US 2008 Presidential Campaign/Debate Discussion Thread #6

[financeguy]

Pure addictive personality psychology.

He's obviously struggling with staying off the cigarettes, gyms are the replacement.

Former German Chancellor Helmut Schmidt smoked for years, frequently lighting up in TV interviews and smoking where it is illegal to do so, and he's still alive at 90.

It's a terrible tragedy for the health fascists. They really can't stand it. They wish he would die, so then they could say: "SEE! WE TOLD YOU SO!!"

[deep]

Originally Posted by financeguy

Pure addictive personality psychology.

He's obviously struggling with staying off the cigarettes, gyms are the replacement.

that is why they created internet porn

for the addictive types

I guess if Bob Dole gave McCain some pills
McCain would have not problem getting on the internets.

[financeguy]

Originally Posted by deep

that is why they created internet porn

for the addictive types

I guess if Bob Dole gave McCain some pills
McCain would have not problem getting on the internets.

Presidential candidates can't view internet porn.

It's sick and unChristian.

[BVS]

Originally Posted by deep

Gee,

I can't remember when we had a President (or hopeful) that was more concerned about his leisure time physical activities.

leisure time physical activities = mountain biking and golfing

the more things Change

the more

Yeah, he should be hunting, golfing, or pretending he's a cowboy...

[deep]

Originally Posted by BonoVoxSupastar

Yeah, he should be hunting, golfing, or pretending he's a cowboy...

[BVS]

That's more like it...

[Strongbow]

The Obama Iraq Documentary: Whatever the Politics Demand

YouTube - The Obama Iraq Documentary: Whatever the Politics Demand

[MrsSpringsteen]

Posting just cause I love that tern right wing freak machine..



Late Thursday night, General Wesley Clark cast himself as a victim of the "right wing freak machine" after his comments on John McCain's military service caused a bout of political pandemonium.

Speaking to an adoring crowd at Netroots Nation in Austin, the General said that he "was taken out of context" when, on CBS' Face the Nation, he remarked that McCain's time as a POW did not serve as a qualification for the White House

"There is just no other way to say it," said Clark. "Someone said to me 'This is a playbook operation by the right wing freak machine, the great freak show where they take a statement, distort it, blast it out of context and make it personal. They are so good at it they did all three steps in three hours and you fought back and I'm grateful for you from the bottom of my heart.'"

Putting aside the descriptive words, Clark's remarks were clearly used as campaign kindling for McCain, whose campaign held three straight days of press conferences to hammer both the general and Barack Obama on the issue. The presumptive Republican nominee and his surrogates said Clark had belittled McCain's service for political gain. In the process McCain trotted out a member of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth to not only defend the Arizona Republican but also attack Clark's record as well.

The irony continued soon thereafter, when the McCain campaign (after insinuating that military service was not fodder for a general election) put out a campaign commercial that focused greatly on his time in Vietnam.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by financeguy

Pure addictive personality psychology.

He's obviously struggling with staying off the cigarettes, gyms are the replacement.

Former German Chancellor Helmut Schmidt smoked for years, frequently lighting up in TV interviews and smoking where it is illegal to do so, and he's still alive at 90.

It's a terrible tragedy for the health fascists. They really can't stand it. They wish he would die, so then they could say: "SEE! WE TOLD YOU SO!!"

this from you, one who gets terribly upset at the thought of homosexuals having unprotected sex somewhere?

health fascist indeed.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by BonoVoxSupastar

Yeah, he should be hunting, golfing, or pretending he's a cowboy...

the President doesn't golf anymore, sir.

it would be inappropriate to in this time of war.

he sacrifices for us, because he loves us.

[Strongbow]

REVIEW & OUTLOOK


Obama's 'Judgment'
July 18, 2008
Barack Obama departs for Iraq as early as this weekend, with a media entourage as large as some of his rallies. He'll no doubt learn a lot, in addition to getting a good photo op. What we'll be waiting to hear is whether the would-be Commander in Chief absorbs enough to admit he was wrong about the troop surge in Iraq.

Mr. Obama has made a central basis of his candidacy the "judgment" he showed in opposing the Iraq war in 2002, even if it was a risk-free position to take as an Illinois state senator. The claim helped him win the Democratic primaries. But the 2007 surge debate is the single most important strategic judgment he has had to make on the more serious stage as a Presidential candidate. He vocally opposed the surge, and events have since vindicated Mr. Bush. Without the surge and a new counterinsurgency strategy, the U.S. would have suffered a humiliating defeat in Iraq.

