 |
John McCain spoke yesterday in Rochester, New Hampshire, where as can be seen in the video above, he states, "It seems to me that Obama would rather lose a war in order to win a political campaign."
The full statement was as follows:
This is a clear choice that the American people have. I had the courage and the judgment to say I would rather lose a political campaign than lose a war. It seems to me that Obama would rather lose a war in order to win a political campaign.
Many have agreed with that statement and just as many have disagreed with it, with the contrasting opinions running along political divides.
Joe Klein from The Swamp, called it desperate and unpresidential, but he also stated something that I haven't seen anywhere else where he says, "The reality is that neither Barack Obama nor Nouri al-Maliki nor most anybody else believes that the Iraq war can be 'lost' at this point."
This, of course, started my search for Democratic politicians, such as Harry Reid who once declared " Iraq was lost", that have changed their positions to not only admit that the situation in Iraq has progressed to the point where the gains seen are irreversible but that have publicly stated that the war in Iraq cannot be lost.
Despite a change in keywords and the use of multiple search engines, I cannot find any Democratic leader that has stated publicly that the war has been won.
The American people, according to the latest Rasmussen poll, believe by a majority of 51 percent, that the US and it's allies are winning the war on terror. That number is up from 36 percent of American voters last year in July.
While the polls show that American voters believe we are winning the war on terror itself, there are still no numbers on how many believe the war in Iraq can be declared as a clear "irreversible" victory yet.
A plurality of voters, 42 percent, also believe that the situation in Iraq will improve over the next 6 months and that numbers has risen 5 percentage points in just the last week alone, and risen 19 points from a year ago when the question was asked.
While members from both sides of the political aisle have stated that there has been progress and a number of factors has led to optimism, even John McCain admits that the enemy is "not completely defeated".
He concludes his comments in Rochester with, "We have succeeded. Sadr city is safe. Basra is safe. Mosul is safe. The people of Iraq are now leading normal lives. There will continue to be spectacular attacks. They are not completely defeated... We have to continue with this strategy that has succeeded."
Many have expressed the desire to see Democratic politicians, men and women that fought so hard against the new counter-insugency strategy that was implemented when General David Petraeus took over the operations in Iraq last year, admit that they have worked to the point where victory could be proclaimed, but as of now, despite numerous searches, I cannot find the type of statement that Mr. Klein has claimed.
-
Win? Loose? Count the bodies - yours, theirs. With sunken heads, return in shame. End it.
-
@ skeptikool
Win? Loose? Count the bodies - yours, theirs. With sunken heads, return in shame. End it.
Not willing to actually address the topic of the post? Is the war at a point where is cannot be lost as Klein suggests? Try to focus on the present instead of being 5 years behind.
Can you find any supporting statements for his claim or not? -
...I had the courage and the judgment to say I would rather lose a political campaign than lose a war. It seems to me that Obama would rather lose a war in order to win a political campaign
Immodesty, accompanied by a verbal game. In suggesting that losing a war might win Obama an election, he suggests "losing" is the popular outcome for the U.S. voter. -
@ skeptikool
Immodesty, accompanied by a verbal game. In suggesting that losing a war might win Obama an election, he suggests "losing" is the popular outcome for the U.S. voter.
No but pitching a strategy that could cost a war is more important to Obama, for the "votes" than admitting the truth.
What he does afterward will be exactly what he did with FISA, Iran, Israel, public financing etc... after winning the primary and that is tell his supporters, too late, screw you. -
Red-faced at more than a typo. Loose is following my bran muffins First comment should have read: Win? Lose?
-
@ Sue D.
No but pitching a strategy that could cost a war is more important to Obama, for the "votes" than admitting the truth.
What he does afterward will be exactly what he did with FISA, Iran, Israel, public financing etc... after winning the primary and that is tell his supporters, too late, screw you.
Heya :)
As to winning / losing the Iraq war .... I'd have to say that given the original stated purposes for the war, it's already been won, i.e. WMDs (turned out they weren't there), getting rid of Saddam, bringing a form of democracy to the Iraqi people. I was never clear whether the threat of al Quaeda / Taliban terrorism was ever a specific goal of that war. My understanding was that it appeared / surged in Iraq as the focus shifted from Afghanistan. So, I don't think the Iraq war can be lost—within that set of restrictions.
As to what Obama will do .... he'll continue to "refine" his position and attempt to "further explain what he meant" long after the U.S. public gets tired of hearing him do so.
I get more and more confused and frustrated between these two that I don't really know which one is the more out of touch. I watch Lou Dobbs on a regular basis (OK I actually drop everything to watch it and AC360 ... but anyway) .... during his panel discussion with one each of a dem and rep strategist and a journalist, they all stated that both Obama and McCain need to stop d1cksizing about whether the surge helped or not and move on to what will be done about moving from Iraq over to Afghanistan .... basically, stop living in the past and let us now what the future direction will be. Everyone can see that the surge has had an effect; who's to say whether is was the intended one or not.
I don't know whether I answered your question or not ... lol =D -
@ Sykos Masters
Heya :)
As to winning / losing the Iraq war .... I'd have to say that given the original stated purposes for the war, it's already been won, i.e. WMDs (turned out they weren't there), getting rid of Saddam, bringing a form of democracy to the Iraqi people. I was never clear whether the threat of al Quaeda / Taliban terrorism was ever a specific goal of that war. My understanding was that it appeared / surged in Iraq as the focus shifted from Afghanistan. So, I don't think the Iraq war can be lost—within that set of restrictions.
As to what Obama will do .... he'll continue to "refine" his position and attempt to "further explain what he meant" long after the U.S. public gets tired of hearing him do so.
