Govenor Sarah Palin, Mormonism, Post-Mormonism, Politics

[_beastie]

Peggy Noonan and Mike Murphy tell it like it is, unaware they were still on audio

PN: It's over.

MM: Still McCain can give a version of the Lieberman speech to do himself some good.

CT: I also think the Palin pick is insulting to Kay Bailey Hutchinson, too.

PN: Saw Kay this morning.

CT: Yeah, she's never looked comfortable about this --

MM: They're all bummed out.

CT: Yeah, I mean is she really the most qualified woman they could have turned to?

PN: The most qualified? No! I think they went for this -- excuse me-- political BS about narratives --

CT: Yeah they went to a narrative.

MM: I totally agree.

PN: Every time the Republicans do that, because that's not where they live and it's not what they're good at, they blow it.

MM: You know what's really the worst thing about it? The greatness of McCain is no cynicism, and this is cynical.

CT: This is cynical, and as you called it, gimmicky.

MM: Yeah.

[_beastie]

Palin and the Bridge to Nowhere

[_dartagnan]

Let it sink in, Dart. Read it twice if you need to. Invading Iraq was necessary, achievable, and noble.

As did virtually every politician in Washington. Let that sink in and read it a dozen times if it helps. You're logic is tragically flawed and you know it. You don't seem to be able to understand that just because a person was supporting something that this is not a guarantee that this person would have done it had the person proposing it, not proposed.

Your refusal to grasp basic logic is why I have referred to your political rants as idiotic and stupid. You are really smarter than this, but the your mind seems to approach Forrest Gumpish territory when you start yapping on politics and religion. I suspect this is the real reason you don't like talking about these issues; because you can't control yourself.

Here is a perfect example of the things I am talking about. I had initially said, "if anyone could have pulled off a successful war with Iraq, it is John McCain." But once this is entered into beasties mind and was processed through the usual spin cycle, it comes out as - "You’re assuring us that McCain would have been able to pull off a successful war with Iraq."

I'll let the unclouded thinkers see the obvious difference in what was actually said, vs. your spin on it. This is your usual mode of straw man construction. It is like clockwork, and I'm not sure you know how to control it.

McCain thinks the war was necessary, achievable, and noble. I’m sure he agrees with you that he would have been The One who could pull it off “successfully”.

You're not dealing with the evidence. What are the main factors that make the war appear unsuccessful?

1. The length
2. The money spent
3. The economic impact
4. The casualties

McCain is the only politician who has shown a plan that works in Iraq. The surge was his baby, and it has proved to be the way to make Iraq work. Of course it came a little too late for democrats, because they already bailed out and have vested all their political interests in seeing Iraq become an utter failure. But the fact of the matter is that McCain's surge proposal gives us a victory in sight and hope for a bright Iraq future.

And you are actually maintaining that “President McCain” would not have invaded Iraq???

Are you actually maintaining that a "President Kerry" or a "President Billary" would not have invaded Iraq? They also believed removing Saddam was necessary. Do you think they believed he would simply be so kind and generous as to remove himself to end the economic sanctions on his people? Talk about naïve.

The argument is whether or not McCain would have invaded Iraq, and hence, is a higher risk for invading Iran.

And my argument is that all the evidence you use to argue this can be used to argue that Democrats would have invaded Iraq just the same. The warnings and the theats came from the Clinton administration in the late 90's. Hell they even attacked Iraq as a warning. But according to you, this does not count as evidence that a post-Clinton democrat president would have invaded Iraq!! No, of course not. Only McCain would have done that because he said he supported it. Jesus H. Christ!

Now, if all those republicans who supported Obama’s legislation had declared it “necessary, noble, and achievable”, then, yeah, they would have proposed one of these bills if Obama had not. Unless, of course, they aren’t concerned about necessary, noble, and achievable legislation.

You're being intentionally naïve. What politician passes something he/she doesn't think is necessary? Who votes onsomething saying, "Ya know, this isn't really necessary, but Ihave nothing better to do at the moment other than vote yes."

Whenever a politician proposes something that gets public praise, everyone has to either jump on board with the usual "its noble, necessary, achievable" mantra or make an argument why it is wrong. The Iraq war is a perfect example. Democrats were praising it because it was politically necessary, not because they would have done it if they were given the chance. Obama disagreed because he thought it was a right-wing conspiracy to keep the black man down! Something we'd expect from Chris Rock.

