US 2008 Presidential Campaign/Debate Discussion Thread #6 - Page 44 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 07-14-2008, 11:28 PM   #646
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 05:49 PM
Harry Vest

this one's for you

Quote:
Clinton: GOP Should Apologize to America

By Perry Bacon Jr.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton has a new stump speech. In Chicago Saturday for the American Federation of Teachers conference, Clinton praised Sen. Barack Obama, used humor to poke at President Bush, Sen. John McCain and the GOP, and sounded wistful about her own presidential run.

Obama was also in Chicago on Saturday, and addressed the conference by satellite today. But Clinton, who received the AFT's backing during the primary, appeared in Obama's hometown yesterday to speak highly of her former rival before an audience of her supporters.

"I can't wait to see Barack raise his hand, take that oath of office and get to work," she told several thousand educators at the conference.

And she jabbed at the Republicans, using a line that drew such applause when Clinton used it earlier this week in New York that Obama borrowed it when he spoke at an event without Clinton on Thursday in Virginia.

"Our president goes to Japan four months before the election that will finally show him the door and says he's going to take global warming seriously," Clinton said. "Then as he's leaving the G-8 conference, says to people around him, 'Goodbye from the biggest polluter world in the world.' You've got to ask yourself, how did this happen to our country?"

Clinton said the last eight years had many "highlights."

"A vice-president who shoots somebody in the face, you couldn't make that up," Clinton said to laughter.

She added, "the Republicans should hold a press conference and apologize to the country and say they're just not going to run anyone for president."
__________________

__________________
deep is offline  
Old 07-15-2008, 12:15 AM   #647
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,496
Local Time: 08:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by maycocksean View Post
No, no, no! It's withdrawal "without preconditions and regardless of the situation on the ground" (or something like that). That phrase is very important, you see. It frames the argument, and our GOP operative on the forum is a master of framing the argument in ways that serve his interests.



and too bad that Obama said the following in October of 2006:

Quote:
I am not suggesting this timetable be overly rigid. ... The redeployment could be temporarily suspended if the parties in Iraq reach an effective political arrangement that stabilizes the situation and offers us a clear and compelling rationale for maintaining current troop levels. ... In such a scenario, it is conceivable that a significantly reduced U.S. force might remain in Iraq for a more extended period of time.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 07-15-2008, 02:48 AM   #648
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 08:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diemen View Post
This is false. His speech, the one your previous posted article responded to, says he would take into consideration conditions on the ground. Now that you're using a demonstrably false talking point, care to respond without talking about a lack of prerequisites or conditions?

My guess is he's going to explain how in fact Obama will NOT take into consideration conditions on the ground regardless of what he said and go back to talking about a lack of prerequisites or conditions.

Strongbow/STING2 is nothing if not the most consistently "on-message" poster in all of FYM.

Wait for it. . .
__________________
maycocksean is offline  
Old 07-15-2008, 03:04 PM   #649
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,496
Local Time: 08:49 PM
once again, the Republicans are following Obama's lead and trying to claim it as their own ...


Quote:
McCain Will Call for a Surge of Troops to Afghanistan

By ELI LAKE, Staff Reporter of the Sun | July 15, 2008


WASHINGTON — Senator McCain will announce plans today for an Iraq-style "surge" of troops in Afghanistan.

An adviser to the campaign told The New York Sun that, in a speech to be delivered in Albuquerque, N.M., the senator will call for an increase in combat troops and the creation of a special Afghanistan tsar to coordinate policy toward the country. "There will be a surge for Afghanistan. It will be moving combat troops in and applying the lessons from Iraq and the strategy that was successful in Iraq and taking that to Afghanistan," this official said.

Mr. McCain has been reluctant to discuss in public what he would do with Afghanistan's neighbor, Pakistan, where reserve Taliban fighters in the tens of thousands are said to reside unmolested in safe havens created after the Pakistani national army stopped fighting a counterinsurgency in these tribal areas. Mr. McCain has said he will not telegraph what his strategy would be as commander in chief toward this sensitive diplomatic and military problem.

Senator Obama has since August 2007 called for the deployment of at least two additional brigades to Afghanistan and has said he will work to cajole the Pakistani military into fighting again.

