its where idiots like treetwista and sputter dwell

2/29/2008 11:46:05 AM

Well, I guess when you can't articulate thoughts and reason of the most basic level escapes you, then you have to resort to name calling.

[Edited on February 29, 2008 at 11:48 AM. Reason : sadf]

2/29/2008 11:48:39 AM

Quote :

"Sputter: 1) John McCain doesn't want to continue the war for one hundred more years and you know it. You are typically more insightful in your posting and I hate that you have stooped to reducing sound bites to fit your opinion and demonize a man that has done so much for this country. When he made that statement he was referring to maintaining a presence. If this really upsets you then you should stage a rally protesting the occupation of Germany and South Korea by US troops, among others."

As if maintaining a presence is some small thing. Check this out: We're maintaining a presence in Iraq right now!

For the disingenuous analogy and strawman (I only presume you were kidding):

Half of South Korean and Germans don't find attacks our men in uniform acceptable. The citizens of those nations believe their own government is in control of itself. Iraqis are different in both respects, which is critical to the question of whether or not war will continue with our presence.

Other critical differences exist, too.

Almost 80% say the availability of jobs is quite or very bad in Iraq. Sixty percent say the same about their family's protection from crime. Three in four don't feel free to move about the country safely.

That sounds like a breeding ground for hostility to me. Not nearly the breeding ground that exists in Germany and South Korea.

Given that 82% of Iraqis say they have little or no confidence in our forces, and that nearly half strongly oppose our forces, I wonder where that anger will be directed. (All data from 2007 poll pulled from Council on Foreign Relations website.)

All that hostility has to go somewhere. With time on their hands and a future full of targets, I only wonder.

You tell me how exactly John McCain plans to prevent the ongoing conflict from worsening while "maintaining a presence" in Iraq in light of the attitudes and circumstances of these people?

Quote :

"Sputter: 2) There is no evidence to indicate that McCain wants to go to war with Iran except for the aforementioned and largely debunked quote of McCain making fun of a beach boys song, which if you had ever been in the military as has John McCain, then you would know that sense of humor prevails at every level. He was even laughing when he sang it in response to the question: "What do you think should be done about Iran?"."

Fixed it for you.

Quote :

"Sputter: In short, you can believe all you want to that McCain is some awful Bush clone, but his legislative history and continual bumping of heads with the Bush administration and the Republican party in general strongly indicates that you are basing your opinions on superficial blog posts and not fact."

Speaking of superficial blot posts and not facts...

Clintonites whip out the magic word "experience," cross their fingers, and hope to avoid a callout. With McCainiacs, it's the "bumping of heads with Bush administration" summarized by that awfully-tired label of "maverick."

I'm not swallowing this kool-aid.

What legislative history of bumping heads with the Bush administration and Republican party?

2/29/2008 12:57:34 PM

Well for starters, his continual push with other Senators like Lindsey Graham to have "cruel, inhuman, and degrading" treatment made illegal. That loop hole is the one that the Bush Administration exploits to used enhanced interrogation techniques on foreign citizens.

Not only that, but McCain's dedication to working with Democrats has earned him a hated spot among Republican senators:

Quote :

"Former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas) lambasted Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) Thursday for “betraying” the conservative movement. During a private luncheon with Republican chiefs of staff on Capitol Hill, DeLay — who has criticized McCain for years — stepped up his attacks in the wake of the senator’s reemergence as a top presidential contender. DeLay said McCain has no principles and indicated he would not endorse the senator if he won the GOP primary. Some conservatives have long mistrusted McCain, citing his work on campaign finance reform, global warming and immigration as well his opposition to President Bush’s 2001 and 2003 tax cuts "

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/mccain-hit-by-hammer-on-the-hill-2008-01-18.html


Yeah, it sounds like the Republican party loves him.

Quote :

"Half of South Korean and Germans don't find attacks our men in uniform acceptable. The citizens of those nations believe their own government is in control of itself. Iraqis are different in both respects, which is critical to the question of whether or not war will continue with our presence. "

It's always best to compare an occupation that is over a half century old with one that is a couple of years old. The surge appears to be working as does the awakening, which I know you think has nothing to do with US troops. It's all just coincidence I am sure.