But my point is that Clinton had already signed the Iraq Liberation Act authorizing Saddam’s overthrow. He went out of his way to make this US policy, but you don't think he and his wife really didn't think it was "necessary"? The whole purpose for the act was to see to Iraq's "regime change." You don't overthrow dictators without boots on the ground. American policy towards Iraq was already set in motion before Bush entered office. You haven't even begun to address these facts:

by the time George Bush entered the White House in January 2001, the United States was already at war with Iraq, and in fact had been at war for a decade, ever since the first Gulf war in the early 1990’s. (This was literally the case, the end of hostilities in 1991 being merely a cease-fire and not a formal surrender followed by a peace treaty.) Not only that, but the diplomatic and military framework Bush inherited for neutralizing the Middle East’s most fearsome dictator had been approved by the United Nations. It consisted of (a) regular UN inspections to track and dispose of weapons of mass destruction (WMD’s) remaining in Saddam’s arsenal since the first Gulf war; (b) UN-monitored sanctions to prevent Saddam from acquiring the means to make more WMD’s; and (c) the creation of so-called “no-fly zones” over large sections of southern and northern Iraq to deter Saddam from sending the remnants of his air force against resisting Kurds and Shiite Muslims.

The problem, as Bill Clinton discovered at the start of his second term, was that this “containment regime” was collapsing. By this point Saddam was not just the brutal dictator who had killed as many as two million of his own people and used chemical weapons in battle against Iran (and in 1988 against Iraqis themselves). Nor was he just the regional aggressor who had to be driven out of Kuwait in 1991 by an international coalition of armed forces in Operation Desert Storm. As Clinton recognized, Saddam’s WMD programs, in combination with his ties to international terrorists, posed a direct challenge to the United States.

In a February 17, 1998 speech at the Pentagon, Clinton focused on what in his State of the Union address a few weeks earlier he had called an “unholy axis” of rogue states and predatory powers threatening the world’s security. “There is no more clear example of this threat,” he asserted, “than Saddam Hussein’s Iraq,” and he added that the danger would grow many times worse if Saddam were able to realize his thoroughly documented ambition, going back decades and at one point close to accomplishment, of acquiring an arsenal of nuclear as well as chemical and biological weapons. The United States, Clinton said, “simply cannot allow this to happen.”...
And so, “starting in early 1999,” as Kenneth Pollack, an official in Clinton’s National Security Council, would later recount, “the Clinton administration began to develop options to overthrow Saddam’s regime.”

A plan for an actual land invasion of Iraq had been drawn up a few years earlier under the stewardship of Colin Powell, then the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. It was updated after Desert Fox. Although (Pollack writes) “no one thought the U.S. public would support such an invasion,” this was now beginning to seem the only option...

In testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in late 1998, Ritter castigated the Clinton White House for failing to confront Saddam with the threat of invasion. This hardly endeared him to the President, but it did win him two warm allies in the Senate. One was the Republican John McCain. The other was the Democrat John Kerry, who outspokenly declared that since Saddam clearly intended “to build WMD’s no matter what the cost,” America “must be prepared to use force to achieve its goals.”

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/viewa ... able-11456

But according to you, a President Hillary wouldn't have followed through with her husband's recent policy and planned an invasion of Iraq? What planet are you on?

The fact that he doesn’t think INVADING was a mistake, and, in fact, was “necessary, noble, and achievable” tells us that he would have invaded Iraq, too.

Then by that logic, just about any democrat president would have done the same. Do you really think none of the democrats who supported it would not describe it as "necessary, noble or achievable"? Are you really this ignorant of recent history? There were plenty of democrats just as "gung ho" about attacking Iraq as was Bush.

“Whimping out and apologizes” indicates that they realize it was a mistake.

What they believe and what is true, are not necessarily synonymous. They quickly realized a failed Iraq would be the greatest political gift to the democratic party. They could use this for their own political gain for decades to come, abusing the ignorance of the American people who would never really understand that this political egg was originally hatched during the Clinton administration.

Now whether any of them would have been stupid enough to commit the exact same mistake is uncertain. It’s possible.