Yet Mr. Obama now wants to ignore that judgment, and earlier this week his campaign erased from its Web site all traces of his surge opposition. Lest media amnesia set in, here is what the Obama site previously said:

"The problem – the Surge: The goal of the surge was to create space for Iraq's political leaders to reach an agreement to end Iraq's civil war. At great cost, our troops have helped reduce violence in some areas of Iraq, but even those reductions do not get us below the unsustainable levels of violence of mid-2006. Moreover, Iraq's political leaders have made no progress in resolving the political differences at the heart of their civil war."

Mr. Obama's site now puts a considerably brighter gloss on the surge. Yet the candidate himself shows no signs of rethinking. In a foreign-policy address Tuesday, the Senator described the surge, in effect, as a waste of $200 billion, an intolerable strain on military resources and a distraction from what he sees as a more important battle in Afghanistan. He faulted Iraq's leaders for failing to make "the political progress that was the purpose of the surge." And his 16-month timetable for near-total withdrawal apparently remains firm.

It would be nice if Mr. Obama could at least get his facts straight. Earlier this month, the U.S. embassy in Baghdad reported that the Iraqi government had met 15 of the 18 political benchmarks set for it in 2006. The Sunni bloc in Iraq's parliament is returning to the government after a year's absence. Levels of sectarian violence have held steady for months – at zero. (In January 2007, Mr. Obama had predicted on MSNBC that the surge would not only fail to curb sectarian violence, but would "do the reverse.") If this isn't sufficient evidence of "genuine political accommodation," we'd like to know what, in his judgment, is.

The freshman Senator also declared that "true success will take place when we leave Iraq to a government that is taking responsibility for its future – a government that prevents sectarian conflict, and ensures that the al Qaeda threat which has been beaten back by our troops does not re-emerge."

Yet the reason Iraq is finally getting that kind of government is precisely because of the surge, which neutralized al Qaeda and gave Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki the running room to confront Moqtada al-Sadr's Shiite Mahdi Army. And the reason the U.S. can now contemplate more troop withdrawals is because the surge has created the conditions that mean the U.S. would not be leaving a security vacuum. On Wednesday, Mr. Maliki's government assumed security responsibility in yet another province, meaning a majority of provinces are now under full Iraqi control.

Mr. Obama acknowledges none of this. Instead, his rigid timetable for withdrawal offers Iraq's various groups every reason to seek their security in local militias such as the Mahdi Army or even al Qaeda, thereby risking a return to the desperate situation it confronted in late 2006.

The Washington Post has criticized this as obstinate, and Democratic foreign policy analyst Michael O'Hanlon of the Brookings Institution reacted this way: "To say you're going to get out on a certain schedule – regardless of what the Iraqis do, regardless of what our enemies do, regardless of what is happening on the ground – is the height of absurdity."


Mr. Obama does promise to "consult with commanders on the ground and the Iraqi government" in implementing his plans. But he would have shown more sincerity on this score had he postponed Tuesday's address until after he visited Iraq and had a chance to speak with those generals and Iraqis. The timing of his speech made it appear not that he is open to what General David Petraeus tells him, but that he wants to limit the General's military options.

Mr. Bush has often been criticized for refusing to admit his Iraq mistakes, but he proved that wrong in ordering the surge that reversed his policy and is finally winning the war. The next President will now take office with the U.S. in a far better security position than 18 months ago. Mr. Obama could help his own claim to be Commander in Chief, and ease doubts about his judgment, if he admits that Mr. Bush was right.

Obama's 'Judgment' - WSJ.com

[Diemen]

Originally Posted by Strongbow

Barack Obama has consistently stated on his website, in the foreign affairs article that he would "immediately begin withdrawing troops from Iraq" without listing any prerequisites for that withdrawal to begin such as security levels on the ground or the capabilities of Iraqi forces. Barack Obama has never stated that he is willing to stay in Iraq until Iraq has developed sufficient military capabilities to replace any US troops that are withdrawn. Barack Obama's strategy is to get out of Iraq period, not stay in Iraq to first insure that it can stand on its own and then leave. I have consistently stated that the United States must first help secure Iraq and develop its security forces to a level that they can replace US forces on the ground before those forces can start withdrawing. That has been the Bush strategy all along. To qoute Bush, "As they stand up, we'll stand down". That line got mocked a lot in here and I don't see where Obama has ever suggested his strategy is in line with that.