[Edited on February 29, 2008 at 1:34 PM. Reason : sdf]

2/29/2008 1:31:34 PM

Quote :

"Not only that, but McCain's dedication to working with Democrats has earned him a hated spot among Republican senators:"

this is absolutly retarded. I am glad our republican leaders are more concerned about acting like partisan hacks then trying to shit done in DC.

2/29/2008 1:34:09 PM

http://www.pewclimate.org/policy_center/analyses/s_139_summary.cfm


that's one example of McCain working with Democrats. You are completely retarded. I don't have time to search the internet to refute every idiots baseless claims

2/29/2008 1:36:27 PM

God,

McCain did not flip-flop. The bill he voted against earlier this week would not only ban waterboarding (which McCain recognizes as a form of torture) but any physical integrogation technique, such as sensory deprivation. He has acknowledged all along that additional techniques like these can and should be used.

Quote :

""I knew I would be criticized for it," McCain said Wednesday. "I think I can show my record is clear. I said there should be additional techniques allowed to other agencies of government as long as they were not" torture. "I was on the record as saying that they could use additional techniques as long as they were not cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment," McCain said. "So the vote was in keeping with my clear record of saying that they could have additional techniques, but those techniques could not violate" international rules against torture. McCain spokeswoman Jill Hazelbaker noted that he believes waterboarding is already banned by the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, which includes an amendment he wrote barring inhumane treatment of prisoners. The act prohibited cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment for all detainees in U.S. custody, including CIA prisoners. CIA Director Michael Hayden has said court decisions and current law, including the Detainee Treatment Act, cast doubt on whether waterboarding would be legal now. Hayden prohibited its use in CIA interrogations in 2006; it has not been used since 2003, he said. passed. "

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2008/02/21/MNJDV5S7S.DTL

McCain is being 100% consistant.

PS* Gamecat the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 also counts as an example of where McCain has taken on the administration.

2/29/2008 1:42:29 PM

Quote :

"Sputter: Well for starters, his continual push with other Senators like Lindsey Graham to have "cruel, inhuman, and degrading" treatment made illegal."

Bush's signing statement should have doubled McCain's efforts on this matter NOT silenced them.

I'll grant it sure looked like McCain was ready to go to the mat over torture, but when push came to shove, he capitulated.

This issue is huge. It represents the fundamental difference between what makes our way of life right and what makes the way of life of Al Qaeda and other extremists who torture and use terrorism to achieve their aims wrong.

And I repeat: He capitulated.

Like a Democrat.

And certainly not like a warrior.

Quote :

"Sputter: Not only that, but McCain's dedication to working with Democrats has earned him a hated spot among Republican senators:"

I'm assuming you're referring to Campaign Finance here. You're giving his cooperation with Democrats too much credit. The issue itself enraged (and continues to enrage) conservatives to this day because the legislation runs contrary to a core conservative principle; namely that a person's campaign contributions constitute free speech. Liberty, you'll remember, is the mantle of the GOP.

Quote :

"Sputter: Yeah, it sounds like the Republican party loves him."

Since when has this been about love? I thought we were talking about legislative accomplishment.

Interesting notes for the citations in the article:

1) Campaign finance reform (see above)

2) Immigration - John McCain's position has never been widely different than President Bush's. His support of a sealed border is limp-wristed at best.

3) Tax cuts - Fuck principles. Please explain why the good Senator wants to extend the very tax cuts he once opposed. I thought he was supposed to be fighting the administration.

Quote :

"Sputter: It's always best to compare an occupation that is over a half century old with one that is a couple of years old."

Point of fact: it was originally your comparison.

I simply followed your lead...

Quote :

"Sputter: The surge appears to be working as does the awakening, which I know you think has nothing to do with US troops. It's all just coincidence I am sure."

In a word, yep.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/08/30/wiraq130.xml

Quote :

"Sadr announced yesterday that an order to stand down had been distributed to his loyalists following the deaths of more than 50 Shia Muslim pilgrims during sectarian fighting in the holy city of Karbala on Tuesday. The surprise statement regarding his notorious Mahdi army, which is responsible for much of Iraq's sectarian blood-letting, not only caught British and American commanders off-guard but appeared to have surprised Baghdad officials too. Mowaffak al-Rubbaie, Iraq's national security adviser, said Baghdad would only welcome the move if Sadr's lieutenants stop attacks and their attempts to "blow up" the Iraqi government."

