This man really is a damned disgrace, and this snippet of McCain’s speech to the Disabled Vets is, to borrow a phrase, a clarifying moment:
With just three months to go before the election, a lot of folks are still trying to square Senator Obama’s varying positions on the surge in Iraq. First, he opposed the surge. Then he confidently predicted that it would fail. Then he tried to prevent funding for the troops who carried out the surge. Not content to merely predict failure in Iraq, my opponent tried to legislate failure. This was back when supporting America’s efforts in Iraq entailed serious political risk. It was a clarifying moment. It was a moment when political self-interest and the national interest parted ways. For my part, with so much in the balance, it was an easy call. As I said at the time, I would rather lose an election than lose a war.
Thanks to the courage and sacrifice of our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines and to brave Iraqi fighters the surge has succeeded. And yet Senator Obama still can’t quite bring himself to admit his own failure in judgment. Instead, he commits the greater error of insisting that even in hindsight, he would oppose the surge. Even in retrospect, he would choose the path of retreat and failure for America over the path of success and victory. Behind all of these claims and positions by Senator Obama lies the ambition to be president. What’s missing is the judgment to be commander in chief.
Who is writing his speeches? Hugh Hewitt? Jonah Goldberg? I have no idea if this will work, but McCain certainly is destroying his brand. Pure scum.
*** Update ***
I should probably add, that is a lot of heated rhetoric from Sen. McCain over Iraq, when last week he and his supporters were telling us it is just a little regional conflict, and not the great international crisis we thought it was.
chopper
“whereas i, john mccain, am running solely because my wife double-dog dared me to. personally, i couldn’t care less about the position.”
Incertus
His brand wasn’t worth much to begin with, seeing as it was marked with a big (R). I think what’s really happening here is that McCain is acting the way he always has, but he’s under greater scrutiny now, not just from the press, but from bloggers who don’t have editors and publishers who can spike their analysis, and so some of the maverickyness is disappearing, to be replaced with the whiny bitchiness that is McCain’s real personality.
Napoleon
Speaking of McBush, just saw this at Ameriblog. This is as close to a smoking gun as I think we are going to see that he had the questions in advance (emphasis added):
4tehlulz
You know, I hope in the debates, Obama turns to McCain, quotes this, and says something to the effect of: “You willing to call me a traitor to my face?”
The second McCain tries to weasel out of it, he’s fucked for good.
D. Mason
Hey, credit where credit is due. At least the words fit together in a way that makes sense this time.
Dennis - SGMM
Because real CiC judgment is exemplified by getting conned into voting to attack a nation that didn’t attack us and then stating that you’d vote the same way even knowing what we do now.
Liberal Masochist
This link is pretty much on point to your post. I don’t care much for Jack Cafferty (he was the local news guy growing up), but now I am beginning to think he is a secret poster on Balloon Juice!
lethargytartare
I’m still baffled by the notion that Obama could be accused of trying to “lose” a war McCain said we won 5 years ago…
cleek
he did have most of the questions in advanced. they both did. Warren told them both what a bunch of the big themes would be well before the ‘debate’
SpotWeld
It’s like McCain is still trying to win over Bush’s “27% of voters” base. These are the people who should be voting Republican no matter what McCain says since they should be getting a screenful of “insider” emails telling them what McCain is “Really” saying (as well as the emails telling them that Obama is a secret Islamic-Marxist-antichrist-alien-mine or something).
If McCain is still posturing to get that group on his side, how can he expect to stay consistant enough in message to get the majority (I know, it’s about electoral vote, but you know what I mean) of the population to vote for him.
The internet has killed the benefit of the short attention span of the electorate. That whole Macaca incident should have taught him that.. (and even more specific the while “Harley-Davidson” gaff as well.)
Dreggas
Shorter John McCain on this one: “Quick back to the court before I forget my talking point”.
Punchy
If it wins him the Presidency, who cares?
Republicanism to its core — Fuck respect, fuck honor, fuck friendships, fuck dignity; do whatever to whomever it takes to win. Full stop.
Eric
“Since when does John McCain consider John Lewis an advisor?”
