Or is it just saying what the he knows he has too to get elected?

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09...e-succeeded-beyond-wildest-dreams/

"The troop surge in Iraq has been more successful than anyone could have imagined, Barack Obama conceded Thursday in his first-ever interview on FOX News' "The O'Reilly Factor."

Incidentally his policy towards Iran sounds suspiciously familiar. Now that's change!!!      

Bunch of crap. He wouldn't know the light if it hit him in the face.

The only light he knows is the one in the Oval Office, and he will do or say anything to see it.

Quoting RJdxer (Thread starter): "The troop surge in Iraq has been more successful than anyone could have imagined, Barack Obama conceded Thursday in his first-ever interview on FOX News' "The O'Reilly Factor."

Yes. No one thought it was going to be successful... I guess Obama hasn't ever met John McCain.

Shhh... don't tell Keith Olbermann that Obama was on O'Reilly. He might explode.

[Edited 2008-09-04 18:57:08]

Well, I guess this topic is now off the table then, isn't it?

Quoting D L X (Reply 4): Well, I guess this topic is now off the table then, isn't it?

Nope since he hasn't admitted his non support of the surge was wrong as well.

Quoting A346Dude (Reply 2): The only light he knows is the one in the Oval Office, and he will do or say anything to see it.

Good God...you couldn't have said it better  


In fact that really says a lot about little senator Obama

The point is that Obama wanted the US to get out before the surge. He did not support the surge and supported immediate withdrawal. This invariably would've collapsed the Iraqi government, most likely igniting a sectarian war leading to a power vacuum in Iraq, and not to mention America being defeated by terrorists and Iranian influence -- creating a horrific precedent for Al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, and the Iranians. That sounds appetizing.

It shows a basic lack of judgment and understanding of international politics, war, and terrorism. As harsh as it sounds, you simply cannot use soldiers deaths politically as an excuse to withdrawal and lose a war.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 6): Quoting D L X (Reply 4): Well, I guess this topic is now off the table then, isn't it? Nope since he hasn't admitted his non support of the surge was wrong as well.

Riiiiight... Well, when McCain admits that going to war in Iraq was a dumb idea, you can get a point. Right now, McCain can only say that he led the charge to fix the thing that he helped break.

Quoting D L X (Reply 8): Well, when McCain admits that going to war in Iraq was a dumb idea, you can get a point.

If this is all about scoring some sort of points then it is a waste of time. Since the situation in Iraq has turned the corner and we are now on track to leave in victory, rather than in defeat as one Presidential candidate would have had us done then the idea of going there being dumb is just a viewpoint.

Cue the flip-flopper attack ads that will run until the next thing that happens to either canditate.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 9): Since the situation in Iraq has turned the corner and we are now on track to leave in victory, rather than in defeat as one Presidential candidate would have had us done then the idea of going there being dumb is just a viewpoint.

Whoa! Really? I hadn't heard. What's the new benchmark for victory?

Even after the "victory" do we have to keep paying insurgents not to attack us (as we are now doing... possibly to make it look like the surge is working)?

Is victory just getting to leave? What will we have won?

Quoting StuckInCA (Reply 11): What will we have won?

A strong cultural, economic, and military alliance between Iraq and Iran.

What you have to remember is how the DNC views this election. Ss they did in 04' They are not interested in finding a solid candidate that could destroy the GOP in an election. Which would have happened in 04' and would in two months. Instead they decided to throw out a knee jerk reaction to a war and run on the "four more years of the same' BS. The DNC thought getting in bed with codepink and moveon.org would benefit them but this quickly soured when Nancy Pelosi couldn't deliver on her promise to these two left wing whackos when she asked them for their vote to get control of the congress. After this happened and it became clear the Dems couldn't override the Bush veto of their withdrawal bills it got ugly. Obama threw out the "I will withdraw immediately" to garner votes and had no intention of doing it and any person with half a brain knows that will never happen even if Obama is elected (which he will not) Obama is beginning to get caught in all his lies and O'Reilly didn't even have to be on his game to expose this. It's pretty sad. The DNC is in big trouble.

Quoting StuckInCA (Reply 11): What will we have won?

Why should I waste the time answering. Your mind has been made up for quite some time. You would refuse to see or acknowledge victory if it came up and slapped you.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 14):

It must have been the WMD's then. I guess.

Quoting JCS17 (Reply 7): It shows a basic lack of judgment and understanding of international politics, war, and terrorism.

Because invading and supporting the invasion of a country that had nothing to do with terrorism and was no threat to any Western (and arguably non-Western) nation was a display of cunning and smart geopolitics maybe?   

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 14): You would refuse to see or acknowledge victory if it came up and slapped you.

Spending US $600 billion of YOUR tax money to end up watching 100,000 innocent civilians die in front of our "unprepared" (my arse) armed forces (who themselves left more than 4000 of their members dead and how many permanently injured?), re-instating Iran as THE unavoidable negotiation partner in the region thus providing its fascist regime with the literally God-sent leverage in dealing with the West it craved, while sending the US' and most other Western countries' reputation down the gutter in all Arab countries for decades to come, in the meantime letting actual Western-hating, terrorism-supporting states such as Saudi Arabia prosper in their corrupt ways is your definition of victory?