Mr. Obama's Afghanistan policy was referenced in an op-ed piece by Mr. Obama in the New York Times that reiterated the Democrat's pledge to begin the withdrawal of all combat troops from Iraq within 16 months of taking office. Mr. Obama appeared to be moving away from that stance earlier this month when he announced he would be visiting Iraq to meet with military commanders there, and would be refining his earlier position based on their input.

Mr. Obama has not called his plan for Afghanistan a "surge," the term the White House used for the deployment of more than 30,000 troops to Iraq in 2007. But the idea of an Afghan surge was first broached by a Republican rival of Mr. McCain during the primaries, Mayor Giuliani, who called in early January at a speech in New Hampshire for doubling the number of troops in Afghanistan. At the time there were 25,000 American troops in the country. Today there are approximately 33,000 troops in Afghanistan, compared to more than 150,000 in Iraq.

Mr. Giuliani's director for foreign policy, Charles Hill, in an interview yesterday said it is difficult for presidential candidates to come up with a specific number of additional troops for Afghanistan. "There are a maelstrom of numbers and estimates you can get from the Pentagon on this. Remember there are American troops, but there are also NATO forces. At the end of the day, the next president will have to rely on the commanders in the field," Mr. Hill said.

Mr. Hill, who was executive assistant to Secretary of State Shultz and is currently a professor of grand strategy at Yale, said the success of American arms in Iraq makes possible more deployments to Afghanistan. "The Iraq war is over. Wars don't come to an end the way they used to. It ended as best it can end about last December. The front has shifted to the Afghan-Pakistan border. We've chased them into that corner. That is a very different situation and difficult to handle because of the border and because the terrorists have a sanctuary there. We can't get into that sanctuary, but Pakistan does not govern it. It is a black hole in the map of world order," he said.

Mr. Hill went on to say that the exact tactics that were successful in Iraq would not necessarily apply to Afghanistan. "The surge in Iraq was really a version of clear, hold, and build. When you take territory, you hold it to keep the population secure, in some sense the people would do the rest. They would be entrepreneurial," he said. "We can't hold territory in the tribal areas of Pakistan, another way to make the surge workable on the ground has to be found, and that has to be in some form with the Pakistani military."

In the last two months the Afghan front has claimed more American soldiers than the one in Iraq. Nine American soldiers were killed over the weekend defending a base in the eastern Afghan province of Kunar from a Taliban assault. Last month, the Taliban pulled off a daring prison break near Kandahar. Last year, a national intelligence estimate on Al Qaeda said its leadership had reconstituted in the tribal provinces in Pakistan that border Afghanistan.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 07-15-2008, 05:59 PM   #650
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 05:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
WASHINGTON — Senator McCain will announce plans today for an Iraq-style "surge" of troops in Afghanistan...

Wow, this really boggles the mind

McCain was always against that Iraq "surge" ????

now, he is citing it as a success

has he no shame

What is McCain doing- some flip-flop thing ???


Next, he will be calling it refining..


I will not be surprised if we see his poll numbers go down
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 07-15-2008, 08:47 PM   #651
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,496
Local Time: 08:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by deep View Post
Wow, this really boggles the mind

McCain was always against that Iraq "surge" ????

now, he is citing it as a success

has he no shame

What is McCain doing- some flip-flop thing ???


Next, he will be calling it refining..


I will not be surprised if we see his poll numbers go down



Obama has been stressing, for years, that more troops were needed in Afghanistan. McCain is following.

where is he going to get the troops from? the "victory" in Iraq? i guess we won't get all that freed up capital to balance the budget by the end of his first term then, huh.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 07-15-2008, 08:51 PM   #652
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 11:49 AM
I don't think that more troops in Afghanistan would be very helpful when you have Zarqawi presiding over Anbar with Iran, Saudi Arabia and Turkey occupying other parts of Iraq.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 07-15-2008, 09:14 PM   #653
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 11:49 AM
Quote:
At some point, Democrats decided that facts didn’t matter anymore in Iraq. And they nominated just the man to reflect the party’s new anti-factual consensus on the war, a Barack Obama who has fixedly ignored changing conditions on the ground.

It’s gotten harder as the success of the surge has become undeniable, but — despite some wobbles — Obama is sticking to his plan for a 16-month timeline for withdrawal from Iraq. He musters dishonesty, evasion and straw-grasping to try to create a patina of respectability around a scandalously unserious position.

