Govenor Sarah Palin, Mormonism, Post-Mormonism, Politics

[_collegeterrace]

Is there supposed to be a point in there?

I nevers aid McCain didn't agree with Bush on Iraq. I said I don't think McCain would have initiated the war.

True, unless they held the market on hops.

[_dartagnan]

Bush actually went into office operating on the three year, fabricated myth by the Clinton administration, that Iraq had WMDs.

Essentially, it was Madeline Albright who convinced Saddam there was no point in him complying with UN resolutions since she made it clear in a 1997 speech that sanctions against Iraq should not be lifted unless Saddam was removed from power.

On March 26, 1997, she strode on to the stage at Georgetown University to deliver what was billed as a major policy address on Iraq. Many in the audience expected that she would extend some sort of olive branch toward the Iraqi regime, but that was far from her mind.

Instead, she was set on making sure that Saddam effectively ended his cooperation with the inspectors. "We do not agree with the nations who argue that if Iraq complies with its obligations concerning weapons of mass destruction, sanctions should be lifted," she declared. Sanctions, she stated without equivocation, would remain unless or until Saddam was driven from power.

Ekeus understood immediately what Albright intended. "I knew that Saddam would now feel that there was no point in his cooperating with us, and that was the intent of her speech."

Sure enough, the following day he got an angry call from Tariq Aziz, Saddam's deputy prime minister and emissary to the outside world. "He wanted to know why Iraq should work with us any more."

From then on, the inspectors found their lives increasingly difficult, as Iraqi officials, clearly acting under instructions from Saddam, blocked them at every turn.Ekeus resigned in July 1997, to be replaced by the Australian Richard Butler. Butler was soon embroiled in acrimonious confrontation with the Iraqis. Later the following year, all the inspectors were withdrawn from Iraq and the US mounted a series of bombing raids.

Clinton's strategy had been successful. Iraq remained under sanctions, while in Washington the neo-conservative faction spun the wildest conjectures as to what evil schemes Saddam, unmolested by inspectors, might be concocting with his weapons scientists.

In fact Saddam had long abandoned all his WMD programs, but as the CIA had no sources of intelligence inside Iraq, no one in the West could prove this.

Finally, following 9/11, the war party in George Bush Jr's administration was able to make the case for invasion on the grounds that Saddam had refused to comply with UN resolutions on disarmament by refusing to grant access to the weapons inspectors. The Iraq disaster has many fathers.

http://www.counterpunch.org/andrew09292007.html


Bill Clinton, Januay 27 1998:

"Together, we must confront the new hazards of chemical and biological weapons and the outlaw states, terrorists, and organized criminals seeking to acquire them. Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade and much of his nation's wealth not on providing for the Iraqi people but on developing nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them. The United Nations weapons inspectors have done a truly remarkable job finding and destroying more of Iraq's arsenal than was destroyed during the entire Gulf war. Now Saddam Hussein wants to stop them from completing their mission.

I know I speak for everyone in this chamber, Republicans and Democrats, when I say to Saddam Hussein, "You cannot defy the will of the world," and when I say to him, "You have used weapons of mass destruction before. We are determined to deny you the capacity to use them again."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q2iOVqYBqME


Bill Clinton December 16, 1998:

"Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.

Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.

I want to explain why I have decided, with the unanimous recommendation of my national security team, to use force in Iraq; why we have acted now; and what we aim to accomplish.

Six weeks ago, Saddam Hussein announced that he would no longer cooperate with the United Nations weapons inspectors called UNSCOM. They are highly professional experts from dozens of countries. Their job is to oversee the elimination of Iraq's capability to retain, create and use weapons of mass destruction, and to verify that Iraq does not attempt to rebuild that capability."

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/ ... inton.html

If Bush lied about the WMDs, then why do the Democrats who invented the myth to begin with, get a free pass and feel they are in a position to criticize?

"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998

"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

I hardly expect beastie can drudge up old republican comments that prove as embarrassing as these. After all, Bush is hated for essentially finishing what these guys started. He is accused of lying as if he made it up out of thin air. This is why he planned the invasion. As governor of Texas, he was actually paying attention to the Clinton administration's Iraq fear campaign.

[_beastie]

Is there supposed to be a point in there?

I nevers aid McCain didn't agree with Bush on Iraq. I said I don't think McCain would have initiated the war.

LOL! Yeah, McCain agrees with Bush on all the transcendent issues, but he wouldn’t have initiated the war. Riiiight.


