axelrod ? Is he an idealist ? What is the philsophy of Ayn Rand - is she a realist ? Yes to both. Now is Sarah Palin the second coming of Christ.... is AxelRod Jewish ... ?
What the hell are you babbling about?
Okay all I have to say is pull the lever for the Messiah and get the 666 stamped on your forehead, pull for the other side and you are saved, and do not vote see you in whatever the middle is called.. purgatory ?
I can't say which side is right for sure, obviously both drinking the kool aid, but I'm taking my chances with Sarah and the First Dude.
And btw why do you think this amazing woman transferred schools six times before getting her degree. That is mysterious big time. Is it a plus or a minus. How come nobody has any info on her at this time. This is the better than Harry Potter ..
Later my fellow kool aid drinkers.
SKETTLE, that "little/bad mistake they made have caused over 4400 soldiers and 1000's of civilians to lose their lives. Only an brain-dead individual would call it a bad mistake. It is criminal. I would imagine that you do not have any relatives or friends who were killed in Iraq...You must realize that dead soldiers in video games don't count.
By the way, who has paid for this mistake. McCain uses it to win the presidency..which he will do anything to win.
Hillary voted too ! So then we must exclude her I guess as well...
Okay all I have to say is pull the lever for the Messiah and get the 666 stamped on your forehead
Why do you believe Obama is the Messiah?
I can't say which side is right for sure, obviously both drinking the kool aid, but I'm taking my chances with Sarah and the First Dude.
First dude could die in office from a condition called old age and then you'll be left with Palin who apparently knows nothing about government and world affairs and can't articulate or doesn't know her positions on any issue.
And btw why do you think this amazing woman transferred schools six times before getting her degree. That is mysterious big time. Is it a plus or a minus. How come nobody has any info on her at this time. This is the better than Harry Potter ..
Huh?
Skettle, are you a Christian? If you are, and you REALLY believe Obama is the Messiah, then why are you not voting for him? Do you hate Christ?
If, on the other hand, you believe him to be the ANTI-CHRIST instead (which is more likely from the 666 quip), then why are you not voting for him? Do you not want the rapture to happen? If you're a Christian, you certainly want to hasten armeggedon, no?
Or perhaps, your overblown hyperbole is only fodder for you close-minded thinking.
Seriously, have you ever read Revelations? Studied it? Do you understand that conflating getting 666 tattooed on you from the Messiah is completely a$$-backwards from any cognizant thought or reasoning? Are you really this stupid?
Skettle, yes I have a copy of The Power of Now. Atlas Shrugged is bizarre and unreal. The zealots who believe in her world view are delusional. You seem confused and all over the map, but convinced that name dropping and intellectuallizing equate to intelligent thought.
You seem to be trying to express the thought that people project onto their candidate what they want to believe rather than what is. Well golly gee. I suggest that your projection about McCain is rather classic wishful thinking. I see nothing positive about his current pandering self and rigidity.
So do I have both books. I have read both. Do you think it is a coincidence that Oprah pushes Tolle and Obama and Oprah are good friends. Do you think it is a coincidence that AxelRod loves idealism. Do you think it is a coincidence that idealism is the opposite of Realism ?
If you read "The Power of Now" what does it teach you ? How to live in the now and accept the now. Makes you open to accepting things. Now do you think it is easier or not easier to hypnotize someone that is accepting ?
I'm not saying vote for McCain but look at all the issues right now and what is best for you and your family and future generations.
We are and that's why a McCain presidency is the last thing we need. His adoption of Neocon policy will make us less safe; he will leave us swimming in deficits; he'll continue our use of fossil fuels when we should be moving over to a green economy; Americans will either have no healthcare or healthcare rationed by insurance companies; he'll shipped more American jobs overseas; the rich will continue to prosper while everyone else falters; his rash judgment and erratic temperament is a dangerous combination; and his vice presidential pick is someone who has to be prepped and told what her positions are on issues important to the citizenry. In summary, a McCain presidency would be equivalent to a third Bush term.
Because people Hate McCain they will put a very inexperienced, man, who does have questionable personal friendships in the white house
LOL
DO you even try to think before you post this sh*t?
So far, he hasn't admitted to any of them.
Days after 9/11, he inferred that Iraq was behind the attacks. He's never admitted that mistake as far as I know.
He supported the war from the beginning, never admitting that his initial assessment was wrong. He also claimed it would be quick, easy and relatively bloodless.
He hasn't given his full support to increasing veterans benefits. He said the Webb bill was too generous and would cause military personnel to stop re-uping.
This shows that he's more concerned with the war then the troops. He supports the war but not the troops.
Everyone can make a mistake but McCain has been on both sides of every issue in the last 8 years. Are his stands on the issues today a mistake or were his positions in the past mistakes?
We consider the evidence MMfa puts out, then respond in many ways. You don't see equivilent conservative sites or groups anywhere.
You could take a half adozen regulars of any stripe and produce a better news show with them than pretty much any of the established corporate drones.
Your SIDE?!?
Thanks for laying out so honestly. You are a partisan zombie, long since arrived at your place of comfort by simply skipping over the facts that the left and right argue each day.
You, being of obvously supreme intellect, have already weighed all the facts and reached a conclusion long before the congregation of lesser minds can sort them out. And your conclusion is that Obama, being the anti-christ, will rain hell and misery upon this nation if he is elected.