I get more and more confused and frustrated between these two that I don't really know which one is the more out of touch. I watch Lou Dobbs on a regular basis (OK I actually drop everything to watch it and AC360 ... but anyway) .... during his panel discussion with one each of a dem and rep strategist and a journalist, they all stated that both Obama and McCain need to stop d1cksizing about whether the surge helped or not and move on to what will be done about moving from Iraq over to Afghanistan .... basically, stop living in the past and let us now what the future direction will be. Everyone can see that the surge has had an effect; who's to say whether is was the intended one or not.
I don't know whether I answered your question or not ... lol =D
There were 23 stated reasons for Iraq in the joint resolution that passed the Senate and Congress, 7 of which are clearly separate from each other....care to address the others? -
@ Sue D.
There were 23 stated reasons for Iraq in the joint resolution that passed the Senate and Congress, 7 of which are clearly separate from each other....care to address the others?
There was really only two real reasons for the war, oil and Israel. Everything else was just smoke and mirrors to sucker the American people into Bush's crack pot crusade. -
@ lensman67
There was really only two real reasons for the war, oil and Israel. Everything else was just smoke and mirrors to sucker the American people into Bush's crack pot crusade.
I am talking about the FACTS of the stated reasons listed in the official resolution, not YOUR crackpot tinfoil hat conspiracy theories, if you cannot address the subject, then let the adults speak.
Movie time, catch you ya'll later. Sykos, I will check for your answer then. -
@ Sue D.
There were 23 stated reasons for Iraq in the joint resolution that passed the Senate and Congress, 7 of which are clearly separate from each other....care to address the others?
Sorry m'dear. I'm not intimately aware of the specific reasons that were given ... remember, Canadian up here :) Back when the Iraq war began, our news agencies didn't extensively cover the specific reasons given in that resolution. All we ever heard about, to any great degree, was the one's that I mentioned.
Personally, I don't think any war is ever "won". There's just a faction (country / ideology / goal) that loses less than the other one did. I have my own ideas about what may have prompted Bush's actions, but I don't know of any facts to support them. Oddly enough, they're based on psychological motivations rather than any conspiratorial motives (I only see conspiracies when it comes to me ... lol). If you're interested in my non-fact based thoughts, give me a shout. -
@ Sue D.
I am talking about the FACTS of the stated reasons listed in the official resolution, not YOUR crackpot tinfoil hat conspiracy theories, if you cannot address the subject, then let the adults speak.
Movie time, catch you ya'll later. Sykos, I will check for your answer then.
Wasn't it your fellow Right Winger, Joseph Goebbels, who said that if you let him define the terms in a debate that he would always win? That sleazy trick didn't work for him either.
What the Bush Regime said was their reasons and what they really were are two entirely different things. Even his former press secretary has admitted that the "evidence" for the war was "cherry picked" or made up entirely.
Contrary to your previous lies the Iraqis have indeed asked us in no uncertain terms to get our asses our of their country and have begun demanding the dreaded "time lines." -
@ Sykos Masters
Sorry m'dear. I'm not intimately aware of the specific reasons that were given ... remember, Canadian up here :) Back when the Iraq war began, our news agencies didn't extensively cover the specific reasons given in that resolution. All we ever heard about, to any great degree, was the one's that I mentioned.
Personally, I don't think any war is ever "won". There's just a faction (country / ideology / goal) that loses less than the other one did. I have my own ideas about what may have prompted Bush's actions, but I don't know of any facts to support them. Oddly enough, they're based on psychological motivations rather than any conspiratorial motives (I only see conspiracies when it comes to me ... lol). If you're interested in my non-fact based thoughts, give me a shout.
How would this be for a working definition of "winning" a war---when the peace that follows the war is better than it would have been if the war had not been fought in the first place then, and only then, can it be called a victory. All other outcomes are to be considered losses?
By that definition we have already lost this war big time. -
@ Sykos Masters
Sorry m'dear. I'm not intimately aware of the specific reasons that were given ... remember, Canadian up here :) Back when the Iraq war began, our news agencies didn't extensively cover the specific reasons given in that resolution. All we ever heard about, to any great degree, was the one's that I mentioned.
Personally, I don't think any war is ever "won". There's just a faction (country / ideology / goal) that loses less than the other one did. I have my own ideas about what may have prompted Bush's actions, but I don't know of any facts to support them. Oddly enough, they're based on psychological motivations rather than any conspiratorial motives (I only see conspiracies when it comes to me ... lol). If you're interested in my non-fact based thoughts, give me a shout.
If you ever want to see the joint authorization passed by congress and the senate, I have the PDF bookmarked. Easier to speak to facts that let "others" try to distract because they cannot address the subject.
Fact is there are reasons given there that no one talks about because it doesn't fit their tinfoil hat theories, and the second fact is we are there.
I have shown many quotes from Iraqi's that say that now that all the progress has been made since the surge their lives are better, life is not only returned to normal but better than it was for them while Saddam was slaughtering their families, by the thousands.
Then you have Obama that has invested himself, as people like Harry Reid and Pelosi and many others, in defeat, that they counted on things not improving for political reasons, which is exactly what Mccain said and to a degree he is right, they did and now they are trying to backtrack, but people have better memories than they give credit for.
Videos of Obama are out with him stating clearly that the surge would not help stop the violence, then one year later trying to claim that he always knew more troops would help.
Look for yourself, the dates and all HIS words.
Seven minutes, well worth the time to watch it to see Obama saying what is politically expedient, then changing his statement on another date, again, because it was politically expedient and it goes on and on.