Your move, mate.

This bears repeating:

Quote :

"Gamecat: You tell me how exactly John McCain plans to prevent the ongoing conflict from worsening while "maintaining a presence" in Iraq in light of the attitudes and circumstances of these people."

[Edited on February 29, 2008 at 4:11 PM. Reason : ...]

2/29/2008 4:10:15 PM

^ I'm not sure what else you wanted McCain to do on torture while Bush was still in office. Write anoter bill? What would the second one say that the first one didn't? Would it pass both houses of congress and be signed into Law?

What REALLY could he have done different?

I want specifics, dammit. It's easy to play monday morning quarterback, but the fact is that McCain has done more on this issue than anyone else in the presidential field.

If that doesn't impress you enough to give the man somefucking credit, then I don't know what to say.

[Edited on February 29, 2008 at 4:32 PM. Reason : ``]

2/29/2008 4:29:06 PM

SUCK MY PRESIDENTIAL COCK, BITCH

2/29/2008 4:35:25 PM

[Edited on February 29, 2008 at 4:49 PM. Reason : ``]

2/29/2008 4:43:36 PM

honestly i dont know about yall but this is gonna be a touch choice for me....both candidates are going to be voteable

[Edited on February 29, 2008 at 7:23 PM. Reason : .]

2/29/2008 7:16:39 PM

How's this for specifics?

McCain could've simply continued to attach new anti-torture legislation to every defense spending bill that reached the Senate floor. That's when he was actually on the right side of this issue. Letting it go after the signing statement neutered the law in substance sent a clear message: while appearing valiant, McCain's effort was all for show.

2/29/2008 8:09:42 PM

^ Well, if McCain is all for show, then what does that leave Obama? He has done nothing at all but run for president.


You people will complain about anything.

John McCain tried to eliminate torture for years but when Feinstein attempted to cut off any and all enhanced interrogation techniques from CIA use he became a dirty evil man. WAAHHAHAHAH. Waaaaa.

Cry me a fucking river.

2/29/2008 9:41:28 PM

^ GameCat, are you confused? The bill PASSED! What would subsequent bills say that the first one did not!???? You just skirted the question.

ARRR. This makes me so angry. McCain was tortured to the point he can no longer lift his arms above his head. So he leads the fight on banning torture. Authors the fucking ammendment. The fucking ammendment passes. And by all accounts the act does its job (or at least brings us one step closer to the desired solution):

Quote :

"McCain spokeswoman Jill Hazelbaker noted that he believes waterboarding is already banned by the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, which includes an amendment he wrote barring inhumane treatment of prisoners. The act prohibited cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment for all detainees in U.S. custody, including CIA prisoners. CIA Director Michael Hayden has said court decisions and current law, including the Detainee Treatment Act, cast doubt on whether waterboarding would be legal now. Hayden prohibited its use in CIA interrogations in 2006; it has not been used since 2003, he said. passed. "

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2008/02/21/MNJDV5S7S.DTL

And you REFUSE to give him any fucking credit on the issue?!?! Just because Bush wrote a fucking signing statement that has apparently not resulted in jack fuck??? What the FUCK, man!?

WHAT THE FUCK!!??

If you want to see this stuff cleared up, you NEED to vote for John McCain to be our next President. This makes it CRYSTAL FUCKING CLEAR that he will wipe away any fucking confusion created by Bush's signing statement. McCain more so than any other fucking candidate ON THE FUCKING BALLOT!!!!!!!

If you actually do care, you will vote for John McCain. If you prefer to bitch on TWW about what other people could have done about the issue, then you will stay at home this November!

2/29/2008 9:57:22 PM

All I can say here, is that the biggest contradiction on the war lies with Obama. His chiding of Mccain over staying as long as it takes in Iraq/siding with the surge thereby Bush (even though his record shows the opposite) and at the same time making speeches like this. ->
http://www.reuters.com/news/video?videoId=62500&newsChannel=domesticNews
Pakistan being a known nuclear armed country right beside another nuclear armed country, India, who have been basically in a powder keg relationship is the new direction we should take this? ..Honestly, thats like begging for WWIII. Our offesive against Al Queda has long since been undermined.

2/29/2008 10:05:00 PM

Not the slightest bit confused, Socks``. And given the substance/KB ratio of Sputter's reply, I'm pretty much finished with the point.

