McCain Has No Idea Who Funds al Qaeda Groups?

[Nickdfresh]

Obama belittles McCain for confusing extremists

By Caren Bohan1 hour, 37 minutes ago

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama belittled Republican John McCain on Wednesday for misidentifying Iraqi extremists, saying he fails to understand the war has emboldened U.S. enemies.

On the fifth anniversary of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, Democrats Obama and New York Sen. Hillary Clinton both pledged to withdraw U.S. troops speedily from Iraq if either of them is elected in November, while McCain held firm to his position that a troop build-up was paying off and should be maintained.

At the same time, Clinton responded to charges that she is overly secretive by allowing the release of more than 11,000 pages of her daily schedule from 1993-2001 when she was U.S. first lady to President Bill Clinton.

The release was also intended to promote her argument that she gained valuable White House experience during her years as first lady.

The documents provided information on many of the events and meetings she attended. Absent was any detail on what was discussed.

"They are a guide, and of course cannot reflect all of Senator Clinton's activities as first lady," the Clinton campaign said.

McCain, the 71-year-old Arizona senator who touts his national security experience as a main reason why he should be elected, gave Democrats a line of attack to use against him on Tuesday.

On a Middle East and Europe swing, he got tangled up in stating which Islamic extremist group in Iraq that Iran is accused of supporting.

At a news conference in Amman, McCain said Iran supported the Sunni group al Qaeda in Iraq, until he was corrected by a colleague. U.S. officials believe Iran has been backing Shi'ite extremists in Iraq, not a Sunni group like al Qaeda.

It was the first stumble of note that McCain has made since clinching the Republican presidential nomination early this month.

"Just yesterday, we heard Senator McCain confuse Sunni and Shi'ite, Iran and al Qaeda," Obama said.

"Maybe that is why he voted to go to war with a country that had no al Qaeda ties. Maybe that is why he completely fails to understand that the war in Iraq has done more to embolden America's enemies than any strategic choice that we have made in decades," the Illinois senator said.

He also mocked McCain's oft-stated vow to follow Osama bin Laden to "the gates of hell" if elected, arguing the U.S. focus should have been on Afghanistan and Pakistan instead of Iraq.

"We have a security gap when candidates say they will follow Osama bin Laden to the gates of hell but refuse to follow him where he actually goes," Obama said.

On a visit to Detroit, Clinton reiterated her position that the United States could start withdrawing troops within 60 days of her taking office, and she said it was up to the Iraqis to take responsibility for their country's future.

"We cannot win their civil war. There is no military solution," she said at a quickly arranged stop to push for a repeat of Michigan's presidential nominating contest, which had been disqualified because it violated party rules.

McCain, who strongly supported President George W. Bush's troop increase a year ago, said in a statement the United States and its allies "stand on the precipice of winning a major victory against radical Islamic extremism."

"The security gains over the past year have been dramatic and undeniable.

And this time, he got the extremist identification correct.

"Al Qaeda and Shi'ite extremists -- with support from external powers such as Iran -- are on the run but not defeated," he said.

Yahoo/Reuters (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080319/pl_nm/usa_politics_dc&printer=1)

(Additional reporting by Jeff Mason and Andy Sullivan, writing by Steve Holland, editing by David Wiessler)



Didn't the Republicans jump all over a Democrat for making a similar error when he took a senior position on the Intelligence Committee?

[Deklon]

LMAO! This is one of the best one's yet. The guy making fun of McCain for make an obvious speaking MISTAKE, had recently uttered..."well, if Al Qaeda ever tries to organize in Iraq..." Too funny.

[Nickdfresh]

Um, when did he say that?

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Deklon
LMAO! This is one of the best one's yet. The guy making fun of McCain for make an obvious speaking MISTAKE,


:rolleyes:

A "mistake" he uttered 3 times in 5 minutes, even after being prodded for clarification from a reporter, and didnt "correct" himself until Joe LIEberman helped him. :rolleyes:

McCain is either a FOOL, or an OLD MAN going SENILE.

Either way, he's the RePuke candidate. :D

Enjoy 2008, sheep.

:gulp:

[Cathedral]

Again, this country will be driven by a blind man (or woman) for the next 4 years at least.
Outsourcing, and the Republicans support of it keeps me from voting that way.
Universal Health care we'll be forced to pay for that won't be worth a FUCK keeps me from voting that way.

Either way, we're fucked even worse than even MY fucked up brain can imagine.

Obama, seems to be the lesser of ALL evil's but still, he isn't the answer.

I don't fucking know which way to turn anymore. I just go to work and try to keep it together. trying my best NOT to waste my money and put as much as humanly possible away for when the shit storm of all shit storms rolls in.
The Corporations have all of Washington consumed in choking the life out of America and seeing to it that some day very soon those outsourced products that come back in to be sold will find there are no longer any buyers that can afford them.

Then what?

The mass stupidity simply amazes me, and the storm is on the horizon.
I honestly believe that it doesn't matter who wins the White House anymore...It's furnished with MADE IN CHINA.

[LoungeMachine]

Are you better off today, than you were 8 years ago?

Are you proud of where the Republicans have led this country?

Do you trust them with another term?


There IS a difference, Catheter.

Call it the lesser of two evils if it helps, but in no way can we allow another republican Administration.


You guys have lost your way.

:gulp:

[kwame k]

Originally posted by Cathedral

The Corporations have all of Washington consumed in choking the life out of America and seeing to it that some day very soon those outsourced products that come back in to be sold will find there are no longer any buyers that can afford them.


Exactly! We all run to Wal Mart and buy cheap shit. Mom and pop stores are a dying breed. I live in “Unionville, USA” where people have bumper stickers that read “out of a job yet, keep buying foreign.”

The hypocrisy kills me. No one, not me or you buys American. Not that we have a choice. The computer you are typing on is foreign made, so is mine. Remember after 9/11 all the pseudo-patriots, American flags attached to your windows, the lapel pins of the American flag, where were they made? China, you know them Repukes, a communist fucking country. You are the true patriots. The clothes we wear, the TV we watch, the cell phone we talk on, and 90% of all our daily products are foreign made.