Where has McCain ever stated that invading Iraq was a mistake? The only mistake he’s recognized is the management of the war, not the idea of invading itself. McCain has made his support of Bush’s war policy clear, many times. While this is a biased website, it has a good collection of McCain’s comments proving just that.

McCain's own statements about the war

“I think that Blix’s report will be fairly definitive. But Mr. Blix has made a lot of reports over the years, and I think the judgment made by the United States of America will — and the president of the United States — will prevail here.” [NBC, 2/12/03]
“I believe as strongly today as ever, the mission [in Iraq] was necessary, achievable and noble. For his determination to undertake it, and for his unflagging resolve to see it through to a just end, President Bush deserves not only our support, but our admiration.” [GOP Convention, 8/30/04]
“The fact is that I have agreed with President Bush far more than I have disagreed. And on the transcendent issues, the most important issues of our day, I’ve been totally in agreement and support of President Bush.” [Meet the Press, 6/19/05]
MR. GREGORY: Do you, do you have confidence in the president and his national security team to lead the war at this stage?
SEN. McCAIN: I do. I do. I have confidence in the president and I believe that he is well aware of the severity of the situation. [Meet the Press, 8/20/06]
“I’m sticking with the president in this respect [on Iraq]. This is our last chance. The consequences of failure are catastrophic.” [CNN, 2/13/07]
“I am proud of this president’s strategy in Iraq.” [Receiving Bush’s endorsement, 2/13/08]

I hardly expect beastie can drudge up old republican comments that prove as embarrassing as these. After all, Bush is hated for essentially finishing what these guys started. He is accused of lying as if he made it up out of thin air. This is why he planned the invasion. As governor of Texas, he was actually paying attention to the Clinton administration's Iraq fear campaign.

Heh. This proves my point. Yes, the intelligence was faulty, and other administrations believed that Saddam had WMD. (and, by the way, the long-term problem of faulty intelligence is important to remember in today’s rhetoric about Iran) Even believing this, they did not invade Iraq. See Cheney’s pre-insanity remarks to find out why.

This is what I want – a leader who has the judgment to evaluate and synthesize all the information, a leader who has the ability to think through long-term unintended consequences before acting rashly. And what I want from our future president is the ability to recognize – even in hindsight – that, given all the information, invading Iraq was a serious mistake. The mistake wasn’t just in Bush’s mishandling of it (and there’s no denying the Bush administration has been incompetent in just about everything they’ve done, the real question is whether or not that incompetence is deliberate or accidental) – the mistake was ever invading in the first place.

For those who truly believe, like dart, that Obama is “stupid” ought to compare his academic career to Bush and McCain’s. Of course, academic success does not predict governing success, but it certainly has something to do with intelligence.

Having said all that, I do recognize the Antishock is likely correct, and few Americans really care about a war being waged far away, on credit. They’re not being asked to pay any price for this war, and our military families who are paying the price volunteered, so that mutes some of the effect. I think it’s an unfortunate reality of the human species in general, and Americans in particular, that we seem rarely concerned with anything that does not have an obvious immediate negative impact. Our children, and their children, however, will be concerned. They will be forced to be concerned.

[_EAllusion]

George Bush happened to be influenced by the neoconservatives in his administration - Cheney most notably. Unlike Bush, John McCain is a neoconsevative (he's been the dream candidate of Brooks and Kristol for a long time) and his advisory team essentially consists of them. Not only is there every indication that he would've gone to war in his statements, he probably was more likely to go to war in Iraq than Bush because the ideological motivations for it surround him far more than they do Bush.

[Guest]

http://www.nypost.com/seven/09032008/po ... 127183.htm

HOLY hoop skirts: When did the clock tick back to 1958?

When Joe Biden tragically lost his wife and infant daughter in a car wreck in 1972, not a single colleague, friend or competitor advised him to quit his newly won Senate seat to raise his two little surviving sons.

Rather, he was sworn into office from the injured boys' bedside, and took to commuting an hour and a half each way from Delaware to Washington. And when Biden's second wife gave birth to a daughter, no one thought to ask him to step aside and stay home.

They all do it. John Kennedy did it; so did Barack Obama: Men run for office and serve in elected positions while creating small children without ever being patronized as "super dads" or "multi-taskers."

Nor are they penalized, ridiculed or dismissed for ignoring their kids. They're good dads.

If Sarah Palin, tapped as John McCain's running mate, were a man, it's unlikely we'd even be having this conversation. (A man, or a Democrat.)