McCain is dead on that Obama would rather lose the war to win an election. Too bad for him our soldiers are better than he gave them credit for.
Sleep tight! -
@ skeptikool
Red-faced at more than a typo. Loose is following my bran muffins First comment should have read: Win? Lose?
LOL! I read your comment and didn't catch the typo! -
You know this is REALLY funny.
After war there is alwasy a time for reconstruction. And after a regime change there is a vacuum of power, and the supporters of the efforts in Iraq knew this would happen. They also knew that once the Iraqi government felt comfortable that they would ask for a diminished troop presence. So it has come time that they want us to start thinking about withdrawl.
See lensman seems a bit confused about what he wants.
@ lensman67 The fact is that they were as well armed under Saddam as they are now and could have fought him just as easily as they are now fighting the most powerful Army on the planet but THEY CHOSE NOT TO. Perhaps they knew something our mentally challenged President did not.
@ lensman67The last group of mass graves date from the end of the first Gulf War when Bush senior betrayed of the Iraqi people when, on February 5, 1991, he broad cast a call to the people which said:
There is another way for the bloodshed to stop: And that is, for the Iraqi military and the Iraqi people to take matters into their own hands and force Saddam Hussein, the dictator, to step aside and then comply with the United Nations' resolutions and rejoin the family of peace-loving nations.
They did what he asked and then he left them to be massacred, often in full view of US troops, and did nothing.
The point is we are there, you can't rewind time, so it is time for the extremists to choose whether they want to pull out early and then blame Bush for the instability, massacres, and genocide that would follow, or stay in and blame Bush for attempting to stabalize a nation so they can have peace. Those are the two options, and those are the only two options in reality right now as everything stands.
Luckily the Iraqi government is the one calling the shots, and they have stated they do not want a SOFA soooo we will be out by 2009 as it stands. They wouldn't be saying that if they didn't feel like they would be ready by then to take over thier own security. -
@ Samantha A. Torrence
You know this is REALLY funny.
After war there is alwasy a time for reconstruction. And after a regime change there is a vacuum of power, and the supporters of the efforts in Iraq knew this would happen. They also knew that once the Iraqi government felt comfortable that they would ask for a diminished troop presence. So it has come time that they want us to start thinking about withdrawl.
See lensman seems a bit confused about what he wants.
They did what he asked and then he left them to be massacred, often in full view of US troops, and did nothing.
The point is we are there, you can't rewind time, so it is time for the extremists to choose whether they want to pull out early and then blame Bush for the instability, massacres, and genocide that would follow, or stay in and blame Bush for attempting to stabalize a nation so they can have peace. Those are the two options, and those are the only two options in reality right now as everything stands.
Luckily the Iraqi government is the one calling the shots, and they have stated they do not want a SOFA soooo we will be out by 2009 as it stands. They wouldn't be saying that if they didn't feel like they would be ready by then to take over thier own security.
Great points Samantha. some still think it is 2003 and 2004 and cannot wrap their minds about the reality of the here and now. -
@ Samantha A. Torrence
You know this is REALLY funny.
After war there is alwasy a time for reconstruction. And after a regime change there is a vacuum of power, and the supporters of the efforts in Iraq knew this would happen. They also knew that once the Iraqi government felt comfortable that they would ask for a diminished troop presence. So it has come time that they want us to start thinking about withdrawl.
See lensman seems a bit confused about what he wants.
They did what he asked and then he left them to be massacred, often in full view of US troops, and did nothing.
The point is we are there, you can't rewind time, so it is time for the extremists to choose whether they want to pull out early and then blame Bush for the instability, massacres, and genocide that would follow, or stay in and blame Bush for attempting to stabalize a nation so they can have peace. Those are the two options, and those are the only two options in reality right now as everything stands.
Luckily the Iraqi government is the one calling the shots, and they have stated they do not want a SOFA soooo we will be out by 2009 as it stands. They wouldn't be saying that if they didn't feel like they would be ready by then to take over thier own security.
Nice try but no cigar. The fact that a radical Shiite rose up, in response to Bush's call and was put down as American soldiers watched does not, in any way, invalidate my central point which is that the MAJORITY of Iraqis did not rise up in support of them the way that they did rise up in opposition to the US occupation.
You can't have it both ways. If the Iraqis were afraid to oppose Saddam then they would have been equally afraid to oppose the US but they were not and huge numbers of them died fighting for the liberation of their country from foreign occupation.
The fact that the US has finally gotten the word that there will be no "hundred year" occupation the way McCain and Bush envision it is the chief reason that most of the warring factions have decided to wait, and protect their military assets, until after the US elections when they have every reason to believe the new administration will start the withdrawal.
This war has cost trillions of dollars and tens of thousands of lives, plus the good will of a large part of the world towards the US, and what exactly has it accomplished? Exactly nothing!
So one tin pot dictator is dead--so what? The world is full of tin pot dictators but since most of them do not rule countries floating on oil the US does not consider their "liberation" to be all that high a priority. In fact a good number of those dictators, like Saddam himself, are US allies.
The state of the peace after the war is going to be this, a war ravaged country filled with grieving families who lost loved ones to the US occupation, a shattered US economy with a staggering debt load run up largely to pay for this crack pot crusade, a "democracy" in a country that has demonstrated that they do not like us and will not vote for policies in our interest, severe damage to the US Constitution and the faith of the American people in their government, and the fear and loathing of a good part of the world.
As I said, we have already lost this war---big time! -
Your wishful thinking doesn't and won't make it true. 51 percent of Americans believe we are ahead in the war on terror and YOU are part of the 16 percent that think the terrorist are ahead. The MINORITY. So frankly, considering your rabid attempts to try to convince people that the "war is lost" as Harry Reid did, because they and you have invested yourself in defeat, it smacks of desperation on your part because you were wrong. Bush was right, Mccain was right, the surge worked better than anyone could have predicted and you are simply incapable of admitting it or accepting it, so you pathetically run around to different threads and try to distract, scream, yell, throw temper tantrums so that people might be tempted to ignore how well things are going now.
I feel sorry for you.
@ Samantha A. Torrence
You know this is REALLY funny.
After war there is alwasy a time for reconstruction. And after a regime change there is a vacuum of power, and the supporters of the efforts in Iraq knew this would happen. They also knew that once the Iraqi government felt comfortable that they would ask for a diminished troop presence. So it has come time that they want us to start thinking about withdrawl.
See lensman seems a bit confused about what he wants.
They did what he asked and then he left them to be massacred, often in full view of US troops, and did nothing.
The point is we are there, you can't rewind time, so it is time for the extremists to choose whether they want to pull out early and then blame Bush for the instability, massacres, and genocide that would follow, or stay in and blame Bush for attempting to stabalize a nation so they can have peace. Those are the two options, and those are the only two options in reality right now as everything stands.
Luckily the Iraqi government is the one calling the shots, and they have stated they do not want a SOFA soooo we will be out by 2009 as it stands. They wouldn't be saying that if they didn't feel like they would be ready by then to take over thier own security.
Sam, some people will never understand, they do not have the mental capacity to do so, why waste your breath on them?
What is important is that the plurality of Americans believe Iraq will continue to improve.
A plurality of voters, 42 percent, also believe that the situation in Iraq will improve over the next 6 months and that numbers has risen 5 percentage points in just the last week alone, and risen 19 points from a year ago when the question was asked.
They see the truth, that is all that counts is that those numbers continue to rise, even more so in the last week.
Back to the original article, I remember when the surge was being discussed before it was implemented and John McCain, knowing the majority was against it, said, I would rather lose an election than lose the war.
It wasn't politically expedient, it wasn't what people wanted to hear, but he knew, and has been proven right, what was needed to turn the situation around.
When was the last time you saw a politician that would rather tell the truth even though they knew it could hurt them?
Certainly not Mr. "Change my speeches each month and each year depending on what my far left radical supporters want to hear" Obama, that is for sure.
McCain is right, Obama would rather "promise" to do everything in his power to lose a war, than to admit he was wrong about the surge. -
@ lensman67
This war has cost trillions of dollars and tens of thousands of lives, plus the good will of a large part of the world towards the US, ----------------------
The state of the peace after the war is going to be this, a war ravaged country filled with grieving families who lost loved ones to the US occupation, a shattered US economy with a staggering debt load run up largely to pay for this crack pot crusade, a "democracy" in a country that has demonstrated that they do not like us and will not vote for policies in our interest, severe damage to the US Constitution and the faith of the American people in their government, and the fear and loathing of a good part of the world.
I see these as legitimate concerns by many and by many people that I personally know.
Was this war just about oil?
When I try to envision a foreign country coming to fight our country for whatever reason and our country destroyed and people killed it doesn't set too well with me.
Even now Bush and McCain are changing their minds about the length of the occupation of Iraq.
What about the staggering debt we are in? Who is going to pay it off? My grandchildren and great grandchildren.
Just because any politician utters a statement it does not make it the truth. -
@ Cynthia T. [Picasso]
I see these as legitimate concerns by many and by many people that I personally know.
Was this war just about oil?
When I try to envision a foreign country coming to fight our country for whatever reason and our country destroyed and people killed it doesn't set too well with me.
Even now Bush and McCain are changing their minds about the length of the occupation of Iraq.
What about the staggering debt we are in? Who is going to pay it off? My grandchildren and great grandchildren.
Just because any politician utters a statement it does not make it the truth.
If you read the resolution, it states 23 reasons, would you ignore them simply because his opinion is that it was about oil?
This is about where we are NOW, today...we are winning spectacularly and the gains are not irreversible if we do not follow through and finish the job.
His "concern" is nothing but a pathetic attempt to distract from where we are today, the progress that is being seen and the fact that Obama continues to pander to his far left base, people like lensman, by promising to help snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
That is inexcusable after the sacrifice our troops have made. -
Picasso, for the record,I know you like lens and feel the need to defend him at every given opportunity and it is noble, but when a piece is written and he can do nothing to address the actual piece nor the information written in the piece and must constantly try to distract from the topic at hand, is it healthy to let him continue to do so? Read the piece, where do his comments apply to the actual article?
@ lensman67
There was really only two real reasons for the war, oil and Israel. Everything else was just smoke and mirrors to sucker the American people into Bush's crack pot crusade.
That was his first comment.... he comes to threads ad attacks like a rabid animal without addressing the piece itself? You think that is fair to writers when they choose a topic and put work into writing an article?
Sorry, his distraction techniques do not work, if he wants to rail with his BDS against Bush, let him go write his own piece and talk to himself, but he will be ignored on my thread by me until he grows up and learns to address the topic at hand. -
@ Sue D.
If you read the resolution, it states 23 reasons, would you ignore them simply because his opinion is that it was about oil?
This is about where we are NOW, today...we are winning spectacularly and the gains are not irreversible if we do not follow through and finish the job.
His "concern" is nothing but a pathetic attempt to distract from where we are today, the progress that is being seen and the fact that Obama continues to pander to his far left base, people like lensman, by promising to help snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
That is inexcusable after the sacrifice our troops have made.
No Sue it is not about "his" concern it is about the concerns of many people that I know. That is the reason that many people I know say why this war with Iraq was started in the first place.
Out troops and their family and friends have made huge sacrifices and I would never undermine that or disrespect any of them.
My sister's grandson is now in Afghanistan and she and her husband are against the war in Iraq.
A close friend's son will be deployed somewhere soon.
By stating what I did it is NOT to undermine any of our troops and the sacrifices they have made.
What are these troops coming home to?? A government that doesn't give a crap about them once they have served their country? How many go jobless? How many cannot get the proper medical care? The list goes on. -
@ Cynthia T. [Picasso]
No Sue it is not about "his" concern it is about the concerns of many people that I know. That is the reason that many people I know say why this war with Iraq was started in the first place.
Out troops and their family and friends have made huge sacrifices and I would never undermine that or disrespect any of them.
My sister's grandson is now in Afghanistan and she and her husband are against the war in Iraq.
A close friend's son will be deployed somewhere soon.
By stating what I did it is NOT to undermine any of our troops and the sacrifices they have made.
What are these troops coming home to?? A government that doesn't give a crap about them once they have served their country? How many go jobless? How many cannot get the proper medical care? The list goes on.
Funny I see that question continuously and yet when I write a piece about the VA partnering with Monster to address that very fact, it gets 300 hits while the John Edwards affair gets thousands, so people keep talking about it but do not respond when something IS done about it and again.... why are these comments not made there instead of here?
I will tell you, it is because people allow themselves to get distracted from the original article. -
@ Sue your first statement that I defend him at every given opportunity is not true. I have said nothing in the other articles where he has left comments.
I only quoted the parts of his comment as I see them as legitimate arguments that many people I know are saying.
-
@ Cynthia T. [Picasso]
@ Sue your first statement that I defend him at every given opportunity is not true. I have said nothing in the other articles where he has left comments.
I only quoted the parts of his comment as I see them as legitimate arguments that many people I know are saying.
Then perhaps you should be providing them with a copy of the resolution so they can see all the reasons why Congress and The Senate authorized the war.
Have you read it? -
@ Sue D.
Funny I see that question continuously and yet when I write a piece about the VA partnering with Monster to address that very fact, it gets 300 hits while the John Edwards affair gets thousands, so people keep talking about it but do not respond when something IS done about it and again.... why are these comments not made there instead of here?
I will tell you, it is because people allow themselves to get distracted from the original article.
I commented on that article and yes it is good that some are trying to help those coming home. But it is still not enough.
Talk to the street preacher in Detroit and let him tell you how many of the homeless on the streets of Detroit are veterans. They are nothing but drug addicts and alcoholics. Why? Because they have never gotten help and that is the only way they can get what they went through in wars out of their mind. Most are beyond help because it was not there when they came home. -
@ Cynthia T. [Picasso]
I commented on that article and yes it is good that some are trying to help those coming home. But it is still not enough.
Talk to the street preacher in Detroit and let him tell you how many of the homeless on the streets of Detroit are veterans. They are nothing but drug addicts and alcoholics/ Why? Because they have never gotten help and that is the only way they can get what they went through in wars out of their mind. Most are beyond help help because it was not there when they came home.
Yes and my mother in 1998 was treated the same way when she was supposed to be cared for by the VA.... it has been a problem and yes it does need to be addressed, but it isn't the wars fault that they have never gotten what they deserved.
My point was that none of that, nor lens' comment that started this whole convo has anything to do with the article.
he deliberately tried to hijack a thread and he might get away with it in other places but not with me.
I don't play that game.
I asked what his first comment had to do with the article and no matter how I try to apply it, it has nothing to do with it, it was nothing more than a rabid dog attack to try to distract from the piece itself because he didn't like John McCain telling the truth that Obama would rather lose the war than the election. -
Sue I really resent that you said this "Picasso, for the record, I----- and feel the need to defend him at every given opportunity and it is noble,
That really is not true that I defend him at every opportunity.
Yes I like him and get along with him, so what?
Would it make you all happy if I hated him? -
"When the Iraqi people ask us to leave, then we'll leave".
Bush, 2007
McCain 2008
Sorry, Gents, you can't have it both ways.
I must remind, my hawkish Americans, that you have ignored the warnings of Scott McClellan who had a bird's eye view of the "true intentions of this current administration."
To try to deflect this to Senator Obama is pretty ridiculous.
Maybe you don't mind that your children and grandchildren have a trillion dollar debt to pay for a "war" that we created in Iraq. The proper battleground for any war on terror IS in Afghanistan.
Try to avoid being "stuck on stupid" and look past the McCain nonsense and understand that unless the reputation of the United States is ...we will be stuck in the "quagmire" of war rhetoric ALL ALONE with none of our allies being willing to join us in a "global war on terror."
Lou Dobbs is a very sick man. (just my opinion)
-
@ Cynthia T. [Picasso]
Sue I really resent that you said this That really is not true that I defend him at every opportunity.
Yes I like him and get along with him, so what?
Would it make you all happy if I hated him?
I am sorry Picasso, but he deliberately came here to try to distract and you came to defend his comments which had nothing to do with the piece itself. If not defending, then enabling him to continue to attack without substance and try to hijack a thread on a different subject because he cannot address the subject at hand.
Have you seen any Democratic politician that has said "we won", have you seen any democratic politician state that the gains are "irreversible?
Is there a dispute with the poll numbers showing the plurality of voters think Iraq will continue to improve in the next 6 months? Do you see something to dispute that 51 percent of Americans now think we are winning the war on terror? Do you have figures to dispute that only 16 percent believe that the terrorists are winning?
Those were all questions in the article, and did you see him address them at all? -
@ Sue D.
Yes and my mother in 1998 was treated the same way when she was supposed to be cared for by the VA.... it has been a problem and yes it does need to be addressed, but it isn't the wars fault that they have never gotten what they deserved.
So whose fault is it? Wars are all started by someone who declares them?
If someone can declare a war can't they at least make provisions to care for those who are sent to the war?
Is my sister's friend's son getting the proper long term care he should get because of how he is affected because he couldn't cope with picking up and bagging body parts of his friends after they were blown to bits? -
@ Cynthia T. [Picasso]
Sue I really resent that you said this That really is not true that I defend him at every opportunity.
Yes I like him and get along with him, so what?
Would it make you all happy if I hated him?
No one is asking you to hate him..never have and have told you that privately a time or three. But liking him and refusing to admit that his is trying to distract instead of discuss, is not asking you to hate him, it is asking you to be fair to the people writing the pieces he is attacking without substance. -
@ Sue D.
I am sorry Picasso, but he deliberately came here to try to distract and you came to defend his comments which had nothing to do with the piece itself. If not defending, then enabling him to continue to attack without substance and try to hijack a thread on a different subject because he cannot address the subject at hand.
Have you seen any Democratic politician that has said "we won", have you seen any democratic politician state that the gains are "irreversible?
Is there a dispute with the poll numbers showing the plurality of voters think Iraq will continue to improve in the next 6 months? Do you see something to dispute that 51 percent of Americans now think we are winning the war on terror? Do you have figures to dispute that only 16 percent believe that the terrorists are winning?
Those were all questions in the article, and did you see him address them at all?
No Sue I did not come here to defend his comments. If you will look you will see that I only quoted a portion of his comment.
Can you show me where on any of your other articles that I have come on to "defend" his comments. I don't believe you will find any.
Many of your articles I am in direct opposition to what he says.
It is too bad that just because I quoted a portion of his comment that you see it as me seeing the need to defend him at every given opportunity. That is NOT true. -
I am sorry Picasso, but he deliberately came here to try to distract and you came to defend his comments which had nothing to do with the piece itself. If not defending, then enabling him to continue to attack without substance and try to hijack a thread on a different subject because he cannot address the subject at hand.
No one is asking you to hate him..never have and have told you that privately a time or three. But liking him and refusing to admit that his is trying to distract instead of discuss, is not asking you to hate him, it is asking you to be fair to the people writing the pieces he is attacking without substance.
What I mean by enabling, is addressing his comments instead of any of the points or questions in the article itself. -
*using my voice of reason*
I realize that the ongoing War brings up a number of raw emotions for everyone involved, but could we please try not to have an otherwise useful thread turn into a "he said / she said" volley ball match?
There is much pain being felt by those directly and indirectly involved in this crisis. Before I get attacked because Canada isn't involved in Iraq, please remember that we have been at the forefront of Afghanistan from day one – for good or ill. I have several friends that have had tours there and have suffered great loss. It effects me too.
There is also much blame to be served up for this mess. Incorrect intelligence and questionable motives – known, unknown, and suspected – led to this crisis. They were followed by a series of less than ideal decisions. I think the initial question was "has / is the U.S. winning in the terrorism aspect of the war ?".
Sue ... I'd very much like the link to the full official resolution, as I'd like to a) arrive at my own conclusion (based on what has been reported on both sides of the 49th, and b) apply my psychological suspicions to the resolutions as they stand.
I hate to see good people – that would be YOU GUYS falling into a trap of attacking each other based on these emotions, rather than attacking the problem.
-
@ Sue D.
No one is asking you to hate him..never have and have told you that privately a time or three. But liking him and refusing to admit that his is trying to distract instead of discuss, is not asking you to hate him, it is asking you to be fair to the people writing the pieces he is attacking without substance.
Quoting a portion of a comment made by him should not be looked at as not being fair to the writer of an article. -
@ Sykos Masters
*using my voice of reason*
I realize that the ongoing War brings up a number of raw emotions for everyone involved, but could we please try not to have an otherwise useful thread turn into a "he said / she said" volley ball match?
There is much pain being felt by those directly and indirectly involved in this crisis. Before I get attacked because Canada isn't involved in Iraq, please remember that we have been at the forefront of Afghanistan from day one – for good or ill. I have several friends that have had tours there and have suffered great loss. It effects me too.
There is also much blame to be served up for this mess. Incorrect intelligence and questionable motives – known, unknown, and suspected – led to this crisis. They were followed by a series of less than ideal decisions. I think the initial question was "has / is the U.S. winning in the terrorism aspect of the war ?".
Sue ... I'd very much like the link to the full official resolution, as I'd like to a) arrive at my own conclusion (based on what has been reported on both sides of the 49th, and b) apply my psychological suspicions to the resolutions as they stand.
I hate to see good people – that would be YOU GUYS falling into a trap of attacking each other based on these emotions, rather than attacking the problem.
Thanks Son and [HUGS] to you.
It upsets me and it does tick me off that I can't even use a portion of a comment that Lensman has made without people flying off the handle and making statements that are not true.
I can call you, Son, Sykos and I bet I can even say "Hey Son I love you" and no one is going to get all riled up by it.
But let me say anything about Lensman and there are those who will jump all over me.
So I will once again state, " yeah I do like Lensman, so what?"