In the words of your Messiah Bush, “Mission Accomplished”

We have had 7+ years of a Corporate Serving Administration. We have allowed the Greedy few who only care about The Almighty Dollar to fuck this country right in the Exit Hole.



Then what?

The mass stupidity simply amazes me, and the storm is on the horizon.
I honestly believe that it doesn't matter who wins the White House anymore...It's furnished with MADE IN CHINA.
I'm glad I'm not alone on my point of view. I'm really starting to understand the term "sheep" you guys keep using.

Now back to the topic of this thread........................

[kwame k]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
Are you better off today, than you were 8 years ago?

Are you proud of where the Republicans have led this country?

Do you trust them with another term?


There IS a difference, Catheter.

Call it the lesser of two evils if it helps, but in no way can we allow another republican Administration.


You guys have lost your way.

:gulp:


I agree with you Lounge. There I said it, OK!!! Ouch, it’s painful to say you’re right :D

How a human being with an IQ higher than a Chia Pet can even think we would be better off with “4 more years” is beyond this camper’s ability to comprehend.

My choice is hanging by a thread. If Hillbilly can figure out a way to steal the nomination, I’m screwed.
No matter how much I want a Democrat in the Top Job, my conscience can not allow me to vote for her.

Almost back on topic....................

[kwame k]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh



It was the first stumble of note that McCain has made since clinching the Republican presidential nomination early this month.

"Just yesterday, we heard Senator McCain confuse Sunni and Shi'ite, Iran and al Qaeda," Obama said.

"Maybe that is why he voted to go to war with a country that had no al Qaeda ties. Maybe that is why he completely fails to understand that the war in Iraq has done more to embolden America's enemies than any strategic choice that we have made in decades," the Illinois senator said.

He also mocked McCain's oft-stated vow to follow Osama bin Laden to "the gates of hell" if elected, arguing the U.S. focus should have been on Afghanistan and Pakistan instead of Iraq.

"We have a security gap when candidates say they will follow Osama bin Laden to the gates of hell but refuse to follow him where he actually goes," Obama said.


Nice burn Obama!
This dude gets it.
How can you read Obama's retort and not come away with respect for the guy? Short and concise. Sums up the mistakes of Repukes in a sound bite.

[steve]

Obama and Hillary are totally PANDERING regarding troop withdrawals. Plain and simple, they will only make token troop reductions if at all - the risks of withdrawing outweigh the risks of staying for the time being, everyone knows it but no one in O or H's camp will admit it until the prelims are over.

At least McCain is being frank, albiet he mis-spoke here.

(and don't no one go all "Airplane" on me...)

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by steve
Obama and Hillary are totally PANDERING regarding troop withdrawals. Plain and simple, they will only make token troop reductions if at all - the risks of withdrawing outweigh the risks of staying for the time being, everyone knows it but no one in O or H's camp will admit it until the prelims are over.

At least McCain is being frank, albiet he mis-spoke here.

(and don't no one go all "Airplane" on me...)

They're pandering?

McCain is pandering to the fear market...

And what are the risks of a large withdrawal? and completely redefinition of the US role in Iraq, and the wider Middle East (which is what I think both Obama and Clinton will do...)

I agree they're bringing everyone home, but there will be a large reduction and the US will gradually whittle away from the current mission amounts to peacekeeping, and a more direct and ruthless for hunting the actual threats over there...

[steve]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
They're pandering?

McCain is pandering to the fear market...


H and O are pandering to the idea that if we leave that everything will be fine...pandering to the best case scenario...just like George Bush and his cronies did when we first went in (flowers in the streets, democracy spreading to the mideast, oil revenues, etc etc.).

Worst case scenario is a power vaccuum, genocide of Sunni Muslims and iraqi Christians, larger regional war, oil at $200 or more a barrel, $10 a gallon gas, world econcomic collapse...the list goes on.

If you're talking about the "follow us home" unlogic - I'm with you there, that is not the issue and is a scare tactic. But there are a lot of code words for that and I don't hear those words coming from McCain - I feel he's been more honest on the practicality of things there.

Bottom line - BushCo FUCKED us...fucked this country in more ways than one. But it's no time to bury one's head in the sand and ignore potential consequences of actions in a desparate effort to go in the opposite direction of mistakes past - there are more than two choices to make (aka it's not as simple as we shouldn't have gone there, so let's get out of there). I wish it was.

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by steve
H and O are pandering to the idea that if we leave that everything will be fine....

Really?

Link please.

Please post a link to a single article, interview, or news release from EITHER candidate that says in ANY effect "once we leave, things will be fine"

Do it.

You can't.

Because they've NEVER said it.

Turn off the Hannity, dipshit. :rolleyes:



Better yet, define a "victory" in Iraq.

What can we do militarily at this point?

I love the whole: We cant leave, theres too much violence....

to the: We can't leave, the violence is down!!!!


You clowns said 2 years ago once the Iraqis had their elections, and saddam was tried, all would be well.


Just wake up and smell the shit for once.

WE ARE THERE BECAUSE THE NEO-CONS WANT TO BE THERE.

Has nothing to do with WMD, freedom, Democracy, or The Middle East Peace.

It's about power, oil, and revenge for the Chimp.

But back to my original point.


BACK UP YOUR STATEMENT WITH A SHRED OF FACT.

[steve]

Come on, man. No need for ¡§dipshit¡¨ comments and such. And for the record I despise Sean Hannity and Faux News. I¡¦m just a Democrat who happens to be on the blue side of every single issue known to mankind except whether or not H and O are being:
a. practical about a withdrawal
b. and honest about what ¡§withdrawal¡¨ means in order to placate the party line.

You can challenge me to define ¡§fine¡¨ but I challenge you to give me one example where Hillary and Obama have given a speech or engaged in a debate regarding the worst case scenario consequences of a full withdrawal.