Calling it a mistake over and over is not an argument. It might turn out to be a mistake, but at this point things are looking bright for Iraq's future - to the detriment of democrat hopes and your hatred towards the religious right.

But since Obama never supported the war to begin with, that’s a moot point

Obama was a nobody who had no say and no valued opinion one way or the other. He reminds me of the idiots who said OJ Simpson was innocent, even though they knew everyone else believed otherwise. They say it just to stand out as being defiant to consensus, and if by some wild chance Simpson gets a pass, they act like this proves something about their judgment or intelligence.

You’re the one arguing himself blue in the face that McCain would never have invaded Iraq!!!

No, I said I don't believe he would have. McCain knows war up close and personal, and isn't particularly fond of it. I think when it all boiled down to it, he would have taken diplomatic measures the same way he went against his party on the matter of interrogation techniques.

You are the one arguing yourself green in the face that he absolutely would have invaded, simply because he supported the Iraq war along with just about everyone else. You cannot reasonably make this claim while at the same time rejecting the fact that this must mean a President Kerry or Hillary would have done the same exact thing. Hillary's husband was responsible for making this US policy - removing Saddam Hussein at all costs. Incidentally, he is the reason Osama bin Ladin is on the loose.

"Entirely responsible”? Certainly they were relying on some of the same faulty information. But entirely responsible?

Yes, Clinton was entirely responsible. The first Bush administration did not make it part of US policy. It liberated Kuwait and then left the area. If George Bush senior was going to invade Iraq, he would have done it during the first Gulf War while he had the military already there. After bombing the snot out of the Iraqi artillery, war planes and military installations, toppling Saddam would have been a rather easy task. But Bush senior left him in power because we were not prepared for the massive undertaking that would be involved in nation rebuilding.

The first time the USA talked about removing Saddam would come nearly a decade later when Bill Clinton spoke of it as a "necessity."

You are simplistic and naïve. The president of Iran has a base that he has to coddle and appease, just like our politicians.

Uh, yea. So what you're saying is that the hundreds of Russian scientists who were involved in designing Iran's nuclear program, was just a charade that their President threw up to convince his "base" he is trying to "coddle and appease." And Russia admitted its role because it wanted to continue this charade for the sake of deceiving and coddling the Iranian people.

You are in idiot mode again beastie. The fact is most Iranians don't even like their President, and he isn't interested in coddling anyone. That isn't how politics work over there.

You’ve admitted on this thread that Roe V Wade will likely never be overturned, yet how many republican candidates have led their base to believe that overturning Roe V Wade is not only doable, but within reach, and their election will help bring that to pass. It’s called “exciting the base”.

Oh really? So when did McCain and Palin say they were going to try to overthrow Roe vs. Wade? Let's see the evidence.

by the way, Saddam did pretend to have WMD. Did you really not know that, or is that just another inconvenient fact you’d rather ignore?

Saddam Hussein 2/5/03: "We have said many times before, and we say it again today, that Iraq is free of such weapons." http://archive.southcoasttoday.com/dail ... 2wn024.htm

Please remove your foot from your mouth.

As I said, Hussein gave the world reason enough to believe he didn't have them. He adamantly denied having them. The Iranian president makes it clear what he intends to achieve and by what means. The article you hyperlinked is in reference to Saddam's need to appear strong to his enemy, Iran. But the reason so many countries disapproved of the war was because Saddam denied to them that he had WMDs. While he pretended having them for the sake of deceiving Iran, intelligence agencies knew this was just a ploy.

I’ve been told, on this thread, that I’m a nut for imagining McCain would ever consider invading Iran. Never happen. Yet, our politicians sure do like to pretend that it’s a viable alternative.

But in beastie's brain, what the "politicians" pretend is viable, can only be said to be what McCain would do. Not politicians in general, just McCain! Not a democrat. Just McCain. It has to be that way because it is. So there.

That's your argument.

Oooo, slippery maneuver there, dart, and completely unsuccessful. Or do you not know what the word "invade" means?