I will say though I don't agree with a lot that he says and he knows it. -
@ Sykos Masters
*using my voice of reason*
I realize that the ongoing War brings up a number of raw emotions for everyone involved, but could we please try not to have an otherwise useful thread turn into a "he said / she said" volley ball match?
There is much pain being felt by those directly and indirectly involved in this crisis. Before I get attacked because Canada isn't involved in Iraq, please remember that we have been at the forefront of Afghanistan from day one – for good or ill. I have several friends that have had tours there and have suffered great loss. It effects me too.
There is also much blame to be served up for this mess. Incorrect intelligence and questionable motives – known, unknown, and suspected – led to this crisis. They were followed by a series of less than ideal decisions. I think the initial question was "has / is the U.S. winning in the terrorism aspect of the war ?".
Sue ... I'd very much like the link to the full official resolution, as I'd like to a) arrive at my own conclusion (based on what has been reported on both sides of the 49th, and b) apply my psychological suspicions to the resolutions as they stand.
I hate to see good people – that would be YOU GUYS falling into a trap of attacking each other based on these emotions, rather than attacking the problem.
Here is the PDF and here is the exact same thing on the White House site (for those that do not like PDF files), they had it put up when the resolution passed congress and the senate and the president signed it. -
@ Cynthia T. [Picasso]
Thanks Son and [HUGS] to you.
It upsets me and it does tick me off that I can't even use a portion of a comment that Lensman has made without people flying off the handle and making statements that are not true.
I can call you, Son, Sykos and I bet I can even say "Hey Son I love you" and no one is going to get all riled up by it.
But let me say anything about Lensman and there are those who will jump all over me.
So I will once again state, " yeah I do like Lensman, so what?"
I will say though I don't agree with a lot that he says and he knows it.
Picasso, I asked you some legitimate questions to point out why I said what I did.
To repeat:
I am sorry Picasso, but he deliberately came here to try to distract and you came to defend his comments which had nothing to do with the piece itself. If not defending, then enabling him to continue to attack without substance and try to hijack a thread on a different subject because he cannot address the subject at hand.
Have you seen any Democratic politician that has said "we won", have you seen any democratic politician state that the gains are "irreversible?
Is there a dispute with the poll numbers showing the plurality of voters think Iraq will continue to improve in the next 6 months? Do you see something to dispute that 51 percent of Americans now think we are winning the war on terror? Do you have figures to dispute that only 16 percent believe that the terrorists are winning?
Those were all questions in the article, and did you see him address them at all?
No one asks you to turn your back on him, all I ask you show the same respect to our threads as you do to his, but you came and addressed his comment and none of the questions asked in the article?
You think it is unfair of me to mention that?
You cannot see how that looked? -
@ Sue You think it is unfair of me to mention that? No, it was unfair for you to say "Picasso, for the record,I know you like lens and feel the need to defend him at every given opportunity and it is noble" -
@ Sue D.
Here is the PDF and here is the exact same thing on the White House site (for those that do not like PDF files), they had it put up when the resolution passed congress and the senate and the president signed it.
Thx for the links Sue :) I'll give them a good read and then respond, as I can, to the contents.
I'll ask everyone to bear in mind that I won't address those resolutions that I haven't enough info to have an informed opinion on. I don't make a habit out commenting just for the halibut. For a good salmon steak? I'll say almost anything .... LOL -
@ Cynthia T. [Picasso]
@ Sue No, it was unfair for you to say
I apologize if you think so, but I have seen him attack other threads with no cause, and when people fight back against him, you have come and said THEY were being unfair to him without mentioning his original attack.
It is my opinion and others may disagree and some might agree. I guess it is in the eye of the beholder. -
@ Sue D.
I apologize if you think so, but I have seen him attack other threads with no cause, and when people fight back against him, you have come and said THEY were being unfair to him without mentioning his original attack.
It is my opinion and others may disagree and some might agree. I guess it is in the eye of the beholder.
Sue that was some time ago. I have not done that in a long time so it is untrue that I take "every opportunity" I get to defend him.
Of course "some" will agree as there are "some" that hate me as well as him and you know that.
I am sure that the "some" will look on this with glee and will hope they can use it for attacks. -
@ Cynthia T. [Picasso]
Sue that was some time ago. I have not done that in a long time so it is untrue that I take "every opportunity" I get to defend him.
Of course "some" will agree as there are "some" that hate me as well as him and you know that.
I am sure that the "some" will look on this with glee and will hope they can use it for attacks.
They can try to do what they want, any I have spoken to privately understand that I have a deep admiration for you, respect you, enough in fact, that I can be honest about how it hurt me to see you respond to his comment on my thread without ever addressing the topic of the article itself to which I wrote.
I can be honest with you about that and still say that I would defend you to the death against any "attacks" as well as inform people that I can go head to head with and you can go head to head with me and it will not change the fact that you choose your friends as I choose mine and we are not in kindergarten where if we have one friend that does not like another it is cause to sever the relationship.
You are a grown woman who has earned the right to choose your friends and no one has the right to judge you on that.
My comments are meant for what I have seen in older threads and you are right, you have not done that recently.
For the record, anyone that "hates" you, is simply an ass. A few other names as well but they would have been removed so I will leave it is.
Now.... BATMAN calls.... I will be back in a few hours, I am like a kid all excited! -
@ lensman67
How would this be for a working definition of "winning" a war---when the peace that follows the war is better than it would have been if the war had not been fought in the first place then, and only then, can it be called a victory. All other outcomes are to be considered losses?
By that definition we have already lost this war big time.
I'd love it if all wars were seen in that light. I think we all would. -
@Sue I was commenting on this article when I said "Just because any politician utters a statement it does not make it the truth."