If we ¡§leave¡¨ (a moving target of a definition being that H and O and their foreign policy gurus are saying different things ¡V pragmatic things ¡V behind the scenes to generals and other countries newspapers) we have to be honest with the American people about what might happen.

After American soldiers and American news media left southeast asia, we may have been immune and ignorant of the mass genocides that took place in Vietnam and Cambodia after we left (except for those crazy boat people!) but if it happens in Iraq it will be in our faces and everyone elses around the world. Fair or not, we'll probably be blamed for violence there if we leave.

and $200+ a barrel oil isn¡¦t some greedy abstract wherebye that Exxon CEO that looks like a pig will get more money, it means poor people in this country and abroad will get slammed ¡V the cost of everything will skyrocket (especially FOOD) and the bottom feeders will feel it most. It¡¦s a damn shame the war WAS/IS all about oil¡Kbut we have to be realistic about it¡Kdipshit ƒº.

[LoungeMachine]

Blah, blah, blah......




Originally posted by steve
H and O are pandering to the idea that if we leave that everything will be fine...

You made the statement [strawman]

Either you can back it up, or admit you're just parroting RNC talking points.

Because the TRUTH is, and God knows I'm no fan of Shrillary....

NEITHER CANDIDATE HAS INTIMATED WHAT YOU CLAIM.

So if you're going to ride your high horse in here, at least back up your argument.

:gulp:

And while you're at it, feel free to define a "win", and under what circumstance you'd leave.

If not now, when?

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by steve
H and O are pandering to the idea that if we leave that everything will be fine...

Firstly, I disagree that they're "pandering" that much at all. Neither has definitively stated that they would withdraw all US troops and have been criticized on the anti-War left for playing with semantics. Actually, their options are very open at this point...


Worst case scenario is a power vaccuum, genocide of Sunni Muslims and iraqi Christians, larger regional war, oil at $200 or more a barrel, $10 a gallon gas, world econcomic collapse...the list goes on.

Doubtful. Firstly, Iraq already effectively is an ethnically divided vacuum. The Sunni's are much better fighters than the Shiites are collectively, and the US is already paying the Sunnis who were once insurgents, providing them weapons (which our Shiite "friends" hate) and will continue to do so...

One of the seedy underpinnings of the Surge is that it began after most of the ethnic cleansing had already taken place, and all of the mixed neighborhoods had already become homogeneous...

And, we're essentially propping up a gov't that undermines our interests, steals from their own people, has conducted a naked pogrom of death squad'ism, and generally balks at any sort of national reconciliation --of which is the central underpinning of "The Surge's" purported counterinsurgency doctrine endgame.

In short, we can't "win" anything because they refuse to reconcile because they simply do not have too...

Our most successful campaign there has been to cynically undermine the idiotic al Qaeda ideology of mass violence to spur a general uprising...

Mission fucking Accomplished! (most) of our kids can come home now, and the rest can redeploy to areas that allow them to effectively guard against a resurgence of al Qaeda. We'll do what everybody else does, use our money, and firepower when necessary, to back our new Sunni proxies...

And the Shiites can let Iran rebuild them with the super Iranian economic juggernaut run by the ultra-competent mullahs and Assholemedjad in Tehran...


If you're talking about the "follow us home" unlogic - I'm with you there, that is not the issue and is a scare tactic. But there are a lot of code words for that and I don't hear those words coming from McCain - I feel he's been more honest on the practicality of things there.


I'm talking about that, but I am also talking about the whole "victory or defeat" polemic that McCain and his little war cronies employ --failing to realize that there is no such thing as an "unconditional surrender" moment in the imperial projections of force and that their mindless, faulty, WWII analogies do not apply. More apt ones would be the British colonial experience we're they simply pulled out when things weren't working and concentrated and shifted to what was working, and the whole "face" of victory or defeat had little to do with it...

The only 'victory' to these disingenuous people is the ability to occupy Iraq indefinitely without taking too many casualties. Exxon-Mobil's corporate logo is the flag they are raising in the little Mt. Suribachi of Baghdad, and they're pretending that its not about securing oil contracts for American companies, which is what their kids are dying for at this point...


Bottom line - BushCo FUCKED us...fucked this country in more ways than one. But it's no time to bury one's head in the sand and ignore potential consequences of actions in a desparate effort to go in the opposite direction of mistakes past - there are more than two choices to make (aka it's not as simple as we shouldn't have gone there, so let's get out of there). I wish it was.

It's also not the time to pretend that the "surge" was somehow just the result of sending more troops over there. The Sunni (insurgent) militias are now on our dole, and the Shiite-gov't tied militias, like the Mahdi Army, are just biding their time, getting rid of their dead weight and training to become the actual new Iraqi army, and the official one, and to a much greater extent the police, are still just shells that would quickly collapse the minute they didn't have US firepower and logistics to back them up.

That is a fucking ridiculous situation and completely unacceptable since we've now been there longer than our entire involvement of WWII...

There comes a time where it is NOT OUR responsibility as we're being undermined. There comes a time where others need to take responsibility, and we need to stop shielding them from the consequences rather than hoping they'll gradually 'play ball.'

[Baby's On Fire]

Originally posted by kwame k
Exactly! We all run to Wal Mart and buy cheap shit. Mom and pop stores are a dying breed. I live in “Unionville, USA” where people have bumper stickers that read “out of a job yet, keep buying foreign.”

The hypocrisy kills me. No one, not me or you buys American. Not that we have a choice. The computer you are typing on is foreign made, so is mine. Remember after 9/11 all the pseudo-patriots, American flags attached to your windows, the lapel pins of the American flag, where were they made? China, you know them Repukes, a communist fucking country. You are the true patriots. The clothes we wear, the TV we watch, the cell phone we talk on, and 90% of all our daily products are foreign made.