Ok, let us know when you encounter failure, I'm sure that'll be a sight to see.   

Unbelievable.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 9): If this is all about scoring some sort of points then it is a waste of time.

I take it you've never witnessed American, or most other flavours of political campaigns before?

Cheers
Mats

Quoting WunalaYann (Reply 16): Unbelievable.

Yeah, scope of your diatribe and its errors is. I think we've discovered another Utopian. Is it something in the water down there? Iran would have started enriching nuclear material whether or not Saddam was there. How many posters have said all Saddam had left was a 4th rate military. Do you think that was going to scare the Iranians? Please provide bonafide facts, not rumors or superstitions about Saudi Arabia. Those that hate the west were going to hate the west no matter what we did or do in the future. There are always those that will see anything other than Islam as a threat. How many innocent Iraqi's died under Saddam? Do you think we will ever find all the mass graves? Those 4000 soldiers died for a belief that what we were doing was right. Most of them volunteered to be there, almost all of them volunteered to go back. Now we begin leave a country that has had not one but two free and fair elections. Did the Iraqi people ever get to vote on the Constitution they had underneath Saddam? Or for anyone to lead them other than Saddam? We leave a government in place that is doing a better job of settling their internal political problems than our own Congress is doing in our own country. Most important we have one less country to worry about that can develop and decide to along with a terrorist(s), some sort of weapon that could reek havoc in a major city(s)

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 18): Now we begin leave a country that has had not one but two free and fair elections

If we let them vote on whether or not they could rewind time and have us NOT invade, how do you think they'd vote?

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 18): Most important we have one less country to worry about that can develop and decide to along with a terrorist(s), some sort of weapon that could reek havoc in a major city(s)

I think this is pretty arguable. I think the overall threat to our country is greater now than before we invaded. We've totally energized a whole new generation of extremists. They may not be a nation, but that makes it even harder to manage.

Quoting StuckInCA (Reply 19): If we let them vote on whether or not they could rewind time and have us NOT invade, how do you think they'd vote?

Who in their right mind would not vote to be free?

Quoting StuckInCA (Reply 19): We've totally energized a whole new generation of extremists.

Who would have been energized no matter what we did short of selling Israel out, is that what you are covertly advocating?

Quoting StuckInCA (Reply 19): If we let them vote on whether or not they could rewind time and have us NOT invade, how do you think they'd vote?

This poll is about 6 months old, but at that time 49% thought the invasion was a good thing, on a rising trend since last year. Considering the advances over the past 6 months, I'd say it is a safe bet that the majority are happy that the invasion took place.

http://www.abcnews.go.com/images/Pol...nit/1060a1IraqWhereThingsStand.pdf

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 18): Please provide bonafide facts, not rumors or superstitions about Saudi Arabia.

Very simple.

15 out of 18 terrorists in the 2001 attacks were Saudis. Not a SINGLE Iraqi.

How's that for hard facts?  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organiz..._of_the_September_11,_2001_attacks

YOU should open YOUR eyes.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 18): Do you think that was going to scare the Iranians?

What would scare the Iranians? Your sentence makes no sense.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 18): Is it something in the water down there?

Considering how deprived of water Australia is, your comment just shows how ignorant of foreign situations you are. But keep going, it's entertaining.   

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 18): Those that hate the west were going to hate the west no matter what we did or do in the future.

Utter BS. How do you explain the rebuilding of Germany and Japan after WWII? Or the re-emergence of Poland, Czech Republic, etc. as Western nations after the collapse of the USSR? Yet you would've been hard-pressed to find regimes more West-hating than their former rulers...

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 18): How many innocent Iraqi's died under Saddam? Do you think we will ever find all the mass graves?

Again, what you assume would have been Hussein's death toll since '03 will always remain what it is - pure speculation. The unavoidable, hard, cold reality is that we created the conditions for mindless sectarian violence to spread by toppling a regime that I have qualified many times on this forum (but you won't care to read my posts so the point's moot) as a bloody dictatorship. The thousands of Iraqi civilians who died in bombing attempts and all-out massacres were slaughtered because we invaded their country in the first place.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 18): Those 4000 soldiers died for a belief that what we were doing was right. Most of them volunteered to be there, almost all of them volunteered to go back.

Possibly. Yet their beliefs do not weigh much in the face of their death, now do they? And go tell that to their families...

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 18): Now we begin leave a country that has had not one but two free and fair elections.

Which will be thus free to instate the Shari'a as its fundamental law using our very own democratic tools. What sort of mindless risk is that???

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 18): Did the Iraqi people ever get to vote on the Constitution they had underneath Saddam?

I thought the point was the WMDs? After all, wasn't Iraq invaded because it had WMDs??? Now where the hell are they????????????????

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 18): Most important we have one less country to worry about that can develop and decide to along with a terrorist(s), some sort of weapon that could reek havoc in a major city(s)

Oh really? Just wait a few years and then we'll have this discussion again. In the meantime, go have a look at that Wiki link above, and come back to tell me if Iraq EVER was a terrorist risk...

  

As I said, no blinder than he who does not want to see. Unf*ckingbelievable.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 21): Considering the advances over the past 6 months, I'd say it is a safe bet that the majority are happy that the invasion took place.

Fair enough. Thanks for the interesting link!

