TheAgitator.com
Yikes
Wednesday, July 23rd, 2008This 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.
The debates between these two are going to be hysterical. :-)
seems to me he’s right. Even now, knowing what the “surge” has accomplished, Obama is still saying he wouldn’t have supported it based on political considerations. It’s a harsh statement, too bad it’s true.
I think McCain is absolutly right. Yikes is a strange response to being called a traitor to your country.
C’mon, Tonkin – McCain is politicizing a lucky side bet.
Obama’s still got the pot. The voters won’t be casting their ballots on the merits of sundry surges this November.
Tonkin – The reason that McCain is “right” is because the surge “worked”. If adding those extra soldiers exacerbated the situation in Iraq and caused more casualties and problems, who would be more “right” about their stance on it then?
It’s very easy to critique someone on their political stance after the end-result is already known.
One of the commenters over at the Time Blog nailed it.
John McCain knows in his heart that John McCain is the Most Honorable Man on the Planet. So clearly, anybody who disagrees with John McCain is dishonorable, QED.
And McCain would rather inform the millions of American voters who agree with Barack Obama about Iraq that they, too, are disloyal, defeatist cowards, than win a political campaign.
Though I agree with McCain, its all academic. The Messiah wants Universal Health Care. Keep the next Jimmah outta office.
He didn’t happen to make these comments from the border of Iraq and Pakistan, did he? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NC0Y7zMcn_4
If it were the “surge” alone that improved the situation in Iraq, I’d give Bush et al all the credit in the world. But it was just a part of what has made Iraq safer for everyone. If the Sunni hadn’t decided to ban together and we’ve been paying off people left and right to “fight on our side.”
Some of the things that people are crediting the surge for accomplishing actually occured PRIOR to the surge (e.g. the Anbar Awakening).
Also hasn’t the US Administration also pushed the line that the solution in Iraq is going to be a political solution (which is actually true)?
So how again is Obama so wrong with his stance?
Daily attacks in Iraq are down to an average of 16 per day! Reminds me of this Simpson’s episode.
Bart: I’ll take up smoking then give that up.
Homer: I’m proud of you boy. Giving up smoking is hard to do.
X has never accused Y of putting self-interests (or special interest) ahead of national interest.
McCain is practicing a whole new type of politics.
One must be stunningly full of shit to make a big deal about the surge working. The ’surge’ worked because a horribly concieved and thought out military action was going poorly. The ’surge’ worked because we did not have enough people to do the job and we completely failed to anticipate what we were going to do after we got Saddam.
But we were told what to do, and what to anticipate and we ignored it. So the surge was a band-aid on a self-inflicted wound. So hopping around now, all proud about how well it worked is full-tilt, short-bus, retarded.
It would be like Exxon being genuinely proud about how less fucked Alaska is now.
While the surge was successful on a tactical level, on a strategic level it hasn’t accomplished much if at all. Senator McCain sees the tactical successes of the surge: more soldiers = more enforcement of our rules = less violence. By this standard, the surge has been successful, and thus he believes that his vote shows that he’s willing to make potentially difficult decisions.
On a strategic level, he is unable to articulate why we’re even in Iraq. What purpose does it serve the U.S. to be there? Have we achieved the political reconciliation that the surge was supposed to bring? He can’t articulate any of this because (in my opinion) he doesn’t understand the strategic level of the issue. I don’t care if you take a “we broke it, we buy it” attitude or argue that that our other allies in the region can be fickle and thus we need a permanent base of operations that we can guarantee, but a strategic understanding of why we should or why we shouldn’t be in Iraq is a minimum bar for being President of the United States. Lack of strategic vision/understanding in a president would cripple our nation.
Senator Obama, whether you think he’s right or wrong, believes that it serves no strategic interest to retain a long-term presence in Iraq. He’d rather leave Iraq and fight in Afghanistan, where al Qaeda and the Taliban are resurgent and fleeing into an increasingly lawless Pakistan (which happens to be a nuclear nation, BTW). McCain wants to pull troops out of the ether to stick in Afghanistan since we wouldn’t draw down troops out of Iraq…. but it’s not like we have a lot of extra troops that we can put on the ground to secure an increasingly lawless country without major changes somewhere else, and he won’t say where those changes would occur.
