US 2008 Presidential Campaign/Debate Discussion Thread #6

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
What do you mean by this? That smaller states don't get campaigned hard?

I actually see where this could be an advantage, it could actually lead to a more informed vote rather than just this commercial vs that commercial.


Absolutely the smaller states would be ignored. Under this system, the swing states are not always the same. It moves. If you want cities to dominate elections, then by all means. I do not believe that a city demographic is going to be representative of the needs of the country as a whole.

My 2 cents....
 
Huffington Post

In an interview with the Kansas City Star, John McCain says Barack Obama was labeled as having the "most extreme" record in the Senate.

"Extreme? You really think hes an extremist? I mean, he's clearly a liberal," interviewer Dave Helling asks.

"That's his voting record," McCain responds. "All I said was his voting record, and that is more to the left than the announced Socialist in the United States Senate, Bernie Sanders of Vermont."

"Do you think he's a socialist, Barack Obama?" Helling asks.

McCain responds with a with a shrug, "I don't know."


Helling One on One with McCain

If Obama is a Socialist, we are all hopeless Communists.
 
no, i smell McCain's, and Bush's, desperation. they want to remove Iraq as an issue.

"we've won. troops are coming home. no need to discuss anything."

McCain and Bush want to move more troops to Afghanistan -- just like Obama's been saying.

we've recently learned that the White House sent a top diplomat to directly negotiate with the Iranians over nuclear power -- just like Obama's been saying he will.

and, clearly, McBush has moved closer to Obama's position on withdrawing troops from Iraq -- today, we now have a "time horizon" from the White House with claims of "victory!" from McCain.
It's just like when Bush bombed Libya and North Korea to get them to shut down their weapons programs...
 
An excellent article by Krauthammer in the Washington Post. I think it's dead on.


The Audacity of Vanity

By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, July 18, 2008; Page A17

Barack Obama wants to speak at the Brandenburg Gate. He figures it would be a nice backdrop. The supporting cast -- a cheering audience and a few fainting frauleins -- would be a picturesque way to bolster his foreign policy credentials.

What Obama does not seem to understand is that the Brandenburg Gate is something you earn. President Ronald Reagan earned the right to speak there because his relentless pressure had brought the Soviet empire to its knees and he was demanding its final "tear down this wall" liquidation. When President John F. Kennedy visited the Brandenburg Gate on the day of his "Ich bin ein Berliner" speech, he was representing a country that was prepared to go to the brink of nuclear war to defend West Berlin.

Who is Obama representing? And what exactly has he done in his lifetime to merit appropriating the Brandenburg Gate as a campaign prop? What was his role in the fight against communism, the liberation of Eastern Europe, the creation of what George Bush the elder -- who presided over the fall of the Berlin Wall but modestly declined to go there for a victory lap -- called "a Europe whole and free"?

Does Obama not see the incongruity? It's as if a German pol took a campaign trip to America and demanded the Statue of Liberty as a venue for a campaign speech. (The Germans have now gently nudged Obama into looking at other venues.)


Americans are beginning to notice Obama's elevated opinion of himself. There's nothing new about narcissism in politics. Every senator looks in the mirror and sees a president. Nonetheless, has there ever been a presidential nominee with a wider gap between his estimation of himself and the sum total of his lifetime achievements?

Obama is a three-year senator without a single important legislative achievement to his name, a former Illinois state senator who voted "present" nearly 130 times. As president of the Harvard Law Review, as law professor and as legislator, has he ever produced a single notable piece of scholarship? Written a single memorable article? His most memorable work is a biography of his favorite subject: himself.

It is a subject upon which he can dilate effortlessly. In his victory speech upon winning the nomination, Obama declared it a great turning point in history -- "generations from now we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment" -- when, among other wonders, "the rise of the oceans began to slow." As Hudson Institute economist Irwin Stelzer noted in his London Daily Telegraph column, "Moses made the waters recede, but he had help." Obama apparently works alone.

Obama may think he's King Canute, but the good king ordered the tides to halt precisely to refute sycophantic aides who suggested that he had such power. Obama has no such modesty.

After all, in the words of his own slogan, "we are the ones we've been waiting for," which, translating the royal "we," means: " I am the one we've been waiting for." Amazingly, he had a quasi-presidential seal with its own Latin inscription affixed to his lectern, until general ridicule -- it was pointed out that he was not yet president -- induced him to take it down.

He lectures us that instead of worrying about immigrants learning English, "you need to make sure your child can speak Spanish" -- a language Obama does not speak. He further admonishes us on how "embarrassing" it is that Europeans are multilingual but "we go over to Europe, and all we can say is 'merci beaucoup.' " Obama speaks no French.

