US 2008 Presidential Campaign/Debate Discussion Thread #6 - Page 56 - 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 07-23-2008, 02:05 AM   #826
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
mobvok's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: boom clap
Posts: 4,433
Local Time: 01:13 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strongbow View Post
Iraq's national security advisor already expressed his ideas about withdrawal, all of which were conditions based, and different from anything Obama has suggested.

Everyone would prefer that the United States be able to withdraw from both Afghanistan and Iraq as soon as possible. But saying you would like to see US troops leave by x date or y date, does not mean that one has dropped the position that an US withdrawal first be based on conditions on the ground and not some arbitrary time table. The Iraqi government does not want to see US combat brigades leave before they are ready to handle the security situation on their own. They have never expressed in any way shape or form that they want US troops to leave the country regardless of the readiness of their security forces or the security on the ground.
Oh, we're not talking about Maliki anymore? With this attempt to change discussion from Maliki's position in the Der Speigel interview to whatever the National Security Advisor once said (oooh!) I'm glad to see that you now implicitly acknowledge that Maliki agrees with Obama's basic position.

30 pages ago when I and others got sick of Strongbow's endless unsubstantiated claims and called him out on it, he finally bothered to look up the Foreign Affairs article. I could ask for a source on the 2007 spending bill claims too, but that's all a distraction from the real issue: Barack Obama is currently running for President. Barack Obama is currently running for President on a plan for Iraq which is not exclusively time-based. This is undeniable. Arguing about whatever he advocated earlier is irrelevant, because he has a plan NOW that he wants to enact.

So this is wrong:
Quote:
You should ask yourself that question since you and others seem to think that Maliki no longer believes in a conditions based withdrawal and now wants an exclusively time based withdrawal like Obama.
He is not advocating that plan. He might have (for the sake of argument). But past tense is not present tense. Maliki is in agreement with Obama's position.
__________________

__________________
mobvok is offline  
Old 07-23-2008, 02:30 AM   #827
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: 04:13 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diemen View Post

Your continued pigheaded refusal to acknowledge this is jaw-dropping. Spin, spin, spin. Message, message, message. It's utterly ridiculous.
But it also has an awful kind of beauty to it, doesn't it.
__________________

__________________
maycocksean is offline  
Old 07-23-2008, 02:35 AM   #828
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: 04:13 AM
I think Irvine's articulated quite well why Obama could still oppose the surge while at the same time acknowledging that it has helped to reduce violence.

That said though, I agree that it is a little awkward politically for him to say he'd still oppose it in the face of it's "success." But it's a Hobson's choice. If he says, "Yes, it was a success" the Republicans will jump all over that and there will be an avalanche of ads trumpeting how even Obama himself has admited he was wrong but McCain was right all along. But if he says, no he'd still make the same judgement call--well, then he has to resort to the kinds of contorted answers we hear in the Couric interview which can make some question his judgement. Either way, it hurts him politically. I guess he decided the former option would hurt him more.
__________________
maycocksean is offline  
Old 07-23-2008, 02:40 AM   #829
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 01:13 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by maycocksean View Post
I think Irvine's articulated quite well why Obama could still oppose the surge while at the same time acknowledging that it has helped to reduce violence.

That said though, I agree that it is a little awkward politically for him to say he'd still oppose it in the face of it's "success." But it's a Hobson's choice. If he says, "Yes, it was a success" the Republicans will jump all over that and there will be an avalanche of ads trumpeting how even Obama himself has admited he was wrong but McCain was right all along. But if he says, no he'd still make the same judgement call--well, then he has to resort to the kinds of contorted answers we hear in the Couric interview which can make some question his judgement. Either way, it hurts him politically. I guess he decided the former option would hurt him more.

and the good judgment thing - a myth?
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 07-23-2008, 07:33 AM   #830
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,998
Local Time: 04:13 AM
Lamer than lame Senator

time.com

July 22, 2008 7:00
McCain Meltdown
Posted by Joe Klein

John McCain said this today in Rochester, New Hampshire:

This is a clear choice that the American people have. I had the courage and the judgment to say I would rather lose a political campaign than lose a war. It seems to me that Obama would rather lose a war in order to win a political campaign.
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 07-23-2008, 10:39 AM   #831
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
2861U2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: watching the Cubs
Posts: 4,255
Local Time: 04:13 AM
This made me laugh. You know all the uproar about John McCain referring to Czechoslovakia? Olbermann hasn't stopped talking about it, yet he has done the same:

OLBERMANN [11/8/2005]: Let's play Oddball....To Prague in Czechoslovakia, where the country's newest reality show...