If he can’t understand the strategic concerns or present a reason why it is in the U.S.’s best long-term interests to stay in Iraq and instead simply criticizes his opponent with roundabout ways of calling him an opportunistic traitor, I don’t think he has what it takes to be an effective commander in chief.
I read today that “The Surge” is officially over.
Still have about 147,000 troops in Iraq.
If daily attacks in Iraq now go up to 17 per day does that mean The Surge didn’t work? Was The Surge supposed to bring about lasting change?
Should we go ahead and prepare ourselves for The Surge II?
The surge worked in a war that was fully, completely, and unequivocally unecessary.
But But But the surge worked! (SO?)
Kit,
If you handle the tactical situation, the strategic situation has a habit of taking care of itself………………….unless politics gets in the way.
I always find this position kind of funny. Attacks are at 16/day! Yeah, in Washington DC. Seriously, compare Iraq to a major American city at this point, particularly those cities that have disarmed the non-criminal populace.
There are and were a lot of things wrong about the way the war in Iraq came about and how it was fought, and particularly what the political shape of a “free” Iraq should have looked like when it was all over (ie we should have gone in to build a nation just like we did in Germany and Japan after WWII – now we’re going to have just another Muslim country that persecutes non-Muslims and women), but -
To elect a 150 day Senator who has NOTHING of accomplishment in his past because of the opposition to the war is insanity.
Obama is skillfully using that frustration with the war to run a campaign on smoke and mirrors while hiding his true socialist agenda (granted the Republicans aren’t far off that mark either).
Don’t forget, Obama has made noises about violating the territory of Pakistan (an erstwhile “ally”). That’s a point worth remembering when one considers that it was Democrats who got us into Vietnam – JFK and Johnson (yes, I know, the advisors were there under Eisenhower, but Johnson escalated the war after running on a promise not to).
Obama is a shameless liar.
There are a lot of things not to like about McCain but that is the choice and I’ll take a chance on McCain because of the two he doesn’t lie nearly so much or so badly.
“Tonkin – The reason that McCain is “right” is because the surge “worked”. ”
There is a democratic government that respects individual rights, is stable, and can stand on it’s own two feet?*
Wow!
* That is the goal now, isn’t it?
I wonder what McCain would say if anyone got him to explain just what we have to win in Iraq? On NPR I heard him something along the lines of ‘the region will be better for it.’
A moderately democratic shiite theocracy similar to (and closely allied to) Iran that leaves hands mostly off Kurdistan and Sunnistan seems like the best likely outcome.
Why that shining state of affairs was worth thousands of American lives and billions upon billions of dollars, will, I’m sure, become clear at some point, right John?
Scott is right.
It is gonna be either McCain or Obama.
And for the first time in many years I am going with one of the main stream candidates.
And I’m going with Obama.
There are a lot of things not to like about McCain but that is the choice and I’ll take a chance on McCain because of the two he doesn’t lie nearly so much or so badly.
Voting for McCain because he’s the better liar are we?
Scott, you might want to rethink ‘he’s done nothing’ meme.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/2/21/164117/783/290/461422
Really? That’s it?
I’m pretty sure that both of them being politicans they are lieing out their ass everytime they speak.
But keep on with that myth that your guy lies less than their guy.
Jim,
I respectfully disagree. Tactics can succeed while strategy fails. Think of Grant vs. Lee in the Overland campaign: the Confederates won most of the battles (tactics), but the cost of winning ended up forcing their surrender (strategy). The Battle of the Bulge is another example; tactically it was effective, strategically it failed. The Tet offensive is an example of tactics failing (The North Vietnamese lost a lot of soldiers while doing very little damage to the US and our allies), but strategically it made us feel like we were on the defensive.