His fluent English does, however, feature many such admonitions, instructions and improvements. His wife assures us that President Obama will be a stern taskmaster: "Barack Obama will require you to work. He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism . . . that you come out of your isolation. . . . Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual, uninvolved, uninformed."

For the first few months of the campaign, the question about Obama was: Who is he? The question now is: Who does he think he is?

We are getting to know. Redeemer of our uninvolved, uninformed lives. Lord of the seas. And more. As he said on victory night, his rise marks the moment when "our planet began to heal." As I recall -- I'm no expert on this -- Jesus practiced his healing just on the sick. Obama operates on a larger canvas.



 
Is Obama pro-slavery?
There's a weird irony at work when Sen. Barack Obama, the black presidential candidate who will allegedly scrub the stain of racism from the nation, vows to run afoul of the constitutional amendment that abolished slavery.

For those who don't remember, the 13th Amendment says: "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime ... shall exist within the United States."

I guess in Obama's mind it must be a crime to be born or to go to college.

In his speech on national service Wednesday at the University of Colorado, Obama promised that as president he would "set a goal for all American middle and high school students to perform 50 hours of service a year, and for all college students to perform 100 hours of service a year."

He would see that these goals are met by, among other things, attaching strings to federal education dollars. If you don't make the kids report for duty, he's essentially telling schools and college kids, you'll lose money you can't afford to lose. In short, he'll make service compulsory by merely compelling schools to make it compulsory.

It's funny that, when the right seeks to use the government to impose its values, the left screams about brainwashing and propaganda. When the left tries it, the right thunders about social engineering. But when left and right agree -- as seems to be the case on national service -- who's left to complain? As ever, the slipperiest slopes are greased with the snake oil of "bipartisanship."

After all, Obama's hardly alone. Sen. John McCain is a passionate supporter of Washington-led (and paid-for) "volunteerism," as is President Bush. Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.) and John Edwards both campaigned for the presidency on compulsory national service.

Perhaps thanks to the JFK cult, which sees the refrain "Ask not what your country can do for you ..." as an all-purpose writ for social meddling, even the idealistic hipster crowd is on board. Devotees of Rolling Stone and MTV, who normally preen like cats in a pool of sunshine over their alleged libertarianism when the issue is sex, drugs and rock 'n' roll, see nothing wrong, and everything right, with involuntary servitude -- as long as we just call it "voluntary."

Volunteerism is good. But why does every good thing need to be orchestrated by government? Most people think that churchgoing is a good thing. Does that mean the government should fund churches? That's what they do in Europe and -- surprise! -- most pews sit empty.

Americans are vastly more generous with their time and their money than Europeans. According to social demographer Arthur C. Brooks, in 1995 (the last year international comparative data on giving was available), Americans gave 3 1/2 times as much money to charities and causes as the French, seven times more than the Germans and 14 times more than the Italians.

In 1998, Americans also volunteered 21% more than the Swiss and 32% more than Germans -- two countries with compulsory national service. And yet we're continually told we should emulate them so that America too can have a "culture of service."

But we already have a healthier culture of service without -- as Obama would do -- doubling the size of the Peace Corps or pushing another 250,000 into AmeriCorps.

Indeed, there's ample evidence that countries with intrusive and expensive welfare states stifle their citizens' spirit of charity and volunteerism precisely because people conclude that every problem should be solved by government. Merely paying your taxes substitutes for charity, and cleaning up roadside litter for two years absolves you from doing anything more.

Time magazine's Richard Stengel speaks for many who insist that American government must consecrate everything. "The reason private volunteerism is so high is precisely that confidence in our public institutions is so low," he wrote last year in praise of universal national service. "People see volunteering not as a form of public service but as an antidote for it."

Really? I would have thought that the world's most charitable and voluntaristic nation -- one with a tradition of service that predates the decline of confidence in public institutions by generations -- might see volunteering as a good in and of itself.

This is the real problem with national service mania: It seeks to fix what ain't broke. No, national service isn't slavery. But it contributes to a slave mentality, at odds with American tradition. It assumes that work not done for the government isn't really for the "common good."

"The central conservative truth is that it is culture, not politics, that determines the success of a society," Daniel Patrick Moynihan famously observed. "The central liberal truth is that politics can change a culture and save it from itself."

Moynihan was right, of course. But politics can change a culture for the worse too. Indoctrinating an entire generation with the idea that public service is something you do at the government's behest would not only steamroll the culture, it would help fewer people in the process.
Obama and volunteering: Forced servitude in America? - Los Angeles Times

It's from Jonah Goldberg (author of Liberal Fascism etc.) so you know it's fair and balanced :doh:
 
art.jpg


So long, Mr. Magoo



I won't miss him.