In the words of your Messiah Bush, “Mission Accomplished”

We have had 7+ years of a Corporate Serving Administration. We have allowed the Greedy few who only care about The Almighty Dollar to fuck this country right in the Exit Hole.

I'm glad I'm not alone on my point of view. I'm really starting to understand the term "sheep" you guys keep using.

Now back to the topic of this thread........................

I was recently in Miami. Bought some really cool clothes at the Havana Store. Authentic Cuban style.....made in China.

[knuckleboner]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
Blah, blah, blah......





Either you can back it up, or admit you're just parroting RNC talking points.




steve's definitely no parrot for the right.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by steve
...
After American soldiers and American news media left southeast asia, we may have been immune and ignorant of the mass genocides that took place in Vietnam and Cambodia after we left (except for those crazy boat people!) but if it happens in Iraq it will be in our faces and everyone elses around the world. Fair or not, we'll probably be blamed for violence there if we leave.
...

Steve, I have a problem with stuff like this -- pseudo-historical Vietnam War myths oft repeated enough becoming the "truth."

The actual historical evidence, that right wing revisionists on Vietnam would choose to ignore who have evidently confused you, is that the Cambodian genocide by Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge can largely be laid that the US's door for our shitty policies as well as the North and South Vietnamese. What actually happened was the Royal Cambodian Army under Sihanouk was able to contain the Khmer Reds. But the problem was that the North Vietnamese Army was using Cambodia as a staging base, and the Cambodian Army mostly ignored them because they had a fraction of the firepower and were "neutral." The Cambodian Army was a a decent force, but no where near the combat power of the NVA. But the US began pressuring him and Sihanouk was deposed in a CIA orchestrated coup and a new, aggressive commander, Lon Nol, began fighting both the Khmers and the NVA in after the US enticed him with promises they could not keep. His army was shattered and could not hold out against the tanks and artillery of the NVA and the Khmer Rouge then took power.

The Vietnamese communists also notably deposed the Khmers in an invasion after the US left Indochina. And while I am no fan of the Hanoi regimes, they weren't all that much worse than the corrupt, repressive successive Saigon cunts we supported, who also conducted wholesale atrocities of their own at the end of the War by throwing captives out of the back of C-130s right before the fall of the RVN in 1975...

Vietnam today is a stable, fastly becoming prosperous country. It's hard to argue that, but they are gradually becoming more and more democratic...

[Guitar Shark]

Originally posted by knuckleboner
steve's definitely no parrot for the right.

Nope. steve is good people.

In my opinion there needs to be a LOT less namecalling in here.

Fags.

[Nickdfresh]

I couldn't agree more.

We need to be more civil and less partisan in our discourse...

Nice fucking candy-ass fantasy basketball team though...

[Little Lamont]

It breaks my heart to say this, but McCain is our next president. I don't believe for one minute that America as a whole would ever actually elect a woman or a black man. You can bet brother Obama has my vote but it's just one fuckin vote.

[kwame k]

Nick and Steve are both bringing good points to the table.
I don't think we are going to hear a definitive exit strategy from Obama or Clinton until the DNC announces who the Democratic Nominee is.

Remember right now Clinton and Obama are fighting a political war on two fronts. One is against each other for the nomination and the other is against their Republican opponent. The McCain issue is easy. He is for maintaining the status quo. Obama and Clinton are not going to give any concrete plan of withdrawal, yet. That would give McCain months of preparation for the fight that will start later.

Even then I think neither one is going to give us any more than a generalized War is bad, we need to End The War, Bad War, Rhetoric. Why would you?

Politically, the most expedient comments would be;
“I will bring back the troops when it can be done in a controlled manner to guarantee the safety of our troops during a withdrawal. I will consult with the Experts, the General and Commanders on the ground, ask them to give me a time table for an effective and realistic reduction of troops. I will make significant reductions the Top Priority of this administration but only after the recommendations of the Commanders have been reviewed.”

Here’s a little cut and paste job from all three sides.
We have two different point views, when it comes to troops, in Iraq.
Republican:

“Mr McCain repeated his long-held view that it would be a mistake "if the US precipitously withdrew our forces.
"The victors in that pullout would be the extremists and America would lose its credibility."

Mr McCain, who supported the war from the beginning, will continue on the same track as Mr Bush.
Mr McCain's political comeback, after he was practically written off as a candidate last year, is attributed by some observers in part to the success of the surge in Iraq, which the senator had strongly supported.
He has also warned that a quick withdrawal could lead to "genocide".

“Mr McCain supports what is known as population protection policy, with a strong presence of US troops on the ground, in neighbourhoods, to deny insurgents a stronghold.
On his campaign website, Mr McCain says the ultimate goal of the US is to give the Iraqi people the ability to govern themselves.
There are not many more details about the number of troops expected to stay or to leave during a McCain presidency - it depends on developments in Iraq, but it is likely to involve only a very gradual withdrawal, keeping tens of thousands of troops in Iraq for the years to come.”

“In his own speech to mark the five years after the start of the war that removed Saddam Hussein, Mr Bush reiterated that the "battle in Iraq" was necessary, and made clear he would not order any further drawdown of troops, beyond those already planned.”

“Washington Post columnist David Ignatius wrote last month that the Bush administration would keep troop levels in Iraq high, until the November election, "because that would open the next administration's bargaining on troop levels at a higher level - and allow the next president to cut troops without getting down to a bare-bones level that might be dangerous".
“Democrats have accused Mr Bush of trying to tie the hands of the next administration by establishing a fait-accompli on the ground, including permanent bases and a long term agreement of principles with the Iraqi government.
The administration has denied seeking permanent bases in Iraq.”