Effective executive decision-making requires the ability to adjust strategy. Why do we want to be in Iraq, or why would we want to leave? This is the strategic question that needs to be defined. Obama wants us out, and says this is because we need the troops in Afghanistan. That’s the benefit to America: we make ourselves safer by not wasting time, money, and lives in Iraq when we could be much more effective in eradicating international terrorist organizations in Afghanistan. Why does McCain want us to stay? Honor and dignity, while laudable values, aren’t strategic goals, nor is the surge being successful. If we stay for another 10 years and spend several trillion dollars, what does it gain us?
Yikes because the truth hurts? The Obama position is essentially, “it is too expensive to ensure that Iraqis have basic human rights.”
Phelps: I must agree with this sentence, even at it’s most basic level, “t is too expensive to ensure that Iraqis have basic human rights.”
Why? Because I don’t believe that the USA is the world Human Rights police, nor should it be. I also don’t see a need to sacrifice American lives, security, and interests so that Iraqi people can have something that they should be fighting for in the first place.
I hate to sound like an @$$ hole, but Iraqi well being is just not my responsibility, fiscally or morally.
BTW, for those who are geographically challenged, Iraq and Pakistan do not share a border.
Phelps,
No it isn’t, and that’s a loaded way to put it. A more accurate representation would be, “We have a finite amount of resources, and we think we could do more good in Afghanistan, which was and is a central front in our hopefully not perpetual war on an abstract concept.” Anything is possible with enough time and money, but let’s face the fact that we have limited resources and need to analyze the cost/benefit ratio of where we choose to involve ourselves. We’ve spent nearly $600 BILLION dollars in Iraq, and we pay for this boondoggle by borrowing from the Chinese and Dubai and the Saudis and anyone else selling oil at $130/barrel. We can’t keep putting everything on the credit card; eventually the bill comes due.
Also, if you want to fight wars in fronts where human rights are involved, what are we doing getting involved in multiple land wars in Asia? I believe the term “genocide” has been used once or twice in relation to Darfur, and Mugabe doesn’t exactly represent rainbows and ponies in how he rules and works with his political opposition. Be wary of setting human rights as a standard for involving ourselves in military action. We have enough problems with regard to having a finite amount of military resources before we go setting our bar for involving ourselves at human rights abuses. Some could argue that “enhanced interrogation techniques” (better known as torture) are human rights violations. Are we going to deploy the military against our own government for that?
I’m not opposed to taking military action against oppressive and brutal dictators because it’s the right thing to do, but you still need to have benchmarks for what constitutes victory and how feasible it is to succeed within a reasonable amount of time and for a reasonable amount of money. No one did the due diligence for invading Iraq (those who tried were shut down and transferred out), and now we’re getting an object lesson that good intentions alone won’t guarantee American superiority in our endeavors.
The Anbar Awakening was the result of the jihadists fighting the absolute stupidist insurgency in history; they were busy killing their own people and enforcing a hated sharia law in areas they controlled. The 1st Brigade, 1st Armored Cav based in Rahmadi (Col MacFarland) was one of a handful of brigades using the CounterInsurgency tactics that Rumsfeld had distained. Col MacFarland had a meeting with the local sheiks and they announced the ‘Awakening’ in Sep06. The Present Admin announced the ‘Surge’ in Feb07. Brigades representing the ‘Surge’ mostly were assigned to the Baghdad area and weren’t in place until approx Jun07. Sadr announced his cease fire in Aug07–in Basra.
McCain is seriously ignorant of the history and facts concerning his only actual issue. He is not qualified to be a Senator. He is laughably incompetent as a Presidential candidate.
But he’s very good at questioning a Dem’s patriotism; so he has some chance to be elected President.
It’s the same tortured logic of “government agency XYZ achieved 10% success with a $20 million/yr budget, so in order to achieve 100% success, then need 100%/10%=10x their current budget. give agency XYZ $20 million*10=$200 million budget for next year”.