I don't care about the "nation of whiners" statement
as much as I care about his entanglement with Enron
and all that bad deregulation / corruption and that goes for his wife, too
 
Barack Obama wants to speak at the Brandenburg Gate. He figures it would be a nice backdrop. The supporting cast -- a cheering audience and a few fainting frauleins -- would be a picturesque way to bolster his foreign policy credentials.

What Obama does not seem to understand is that the Brandenburg Gate is something you earn. President Ronald Reagan earned the right to speak there because his relentless pressure had brought the Soviet empire to its knees and he was demanding its final "tear down this wall" liquidation. When President John F. Kennedy visited the Brandenburg Gate on the day of his "Ich bin ein Berliner" speech, he was representing a country that was prepared to go to the brink of nuclear war to defend West Berlin.

Who is Obama representing? And what exactly has he done in his lifetime to merit appropriating the Brandenburg Gate as a campaign prop? What was his role in the fight against communism, the liberation of Eastern Europe, the creation of what George Bush the elder -- who presided over the fall of the Berlin Wall but modestly declined to go there for a victory lap -- called "a Europe whole and free"?

Does Obama not see the incongruity? It's as if a German pol took a campaign trip to America and demanded the Statue of Liberty as a venue for a campaign speech. (The Germans have now gently nudged Obama into looking at other venues.)

Bah, this is such a ridiculous story and really embarrassing to be honest. And it's such nonsense that you have to "earn it" to speak in front of the Brandenburg Gate. It's right, his campaign made a mistake in announcing the plan to speak there before asking if it would be ok to do so, but at first no one cared. Then, suddenly, Merkel thought it necessary to oppose those plans and make this weird reference to the historic symbolism of the place. In fact, they are just afraid it would look like some kind of support of the Democrats and as long as nothing is decided, i.e. as long as the election hasn't been held, they want to appear as neutral as possible.
Most Germans don't give a damn that Obama wants to speak at the "Pariser Platz" (in fact, I think it would be great. He would see the new American embassy and could apologize for it right away. ;)).
I really would like to see him speak and I think many would be interested. For so many people the Brandenburg Gate would be perfect as it probably is the largest place to take so many people.
I'm so terribly sorry, but we are neither rendering hommage to Kennedy, nor to Reagan, nor to H.W. Bush every time we pass the Brandenburg Gate (I also don't fall on my knees when I go past the Schoeneberg Rathaus where Kennedy finally held his speech), and this place, in my progressive mind, isn't in some way holy or however one wants to call it. I would even tolerate W. Bush or McCain to hold a speech there, but that's just me.
Some people really like to interpret things into everything.

Oh, this place has such a historical meaning! Come on, whole fucking Berlin has a historical meaning!

Thank you. :)

Just read, he will now hold his speech in front of the triumphal column. I know where I will spend my Thursday. ;)
Can't wait what weird interpretations now will come up. Will he turn into a Nazi supporter?
 
Bah, this is such a ridiculous story and really embarrassing to be honest. And it's such nonsense that you have to "earn it" to speak in front of the Brandenburg Gate. It's right, his campaign made a mistake in announcing the plan to speak there before asking if it would be ok to do so, but at first no one cared. Then, suddenly, Merkel thought it necessary to oppose those plans and make this weird reference to the historic symbolism of the place. In fact, they are just afraid it would look like some kind of support of the Democrats and as long as nothing is decided, i.e. as long as the election hasn't been held, they want to appear as neutral as possible.
Most Germans don't give a damn that Obama wants to speak at the "Pariser Platz" (in fact, I think it would be great. He would see the new American embassy and could apologize for it right away. ;)).
I really would like to see him speak and I think many would be interested. For so many people the Brandenburg Gate would be perfect as it probably is the largest place to take so many people.
I'm so terribly sorry, but we are neither rendering hommage to Kennedy, nor to Reagan, nor to H.W. Bush every time we pass the Brandenburg Gate (I also don't fall on my knees when I go past the Schoeneberg Rathaus where Kennedy finally held his speech), and this place, in my progressive mind, isn't in some way holy or however one wants to call it. I would even tolerate W. Bush or McCain to hold a speech there, but that's just me.
Some people really like to interpret things into everything.

Oh, this place has such a historical meaning! Come on, whole fucking Berlin has a historical meaning!

Thank you. :)

Just read, he will now hold his speech in front of the triumphal column. I know where I will spend my Thursday. ;)
Can't wait what weird interpretations now will come up. Will he turn into a Nazi supporter?


To quote Ronald Reagan:

"There you go again. . ."