I know the bill passed. I'll remind you and our audience that the law makes no difference when the manner in which it passed neutered it in substance, as I said previously. This is why McCain should've kept pushing for new legislation. Torture is not something an American statesman accepts defeat on.

Quit saying I refuse to give him credit.

Your desperate mischaracterization of my position seems almost Clintonish.

I've repeatedly given credit to McCain where and when due; your problem is that I extend it no further, and find him doubly revolting for the flagrant hypocrisy evident in his inaction after the signing statement. Until he capitulated after Bush's signing statement, I was quite impressed by McCain's resolve on the issue. In fact, it was this Mr. Smith routine that has me so pissed off about how he let it go.

Why should people vote for him? He bitched out. On torture.

Bush deserved the kitchen sink for that signing statement. As the impassioned champion of that legislation, McCain should've seen it through and made every goddamned effort to make it viable. Failing to do so was a betrayal to the original philosophy of his position: torture is wrong and America must not legally do it.

3/1/2008 12:39:48 AM

^ Acctually your only recomendation for what McCain could have done differently is a very odd contradiction. "Law banning torture was passed. Bush says he can ignore the law. Therefore, more laws should be passed." I guess it all made sense from the sidelines. If Bush's signing statements mean anything at all, then passing more laws shouldn't do anything. If they don't, then you're whining for no reason.

Personally, I think you put too much weight on signing statements. McCain's bill has already achieved much of what it was intended too. As I pointed out earlier, The CIA has already prohibted things like waterboarding in its interrogations.

Your concern is "What if the CIA breaks the law and we don't know it yet?". A legitimate concern, but it's not clear how passing more laws would remedy the situation. Couldn't the CIA just break those too?

What we really need for change is to have someone in office that knows what torture is like and that has fought against its use. McCain realizes that and that's why he's running for President. And I think that's one of the best arguments for electing John McCain and nothing you have said even escapes the realm of side-line wishy washy bitching. So I think I'm done until you can add some substance to your claim that McCain "could have done more".

[Edited on March 1, 2008 at 1:10 AM. Reason : ``]

3/1/2008 12:58:26 AM

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23415028/

he is not even a natural born US citizen......

wonder who will sue if he gets elected?

3/1/2008 1:01:08 AM

Quote :

"And given the substance/KB ratio of Sputter's reply, I'm pretty much finished with the point. "

You have no point. You are upset that McCain hasn't done enough when your candidate, also a US Senator, has done absolutely nothing.

Quote :

" National Key Vote Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 Bill Number: HR 2082 Issues: Budget, Spending and Taxes, Civil Liberties and Civil Rights, Legal Issues, National Security Issues Date: 02/13/2008 Sponsor: Rep. Reyes, Silvestre (D-TX) Record Vote Number 22 Conference Report Adopted (Senate) How members voted (51 - 45) Senator Barack Obama did not vote "

McCain can clearly make time to vote on the things that matter to him. It's too bad that Obama would rather talk about making a difference than actually making a difference.

3/1/2008 11:20:23 AM

::yawn::

One vote? Can you even use the Internet?

---

Socks``: If Bush was willing to subvert the law with his signing statement, McCain should've approached overturning it. Regardless of the vetos.

3/1/2008 11:39:49 AM

Gamecat

1) What? Are you sure you even know what signing statements are? They are not like a veto that congress can over turn. In this case, the statement an articulation of how Bush views the law and its implementation. The issue of how the law should actually be interpruted will in reality be settled by the judicial branch. That means someone will have to break the law (say someone in CIA inhumanely treating a "prisioner"), they will have to be taken court, and the case will have to reach the Supreme Court for the matter to be settled.

Here's Richard Epstein, Law Professor at the University of Chicago on why signing statements are important.

Quote :

"But put the point in reverse: If the presidential signing statements are no big deal, why does the president make them? One reason is that it skews the administration of a statute by presidential subordinates before a matter gets into court."

http://www.law.uchicago.edu/epstein-presidential-signing.html

IOW: They can help skew the issue (essentially allow the executive branch to break the law) until the matter is settled in court. And passing new laws that say the exact same thing will not do shit about it. Epstein goes on to say that these signing statements could be first opening wedge in an argument of judicial authority over the executive branch. And that question is much harder to settle.

IMO: The best defense against this happening again is having a President that respects the Constitution and the limits of power. That's why we need to elect John McCain.

2) But even given your total misunderstanding of what's going on, I think we reached heart of the issue. You didn't really mean it when you said this:

Quote :

"while appearing valiant, McCain's effort was all for show."

You just said the results shouldn't matter. That even if any future bills (of unknown content) were vetoed, he should have kept trying to pass them. Why? Because it SHOWS he cares.

My work is done here. You obviously don't know what signing statements are and you don't actually care about getting results. So I don't think there is anything else I can say on the issue. I just wonder why you insist that you care when you obviously don't. At least not enough to google this stuff before judging people that actually work on the issue.

[Edited on March 1, 2008 at 1:34 PM. Reason : ``]

3/1/2008 1:11:48 PM

Quote :

"::yawn:: One vote? Can you even use the Internet? "

= I have no argument and I am still going to act like a little bitch.


This is the vote that you are so angry about, the one that makes you vilify McCain.

And it's obvious that you don't understand signing statements. You probably should look into it to assist in your unfounded hatred for Bush as he has signed more than any other President in history.

Please continue on your baseless tirade of superiority as you do in every thread.

Quote :

"In a word, yep. "

Concerning the awakening, the tribal leaders in Anbar DID begn to turn against al Qaeda in Iraq last year, largely due to unspeakable atrocities committed by the terrorists against their own hosts. Many analysts and observers have seized upon this fact to argue that the movement in Anbar had nothing to do with the surge, began before the surge did, and would continue even without the surge. This argument is invalid. Anbari tribal leaders did begin to turn against AQI in their areas last year before the surge began, but not before Colonel Sean MacFarland began to apply in Ramadi the tactics and techniques that are the basis of the current strategy in Baghdad. His soldiers and Marines fought tenaciously to establish a foothold in Anbar’s capital, which was then a terrorist stronghold, and thereby demonstrated to the local leaders that they could count on American support as they began to fight their erstwhile allies. Even so, the movement proceeded slowly and fitfully for most of 2006 and, indeed, into 2007. But when Colonel John Charlton’s brigade relieved MacFarland’s in Ramadi and was joined by two additional Marine battalions (part of the surge) elsewhere in Anbar, the “awakening” began to accelerate very rapidly. At the start of 2007 there were only a handful of Anbaris in the local security forces. By the summer there were over 14,000. Before the surge, Ramadi was one of the most dangerous cities in Iraq; now it is possible for Americans to walk through its market with limited security details and without body armor.

Quote :

"Point of fact: it was originally your comparison. I simply followed your lead..."

I am not trying to compare a modern day Germany in which we still occupy territory to Iraq in which the occupation is fresh and bordering countries have a strong interest in wanting us to fail there, as do you apparently. I know that Germany is a completely different situation, I was simply trying to illustrate that we weren't wanted there at all, but now are largely welcome.

The New York Times ran a series of news stories in late 1945 reporting, in part, the following:

Quote :

"Germans Reveal Hate of Americans," October 31, 1945 The German attitude toward the American occupation forces has swung from apathy and surface friendliness to active dislike. According to a military government official, this is finding expression in the organization of numerous local anti-American organizations throughout the zone and in a rapid increase in the number of attacks on American soldiers. There were more such attacks in the first week of October than in the preceding five months of the occupation, this source declared. "

Sounds familiar.

Quote :

"You tell me how exactly John McCain plans to prevent the ongoing conflict from worsening while "maintaining a presence" in Iraq in light of the attitudes and circumstances of these people.""

Hahahaha, you are quoting yourself and requesting that I lay out a military strategy for you. This is the epitome of arrogance.



[Edited on March 1, 2008 at 2:17 PM. Reason : asdf]

3/1/2008 1:53:36 PM

ATTN: John McCain

Reading from a teleprompter is boring. You sound like you're reading a story to your grandkids. Obama will whip your ass in debates if you can't talk like you mean it.

3/4/2008 9:55:37 PM

^ i think a lot of that is his age showing.

3/4/2008 10:00:15 PM

In New Hampshire he strolled along with a microphone in his hands and spoke his mind. It sounded good.

Since then he's done this teleprompter shit which sounds so rehearsed and fake, lacking in passion...

3/4/2008 10:02:32 PM

^ Yah. We need a candidate that holds our attn when he's speaking. I mean, I'd personally follow a man anywhere if he sounded like he "meant" what he saying.

A candidate with out a doubt must be entertaining, optimistic, and an all around nice guy. You know, someone you'd like to have a beer with.

[Edited on March 4, 2008 at 10:14 PM. Reason : ug.]

3/4/2008 10:13:28 PM

^ such candidates usually win.

It's largely why Kerry lost, and partially for Gore too.

[Edited on March 4, 2008 at 10:17 PM. Reason : ]

3/4/2008 10:17:39 PM

Shawn Tully of Fortune magazine agrees that John McCain has the best Health Care proposal.
http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/News/NewsReleases/22fdcd36-3e8e-40ab-8d7a-ee78f71cc50f.htm

I think his argument is similar to mine, but he doesn't make it very well. He makes it sound like encouraging some people to spend less on health insurance is the real benefit of McCain's plan, but he doesn't explain why that is a good thing (at least not clearly).

It's a good thing because the people that will spend less on health insurance are the young, healthy, and well-off. These are the folks that will move toward the high deductable plans where they are responcible for more of their own health care spending. This means they essentially purchase less insurance and since they are paying a higher cost for medical care, they will likely consume less of it (go to the doctor less often etc) This will do a lot to LOWER HEALTH CARE COSTS (rich people spend less on health care so prices of those resources fall) and help IMPROVE THE DISTRIBUTION OF HEALTH CARE (falling prices allow poor to spend more on health care).

Of course, there is a question how big this impact will be. I mean, if they are already young and healthy, they probably don't go the doctor that much to begin with. So their health care expenditures will surely decrease, but who knows by how much? If they don't decrease by much, then prices won't fall very much and distribution of health care will not be affected very much.

That being said, McCain's plan is still better than the alternatives being proposed. Neither Obama's or Hillary's plans sufficiently address the question of how to reduce health care costs. If anything they will make health care more expensive.

PS*
Tully does make a good point on how eliminating the tax break companies recieve for providing health care benefits will help move us in this direction, though.

[Edited on March 24, 2008 at 1:00 PM. Reason : ``]

3/24/2008 12:48:17 PM

There's no stopping McCain now:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MaP9eiWuX3s

3/24/2008 2:59:42 PM

shit just got real

3/24/2008 3:01:23 PM

^^lol at the old lady with the green screen showing up over her clothes

3/24/2008 5:09:31 PM

^^^ [/election]

3/24/2008 5:24:10 PM

Well, Anatol Lieven, writing in the Financial Times has made it clear. The ONLY evidence that McCain would invade Iran is that there is youtube video of him making a bad joke at campaign ralley.

Quote :

"Mr McCain advocates attacking Iran if necessary in order to prevent it developing nuclear weapons, and last year was filmed singing “Bomb, bomb Iran” to the tune of the Beach Boys’ “Barbara Ann”."

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/1a47e1ac-f9b0-11dc-9b7c-000077b07658.html

And McCain does not "advocate" attacking Iran, he simply said that he was not willing to take the use of military force off the table.

3/25/2008 5:05:17 AM

Here's another youtube video entitled: "McCain: War with Iran is more reality than hypothetical"

3/25/2008 5:35:56 AM

^ If anything that video should put fears to rest. He explicitly says that the President should get approval from congress before making any strategic attack on Iran. And contrary to the video's title, he never says that war with Iran is more of a reality than a possibility. I hear him saying that the President and Congress having to consider a strategic attack might be a possibility that is close to reality. And given Bush's rhetoric at the time, I can't say I blame him for thinking that.

I would also point out that this video was posted more than month before the National Intelligence Estimate was released declaring that Iran had halted it nuclear weapons program in 2003. And I don't know which debate this is from, but it may have taken place weeks before the video was posted. So it seems likely that McCain's opinion of the possibility of the President and Congress attacking Iran has changed in light of this new evidence.

http://www.dni.gov/press_releases/20071203_release.pdf

The idea that McCain would take us to war with Iran is just looney. He's made his position very clear. He's not going to take military action off the table (and he shouldn't, I dare Obama to claim he would), but that doesn't mean we're going to start carpet bombing tomorrow.

Fuck people.