----------------------

Indeed, where are you Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton? Where are you NOW? Where are you Andrea Dworkin? Oh, wait, scratch the last one...

[_dartagnan]

Not only is there every indication that he would've gone to war in his statements, he probably was more likely to go to war in Iraq than Bush because the ideological motivations for it surround him far more than they do Bush.

How can it been humanly possible to be "more likely" to go to war than Bush, when Bush had it planned before he became President? Do you have any pre-war comments from McCain that would suggest this would have been his plan?

And if McCain's statements give "every indication" he would have gone to war, then what about the statements listed above from the Clinton Administration? What do they indicate about their own intentions. These comments were made at the tail end of his second term so he didn't have time to plan a war, but the fact is the Clinton's are responsible for laying the groundwork for the myth of Saddam's WMDs, his threat to national security, and their statements to that effect seem to be more condemning than anything McCain said.

In any event, recent history has taught us that if anyone could have pulled off a successful war with Iraq, it is John McCain. He is the man responsible for the recent surge. If this had been initiated from the beginning, the number of casualties on both sides would have been very different from what we've seen over the past few years. In fact it seems like the war never really got on the right path to success, until McCain's surge idea became realized. Now victory seems within reach. If it had been implemented from the start, this thing might have been over already.

By contrast, Obama disagreed with the surge, which proves he has no rational judgment on the Iraq issue and he is in no way qualified to be our Commander in Chief. As a military man himself, McCain knows war and he knows how to win wars. Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld were idiots and McCain disagreed with their method a let them know it: (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0107/2390.html)

Obama says he wants to withdraw the troops because he reads the polls and knows that is an easy way to get elected. He wants the Iraq mission to end up as a failure because he doesn't care about Iraqi citizens. He only cares about adding another knotch to his "first black man to do this" bedpost. Democrats cannot afford to see the Iraq war end up as a success. If it does, then they are totally screwed.

They've gone back and forth too many times on the matter, first instigating the WMD myth, then expecting the Bush administration to do their dirty work, then supporting the war, and then saying they apologize for supporting it because Bush mislead them about the WMDs when in fact they were the ones who started this myth.

So they have invested virtually all their credibility in its demise. How long can they continue to waffle on this? Democrats today have no backbone. They'll just do whatever it is they think will help them stay in office, even if that means leading Iraq to a tragic end. What do they care if the Iraq future is handed over to radicals and the country collapses? The death of Iraq is a political victory for democrats.

They know they can just blame the Republicans and say our military presence wouldn't have made a difference. But that is why the surge is so important. It completely discredits their theory and destroys their hopes. It proves them wrong. The surge, the increase of 30,000 troops, proves that success in Iraq is within reach. Obama wants to hurry up and get them all out before this becomes a popular realization among Americans. This is why the liberal media makes any incident in Iraq front page news. Popular perception is gold to them.

The Iraq war was not a bad idea. It is just that the wrong guy was in charge. Since the Iraq war continues today, let's put the right man in charge. McCain is the only politician who has demonstrated that he has a realistic and proven plan for success.

[_dartagnan]

LOL! Yeah, McCain agrees with Bush on all the transcendent issues, but he wouldn’t have initiated the war. Riiiight.

Giggles and sarcasm does not an argument make. If agreeing with the war is proof he would have started it himself, then by that logic so would any of the dozens of democrats who supported it.

Where has McCain ever stated that invading Iraq was a mistake?

You're ignoring the point and trying to change the argument. Post-Katrina, Obama passed legislation regarding natural disasters. Republicans agreed with it. Republicans didn't believe it was a mistake. Republicans helped pass it. By your logic, if Obama had not proposed these bills, one of the republicans would have.

The only mistake he’s recognized is the management of the war, not the idea of invading itself.

Uh, ya think? That's obvious. Maybe you should try harder to learn these distinctions.

McCain has made his support of Bush’s war policy clear, many times.

So have many Democrats. Just because they later whimped out and apologized, doesn't change the fact that when the war started, they agreed with it and supported it fully. By your logic, since they agreed with it, they would have done it if they were in Bush's position.

While this is a biased website, it has a good collection of McCain’s comments proving just that.

Still trying to tear down straw men I see.

Heh. This proves my point. Yes, the intelligence was faulty, and other administrations believed that Saddam had WMD.