Making sense yet AGAIN! What is with you, Vega! :wink:
 
All I need to do is read the opening lines of these articles and I already know they're going to be crap:

"Barack Obama wants to speak at the Brandenburg Gate. He figures it would be a nice backdrop. The supporting cast -- a cheering audience and a few fainting frauleins -- would be a picturesque way to bolster his foreign policy credentials."

"There's a weird irony at work when Sen. Barack Obama, the black presidential candidate who will allegedly scrub the stain of racism from the nation, vows to run afoul of the constitutional amendment that abolished slavery."

And these op-ed pieces (for they can certainly be nothing more) are supposed to provide me with CREDIBLE reasons not to vote for Obama? You gotta be kidding me. "fainting frauleins". . .Obama wants to bring back slavery. . .WTF?

I'm sure there are lots of credible reasons not to vote for Obama (Heck, I consider deep's big objection--his lack of experience--to be at least reasonable and worthy of debate) but these are not among them.

If you want to critique Obama's candidacy at least bring something sensible to the table. . .geez.
 
This is priceless !!!!


White House sends press corps al-Maliki praise for Obama plan
Posted: 02:40 PM ET

From CNN Correspondent Kathleen Koch


CRAWFORD, TX (CNN) – An embarrassing slip up for the White House press office Saturday, when an aide hit the wrong button and mistakenly sent to the news media a Reuters article saying Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki backs presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama's troop withdrawal plan.

White House spokesman Scott Stanzel says, "It was a mistake. Clips list for staff was supposed to be the addressee."

The Obama campaign quickly took advantage of the mistake, forwarding an ABC report detailing the incident to its press list.

This is not the first time the White House has emailed in error. But its timing is particularly embarrassing as the Bush administration's recent agreement with al-Maliki on a "general time horizon" for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq is being cited by some as resembling Obama's proposal that U.S. forces should leave within 16 months.
 
.
Associated Press, July 20

...While officially a part of a congressional delegation on a fact-finding tour expected to take him to Iraq, Obama arrived Saturday amid the publicity and scrutiny accorded a likely Democratic nominee for president rather than a senator from Illinois. Security was tight and media access to Obama was limited by his campaign; his itinerary in the war zones was a closely guarded secret. Obama and others in the delegation received a briefing inside the U.S. base in Jalalabad from the Afghan provincial governor of Nangarhar, Gul Agha Sherzai, a no-nonsense, bullish former warlord. "Obama promised us that if he becomes a president in the future, he will support and help Afghanistan not only in its security sector but also in reconstruction, development and economic sector," Sherzai told The Associated Press.

...The top U.S. commander in Iraq said Saturday that after intense U.S. assaults there, al-Qaida may be considering shifting focus to its original home base in Afghanistan, where American casualties are recently running higher than in Iraq. "We do think that there is some assessment ongoing as to the continued viability of al-Qaida's fight in Iraq," Gen. David Petraeus told The Associated Press in an interview in Baghdad.

Obama has expressed frustration with the efforts by Afghanistan's neighbor Pakistan to go after militants in its territory. That stance may strike a chord with Karzai, who has directly accused Pakistan's intelligence service of supporting the Taliban insurgency by plotting bombings and other attacks in Afghanistan--claims that Pakistan, a key U.S. ally in its war on terror, flatly denies. But Obama has also chided Karzai and his government, saying it had "not gotten out of the bunker" and helped to organize the country or its political and security institutions.
 
Progressive
New York tax filers reporting more than $375,000 a year in earned income may end up paying nearly 60% of their wages in taxes to the government under a Barack Obama presidency, economists who have analyzed his plan said.

The Democratic presidential candidate is proposing not only raising the federal income tax, but also adding a Social Security tax for those Americans earning more than $250,000 a year. For New Yorkers, that could mean that if the current Social Security rate is applied, the marginal tax rate, or rate on every extra dollar earned, could rise to 58%.

"This is a very eye-popping number," a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, Alan Viard, said.

Under current law, there is a 12.4% Social Security tax on salaries up to $102,000 a year. While the Social Security tax is split equally between employers and employees, economists widely hold that employees shoulder the entire tax burden because employers simply pass along the cost of the tax in the form of lower wages.

Mr. Obama has spoken of creating a so-called doughnut hole, where those earning more than $250,000 would have to pay an additional Social Security tax; anyone earning between $102,000 and $250,000 would be exempt.

Mr. Obama has yet to clarify what that additional Social Security tax will be, although his campaign said it is not likely to be as high as 12.4%. Rather, it said the tax is not likely to run higher than 4%, translating into a marginal tax on wages of as much as 52% for New Yorkers, who are subject to income tax at the federal, state, and city levels. The current marginal rate is 42%, which would continue under the McCain proposal. Full calculations of these figures are available in the slideshow accompanying this article.
Tax Rates For New Yorkers Would Top 50% Under Obama - July 18, 2008 - The New York Sun
 
Just read, he will now hold his speech in front of the triumphal column. I know where I will spend my Thursday. ;)
Can't wait what weird interpretations now will come up. Will he turn into a Nazi supporter?

