John McCain fit to lead? - Page 2

McCain will be crushed by the Democrats come election time. At least the Republican party will finally be transformed, kicking and screaming, back to it's libertarian leanings for the next election.

Perhaps, although the "religious right" is possibly further from libertarianism than the dems are. Their preferred candidates can be measured by their "liberal" fiscal agenda and conservative social agenda. Basically, this is the classic makeup of a fascist. The leftists are just about as unforgiving in social matters, so perhaps we can just turn this mess into four parties: left fascists, right fascists, moderates, and libertarians.

Yeah right.

I'm just saying trumpy the likelyhood of it being McCain in Nov. isn't really very big at all. We're still in Iraq, Gas prices are up, the economy's in the toilet, Bush is still one of the most unpopular presidents ever, and incumbent party's don't do well in these conditions.

So I'm just saying get it while you can!

OMG! Another gaffe! He must be senile. Or ignorant! Or stupid! Or all of that!

Oh come on. If anyone understands the Iraq war it's John McCain. You can't possibly even believe what you're saying.

[QUOTE=addabox;1231526]So.... your saying it's a distinction with no difference, so no harm no foul.[/quote[

Pretty much.


And you're saying he honestly doesn't know?


Yeah, we need to get back to the daily barrage of reporting every single scraped knee in Iraq...and repeating how many casualties we've taken...every single day!

As for Obama, even the conservative media has mostly stayed away from questioning Obama's motivations directly. What the media has focused on is his judgement, which is perfectly appropriate. Of course, fine libs like yourself have straw-manned the shit out the whole thing. It's the politics of the past! They're criticizing Obama about things he didn't even say and doesn't believe! They're portraying him as a racist!


I don't think that even qualifies as a regular straw man. It's more of a giant, musically talented straw man with a massive insecurity complex. Anytime someone with an R next to his name even mentions the word "Iran," he's accused of being a war monger. Good thing we have Barack "The Diplomat" Obama to save us.

I love how after all these years SDW is still f-ing incredulous of everything.

That kind of wild eyed disbelief is hard to come by!

Why thank you, Shawn. <-----for you!

Yeah, I know. But let's wait and see if there's a pattern developing here. If John McCain is elected President, he will be the oldest person going into office yet. Remember when Reagan started answering questions in press conferences with "I don't know" and "I don't remember"? Well, as we very well know now, he wasn't lying and dodging answers like many of us at that time believed.

Oh come on Fellowship.

At least McCain hasn't promised to meet with 'the Canadian President' to renegotiate NAFTA, and threatened to invade Pakistan.

All politicians make foreign policy gaffes.
None of them yet have daily state department briefings prior to press scrums.

'Fitness to Lead' certainly needs to be covered, but your premise here is incredibly weak.

Please provide a source where Obama is quoted as saying he would INVADE Pakistan. All I could find were some sensational headlines without substance to back it up.

Without even being ambushed by a reporter, he made a speech awhile back and broached the hypothetical question of whether he would send U.S. forces into Pakistan if there was intelligence indicating U.S interests were paramount.

It's not smart to run amok with hypotheticals in speeches, and even less smart to threaten to send armed forces into a sovereign country. Especially a nuclear power.

He was trying, as McCain's was doing on his recent trip, to emphasize his 'tough guy' image on foreign policy.

And as McCain has done, he got embroiled in a tempest of his own making.

Funny. There's absolutely nothing in that article about INVASION other than the headline. There's a difference between bombing isolated targets and invasion. Truth has been distorted yet again. Choose your words wisely, Frank. You've been fed the same crap as the rest of the sheeple.

But wait....

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/02/20/...by-bush-in-06/

orrrr.... this? http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...021802500.html

It's more likely that you Americans (left or right) don't understand how the world works.

Sending armed troops into, or bombing targets within another sovereign country's territory is an invasion.
This has been well covered in episodes of Jennifer Garner's Alias. Go buy the box set.

It doesn't matter whether you are looking for Osama Bin Laden or Oscar the Grouch.
It doesn't matter if you think you are the good guys.

It also doesn't matter if it's China, Pakistan or even Grenada.

Obama proposed invading Pakistan if the situation warranted it.
I'm sure a lot of Americans would agree with the sentiment. But call it what it is, which is invasion.

That's the FIRST PARAGRAPH.

So according to your logic... Japan invaded the US for a short time, Turkey has now invaded Iraq.. for a few day? Mexico invade the United States... I remember that, it was frightful. How many hundreds of other "invasions" have occured throughout history? Remember when the Nazi's invaded Britain? Me either. I do remember when they bombed them, though.