In that case, I suggest you let this nation of intellectual lessers perish of its own accord. Being of such advanced design (it would be laughable to suggest that you "evolved" into a species of such accelerated perception from one as dense as ourselves), you will probably want to begin populating a new land with the genetics of your own, sans the risk of polluting it with inferior ones courtesy of the misfortune of a night of drunken revelry among the feral hordes pursuing injudicious romance.
Go then, with haste, lest thy temptations allow thy blood become tainted with the impure bodily fluids of the common folk. Let not satan's breath move a single hair upon thine angelic head, as he drags the last remaining vile souls to the nether world of eternal agony. I beseech thee, begin mankind anew in fresh lands safely away from these United States of Ba'al, and allow us to perish by our own hands and ignorance.
A crucial element in the fall of violence from the catastrophic levels of summer,2006, was the ethnic cleansing of Baghdad of its Sunnis. I wrote in mid-July:
"As best I can piece it together, what actually seems to have happened was that the escalation troops began by disarming the Sunni Arabs in Baghdad. Once these Sunnis were left helpless, the Shiite militias came in at night and ethnically cleansed them. Shaab district near Adhamiya had been a mixed neighborhood. It ended up with almost no Sunnis. Baghdad in the course of 2007 went from 65% Shiite to at least 75% Shiite and maybe more. My thesis would be that the US inadvertently allowed the chasing of hundreds of thousands of Sunni Arabs out of Baghdad (and many of them had to go all the way to Syria for refuge). Rates of violence declined once the ethnic cleansing was far advanced, just because there were fewer mixed neighborhoods. Newsrack was among the first to make this argument, though I was tracking the ethnic cleansing at my blog throughout 2007. See also Karen DeYoung of the Washington Post on this issue.". . .
As Think Progress pointed out,the Washington Post illustrated Karen DeYoung's important article with a clear ethnic map showing the ethnic cleansing:
The point is not that there are no Sunni enclaves left in Baghdad, only that there are many fewer such enclaves, and that many formerly mixed neighborhoods are now entirely Shiite. In fact, this ethnic cleansing is among the major reason that the some 4 million Iraqis displaced internally and externally by Bush's war refuse to return. They have nothing to return to. The mixed or Sunni neighborhoods from which the Sunnis among them escaped no longer exist. A fourth of the Iraqi refugees in Jordan have, moreover, had a child kidnapped. Even if the child was returned, the family is not going to risk returning.
In my earlier post, I also quoted this:
"As Think Progress quoted CNN correspondent Michael Ware:
"
McCain and ideologues such as Fred Kagan must deny or ignore the ethnic cleansing of Baghdad and other areas, and ignore the millions of Iraqis now living abroad or in other provinces, many of them in dire straits, because their Rambo complex forces them to insist that an extra 30,000 US troops, inserted for 16 months, made all the difference
Cons say that the troop surge is "working"
While Iraq's oil deal with China is lurking
Ethnic cleansing and cease-fires,
payoffs, refugees and quagmires,
Dollars for the war machine perking.
Obama needed to stick to his guns entirely. He was against the Iraq war from the start. It's been a disaster on all fronts. But all O'Really wants to discuss is what happened the past 20 months of a 65 month war. That's like focusing on a train wreck and the 20 train cars that didn't burst into flames while watching the other 45 burn. Meanwhile, it was Obama who had the wisdom to never deploy the train in the first place.
Randy
Obama ad suggestion:
John McCain has been leading the charge to justify the war in Iraq even after he found out President Bush launched the invasion based on a lie about weapons of mass destruction. Senator McCain just said everyone else believed Saddam had those weapons when we invaded.
Here's what his running mate, Governor Palin, says about John McCain's kind of logic (show video clip): "I guess when you turn out to be profoundly wrong on a vital national security issue, maybe it's comforting to pretend that everyone else was wrong, too."
Now there's a message I approve.
I agree McCain is by far the best man for the job, he also has run a far cleaner race choosing not to be involved in most of the ignorant actions of the other 2. I understand that it is time consuming to look up each persons history but how can any american make a intelligent vote with only the persons word, if you come to my store and I tell you how honest I am only to sell you something that did not hold up and then refused to refund your money, would you ever do business with me again? Likewise the same with politicians, which is why I made the Hitler statement, talk is cheap it means nothing it is your track record that counts, Obama has told so many lies he forgets what he says, this guy tried to play the race card and it backfired in his face. He is pathetic a poor excuse for an American citizen let alone someone who WANTS TO RUN THIS COUNTRY.
He has convinced himself that is something special because he was raised by a white woman many black children are raised by white families, had he or his stupid staff bothered to do some homework they would have found that more white people adopt black children from tired world countries than any other group.
But I do not see him as some savior for the masses in any way that office is not about color or women ’s rights it is about making this country a force in the world like it used to be.
The dollar is at the bottom in so many countries, people are so stupid they don't realize that if you do not FIGHT FOR FREEDOM it will be TAKEN AWAY, there will ALWAYS be some power crazed maniac somewhere who thinks they have the right to control you.
Any person who comes to this country and was born in this country and reaps the reward for doing so better be ready to fight for the freedom that OUR FOREFATHERS Fought and died for, and moron who does not believe had better get a clue before it is too late, I hate war everyone hates war BUT it is a terrible fact of life and has always been so since the beginning of man.
i just saw their TV ads in pollclash and its getting warmer this time. well you can see the TV ads in http://pollclash.com