"Other adminsitrations"? Why can't you just say it? There was only one. It was the Clinton adminsitration that was entirely responsible for this myth.

and, by the way, the long-term problem of faulty intelligence is important to remember in today’s rhetoric about Iran

We need not rely on intelligence agencies when we have the President of Iran telling the world point balnk, "Yes, we will develop nuclear technology whether you like it or not - oh yea, and Isreal needs to be destroyed." At least Hussein had the sense to deny having WMDs. There is no mystery about Iran's goals or intentions.

Even believing this, they did not invade Iraq.

You don't listen very well do you? Clinton did in fact attack Iraq in 1998. So when Clinton bombs Iraq because he thinks Hussein has WMDs, this is good. But when Bush does it, it is bad? We invaded Iraq to do what Clinton declared to be necessary. Clinton is the one who made Hussein spit in the face of the weapons inspectors. He was complying up until the point when he sent Madeline Albright to tell the world, "Ya know, it doesn't matter if he complies or not, we want him out of power." Of course, they didn't have time to plan a war just before the end of his term, the same way Bush won't start a war in Iran at this point, but the Clintons did set the current US policy on Iraq in motion back in 1998. Bush simply followed up with it. It was easy for him to get democrat support for teh war because virtually all of them had been wailing and moaning about Saddam's WMDs during the Clinton administration. How could they say, "Uh, sorry W, we need more evidence he has them," when they had previously declared with certainty that he did have them? As far as Obama, he was a legislator for Illinois at the time. His opinion was worthless. He had no credibility nor accountability, so he could say whatever the hell he wanted at that point.

This is what I want – a leader who has the judgment to evaluate and synthesize all the information, a leader who has the ability to think through long-term unintended consequences before acting rashly.

McCain is the man. His surge idea proved successful. I submit that if it were implemented from the get-go, that the insurgents never would have had the time to organize and cause as much damage and death as they did in the early years of the war.

And what I want from our future president is the ability to recognize – even in hindsight – that, given all the information, invading Iraq was a serious mistake.

That remains to be seen. You're already giving up, because you want it to be a failure. You think that it is a failure just because 4000 soldiers died? We expected ten times that when we first went in.

The mistake wasn’t just in Bush’s mishandling of it (and there’s no denying the Bush administration has been incompetent in just about everything they’ve done, the real question is whether or not that incompetence is deliberate or accidental) – the mistake was ever invading in the first place.

This is your own opinion that is not factual. It is based in your liberal need to see the Iraq war a failure.

For those who truly believe, like dart, that Obama is “stupid” ought to compare his academic career to Bush and McCain’s.

Oh, they rode in on their skin color too? Obama is an idiot because of his idiotic comments, and so is Bush. Hell, even Bush went to Harvard and the guy can hardly speak two back to back coherent sentences.

Of course, academic success does not predict governing success, but it certainly has something to do with intelligence.

No it doesn't. Most of these institutions are simply hyped up money-making businesses looking to add celebrity to their list. Wasn't it Yale that admitted a former Taliban commander into its classroom, even though the guy barely spoke English? Diversity is more important than any intelligence requirement.

There is no guarantee of intelligence with a degree. If you need an example you can agree with, just look at Bush. His degree was bought and paid for in every way.

Having said all that, I do recognize the Antishock is likely correct, and few Americans really care about a war being waged far away, on credit.

What makes this "likely"? Your say so?

They’re not being asked to pay any price for this war, and our military families who are paying the price volunteered, so that mutes some of the effect.

Speaking of military families, shouldn;'t it matter what they have to say? Do they all disagree with the war? I mean hell, they're neck deep in it, so one would think they'd be the first to admit the "mistake."

I think it’s an unfortunate reality of the human species in general, and Americans in particular, that we seem rarely concerned with anything that does not have an obvious immediate negative impact. Our children, and their children, however, will be concerned. They will be forced to be concerned.

This, coming from someone who supports Obama, who wants to abandon Iraq and watch the entire country burn from afar. I mean why should democrats care, right? Those are just Iraqi people, they're not Americans. They can all suffer like they did with Hussein. Let the country go to the pot, you can always blame the republicans while pretending to care about human lives.

[_beastie]

Dart to me:

Giggles and sarcasm does not an argument make. If agreeing with the war is proof he would have started it himself, then by that logic so would any of the dozens of democrats who supported it.

dart to EA:

In any event, recent history has taught us that if anyone could have pulled off a successful war with Iraq, it is John McCain. He is the man responsible for the recent surge. If this had been initiated from the beginning, the number of casualties on both sides would have been very different from what we've seen over the past few years. In fact it seems like the war never really got on the right path to success, until McCain's surge idea became realized. Now victory seems within reach. If it had been implemented from the start, this thing might have been over already.

I realize I’m beating my head against the wall, but, oh well.

Let’s look at just one of McCain’s expression of support of Bush and the war:

“I believe as strongly today as ever, the mission [in Iraq] was necessary, achievable and noble For his determination to undertake it, and for his unflagging resolve to see it through to a just end, President Bush deserves not only our support, but our admiration.” [GOP Convention, 8/30/04]

Let it sink in, Dart. Read it twice if you need to. Invading Iraq was necessary, achievable, and noble. You’re assuring us that McCain would have been able to pull off a “successful war with Iraq”. So, 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”.

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

Sometimes I not only wonder if you read MY posts before you respond to them, but I wonder if you read your own posts before or after you write them.

You're ignoring the point and trying to change the argument. Post-Katrina, Obama passed legislation regarding natural disasters. Republicans agreed with it. Republicans didn't believe it was a mistake. Republicans helped pass it. By your logic, if Obama had not proposed these bills, one of the republicans would have.

I have no idea what point you even think I’m ignoring and how I’m trying to change the argument. The argument is whether or not McCain would have invaded Iraq, and hence, is a higher risk for invading Iran.

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.

Beastie:

The only mistake he’s recognized is the management of the war, not the idea of invading itself.

dart:

Uh, ya think? That's obvious. Maybe you should try harder to learn these distinctions.

This is one of those (many) times I wonder what the heck is WRONG with you?

I’ve tried to pin you down on this differentiation for most of this conversation. 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.

Is someone else able to translate this into dart-talk, because I’m sure he still won’t get it, and I don’t know how else to say it.

So have many Democrats. Just because they later whimped out and apologized, doesn't change the fact that when the war started, they agreed with it and supported it fully. By your logic, since they agreed with it, they would have done it if they were in Bush's position.

“Whimping out and apologizes” indicates that they realize it was a mistake. Now whether any of them would have been stupid enough to commit the exact same mistake is uncertain. It’s possible. But since Obama never supported the war to begin with, that’s a moot point.

Still trying to tear down straw men I see.

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

"Other adminsitrations"? Why can't you just say it? There was only one. It was the Clinton adminsitration that was entirely responsible for this myth.

“Entirely responsible”? Certainly they were relying on some of the same faulty information. But entirely responsible? Uh, anyone want a piece of yellow-cake? It goes great with crow, I hear.

We need not rely on intelligence agencies when we have the President of Iran telling the world point balnk, "Yes, we will develop nuclear technology whether you like it or not - oh yea, and Isreal needs to be destroyed." At least Hussein had the sense to deny having WMDs. There is no mystery about Iran's goals or intentions.

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

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?

New Delhi: Saddam Hussein's threats of raining down weapons of mass destruction on his enemies was an elaborate smokescreen, claims a former FBI special agent.
Former FBI agent George Piro — who interrogated the late Iraqi leader — said the smokescreen was basically to deter an Iranian attack.

Saddam Pretended to have WMDs

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.

Beastie

Even believing this, they did not invade Iraq.

Dart:

You don't listen very well do you? Clinton did in fact attack Iraq in 1998.

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

So when Clinton bombs Iraq because he thinks Hussein has WMDs, this is good. But when Bush does it, it is bad? We invaded Iraq to do what Clinton declared to be necessary. Clinton is the one who made Hussein spit in the face of the weapons inspectors. He was complying up until the point when he sent Madeline Albright to tell the world, "Ya know, it doesn't matter if he complies or not, we want him out of power." Of course, they didn't have time to plan a war just before the end of his term, the same way Bush won't start a war in Iran at this point, but the Clintons did set the current US policy on Iraq in motion back in 1998. Bush simply followed up with it. It was easy for him to get democrat support for the war because virtually all of them had been wailing and moaning about Saddam's WMDs during the Clinton administration. How could they say, "Uh, sorry W, we need more evidence he has them," when they had previously declared with certainty that he did have them? As far as Obama, he was a legislator for Illinois at the time. His opinion was worthless. He had no credibility nor accountability, so he could say whatever the hell he wanted at that point.

LOL. Gotta love that rewriting of history. Pretty soon folks like dart will call Iraq “Clinton’s War”. And Obama doesn’t even get credit for opposing the war when the entire country was in such a fanatical hysteria that even questioning the president was seen as unpatriotic. Priceless.

McCain is the man. His surge idea proved successful. I submit that if it were implemented from the get-go, that the insurgents never would have had the time to organize and cause as much damage and death as they did in the early years of the war.