OLBERMANN [3/22/2004]: Here are Countdown's "Top 3 Newsmakers" of this day: No. 3: Three 14-year-old school boys in Czechoslovakia...

OLBERMANN [4/12/2004]: Let's play "Oddball." In Poland, they throw water on each other in the festival of Schvingus Gingus (ph); In Czechoslovakia, they celebrate with an Easter Birching...

Olbermann Watch - MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann

Talk about an ignorant baffoon.

__________________
2861U2 is offline  
Old 07-23-2008, 10:45 AM   #832
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 07:13 PM
More from the vast right-wing conspiracy
Quote:
THE INITIAL MEDIA coverage of Barack Obama's visit to Iraq suggested that the Democratic candidate found agreement with his plan to withdraw all U.S. combat forces on a 16-month timetable. So it seems worthwhile to point out that, by Mr. Obama's own account, neither U.S. commanders nor Iraq's principal political leaders actually support his strategy.

Gen. David H. Petraeus, the architect of the dramatic turnaround in U.S. fortunes, "does not want a timetable," Mr. Obama reported with welcome candor during a news conference yesterday. In an interview with ABC, he explained that "there are deep concerns about . . . a timetable that doesn't take into account what [American commanders] anticipate might be some sort of change in conditions."

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who has a history of tailoring his public statements for political purposes, made headlines by saying he would support a withdrawal of American forces by 2010. But an Iraqi government statement made clear that Mr. Maliki's timetable would extend at least seven months beyond Mr. Obama's. More significant, it would be "a timetable which Iraqis set" -- not the Washington-imposed schedule that Mr. Obama has in mind. It would also be conditioned on the readiness of Iraqi forces, the same linkage that Gen. Petraeus seeks. As Mr. Obama put it, Mr. Maliki "wants some flexibility in terms of how that's carried out."

Other Iraqi leaders were more directly critical. As Mr. Obama acknowledged, Sunni leaders in Anbar province told him that American troops are essential to maintaining the peace among Iraq's rival sects and said they were worried about a rapid drawdown.

Mr. Obama's response is that, as president, he would have to weigh Iraq's needs against those of Afghanistan and the U.S. economy. He says that because Iraq is "a distraction" from more important problems, U.S. resources devoted to it must be curtailed. Yet he also says his aim is to "succeed in leaving Iraq to a sovereign government that can take responsibility for its own future." What if Gen. Petraeus and Iraqi leaders are right that this goal is not consistent with a 16-month timetable? Will Iraq be written off because Mr. Obama does not consider it important enough -- or will the strategy be altered?

Arguably, Mr. Obama has given himself the flexibility to adopt either course. Yesterday he denied being "so rigid and stubborn that I ignore anything that happens during the course of the 16 months," though this would be more reassuring if Mr. Obama were not rigidly and stubbornly maintaining his opposition to the successful "surge" of the past 16 months. He also pointed out that he had "deliberately avoided providing a particular number" for the residual force of Americans he says would be left behind.

Yet Mr. Obama's account of his strategic vision remains eccentric. He insists that Afghanistan is "the central front" for the United States, along with the border areas of Pakistan. But there are no known al-Qaeda bases in Afghanistan, and any additional U.S. forces sent there would not be able to operate in the Pakistani territories where Osama bin Laden is headquartered. While the United States has an interest in preventing the resurgence of the Afghan Taliban, the country's strategic importance pales beside that of Iraq, which lies at the geopolitical center of the Middle East and contains some of the world's largest oil reserves. If Mr. Obama's antiwar stance has blinded him to those realities, that could prove far more debilitating to him as president than any particular timetable.
washingtonpost.com
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 07-23-2008, 10:48 AM   #833
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 04:13 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by deep View Post
and the good judgment thing - a myth?


how was his judgment in 2002?
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 07-23-2008, 11:02 AM   #834
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 07:13 PM
That depends on his reasons for opposing the war in 2002.