Obama spokesmen now say everyone knew that President Bush’s troop surge would create more security. This is blatantly false. Obama said in early 2007 that nothing in the surge plan would “make a significant dent in the sectarian violence,” and the new strategy would “not prove to be one that changes the dynamics significantly.” He referred to the surge derisively as “baby-sit(ting) a civil war.”

Now that the civil war has all but ended, he wants to claim retroactive clairvoyance. In a New York Times op-ed laying out his position, Obama credits the heroism of our troops and new tactics with bringing down the violence. Our troops have always been heroic; what made the difference was the surge strategy that Obama lacked the military judgment — or political courage — to support.

In his oped, Obama states that “the same factors that led me to oppose the surge still hold true,” citing the strain on the military, the deterioration in Afghanistan and the fiscal drain. All of those are important, but pale compared with the achievement in Iraq — beating back al-Qaida and Iranian-backed militias, and restoring a semblance of order to a country on the verge of a collapse from which only our enemies could have benefited.

Politically, Obama has to notionally support defeating al-Qaeda in Iraq, so even after he’s executed his 16-month withdrawal, he says there will be a “residual force” of American troops to take on “remnants of al-Qaida.” How can he be so sure there will only be “remnants”? If there are, it will be because the surge Obama opposed has pushed al-Qaeda to the brink. The more precipitously we withdraw our troops, the more likely al-Qaeda is to mount a comeback.

Obama treats as a vindication a recent statement by Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki calling for a timeline for withdrawal of U.S. forces. But Maliki, playing to his domestic politic audience, can’t be taken at face value. Neither Maliki nor anyone around him talks of an unconditional 16-month timeline for withdrawal as being remotely plausible. His defense minister says Iraqis will be ready to handle internal security on their own in 2012 and external security by 2020.

The Iraqis most enthusiastic about Obama’s plan surely are al-Qaeda members, Sadrists, Iranian agents and sectarian killers of every stripe. The prospect of an American president suddenly letting up on them has to be the best cause for hope they’ve had in months. Obama’s withdrawal would immediately embolden every malign actor in Iraq, and increase their sway in Iraqi politics.

In his oped, Obama sticks to the badly dated contention that Iraqis “have not reached the political accommodation that was the stated purpose of the surge.” In fact, roughly 15 of 18 political benchmarks have been met by the Iraqis — progress Obama threatens to reverse.

Obama loves to say that we have to withdraw from Iraq “responsibly.” There’s nothing responsible about his plan. According to U.S. commanders on the ground, it may not even be logistically possible. Does Obama even care? He says that when he’s elected he’d give the military a new mission — to end the war. Conditions in Iraq, let alone winning, are marginalia.

There are two possible interpretations — either Obama is dangerously sincere, or he’s a cynical operator playing duplicitous politics with matters of war and peace. Watch this space.
Rich Lowry on Barack Obama & Iraq on National Review Online

Obviously Obama is supported by terrorists, and I have it on the authority of a high profile magazine that he is in fact a terrorist.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 07-15-2008, 09:21 PM   #654
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,496
Local Time: 08:49 PM
two things struck me:
Quote:
Now that the civil war has all but ended,
so the Right is admitting this now?

and:

Quote:
the achievement in Iraq — beating back al-Qaida and Iranian-backed militias, and restoring a semblance of order to a country on the verge of a collapse from which only our enemies could have benefited.
so ... did any of this, *any* of it, exist before the invasion and failed occupation?
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 07-15-2008, 09:25 PM   #655
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 11:49 AM
Quote:
so ... did any of this, *any* of it, exist before the invasion and failed occupation?
Have your cake and eat it too, the failed occupation has created a situation that allows troops to leave without the country imploding.

As far as the existence of sectarian militias and collapse I think that the inevitable death of Saddam would have manifested them with or without America around.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 07-15-2008, 11:11 PM   #656
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,496
Local Time: 08:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by A_Wanderer View Post
Have your cake and eat it too, the failed occupation has created a situation that allows troops to leave without the country imploding.
and the success of "the surge" makes it impossible to leave?


Quote:
As far as the existence of sectarian militias and collapse I think that the inevitable death of Saddam would have manifested them with or without America around.
it would have gone to one of the boys, who would have faced a coup, and it would have fallen into the hands of another strongman.

there's be violence. but not 6 bonecrushing years of it.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 07-16-2008, 07:45 AM   #657
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,984
Local Time: 08:49 PM
News circulated fast late Tuesday afternoon that back in 1986, during his initial run for the Senate, John McCain allegedly told a crude joke about rape involving a woman's affection for an ape.