Throw more troops at the problem, and that will eventually solve the problem. Well of course it will, because we’ll have so many of us there and kill so many of them, but at what financial AND “bad feelings” cost? They hate “the USA” because we’re always meddling in their shit. Everyone would hate the neighborhood busybody/snitch, and eventually you gang up and beat the shit out of the neighborhood busybody/snitch.
oooh, that really impressed me -
Scott, you might want to rethink ‘he’s done nothing’ meme.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/2/21/164117/783/290/461422
Sorry, no sale.
And yes, I’m voting for the lessor of two evils. Has there been any election in the last 30 years where that hasn’t been the case?
“If you handle the tactical situation, the strategic situation has a habit of taking care of itself………………….unless politics gets in the way.”
This reminds me of the whole teach a man to fish vs. give a man a fish analogy. Suppose you are surrounded by hungry bears. I could give you a box of tazers and while the batteries last you would not be eaten. But once the last battery dies now your surrounded by hungry pissed off bears.
As a tactical problem the surge may have worked. We wanted less violence in the short term and we got it. As to if this is a strategic success we will have no way of knowing for a long time.
The “invasion and occupation (it was never war because there was never a country that attacked us)” of Iraq was supposed to be a lot of things, and the story has changed so many times that people quickly forget all of the lies they have been told. Remember how we were told that this would all pay for itself by the sale of Iraqi oil? Remember Bush’s MISSION ACCOMPLISHED banner on the aircraft carrier? The list goes on and on …
#24, good points. However, you said “why do we want to be in Iraq”. The correct question is “why do we have any business being in Iraq”. “We” (as in this criminal administration) can want things until the cows come home, but that doesn’t make it right. The USA has no moral authority to WANT things like a 2 year old child wants toys at the store.
What I just don’t understand is the press not asking just this one question and demanding an answer from in this case McCain, “What is winning the war in Iraq?”. None of the supporters of this war have ever answered it in a real way it is always some form of the Iraqi’s being free etc. I really don’t understand why they don’t ask this question when the press is by and large obsessed with gotcha journalism.
If I take McCain at his word that the surge was a success would not the next step to either A)bring the troops home or B)announce what comes next? He has said no the A and will not answer B. Nor does he ever give the conditions necessary to claim victory but then again Bush did not do that either.
Why is there never a mention of the political portion of the surge which has at this point not been meet? What happens after Susani (SP) former officers come back into the country, will the US be able to buy them off, will the bribes hold for those in the country?
Someone mentioned Obama not caring about the human rights of Iraqi’s earlier in the thread. Some one already responded with why is it our responsibility while I understand that reasoning I disagree with that. The question I would ask is do the people of Iraq have more or less rights now than they had before the war? The answer might seem easy but I would say it is differently before the war even with the brutality faced. The women in Iraq where much freer under Hussian, able to drive and wear western clothes where as now in much of the country they are forced to wear bee keeper outfits and vales. The educated class was not forced to leave the country or face systematic genocide. To name but a few examples. There where and are people that had and have much less rights than the Iraqis that we ignored and ignore.
I’m not a McCain fan but the fact of the matter is he was right. The increase in troops, plus a complete change in tactics, changed the outcome of this war. It was a tough call to make and McCain was a proponent of the idea before it was implemented by the president and the military brass.
The “awakening” only occurred because the iraqi’s finally believed we might actually stick around and finish what we started. If they thought for a second that we were on the road outta town, none of this would be happening. Believe what you will about the war and its aftermath but there isn’t anyway you can say McCain wasn’t correct about this aspect of it. If you want the troops home as quickly as possible, then do what it takes to win and they can leave. Instead, Obama was playing (and still plays) to the crowd that wants the u.s. to leave in defeat. To me, that is an instant disqualification to be commander-in-chief.
Tokin,
Your assertation that the Anbar Awakening only happened because of the surge is a load of crap. It happened because Al Qaeda picked a poor strategy in blowing up anyone and everyone they could have, including people who could have been nominally friendly to them. The Awakening officially got underway Sept. 9, 2006. The Surge was announced Jan. 10, 2007. We’re not even talking post hoc ergo propter hoc here. Has the surge helped drop violence? I’d say it’s pretty conclusive that it has. For as much strain as it has put on our military, it was a good tactic for buying time.