What did I say? Just a few hours later politicians from the conservative CDU and the "liberal" (not in any way the kind of liberal you are thinking of, in fact not even liberal at all anymore) FDP were complaining about the spot being a relic of the Nazi time.
The triumphal column, set up by the stupids at the place where it is now, and away from the Reichstag, the German parliament, to remind the public of the successes of the 19th century and making little Fritz and Franz forget that we screwed up terribly (and rightly so) in the 20th century, is now located about two kilometers to the west from the Brandenburg Gate. Both are connected by the Straße des 17. Juni, where U2 shot parts of the Stay video. The name Straße des 17. Juni is meant to celebrate the workers uprising of June 17, 1953 in the former GDR.
No one ever gives a damn about the history of the "Goldliese", but suddenly it becomes an issue. It's such a shame.

Let's see other places he could try:
Tempelhof airport: Uh, built by the Nazis, and no, not holy enough for the place of the airlift.
Olympiastadion: Built by the Nazis, I'm sorry.
Bebelplatz: What, the Nazis burned books there!
Gendarmenmarkt: No specific history during the Nazi era, but they will find something. Maybe something about the March revolution of 1848.

Well, CDU and FDP, why not have the guts to say right away: "We don't want you to speak here"? At least, that would be honest and not as ridiculous as looking for some cheap excuses.
 
The Democrats' Baghdad Two-Step


By Peter Hoekstra
Monday, July 21, 2008; Page A15


It's hard not to have heard about the positive developments in Iraq lately. On Friday, the White House announced that President Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki had reached agreement on a "time horizon" for the withdrawal of U.S. combat troops. Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said last Wednesday that "security is unquestionably and remarkably better." Iraqi security forces recently took responsibility for a 10th province and expect to assume responsibility for all 18 of the country's provinces by year-end. There have been virtually no sectarian killings in 10 weeks. The Iraqi government has made important progress in political reconciliation. Regional neighbors are reestablishing embassies in Baghdad, and some of Iraq's creditors have begun to forgive the enormous debts incurred by Saddam Hussein's regime.

How have Democrats reacted to these developments? Have they reveled in the news that U.S. casualties have plummeted? Have they praised the achievements for which our troops have fought so hard? Have they congratulated the Iraqi government for progress in political reconciliation?

Not exactly.

Last Friday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi continued to ignore recent gains and instead criticized Bush and Maliki for pushing a "vague" plan to withdraw U.S. troops. Addressing the American Israel Public Affairs Committee's annual convention last month, Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid gave major foreign policy speeches. Neither even mentioned Iraq. Last Tuesday, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Joe Biden, the leading foreign policy expert among Democrats in Congress, ignored the achievements made in Iraq and the importance of promoting stability there when he said: "If John [McCain] wants to know where the bad guys live, come back with me to Afghanistan. We know where they reside. And it's not in Iraq."

Why are the Democrats in denial about recent gains in Iraq? Unfortunately, it appears that they realize that progress is being made and want to change the subject to some other policy they can use to attack the president. Indeed, they are so opposed to acknowledging America's hard-won achievements that in a May 28 interview Pelosi credited "the goodwill of the Iranians" for "some of the success of the surge. . . . They decided in Basra when the fighting would end." As Sen. Joe Lieberman noted in a speech last year, "Even as evidence has mounted that General Petraeus's new counterinsurgency strategy is succeeding, Democrats have remained emotionally invested in a narrative of defeat and retreat in Iraq."

Over the past few years, Pelosi and Reid have taken full advantage of every piece of bad news in Iraq to attack the Bush administration. Whenever American fatalities went up or there were major terrorist attacks, they ran to microphones to denounce the war as a hopeless failure. Al-Qaeda took a similar approach, issuing audio and video messages from Osama bin Laden and his lieutenants, statements that threatened more U.S. casualties and described their plans to drive America from Iraq so they could make it the center of their crazed fantasy of creating a radical Islamic global caliphate.

Sen. Barack Obama's (current) position on Iraq is hard to nail down. He still favors the same arbitrary 16-month withdrawal timetable he promoted when violence in Iraq was at a high point. After insisting for months that the troop surge was doomed to fail, Obama now credits it with some security improvements while simultaneously claiming in a speech last week that the surge did not meet all of its benchmarks and was too expensive. Setting aside Obama's verbal acrobatics on Iraq, his campaign was caught last week trying to purge his earlier harsh criticism of the surge from its Web site.