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/16603.html
Davis X. Machina
The median voter is some white guy who thinks he’s electing a President, but is actually hiring a contract killer. That’s what all that dick-measuring commander-in-chief-ing 3 AM phone-call bullshit comes down to.
McCain’s telling them “Yeah, I killed a lot of gooks. Vote for me, and any time you’re scared, or feel inadequate, or it looks like the future’s headed the wrong way, I’ll kill more. Then you’ll feel better, won’t you?” And he has real hecatombs of real dead to point to.
All the shvartze can do is promise.
You know, whenever it meets in convention, the VFW seems mostly in the business of making sure there’s no lack of future FW’s to have V’s of. If they had any integrity, they’d be more pacifist than the Friends General Conference.
SpotWeld
As for this harping on the surge. Lets say you go to the hospital with a big gash on your arm. One doctor says you need to have it amputated, the other says it just needs to be sewn up and treated with anitbiotics. For whatever reason the first doctor is the one who makes the call. You lose your arm.
You didn’t die. So in that repect the correct option was taken. But the first doctor still thinks that the better option would have been to not amputate.
Does this mean the second doctor has “failed to admit his mistake”?
Foobar
Criticising a raging debacle as being anti-patriotic was so 2004-2005. During the debates, I would love to see Obama kick the legs out of JMs “The Surge Has Worked” mantra. Would McCain expect to see violence drop if the US was to pay Sunnis to stop shooting at our troops? Did the 2006 Sunni Awakening begin before the 2007 Surge? Does the ethnic rearranging of Baghdad from 65% Sunni to 75% Shia (during TheSurge) demonstrate that the US was able to stop an Iraqi civil war? If the civil war resulted in 2 million refugees, would that population shift and population exodus lend to less violence? If violence was used to ethnically rearrange Baghdad, would one expect a drop in violence after the city was ethnically rearranged? Does the 25+ miles of 12ft+ blast walls that separate ethnic groups in Baghdad demonstrate political reconcilliation between the wall-separated ethnic groups? Could the Bush Admin have begun payments to Sunnis to play nice in ’04, ’05, or ’06?
Rick Massimo
McCain’s brand was never anything more than a ticket to more political success. He’s not ruining it; he’s using it as it was intended, for its intended purpose.
And let me reiterate: The ease with which McCain has managed to double down on his rhetoric, the fact that he realized that nobody was buying “the surge is working” so he went straight to “the surge has worked,” would be perversely briliant if I were reading about it in an ancient history book rather than having to actually live with the prospect of someday seeing my son off to Iraq so that McCain doesn’t have to admit he’s a war pervert.
myiq2xu
Do you really expect Uh-bama to agree to debates?
Fat chance. He’s still trumatized by the ass-whippings he got from Hillary.
cleek
here’s Obama’s response.
i assume McCain will laugh it off.
i really wish people would stop prefacing every remark about McCain with “now, i really respect his service…” . don’t start attacks with flattery, just attack. by this time everybody knows about his fucking service, and he’s not running for Admiral. treat him like the slimy politician he really is.
Brother Flaming Taser of Warm Reason
A POW speaks about McCain
Grand Moff Texan
No, he didn’t. Obama has been saying, since November of 2006, that military force can only accomplish so much, and cannot attain political objectives.
He was right.
.
cleek
finally.
Davis X. Machina
Shhhhh.
No one tell RoomTempIQ that Obama’s already agreed to the debates….
Grand Moff Texan
He already has, dumbass.
[snort!] Yeah, that’s why she’s the nominee.
Dumbass.
.
greynoldsct00
OT, but did you guys see AP’s article today
“His top contenders are said to include Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. Less traditional choices mentioned include former Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Ridge, an abortion-rights supporter, and Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman, the Democratic vice presidential prick in 2000 who now is an independent.”
It’s still up there, Atrios caught it first
rawshark
Speaking of emails, I got one from my girlfriend, passed to her from family that links to a Maureen Dowd article in the NYT from late June stating that Obama is receiving donations from overseas. Is there a retort out there somewhere?
myiq2xu
Can’t he just eat his waffle?