Yes, and I understand that this option was set in motion as necessary before the end of Clinton's administration. Only a moron would say someone who attacks a country and declares it a necessity to remove its leader, would never invade it! Operation Desert Fox was a failure. If in office longer, Clintion would have had no choice but to invade Iraq, as his own "Liberation Act" required him to. He passed that torch to Bush instead of dealing with the usual political fallout that follows all war. The Lewinsky ordeal probably distracted him from that agenda as well. But ultimately he put himself in a advantageous position. While Bush was getting his hands dirty while finishing Clinton's agenda, Clinton was in the comfortable position of being able to take credit for the success in Iraq, or blame its failure on Bush.

Thanks to the surge we no longer have to worry about Iran’s increased power and influence in Iraq!

If it had been implemented years ago, that would probably be true.

Thanks to the surge we no longer have to worry about Iraq becoming the new training ground for angry Islamic terrorists… who now have very good reasons to hate us. Man, that surge was… dare I say it…miraculous!

Are you really oblivious to the successes of the surge?

I “want” it to be a failure???? I “want” even more angry Islamic terrorists??? I “want” the mid-east to be even more volatile?

Yes, you do. This much is obvious. Your cynicism towards the Iraq situation is apparent and it is without rational basis. You are using its predicted failure for fodder in your political rants. Without failure in Iraq, your entire political worldview implodes. This is why it is so important for you and other liberals, to make sure things don't work in Iraq. That is why Obama was an irresponsible idiot for opposing the surge.

This is a fact: The surge turned things around and dramatically reduced deaths in Iraq. McCain proposed it, and Obama opposed it. How can anyone trying to decide who is better to lead in this war, sit there and ignore this clear fact? It is the only time both of these guys participated in a decision process regarding the current war, and McCain proved he knows what to do while Obama only knows how to play safe politics (no, there was nothing unsafeor risky about disagreeing with the Iraq war when you're one of 60 members of a state senate.)

If you ignore it then you do so for your own selfish reasons. Obama in office is more important to you than a successful Iraq future. This is what the evidence shows.

If the war in Iraq was such a great idea, why are you insisting McCain would never have invaded Iraq??? Again – do you even read your own posts, much less anyone elses???

More importantly, I understand my posts. Your problem is your failure to understand basic English. There are many things that are not "mistakes" but at the same time, not necessarily "great ideas." Everything for you has to be one end of the two extremes, always. I never said Iraq was a mistake. I said the future will determine that. You're not reasonable or even cautious enough to even admit this. This proves that for you, it has to be a failure.

For you, there is nothing any politician can do to salvage Iraq's future. It is a lost cause and we have to get out as soon as possible. Because you see, when we originally planned to invade a country and let hundreds of thousands of soldeirs do battle in the desert, the idea that maybe 4,000 of our soldiers would be killed was just unfathomable right? Only to those living on planet moveon.org.

This is how out of touch democrats are with reality. McCain knows war. If anyone is prepared to lead in this war it is McCain. Obama is a young idiot who opposed the war because he said it was a calculated attempt by the Bush administration to "distract" us from the sufferings of America's poor. Even Obama was oblivious to his own party's role during the Clinton administration. Someone this ignorant shouldn't be handed over the most important job in the world.

by the way, antishock also thinks the war was a huge mistake.

I think the timing was a mistake. But the question about mistake never would be an issue if Clinton had not originally designed this debacle by insisting Saddam had to be removed, and insisting he had WMDs. Bush was simply operating under the assumption that Clinton's intelligence was reliable.

Colin Powell thought the war was a mistake.

Because of the way in which it was carried out. He was butting heads with Rumsfeld left and right because they were not listening to any of his suggestions. But Powell originally believed the war was necesarry. Its just that he had no idea how the adminsitration would handle it with such incompetence. If only McCain and Petreaus had been incharge from the get-go.

Bush had family influence, otherwise, he never would have been admitted or graduated. Obama had no family influence, but in your worldview, he “rode in on his skin color”.

Yes, are you intentionally ignoring the evidence? The Uof Chicago was desperately trying to land him because of his status as the "first black editor" for HLR. They wanted him to finish his book and accomodated him in every way, even though he had virtually no experience working in the real world after obtaining his doctorate. There was a buzz that Obama was the next MLK, and what educational institution wouldn't want to boast of having educated him?

Yale wanted to capture headlines as being diversity minded by permitting an Al Queida commander to enter its classrooms. Half of the professors in Middle-East studies walk in the door simply because they are from the Middle-East and speak Arabic with fluency, no matter what kind of ties they might have with terrorists movements. My point is that these institutions are businesses first and foremost. And like most businesses, image means everything.

LoaP has called Dart on his racist comments?

He has? Where? What have I said that is racist? Do you even know what the word means? A racist is one who believes a person is superior to another because of race. What you are doing is race baiting.

But according to the common misunderstanding of the term, most racists in America are black.

“nuff said.

Palin probably knows more about Iraq than the two of us. What makes you think she doesn't? Isn't her son serving there? She has more at stake than you and I wever will. Haven't you noticed that every little incident in Iraq is no longer front page news? It isn't because the media gave up its coverage there, but rather, because there isn't much to cover anymore since the surge. Nothing negative anyway, and the media isn't about to cover any positives taking place over there.

you have no idea what I want to happen in Iraq, and it is morally repulsive of you to suggest that I want to watch the country burn, that I don’t care about Iraqis, that all I care about is blaming republicans.

Then change your tune and convince us otherwise. Deal with the evidence. Accept the fact that the war in Iraq has saved countless lives and has given hope for an otherwise destitue future over there. You can't do this because your intention first and foremost is to call it all a mistake. It is hard to call something a mistake while at the same time acknolwedging the good that has come from it. Also, you guys seem to need Islamic states to exist so you have something to reference in your attacks on religion. One would think that atheists would be the first to support an effort to westernize these whacko countries. But if the Islamic countries became secularized, that would remove one of your best sources of ammunition when attacking religion in general.

[_dartagnan]

May 20, 2008

DO we still have troops in Iraq? Is there still a conflict over there?

If you rely on the so-called mainstream media, you may have difficulty answering those questions these days. As Iraqi and Coalition forces pile up one success after another, Iraq has magically vanished from the headlines.

Want a real "inconvenient truth?" Progress in Iraq is powerful and accelerating.

But that fact isn't helpful to elite media commissars and cadres determined to decide the presidential race over our heads. How dare our troops win? Even worse, Iraqi troops are winning. Daily.

You won't see that above the fold in The New York Times. And forget the Obama-intoxicated news networks - they've adopted his story line that the clock stopped back in 2003.

To be fair to the quit-Iraq-and-save-the-terrorists media, they have covered a few recent stories from Iraq:

* When a rogue US soldier used a Koran for target practice, journalists pulled out all the stops to turn it into "Abu Ghraib, The Sequel."

Unforgivably, the Army handled the situation well. The "atrocity" didn't get the traction the whorespondents hoped for.

* When a battered, bleeding al Qaeda managed to set off a few bombs targeting Sunni Arabs who'd turned against terror, that, too, received delighted media play.

* As long as Baghdad-based journalists could hope that the joint US-Iraqi move into Sadr City would end disastrously, we were treated to a brief flurry of headlines.

* A few weeks back, we heard about another Iraqi company - 100 or so men - who declined to fight. The story was just delicious, as far as the media were concerned.

Then tragedy struck: As in Basra the month before, absent-without-leave (and hiding in Iran) Muqtada al Sadr quit under pressure from Iraqi and US troops. The missile and mortar attacks on the Green Zone stopped. There's peace in the streets.

Today, Iraqi soldiers, not militia thugs, patrol the lanes of Sadr City, where waste has replaced roadside bombs as the greatest danger to careless footsteps. US advisers and troops support the effort, but Iraq's government has taken another giant step forward in establishing law and order.

My fellow Americans, have you read or seen a single interview with any of the millions of Iraqis in Sadr City or Basra who are thrilled that the gangster militias are gone from their neighborhoods?

Didn't think so. The basic mission of the American media between now and November is to convince you, the voter, that Iraq's still a hopeless mess.

Meanwhile, they've performed yet another amazing magic trick - making Kurdistan disappear.

Remember the Kurds? Our allies in northern Iraq? When last sighted, they were living in peace and building a robust economy with regular elections, burgeoning universities and municipal services that worked.

After Israel, the most livable, decent place in the greater Middle East is Iraqi Kurdistan. Wouldn't want that news getting out.

If the Kurds would only start slaughtering their neighbors and bombing Coalition troops, they might get some attention. Unfortunately, there are no US or allied combat units in Kurdistan for Kurds to bomb. They weren't needed. And (benighted people that they are) the Kurds are pro-American - despite the virulent anti-Kurdish prejudices prevalent in our Saudi-smooching State Department.