I will tell you what I think about both Obama and McCain, I don't like or trust either one of them. Who will I vote for? At this point I honestly don't know.
I think if I would have made the comment and not quoted Lensman you wouldn't have taken it the way you did.
You know I can say I love you to Phree, Sam, Sykos or anyone else but if I ever said that to Lensman some on this site would absolutely go berserk. And I happen to be older than all four of them. Heck I am probably older than almost everyone on this site.
For the record, anyone that "hates" you, is simply an ass. A few other names as well but they would have been removed so I will leave it is.
Thank you Sue I really do appreciate that. :) Enjoy Batman.
So with that said I will say Sue, Sykos, Sam, Phree and Lensman I love you .
Now let those that hate me have your field day as I really don't care. -
@ Cynthia T. [Picasso]
@Sue I was commenting on this article when I said I will tell you what I think about both Obama and McCain, I don't like or trust either one of them. Who will I vote for? At this point I honestly don't know.
I think if I would have made the comment and not quoted Lensman you wouldn't have taken it the way you did.
You know I can say I love you to Phree, Sam, Sykos or anyone else but if I ever said that to Lensman some on this site would absolutely go berserk. And I happen to be older than all four of them. Heck I am probably older than almost everyone on this site.
Thank you Sue I really do appreciate that. :) Enjoy Batman.
So with that said I will say Sue, Sykos, Sam, Phree and Lensman I love you .
Now let those that hate me have your field day as I really don't care.
Picasso, as I said, you are entitled to love anyone your heart desires and anyone who says differently, can kiss my lily white ass. Send em to me, hehe, I have some choice words for them.
I still would like see people, anyone, answer the questions in the piece and find a Democratic leader, like Pelosi or Reid that says the gains are "irreversible" as Klein claims they all agree with.
Or even attempt to address to the fact that the American people have done a complete 180 from those thinking things are better and will improve being in the majority to now being in the majority and plurality.
This is information that people keep trying to avoid.
Batman was good. IMAX theaters are a trip, the whole floor shook with sound. Makes -
@ Sue D.
Batman was good. IMAX theaters are a trip, the whole floor shook with sound. Makes
I have been to IMAX theaters and they can't be beat.
Glad you enjoyed. -
@ Cynthia T. [Picasso]
I have been to IMAX theaters and they can't be beat.
Glad you enjoyed.
Thanks I did.
I get home to see Obama made his Berlin speech, had plenty of time for it, but he canceled his trip to see wounded US soldiers?
Time for the people of Germany but none for our troops????????
This is what I mean about him and why he completely disgusts me. McCain is spot on when he says it is all politics to Obama, nothing real. -
@ Sue D.
Thanks I did.
I get home to see Obama made his Berlin speech, had plenty of time for it, but he canceled his trip to see wounded US soldiers?
Time for the people of Germany but none for our troops????????
This is what I mean about him and why he completely disgusts me. McCain is spot on when he says it is all politics to Obama, nothing real.
That's really low for him (Obama). The more I hear about him, the worse my opinion gets of the man. -
@ Debra Myers (skyangel)
That's really low for him (Obama). The more I hear about him, the worse my opinion gets of the man.
I have a feeling many more are starting to feel like you. -
@ Sue D.
I have a feeling many more are starting to feel like you.
Without a doubt. Any footholds he may have had over McCain...he's now sure to lose. -
@ Sykos Masters
Heya :)
As to winning / losing the Iraq war .... I'd have to say that given the original stated purposes for the war, it's already been won, i.e. WMDs (turned out they weren't there), getting rid of Saddam, bringing a form of democracy to the Iraqi people. I was never clear whether the threat of al Quaeda / Taliban terrorism was ever a specific goal of that war. My understanding was that it appeared / surged in Iraq as the focus shifted from Afghanistan. So, I don't think the Iraq war can be lost—within that set of restrictions.
As to what Obama will do .... he'll continue to "refine" his position and attempt to "further explain what he meant" long after the U.S. public gets tired of hearing him do so.
I get more and more confused and frustrated between these two that I don't really know which one is the more out of touch. I watch Lou Dobbs on a regular basis (OK I actually drop everything to watch it and AC360 ... but anyway) .... during his panel discussion with one each of a dem and rep strategist and a journalist, they all stated that both Obama and McCain need to stop d1cksizing about whether the surge helped or not and move on to what will be done about moving from Iraq over to Afghanistan .... basically, stop living in the past and let us now what the future direction will be. Everyone can see that the surge has had an effect; who's to say whether is was the intended one or not.
I don't know whether I answered your question or not ... lol =D -
@ Sykos Masters
Heya :)
As to winning / losing the Iraq war .... I'd have to say that given the original stated purposes for the war, it's already been won, i.e. WMDs (turned out they weren't there), getting rid of Saddam, bringing a form of democracy to the Iraqi people. I was never clear whether the threat of al Quaeda / Taliban terrorism was ever a specific goal of that war. My understanding was that it appeared / surged in Iraq as the focus shifted from Afghanistan. So, I don't think the Iraq war can be lost—within that set of restrictions.
Wake Up...just because the MSM does not report the WMD's that were reported via press releases does not mean the WMD's did not exist. Besides the recent findings of that 'yellow cake' stuff how about the 1.77 metric tons removed by the Dept of Energy and with the help of the US Army and the UN...check that press release back in 2004...and never trust the MSN for accurate information.
As to what Obama will do .... he'll continue to "refine" his position and attempt to "further explain what he meant" l |
Email
Print
Share
Opinion: McCain says 'Obama would rather lose a war in order to win a political campaign'