This is no time for our elected leaders to play games about the successes and challenges in Iraq. Our troops and the Iraqi people need and deserve the recognition and support of all U.S. elected officials for their efforts to stabilize that country. They need to know that we are with them and do not want them to fail.

While there is much still to be done in Iraq, recent events give many reasons for hope. Rather than always focusing on the negative of one front in the battle against radical jihadists, Democratic congressional leaders need to acknowledge success, highlight challenges and lay out a comprehensive long-term strategy to confront, contain and ultimately defeat the threat facing America. Our country cannot be led by naysayers who slide from issue to issue. The responsibilities of leadership go far beyond what Democrats in Congress are demonstrating today.

The writer, a representative from Michigan, is the ranking Republican on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

washingtonpost.com
 
Borowitz Report

In a daring bid to wrench attention from his Democratic rival in the 2008 presidential race, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) today embarked on an historic first-ever visit to the Internet.

Given that the Arizona Republican had never logged onto the Internet before, advisors acknowledged that his first visit to the World Wide Web was fraught with risk.

But with his Democratic rival Barack Obama making headlines with his tour of the Middle East and Europe, the McCain campaign felt that they needed to "come up with something equally bold for John to do," according to one advisor.

McCain aides said that the senator's journey to the Internet will span five days and will take him to such far-flung sites as Amazon.com, eBay and Facebook.

With a press retinue watching, Sen. McCain logged onto the Internet at 9:00 AM Sunday, paying his first-ever visit ever to Mapquest.com.

"I can't get this [expletive] thing to work," Sen. McCain said as he struggled with his computer's mouse, causing his wife Cindy to prompt him to add that he was "just kidding."

Having pronounced his visit to Mapquest a success, Sen. McCain continued his tour by visiting Weather.com and Yahoo! Answers, where he inquired as to the difference between Sunnis and Shiites.

Sen. McCain said that he had embarked on his visit to the Internet to allay any fears that he is too out-of-touch to be president, adding that he plans to take additional steps to demonstrate that he is comfortable with today's technology: "In the days and weeks ahead, you will be seeing me rock out with my new Walkman."
 
Barack Obama, Iraqi leader Nouri Maliki appear to be on the same page

John McCain's campaign could not have seen this coming -- the presumptive Republican presidential nominee forced on the defensive by, of all people, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki.

Presumptive Democratic presdiential nominee Barack Obama met today with Iraqi President Nouri al-Maliki Much as McCain and his staff wanted to hammer home their view that Barack Obama is clueless about Iraq, Maliki seemingly gave the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee a big dose of credibility when word surfaced over the weekend that, as quoted by the German magazine Der Spiegel, he said he would like to see U.S. troops leave his country "as soon as possible."

Maliki, Der Spiegel reported, went on to say: "U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months. That, we think, would be the right time frame for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes.”

Maliki's office, suddenly finding him thrust smack in the middle of the U.S. campaign, issued a somewhat half-hearted demurral, insisting something got lost in the translation of what he said.

But an audio recording of his comment, vetted by the New Times, showed that Der Spiegel essentially got it right. And in the initial readout from Obama's visit today with Maliki in Baghdad, the Associated Press reported that the Iraqi government would like to see American combat units gone at some point in 2010 -- a timeframe, the story noted, that "falls within the 16-month withdrawal plan proposed by Obama."

McCain, during a round-robin set of appearances this morning on the major morning talk shows, did his best to try to change the subject by focusing on how wrong, in his view, Obama was for opposing the U.S. troop surge in Iraq last year, which has been widely credited with restoring a semblance of security there.

On ABC's "Good Morning America," for instance, McCain chided Obama for a "fundamental misjudgment" on the surge. And on NBC’s “Today” show, he said his rival "badly misjudged" what was needed in Iraq.

McCain, though, did not escape unscathed during his interview sessions. In a verbal flub that will spark renewed recollections of his Shiite/Sunni miscue earlier this year while he was visiting the Middle East, he erroneously reconfigured the map of the world.

Asked on ABC about the uptick in violence by Islamic extremists in Afghanistan, he replied: "We have a lot of work to do and I'm afraid it's a very hard struggle, particularly given the situation on the Iraq/Pakistan border."

Iraq borders several nations, but Pakistan is not among them -- looming between the two is Iran. (Pakistan's neighbors, however, include Afghanistan).

The Note, ABC's daily political summary, opined that by "appearing to confuse Iraq and Afghanistan" McCain ended up committing "the first big gaffe" since Obama embarked on his overseas trip amid much speculation about mistakes he might make.