Quoting JCS17 (Reply 7): It shows a basic lack of judgment and understanding of international politics, war, and terrorism.

I think you have some horse and cart issues there. I strongly suspect words to that effect will be used in great profusion in the coming years and decades to describe Bush's performance as Commander-in-Chief.

Quoting WunalaYann (Reply 22): 15 out of 18 terrorists in the 2001 attacks were Saudis. Not a SINGLE Iraqi.

Timothy McVeigh was an American and he killed more per person than all of the hijackers on 9/11. Does this mean that the American government at the time was terrorist?

Quoting WunalaYann (Reply 22): What would scare the Iranians? Your sentence makes no sense.

Read the sentence before it. A 4th rate military (as described by liberals) was going to check Iran?

Quoting WunalaYann (Reply 22): How do you explain the rebuilding of Germany and Japan after WWII?

Those were political beliefs held by a few at the top, the population was not religiously indoctrinated as the terrorists we face today. On top of that Germany and Japan were utterly defeated and for the most part destroyed.

Quoting WunalaYann (Reply 22): Yet you would've been hard-pressed to find regimes more West-hating than their former rulers...

But not the populace whence the terrorist of today comes from.

Quoting WunalaYann (Reply 22): Again, what you assume would have been Hussein's death toll since '03 will always remain what it is - pure speculation.

So we ignore all the deaths before. Convenient.

Quoting WunalaYann (Reply 22): Yet their beliefs do not weigh much in the face of their death, now do they?

Absolutely they do. They gave their lives to better someone elses. If you don't see the honor in that then you truly are a Utopian concerned with nothing other than his own skin and happiness.

Quoting WunalaYann (Reply 22): Which will be thus free to instate the Shari'a as its fundamental law using our very own democratic tools.

And that will be their choice. But I doubt that it will be fundamentalist since there are still three political factions at play.

Quoting WunalaYann (Reply 22): After all, wasn't Iraq invaded because it had WMDs???

You need to read the State of the Union address for 2003 as well as the Presidents address on the eve of hostilities.

Quoting WunalaYann (Reply 22): Just wait a few years and then we'll have this discussion again

If Senator Obama is elected I have no doubt we will, after an American city has suffered some sort of calamity killing who knows how many.

Quoting WunalaYann (Reply 22): Unf*ckingbelievable.

Yes, you Utopians are an unbelievable lot.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 18): Is it something in the water down there? Iran would have started enriching nuclear material whether or not Saddam was there.

The problem is that the US has become the "boy who cried wolf". "OK, so we were obviously wrong about Saddams WMD-undertakings, and the Niger-thing, but this time, it's really true!" All the rest of the world sees is Americans wanting to bomb another Middle Eastern country, good reasons or not.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 20): Who in their right mind would not vote to be free?

If freedom means having almost everything in your life blown up at regular intervals, people might think differently. If you call the Iraqi people "free", you are perhaps right in the sense that they have a few more rights on paper than before. But spend a week with an Iraqi family living outside the "Green Zone". I'm sure they're glad Saddam's not there anymore, but getting rid of an oppressive leader does not mean "freedom".

Quoting WunalaYann (Reply 22): 15 out of 18 terrorists in the 2001 attacks were Saudis. Not a SINGLE Iraqi.

Bin Laden is Saudi too. And not the poor, uneducated variety, he comes from a dirt rich family. The sort "we" in the west would normally refer to as "enlightened".

Quoting WunalaYann (Reply 22): I thought the point was the WMDs? After all, wasn't Iraq invaded because it had WMDs???

I'm sorry, but you've apparently missed a whole development in the rhetoric. As soon as it became clear that there were no WMDs whatsoever, human rights and an oppressive regime (which had been left as a secondary objective, just for such a reason) hopped up into the number one spot.

Still, most of the regimes in the entire region are autocratic, ruled by emirs and kings, not presidents and prime ministers. Where is the talk of freedom for the people of Saudi Arabia (read: women)? No, it's allowed to be as oppressive as you want, violate fundamental human right, as long as you help the US once in a while by torturing somebody who could pass for a terrorist, and by selling them alot of oil. I don't see how the US could claim human rights as a legitimate reason, when by the same reasoning they'd be compelled to invade quite a few countries around the world.

Cheers
Mats

Quoting WunalaYann (Reply 16): Because invading and supporting the invasion of a country that had nothing to do with terrorism and was no threat to any Western (and arguably non-Western) nation was a display of cunning and smart geopolitics maybe?

Nice. You're essentially saying that Saddam was smart and cunning. Yep, nothing says smart and cunning like a pile full of dead Kurds. You're essentially saying that Saddam's mind game is better than a force to depose a dictator that supported genocide. Let me guess. The well-hidden concentration camps of Nazi Germany were also cunning and smart.

Quoting 11Bravo (Reply 24): I think you have some horse and cart issues there. I strongly suspect words to that effect will be used in great profusion in the coming years and decades to describe Bush's performance as Commander-in-Chief.

Doubtful. Bush's legacy will be along the same lines of Harry Truman. You can debate all you want about Bush invading Iraq. You're obscuring the issue of Obama's (and the Democrats) willingness to lose in Iraq.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 25): Does this mean that the American government at the time was terrorist?