Ripley
Said the man who is so uninterested in the Presidency that he’s run twice in 3 election cycles, currying the favor and endorsement of the man who’s campaign smeared McCain, personally, with rumors of interracial adultery.
He was a PO-Whatnow? Ohhhh… never mind, then…
The Other Steve
Whoa… Cafferty just took a sledgehammer to McCain
Bokonon
Ahhh, yes. This hit and run stuff is disgraceful. So is the double standard, where GOP candidates are allowed to hit below the belt and Democrats are asked — no, demanded — to apologize for hurt feelings, or any perceived failure to honor McCain’s service to his country.
But the media is letting McCain get away with it, by and large. And it is working with the voters – who seem to respond to “strength” even when they know it is lies and bullshit. And it has worked ever since Richard Nixon started calling Dean Acheson a traitor back in the 1950’s …
What does that say about the media, and the American voting public?
Brachiator
So let’s see, now. Obama is the inexperienced elitist celebrity who wants to be messiah of America in order to fire his ambition, while former POW John McCain is the former POW who, as a former long suffering POW, is humbly (did I tell you he was a former POW?) looking to continue to serve his country as the Former-POW-in-Chief.
More seriously, where McCain has gained a slight advantage was in hitting hard on the “Obama as celebrity” angle when Obama returned from his world tour.
What has been conviently forgotten is the degree to which Obama won praise from the world leaders he will have to deal with as president, particularly those leaders who mentioned that they were more impressed with Obama than they were with McCain or (too easy) Dubya.
And McCain’s feverish emphasis on the surge, aided by media stupidity, still cannot avoid the central fact that Obama’s policy of an Iraq withdrawal has become accepted by the Iraqis themselves, who are looking for a political solution that does not coincide with McCain’s deranged, clearly personal need for a hot and “decisive” military victory in Iraq.
The Other Steve
Hillary lost, get over it.
Martin
The standard isn’t ‘don’t die’. The standard is ‘do no harm’. Harm was possibly done.
That’s the problem the public has – the rules of the game as presented change to fit the conclusion the speaker is trying to get them to reach and they’re too fucking stupid to realize that.
Doug H. (Fausto no more)
myiq1/2mybffmccain cares less that Hillary lost than he does that Obama won. I’m not sure if he’s going for the title of Captain Iconoclast, or if he’s having delusions of ‘Nach McCain, uns,’ but its not a pretty sight.
Mike G
You know, I hope in the debates, Obama turns to McCain, quotes this, and says something to the effect of: “You willing to call me a traitor to my face?”
Oh, yes. Obama needs a few of these backbone moments. This hope and unity sunshine alone will not get him to the finish line against the filthy sewage of Rove.
The only way to deal with a weaseling bully talking trash behind your back is to call him on his bullshit right to his face.
99/100 they’ll stammer and bluster but fold like a card table, lose face and look like the sniveling coward they really are.
We don’t need another gutless Kerry campaign, and if Obama is listening to the same Dem establishment professional-loser consultant-barnacles he needs to stop now. A main track of high-road is good and inspiring, but you need a second track of hitting back hard at the slung mud, or the low-info voters bamboozled by a sensation-addled lazy MSM are going to think some of it is true.
And hit McCain on his vanity regarding his superior ‘honor’. Because he is truly running a Campaign Without Honor.
SpotWeld
I agree with you, and to extend the analogy a bit. McCain’s idea of victory seems to be “there can be no risk of later infection; therefore the whole arm must be removed”. A wholly “surgical” approach to a problem that can more readily be taken care of with a combination of minor surgery (stitches), antibiotics and later follow up appointments.
Koz
What exactly are you objecting to here?
I don’t know if you know this John, but that is actually a pretty low-key characterization of Obama’s stance toward the war. Most of the assertions in it are plain fact that aren’t seriously in dispute. The most speculative part of it is that Obama was motivated by his Presidential ambitions, which frankly doesn’t look to me like much of a stretch.
cyntax
Gawd, MoDo’s journalistic kung fu is so weak she could be misrepresenting Obama’s donations from overseas military personnel and ex-pats for all we know, so the retort would depend on exactly what’s being “reported.” But the Daily Howler is always a great place to start looking for detailed, point by point takedowns of MoDo’s idiocies.