-- Don Frederick



wow, now even Maliki is following Obama's lead on Iraq, just like McCain and Bush.

it's quite interesting for McCain to speak as if he knows what's best for Iraq -- the ultra-vague "conditions on the ground" serving as a draw-out sort of Gulf of Tonkin justification for 100, 1000, whatever, year occupation -- when the country's own democratically elected president quite clearly disagrees with the Senator. as they stand up, we stand down, yes? Maliki's asking us to stand down by 2010. you know, about 16 months from Obama's inauguration.

(as an aside, "conditions on the ground" also serves as some sort of arbitrary, never defined "distinction" that McCain is clinging to in order to try to distinguish his plan for Iraq that's becoming difficult to distinguish from Obama's)

McCain can continue to claim that he knows better what's best for the Iraqis than their own president, but at his own peril.
 
wow, now even Maliki is following Obama's lead on Iraq, just like McCain and Bush.

it's quite interesting for McCain to speak as if he knows what's best for Iraq -- the ultra-vague "conditions on the ground" serving as a draw-out sort of Gulf of Tonkin justification for 100, 1000, whatever, year occupation -- when the country's own democratically elected president quite clearly disagrees with the Senator. as they stand up, we stand down, yes? Maliki's asking us to stand down by 2010. you know, about 16 months from Obama's inauguration.

(as an aside, "conditions on the ground" also serves as some sort of arbitrary, never defined "distinction" that McCain is clinging to in order to try to distinguish his plan for Iraq that's becoming difficult to distinguish from Obama's)

McCain can continue to claim that he knows better what's best for the Iraqis than their own president, but at his own peril.


Here is what McCain said on the record in 2004 before the Council on Foreign Relations

Republican presumptive presidential nominee John McCain in a 2004 Council on Foreign Relations discussion said that he would support Americans leaving Iraq if the Iraqi government were not run by extremists and Americans were asked to leave by it.

Asked, "What would or should we do if ... a so-called sovereign Iraqi government asks us to leave, even if we are unhappy about the security situation there?" McCain replied, "I think it's obvious that we would have to leave because -- if it was an elected government of Iraq -- and we've been asked to leave other places in the world.... I don't see how we could stay when our whole emphasis and policy has been based on turning the Iraqi government over to the Iraqi people."
 
Here is what McCain said on the record in 2004 before the Council on Foreign Relations



not to worry, McCain knows what it is Iraq really wants, and needs ...

Vieira: "Senator Obama's timetable of removing U.S. troops from Iraq within that 16-month period seemed to be getting a thumbs up by the Iraqi prime minister when he called it 'the right timeframe for a withdrawal.' He has backed off that somewhat, but the Iraqis have not stopped using the word timetable, so if the Iraqi government were to say -- if you were President -- we want a timetable for troops being to removed, would you agree with that?"

McCain: "I have been there too many times. I've met too many times with him, and I know what they want. They want it based on conditions and of course they would like to have us out, that's what happens when you win wars, you leave. We may have a residual presence there as even Senator Obama has admitted. But the fact is that it should be -- the agreement between Prime Minister Maliki, the Iraqi government and the United states is it will be based on conditions. This is a great success, but it's fragile, and could be reversed very easily. I think we should trust the word of General Petraeus who has orchestrated this dramatic turnaround. And by the way, we would have been out last march if Senator Obama's original wish would have been called for. Not 16 months from now, but last March. He was wrong on the surge, he was wrong today when he says it didn't succeed. And obviously we have challenges in Afghanistan which will require more troops and more NATO participation, but we can win. If we had lost in Iraq, we would have risked a much wider war that would have put enormous challenges and burdens on our military."



for some reason, McCain's rape joke a few pages back takes on new dimensions of meaning.
 
wow, now even Maliki is following Obama's lead on Iraq, just like McCain and Bush.

I don't recall Maliki, McCain or Bush insisting that US combat brigades be withdrawn by 2010 without any prerequisites to be met by the Iraqi military or without any regard for the security conditions on the ground.


the ultra-vague "conditions on the ground" serving as a draw-out sort of Gulf of Tonkin justification for 100, 1000, whatever, year occupation

There is nothing vague about it. There are specific levels of capability that the Iraqi military must meet before US combat brigades are withdrawn. There are specific political benchmarks for the Iraqi government to meet. In terms of the security enviroment there are specific targets in terms of number of attacks, casualties etc. On economics, there are all kinds of indicators that are important and impacted by the United States involvement.

The United States reduced its presence on the ground in Bosnia and Kosovo over time as conditions there warrented it, and that is exactly the same strategy that Bush, McCain, the US military and the Iraqi government are pursuing, and the strategy that Barack Obama has been consistently opposed to.

when the country's own democratically elected president quite clearly disagrees with the Senator. as they stand up, we stand down, yes? Maliki's asking us to stand down by 2010. you know, about 16 months from Obama's inauguration.