You're playing with semantics. A bombing is not an invasion. Obama did not say that he'd invade Pakistan if the situation warranted it. You're spinning it. Apparently even Canadians have their heads up their asses.

Putting aside the specific question of whether bombings of sovereign territory constitutes invasion, you do realize that the article specifically says he would deploy troops into Pakistan right?

Saying he'd redeploy to Afghanistan... and even Pakistan, still does not say that he'd invade. How many troops does it take to make an invasion? If say, we sent 500 special ops into the remote mountains of the Peshawar region where we believe Bin Laden is hiding, does that mean we've invaded Pakistan? 1000? What if it's only 50?

Get real. Show me a quote directly from Obama that says he'd invade Pakistan... otherwise continue to spin it as you will, ignore reality and believe what you want. It's gotten you this far.

Oh my. What part of 'sovereign border' is it that you don't get?
Americans do not get some special pass to "redeploy troops" anywhere they wish.

I agree with you about sovereign borders. I never said I agreed with what Obama proposed. I just disagree with the argument that he said he'd invade. There's a clear cut difference.... and it's not opinion, it's the truth. An incursion across borders is not an invasion. Agree or disagree with the action, but don't prop it up as something it's not.

Incase you ignored my links... OMG, Mexico invaded the United States! Run for the hills!

We've strayed off topic. I'm done with this. Goodnight.

Oh stop. Are we really going to debate that he wanted to invade Pakistan to get bin Laden/AQ? Please. Oh, and ThinkProgress is biased bullshit. Thanks.

[QUOTE=SDW2001;1231656]Oh come on. If anyone understands the Iraq war it's John McCain. You can't possibly even believe what you're saying.



Yes SDW McCain is bullish on the war and in some cases says Bush hasn't done enough. That's one reason why people won't vote for him in Nov. In case you haven't heard this war isn't really popular anymore.

Who is playing games with semantics? You're the one picking apart the meaning of "invasion." Does it really change the meaning if we use "bomb" or "attack" or "temporary military incursion with a really, really good reason?" Of course not. Get real.


Redeploy=retreat. Just say it.


S-E-M-A-N-T-I-C-S. Live it. Learn it. Love it.


OK.
So let's review, in plain language so you can't play games with it. He will consider sending troops into Pakistan with or without permission from Pakistan's government. Use whatever word you like...attack, invade, bomb, whatever...it's the same concept. And it's a fantastically dumb idea. But I'll get to that in a moment....



Why are you mincing words here, especially if you don't agree? Actually, you didn't say either way. I think I can guess what your position is, but I'll ask. Do you favor sending troops to Pakistan, potentially without government permission/sanction?


I promised I'd be back to the "sending troops but not invading but kind of attacking but not invading" thing. Obama says this: (http://thepage.time.com/full-text-of...s-iraq-speech/)


Yes, it actually is. It really, really is. That's the problem. Musharraf is far from ideal, but he's a hell of a lot better than the alternative at the moment. He's already sitting on a powder keg over there, so to speak. Invade ("send troops") and you risk destabilizing his government further.


Here's a question: Why trust the intelligence? What if it turns out we are wrong? I mean, that could never happen.


Yes, it is politics...but it's Obama playing the game, because he's been trying to do what he's been doing all along: Lumping Clinton, Bush and McCain together and casting himself as Teh Change.

Oh, and what part of this does not mean "invade?"

" Redeploy=retreat. Just say it. "

Let's just say we need to leave.

Get it while you can!

And just like any real red-blooded Republican never "retreats" from a war no matter what the prognosis, likewise, SDW never "retreats" from a losing argument... or election.

Call it what you will. Retreat. Redeploy. Exit. It's what needs to be done. Will there be some chaos? Yes. Will there be problems. Yes. But there IS chaos now. We're just exchanging one kind of chaos that involves US troops for one kind that doesn't. Sounds like a much better plan.

But then why don't people like SDW or Nick approve of such a plan? Because they are so afraid of admitting any sort of failure (and therefore appearing "weak") that they don't know when it's time to say the whole thing was a mistake. This is the worst kind of coward.

But you know what? It's also time to "retreat" from the Republican Party as it stands. Support Ron Paul. Support Hillary. Support Obama. Support Gore. Support Kucinich or Gravel. The Republican Party as it stands, including McCain, Huckabee, Romney and all the other "usual suspects" is a failure. It's time to admit it. And adjust.

Um... the part where, as explained ad nauseum (are you dense or in denial?) that sending 50 special forces troops on a crack mission or sending a targeted bombing run IS NOT A FUCKING INVASION!!!!! whether the sovereign is complicit or not.

Yes and that evil CBS news, a known right-wing megaphone dismissed it as a gaffe. I mean you and I both saw the policy position paper, the website issue page, and demand for inclusion into the party platform of the view that Iran and Al Qaeda are working together.

Or... maybe....just maybe... it was a gaffe.


What did I miss then because all I have see is three different links to the same news conference where Lieberman corrected him for misspeaking.


How dare you suggest we eat meatloaf in Trumpetland. No ice cream sundaes for you. You also forgot to add the part whereby we reenact the draft with a special exclusion from conscription tax so that I don't go and you do.

Isn't imagining fun?


Well your view is....patheticer....and stuff. Oh and it is silly. Fellowship said anything is bad that is silly so your view is very, very bad.


I'm not serious. I'm completely unserious. In fact I am actually paid large sums of money by the powers that be to post stuff I never believe on here so that in replying to it, you are actively kept from changing the world. I'm pretty sure you would have personally created a completely renewable hydrocarbon that can be grown for cents on the dollar and solved the entire world's energy crisis but instead... bwahahahahaha... you are in here asking me if I am serious and so the evil overlords that fund me continue to rape and kill the planet. Bwahahahahahahaha!!!!


I'm glad we agree on this. Oh wait... you were being sarcastic. Eitherway way you can't have it both ways. The press is either "bringing up" stuff about lobbyists in addition to hashing up old and made up stuff or they aren't. They can't magically not bring it up.. but bring it up.


Actually none of those things bother me. It was the whole "and by the way I am doing these things to study poverty" bit that was galling. Also Gore had more to do with his extensive use of private jets when he could use the wonderful internet he invented to video conference instead.

Oh and isn't it totally fun to bring up stuff that isn't even on topic here? BWaRRR!!! John McCain fit to lead? BWaRR!! Edwards, and Gore equal da eval bad!!!


They probably are all paid for by the 527 groups like on the left so they don't know how to bring it up without condemning their own side as well.


Absolutely and we don't have meatloaf as well!


I wish, you wish, we all wish, but not likely.


Of course singing bomb Iran is silliness..

YouTube

How serious does it look and sound there? Hear all the serious press laughing?

Oh course Obama is VERY SERIOUS here.

Look at that evil right-winger Ellen. She clearly has him punching a speed bag to make people think he is violent and has him swaying his hips to make white people think of him as an oversexualized black man who is going to rape their white daughters. Then she pays him off with an $800 bribe at the end....

Or...perhaps it is just silliness.


We all know what you are saying. You never say anything else. I think your posts must be a keyboard macro.


See what I mean?

Jimmac. You don't have to act senile in hopes that in noticing the traits in you, we will see them in McCain.

Frank777:

invasion
1: an act of invading; especially : incursion of an army for conquest or plunder 2: the incoming or spread of something usually hurtful

Doesn't fit.

invade
1: to enter for conquest or plunder2: to encroach upon : infringe3 a: to spread over or into as if invading : permeate <doubts invade his mind> b: to affect injuriously and progressively <gangrene invades healthy tissue>

Doesn't fit.


SDW:


Of course it changes the meaning, that's why we have different words in our language.

Clarifying that Obama never advocated the invasion of Pakistan when all he advocated were targeted attacks is semantic, yes, just like clarifying that a boxer's intention is to "punch" his opponent and not "kill" him.


Was the killing of Abu Laith al Libi in February "fantastically dumb"?

If we get a shot at Osama bin Laden and we take it, killing the man responsible for 9/11, that would be "fantastically dumb"?

I take issue with the code word "redeploy." As you may know, I favor a phased withdrawal over a period of time, beginning sometime this year. I do not favor a total pullout within 90 days or something similar. If Obama wants to say "let's get out now" then he should do it. Don't give me this "redeploy" crap. For all your bashing of "red blooded Republicans" not wanting to look weak, it seems to me that Democrats are the ones afraid to admit that they want retreat and defeat. They crave it. Why? Because "we can't win." Oh, and let's not forget that failure in Iraq is good for the Democratic party. Can't leave that tidbit out.

Is that what Obama proposed? And either way, it doesn't matter. "US Troops Attacking Within Pakistan"....let's see how that headline plays in the Arab world. Would it be less inflammatory than a 10,000 man incursion? Yes. Is it still dangerous? Yes.

He favors sending troops into Pakistan without their government's consent. Now tell me that's a good idea.


And that was against Pakistani will? I've got real money that says their government has agreed to those types of strikes. What I am talking about is actions without Pakistani approval--even tacit approval. In other words, we get "actionable intelligence" that says person A is in place X, and Pakistan says "don't go in." We should do it anyway? Is that your position?


Actually, I think it might be. My personal theory (and that's all it is) is that we know exactly where he is. He may even know that we know where he is. If we kill him, we martyr him. If we capture him, he becomes whole new cause...a live martyr if you will. So yeah, it might actually be fantastically dumb.

um... I think so, yeah

Good...find it.

It's a far better idea than invading a whole country to target one man (like Iraq). I think Musharraf would understand. In fact I think Musharraf would secretly approve.

SDW:

retreat
1 a (1): an act or process of withdrawing especially from what is difficult, dangerous, or disagreeable (2): the process of receding from a position or state attained <the retreat of a glacier> b (1): the usually forced withdrawal of troops from an enemy or from an advanced position (2): a signal for retreating c (1): a signal given by bugle at the beginning of a military flag-lowering ceremony (2): a military flag-lowering ceremony2: a place of privacy or safety : refuge3: a period of group withdrawal for prayer, meditation, study, or instruction under a director

1a(1) seems the most applicable here.
The removal of troops wouldn't be "forced" in the traditional sense. We're not even among an enemy in a traditional sense. And since we're just sitting inside cities we don't even have advanced positions (in the traditional sense).

So retreat doesn't really work. It fits in some ways (mainly tone and feel), but there are very big holes.

redeploy
transitive verb
: to transfer from one area or activity to another intransitive verb : to relocate men or equipment

That fits very well. But it doesn't really get the feel. Unfortunately, the feel is completely subjective. I think someone could use "retreat" and mean it in the sense of an ignominious defeat; a beaten Army turning tail and fleeing. I can understand that; we've gotten our asses kicked pretty thoroughly in Iraq. Not in the traditional way, of course, but there's almost nothing traditional about what we're doing now.

So to think about what word applies best you have to think about the use. When would our troops leaving not be considered retreat? This is where the use of the word falls down, because it is revealed that we don't really have specific goals in the first place. Our war in Iraq is very loosely defined in its mission and purpose, and as such our "advanced positions" are not in any way fixed.

The use of the word "retreat" in this context is purely an emotional one, because redeploy wins the day on pure logic. The idea is to move the vast majority of our force out of Iraq and to redeploy them within safer areas to act as response forces instead of occupation forces.

You can dismiss that mission if you like, but I think it's a good one that gives us a chance to breathe and gives the people of Iraq a chance to start shaping their future without us as an occupying army.


It could be, depending on the situation.


It doesn't matter whether or not it was against "Pakistani will". I don't care.


Absolutely. If Pakistan will willingly harbor the perpetrator of 9/11 Musharraf should count himself lucky he doesn't find his palaces and government buildings flattened by stealth bombers.

It seems that some have lost the thread, the purpose of this entire fiasco. Never forget, indeed.


I wouldn't pretend to understand the wider terrorist mind that much. And I don’t really care about that side. All I know is this man is responsible for 9/11 and needs to be brought to justice. Letting him roam free for some vague psych warfare stunt is wrong.

No. You're the one who challenged it. Find the proof that that's not what he meant.

McCain gets closer to the Presidency every day. The last few weeks have been bad for the Dems. The right will continue to bring Obama's much touted "judgment" into question. They will continue to paint him as America-hating and as someone white people can't trust. Could Obama be sympathetic to the terrorists? The charge is coming, trust me.

Meanwhile, McCain and Cheney visit Iraq and OBL sends out a new tape reminding us of the terrorist threat. Carl Rove is pulling the strings from somewhere. Tuff campaign ahead for the Dems.

OH MY GOD! ALERT THE PRESSES! AN AMERICAN PRESIDENT MIGHT ACTUALLY MEET WITH A CANDIAN PRESIDENT!

SOUND THE ALARMS! WE MUST STOP THIS FROM HAPPENING. IT IS THE WORST BLUNDER EVER!

Oh, and Bush already bombed Pakistan with drones. Doh!

Yes, it does. Definition No. 1: the act of invading.

What is being invaded here? A: A sovereign border.

This board has been the subject of much debate on why liberals can't get their message out to America while even reckless conservative ideas seem to dominate public discourse with impunity.

And this example shows precisely why.

Whether you approve or not, a hard-core U.S. conservative will look people to their face and say they would violate national sovereignty and invade a country if their country's interests are a stake.

A liberal, on the other hand, will engage in a deceptive, roundabout discussion on why only Republicans do invasions and the nice peaceable Democrats will just send 50 troops across a border in a limited way. As though that makes any difference.

Like Clinton under oath, it's important to go over the definition of basic words and redefine them for their own silly purposes.

While a surgical strike is different from an occupation, they are both invasions of a country's national sovereignty.

In that respect, it makes little difference if it's Bush sending drones into Pakistan or Clinton firing cruise missiles at random African factories.