Yeah, that surge solved everything, didn’t it?

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

That remains to be seen. You're already giving up, because you want it to be a failure. You think that it is a failure just because 4000 soldiers died? We expected ten times that when we first went in.

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

You sure do remind me of Pahoran.

This is your own opinion that is not factual. It is based in your liberal need to see the Iraq war a failure.

Oh. My. God. 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???

by the way, antishock also thinks the war was a huge mistake. I don't think he has any "liberal needs". Colin Powell thought the war was a mistake. Does he have "liberal needs", too?

Oh, they rode in on their skin color too? Obama is an idiot because of his idiotic comments, and so is Bush. Hell, even Bush went to Harvard and the guy can hardly speak two back to back coherent sentences

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”.

How come so many people on this thread are having fits over the sexist comments about Palin (and make no mistake, some are sexist), and yet, If I recall correctly, only LoaP has called Dart on his racist comments?

No it doesn't. Most of these institutions are simply hyped up money-making businesses looking to add celebrity to their list. Wasn't it Yale that admitted a former Taliban commander into its classroom, even though the guy barely spoke English? Diversity is more important than any intelligence requirement.

There is no guarantee of intelligence with a degree. If you need an example you can agree with, just look at Bush. His degree was bought and paid for in every way.

Yeah, Harvard and Yale are well known for cranking out worthless degrees.

Beastie

Having said all that, I do recognize the Antishock is likely correct, and few Americans really care about a war being waged far away, on credit.

dart

What makes this "likely"? Your say so?

This is another OMG moment.

Dart earlier:

Beastie thinks the Iraq situation is the biggest issue, but I think it is the energy crisis, and most Americans agree. Iraq is dwindling down now that the violence has subsided and the surge seems to have beens uccessful. We now know how to win in Iraq. The surge proved that. But democrats like Obama don't want that to happen and neither does beastie. They want to carry this in their back pocket as the proved "disaster" that they can bring up for eternity to show how the republicans have bad judgment, etc. They don't want us to win in Iraq and they never did. Once things took a drastic turn for the worst in Iraq, Democrats saw a glorious opportunity, and they have been exploiting it ever since.

Palin doesn't pay much attention to Iraq? Good for her. I don't either. Nowadays from Iraq we hear more good news than bad. I'm worried about our energy crisis and Obama has NO PLAN. Nothing. His idea is to get people to inflate their tires and get a tune up! He said this would save us just as much gas than if we started tapping into Anwar and elsewhere. This is a bonafide MORON we are talking about, pure and simple. Ahd his idea of capturing Osama bin Ladin is to invade Pakistan! What an idiot.

“nuff said.

Speaking of military families, shouldn;'t it matter what they have to say? Do they all disagree with the war? I mean hell, they're neck deep in it, so one would think they'd be the first to admit the "mistake."

Of course it matters what they say. Some support it, some don’t. I’m sure it’s ever more difficult to think that the entire thing was a mistake if you lost a loved one’s life for that mistake.

This, coming from someone who supports Obama, who wants to abandon Iraq and watch the entire country burn from afar. I mean why should democrats care, right? Those are just Iraqi people, they're not Americans. They can all suffer like they did with Hussein. Let the country go to the pot, you can always blame the republicans while pretending to care about human lives.

Pahoran – whoops, I mean dart – 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.

by the way, this is the same type of hyperbole and attacks that people who opposed the war in Iraq endured post 9/11. You know, people like Obama.

[_beastie]

Let the country go to the pot, you can always blame the republicans while pretending to care about human lives.

You're a pig.

[_beastie]

Apparently, tough questions are off limits.

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/CA6592163.html

According to CNN, Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) pulled out of a scheduled interview with the network after a segment with Campbell Brown and a top McCain spokesman Monday night in which Brown asked for examples of a foreign-policy decision made by Republican vice president pick Sarah Palin.

McCain was scheduled to appear on Larry King Live, but CNN's Wolf Blitzer said Tuesday that the campaign told the news network they thought Brown's interview with spokesman Tucker Bounds was "over the line."

CNN said it disagreed and it is committed to covering both sides of issues.

The McCain campaign was checking into the report of the interview’s cancellation at press time.

Only hours after CNN said McCain pulled out of the interview with King, ABC News announced that it has "the only interview" with the candidate during the Republican National Convention. That will be Wednesday night (Sept. 3) with Charlie Gibson for World News, Nightline and Good Morning America (Thursday morning).