But, if you can show me where Obama has specifically made any US withdrawal conditional on the security situation in Iraq, and the capability of the Iraqi forces, please post it here. If it exist, which I'm sure it doesn't, it would only mean that his strategy for Iraq is in line with the strategy that Bush has had for the past 5 years.

Oh, and saying that you would suspend the withdrawal if Iraq achieves all of the political benchmarks is definitely not the same as having a prerequisite to starting a withdrawal or having a plan that starts withdrawing US combat brigades only when there are Iraqi forces capable enough to replace withdrawn US Brigades.

I didn't expect anything less.

Bravo, Sting, Bravo.

[Irvine511]

to an even greater degree, the WH follows Obama and puts lipstick on what is a timetable for withdrawal:

Statement by the Press Secretary on Iraq

President Bush and Prime Minister Maliki spoke yesterday in their regularly scheduled secure video conference, about a range of matters including the improving security situation and the performance of Iraqi Security Forces across Iraq, from Basra, to Maysan, Baghdad and Sadr City, and Mosul. The two leaders welcomed the recent visit of Prime Minister Erdogan to Baghdad and the successful visit of Prime Minister Maliki to the UAE. They also discussed ongoing initiatives to follow security gains with Iraqi investment in its people, infrastructure, cities, and towns, which will be aided by a $21 billion supplemental budget now before the Iraqi parliament.

In the context of these improving political, economic, and security conditions, the President and the Prime Minister discussed the ongoing negotiations to establish a normalized bilateral relationship between Iraq and the United States. The leaders agreed on a common way forward to conclude these negotiations as soon as possible, and noted in particular the progress made toward completing a broad strategic framework agreement that will build on the Declaration of Principles signed last November, and include areas of cooperation across many fields, including economics, diplomacy, health, culture, education, and security.

In the area of security cooperation, the President and the Prime Minister agreed that improving conditions should allow for the agreements now under negotiation to include a general time horizon for meeting aspirational goals -- such as the resumption of Iraqi security control in their cities and provinces and the further reduction of U.S. combat forces from Iraq. The President and Prime Minister agreed that the goals would be based on continued improving conditions on the ground and not an arbitrary date for withdrawal. The two leaders welcomed in this regard the return of the final surge brigade to the United States this month, and the ongoing transition from a primary combat role for U.S. forces to an overwatch role, which focuses on training and advising Iraqi forces, and conducting counter-terror operations in support of those forces.

This transition and the subsequent reduction in U.S. forces from Iraq is a testament to the improving capacity of Iraq's Security Forces and the success of joint operations that were initiated under the new strategy put in place by the President and the Prime Minister in January 2007.

i see. a "general time horizon" isn't a timetable?

so ... things are going so well in Iraq, the surge was such a piece of brilliance, that we've won in Iraq -- which McCain himself is now saying

I repeat my statement that we have succeeded in Iraq. Not we are succeeding. We have succeeded in Iraq. The strategy has worked and we now have the Iraqi government and military in charge in the major cities in Iraq. Al Qaeda is on their heels and on the run, but the success that we have achieved is still fragile and could be reversed, and it’s still – if we do what Sen. Obama wants to do, then all of that could be reversed and we could face again the chaos, increased Iranian influence and American loss and defeat.

so, now that we've won in Iraq, we can start to bring the troops home, only we can't because if we do bring them home, then what we'll wind up losing. so even though we've won, we won't have won unless we keep fighting forever.

or, we can call this what it is. McCain wants to continue to find justifications to keep troops in Iraq so they can be used if/when someone finds something to justify the "bomb bomb Iran" policy -- perhaps staying on the ground in Iraq and continuing to meddle in Iraqi affairs will finally provide us with the "smoking gun" needed to attack Iran that will be every bit as reliable as all that WMD evidence that made the threat of Iraq to the world's innocents so imminent that war, and only war, was the way out.

is it happening all over again? ever get the impression that McCain thinks that Bush was right, but that Bush was just an incompetent boob who fucked up what were sound policies -- that we're going to go back to the triumphant unilateralism of 2002/3 should we see McCain in the White House?

[Strongbow]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

to an even greater degree, the WH follows Obama and puts lipstick on what is a timetable for withdrawal:

What you continue to fail to see is that Obama's position is withdrawal regardless of conditions on the ground, while the position of the Iraqi's, US military, Bush, McCain, is withdrawal, but only as conditions on the ground improve and Iraqi forces increase in capability.