Frankly, I don’t know how they manage doing it day in and Day out without getting stinking drunk every morning.
Dennis - SGMM
We have a worn-out military, hundreds of billions in debt, more than 4000 dead troops, and thousands more who will require care for life. Tens of thousands of Iraqis have been killed or wounded while millions of other Iraqis are either refugees in neighboring countries or internally displaced. Unemployment in Iraq has been 60-70% for the past two years. Food, medicine, electricity and clean water are all in short supply. If that’s “success and victory” then losing must be a real motherfucker.
mightygodking
snopes
Koz
Oh yeah, that worked real good for President Dukakis.
OriGuy
To expand on mightygodking, not only is it not true, it isn’t something Maureen Dowd wrote.
cyntax
What do you mean by “seriously”? Let’s look at this one for example:
Since Obama voted ten times previously to fund the Iraq War, does it make sense to characterize the intention of his vote as trying to defund the troops? Only if you allow the logical sleight of hand of conflating Obama’s intention with his vote.
The more logical approach is to ask how this funding bill differed from all the rest that Obama voted for. And the answer to that is that it came after Preznit Bush vetoed the nonbinding language calling for withdrawal of troops from Iraq. You know the same withdrawal that Maliki and the Iraq goverment wants?
So the real question is why does McCain want to keep our troops in a country that doesn’t want them?
charlotte
McCain carries the odor of Old Soap Opera lately. The character you spent decades believing was really not all that bad if you closed one eye and understood what had happened to him (or her)”in the past.” Suddenly, in the last weeks of the actor’s contract, same kindly character turns out to be, I dunno, molester, rapist, murderer,criminal mastermind behind the explosion that rocked Cassandra’s wedding and led to Storm’s inevitable heartbreak.
Old, tired, dumb. Ambition? Yeah, whatever. Take yours and shove it.
chopper
(snort) god, that’s hilarious. yeah, hillary sure kicked his ass all the way to the nomination. he’s surely still stinging from that incredibly effective campaign she ran into the ground.
Brother Flaming Taser of Warm Reason
Nice!
Face
He’s from Chicago, right? Can we just pray he’s got some Gansta Disciples or Latin Kings in him?
mrmobi
Yeah, Koz, because implying that someone is a traitor is so very “low-key.”
Obama’s response today to the McCain slander was both respectful and challenging:
Emphasis mine. It’s good to see the Democratic candidate isn’t going to put up with smears, especially when they come from a guy who’s supposedly running a “respectful” campaign.
Whaddya think, Koz, will McCain acknowledge that Obama genuinely wants to serve America’s national interest, or is he too committed to the low-road as his only hope of winning?
The Populist
I hate to say it but many rubes are buying this and the idea that Obama is an empty suit. I really hate the idea of four more years of Bush via McCain.
Koz
I don’t see why that’s “logical sleight of hand” at all. The other way is much more weaselly, ie, he voted one way, but really intended something else.
And even if you let him steal this particular base, I don’t see how it helps anyway. As the effects of the surge materialized, we could see the violence in Iraq abated, political stability increase, Iran and terror groups denied safe haven there, etc. Clearly these things are in the national interest of the United States. But substantial parts of the Democratic Party (and Barack Obama’s supporters for that matter) are primarily motivated by hatred of George W. Bush. Sen. Obama’s vote gave voice to those antipathies at the expense of our Armed Forces in the field. Really, I can’t think of a “good” way to spin it.
Koz
Obama is an empty suit. If you don’t want to live under George Bush’s third term, vote for McCain.
Geeno
Now THAT is just plain delusional.
liberal
Koz wrote,
LOL!
Yes, violence has died down, after we bribed the Sunnis and there was no more ethnic cleansing to do in Bagdad.
Political stability? I guess you don’t know about the oil law, Kirkuk, etc etc etc.
Iran…again, LOL! All the powerful Shi’ite factions in the government have relations with Iran. The Shi’ite political leader who historically was most distant from Iran was…Al Sadr, who is anathema to the US.
How so? What was the “expense”?
Koz
I dunno. Speaking only for myself, it’s quite possible that what Obama thinks (or genuinely wants to believe) is America’s national interest and what America’s national interest really is are very different things. And frankly, the former isn’t very important.
If Obama’s record of public service hurts the latter it’s completely legit for McCain (or anyone else for that matter) to call him on it.
John Cole
Correct me if I am wrong, but the level of violence is now right around where it was pre-surge, which is to say, pretty fucking violent. Not to mention several million displaced and the fact that the ethnic make-up of Baghdad is completely different now (translation for KOZ- they killed a lot of people in Baghdad, and now they are not there to kill anymore, leading to a drop in violence).
Clearly a win for vital US interests.
rawshark
The funny part is that the email ended with ‘can you believe this was in the New York Times’. I have a feeling that when i send them links to snopes or the Daily Howler they will dismiss it as liberal propoganda or something. The filter is strong.
liberal
Yummy error headers:
Jay B.
As the effects of the surge materialized, we could see the violence in Iraq abated, political stability increase, Iran and terror groups denied safe haven there, etc.
Brain dead. Real zombie shit from a particularly disingenuous rube. You have no — literally ZERO — idea about Iraq, the surge and anything else remotely connected to what it’s like there. You believe, exclusively, the stupid, drooling drivel which passes for Republican talking points. You have no possible clue, for instance, that the violence that you think has “abated” is at 2005 levels. That as many U.S. troops have died already this month as died in July. That al-Maliki is driving the government in a ditch while billions in surplus are being looted by his cronies. Meanwhile, the Sunnis have been (temporarily, one would assume, unless you are a complete idiot who believes nothing but what McCain says on any given day) bought off by the Army to lay low for awhile. Meanwhile, competing Shiites clerics are aligning themselves with Irans AND keeping their powder dry for the inevitable misstep by the current government and/or Bush Administration. Our troops are still overburdened and stretched too thin — and as a result, Afghanistan has become a problem equal to Iraq — AND the Iraqi people get to live in a barricaded, concrete, segregated, ethnically-cleansed hellhole.
Win!
Pathetic.
But at least you get your Maverick points douchebag!
liberal
Koz wrote,
LOL! Someone is a brainless automaton who merely forwards McCain’s talking points.
(1) In terms of intellect, if you want more of Bush, vote for McCain. McCain was in the deep, mucky bottom of his class, and got where he is today only because he was the son and grandson of powerful men (Navy admirals). (Not to mention his beer fortune babe.) Similarly, Bush has at best an average intelligence and is the well-connected son of a former president and the grandson of a Senator. Obama, on the other hand, had no such connections and got where he is because he’s smart.
(2) In terms of issues, McCain is at least as hawkish as Bush—in fact, more so. Both McCain and Bush apparently believe that rape victims should be forced to bear their assailant’s child. And so forth.
(3) In terms of ethics, Bush and McCain are one of a kind.
cyntax
If you want to over-simplfy these votes and pretend that these bills only encompass a single issue, then I guess that’s your prerogative. But the truth of the matter is they don’t. Still applying your simplistic logic to senate voting records, the simple fact that McCain opposed the new GI Bill is all we need to know about his record on veterans issues, right?
One of the major reasons the violence was down was because the Mahdi Army was on the sidelines, and that happened well before the surge. You can keep harping on the surge as the component that “succeeded,” but we’ve never been lacking for military successes in Iraq, what we’ve been lacking is the political component, which is essential and still out of our control.
So again, why was the non-binding language about leaving Iraq worth vetoing, considering that’s what their government wants?
Koz
Link.
I’m sure we could go back and forth on this, but my guess is that your vote for Obama really isn’t in play here anyway, right?
Koz
Obama got where he is because he is a pretty public face to show for the power-brokers, scammers, and ward-heelers. Before his campaign for President, everything he has ever done and ever gotten is through his cozy relationships with such people. You might think that’s hyperbolic, but it’s just the plain truth and if you don’t believe it, check it out.
Like really. Put down the Kool-Aid for one fkkking minute an check it out.
Cain
Sure buddy, give us the links and we will.
cain
John Cole
Koz- did you even look at the powerpoint you linked? Some of the slides are just useless (the incidents one, for example), but the deaths one says exactly what I stated (when it shows 2005- mainly it just starts at 2006), which is that things are around where they were pre-surge. Additionally, look at the ethno-sectarian violence slide from Baghdad. Notice the change in colors? You might want to check the legend.
AND LEARN TO EMBED YOUR DAMNED LINKS.
Koz
I think you’re either confused or not using words very well. The surge is generally accepted to have started at the beginning of 2007 (Pres. Bush’s speech announcing increased troop strength is from Jan 10). That means “pre-surge” is what, Dec 2006? That’s more or less the peak (or trough) of all the slides (even the “meaningless” ones).
But let’s be clear about the state of your vote. Ie, for the sake of argument let’s stipulate that Obama opposed the surge when Pres. Bush announced it, that the surge is responsible for the benefit of US national interest in Iraq, and Obama continues to oppose the surge on a post hoc basis even after its benefits are generally known. Even allowing for all that, you’re still voting for Obama, right?
SpotWeld
Hey Koz, see the analogy above.
Sure the amputation prevented an infection, but that doesn’t mean it was a better treatment than a round of antibiotics.
And what is your obsession about how John Cole is voting. If he was for McCain, would that change your argument in any way?
Jay B.
The surge is generally accepted to have started at the beginning of 2007 (Pres. Bush’s speech announcing increased troop strength is from Jan 10). That means “pre-surge” is what, Dec 2006? That’s more or less the peak (or trough) of all the slides (even the “meaningless” ones).
So getting back to four years of fuckups and death prior to the “beginning of 07” was the goal of the surge? Really? Do you have any idea of what you’re talking about?
John Cole
The only national interest in Iraq is getting out. There were no WMD, it has not been a stablizing force, it is not part of the war on terror no matter how many times wingnut bloggers and the Weekly Standard say it is, and it is a west of men and money.
And I am voting for Obama no matter what in the fall. The GOP needs to be destroyed.
Koz
I think “obsession” is a bit strong here, but there’s at least two reasons why I’m bringing that up.
1. John’s objection to my prior point is basically a matter of timing quibbles. My guess is that his complaints there are either disingenuous or unimportant or both.
2. John’s frame of mind (and others here, by extension) in supporting Obama is fkkked up six ways to Sunday.
In both cases, I trying to establish that his support for Obama doesn’t really depend on his train of though about when the surge started.
SpotWeld
If you’re agruing about the timing of the surge, and believe that his opinion Obama is not dependant on it… why bring up his support for Obama at all.
Just quote a timeline on the surge, there’s plenty of news organizations that have published one. (Or even wikipedia.)
Stick to the facts man, instead of all this fluffy “all about Obama” crap.
Statement: Obama opposed the surge – true
Statement: Obama predicted that the surge would not Obama continued to predict the surge would not prompt the sort of political
reconciliation necessary to end violence in Iraq. – true
Statement: Obama attempted to cut funding for the surge – false.
Koz
I thought so.
So, if you have to choose between the US national interest in a successful conclusion to the Iraq War, or satisfaction of antipathy towards the Republican Party, you’re picking the latter.
Let’s go through this again. You think that the surge helped Iran, or started in 2005 or whatever. But whether any of these things are really true or not isn’t that important. Even if the national interest does depend on them, it’s more important to repudiate the legacy of George W Bush.
John Cole
Iraq is not in our national interest. Leaving Iraq is.
Seriously, spare me this nonsense.
SpotWeld
Koz.. um. You are a crackpot.
You fit all the necessary requirements.
You are selectivly reading everything here and deliberatly overcomplicating the discussion to forcefully frame the narritive to fit your own very specific theory of events.
Liberal Masochist
Koz – I don’t think anyone here is basing their vote for Obama (or McCain for that matter) strictly on what they say they will do (or have said) about Iraq. Absent Iraq, Obama will make a much better President – I think the campaigns to date have shown that quite clearly. While the Cafferty piece is a bit over, it is pretty much on the money. No kool-aid needed to see all this…
Koz
Ok, well I’m not going to hang out here forever of course, but what particular part of this thread do you want me to address?
4tehlulz
Shorter Koz: GOP = National Interest
SpotWeld
Koz Said:
..
Well for starters you said
That is a slective quote since John Cole had already stated that he say no national interest served by staying in Iraq. You have not supported nor introduced the assertation that there is a national interest.
Further, the timing of the surge. For a proper comparison of the effctiveness of the surge you need a sample of the events before, during and after. You are being hyperspecific about the start date of the surge and ignoring the issue that violence levels are returning back to the point they were before the surge thus resulting in a net change of about zero.
And finally.. I do not want you to “address” any of that. I want you to stop with this fluffy myth of how it’s all about a unified hatred of Bush.
There is a pretty complex set of motivations going on here between John Cole, Tim F. and all the other posters (and all the other voters for that matter.)
It boils down to the fact that voters who will be voting for Obama think he will be the better president.
Davis X. Machina
Koz, like all correctly oriented cadres, knows this.
The organs of the State exist to serve the interests of the Party, because the Party is the Vanguard of the Revolution.
Now get out there and fulfill your work norms, you slackers.
And sailing the seas, as always, depends on the Helmsman.
Koz
Sure I did. In the comment John was responding to, I wrote:
For that matter, it’s also pretty clear from the McCain snippet that upset John so much in the first place.
Koz
Fluffy myth my ass. You want to pretend the idea that Bush (or Republicans in general) are so bad that we want to get rid of them, no matter how big a piece out of the national interest it takes to do it, isn’t circulated pretty widely around here?
w vincentz
Duh, Koz, I just don’t get it. If the “surge” worked, how come the troop strength in Iraq isn’t below pre-surge?
Pleeze ‘splain.
John Cole
I will speak slowly so you understand me, Koz, rather than having to put words in my mouth.
Baghdad could be on fire right now, every oil pipeline ablaze, and in the midst of a terrifying and tragic civil war, and if there are no American troops in the AO, it is not in our national interest.
We went there for WMD, got nation-building as the booby prize.
Is that clear enough? So, no, I don’t agree with even your basic premise. Us being there, even if it is “getting better” years after we fucked it up in the first place, does not constitute a national interest. For that matter, Georgia completely in control of not only Russia, but the resurrected from the dead Soviet Union, is not in our national interest.
You know what is in our national interest? Our horrible budget, our breaking and spread-thin military, and the hundreds of promises and global obligations we currently can not meet. Iraq, not so much.
rawshark
No one that I’ve read here has said that electing Obama as president would hurt our ‘National Interests’ yet they’re going to do it anyway. No one I’ve read here thinks electing Obama hurts our ‘National Interests’. Except for types like you who aren’t voting for him and want to either scare or shame us into following suit.
Frankly I think Obama is better for our ‘National Interests’. I think McCain is better for the ‘Interests of Our Betters’ but not nescesssarily the whole nation.
rachel
OK, I’m finally going to say it: Koz’s handle reminds me of a very rude slang word. Every time I see it I think, “There’s that xxxxx again.”
And I hate that word. :-(
SpotWeld
Koz, you seem to think you’re having a debate.
You’re not. Debates require both sides to listen to the arguments being made and respond to them in a direct manner with supporting evidence.
You are not. You are jumping away from the issue presented and attempting to force it to be to an “already settled” issue so you can declare some sort of success.
Because it is not a discussion, it becomes and education. Your education.
John Cole is attempting to educate you on what he said. (They are his words, so he is the ultimate authority on what he means by them, you cannot “top” him on that. )
Others are attempting to educate on the tone of discussion here. There is the occasional snaking about Bush, but generally everyone here is looking forward. Forward to what will need to be done about Iraq, what will be done in regards to the upcoming election.
Koz, your attempts to turn Bush into some sort of victim of circumstance really underscores your own contempt for him and his ability to create (and presumably deal with) his own mistakes.
Koz, please take your lumps and learn from them. We all do from time to time.
SpotWeld
It is a website which has a series of slides. You posted them without explanation or interpretation.