Obama:

“The Illinois senator has been the clearest about the fact that he wants out and has often repeated he would withdraw all troops within 16 months, leaving behind a residual force that would protect the US mission, help train Iraqi forces and possibly deal with threats from al-Qaeda.
Mr O'Hanlon argues it is unclear whether the mission of a small residual force would still make sense after the withdrawal of most combat troops, as "Iraq might be disintegrating by then".
The most recent caveat to Mr Obama's policy came from his now-former foreign policy advisor Samantha Powers, who said in a BBC interview that Mr Obama "will, of course, not rely on some plan that he's crafted as a presidential candidate or a US Senator.”
"He will rely upon a plan - an operational plan - that he pulls together in consultation with people who are on the ground to whom he doesn't have daily access now... It would be the height of ideology to sort of say, 'Well, I said it, therefore I'm going to impose it on whatever reality greets me'."

“Ms Powers resigned after calling Mrs Clinton "a monster" but she also took a lot of heat for the Iraq comment, although it was seen by many as a pragmatic, realistic assessment of policy making.
Just before, Mr Obama had repeated: "I will bring this war to an end in 2009, so don't be confused."

Clinton:

“Mrs Clinton's plan does not give an end time for the withdrawal of troops.
This gives her wiggle room to adjust to changing realities on the ground. “
“The New York senator voted for the war and recently said she would not have supported the conflict if she knew what she knows now.
She argues often that she has what it takes to be commander-in-chief and will be ready from day one.
Mrs Clinton says she will start bringing troops home within 60 days of her inauguration - a risky move if she goes too fast, according to some observers who say that this could undermine Iraq's legislative elections that are due towards the end of 2009.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7306018.stm

[Guitar Shark]

Originally posted by Little Lamont
It breaks my heart to say this, but McCain is our next president.

You are correct.

http://www.theonion.com/content/video/diebold_accidentally_leaks

[kwame k]

Originally posted by Little Lamont
It breaks my heart to say this, but McCain is our next president. I don't believe for one minute that America as a whole would ever actually elect a woman or a black man. You can bet brother Obama has my vote but it's just one fuckin vote.

Well this lilly white ass cracker hiding behind a black avatar, is voting Obama:D You're not alone now two fucking votes dude!!

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Little Lamont
It breaks my heart to say this, but McCain is our next president. I don't believe for one minute that America as a whole would ever actually elect a woman or a black man. You can bet brother Obama has my vote but it's just one fuckin vote.

You maybe right...

But you forgot really, really oolllllddd white man....

I know 71 isn't all that old nowadays, but McCain's head is slowly morphing into a turnip...

And he'll be 75 by the end of his term. That's fine for many jobs, but Jesus, the presidency ages everyone...

[kwame k]

Originally posted by Guitar Shark
Nope. steve is good people.

In my opinion there needs to be a LOT less namecalling in here.

Fags.

Steve's bringing good points to the table!!!!

I agree with all the name calling.
Shut up you insignificant piss ants, fagot-ity ass fagots.
Jerks!

[LoungeMachine]

I just want the pissant to back up his statement that said Shrillary or Barack are saying "everything's going to be rosey" if we leave.


Provide the link, and I'll apologize to the fucking dumbass ;)

We get enough of this bullshit from the Neo-Con Shitbags.

:gulp:

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by kwame k
Steve's bringing good points to the table!!!!


As well as bullshit talking points !!!!!!!!1


Originally posted by kwame k


I agree with all the name calling.




So do I, cracker.

:gulp:

[kwame k]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
As well as bullshit talking points !!!!!!!!1



So do I, cracker.

:gulp:
Well fuck if we all agreed here it would be like love fest '08 and boring.

Ya all better be bringing some cheese if you gonna be calling me cracker, cracker:D

I agree that keeping 140,000 plus troops is fucking stoopid but how do we correct the cluster fuck that Bush, Inc. has created. Will Bush make long term military posts and binding agreements if it’s clear that McCain will not win the election? This cat is a fucking sanctimonious bastard and I wouldn’t put it past this administration to hamstring the Democrats if they win.

I know, I know Bush doing something for the betterment of Bush, Inc. and not the people seems far fetched.

It’s the how or better yet, the how many troops that is the issue. Do we keep a token force for training the Iraqis, the gradual reduction of our forces, stabilizing the puppet power we have installed, or do we just say, “fuck it we’re outta here.” As much as I am an opinionated bastard, on this one I can’t seem to make a choice.

Do we fight this conflict as a gorilla war or tribal conflict? CIA or Charlie Wilson it. Leave our special forces there to fight, so we have an unencumbered flexible force that can adapt to the ever changing situation?

The thing that pisses me off about the whole square dance is there has never been an exit strategy. No one right now is having talks about an exit strategy. They are just saying we need to go. I understand why the Democrats can not give details right now, they are not in the top job, yet. I still wonder what would be the larger ramifications of an immediate withdrawal.

Granted, it’s not going to come to fruition unless Obama or Hill-billy-ary are elected but what is the best way?

[Nickdfresh]

BTW, I'd like to ask guys like Steve (whose posts I like BTW), why is it that we are responsible saving the Iraqis from themselves and if "genocide?"

BTW, US troops stood by and watched genocide in 1991 as Bush 41 cordially invited the Iraqi Shiites to rise up against Saddam, then watched them get cut down by his attack helicopters and tanks...

I'm not advocating that we stand by and watch this of course. But lets not pretend that the US doesn't all ready have significant blood on its hands, especially since 600,000 have died, and the Iraqi civil war of ethnic cleansing was already largely fought on our watch of occupation...

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by kwame k



The thing that pisses me off about the whole square dance is there has never been an exit strategy.



And there it is.

Remember Rummy claiming we'd be there 6 months?

And Bush CO claiming the Iraqi Oil Revenues would pay for the rebuilding, and no more than 60 Billion out of OUR pockets?

Coalititon of the Willing
We're there because of 9/11
Mushroom clouds
Nuclear Wepons
WMD
Chemical
Fight them there, not here
Freedom is on the march
Bring em on
Saddam bad man
Elections!!!!!
Abu Grahib
The Surge
We can't leave now, there's too much violence
We can't leave now, there's too little violence


5 YEARS LATER, WE'RE PAYING 800,000 FORMER INSURGENTS NOT TO BOMB US.

Great "surge"


:rolleyes: :( :mad:

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh


BTW, US troops stood by and watched genocide in 1991 as Bush 41 cordially invited the Iraqi Shiites to rise up against Saddam, then watched them get cut down by his attack helicopters and tanks...