Developments just keep getting grimmer for the MoveOn.org fan base in the media. Iraq's Sunni Arabs, who had supported al Qaeda and homegrown insurgents, now support their government and welcome US troops. And, in southern Iraq, the Iranians lost their bid for control to Iraq's government.

Bury those stories on Page 36.

Our troops deserve better. The Iraqis deserve better. You deserve better. The forces of freedom are winning.

Here in the Land of the Free, of course, freedom of the press means the freedom to boycott good news from Iraq. But the truth does have a way of coming out.

The surge worked. Incontestably. Iraqis grew disenchanted with extremism. Our military performed magnificently. More and more Iraqis have stepped up to fight for their own country. The Iraqi economy's taking off. And, for all its faults, the Iraqi legislature has accomplished far more than our own lobbyist-run Congress over the last 18 months.

When Iraq seemed destined to become a huge American embarrassment, our media couldn't get enough of it. Now that Iraq looks like a success in the making, there's a virtual news blackout.

Of course, the front pages need copy. So you can read all you want about the heroic efforts of the Chinese People's Army in the wake of the earthquake.

Tells you all you really need to know about our media: American soldiers bad, Red Chinese troops good.

Is Jane Fonda on her way to the earthquake zone yet?

http://www.nypost.com/seven/05202008/po ... 111606.htm

[_beastie]

As did virtually every politician in Washington. Let that sink in and read it a dozen times if it helps. You're logic is tragically flawed and you know it. You don't seem to be able to understand that just because a person was supporting something that this is not a guarantee that this person would have done it had the person proposing it, not proposed.

Let’s cut through the BS, however difficult it is to do with you. Do you believe that the invasion of Iraq was a good decision? Note: I am not talking about how it was administered, but the idea to invade in the first place. Careful, you’ve already revealed quite a bit of your thoughts on this matter. You may want to read your old posts first – (maybe for the first time).

Now, aside from that, my logic is as follows: McCain fully supported the invasion of Iraq from the beginning, although he, at times, has criticized the administration of the war. Since that time, he has consistently defended the invasion of Iraq. He has never once stated that, even given the benefit of hindsight – that the invasion of Iraq was a mistake.

Now, certainly almost every other politician supported the war in Iraq initially. You have stated this as well, all the while illogically insisting that Obama took no risk in opposing the war during the same period nearly every other politician was supporting it. However, given the benefit of hindsight, many of those same politicians has stated that they were in err in their initial support, and the war was a mistake. McCain has never made or insinuated such an idea. This means that – even knowing what has happened, even knowing the difficulties that lay ahead – McCain is still firmly wedded to his view that the war in Iraq was justified. This level of denial of the myriad of unintended consequences of this action indicates an extreme devotion to either ideology or his own opinions that render him incapable of coming to the conclusion so many others see as obvious – the war in Iraq was a mistake.

There are certainly other politicians that may be just as wedded to ideology or their own opinions – Bush does come to mind – but the fact that there are others does not change reality about John McCain.

He supported the invasion of Iraq, and has never retracted from that position one bit. He has never retracted from his position that it was “necessary, noble, and achievable”.

Your refusal to grasp basic logic is why I have referred to your political rants as idiotic and stupid. You are really smarter than this, but the your mind seems to approach Forrest Gumpish territory when you start yapping on politics and religion. I suspect this is the real reason you don't like talking about these issues; because you can't control yourself.

Dart, your incessant need to call people who oppose your opinion stupid is tiring. It reflects poorly on you – not your opponent. This has always been the case with you, no matter what side of whatever fence you are on – you just have to call people stupid, over and over and over. It’s ridiculous, and this has been pointed out to you many times. But you persist. It’s a strange and troubling trait. It's like a tic.

But this is the “real reason” I don’t like talking about these issues – there is always at least one Dart in every conversation like this. There is always one person totally persuaded of his rightness, totally persuaded of other people’s stupidity, and totally impervious to logic or facts. I can only take so much of it, before I do feel like an idiot – not for what I’ve said, but for the fact that I continue to take the time to talk to someone like you.

Here is a perfect example of the things I am talking about. I had initially said, "if anyone could have pulled off a successful war with Iraq, it is John McCain." But once this is entered into beasties mind and was processed through the usual spin cycle, it comes out as - "You’re assuring us that McCain would have been able to pull off a successful war with Iraq."

I'll let the unclouded thinkers see the obvious difference in what was actually said, vs. your spin on it. This is your usual mode of straw man construction. It is like clockwork, and I'm not sure you know how to control it.

What difference does this distinction make in my point????? None whatsoever, but I guess it’s the best you can do.

You're not dealing with the evidence. What are the main factors that make the war appear unsuccessful?

1. The length
2. The money spent
3. The economic impact
4. The casualties

McCain is the only politician who has shown a plan that works in Iraq. The surge was his baby, and it has proved to be the way to make Iraq work. Of course it came a little too late for democrats, because they already bailed out and have vested all their political interests in seeing Iraq become an utter failure. But the fact of the matter is that McCain's surge proposal gives us a victory in sight and hope for a bright Iraq future.

As I suspected. You do believe that the invasion was justified. There’s “victory in sight” and “hope for a bright Iraq future”. So if this is true, then why are you so adamant in insisting McCain never would have invaded Iraq in the first place? It’s working out fabulously, as far as you’re concerned. Never mind the expanded influence of Iran. Never mind the expanded training ground for angry Islamic radicalists. Never mind the damage done to international relationships just when we need them the most. All that disappears with the magic wand “surge”.

Are you actually maintaining that a "President Kerry" or a "President Billary" would not have invaded Iraq? They also believed removing Saddam was necessary. Do you think they believed he would simply be so kind and generous as to remove himself to end the economic sanctions on his people? Talk about naïve.

“President Billary”, despite your earlier blather, had plenty of time to invade Iraq and did not. I do not believe Kerry would have invaded Iraq. But I could be wrong. It doesn't change my point. See, dart, what you are forgetting is the misleading or outright fabricated evidence that the Bushies cooked up to promote support for the invasion. I do blame people like Kerry and Hillary for not doing their job in carefully scrutinizing the baloney Bush was pedaling. However, I do not believe either would have actually manufactured the type of BS that Bush did to agitate for the war – a war that, by your own admission, he was planning on before the election. But again, I may be wrong, and that wouldn't change my basic point.

This country, and its leaders, has tolerated dictators before, and we will do so again. Sometimes we tolerate them due to malicious motives of self-interest. Sometimes we tolerate them because there is no good alternative. We would have done the same with Saddam.

And my argument is that all the evidence you use to argue this can be used to argue that Democrats would have invaded Iraq just the same. The warnings and the theats came from the Clinton administration in the late 90's. Hell they even attacked Iraq as a warning. But according to you, this does not count as evidence that a post-Clinton democrat president would have invaded Iraq!! No, of course not. Only McCain would have done that because he said he supported it. Jesus H. Christ!

See above.

You're being intentionally naïve. What politician passes something he/she doesn't think is necessary? Who votes onsomething saying, "Ya know, this isn't really necessary, but Ihave nothing better to do at the moment other than vote yes."

Whenever a politician proposes something that gets public praise, everyone has to either jump on board with the usual "its noble, necessary, achievable" mantra or make an argument why it is wrong. The Iraq war is a perfect example. Democrats were praising it because it was politically necessary, not because they would have done it if they were given the chance. Obama disagreed because he thought it was a right-wing conspiracy to keep the black man down! Something we'd expect from Chris Rock.

But my point is that Clinton had already signed the Iraq Liberation Act authorizing Saddam’s overthrow. He went out of his way to make this US policy, but you don't think he and his wife really didn't think it was "necessary"? The whole purpose for the act was to see to Iraq's "regime change." You don't overthrow dictators without boots on the ground. American policy towards Iraq was already set in motion before Bush entered office. You haven't even begun to address these facts:

Aha! You mean politicians sometimes say things they don’t really mean for political reasons???? You mean politicians sometimes say things they don’t mean in order to apply pressure on some group? WOW! Thanks for supporting my point - yet again. You’re ridiculous –you provide evidence for my own assertion (see the blusterings of Iran, and the claims of Saddam), and never even realize it.

Clinton had plenty of time to invade Iraq if he so chose. He didn’t. He was applying pressure, just like Bush Sr. did before him.

But, I may be wrong. Maybe Bill would have invaded. Maybe Hillary would have invaded. How does that change my argument at all? It only changes the names of the players.

Then by that logic, just about any democrat president would have done the same. Do you really think none of the democrats who supported it would not describe it as "necessary, noble or achievable"? Are you really this ignorant of recent history? There were plenty of democrats just as "gung ho" about attacking Iraq as was Bush.

Ignorant??? I’ve repeatedly pointed out that in the post 9/11 hysteria, everyone supported the war. I’ve used this as a point in Obama’s favor, because he went against the stream and did not support it. Yet, ironically, you can’t even give him credit for that.

And, again, who cares??? What does it change about my argument???? Yes, everyone was gung ho as Bush to attack Iraq. But he was the one who actually did it. If someone else had done it, I would be criticizing them.

What they believe and what is true, are not necessarily synonymous. They quickly realized a failed Iraq would be the greatest political gift to the democratic party. They could use this for their own political gain for decades to come, abusing the ignorance of the American people who would never really understand that this political egg was originally hatched during the Clinton administration.

You are morally repulsive in that you are incapable of recognizing that people who have very different opinions than you do on this issue have those opinions not out of evil machinations, and malicious disrespect for life, but because they genuinely believe their ideas would better serve this country. You represent everything wrong with political dialog in this country.

I’ve had it with you. You can blather on all you like. You can pretend that you’ve won this argument. You can pretend that people who oppose the war in Iraq are evil cretins who don’t care about human life. You are disgusting, and I’m tired of getting in the mud with you. I can’t even stand to read the rest of your post, so you can pretend you "won" all those points. You always do.

[_beastie]

by the way, here's a link to Iraq Liberation Act of 1998. Readers can see for themselves what Clinton wanted to do to get rid of Saddam:

http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/US/ ... on/ILA.htm

Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 - Declares that it should be the policy of the United States to seek to remove the Saddam Hussein regime from power in Iraq and to replace it with a democratic government.

Authorizes the President, after notifying specified congressional committees, to provide to the Iraqi democratic opposition organizations: (1) grant assistance for radio and television broadcasting to Iraq; (2) Department of Defense (DOD) defense articles and services and military education and training (IMET); and (3) humanitarian assistance, with emphasis on addressing the needs of individuals who have fled from areas under the control of the Hussein regime. Prohibits assistance to any group or organization that is engaged in military cooperation with the Hussein regime. Authorizes appropriations.

Directs the President to designate: (1) one or more Iraqi democratic opposition organizations that meet specified criteria as eligible to receive assistance under this Act; and (2) additional such organizations which satisfy the President's criteria.

Urges the President to call upon the United Nations to establish an international criminal tribunal for the purpose of indicting, prosecuting, and imprisoning Saddam Hussein and other Iraqi officials who are responsible for crimes against humanity, genocide, and other criminal violations of international law.

Expresses the sense of the Congress that once the Saddam Hussein regime is removed from power in Iraq, the United States should support Iraq's transition to democracy by providing humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people and democracy transition assistance to Iraqi parties and movements with democratic goals, including convening Iraq's foreign creditors to develop a multilateral response to the foreign debt incurred by the Hussein regime.

[_bcspace]

Regarding Palin, I think it's hilarious to see the left reduced to criticizing pre-marital sex and a woman with children for having a career.

[Guest]

Anyone watching her speech? Lame...nothing but family BS for 10 minutes. If she's running for President of the PTA okay, but V.Pres of USA? [no way!] How can they justify that she's qualified to be President?

[She mentioned her family, and her daughter's baby daddy looked like he was about ready to get the chair. Talk about nervous. That was quite funny, to me anyway.]

[Guest]

She does sound a little nervous (her facial expression says otherwise) but she's kicking Demo butt. She's speaking to the common man better than any Democrat ever could; without appealing to the poor irresponsible victim.

I'm begnning to think McCain hit a homerun here. We shall see. The Republican party hit a sacrifice fly by picking McCain. They will need the homerun after.

[_Jersey Girl]

Wouldn't it be a grand idea to open up a new (perhaps temporary) political forum on MDB for just this type of discussion?