Maliki is the Prime Minister, Jalal Talabani is the president.

Maliki said that he would like to see the United States be able to withdraw all its combat brigades from Iraq by 2010, but he does not demand it like Obama. More importantly, the Iraqi government, Bush, McCain, and the US military all insist on tying any withdrawal of any US combat brigades to the capability of the Iraqi military and conditions on the ground in Iraq.

The only disagreement here is Obama's disagreement with the Iraqi government, Bush, McCain and the US military that any US withdrawal of combat brigades from Iraq must be directly tied to improving conditions on the ground and the capability of the Iraqi military.



(as an aside, "conditions on the ground" also serves as some sort of arbitrary, never defined "distinction" that McCain is clinging to in order to try to distinguish his plan for Iraq that's becoming difficult to distinguish from Obama's)

The plan that Bush, McCain, the US military, and the Iraqi government have always had, has always tied ANY withdrawal of US combat brigades from Iraq to the conditions on the ground, which is not at all vague but involves multiple factors impacting the development of the Iraqi military, government, economy, and the security situation on the ground. Its the same criteria that the United States used to draw down forces in Bosnia and Kosovo.



By the way, do you still claim that the Surge will not work, and won't reduce the sectarian violence? Do you still claim the Iraq war is lost? Do you still claim that the Iraq war is a "Civil War"? Do you still claim that US troops are making that "Civil War" worse?

Whats Obama's withdrawal timetable for Afghanistan?
 
I don't recall Maliki, McCain or Bush insisting that US combat brigades be withdrawn by 2010 without any prerequisites to be met by the Iraqi military or without any regard for the security conditions on the ground.

Y'know, it doesn't do you any good to hold onto this prerequisities/conditions on the ground line when it's not even true. But I know how much you like message consistency, so it doesn't surprise me.
 
The only disagreement here is Obama's disagreement with the Iraqi government, Bush, McCain and the US military that any US withdrawal of combat brigades from Iraq must be directly tied to improving conditions on the ground and the capability of the Iraqi military.


:lmao:

is this really your position? are you really saying this? because you know that you're saying it and not Obama? that you're fabricating words and putting them in his mouth? because it's the only way that you can fabricate the position that *Obama* is in disagreement with the Iraqi government, after they've endorsed Obama's plan? are you really going to continue to pretend that Obama is as inflexible as Bush? are you going to deny that this isn't a timetable? that a "time horizon" isn't just a fancy name for a timetable?





By the way, do you still claim that the Surge will not work, and won't reduce the sectarian violence? Do you still claim the Iraq war is lost? Do you still claim that the Iraq war is a "Civil War"? Do you still claim that US troops are making that "Civil War" worse?


ah yes, the surge. i do owe a long post on this.

we had a Civil War in Iraq. we had the ethnic cleansing of the Sunnis from Baghdad. we had 4 million refugees. we've had unimaginable bloodshed. we've had the introduction of Al Qaeda, religious extremism, and suicide bombing into Iraq when it never existed before.

Iraq is more violent today than it was when Obama last visited in early 2006.

however, if you're going to run on the small successes of The Surge and not admit that the entire operation has been a mistake and a catastrophe, then you might as well just give Obama the White House keys.

it's amazing, but it seems McCain is going to run on "the Surge." he's going to say that he was right about "the Surge," and that Obama was wrong.

lots of luck. Obama is going to say that he was right about the Iraq War itself, and that McCain was wrong. and McCain's been forced to concede on the Obama/Maliki timetable. after all, "when they stand up, we'll stand down." but not until we say so?

so what's left for you Sting? are you going to endorse a timetable for withdrawal (which you say will bring the apocalypse upon the the Surge-made-Shangri-La) and admit that Obama was right (and admit that his judgment is sound) or are you going to deliberately ignore the explicit, expressed wish of the Iraqi government in order to prolong a war that most Americans and their government admits was a colossal mistake?


Whats Obama's withdrawal timetable for Afghanistan?

it all depends on what happens on the Iraq/Pakistani border.
 
Any chance Sting could post an article that ISN'T an obviuosly biased anti-Democrat diatribe? All we get are these over-the-top op-ed pieces that we're supposed to take as reliable sources of news.
 
The only disagreement here is Obama's disagreement with the Iraqi government

Wow. Bold move! Let's just say that Obama and the Iraqi government are in disagreement in the face of dozens of news reports to the contrary. . .I mean why not. Perhaps the Iraqi government THINKS they agree with Obama but in fact really doesn't. Yeah, that's the ticket. . .
 
Well if anything should be clear from Sting's educational posts, sean, it's that the current administration is the authority on what Iraq needs, and everyone else are just poseurs.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom