John McCain fit to lead?

Originally Posted by Fellowship

It just seems that not much changes with this candidate. He always seems to have "his" version of reality and it always seems at odds with the real world.

I have to wonder if he is just getting old and can't think clearly or he is stubborn and not interested in the facts. Worse it could be a bit of both.

This link is a youtube video which I have posted before in another thread which shows in detail this nature of McCain. This video shows how John McCain has a different memory of events than is actually the case.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZrJKB...eature=related

But the content of this thread is to be based on the latest ignorance this "candidate" put on display while on his recent travels around the world.

"McCain misspeaks on Iraq insurgents - He erroneously claims Iran is training al-Qaida.



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23697639/

So here we have the neocon duo flying the world over trying to play "superman" and make a case for their wonderful "leadership skills."

I am not so sure I am sold,, in fact for McCain to screw up like this should bring pause to many Americans....

This guy has no business pretending to know how the world works..

God help us if he is the next President of The United States.

God help the entire world.

Your thoughts are welcome..

Fellows

Originally Posted by SDW2001

So basically this is a tit for tat thread. Fit to lead? Absolutely. You simply disagree with him. That has nothing to do with fitness to lead.

Originally Posted by trumptman

So John McCain misspeaks and it is proof his brain is too mushy to be president.

Meanwhile Obama is repeatedly hit on dealings with Rezko and about statements made by his pastor and each time is forced to admit more and more and he is... just perfectly fine.

Go drink some more Jesus Juice Fellowship.

Originally Posted by jimmac

The election's getting closer.

Originally Posted by e1618978

You are totally wrong here. He displayed a massive ignorance about the middle east, which is the problem. It isn't his ideas that are questioned, it is the quality of his thinking and his ability to think. This is nothing to do with agree/disagree.

Under what circumstances, if any, is the president, when operating overseas as commander-in-chief, free to disregard international human rights treaties that the US Senate has ratified?

A: It is illegal and unwise for the President to disregard international human rights treaties that have been ratified by the United States Senate, including and especially the Geneva Conventions. The Commander-in-Chief power does not allow the President to defy those treaties.

Does the president have inherent powers under the Constitution to conduct surveillance for national security purposes without judicial warrants, regardless of federal statutes?

A: The Supreme Court has never held that the president has such powers. As president, I will follow existing law, and when it comes to U.S. citizens and residents, I will only authorize surveillance for national security purposes consistent with FISA and other federal statutes.

If Congress prohibits a specific interrogation technique, can the president instruct his subordinates to employ that technique despite the statute?
A: No. The President is not above the law, and not entitled to use techniques that Congress has specifically banned as torture. We must send a message to the world that America is a nation of laws, and a nation that stands against torture. As President I will abide by statutory prohibitions for all US Government personnel and contractors.

Can the president disregard a congressional statute limiting the deployment of troops--either by capping the number of troops, or by setting minimum home-stays between deployments?

A: No, the President does not have that power. To date, several Congresses have imposed limitations on the number of US troops deployed in a given situation. As President, I will not assert a constitutional authority to deploy troops in a manner contrary to an express limit imposed by Congress and adopted into law.

Notwithstanding subsection (b), at any time that United States Armed Forces are engaged in hostilities outside the territory of the United States, its possessions and territories without a declaration of war or specific statutory authorization, such forces shall be removed by the President if the Congress so directs by concurrent resolution.

In what circumstances would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress?

A: The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent---1

History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action--2

As for the specific question about bombing suspected nuclear sites, I recently introduced S.J.Res.23, which states in part that "any offensive military action taken by the United States against Iran must be explicitly authorized by Congress."---3

Section 2 - Civilian Power over Military, Cabinet, Pardon Power, Appointments

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;

Within sixty calendar days after a report is submitted or is required to be submitted pursuant to section 4(a)(1), whichever is earlier, the President shall terminate any use of United States Armed Forces with respect to which such report was submitted (or required to be submitted), unless the Congress (1) has declared war or has enacted a specific authorization for such use of United States Armed Forces, (2) has extended by law such sixty-day period, or (3) is physically unable to meet as a result of an armed attack upon the United States. Such sixty-day period shall be extended for not more than an additional thirty days if the President determines and certifies to the Congress in writing that unavoidable military necessity respecting the safety of United States Armed Forces requires the continued use of such armed forces in the course of bringing about a prompt removal of such forces.

Originally Posted by SDW2001

John McCain...is "massively ignorant" WRT the middle east?

But I just noticed that this goof where McCain got confused about whether Iran was training al Qaeda operatives or not didn't just happen once. McCain apparently said the same thing several times, in a couple different venues - not just in the press conference, where Joe Lieberman of all people finally had to correct him, but earlier on the Hugh Hewitt show.

Originally Posted by Fellowship

Nick stop being deceptive here...

First off I don't think this is a matter of simply "misspeaking" I think it is clear this is more a matter of a man who in his head anyway is hell bent on preaching his version of reality upon the world. While in the process he is time after time after time being corrected by media personalities like Tim Russert or even his right hand man Joe L.

The difference here (between your comparison of McCain and Obama) is that McCain speaks for himself while digging a hole with regard to his ignorance... It is he himself who is ignorant and speaks ignorance. Obama speaks wisdom and a way forward which benefits all peoples not just one side or ideology. McCain is self-rightious, impatient, ill tempered, stubborn and often WRONG with his assessments and memory of events. Obama is the opposite in all ways.

With Obama it is his pastor who has said stupid things not Obama.

With regard to Rezko I am not aware that Obama has been implicated in any way.

So let's make sure we know the difference between a candidate who via his very own mouth digs a hole compared to the other situation where republican cheer leaders like Hannity / Trumptman / SDW paint negative projections upon Obama.

There is a very clear difference here and I think you know it.

Originally Posted by ShawnJ

Nah, man.

McCain just "misspoke!" on this point several times in several different venues over a period of time.

Haha whoopsie!

Originally Posted by trumptman

Obama said some pretty stupid things as well. He said his white grandmother cringing at certain black men walking down the street, and his pastor declaring that the U.S.A. engineered the AIDS virus to wipe out an entire race of people in a genocidal manner were... pretty much the same thing.

Originally Posted by tonton

Well you can't really blame him... most of the media has been subtly pushing the "all ragheads are the same and they are all 'Al Qaeda' terrorists" line ever since 9/11, that you really can't blame the stupid people for getting confused.

Al Qaeda was probably a cell of about 10 people. The "Great Al Qaeda" as we know it was created by the warmongers via the media specifically for this purpose.

Originally Posted by Fellowship

BTW your replies are really getting to be very childish and just plain silly.

Originally Posted by tonton

Well you can't really blame him... most of the media has been subtly pushing the "all ragheads are the same and they are all 'Al Qaeda' terrorists" line ever since 9/11, that you really can't blame the stupid people for getting confused.

Al Qaeda was probably a cell of about 10 people. The "Great Al Qaeda" as we know it was created by the warmongers via the media specifically for this purpose.

Originally Posted by trumptman

So John McCain misspeaks and it is proof his brain is too mushy to be president.

Meanwhile Obama is repeatedly hit on dealings with Rezko and about statements made by his pastor and each time is forced to admit more and more and he is... just perfectly fine.

Go drink some more Jesus Juice Fellowship.

Originally Posted by Northgate

Something's happened to McCain since 2000. I'm not sure what it is exactly.

Originally Posted by Flounder

I'd just like to say that I don't give a shit if McCain fumbled and misspoke.

I don't give a shit what Obama's minister said.

I don't give a shit how old McCain is.

I don't give a shit how young Obama is.

I don't give a shit how experienced McCain is.

I don't give a shit how experienced Obama is.

I just care about their platforms and their positions on, you know, issues and shit.