No. Yet the subsequent police investigation focused on US soil, not abroad. Honestly, can you not see that there is theme when 83.3% of a terrorist group are from one particular country??? As opposed to not a single one from the country which we ended up invading???

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 25): Read the sentence before it. A 4th rate military (as described by liberals) was going to check Iran?

What had Iran got to do with Iraq pre-'03???? Bugger all. Iran only became a player in this mess after we invaded Iraq and handed the keys to the country to the Shi'i majority. It didn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that Iran would pounce on such a change of political dynamics on its border!!    Even I had predicted it and I am no geopolitics expert by a long shot...

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 25): Those were political beliefs held by a few at the top, the population was not religiously indoctrinated as the terrorists we face today.

Oh yeah? What about Hitlerian Youths? What about the Japanese civilians that the US army had to dislodge with bloody flame throwers from caves in the Pacific because they refused to surrender??? What about the kamikaze????

These nations were no less indoctrinated by ideologies of hatred than the Iraqi population with fundamentalist Islam!!! Isn't it obvious to you??? I mean, seriously.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 25): But not the populace whence the terrorist of today comes from.

Again, go back to the link I sent you. Saudis who can afford flight lessons in the US are not exactly the definition of your typical Middle-Eastern populace. They are the sons of wealthy, educated families that foster and fund schools and "charities" where the West is depicted as Satan. Nothing to do with Iraq, which had been living under a secular, bloody, Arab-socialist dictatorship since the 1960s. Go back to your history books.

Or then we should also invade Algeria, Egypt, Syria or Tunisia???? They are all the exact same kind of regimes as Hussein's - Baath-inspired.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 25): So we ignore all the deaths before. Convenient.

Utter bullshit again. You're putting words in my mouth yet YOU are the one conveniently ignoring the 100,000+ Iraqi civilians massacred under Western rule in Iraq. Honestly, mate, get a grip.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 25): They gave their lives to better someone elses.

Oh yeah? Because you asked "someone else" what they wanted beforehand? BULLSHIT!!

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 25): If you don't see the honor in that

Where do I say that I don't see honour in sacrificing one's life for a better world?!?! WHERE???? Are you on drugs or can you simply not read???

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 25): you truly are a Utopian concerned with nothing other than his own skin and happiness.

Oh, down to insults, now. When you're down to statements like these, I know I have you by the balls.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 25): You need to read the State of the Union address for 2003 as well as the Presidents address on the eve of hostilities.

Then why try to obtain a UN mandate, hmmm? Why shouldn't we invade every single dictatorship on the planet? After all that would only account for 70% of the world... Any answer to that? No. So stow away your propaganda, it's not fooling anyone.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 25): Yes, you Utopians are an unbelievable lot.

Again with the labelling... You don't have the beginning of a clue who I am, and obviously you have not cared to read some of many posts on this forum. So keep making an embarrassment of yourself, you're only proving that your arguments hold zero ground.

Quoting JCS17 (Reply 27): You're essentially saying that Saddam was smart and cunning.

And again with the putting-words-in-people's-mouth tactics... Are you guys going to try this every single time someone proves your argument to be baseless and dumb or are you going to grow up? Ridiculous.

Point to me exactly where I give Hussein (by the way, Saddam's his first name, so unless you refer to the President as "Georgie", at least have some consistency) any form of credit. Eh? EH?

Thank you. Point proven.   

Quoting JCS17 (Reply 27): You're essentially saying that Saddam's mind game is better than a force to depose a dictator that supported genocide.

You're essentially proving that you are an idiot.

Quoting JCS17 (Reply 27): Let me guess. The well-hidden concentration camps of Nazi Germany were also cunning and smart.

And a big time offensive one, at that. Well done. *applause*

Again, unf*ckingbelievable. I am resisting the urge to have your post deleted for the most obvious, blatant attempts at slinging "nazi" mud at someone you have never met and obviously don't know anything about.

But at the same time, your mean stupidity is an example of everything one should never do. Watch this, kids, it's worth its weight in pure gold as far as dick moves go. When you can't win an argument, revert to insults, especially when they couldn't fall further from the truth.

Laughable.

Quoting Doona (Reply 26): I'm sorry, but you've apparently missed a whole development in the rhetoric.

Duh. Thanks. I know, stupid me tends to read newspapers...  

Quoting Doona (Reply 26): Still, most of the regimes in the entire region are autocratic, ruled by emirs and kings, not presidents and prime ministers. Where is the talk of freedom for the people of Saudi Arabia (read: women)? No, it's allowed to be as oppressive as you want, violate fundamental human right,

   Thank you. A voice of reason!

Victory in Iraq in the present context means the disengagement and draw-down of the American forces in Iraq from a position of strength, to enhance the military posture in a strategic location, resource-rich but violence-prone region, and to redeploy and reconstitute the maneuver Army, that for so long has been tied down to 1 theater. The rushing in reinforcements, i.e. the surge, and change in strategy and tactics have finally yielded some hope that the objective may be achievable. So yes, in this context of the changing in dynamics brought about by the surge Sen. Obama was wrong, and he has readily conceded that. However, I understand and respect his larger point in that he does not believe in the Iraq adventure at all, hence does not want America to throw good money after bad; he believes America should just cut her loss, and get the heck out ASAP. That is an entirely legitimate, defensible position. Personally, I do not happen to agree with him, but I understand and respect his position. I happened to oppose this Iraq war from the very beginning, never bought the WMD BS pretext served up by Bush and co, but now since we are in it, I want America to come out of it from a position of strength, instead of a repeat of Vietnam or Somalia. I agree with Sen. Obama then, but disagree with him now. But I see his argument is entirely sensible, defensible, and well-meaning for the country. He may get the "surge" wrong, many did, but does not mean his thinking is ridiculous as his opponents painted him to be.

Quoting Beta (Reply 30): I happened to oppose this Iraq war from the very beginning, never bought the WMD BS pretext served up by Bush and co, but now since we are in it, I want America to come out of it from a position of strength, instead of a repeat of Vietnam or Somalia.

   Agreed 100%. And I think acknowledging that going to Iraq in the first place was a monumental mistake is a first step in the right direction.

And because we are there, whether we like or not we have a moral and political obligation to ensure the safety and security of the Iraqi people, first and foremost. Moral because when it comes down to it, it's about saving lives. And political because if we can prove that indeed we did care about the people, then we will have made friends there.

Actually, I thought Obama did well in his first part of the interview with O'Reily and shows more of his substance. That and he's the first non-South Asian that I have heard who said "Pakistan" the correct way.

Quoting WunalaYann (Reply 29): And a big time offensive one, at that. Well done. *applause* Again, unf*ckingbelievable. I am resisting the urge to have your post deleted for the most obvious, blatant attempts at slinging "nazi" mud at someone you have never met and obviously don't know anything about. But at the same time, your mean stupidity is an example of everything one should never do. Watch this, kids, it's worth its weight in pure gold as far as dick moves go. When you can't win an argument, revert to insults, especially when they couldn't fall further from the truth.

Awww... Someone is a bit flustered. I'm sorry, sweetie, for presenting facts and logic to dispel your argument. Next time, I'll throw you a softball and let you win the argument.

Quoting WunalaYann (Reply 29): You're essentially proving that you are an idiot.

Please don't get angry with me. A.net insults are truly damaging and detrimental to my self-esteem.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 18): Most of them volunteered to be there,

Actually, most of them volunteered to fight al-Qaida in Afganistan. Remember al-Qaida in Afganistan? The ringleaders of the Sept 11 attacks? Then, according to BushCo, al-Qaida somehow magically moved their whole operations to Iraq. Or was it WMDs? Or was it because Saddam actually attacked the United States? Or was it....?

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 18): almost all of them volunteered to go back.

To help their fellow soldiers. That is the mindset of the military from what I have heard. Leave no one behind.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 18): Now we begin leave a country that has had not one but two free and fair elections

To elect a theocracy. Like Iran and Afganistan. Also, how many refugees fled Iraq before they could vote? How many refugees are still refusing to go back because of the figting or
opression that was not present under Saddam?

What I find truly sad is the American population still clinging to the Right and their rhetoric that they will not raise taxes. After all the money BushCo borrowed during war (because of tax cuts to corporations and the wealthy among others), does the Right really believe they can lower taxes even further to pay for things like public education, bloated government (TSA, Homeland Security, Patriot Act, No Child Left Behind), road work and so on? Was tax-and-spend really that bad? I think borrow-and-spend Conservatives are much worse and much more threatening to the security of this nation. But, in the end, it will be Obama's fault when taxes are raised to pay for Bush's war.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 34): does the Right really believe they can lower taxes even further to pay for things like public education, bloated government (TSA, Homeland Security, Patriot Act, No Child Left Behind), road work and so on?

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 34): But, in the end, it will be Obama's fault when taxes are raised to pay for Bush's war.

So then Obama's big middle-class tax break he keeps talking about is pure B.S.?

Democrat President+ Democrat House+ Democrat Senate= Higher Taxes.

And I believe that McCain is talking about keeping the current tax rate permanent, and
not lowering them further.

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 10): Cue the flip-flopper attack ads that will run until the next thing that happens to either canditate.

Forget the attack ads, Palin already zapped Obama about it at the campaign stop—her first—in Cedarburg, WI.

Yet Obama still says he’d have opposed it. I don’t know what to make of that, but it’s illuminating. She is owning him.

Quoting Mdsh00 (Reply 32): Actually, I thought Obama did well in his first part of the interview with O'Reily

He did until Bill called him out on the surge and exposed his shallow anti war stance. Sounded like he wasn't prepped buy his own people on how to answer that one.

Quoting Slider (Reply 36): She is owning him.

Careful there Slider, or some Obama apologist will think you're being racist (i.e. slavery).

I think she not only owned him, but will auction him off on e-bay when she's done!

Footnote to the Obama Apologists: that is referring to her selling the state jet on e-bay.  

Quoting JCS17 (Reply 27): Bush's legacy will be along the same lines of Harry Truman. You can debate all you want about Bush invading Iraq.

You can make wild proclamations all you want as well - Bush's legacy will be nothing like Truman's. People remember Truman's decisionmaking in the face of a difficult crossroads and most can sympathize with what he had to do. In Bush's case, the squandering of foreign goodwill and assistance, refusal to consult people in the know on the region in question in the face of even more difficult decisions, and willingness to stay loyal to people with important jobs who were abject failures all amount to one thing: a historically naive and bullheaded foreign policy.

Quoting WunalaYann (Reply 28): can you not see that there is theme when 83.3% of a terrorist group are from one particular country???

And 100% of them are Islamic terrorists. Evidently the fact that they put their religion above their country of origin slipped by you.

Quoting WunalaYann (Reply 28): As opposed to not a single one from the country which we ended up invading???

We invaded Iraq to dispose Saddam Hussien and his underlings.

Quoting WunalaYann (Reply 28): and handed the keys to the country to the Shi'i majority

Again, it is a free and fairly elected government that is working with us. There are three factions involved and none of the three appears to eager to hook up with another to beat up the third.

Quoting WunalaYann (Reply 28): It didn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that Iran would pounce on such a change of political dynamics on its border

And what was the result. Their strongman in now hiding out where?

Quoting WunalaYann (Reply 28): Oh yeah? What about Hitlerian Youths? What about the Japanese civilians that the US army had to dislodge with bloody flame throwers from caves in the Pacific because they refused to surrender??? What about the kamikaze????

The Hitler youth had two choices at the end of the war, fight, or be shot. Any civilians in the caves on Okinawa were there because of the propaganda that their leaders had fed them.
Not because of anything the United States or it's allies had done to them.

Quoting WunalaYann (Reply 28): You're putting words in my mouth yet

You've been doing that to me for quite some time now by cherry picking sentences.

Quoting WunalaYann (Reply 28): YOU are the one conveniently ignoring the 100,000 Iraqi civilians massacred under Western rule in Iraq. Honestly, mate, get a grip.

I'm not ignoring them but is it a fact that there are less people being hurt and killed now than under Saddams rule? It the future looking better or worse? Even the Iraqis say they are glad Saddam is gone.

Quoting WunalaYann (Reply 28): Oh yeah? Because you asked "someone else" what they wanted beforehand? BULLSHIT!!

Now that makes a lot of sense. Did we ask the French or Italians if they wanted to be freed from the Nazi's before be destroyed their countries and killed who knows how many of their citizens?

Quoting WunalaYann (Reply 28): Where do I say that I don't see honour in sacrificing one's life for a better world?!?!

You don't but the implication is that you feel these soldiers were sacrificed for nothing and that is incorrect.

Quoting WunalaYann (Reply 28): Oh, down to insults, now. When you're down to statements like these, I know I have you by the balls.

Please.

Quoting WunalaYann (Reply 16): Ok, let us know when you encounter failure, I'm sure that'll be a sight to see.

Quoting WunalaYann (Reply 22): your comment just shows how ignorant of foreign situations you are.

Quoting WunalaYann (Reply 22): As I said, no blinder than he who does not want to see. Unf*ckingbelievable.

Still want to act like little Mr. Innocent?

Quoting WunalaYann (Reply 28): Then why try to obtain a UN mandate, hmmm?

We tried that. Thanks to countries that had under the table deals with Saddam it got shot down.

Quoting WunalaYann (Reply 28): Why shouldn't we invade every single dictatorship on the planet?

Because not every single dictatorship has the technological means to produce chemical weapons.

Quoting WunalaYann (Reply 28): So stow away your propaganda, it's not fooling anyone.

Nor is your Utopian view of the world.

Quoting WunalaYann (Reply 28): You don't have the beginning of a clue who I am, and obviously you have not cared to read some of many posts on this forum.

I've read your posts and by your writing. You are another "if we only talk with them" type. The time for talking is over. Leaving them alone will not prevent them from coming here and causing mayhem. I suggest that if you believe it will that you try and set up an appointment with Mr. Bin Laden and try and talk things out. As I told one of your Utopian buddies, Utopians usually end up dying with a surprised look on their face.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 34): Actually, most of them volunteered to fight al-Qaida in Afganistan.

And you know that how??

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 34): To help their fellow soldiers.

And because they believed in helping the Iraqi people. Many of them saw the good in the mission. I know that since when ever the press breaks down temporarily and the soldiers stories are actually reported that's what they say.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 34): To elect a theocracy

Have they? Is the government in charge now a theocracy? Where are the Mullah's that are dictating policy such as they are next door in Iran?

Quoting Doona (Reply 26): All the rest of the world sees is Americans wanting to bomb another Middle Eastern country, good reasons or not.

Exactly when has this administration talked of bombing Iran? It has stated, correctly, that the military option would not be taken off the table. It has said nothing about how it would or what circumstances would trigger military action. BTW, Senator Obama in his interview last night also stated that he would not remove the military option from the table in dealing with Iran if he was elected.

Quoting Doona (Reply 26): If freedom means having almost everything in your life blown up at regular intervals, people might think differently.

History is replete with people that would beg to differ.

Quoting Doona (Reply 26): but getting rid of an oppressive leader does not mean "freedom".

The Iraqi people see better days ahead. They've said as much themselves in the polls that have been conducted even before the surge.

Quoting Doona (Reply 26): Where is the talk of freedom for the people of Saudi Arabia

How many countries has Saudi Arabia invaded? Where are the chemical weapons that they are using to gas their own people? The rape rooms? Are their citizens regularly snatched off the street never to be seen again? Have numerous mass graves been uncovered?

Quoting Slider (Reply 36): Forget the attack ads, Palin already zapped Obama about it at the campaign stop—her first—in Cedarburg, WI. Yet Obama still says he’d have opposed it. I don’t know what to make of that, but it’s illuminating. She is owning him.

Look being grilled by the right on this is the lesser of the two evils here, this is what the right hopes overshadows everything else.

If he changes his opinion and says I was wrong about this surge but even says "I still stand by the fact that this war should have never been started." Its a noble thing to say but he will get the John Kerry I voted for it before I voted against it blunder and is labeled a flip-flopper, which is so much worse because it can piss off the democratic base and anti-war independants hurting him more. This argument only really satisfies the right wing base essentallly as this most liberal person is the senate is a political trap to make canditates move away from their base.

Also when 2 of every 3 americans are sick of the war (as the polls say) Obama has the political advantage.

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 42): Also when 2 of every 3 americans are sick of the war (as the polls say) Obama has the political advantage.

Also 2 out of every 3 Americans (might be little exaggerated here) likely cannot point out Iraq on the map. I'm not sure that would be a good measuring yardstick or "advantage." I hope and pray we don't elect a President who would govern based on polls. Last time we had a leader who governed more or less by the polls, he is still trying to explain what "is" is. Get it?

Hey, what do you know, RJ starts another thread on Sen. Obama. Wait, I thought you were going to start a thread on Sen. McCain's speech? Hmmmm, what happened there. Let's remind the viewers of what you said you would do:

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 45): Quoting DavestanKSAN (Reply 43): I will be awaiting your thread then If they have the convention and he speaks. If he tosses out give aways that make no sense. If he tosses his conservative supporters under the bus as Senator Obama did.

Read that last sentence again. Let's see what you said in the Palin more popular than McCain thread, shall we?

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 14): Quoting Mt99 (Reply 12): And he trully threw G Bush under the bus.. He threw all of the GOP members under the bus. Those in Congress. He was absolutely correct in his assesment that the GOP leaders in charge two years ago had completely abdicated their fiscal principles and deserved to be tossed out.

So let's see, you admit he threw his conservative supporters under the bus, yet you failed to start a thread on Sen. McCain's speech, and instead, started ANOTHER thread about Sen. Obama. Things that make you go hmmmm....

Dave

Quoting DavestanKSAN (Reply 44): Read that last sentence again. Let's see what you said in the Palin more popular than McCain thread, shall we?

How are those in Congress conservative supporters? And if those in charge in Congress two years ago were not conservative, at least fiscally, how does that make them supporters?

Quoting DavestanKSAN (Reply 44): Things that make you go hmmmm....

Things that make say "he grasping and anything". But keep up the consistency, even if it is in erroneously reading into things.


BTW, where I had been planning on holding my nose going into vote this year, the speech last night actually gave me hope that Senator McCain might have seen the light. His choice of Governor Palin was brilliant in several differnt ways. Dave, if he was throwing his conservative supporters under the bus, why would he have chosen her over the safer picks of Romney or even Lieberman?

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 45): How are those in Congress conservative supporters?

If you asked whom they supported for President, I'm sure they would answer "Sen. Obama" right?

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 45): And if those in charge in Congress two years ago were not conservative, at least fiscally, how does that make them supporters?

So now it's up to you who you deem is conservative enough? You've admitted President Bush hasn't been conservative in the way he spends. Is he not a conservative as well? Who does he support for President? Did Sen. McCain try and distance himself from the President?

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 45): Things that make say "he grasping and anything".

Haha. Please. You stated you would start a thread on Sen. McCain's speech if he threw his supporters under the bus, which he did. You, instead started a thread on Sen. Obama. I'm hardly grasping, I'm pointing out your inconsistencies. If you want to be dishonest about it, that's your right, but at least admit to it.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 45): Dave, if he was throwing his conservative supporters under the bus, why would he have chosen her over the safer picks of Romney or even Lieberman?

So do you think Sen. McCain threw President Bush under the bus? There's a simple answer to your question really. His advisers probably told him to pick Gov. Palin to appeal to the more conservative base, which was an area where Sen. McCain was weak. I assume he wants to get into the White House, so he would pick someone who would make that dream turn into reality. Thus, the pick for Gov. Palin.

Dave

Quoting DavestanKSAN (Reply 46): If you asked whom they supported for President, I'm sure they would answer "Sen. Obama" right?

It wouldn't make any difference. Go back and look at the other thread. By "supporters" it becomes pretty clear that I was talking about groups such as the greens, gays, etc. I was not talking about people who are already in office or in politics. If you would like to show where I said different please do.

Quoting DavestanKSAN (Reply 46): So do you think Sen. McCain threw President Bush under the bus?

Yes, but, as you correctly stated, President Bush has been anything but a fiscal conservative over the past 8 years. Senator McCain did not throw any religious conservatives under the bus so even if you were to consider the President a conservative Christian he didn't get tossed. Want to try and misread the post again?

Quoting DavestanKSAN (Reply 46): His advisers probably told him to pick Gov. Palin to appeal to the more conservative base

What an astute observation! Simpy brilliant. I don't suppose you also stopped to think about the fact she is a sitting Governor who can claim something neither Senator McCain, Senator Obama, or Senator Biden can claim, no not being a female. Go ahead, give it your best shot.