John was terse, but did point out that despite the surge the levels of civilian deaths has only returns to the levels seem prior to the surge. By that metric the net change was minimal.
Again I need to point out that you are debating here, you are showing your inability to discuss or debate. Therefore the only possible response to your posts is to try to educate you.
You are being a very unwilling student, and as such are pretty much being classified as a brat. If you feel that is unwarranted please be a better student or show that you are capable of honest discussion.
(John, sorry if I’m stepping on toes here, but I really hate it when trolls roll on as if they were somehow adding to the topic at hand. )
jbarntt
Who is writing his speeches? Hugh Hewitt? Jonah Goldberg? I have no idea if this will work, but McCain certainly is destroying his brand. Pure scum.
Nice, so McCain is scum because he points out Obama’s meandering and incoherent position on Iraq. What the Hell is he supposed to do ? Endorse him ?
Obama has taken the liberal PC version of the war, now as the presumptive nominee he sort of maybe backtracks, depending on the audience.
Obama is just the usual know nothing, America is wrong Democrat. He has no principles, except to get elected.
How’d you like his waffling on abortion the other day at the Saddleback lovefest ? McCain can at least express a clear, straight forward position. Obama, not so much. Do you really admire a man who who says abortion should be legal, but is opposed to it ?
This is laughable. If Obama were honest he would say that it is either right or wrong. McCain managed to do this, why can’t Obama ? Same regarding the war.
I like clarity, not smoke and mirrors.
jbarntt
John Cole:
This man really is a damned disgrace
John McCain is a disgrace ?
No, you are a disgrace. What the Hell did you ever do for our country ? Write a blog that curiously went from conservative/libertarian to full on leftist, be a Prof. at some obscure government college ?
McCain risked his life for his country, so that idiots like you could call him a disgrace.
You truly stink. I oppose Obama because he is too liberal for me, but I do not hold him in contempt.
I thought your Hero’s msg. was to get beyond such things, I guess that isn’t really the case. He’s just another politician, no different than Rove, etc.
mannemalon
LOL @ not being able to comprehend elementary nuance. How on Earth can someone think abortion should be legal but thinks the country would be better off with less of them?!?!?! HOW!!!!111
Oh, what a great answer by the Maverick! It was just so straightforward, he just knocked that one out of the park!
TenguPhule
Fixed.
TenguPhule
From the person who supports McCain, the guy who opposes military benefits in the name of ‘they’ll make people leave the military’.
Your ship of fail has arrived, jbarntt.
TenguPhule
Violence in Iraq is back to the Violent 2004-2005 levels.
Wheeee!
Political Stability? The whole place is one big leaking gas tank by the sputtering lighter. One spark in the wrong place and it will all go up in flames.
Iran and Terror groups?
First, no solid proof of Iran, second there’s the little matter of American Politicos ADMITTING they’re fucking within Iran by arming the local terrorists against the local government.
And Al Queda in Iraq was never the big enemy, they got in AFTER the invasion. The threat has always been the domestic Sunni and Shia. Bribing the Sunni to behave will only work as long as the money lasts, then we get to face BETTER ARMED Sunni fighters and Shia.
Republican Stupid, it burns.
jbarntt
TenguPhule said
From the person who supports McCain, the guy who opposes military benefits in the name of ‘they’ll make people leave the military’.
Your ship of fail has arrived, jbarntt.
Retention in the military is important because losing experienced personnel is expensive and leaves the military less capable.
Benefit policy should encourage retention and do so by providing incrementally better benefits for the longer one stays in the service.
The primary purpose of the military is not to be a Welfare like government redistribution of wealth. Veterans should get benefits, and the attraction of those benefits is an attraction to join, but the military should not be a simple wealth redistribution system for a few years of service.
jbarntt
TenguPhule Says:
McCain risked his life for his country for his +5 Shield of POW, which gives him immunity from Adultery, Bribery, Geography and +2 to his saving throw vs the Media Spell: Detect Lies
Fixed.
McCain does seem to be a man with failings, but also one with achievements, Obama seems to be a man of neither, no failings, no achievements, just an empty suit.
I have no idea what you are referring to with the +5, +2 notation.