But why were we buying time? Oh, yes, the strategy: we needed to achieve Iraqi political reconciliation. How’s that going, by the way? If I recall correctly, the Iraqi parliament has met something like 3 out of the 18 goals we set forth. I suppose 17% accomplished isn’t too bad considering the umpteen billions that have been spent over the last year and a half. Oh, wait, if I had those kinds of performance statistics at work I’d have been fired and rightly so.
The returns on our investment in the strategy have been abysmal, and John McCain can’t see that. We’ll stay there ’til we’ve won, he says, but won’t define what it means to win. We run budget deficits without keeping 150,000 soldiers in a war zone and with no-bid contractors carting off our tax dollars by the wheelbarrow load without doing their jobs to any ethical standard. By McCain’s own statement, he thought the surge came before the Awakening, and that’s another instance where he sees the Military Hammer as the solution to every Foreign Policy Nail that pops up. That’s not leadership, it’s shortsightedness.
McCain can’t define why being in Iraq is good for America beyond vague talk about wanting victory instead of defeat. But you know what? We don’t know what his idea of victory is, because he won’t define it, only that apparently leaving means defeat. We don’t know how staying in Iraq does us any good beyond soothing a bruised ego, and apparently can’t get beyond the fact that this isn’t a zero-sum game. Between being short-sighted and lacking any strategic vision on how he would direct our nation to play a more prominent and powerful role within the world community, he’s not an effective strategic leader. But as long as you keep taking the idea that “ending the occupation of Iraq = defeat,” you don’t have the mental capacity to understand that we’re not having the vote in 2008 to soothe our national ego, we’re having it to define the direction of our nation. Our military is run by civilians for a reason; we don’t elect a commander-in-chief, we elect a president who happens to be the head of the military. When you can realize that it’s possible to say, “Gee, we’ve done what we can for now and we could have done it better… lesson learned, time to move on,” and see that it isn’t losing because it’s not a zero-sum game, then maybe you’ll realize why McCain isn’t a great leader.
I like Clayton Cramers view – http://www.claytoncramer.com/weblog/blogger.html
Liberal paper that they are, the Washington Post editorial board at least recognizes that Iraq isn’t a partisan game, but a deadly serious matter. This July 16, 2008 editorial is quite clear that Obama is in way over his head, and driven by ideology, not facts:
The Washington Post On Obama & Iraq
Early last year, when the war was at its peak, the Democratic candidate proposed a timetable for withdrawing all U.S. combat forces in slightly more than a year. Yesterday, with bloodshed at its lowest level since the war began, Mr. Obama endorsed the same plan. After hinting earlier this month that he might “refine” his Iraq strategy after visiting the country and listening to commanders, Mr. Obama appears to have decided that sticking to his arbitrary, 16-month timetable is more important than adjusting to the dramatic changes in Iraq.
Mr. Obama’s charge against the Republicans was not entirely fair, since Mr. Bush has overseen the withdrawal of five American brigades from Iraq this year, and Mr. McCain has suggested that he would bring most of the rest of the troops home by early 2013. Mr. Obama’s timeline would end in the summer of 2010, a year or two before the earliest dates proposed recently by members of the Iraqi government. The real difference between the various plans is not the dates but the conditions: Both the Iraqis and Mr. McCain say the withdrawal would be linked to the ability of Iraqi forces to take over from U.S. troops, as they have begun to do. Mr. Obama’s strategy allows no such linkage — his logic is that a timetable unilaterally dictated from Washington is necessary to force Iraqis to take responsibility for the country.
At the time he first proposed his timetable, Mr. Obama argued — wrongly, as it turned out — that U.S. troops could not stop a sectarian civil war. He conceded that a withdrawal might be accompanied by a “spike” in violence. Now, he describes as “an achievable goal” that “we leave Iraq to a government that is taking responsibility for its future — a government that prevents sectarian conflict and ensures that the al-Qaeda threat which has been beaten back by our troops does not reemerge.” How will that “true success” be achieved? By the same pullout that Mr. Obama proposed when chaos in Iraq appeared to him inevitable.
Mr. Obama reiterated yesterday that he would consult with U.S. commanders and the Iraqi government and “make tactical adjustments as we implement this strategy.” However, as Mr. McCain quickly pointed out, he delivered his speech before traveling to Iraq — before his meetings with Gen. David H. Petraeus and the Iraqi leadership. American commanders will probably tell Mr. Obama that from a logistical standpoint, a 16-month withdrawal timetable will be difficult, if not impossible, to fulfill. Iraqis will say that a pullout that is not negotiated with the government and disregards the readiness of Iraqi troops will be a gift to al-Qaeda and other enemies. If Mr. Obama really intends to listen to such advisers, why would he lock in his position in advance?
Clayton finishes -
In retrospect, the Iraq war may have been a mistake, and certainly Bush made some very serious mistakes in how the occupation was handled. But with the amount of money, lives, and suffering we have suffered for this war, to prematurely withdraw now and risk putting al-Qaeda and the crowd that tortures people to death with power tools in charge would achieve maximum costs with maximum bad results. I’m no fan of McCain, but at least he seems to understand that foreign policy is not a game that you play to make the radical left wing of the Democratic Party feel good about themselves.
As I said – “To elect a 150 day Senator who has NOTHING of accomplishment in his past because of the opposition to the war is insanity.”
But then the liberal left has pretty proved their un-hinged. God help us.
I’m no fan of McCain, but at least he seems to understand that foreign policy is not a game that you play to make the radical left wing of the Democratic Party feel good about themselves.
Of course he doesn’t. He’s a Republican. He thinks foreign policy is a game you play for personal and national pride. And there are plenty of people ideologically opposed to “the radical left” who want us out of Iraq yesterday. Opposing this war has nothing to do with “left” or “right.”
It may well be true that the turnaround in Anbar wouldn’t have happened if al Qaeda had not used such brutal tactics. However, I maintain that it certainly wouldn’t have happened without the “surge”, which may well have been the first non-boneheaded strategic decision of the war. (Strangely enough, it was the first major decision after Rumsfeld was fired. Hmmm…) Recall that the smart money just before the surge was announced was on the Americans pulling out and leaving the country for Iran to dominate. The Anbar Sunnis weren’t going to cooperate with US forces if they weren’t convinced that the Americans were not going to abandon Iraq (in which case there would have been brutal retribution from the jihadists) or set the Shia up as the ruling class. The surge also had the benefit of convincing the Iranian leadership that unleashing the Shiite militias wouldn’t make the Americans go away, thus encouraging Tehran to seek a negotiated settlement with Washington.
In any case, Obama is not so stupid that he would throw away the gains achieved so far. No matter who wins the election, troop withdrawal will happen at a measured pace determined by the conditions on the ground.
The Anbar Sunnis weren’t going to cooperate with US forces if they weren’t convinced that the Americans were not going to abandon Iraq (in which case there would have been brutal retribution from the jihadists) or set the Shia up as the ruling class.
Surely, we can agree that the money we’ve been paying them has a lot to do with it, as well.
I’m not a McCain fan but the fact of the matter is he was right.
The video above this thread strongly suggests that McCain being right about something is due to “broken clock syndrome.”
Just because you keep saying it does not mean it magically becomes true.
You do realize that, right?
Lee,
Your trotting out a list of bills BO attached his name to doesn’t mean he has accomplished anything.
In my opininion all BO has done in his life is hang out with bomb-throwing (literally) 60’s radicals, hate-mongering conspiracy promoting religious charlatans, sleazy business people and skillfully exploit a law-dregree (including a law review editorship that was probably gotten due to quotas and not grades) to promote himself politically.
And, I don’t have to “question” his patriotism (as John MacC said above) – Obama flaunts it.
Quite frankly, the idea of him as presidents makes me puke.
He would be the first president I wouldn’t give any respect to – as I don’t think he respects the office, the country, or the people within it.
“skillfully exploit a law-dregree [sic] (including a law review editorship that was probably gotten due to quotas and not grades) to promote himself politically.”
Well thats a new one on me, ya know, especially considering that nearly half the members of congress have law degrees. He really tricked the electorate on that one!
For your edification, Scott, law review at Harvard is chosen by blind write-on competition (as are most law schools, though some use a combination of grades). Barack was the first black president of the law review at Harvard, which in addition to being an elected position, is probably the most prestigious position a law student can hold in this country. Your use of “quotas” suggests you’ve been living under a rock for the last, oh, 30 years.
I dare you to define patriotism. ga ‘head.
Obama is just another politician (frankly I’d prefer zero experience at the levers of power), but asinine excuses like yours reveal an underlying pathos. What’s yours?
He would be the first president I wouldn’t give any respect to – as I don’t think he respects the office, the country, or the people within it.
I can understand not having respect for Obama, but, seriously, what did our current president ever do in his entire life worthy of respect?
What exactly as a Senator do you expect him to do?
Pretty sure he can’t sign bills, deploy the armed forces, or nominate judges.
He is applying for that job.
Both of them are so crappy that is hard to decide. One is so old that´s a marionette, the other is also a marionette because he has no experience or whatever.
I don’t intend to vote for Obama, but I can understand why someone would. I cannot understand how someone could vote for McCain. With every passing day, he seems more and more determined to remind us that he is either a fool, a liar, or a lying fool.
So Les you’re not voting for either one then. Unfortunately, one or the other is going to be President. Obama scares me enough to make me vote for ANY of the Republican candidates – and NONE of them were particularly attactive.
Lee -
Bush did learn to fly – and you can get killed just doing that. He was also ELECTED governor of an entire state. He has a helluva lot more experience than Obama (not that I don’t have disagreements with Bush too). But Obama, hanging out with 60’s bomb-throwing radicals? Dedicating your book to a conspiracy promoting “preacher”? He doesn’t respect the country – I don’t respect him, period.
Bush did learn to fly – and you can get killed just doing that.
Statistically (and actually) he was safer in his plane than he was driving to it.
He was also ELECTED governor of an entire state.
Obama was also ELECTED to the senate, and the governor of Texas has fewer powers than most governors. While Obama doesn’t have much of a record to look at, Bush’s record of spending like a drunken Democrat, dishonesty, and incompetence (not to mention a criminal record ranging from drunk-driving to illegal wiretapping) is downright disgusting.
Les,
So, is your problem Bush (who will be out in a few months), or McCain, who doesn’t seem to be guilty of the things you’re charging Bush with?
And in all of this of course, is the REFUSAL by you to address the concerns I raised about Obama.
You’re evidently ok with a man who hasn’t managed anything more than a Senate staff, hung around with a conspiracy promoting “God Damn” America “preacher and bomb-throwing 60’s radicals. I’m not.
It’s clear you’re not interesting in addressing those issues and you’re only interesting in slamming McCain, Bush, and probably any Republican, yet you don’t plan on voting for either. Why are you wasting your time on the election at all.
I’m not wasting any more time on you.
Scott, you should read before you type. I’ve been very clear that I can understand why someone wouldn’t vote for Obama (I’m not voting for him myself), and why someone wouldn’t respect Obama, so I’m not sure what leads you to believe I’m “okay” with him.
I’m simply puzzled by why you would respect Bush or vote for McCain, since they’ve both have clearly documented records of dishonesty and ineptitude.
I’m going to vote in the election because I can, I think it’s important, and I’m sure I’ll find someone I’m comfortable voting for between now and November.
John McCain is the reason we lost the war in Vietnam.
Got your attention?
I think McBust sees Iraq as his Vietnam….where he got shot down and sat out the war while the brave fought….and he now wants to not lose the war.
Big F***ing deal. Loser.
….a Vietnam Vet