The story, which was reprised on the blog Rum, Romanism and Rebellion before being blasted out by Think Progress, goes like this: In an appearance before the National League of Cities and Towns in Washington D.C., McCain supposedly asked the crowd if they had heard "the one about the woman who is attacked on the street by a gorilla, beaten senseless, raped repeatedly and left to die?"

The punch line: "When she finally regains consciousness and tries to speak, her doctor leans over to hear her sigh contently and to feebly ask, "Where is that marvelous ape?"

Eeeshh. The joke, as one can imagine, did not go over well with various women's groups, which responded with indignation. But the McCain campaign denied that he had ever said the offensive gag.

"It's pretty obvious to us that this is a politically motivated sideshow," Torrie Clarke, McCain's spokeswoman at the time, said back in 1986. Till this day it has never been proven definitively true or false whether the Senator ever said the line.

The Huffington Post reached out to the original reporter in that story, Norma Coile (who wrote about the response to the rape joke in the Tuscon Citizen) to find out if she thought it was true.

"I'm not sure exactly what the wording was of the joke, but something was said. Some joke involving a rape and ape was said. Enough women repeated it to me at the time and the McCain campaign had a non-denial denial," said Coile, now with the Arizona Daily Star. "It came after his 'Seizure World' joke, in which he referred to the [retirement community] Leisure World as Seizure World... I just think it reinforced this idea that John McCain is humor-challenged. Whatever his qualities, he seems to have a tin ear for how these jokes will go over."

Indeed, while this anecdote occurred more than 20 years ago, McCain has occasionally found himself with his foot in his mouth throughout his time in public office. Back in 1998, he odiously declared before a GOP crowd: "Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly? Because her father is Janet Reno."

More recently he joked that it might be good for the United States to keep exporting cigarettes to Iran as cancer would prove an effective weapon against that country's citizens.

But venturing into the extremely sensitive subject of rape and humor is not something that - even 22 years later - will endear McCain to the women voters his campaign has sought to recruit. And organizations in Arizona that weighed in on that 1986 line see it as another example of the Senator not being sensitive to female issues and concerns.

"I don't think we can say one example like that is indicative of someone's character. But certainly I think John McCain has made lots of quotes where he says jokes like that," said Linda Barter, head of the Arizona Women's Political Caucus, which objected to McCain's joke at the time. "Our organizational purpose, however, is to increase the number of elected and appointed women, and we support pro-choice women, so there is certainly a division there. John McCain has not been pro-choice or supportive of issues related to women's reproductive health."
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 07-16-2008, 10:07 AM   #658
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,496
Local Time: 08:49 PM
i honestly don't care all that much if McCain tells bad jokes. i don't think McCain thinks rape is funny, and i think he'd agree, today, that the joke is offensive.

what i do take from this, however, is how shocking it is to hear what passed (or still passes) for humor amongst men of a certain age. the fact that one would make rape jokes in open company speaks to the kind of world -- and the men in it -- that i'm amazed women had to deal with as recently as the 1980s.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 07-16-2008, 10:20 AM   #659
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,984
Local Time: 08:49 PM
I don't care that he tells bad jokes either, and I'm quite sure he doesn't think rape is funny. But he should have the judgment not to make certain statements as "jokes", and he still doesn't-as witnessed multiple times. It's like "old guy thinks he's funny" and everybody laughs it off. If Sen Obama said similar things he'd be vilified for it.

It's not just the 80's, some men still make rape jokes in open company.
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 07-16-2008, 10:24 AM   #660
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,496
Local Time: 08:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrsSpringsteen View Post
I don't care that he tells bad jokes either, and I'm quite sure he doesn't think rape is funny. But he should have the judgment not to make certain statements as "jokes", and he still doesn't-as witnessed multiple times. It's like "old guy thinks he's funny" and everybody laughs it off. If Sen Obama said similar things he'd be vilified for it.

i agree. i guess i'm just amazed that it was once considered okay to make rape jokes. it boggles my mind.



Quote:
It's not just the 80's, some men still make rape jokes in open company.

i honestly have never heard one. but i'm much yonger than McCain.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:49 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com