[Edited on March 25, 2008 at 5:55 AM. Reason : ``]

3/25/2008 5:52:34 AM

I'd attack Iran if I were misinformed enough to think they were supplying Al Qaeda in Iraq.

3/25/2008 8:24:13 AM

^ McCain misspoke. However, his error was not a great as Obama likes to make it sound. According to the Obama campaign and the DNC, the big deal is that McCain doesn't understand that a mostly Shiite country like Iran would never fund Sunnis in Iraq. Of course, that is absolutley not true.

Just last year, in April 2007, the U.S. military accused Iran of arming SUNNI militants fighting in Iraq (though not al Qaeda).

Quote :

"The US military has for the first time accused Iran of arming Sunni militants fighting in Iraq. "

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6546555.stm

This is a point repeated by McCain's foreign policy advisder Mark Salter:

Quote :

"McCain senior adviser Mark Salter said a U.S. pullout from Iraq would allow al Qaeda to claim victory and to pretend that this would not happen is "foolish supposition." He added: "Iran, which trains Shi'ite extremists and is known to arm and equip Sunni extremists, a fact Sen. Obama is apparently unaware of, will also view our premature withdrawal as a victory." "

http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN1930419220080320?virtualBrandChannel=10112&pageNumber=2

Now McCain may have misspoke, but Obama apparently has no clue about who is arming whom in Iraq. I think that is a much greater error.

IMO, McCain's reputation remains intact. He has been working on this issue for years and one sentence during a reporter Q&A secession doesn't change that. But something tells me you never bothered to google past the headlines spooky.

[Edited on March 25, 2008 at 10:50 AM. Reason : ``]

[Edited on March 25, 2008 at 11:04 AM. Reason : ``]

3/25/2008 10:47:59 AM

Our military has proven their honesty of late.

3/25/2008 10:50:50 AM

^ So Obama didn't make a mistake because he hasn't read a newspaper in a year. Instead, the military lied and Obama's eyes can only see the truth?

Excellent.

[Edited on March 25, 2008 at 11:03 AM. Reason : ``]

3/25/2008 10:56:25 AM

I didn't say that.

This administration has shown a propensity to fudge the facts in order to make the "facts" match the talking points.

In fact, that has been a talking point (Iran arming Sunies) the administration had shied away from. Now they use the more nebulous term (Iraqi Extremists).

3/25/2008 11:03:47 AM

"Shied away from"? What does that mean? Does that mean retracted? Apparently not.


[Edited on March 25, 2008 at 11:11 AM. Reason : ``]

3/25/2008 11:10:09 AM

It means they are no longer claiming Iran is arming Sunni Extremists and aren't going to come out and say directly, "Yeah, we were full of shit. Iran wasn't arming Sunni Extremists."

It means they don't talk about it and hope it goes away.

3/25/2008 11:15:43 AM

Plz to point me to a reference?

3/25/2008 11:22:05 AM

Just do a google search for Iran arming Sunni Extremists. All the articles pointing to that are a year old.

For claiming to be such a wonk you sure do miss the boat a lot.

3/25/2008 11:27:18 AM

So...a story drops of the news cycle and that means it's false?
hmmm. Interesting reasoning.

3/25/2008 11:30:57 AM

^ Not necessarily. But you're obviously being purposefully ignorant here.

3/25/2008 11:33:42 AM

^^no, look at the wording now. There is no longer talk about Sunni Extremists. They say either, Shia extremists or Iraqi Extremists.

3/25/2008 11:34:52 AM

IMStoned,

How so? I can't find a single story that retracts the notion that Iran arms Sunni militants in Iraq. PERIOD.

So why should I disbelieve it? Because it saves face for Obama? Fuck me.

[Edited on March 25, 2008 at 11:45 AM. Reason : ``]

3/25/2008 11:43:59 AM

You won't find it because it was media outlets parroting what the administration says. If the administration came out retracting statements they made about Iran arming Sunnis then you would find articles about it. But since it never happened, those articles don't exist.

It happens all the time. Not everyone can catch what administration officials say Live as they say it at the press conference, so it gets written into articles for people to read later on. If a press conference to retract statements the administration has previously said never takes place, the articles will never be written. Of course the press conferences never took place because that would imply wrong-doing by the Bush administration and we all know that they are not guilty of wrong-doing. :hooksaw rolly eyes:

3/25/2008 11:54:31 AM