Originally Posted by BRussell

The media have anointed McCain The One Never To Be Criticized. He's nice to them and throws barbecues for them, so he is the Second Coming for them and we'll never hear how he repeatedly shows that he doesn't even understand the relationship between Iran and al Qaeda and Sunni and Shia. The media want him to be president so bad it hurts.

Originally Posted by ShawnJ

Nah, man.

McCain just "misspoke!" on this point several times in several different venues over a period of time.

Haha whoopsie!

Originally Posted by Fellowship

Nick,

I choose Obama Juice you choose Bomb Bomb Bomb, Bomb Bomb Iran giggle giggle self-rightious old fart juice with a few screws loose.

I will choose my Obama Juice over your Beach Boys "Bomb Iran" song candidate any day.

Your candidate thought it was funny to joke about bombing Iran.

My candidate is very mature and adult and set a positive tone and dismissed the comments of his pastor.

BTW your replies are really getting to be very childish and just plain silly.

Fellows

Originally Posted by Northgate

In just one sentence you've spun yourself into a pretzel! Wow!

Last I checked the media was all up in Obama's ass about Rezko and his pastor. And they have every right to be.

Has the media even REMOTELY held McCain to the same standard's Obama in the recent past? Shit, the last three months? Hello...is this mic on?

I don't remember McCain being FORCED into giving a speech to explain...well, anything! And there's plenty to explain.

But, oh well. Must be nice living in Trumptland.

Originally Posted by trumptman

I can totally understand where you are coming from BRussell. Why just the other day I was speaking to my wife and I said,"You know dear, I really hope when I vote for a war monger to be president of the United States, I at least get a good steak and beer out of it before he kills of my offspring."

Link? Even then getting a name wrong doesn't mean you have a complete lack of understanding.

Your reply amounts to stating that you don't like McCain's sense of humor and then you declare that your replies are... serious.

Every candidate has moments of silliness. Should I hate Obama because he has gone on the Ellen show multiple times and danced the night away with her and her audience.

Oh... I forgot... this is serious business... Clearly Obama dancing means that he will be getting down in the night club instead of solving the problems of the U.S. and world...

ehem....or perhaps silliness is silliness.

Trumptland rules dude. We have Ice Cream Sundaes on Tuesdays!

McCain has already run several campaigns before so I doubt there is much new to dig up on him. That didn't stop the Times from claiming a non-existant inappropriate relationship so they could conveniently recount the Keating Five bit.

Or did the Times only do that in Trumptland because if they did... no sundaes for them on Tuesday man. They are waiting until the weekend for sure.

But again... how many speaking gaffes by the candidates on the left even make the news?

Originally Posted by ShawnJ

Yes.

Originally Posted by Fellowship

Nick stop being deceptive here...

First off I don't think this is a matter of simply "misspeaking" I think it is clear this is more a matter of a man who in his head anyway is hell bent on preaching his version of reality upon the world. While in the process he is time after time after time being corrected by media personalities like Tim Russert or even his right hand man Joe L.

Just how much of this correction can the country afford after Bush / Cheney and their stubborn ways?

The difference here (between your comparison of McCain and Obama) is that McCain speaks for himself while digging a hole with regard to his ignorance... It is he himself who is ignorant and speaks ignorance. Obama speaks wisdom and a way forward which benefits all peoples not just one side or ideology.

McCain is self-rightious, impatient, ill tempered, stubborn and often WRONG with his assessments and memory of events. Obama is the opposite in all ways.

With Obama it is his pastor who has said stupid things not Obama.

With regard to Rezko I am not aware that Obama has been implicated in any way.

So let's make sure we know the difference between a candidate who via his very own mouth digs a hole compared to the other situation where republican cheer leaders like Hannity / Trumptman / SDW paint negative projections upon Obama.

There is a very clear difference here and I think you know it.

Fellows

Originally Posted by trumptman

Even then getting a timeline wrong doesn't mean you have a complete lack of understanding.

\t"We do not have time to spare. If we do not meaningfully improve security and services in Iraq over the next few months, it may be too late. We will risk an irreversible loss of Iraqi confidence and reinforce the efforts of extremists who seek our defeat and threaten Iraq's democratic future."