Quoting A346Dude (Reply 2): he will do or say anything to see it.

Um, right, just like any other Presidential candidate. par for the course.

The so called conservatives stepped in front of the bus, no one threw them under it.

And I think true conservatives now find the McCain/Palin ticket (Mavericks, Inc.) a
course correction from the deviation that occured a few years ago. True conservatives
were extremely frustrated with all of the wasteful spending the Republicans approved.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 40): And 100% of them are Islamic terrorists. Evidently the fact that they put their religion above their country of origin slipped by you.

Evidently the fact that they come from a country that does not recognise other religions besides Islam slipped by you. Saudi Arabia is a fascist regime, that breeds hatred for anyone and anything not Islam(ic). So the logical thing is to invade Iraq.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 40): We invaded Iraq to dispose Saddam Hussien and his underlings.

And yet you don't try to get a UN mandate to invade Iran or Russia who claim to have not only WMDs but the intention to use them. So the logical thing is to invade Iraq. I see what you did there.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 40): Again, it is a free and fairly elected government that is working with us. There are three factions involved and none of the three appears to eager to hook up with another to beat up the third.

They had free and fair elections back in '04 yet that did not prevent them from slaughtering one another under our watch. So does Lebanon. This is as invalid an argument as you can get.

Elections and inter-community violence are two very different things.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 40): And what was the result. Their strongman in now hiding out where?

The result is now we have to chat with a fascist regime (Iran) (and we have, so that is not linked to party line, Republicans AND Democrats are doing it) in order to have a chance to avoid a civil war in Iraq the minute we leave.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 40): The Hitler youth had two choices at the end of the war, fight, or be shot.

I'm not talking after the war, but before and during it. Makes all the difference. Sure it's easy to give people a choice when there is virtually none as they've (thankfully) lost the war. Nonsense.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 40): Any civilians in the caves on Okinawa were there because of the propaganda that their leaders had fed them. Not because of anything the United States or it's allies had done to them.

Exactly. It's propaganda. The same propaganda the regimes in Saudi Arabia, Yemen and previously Afghanistan are/were feeding to their youth. Exact same thing, with exact same result, except now we're kissing Saudi Arabia's bum for more oil. Hmmm...

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 40): You don't but the implication is that you feel these soldiers were sacrificed for nothing and that is incorrect.

You're changing your tune. Previously you said they were volunteers, so they wouldn't have been sacrificed, they would have sacrificed themselves, willingly. And nowhere do I say that they died for nothing. My point is that we could have achieved better results by not taking down an entire state and throwing its population to the lions (factions, mafias, terrorists and other assorted criminals). And by the same token, nearly 5000 soldiers would probably still be alive by now.

You really are putting words in my mouth.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 40): Did we ask the French or Italians if they wanted to be freed from the Nazi's before be destroyed their countries and killed who knows how many of their citizens?

Er, hello. History class. Have you ever heard of De Gaulle and the France Libre? The Government of London? YES, the allies invaded France at the explicit request of the Résistance, then headed by De Gaulle.

As for Italy well I will throw the "free and fair elections" argument back at you. Mussolini came to power after free elections, too. So there was no real point in asking people who had elected a dictator if they needed any help from outside to get rid of their little mistake.

BS argument but you're stringing them together like I've never seen before.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 40): Still want to act like little Mr. Innocent?

Yep. With facts to back me up as YOU started the whole effing thing by stating that I considered Nazi horror a display of cunning and smart politics. THAT's an insult. Your tactic is to sling mud at people who expose your blindness and deafness to reality.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 40): We tried that. Thanks to countries that had under the table deals with Saddam it got shot down.

Exactly. But that doesn't answer the question as to why we asked for a mandate in the first place? Either Iraq is a threat to Western countries in which case the UN can bugger off for all I care, or it's not and then we shut up.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 40): Because not every single dictatorship has the technological means to produce chemical weapons.

China, Russia, Pakistan, Iran and allegedly North Korea HAVE WMDs. And as stated above, some have clearly said that they would use them to defend their interests. Yet they are not invaded. But the logical thing was to invade Iraq which had ZERO WMDs. Ok. Now it makes plenty of sense.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 40): Nor is your Utopian view of the world.

Utopian? You don't even know what that means. Communists were utopians yet their policies were hardly humanist in their implementation. If you had read my posts you would've seen that I am advocating the toppling of Saudi Arabia. Now is that your definition of a "oh, they're different and hate us and have sent planes in our buildings but we have to respect their difference because it's cool to respect other people"? Not in my books, no. I'm saying that we are beating on the wrong people. Not that we should not beat on anyone.

  

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 40): You've been doing that to me for quite some time now by cherry picking sentences.

Not cherry-picking. I've taken your entire excuse of a post and comprehensively taken it apart and exposed the smelly BS that's in it.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 40): The time for talking is over.

Again. Get your facts right. We haven't talked to Iran since 1979. So no, the time is not over, it hasn't even started. Or at least until last month when we finally came to our senses.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 40): I suggest that if you believe it will that you try and set up an appointment with Mr. Bin Laden and try and talk things out. As I told one of your Utopian buddies, Utopians usually end up dying with a surprised look on their face.

Yadda yadda, BS BS, honestly, can you not come up with any form of constructive argument? Is that beyond your grasp? Obviously it is.