McCain’s confusion on Iraq goes from embarrassing to scandalous

[alienlovechild 75]

I guess you are being deliberately obtuse in a bizarre attempt to make yourself look more intelligent after your debacle with the beer. Well, good luck with that one.

I'm only obtuse to those who can't follow a line of argument. It didn't take much to make me look more intelligent than a sputtering interlocutor who clearly has no grasp of his own material or the issue at hand.

I still make more sense drunk than you do sober.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I guess you are being deliberately obtuse in a bizarre attempt to make yourself look more intelligent after your debacle with the beer. Well, good luck with that one.

I'm only obtuse to those who can't follow a line of argument. It didn't take much to make me look more intelligent than a sputtering interlocutor who clearly has no grasp of his own material or the issue at hand.

I still make more sense drunk than you do sober.

Good grief...you're about as congenial as a goose looking for her eggs.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I dunno man - that one about not reading articles was a bit of a clanger.

[Peikko 1,575]

Keep banging your own drum alien.

[alienlovechild 75]

To clarify I don't think McCain's answer reflect any nuances - given his rebuttal amounts to "*splutter*splutter* "The surge! The surge! The Surge worked. Obama's naiive. Doesn't understand history. That's the only thing that's important".

I knew there was something wrong when I thought you were making sense.

McCain's answer wasn't wholly wrong and it's typical of this forum to ignore the issue and drone on like unemployed comedy writers. If you don't think Obama is naive, check out http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/naive.

Obama's face right next to the dictionary definition. History means little to Obama because events from the surge last year are too far in the past to discuss and that is why the man can change his views week to week. As I've said before, it doesn't matter what Obama says or does. He's a symbol of a man without a public past and no future plans beyond the "hope and change" mantra uttered by his followers as if in some weird trance.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

My point was simply that McCain appears to be eshewing a rational discussion of the Iraq issue in order to pick holes in the wording of his opponents comments.

However I think its clear enough that both he and McCain have made enough gaffes to suggest that they don't fully understand the dynamics of some of the policies they would be required to preside over. These are things that the press should be seizing and exploring - and in an ideal world would be. It is kind of the press' responsibility...

In McCain's case he didn't seem to know the differences between the various sectarian groups in Iraq when he made that statement (which someone had to whisper into his ear in order for him to clarify) about Shia Iran training Sunni Al Qaeda.

Edited July 23, 2008 by Number 6

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Ah...I get it...we're all just stupider than alienbrain here.

Let us bow before his superior intelligence...only he knows how to fully comprehend the truth.

[mendeleev 67]

Six-seven years ago the neocons -- Bush, McCain and that ilk -- didn't lack at all for chutzpa or arrogance.

Afghanistan is a tough neighborhood. The Brits couldn't pacify it and it bled to Soviets terribly. Just how the neocons thought we could waltz in and have our way with the place on the cheap was amazing at the time and, given hindsight, incorrect. But they had to do it on the cheap in order to move on to their favored grudgematch -- Iraq. They were wrong on Iraq then, since then, and now.

A thorough evaluation of events shows that The Surge had only a minor effect on the ongoing dimunition of violence in that area that the USA tore up.

Current events, with the civilian Iraqi leadership stating repeatedly that Obama's timeline is pretty much on target, are revealing.

Now, whether McCain is right that Obama should be consulting first and foremost with US military commanders I guess could depend on your view of American in the world. If it is a good thing that the US is the first great power to engage in preemptive war since Hitler and Stalin invaded Poland in 1939, then maybe the US should continue as an occupying power and responsible politicians should listen firstly and most intently to the US military leadership. Bush and McCain certainly advocate listening to the military leadership first, foremost, and maybe even exclusively. If the USA doesn't like that factual historical parallel, then perhaps responsible politicians should listen firstly and most intently to the Iraqi civilian leadership that has emerged from the catastrophe we've created. We get a chance to choose, again, in a few months.

Edited July 23, 2008 by novotul

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Unless I'm much mistaken the security gains resulting from the surge were mostly in the big cities, specifically Baghdad (where most of them were deployed) where the violence was sustained, public and broadcast around the world by the international news media.

Out in the Styx its a different story - as evidenced by a massive exodus of civilian refugees that's been seen by human rights charities working in the region and by the massive number of asylum applications for people seeking sanctuary in the EU.

"The Surge" wasn't exactly a "Surge" either from what I understand. 20,000 on top of roughly 140,000. More of a trickle if you ask me...

Edited July 23, 2008 by Number 6

[Ggreen 12]

Obama had NOTHING to do with increasing stablility in Iraq yet he uses it as a photo op.

Most of the coverage of Obama's trip so far seems to be of him shooting basketball. He's starting his own team, the Chicago Globetrotters.

I've never seen a presidential candidate do so little and get so much high-profile positive coverage.

Obama should go to Iraq blah blah blah...

Obama went to Iraq..more blah blah blah...

you need a political eye exam, seriously.

[alienlovechild 75]

Afghanistan is a tough neighborhood. The Brits couldn't pacify it and it bled to Soviets terribly. Just how the neocons thought we could waltz in and have our way with the place on the cheap was amazing at the time and, given hindsight, incorrect.

Obama is a neocon? He wants about 3 brigades marching into Afghanistan.

A thorough evaluation of events shows that The Surge had only a minor effect on the ongoing dimunition of violence in that area that the USA tore up.

How do you explain the dimunition of violence without U.S. help?

Current events, with the civilian Iraqi leadership stating repeatedly that Obama's timeline is pretty much on target, are revealing.

Things are looking up. Before the Iraqi "puppet" government was weak, divided and corrupt but now that they agree with Obama they are suddenly

brilliant. If the Iraqi government nows wants a timetable that's fine with me but Obama was ready to dump Iraq since Jan. 2007.

Now, whether McCain is right that Obama should be consulting first and foremost with US military commanders I guess could depend on your view of American in the world.

In wartime (and peacetime, too), it's prudent for the president to consult with the brass on military. He's the C-in-C.

If it is a good thing that the US is the first great power to engage in preemptive war since Hitler and Stalin invaded Poland in 1939,

Who cares if it's a "great power" or not?

I guess you don't count the Japanese, Russians, Israelis, Iraqis, Syrians, Jordanians, Serbians, N. Koreans, Indians, Chinese, Vietnamese, Tanzanians, Libyans, Egyptians . . .

They all struck first.

Bush and McCain certainly advocate listening to the military leadership first, foremost, and maybe even exclusively.

VP Cheney was in the military? I thought Gen. Powell was hesitant on Iraq.

If the USA doesn't like that factual historical parallel, then perhaps responsible politicians should listen firstly and most intently to the Iraqi civilian leadership that has emerged from the catastrophe we've created.

The Iraqi civilians wouldn't be making any decisions if Saddam was around. No doubt about that.

Edited July 23, 2008 by alienlovechild

[alienlovechild 75]

Obama should go to Iraq blah blah blah...

Obama went to Iraq..more blah blah blah...

you need a political eye exam, seriously.

You may need eyeglasses yourself since I never said Obama shouldn't go to Afghanistan, Iraq. . .Obama already made up his mind before the trip but maybe he has learned something.

Care to cite a single example of a presidential candidate traveling abroad with three major TV anchors acting like courtiers?