Do you not remember W's famous phrase that often got mocked in here by many including yourself: as they stand up, we'll stand down?

i see. a "general time horizon" isn't a timetable?

Not anymore a timetable than the Bush initiated surge was.

so ... things are going so well in Iraq, the surge was such a piece of brilliance, that we've won in Iraq -- which McCain himself is now saying

Things have vastly improved in Iraq which you continue to pretend has not happened. Things have improved to such a degree, that military leaders feel that they will probably be able to start withdrawing non-surge brigades in the fall provided conditions continue to improve and the Iraqi military continues to grow in capabilitiy.

so, now that we've won in Iraq, we can start to bring the troops home, only we can't because if we do bring them home, then what we'll wind up losing. so even though we've won, we won't have won unless we keep fighting forever.

No one in the Bush administration has ever recomended keeping troops in Iraq that were no longer needed there. Again, the administrations initial plan in 2002 called for having over half of all troops out by the summer of 2004, and down to just 5,000 troops by December of 2006, but conditions on the ground changed that schedule.

If conditions on the ground continue to improve and the Iraqi military continues to grow in capability, US troops will be withdrawn, which is consistent with what the President has always said: as they stand up, we'll stand down.

or, we can call this what it is. McCain wants to continue to find justifications to keep troops in Iraq so they can be used if/when someone finds something to justify the "bomb bomb Iran" policy -- perhaps staying on the ground in Iraq and continuing to meddle in Iraqi affairs will finally provide us with the "smoking gun" needed to attack Iran

I'm sorry to inform you, but the United States does not need to have troops on the ground in Iraq to bomb or invade Iran.

is it happening all over again? ever get the impression that McCain thinks that Bush was right, but that Bush was just an incompetent boob who fucked up what were sound policies -- that we're going to go back to the triumphant unilateralism of 2002/3 should we see McCain in the White House?

Ah yes, the triumphant "unilateralism" that involved a UN Security Council Resolution passed unanimously authorizing the invasion, dozens of nations expressing their support and then sending thousands of their own troops, some from countries that had not deployed troops anywhere since World War II, and the passing of a resolution in the US congress authorizing the war that had vastly more support than the congressional resolution passed in 1991 for the 1st Gulf War.

[Irvine511]

i can smell the desperation.

[Strongbow]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

i can smell the desperation.

Well, must be your own and Obama's. Unless of course you think I have refined my message.

[MrsSpringsteen]

McCain POW bud: Muslims 'going to kill us' | Naked Politics

[Irvine511]

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.

[MrsSpringsteen]

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

[Strongbow]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

no, i smell McCain's, and Bush's, desperation. they want to remove Iraq as an issue.

Why would they want to remove the only issue that they are beating Obama on with the public?

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

Actually there is a difference, Obama wants to send troops to Afghanistan at the expense of progress in Iraq, Bush, McCain and the US military want to send troops to Afghanistan, but NOT BEFORE Iraq would be ready to handle such a drawn down in US forces. Understand?

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.

I guess it must be the massive success that the Iranians have been having in the region lately:

The following is from Kenneth Pollack, Bill Clintons chief National Security Advisor on Iraq:

"The Iranians got kicked in the teeth in the past six months," said Kenneth Pollack, of the Brookings Institution.A major test for Iraq's military was a spring offensive in Basra, where the people were "delighted to have the government troops there," Pollack said. "They were so desperate to get rid of" the Mahdi Army, a militia loyal to anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr.


Iran-linked attacks subside in Iraq - USATODAY.com

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.

Yep, thats real close to: The Surge will increase violence in Iraq, The Surge has failed, Iraq is a Civil War and the United States must leave immediately, I would start withdrawing US combat Brigades immediately, with all combat brigades to be out by March 31, 2008 with no conditions or prerequisites tied to the start of such a withdrawal.

Bush has always wanted to withdraw from Iraq, but ONLY when conditions on the ground warrented it. Obama has never had such prerequisites or conditions for a withdrawal to begin.

The Democratic foreign policy analyst Michael O'Hanlon had this to say about Obama's position on Iraq:

"To say you're going to get out on a certain schedule – regardless of what the Iraqis do, regardless of what our enemies do, regardless of what is happening on the ground – is the height of absurdity."