Don't forget Bush 41 also told Saddam to go ahead and take back Kuwait, because "The US has no interest in your border conflicts"

We've been playing BOTH sides of this for decades now, and trying to install democracy by force.

We didnt learn a thing from the British and Iraq...

We didnt learn a thing from the Soviets and Afghanistan.

And Chimpy wanted to go in and prove he had a bigger dick than his daddy.

pathetic to see where we are now.

[kwame k]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine

And Bush CO claiming the Iraqi Oil Revenues would pay for the rebuilding, and no more than 60 Billion out of OUR pockets?

:rolleyes: :( :mad:


What are you saying, Lounge? That our President Lied? A hidden agenda?

Hmmmmmmmmmm...............

The war for oil.......Mission Failed!!! For now.

Considering oil production is not even at Pre-War levels.
More money is being generated but remember the cost of oil per barrel has gone up. You can not look at yearly revenue, you have to look at barrels per day or year.

Most people can agree we went to Iraq for oil interests but if we went there only for oil Bush Blew It, again.

“The primary evidence indicating that the Bush administration coveted Iraqi oil from the start comes from two diverse but impeccably reliable sources: Paul O'Neill, the Treasury Secretary (2001-2003) under President George W. Bush; and Falah Al Jibury, a well-connected Iraqi-American oil consultant, who had acted as President Ronald Reagan's "back channel" to Iraqi President Saddam Hussein during the Iraq-Iran War of 1980-88. The secondary evidence is from the material that can be found in such publications as the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal. According to O'Neill's memoirs, The Price of Loyalty: George W. Bush, the White House, and the Education of Paul O'Neill, written by journalist Ron Suskind and published in 2004, the top item on the agenda of the National Security Council's first meeting after Bush entered the Oval Office was Iraq. That was January 30, 2001, more than seven months before the 9/11 attacks. The next National Security Council (NSC) meeting on February 1st was devoted exclusively to Iraq.”

“Among the relevant documents later sent to NSC members, including O'Neill, was one prepared by the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA). It had already mapped Iraq's oil fields and exploration areas, and listed American corporations likely to be interested in participating in Iraq's petroleum industry. Another DIA document in the package, entitled "Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts," listed companies from 30 countries -- France, Germany, Russia, and Britain, among others -- their specialties and bidding histories. The attached maps pinpointed "super-giant oil field," "other oil field," and "earmarked for production sharing," and divided the basically undeveloped but oil-rich southwest of Iraq into nine blocks, indicating promising areas for future exploration. (Suskind., p. 96)
According to high flying, oil insider Falah Al Jibury, the Bush administration began making plans for Iraq's oil industry "within weeks" of Bush taking office in January 2001. In an interview with the BBC's Newsnight program, which aired on March 17, 2005, he referred to his participation in secret meetings in California, Washington, and the Middle East, where, among other things, he interviewed possible successors to Saddam Hussein.”

Here’s a link to the complete article.
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2007/0925oilgrab.htm

“Iraq's energy reserves are an incredibly rich prize. According to the U.S. Department of Energy, "Iraq contains 112 billion barrels of proven oil reserves, the second largest in the world (behind Saudi Arabia), along with roughly 220 billion barrels of probable and possible resources. Iraq's true potential may be far greater than this, however, as the country is relatively unexplored due to years of war and sanctions." For perspective, the Saudis have 260 billion barrels of proven reserves.
Iraqi oil is close to the surface and easy to extract, making it all the more profitable. James Paul, executive director of the Global Policy Forum, points out that oil companies "can produce a barrel of Iraqi oil for less than $1.50 and possibly as little as $1, including all exploration, oil field development and production costs." Contrast that with other areas where oil is considered cheap to produce at $5 per barrel or the North Sea, where production costs are $12 to $16 per barrel.”
http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/43045/


How much oil is Iraq producing?

“Iraqi Oil Production
Shortly after its failed 1990 invasion of Kuwait and imposition of resulting trade embargos, Iraq's oil production fell from 3.5 million barrels per day to around 300,000 barrels per day. By February 2002, Iraqi oil production had recovered to about 2.5 million barrels per day. Iraqi officials had hoped to increase the country's oil production capacity to 3.5 million barrels per day by the end of 2000, but did not accomplish this given technical problems with Iraqi oil fields, pipelines, and other oil infrastructure. Iraq also claims that oil production capacity expansion has been constrained by refusal of the United Nations to provide Iraq with all the oil industry equipment it has requested.
EIA's oil industry experts generally assess Iraq's sustainable production capacity at no higher than about 2.8-2.9 million barrels per day, with net export potential of around 2.3-2.5 million barrels per day. In comparison, Iraq produced 3.5 million barrels per day in July 1990, prior to its invasion of Kuwait.”
http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aairaqioil.htm

The only explanation or conspiracy theory I have is Bush and Cheney Inc., are waiting till after they are no longer in office to reap the enormous amounts of money that will be made in Iraq. They can not be involved in Iraq’s oil game while still being in office. Let’s see what Bush Co, Inc., LLC do in 2009. We can follow the money that Bush, Inc. gain after they are out of office.

[steve]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
I just want the pissant to back up his statement that said Shrillary or Barack are saying "everything's going to be rosey" if we leave.
:gulp:

For the record I said "fine", didn't quote anyone, AND I wrote "pandering to the idea that everything's going to be fine"...which leaves the door open to pretty much any interpretation.
:)
To me that means pretty much every single Democratic Debate where every one of the candidates (perhaps except Biden) repeated different versions of the mantra "I'm bringin' the troops home(from Oil War II)!" to which they were greeted with applause and then moved on to the next topic. They were /are championing the action but ignoring the reaction... it's sound political gamesmanship as Kwame K wrote above, but it's the Sin of Omission and the same damn thing as painting a "rosey" picture.

And as for whether they're "withdrawing" or not...the statements are peppered with words like "residual forces" to leave the door open to change their position in the general election and their presidency. What does that mean? We have almost 200K trooops there now...does residual mean a 500 person swat team or 50K? "Residual" is a fucking diabolical political tool at this point - sounds small and neat but it could end up a bloody and messy word.

Tangentially, the elephant in the room is the larger issue of Peak Oil-the predicate for Oil War I (Kuwait), now Oil War II (Iraq), and the seemingly bizzare posturing over the past few years towards Venezuela (Oil War III???)

Can we afford to keep borrowing money to fund Oil Wars?
What are the consequences of not doing so?
Can Americans be convinced to change the very nature of how they live (forgetting the details but using a LOT less energy) as a planned precaution verses a violently harsh economic reaction to endless spikes in oil prices?
the list goes on.

But the only real way to get out of an Oil War is to not be entirely dependent on oil. We're a nation of suburbs and consumption- you cannot DESIGN a more oil/energy dependent culture/land usage. Until we change this we are royally fucked no matter what we do.

[steve]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
BTW, I'd like to ask guys like Steve (whose posts I like BTW), why is it that we are responsible from saving the Iraqis from themselves and "genocide?"

I don't know - I was raised Catholic so maybe it's guilt.

I'm proud to say I never voted for Bush and from the first time I heard him speak I knew this nation was going to pay for him merely sitting his fake Connecticut-bred Texas ass in the oval office. But still - I feel responsible for him in some way just because I'm an American...not a patriotic one persay but an American. So ignoring the elephant I posted about above for a second as an American I feel like we owe it to the Iraqis to at least band-aid the shitstorm we kicked up - even if it was predicated by our drunk cousin's addiction (oil/cheap-energy dependent consumption) that we all more or less engage in and supplant. Taking responsibility - isn't that what they teach in rehab?

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by kwame k
....
The only explanation or conspiracy theory I have is Bush and Cheney Inc., are waiting till after they are no longer in office to reap the enormous amounts of money that will be made in Iraq. They can not be involved in Iraq’s oil game while still being in office. Let’s see what Bush Co, Inc., LLC do in 2009. We can follow the money that Bush, Inc. gain after they are out of office.

A British journalist explored this question a few years back...

I'll see if I can get more info on it...

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by steve
I don't know - I was raised Catholic so maybe it's guilt.

I'm proud to say I never voted for Bush and from the first time I heard him speak I knew this nation was going to pay for him merely sitting his fake Connecticut-bred Texas ass in the oval office. But still - I feel responsible for him in some way just because I'm an American...not a patriotic one persay but an American. So ignoring the elephant I posted about above for a second as an American I feel like we owe it to the Iraqis to at least band-aid the shitstorm we kicked up - even if it was predicated by our drunk cousin's addiction (oil/cheap-energy dependent consumption) that we all more or less engage in and supplant. Taking responsibility - isn't that what they teach in rehab?

I am Catholic and I do too. I support supporting the Sunnis and giving the Shiite "Iraqi" gov't a stark, clear, and public ultimatum. That they begin talks on Iraqi national reconciliation, or we tell them that that's it! We're only funding Sunni movements and withdrawing all US troops save for about 40,000 to stay in Kurdish and Sunni areas to hunt al Qaeda of Iraq, and provide direct military assistance when necessary...

[Nickdfresh]

An interesting article that I think applies here...

War promises may just be rhetoric
Opinion: Candidates' promises on the war are filled with flaws
COMMENTARY
By Gen. Montgomery C. Meigs
MSNBC
updated 1:19 p.m. ET, Fri., March. 21, 2008

In his speech on Wednesday, the president reiterated his rationale for the Iraq war. After praising the conventional campaign in which our forces took Baghdad in a little over 16 days, he obliquely admitted the counterinsurgency campaign had not gone well until recently and that it had cost more than anticipated.

He underlined the “undeniable” gains of the “surge,” now that over 90,000 Iraqis had jointed the Awakening helping to defeat al-Qaida in Iraq. Throughout his speech, he praised the sacrifices and contributions of the troops. But we heard again the soaring and now bankrupt rhetoric about liberty as a transformative force in the Middle East, rhetoric that the majority of the public does not buy.

Web sites of our current presidential candidates reveal other dysfunctional errors in their own statements. Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., promises that within 60 days in office, she will approve a plan to remove one to two brigades a month from Iraq. Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., states that on taking office he will begin immediately start to remove one to two brigades a month completing the withdrawal of all combat brigades in 16 months. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., argues for winning in Iraq and has numerous speeches and releases to document that position. But he gives scant details how he plans to proceed.

None of this politically-inspired rhetoric realistically represents the forces that will affect eventual decision.

The so-called surge has created an opportunity. But we must remember the painstaking and lethal work that preceded it. This effort included training and upgrading Iraqi forces, forcing Moqtada Sadr to order his militias into a less aggressive stance, compelling Sunni rejectionists to back away from confronting our forces, and seriously damaging al-Qaida in Iraq. After very hard efforts by the units in the years that preceded it, the surge has yielded a temporary strategic opening we must exploit.

But the arrangement that establishes the conditions for political accommodation between Kurds, Sunnis, and Shiites will not depend on the Neo Con idea of, “freedom yielding peace.” It will stem from a shared self-interest of Kurds, Sunnis, and Shiites as they realize that a new normalcy depends fundamentally on a deal that invests control of some of their interests in national institutions. Those institutions include at a minimum the Armed Forces and National Police, a set of laws and an Oil Ministry that ensure equitable distribution of oil wealth, acceptance of an idea that Iraqi sovereignty can assure protection of communal interests, and robust participation by all factions in provincial and national government.

Iraq, not U.S., will make changes
The deals that will make these compromises possible will take place in an Iraqi way, out of sight of U.S. Westerners, based on tribal and sectional interests that may well seem very strange to U.S. We must remember that Iraqi deals made by customary Iraqi rules have a much better likelihood of lasting than accommodation we try to force on them that looks democratic to U.S. We can only assist by creating safe political environments in which Iraqi’s can meet, bargain, and commit and by keeping the pressure on them, to continue to progress.

The political environment needed to foster those deals depends fundamentally on a safe and secure environment in Iraqi communities. Here’s the rub. Iraq still needs our help in maintaining and improving that security as well as fostering the economic enabler of jobs. Iraqis are not prepared now to do that alone. Plus, even the moderate members of the three factions need pressure from U.S. to keep moving forward. It is often helpful for leaders to be able to argue to their followers that there is an economic incentive in a certain accommodation as well as a need to compromise to avoid some more unpalatable solution forced by the international community.

Continuously improving security and then generating the pressure to impel Iraqis to make deals in their own interest requires boots on the ground. That means enough units in country to continue to grind down al Qaida in Iraq, to counter the activity of Iranian al Quds operators, foreign fighters and militias, and to continue to train, develop, and professionalize Iraqi security forces.

Hurting, not helping
No one with any sense of the critical strategic challenge of the Taliban and al Qaida insurgency in Afghanistan and its ability to destabilize Pakistan will argue for maintaining a constant force of 130,000 in Iraq. Nor will anyone sensitive to the negative impact of our presence in Iraq on sentiment across the Muslim crescent argue for staying any longer than absolutely necessary. In addition the need to recapitalize and rejuvenate our units demands a reduced operational tempo across the force.

But promises to withdraw in 16 months or to take out one to two brigades a month on a fixed schedule undermines our forces in the field in several ways. These limits inhibit an open, internal strategic dialogue at home that integrates both political and military factors in strategic decision. They also create a disincentive for Iraqi’s to make the often personally risky effort to compromise.

Before a decision on force levels, we must allow our commanders on the ground to make the argument for the best mix of forces to achieve success. Granted, generals are often sent away from these discussions to execute campaigns with capabilities that accept more risk than they would like. But in the language of the two democratic candidates, we see fixed numbers that in the first 100 days of an administration would preempt a realistic assessment of the military capability needed to support the process of Iraqi political accommodation that offers a political solution in Iraq that gives the best grounds for bringing the troops home.

Fixed dates for withdrawal complicate the problem. I recall a similar situation we encountered serving in Bosnia. Then-President Bill Clinton had announced the end point for U.S. presence in Iraq. In 1996 as we put pressure on Bosnian Serb generals to moderate their positions and draw down their forces, they reminded U.S. that the president had set a date certain for our departure. They would just wait the U.S. out. Faced with a similar situation, why would not the Iraqi factions simply follow the same plan?

Some lessons from Vietnam
Granted, our experience in Vietnam indicates that when the Vietnamese leaders saw that we were truly drawing down, they worked harder on their own capabilities to deal with the insurgency. But while we need our Iraqi partners to understand that they must find their own way to security and soon, fixed dates undermine the ability of our commanders and the ambassador to compel them to act in their own best interest. We must maintain the balance between the strategic and political impulses that compel reduction of forces as well as the practical realities on the ground that demand force presence.

The political will of the Americans to persist in this difficult campaign demands straight talk about these issues. It would be much better for an understanding by voters of the relevant issues in Iraq and Afghanistan and the larger Middle East if candidates and their interlocutors addressed the conditions of success in this campaign and avoided catchy statements about force levels and tactics that will certainly come back to haunt a new President once in office. Leave fixed timelines and force levels out of the debate. Give the U.S. a staged plan for achieving conditions of success, not simple formulas that appeal to some voters but do not present the difficult strategic realities.

How can we best achieve a good peace as an end to a war of choice that went badly for too long?

© 2008 MSNBC Interactive (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23744926/)

[kwame k]

McCain does have an edge when it comes to the “inside” track of knowledge and experience, if you want to call it that. He has sat on some powerful committees in his political career. He does have more experience than Obama and Clinton. He's 71? and has been in the game longer. That can be used against him if the Democrats are smart.

It’s not an issue for my decision, per say. He has made his views and his likely course of action is crystal clear. He will continue on the path that the Bush Administration has gone down. The wrong path IMO.

Obama and Clinton don’t have the experience that McCain has. Experience is what McCain is ultimately going to run on. I hope that Clinton or Obama are smart enough to rip him apart on his voting record and the committees he has sat on.

On the war issue, if that is going to be the deciding factor on your vote, it’s simple. McCain=more war.
Obama or Clinton=less war.

Obama and Clinton can only run on a philosophical platform. They are both saying that there’s a need to pull our troops out. Both Clinton’s and Obama’s timelines are sound bites. One is going to say, “If elected I will pull our troops out at this time” the other will say, “I will pull the troops out earlier than my opponent so vote for me.” Realistically, neither one can give a definitive time line and it is political rhetoric to even suggest that they can.

I find it disconcerting that Obama and Clinton are giving any sort of timeline. I understand the game of politics and those timelines are nothing more than sound bites for the media’s consumption. A Presidential candidate has to look focused and in control. It’s the name of the game.

If Obama or Clinton said they can’t give a timeline because they don’t have the necessary facts to make a realistic decision. McCain will pounce on that and spin it six ways from Sunday. So will Obama or Clinton, depending on who makes that statement. That’s the truth.

The reality is Obama and Clinton can not give a definitive date or an exit strategy. All they can give is a philosophical statement. Show the world and the Iraqi’s that they are going to reduce troops. They can only send a message at this point. They are not privy to the data that is going to be needed to have a concise and responsible plan to leave Iraq.

It’s a shame we have to endure with the rhetoric but I think if either candidate came out and told the blunt reality of troop reduction, they would lose the DNC nomination. There will be no straight talk because how can Obama or Clinton take a 6 months or 16 months position or exit strategy? This is how campaign promises are made and broken.