\t"The next three-to-six months will be critical."

"we will probably see significant progress in the next six months to a year"

\t"We're either going to lose this thing or win this thing in the next several months."

ROSE: Do you think that this Korea, South Korea is an analogy of where Iraq might be, not in terms of their economic success but in terms of an American presence over the next, say, 20, 25 years, that we will have a significant amount of troops there?

MCCAIN: I dont think so.

ROSE: Even if there are no casualties?

MCCAIN: No. But I can see an American presence for a while. But eventually I think because of the nature of the society in Iraq and the religious aspects of it that America eventually withdraws.

Q: President Bush has talked about our staying in Iraq for 50 years (cut off by McCain)

McCAIN: Make it a hundred.

Q: Is that (cut off)

McCAIN: Weve been in South Korea weve been in Japan for 60 years. Weve been in South Korea 50 years or so. That would be fine with me. As long as Americans

Q: [tries to say something]

McCAIN: As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed. Thats fine with me, I hope that would be fine with you, if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where Al Queada is training and equipping and recruiting and motivating people every single day.

Originally Posted by SDW2001

That is utterly pathetic. The man was using the term AQ interchangeably with extremists/terrorists. He later corrected himself. "Massively ignorant." Please.

Standing with fellow Sens. Joseph Lieberman (I., Conn.) and Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.) at the Citadel, a set of ancient ruins in Amman, McCain said he was concerned about Iran's influence in Iraq and cited a recently discovered cache of weapons that he said could be particularly lethal in being used to target Americans in the country.

"We continue to be concerned about Iranian [operatives] taking al-Qaeda into Iran, training them and sending them back," he said in comments after meeting with Jordan's King Abdullah II.

Pressed to elaborate, McCain said it was "common knowledge and has been reported in the media that al-Qaeda is going back into Iran and receiving training and are coming back into Iraq from Iran . . . and it's unfortunate."

A few moments later, Lieberman whispered in his ear. McCain then said: "I'm sorry, the Iranians are training extremists, not al-Qaeda."

The United States has long asserted that elements of Iran's security forces have been training and supplying weapons to Iraq's Shiite militias. Iran is an overwhelmingly Shiite country whose government has applauded the emergence of a Shiite-led government in Iraq but has denied supporting Shiite militias.

Al-Qaeda in Iraq is a predominantly Sunni group blamed for deadly mass killings of Shiites and attacks on U.S. forces. Some Sunni extremists consider Shiites to be heretics and therefore legitimate targets of attack. The schism between Islam's Sunni and Shiite sects grew out of a dispute over the leadership of the faithful after the death of the prophet Muhammad in 632.

Democrats pointed out that McCain made the same assertion in a radio interview Monday with talk-show host Hugh Hewitt, saying: "There are al-Qaeda operatives that are taken back into Iran, given training as leaders, and they're moving back into Iraq."

In a statement, Democratic Party spokeswoman Karen Finney seized on the mistakes. Not only is McCain "wrong on Iraq once again," she said, "but he showed he either doesn't understand the challenges facing Iraq and the region or is willing to ignore the facts on the ground."

Originally Posted by addabox

So.... your saying it's a distinction with no difference, so no harm no foul.

Whereas I, nattering nabob of negativism that I am, would sort of prefer that the Commander-in-Chief have a basic grasp of the players in the region we have troops in, for instance distinguishing between the people who attacked us on 9/11 and presumably intend to again and those that, you know, didn't and don't.

But who cares, right? The liberal media has taught us that Obama's Secret Black Rage is a much more interesting topic than who's shooting at us. Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran, I guess, and how nuanced do you have to be to get that done? "Boom" is the straightest talk of all.

Originally Posted by Fellowship

So Splinemodel how do you feel about John McCain not having a grasp of the dynamics of the ME?

Does it not troulble you in the least that Mr. McCain who is touted for his "experience" coming across for the entire world to see as missing the "beef" or even worse making up his own tofu?

Not one bit concerned by this???