Just as the reasons for supporting the Iraq war can't be viewed through the prism of No WMD, as though that makes it all a deliberate frame up on Saddam Hussein.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 07-23-2008, 11:04 AM   #835
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 04:13 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by A_Wanderer View Post
More from the vast right-wing conspiracywashingtonpost.com

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who has a history of tailoring his public statements for political purposes, made headlines by saying he would support a withdrawal of American forces by 2010. But an Iraqi government statement made clear that Mr. Maliki's timetable would extend at least seven months beyond Mr. Obama's. More significant, it would be "a timetable which Iraqis set" -- not the Washington-imposed schedule that Mr. Obama has in mind. It would also be conditioned on the readiness of Iraqi forces, the same linkage that Gen. Petraeus seeks. As Mr. Obama put it, Mr. Maliki "wants some flexibility in terms of how that's carried out."


so ... this op-ed is to have us believe that the gaping 7 month difference between Obama's 16 months and the Iraqi government's "by the end of 2010" means that they don't support Obama's plan?

this is an absolutely preposterous distinction.

if you want another, we can note that "by the end of the year" does not actually mean "the end of 2010," so this gaping 7 month difference could actually be less should things go better than expected.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 07-23-2008, 11:06 AM   #836
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 04:13 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by A_Wanderer View Post
That depends on his reasons for opposing the war in 2002.



Quote:
After September 11th, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this Administration’s pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such a tragedy from happening again.

I don’t oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other arm-chair, weekend warriors in this Administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income – to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.

That’s what I’m opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.

Now let me be clear – I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity.

He’s a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.




sounds pretty good to me.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 07-23-2008, 11:13 AM   #837
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,998
Local Time: 04:13 AM

YouTube - ¨Pump¨ TV Ad
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 07-23-2008, 11:25 AM   #838
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 03:13 AM
Well unfortunately that one will work for most of the Republican base.
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 07-23-2008, 11:45 AM   #839
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,998
Local Time: 04:13 AM

How low will they go?

Huffington Post

The McCain campaign implied on Wednesday that Barack Obama's commitment to preventing a future genocide was not sincere, attacking the Democratic candidate during his appearance at the Israeli Holocaust Memorial Yad Vashem.

In an early morning press release, entitled "Obama on Genocide," McCain aide Tucker Bounds emailed reporters a quote from Obama's appearance in which the Illinois Democrat reiterated the cry "never again." He followed that quote with one taken a year ago from an interview that the Senator gave with the Associated Press in which he said that genocide or humanitarian crises were not a prerequisite for keeping U.S. troops in Iraq (a statement he has since walked back)

"Well, look, if that's the criteria by which we are making decisions on the deployment of U.S. forces," said Obama, "then by that argument you would have 300,000 troops in the Congo right now."

The message was fairly explicit: Obama's commitment to stopping future Holocausts is in doubt. Asked for clarification, McCain aide Michael Goldfarb responded:

"Today he says 'never again.' A year ago stopping genocide wasn't a good enough reason to keep U.S. forces in Iraq. Doesn't that strike you as inconsistent?"

It's a heavy charge to make, not least because Obama had just wrapped up his visit to the Holocaust memorial. In addition, there are, for better or worse, outstanding implications when discussing genocide when it comes to Jews -- and the insertion of the issue into the presidential campaign will border for some, on the taboo. Moreover, on the topic of Iraq, Obama has said he would leave a residual force to intervene in potential humanitarian crises and that he reserves the right to intervene militarily with international partners in order to "suppress potential genocidal violence within Iraq."

"I'd love to know more about Obama's residual force," said Goldfarb, when asked about it. "How big is it, where is it based, what is its mission, how long will it remain in Iraq? Nobody knows the answers to those questions, and I'd encourage the Huffington Post to inquire further with the Obama campaign."

Here is the full press release:

Obama on Genocide

Obama today at Yad Vashem:

"Let our children come here and know this history so they can add their voices to proclaim 'never again.' And may we remember those who perished, not only as victims but also as individuals who hoped and loved and dreamed like us and who have become symbols of the human spirit."

Obama on July 20, 2007:

Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said Thursday the United States cannot use its military to solve humanitarian problems and that preventing a potential genocide in Iraq isn't a good enough reason to keep U.S. forces there.

"Well, look, if that's the criteria by which we are making decisions on the deployment of U.S. forces, then by that argument you would have 300,000 troops in the Congo right now -- where millions have been slaughtered as a consequence of ethnic strife -- which we haven't done," Obama said in an interview with The Associated Press.
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 07-23-2008, 11:49 AM   #840
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 03:13 AM
Yeah McCain has been going much lower than I ever expected him to go...

In fact McCain has completely shattered any "maverick" respect I had for him.
__________________

__________________
BVS 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 04:13 AM.


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